NEGOTIATING CHANGE
The recent round of violent protests hold a mirror to the difficult trade-offs that India is negotiating in its bid to usher in a new era EPISODE #79
Dear Reader,
A very Happy Monday to you.
Over the last week and more, parts of India have witnessed mob violence and arson. The protestors are apparently incensed at the union government’s move to induct youth for only four years into the armed forces. The implicit demand is tenure in a government job.
The problem is that this protest is not one-off and neither does it have an all-India hue to it. It is very similar to the protests by a section of farmers, mostly from Punjab, who held the National Capital Region to siege, forcing the union government to roll back the new farm laws which among other things sought to shrink the role of the powerful middleman in the sale of farm produce.
Go back a few years and you may recall similar protests over reservations in government jobs, for statehood and most recently, against the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act—once again, all of them were localised.
The trend is clear. At a very basic level, all these responses reflect an opposition to change—regardless of the scope and quality of it—as India negotiates key trade-offs. So this week I explore this phenomenon and how negotiating change is now a key component of public policy. Do read and share your feedback.
The cover picture this week is a vendor selling Bael juice, considered to be an antidote to the sapping heat of North India. Till a few years ago this was a household hack. Now it is part of the informal economy. Very similar to how sugarcane juice vending traded up.
A big shoutout to Niranjan, Adarsh, Hemant, Gautam, Aashish, Subash, Hyma, Premasundaran and Vandana for your informed responses, kind appreciation and amplification of last week’s column. Gratitude also to all those who responded on Twitter and Linkedin. Reader participation and amplification is key to growing this newsletter community. And, many thanks to readers who hit the like button😊.
THE AGNIPATH TEST
Over the last week and more parts of India witnessed violent protests and arson. This time in reaction to the government’s decision to roll out a short-term recruitment scheme for India’s armed forces. It is an idea that has been under consideration for several decades.
Briefly, the plan is to induct youth into the armed forces for a period of four years—though a quarter, the exceptional ones, would be retained.
The idea is to effect a quick fix to the demography of the armed forces by inducting substantial personnel below the age of 21 years. In addition, since these personnel are not tenure it will not entail pension payouts; something that has been skewing spending on defence.
The upside for the youth is that they will be skilled and when discharged will have a reasonable corpus to launch them afresh if they so desire.
I have attempted to sum up the details of the programme in the graphic below.
On the face of it the plan looks like a win-win.
The armed forces have their gains and so do those who are recruited, especially when weighed against the difficult jobless circumstance facing the 10 million who join the workforce every year.
Trade-Offs
Given the limited resources this is the trade-off (and there will be many more) the government chose to adopt. And typically this does end up hurting some sections, even as it benefits others.
In an ideal world no country should be in this position. Unfortunately India has squandered most of the seven decades after Independence, bequeathing a legacy of gaping deficits in basic needs like health, education, drinking water, infrastructure and of course governance.
Going forward any government has an added headache: addressing the aspirations that are on fire. In the two decades since the turn of the Millennium Indians have traded-up, unfortunately nowhere near ideal levels. Regardless, their aspirations have been whetted. And, hence the public will no longer settle for half-measures or attempts to avoid difficult decisions.
And undoubtedly this is driving the new politics, especially after 2014. And to its credit, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has been attempting to transform the basic foundations of India. And typically, when you try so hard for structural change a few missteps are inevitable—but they can’t be faulted for not trying.
Having already dealt with the low hanging fruit, the NDA has no option, especially given its resolve to makeover India, but to push for more. And in this it is now willing to tread on previously no-go areas for politicians—like land reforms, agriculture, defence and legitimising industry as an equal stakeholder.
This comes with consequences though. For one, the stakes are higher and hence the push back that much greater. Second, it entails making difficult trade-offs. I will cite a few instances below.
After covid-19 struck the world was clueless about dealing with this once in a century pandemic, which had dodgy origins in Wuhan, China. The NDA had a difficult choice to make. Take inclement steps or run the risk of leaning on the sell-past-the-date health infrastructure to deal with the rapid spread of the virus and spike in hospitalisation.
It chose to shut down the economy—like most other countries. A health crisis soon morphed into a gigantic economic shock; the Indian economy shrank and has only recently recovered to the levels prevailing in 2018.
The post-covid recovery posed an equally difficult trade-off.
Should it bet on a stimulus too corporates to generate investment and revive growth or prioritise lives. It wisely chose the latter (including funding a free food programme for 800 million people) and then gradually pivoted to lend greater focus to livelihoods. It however steered away from any stimulus packages—and were roundly criticised for doing so.
Seen this way the decision on Agnipath is yet another trade-off. Like in any such situation any attempt to balance two opposition situations, will inevitably leave some sections unhappy.
In a democracy this is absolutely par for the course. What though is not tenable is the violence and arson that we have witnessed in recent face-offs.
Negotiating Change
It is my case that this violent form of protest follows a pattern.
One, protests are localised with a short shelf-life.
Second, they seem to be well funded and organised—the ‘Arab Spring’ uprising created the template wherein organisers (including trouble making nations like Russia and China) could leverage social media to influence public opinion.
Third, most importantly, there is a clear resistance to change. This is nothing new. What is striking is the increasing frequency and the accompanying assaults on public property and life.
All of this suggest that we have entered an era where change will have to be negotiated. In theory yes, but in practice this will prove to be a huge challenge. Especially in a binary world, defined by the philosophy of ‘My way or the highway’, dealing with accelerated change bordering on disruption.
In such situations, wherein several stakeholders and some having little or no desire for change, a way forward will have to be negotiated. And for this regimes will have to deploy their hard earned social capital and isolate extreme views—especially those engaged in grievance-mongering, an idea which has lost currency when stacked against growing aspirations.
The fear of change is totally understandable. Most of us prefer status quo as we dread the unknown.
Individually this may maximise one’s gains, but as a nation, especially in the case of India, which is yet to shake off the legacy of underdevelopment, this would be an unmitigated disaster.
My limited point is that opposition with the Machiavellian intent of preserving status quo is unacceptable. Question we must; after all that is the dharma of democracy. But opposing change for the sake of it causes harm, leave alone doing any good.
Just keep in mind as Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher said: “The only constant in life is change.” The sooner we learn to make peace with this dharma of life, the better.
Recommended Viewing
India is poised to elect its new president. For the record there will be a contest. But for all practical purposes it is clear that Droupadi Murmu, the choice of the National Democratic Alliance, will be the 15th President of India.
Madam President in waiting is a grassroots politician, who overcame daunting economic and social handicaps to carve her own space in state and national politics.
I came across an old interview she granted Doordarshan in which she modestly traces her compelling journey from a tribal village in Odisha to the public office of governor of Jharkhand.
The conversation is both humbling and inspiring. It is a short interview, do watch.
Asked about her next set of goals, she said:
“I wish to send a message to society. Never believe that you are inferior in any way especially because of your social standing. This is because everyone is capable and has potential. You need to create the opportunity to bring forth this potential. Everyone has an inherent ability to contribute to society.
For instance we believe that the lot of Santhals has improved in Odisha. But the fact is that this has not progressed sufficiently such that Santhals can compete with others on equal terms. To move forward, not just for Santhals, our men and women need to come together and work for collective good.
This should be the source of inspiration for us to stay the course of social welfare. We must never think that we are socially inferior to anyone. We will always face challenges. These can be overcome.”
Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Till we meet again next week. Stay safe.
Very interesting framework about trade offs that the govt and society have to navigate. Thanks for your insightful weekly newsletters including the latest ones.
Dear Anil,
Your article is so well written and reflects the mindset of today's generation which is so impatient and easily influenced by the opposition parties and the selfish people with vested interests.
The railways suffered a loss of around 500 chores, besides the inconvenience to the helpless travelers. People have no right to destroy public property, blocking roads, burning vehicles to express their anger. The recent incident in Udaipur is another example of intolerance and violence which is destroying our nation.
I watch Tejasvani on DD channel quite often and the interview of Draupadi Murmu is truly inspiring. We have such people also in our country who have experienced poverty , faced hardships, lost family members yet are serving the people.