Would India have become a rising tiger economy if BJP-style rule had prevailed?

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The early years after partition saw India adopt English as a major language. With a population that broadly spoke English, this has given India significant global relevance in the age of connectivity.

The BJP is the political face of the RSS, a fiercely Hindutva organization that has promoted Hindu culture and would presumably have frowned upon the influence of the English language. Would the Indian economy have been as successful under a government that prioritized Hindi and Hindu culture?

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't think their economy is a strong one. If it was strong, there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants moving out of India.

China has a proper rising economy and that shows in their migration pattern (very little illegal immigration).

Anyway, if BJP-style rule had prevailed in the past, India might have been a bankrupt country like Hungary. Chaiwala's tactics can seem euphoric in the short term but are damaging in the long run.

 

[ElRaja]

gujrat, maharashta, and in particular baniyas have a long long tradition on entrepreneurialism, all the government had to do was not get in the way, and given the entrepreneurial class was funding the politicians it worked out pretty good once the nationalised institutions got out of the way. the bjp has never antagonised the business class of india much, nor has it ever been particularly proactive on wealth redistribution, so i think if anything it would have seen a speedier development of the business class.

the lack of english wouldnt have been too much of an issue, the indians would have learned it organically once they realised it was needed to make money, much like they learned tech and engineering without particular government promotion.

 

[Rajdeep]

I don't think their economy is a strong one. If it was strong, there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants moving out of India.

China has a proper rising economy and that shows in their migration pattern (very little illegal immigration).

Anyway, if BJP-style rule had prevailed in the past, India might have been a bankrupt country like Hungary. Chaiwala's tactics can seem euphoric in the short term but are damaging in the long run.

India's economy is fifth largest in the world by nominal GDP and third largest by purchasing power parity. However its rank is much lower on per capita basis. Had the population swapping happened fairly during partition this would not have been the case as well. Still awaiting when you will make a single post that makes sense.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I don’t think things would have been any different. There’s a misconception that Congress did our country a huge favour by building educational institutions. It was their job and education is very integral part of Hindu culture in general. It’s been like that for thousands of years so Congress building some IITs is not what made people of this country send their kids to colleges. This country is known for having Universities and libraries centuries before Jawahar Lal Nehru gave the nod to build IITs. Who knows BJP might have built 10x more and better institutions?

Like Raja bhai also said, some of these communities had entrepreneurial talent in their blood. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was also a descendent of a Hindu man who started a successful import and export business. He didn’t need an IIT degree to lead a successful business.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

gujrat, maharashta, and in particular baniyas have a long long tradition on entrepreneurialism, all the government had to do was not get in the way, and given the entrepreneurial class was funding the politicians it worked out pretty good once the nationalised institutions got out of the way. the bjp has never antagonised the business class of india much, nor has it ever been particularly proactive on wealth redistribution, so i think if anything it would have seen a speedier development of the business class.

the lack of english wouldnt have been too much of an issue, the indians would have learned it organically once they realised it was needed to make money, much like they learned tech and engineering without particular government promotion.

I think the tech and engineering industry was probably accomodated a lot by being proficient in English. About the govt staying out of the way, that is the key factor. I do remember not that long ago there were Hindutva groups running campaigns against Valentine's Day presumably because of their foreign influence. I have seen the same issues when theologians get too much say in Islamic countries, and I've seen echoes of it in recent BJP legislation.

 

[ElRaja]

I think the tech and engineering industry was probably accomodated a lot by being proficient in English. About the govt staying out of the way, that is the key factor. I do remember not that long ago there were Hindutva groups running campaigns against Valentine's Day presumably because of their foreign influence. I have seen the same issues when theologians get too much say in Islamic countries, and I've seen echoes of it in recent BJP legislation.

but being proficient in english is not a guarantee of the latter, look at Zimbabwe, Nigeria or Kenya have significantly higher English proficiency, but lacked the business class, or the educational proactivity of the indians to develop those industries.

also let's zero in on the actual states which did this in india, cos a lot of indian states, which did not have those cultural traits, like UP, Bihar, etc, despite having the same access to english did not develop to those levels as say tamil nadu, kerela, Maharashtra, gujarat, etc.

 

[Bhaijaan]

but being proficient in english is not a guarantee of the latter, look at Zimbabwe, Nigeria or Kenya have significantly higher English proficiency, but lacked the business class, or the educational proactivity of the indians to develop those industries.

also let's zero in on the actual states which did this in india, cos a lot of indian states, which did not have those cultural traits, like UP, Bihar, etc, despite having the same access to english did not develop to those levels as say tamil nadu, kerela, Maharashtra, gujarat, etc.

Safe to say the world didn’t start in 1947 and the centuries old history of education and skill development of people in this part of the world is often overlooked.

Only a few centuries ago, at the height of the Mughal empire, this was the richest region in the world. No other empire was generating the wealth the Mughal empire did. No English. No IIT. Just skilled work, astute merchants.

 

[ElRaja]

Safe to say the world didn’t start in 1947 and the centuries old history of education and skill development of people in this part of the world is often overlooked.

Only a few centuries ago, at the height of the Mughal empire, this was the richest region in the world. No other empire was generating the wealth the Mughal empire did. No English. No IIT. Just skilled work, astute merchants.

whilst i agree in principle, that the indian subcontinent has a varied cultural history which is often overlooked for the sake of the modern nations that form it, IMO you cannot draw a economic equivalence between the indian subcontinent of an agrarian world where healthy human capital was the most valuable resource, versus an industrialised world where access to technology and knowledge of non-human capital became far more influential in determining a nation states economic trajectory. im not taking away anything from india here, however india was modernised by implementing non-indigenous knowledge.

so its not one or the other IMO, its a mix of both, if im being pushed to an alternate history to explain my pov, i think a non-colonised india would have eventually modernised industrially and commercially, however in a far more unequal way.

 

[KB]

It is an interesting question but I am going to comment instead on a tangential matter.

The contemporary right critiques Nehruvian economics as having shackled the Indian economy. But how the Indian right thinks about economic matters has changed significantly from the early years.

After independence, the conservative wing of the Congress party were not enthusiastic supporters of Nehru’s top-down planned economy, but nor were they unrestrained advocates of free markets which were not moored to moral and social obligations.

The thinking of Gandhi was of course key to early conservative thinking on the economy. For Gandhi independence was never simply about Indians replacing English rulers and inheriting colonial structures, but entailed a moral revolution. This was to be change from the bottom-up where individuals were motivated by spiritual rather than materialistic goals. The economy was to rest on moral foundations which took into account reciprocal social obligations and was to be geared towards fulfilling ‘needs’ rather than creating ‘greeds’. In this Gandhi glorified supposed Indian traditions and rejected Western ideas on wealth and large-scale production.

Some members of the Congress right eventually became so frustrated by Nehru’s statist agenda that they went on to found the Swatantra Party in 1959. It was led by the veteran Congressman, Rajagopalachari (1878-1972). In his inaugural address he said, “We stand for the great principle enunciated by Gandhiji and constantly emphasised by him of maximum freedom for the individual and minimum interference by the State.”

As indicated here, this belief in a non-statist vision was not grounded in an unfettered faith in the free market based on Western thinking. Rather it was to be based on ideas derived from Indian tradition. As he said elsewhere:

“We must organise a new force and movement to replace the greed and class hatred of Congress nationalism with a renovated spiritual outlook emphasising the restraints of good conduct as of greater importance than organised covetousness. Every effort should be made to foster and maintain spiritual values and preserve what is good in our national culture and tradition and avoid dominance of a purely material philosophy of life which thinks only in terms of the standard of life without any reference to its content of quality.”

An alternative vision from the right was represented by the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), which was established in 1951 and is seen as a precursor to the BJP. Perhaps more surprisingly, in this case, the influence of Gandhian thought is visible at the outset. Its manifesto in 1951 stated: “the village has been the centre of Bhartiya life in all times. The ideal of “Sarvodya” cannot be achieved until and unless the village is restored to its original position as the basic economic unit.”

The key ideologue of the BJS was Deendayal Upadhyaya (1916-1968), who was also a RSS prachark. Upadhyaya sought a ‘third way’, arguing against the pure adoption of either capitalism or socialism. In his words, “democracy and capitalism join hands to give free reign to exploitation, socialism replaced capitalism and brought with it an end to democracy and individual freedom.”

Instead, he stressed the importance of indigenous Indian tradition which for him created reciprocal moral and social obligations that laid the basis for a harmonious spiritual society.

When we compare the contemporary right to the ‘old’ Congress right or the ‘old’ Hinduvta right, the economic thinking has evolved. The contemporary right is far more unrestrained in advocating a pro-business capitalist stance, far less suspicious of large enterprises, and far less interested in idealised visions of village society.

 

[cricketjoshila]

but being proficient in english is not a guarantee of the latter, look at Zimbabwe, Nigeria or Kenya have significantly higher English proficiency, but lacked the business class, or the educational proactivity of the indians to develop those industries.

also let's zero in on the actual states which did this in india, cos a lot of indian states, which did not have those cultural traits, like UP, Bihar, etc, despite having the same access to english did not develop to those levels as say tamil nadu, kerela, Maharashtra, gujarat, etc.

Kerala isn't developed in terms of industry or economy as such. Communist rule in Kerala has finished most of its industry.

It now relies on tourism and remittance.

 

[Mockingbird]

The early years after partition saw India adopt English as a major language. With a population that broadly spoke English, this has given India significant global relevance in the age of connectivity.

The BJP is the political face of the RSS, a fiercely Hindutva organization that has promoted Hindu culture and would presumably have frowned upon the influence of the English language. Would the Indian economy have been as successful under a government that prioritized Hindi and Hindu culture?

Not all but you got some aspects of this right - Hindutva was not a factor in the slow development of India but rather the adoption of a socialistic society by a communist sympathiser Nehru which set back the country by decades. A far right govt would never have conceded the security council seat to China, nor would have dampened innovation by encouraging monopolistic incompetency in the form of nationalisation. The country should have never agreed either to have different laws for different religions and tribes.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not all but you got some aspects of this right - Hindutva was not a factor in the slow development of India but rather the adoption of a socialistic society by a communist sympathiser Nehru which set back the country by decades. A far right govt would never have conceded the security council seat to China, nor would have dampened innovation by encouraging monopolistic incompetency in the form of nationalisation. The country should have never agreed either to have different laws for different religions and tribes.

To be fair, communism was a very popular ideology back in those days, it was sweeping across the world and it was mainly the US which was fighting on several fronts, including close to home. You could actually argue that the flexibility which had been synonymous with Hinduism has been a strength in that you could make a case for adopting more or less any ideology and claiming them as your own. That was part of the reason I asked the question in the OP, because when I see RSS literature, it seems they see this as a fault, and wish to draw lines in the sand more similar to what we see in Islamic countries.

 

[Local.Dada]

To be fair, communism was a very popular ideology back in those days, it was sweeping across the world and it was mainly the US which was fighting on several fronts, including close to home. You could actually argue that the flexibility which had been synonymous with Hinduism has been a strength in that you could make a case for adopting more or less any ideology and claiming them as your own. That was part of the reason I asked the question in the OP, because when I see RSS literature, it seems they see this as a fault, and wish to draw lines in the sand more similar to what we see in Islamic countries.

What RSS literature have you read? Based on your posts I refuse to believe you have read any literature but that’s another debate lol.

Having said that RSS is not a political party. I partly agree with you here.RSS is very socialistic in nature. It is not a religious “tanzeem”. Its issue is hyper-nationalism. That would have been an issue and definitely a roadblock to some extent .

So it would just be the opposite of Nehru socialism but that is not always good.

Right wing party like BJP on the other hand definitely would have accelerated growth.

There is a difference between a socialist/ nationalist organization and a right wing political party. Remember that next time you read the “literature”.

Whatever progress India has made today, the chain of events were set in the 90s when we had 2 right wing PM’s. PV Narasimha Rao who was Congress but had right leaning and Vajpayee who was BJP.

Information about India’s transformation since 90s and what caused it is available on Google and usually common knowledge even for the most casual “economic and diplomacy” enthusiasts.

So if you want to start topics out of your depth like this you need to start with basics than going for RSS literature which I am pretty sure is a pamphlet handed over to you outside some non Hindu-religious place or maybe some post on PP.

 

[JaDed]

I don't think their economy is a strong one. If it was strong, there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants moving out of India.

China has a proper rising economy and that shows in their migration pattern (very little illegal immigration).

Anyway, if BJP-style rule had prevailed in the past, India might have been a bankrupt country like Hungary. Chaiwala's tactics can seem euphoric in the short term but are damaging in the long run.

Incorrect on the Chinese, they have been doing the illegal record pretty high as well for a country with actual good economic stats.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Why-so-many-middle-class-Chinese-migrants-take-risky-illegal-route-to-U.S

 

[JaDed]

For that we have to think about who were the initial Right wing leaders.

1.Sardar Patel might have supported Congress but is considered a right wing icon but with someone that believed in Raj Dharma, easily was a better and pragmatic leader than Nehru.

2.Charan Singh , capitalist only time UP was of any good was under him.

So no I would say India would had done way better under Capitalist leaders like the above two and later under N Rao who was also right wing.

The only notable leader from Congress was Shastriji and he died early, but even he believed in economic reforms.

India’s entrepreneurship was hurt deeply due to communist/socialist leadership , Bengal which was so ahead in GDP became utter trash under those rules.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What RSS literature have you read? Based on your posts I refuse to believe you have read any literature but that’s another debate lol.

Having said that RSS is not a political party. I partly agree with you here.RSS is very socialistic in nature. It is not a religious “tanzeem”. Its issue is hyper-nationalism. That would have been an issue and definitely a roadblock to some extent .

So it would just be the opposite of Nehru socialism but that is not always good.

Right wing party like BJP on the other hand definitely would have accelerated growth.

There is a difference between a socialist/ nationalist organization and a right wing political party. Remember that next time you read the “literature”.

Whatever progress India has made today, the chain of events were set in the 90s when we had 2 right wing PM’s. PV Narasimha Rao who was Congress but had right leaning and Vajpayee who was BJP.

Information about India’s transformation since 90s and what caused it is available on Google and usually common knowledge even for the most casual “economic and diplomacy” enthusiasts.

So if you want to start topics out of your depth like this you need to start with basics than going for RSS literature which I am pretty sure is a pamphlet handed over to you outside some non Hindu-religious place or maybe some post on PP.

Could follow up on some of that but there's so much vinegar dripping from it, probably best just to leave it be.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

The early years after partition saw India adopt English as a major language. With a population that broadly spoke English, this has given India significant global relevance in the age of connectivity.

The BJP is the political face of the RSS, a fiercely Hindutva organization that has promoted Hindu culture and would presumably have frowned upon the influence of the English language. Would the Indian economy have been as successful under a government that prioritized Hindi and Hindu culture?

What India really missed was a ferocious leader like Imran Khan. India would have been a true superpower on par with the US if they had someone with the vision, morals, values and foresight of Imran Khan.

 

[Mockingbird]

For that we have to think about who were the initial Right wing leaders.

1.Sardar Patel might have supported Congress but is considered a right wing icon but with someone that believed in Raj Dharma, easily was a better and pragmatic leader than Nehru.

2.Charan Singh , capitalist only time UP was of any good was under him.

So no I would say India would had done way better under Capitalist leaders like the above two and later under N Rao who was also right wing.

The only notable leader from Congress was Shastriji and he died early, but even he believed in economic reforms.

India’s entrepreneurship was hurt deeply due to communist/socialist leadership , Bengal which was so ahead in GDP became utter trash under those rules.

Fully agree with this. Sardar Patel would have been a great choice to lead the country after independence, but unfortunately sidelined because of Nehru/Gandhi.

 

[Mockingbird]

What RSS literature have you read? Based on your posts I refuse to believe you have read any literature but that’s another debate lol.

Having said that RSS is not a political party. I partly agree with you here.RSS is very socialistic in nature. It is not a religious “tanzeem”. Its issue is hyper-nationalism. That would have been an issue and definitely a roadblock to some extent .

So it would just be the opposite of Nehru socialism but that is not always good.

Right wing party like BJP on the other hand definitely would have accelerated growth.

There is a difference between a socialist/ nationalist organization and a right wing political party. Remember that next time you read the “literature”.

Whatever progress India has made today, the chain of events were set in the 90s when we had 2 right wing PM’s. PV Narasimha Rao who was Congress but had right leaning and Vajpayee who was BJP.

Information about India’s transformation since 90s and what caused it is available on Google and usually common knowledge even for the most casual “economic and diplomacy” enthusiasts.

So if you want to start topics out of your depth like this you need to start with basics than going for RSS literature which I am pretty sure is a pamphlet handed over to you outside some non Hindu-religious place or maybe some post on PP.

Exactly - RSS has always been a grass roots organization and never been remotely related to capitalism.

 

[LordJames]

The early years after partition saw India adopt English as a major language. With a population that broadly spoke English, this has given India significant global relevance in the age of connectivity.

The BJP is the political face of the RSS, a fiercely Hindutva organization that has promoted Hindu culture and would presumably have frowned upon the influence of the English language. Would the Indian economy have been as successful under a government that prioritized Hindi and Hindu culture?

India is not a rising Tiger economy at all. Indian has a huge population which translates to a huge market.

India changed its data sources and methodology for estimating real gross domestic product (GDP) for the period since 2011-12. This paper shows that this change has led to a significant overestimation of growth. Official estimates place annual average GDP growth between 2011-12 and 2016-17 at about 7 percent.

https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/files/growthlab/files/2019-06-cid-wp-354.pdf

Indian Population is on par or greater then China & compare India and China from 1949 on wards where China was ravaged, backwards, poor Infrastructure while India was on relatively good financial footing (compared to Pakistan and light years ahead of China). Indian Nationalists compare India to Pakistan when it should be compared to China, now tell me the true state of Indian economy, Indian cities, Indian Infrastructure etc?

Leave Pakistan out of the discussion and see how quickly the Indian Balloon deflates! Pakistan has severe, serious, structural and fundamental issues but even if Pakistan was well governed the Indian population and its Markets would always have an advantage. When Honda setup factories in Pakistan and India they produced motorcycles for their respective markets and the cost of producing and selling in India will always be lower, this is directly from Honda marketing studies (and common sense) and if I find the study, I will post it.​

 

[Varun]

I don't think both the BJP and the Congress were strong at the same time at any point in Indian democratic history.

In other words, we have been a one party state one way or the other since independence. Politicians change their spots depending on which way the wind is blowing, and less said about the faceless IAS and other officers on the rungs below, the better.

The BJP today is basically the Congress in saffron clothing.

 

[Vikram1989]

As subramaniyam swamy pointed out by 76 it was evident for Indira gandhi too that Nehru economic model is not working and they have to follow China capitalism for growth. But Indira and rajiv kept on dilly-dallying as they are from the same branch to over ride root branch politics.as soon as we got an outsider and efficient pm, Pv was able to bring he changes. Swamy pointed out india is lagging with China exactly like above period of ineffectiveness and indecision as i dian wasn'table to capitalise the double digit economic growth period.

 

[Local.Dada]

Could follow up on some of that but there's so much vinegar dripping from it, probably best just to leave it be.

You didn’t understand anything, did you?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You didn’t understand anything, did you?

Yes, that must be it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Exactly - RSS has always been a grass roots organization and never been remotely related to capitalism.

No one is suggesting that RSS had any sort of fiscal policy, but if you have social policies they will at some point conflict with financial ones. If you have any knowledge of Islamic theocracies you would have seen some signs of this. Just for arguments sake, restrictions on Bollywood if they what is perceived as anti-Hindu agenda.

 

[Mockingbird]

No one is suggesting that RSS had any sort of fiscal policy, but if you have social policies they will at some point conflict with financial ones. If you have any knowledge of Islamic theocracies you would have seen some signs of this. Just for arguments sake, restrictions on Bollywood if they what is perceived as anti-Hindu agenda.

RSS is very pragmatic that way - it has never entered the financial area. TBH though, I don’t think they have much relevance in our society - their ideological influence is far exaggerated by the PPers here. You go to any Tier 1 power centers and you will barely notice any RSS presence - after all they are usually a bunch of old men in shorts who hold no sway over the modern youth or businesses.

The moot point is that ‘conservative’ RSS ideology has never been any cause of financial distress unlike the ‘liberal’ socio-communist policies which had a direct impact on India’s stunted growth in the first 4 decades after independence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

RSS is very pragmatic that way - it has never entered the financial area. TBH though, I don’t think they have much relevance in our society - their ideological influence is far exaggerated by the PPers here.

Actions speak louder than words. Modi is worshipped and gets votes. Modi got his education in the RSS. As for financial conflicts we will see. It is relatively early days yet, the rubber is still to meet the road.

 

[Mockingbird]

Actions speak louder than words. Modi is worshipped and gets votes. Modi got his education in the RSS. As for financial conflicts we will see. It is relatively early days yet, the rubber is still to meet the road.

No point arguing with you - because you are pretty dogmatic in your opposition to RSS and Modi. You will never take the words of Indians who say that RSS has no say in the financial world, because of your experience with the theological mullahs in your own part of the world.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No point arguing with you - because you are pretty dogmatic in your opposition to RSS and Modi. You will never take the words of Indians who say that RSS has no say in the financial world, because of your experience with the theological mullahs in your own part of the world.

Yes but it's experience nonetheless. It's usually the thin end of the wedge, and you would be surprised how these things escalate once they become entrenched.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Pakistanis here and an average congress supporter give too much importance to Hindutva for BJP’s rise in India. But on the contrary, it is limited to few regions in the North. What BJP sold to average middle class was the economic development they would bring.

Congress leaders became foolish enough to buy into this whole hindutva thing and they continue to dig deeper in the hole by themselves with appeasement politics rather than focusing on economic mismanagement.

Come down south India, and all people care about is development of the region and better job opportunities for them and their kids.

People can jest about how bad India is and its growth is fake, blah, blah, but there are enough people like me who chose to stay in India as we saw better job opportunities in India too. Though its limited to Metro cities in India.

We will never grow at China’s pace because of few structural issues like One party policy which enables a long term policy making, an early mover advantage etc as compared to China. But some posters like @sweep_shot need to be more receptive of news other than anti-India themes. Hyderabad is becoming the Global GCC hub while Bengaluru and Mumbai continue to build on IT and Finance markets. Our future is very much positive that I am confident. But serious issues persist on parts of North India. As an Indian, no point in blaming. Lucknow is also getting good FDI’s and hopefully it will turnaround and Bihar may follow in future.

For an average Indian, in choosing government, economic development > religion. Look at the election mandates from BJP and Congress from past 3 elections and decide yourself