The Indian State: A non-text book version

Amar Yumnam *

Two recent developments are of immense interest to anyone seriously observing the unfolding nature of growth trajectory of the Indian economy and polity.

One of these relates to the growing strength of the Indian economy, and the other to the responses to the Chinese interventions in her own land bordering the North East. The first one reveals in full glory the Indian state as a success , and the second one puts a suspicion as to whether there is a kink in this strength.

Turnaround and Success: By now the whole world admits that the Indian economy is one the few robust economies globally. In fact, the entire world is exploring ways on how to share in India's fast expansion.

This was not something which was visualized in 1991 or before, but it has become a full-bodied reality in a period less than two decades. In fact, India is now thinking big in all development areas conceivable.

All these would not have been a reality unless the Indian state did not display a fundamental attribute of a successful state. Any state to be a success should possess the quality to turnaround and implement policies commensurate with the new conviction whenever the circumstances demand such.

In 1991 the Indian state proved its strength by adopting turnaround in policy. This turnaround has now been reinforced by putting institutional reforms in place and sustaining the new policy regime. These are firm indicators of the strength and success of the Indian state.

The Kink: Indo-China relationships as they relate to the 'ownership' of the North eastern Region are now back in hard-core news. The responses of India on this score smack of reactionary nature of the Indian state rather than a pro-active one. It is this which inserts a kink into the success of the Indian state, and make one seriously ponder as to whether it is a weak and failed state.

We have been saying continuously that the Indian state has so far failed to evolve a self-contained rationale for developmental interventions in this part of the country. All the interventions so far have been based on the logic of 'national security of India' and never on the primacy of addressing the transformational issues of region.

In this background, we now have the latest information that the government of India, having been thwacked by the broad infrastructural and developmental interventions the Chinese have affected during the last five years or so and in areas bordering the North-Eastern part of the country, plans to establish more mountain divisions in the army and develop the infrastructure in the region on accelerated basis.

These are policy characteristics of a weak and a to be failed state. In any case, reactionary responses and denial of a legitimate endogenous reason for developmental interventions can never be the lamp-posts of a successful state.

The Non-Textbook Case: A textbook version or a normal empirical approach to a successful or a failed state provide for an economy-wide and polity-wide characteristics marking the functioning of the state.

But as we have seen above, the Indian state is simultaneously marked by two facets, one facet manifested in a larger portion of the land of a successful state and another facet marking the smaller region of the land of a failed state. Now this feature of a failed state marking the perspective of the larger Indian state is reinforced by the non-performance of the state at the regional levels.

All these make one wonder as to whether it is possible to have both a failed as well as a successful state within the single territory of a nation. Well this is exactly what is happening in the Indian nation. It is possible that the very geographical feature of the Indian nation make it easy to adopt such a contrasting posture simultaneously.

My Worry: The questions to be asked at this juncture are: Are such policies sustainable within a single nation? If sustained, can we do so without compromising the very national interests the policies purportedly aim to protect?

My answer to both the questions is negative. We have the global development history in front of us establishing beyond doubt the un-sustainability of such policies unless the nation looks forward to ultimate break-ups.

Well, definitely this is not a vision the Indian state would push for. If this is true, then the Indian state should give development of the North Eastern Region an independent status as a rationale for intervention instead of being reactionary to the Chinese policies in her own land.