COLONIAL
PAST OF INDIA: DID COLONIAL
LEGACY WORK OUT IN INDIA
IN RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION? A SHORT DISCUSSION
Prabin
K. Prajapati
Introduction:
This paper aims to review Atul Kohli’s book
‘State directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the
Global Periphery’ in relation to Indian development pace and its implications
to Nepali political economy. In this paper, I would evaluate the book in
response to his theories comparing colonization and constructive role of the
state in Indian context and try to imply political intervention in terms of
Nepali development efforts. In short, the book of course is well informative
and argumentative in a sense that it has tried to keep on organized theories of
states construction which according to his argument plays the key role in the
development process. According to Kohli (1999), there are three types of
governments: neo-patrimonial, cohesive capitalist and fragmented multiclass
state.Out of these states typology,
Kohli tries to fit the theory into the four countries where Nigeria has been
observed from neo-patrimonial state in terms of development, Korea from
cohesive capitalist state and India and Brazil have been evaluated from
fragmented multiclass states. The basic requirement for the development as the
author says, ‘legitimate states that govern effectively and dynamic industrial
economies are widely regarded today as the defining characteristics of a modern
nation state’ (Kohli, 2004:1). Although Kohli emphasizes a legitimate
government, he focuses more on economic actors and political elites, along with
historical aspects on patterns of state construction and patterns of state
interventions aiming at promoting industrialization. In lieu of his
argumentation, colonial past was also a development agent in these countries. While
comparing to the Nepali context, Nepali politics during British regime was a
closed pseudo economic and politically authoritative country where
developmental efforts were merely null and British support during the era were
non offending internal affairs. Rather it always viewed Nepal as a
protective wall and supportive military base in favor of colonization process
in Indian territories. Kohli (2004) argumentatively concludes that the state
should be coercive and more catalyst to incorporate private sector in the
development mainstream. So in a broader sense, the model and typology of state
construction and constructive role throughout the history of colonial past to
emancipation movement, we must relate them to Nepali political regimes which
might throw a light on why and who are accountable in the mainstream
development aspirations.
Development
and Democracy:
In the globalization periphery, there are
no boundaries in between the countries. The state has lost charm in the global
dynamic economy (Schuurman, 2001:67). Despite the fact, it is the state which
can play a key role in democratization and mobilization of capital in terms of
rapid industrialization. In this context Kohli (2004) discusses the role of
regime type: democracy versus authoritarian in terms of progress depending on
global capitalism (5). The constructive roles of the state are of tariffs,
subsidies, credit control, manpower training, technology promotion and
bureaucratic cooperation with the private sector and oversight for rapid
economic growth. Observing the facts and progress of India
now raises a question: did British colonization contribute India to this
present tremendous economic growth? To understand and find the answer of the
question; we have to go back the history of India and evaluate the role played
by then colonial regime. Kohli (2004) mentions that the colonial strategy of
state construction in India was essentially incremental and ground level
realities, providing the frame for one set of action strong bureaucracy and
militarization.In 1857 the colonizer
experienced a blow in the form of ‘Mutiny’ although it was mercilessly crushed;
it opened a new way of political driving which established strong bureaucracy
and democratization process in India.
It was necessary for the British that India
was an important geopolitical location in Asia
to maintain global power and economic profit. On the other hand, Rana regime in
Nepal
backed British Raj to remain in power. At the same time, the capital of the
state was just mobilized for controlling resistance against the Rana regime.
Even after 1960’s democratic movement forced Rana regime to step down, the
immature political parties and practices provoked the authoritative regime to
be established. Hence Panchayeti Raj raised and stemmed in Nepali soil.
During the British Raj in India, balance of payment surpluses with India enabled Britain to run deficits elsewhere
in the world where it colonized and was maintaining its influences. India provided a second military base from which
imperial ambitions in East Africa and Far East
could be pursued more economically. Aftermath of mutiny, the colonizer
identified traditional institutions and political elites especially gentry and
aristocrats who might be a threat to central British regime. In the beginning
of development stage the state has to play a key role and the role is to give
the productive forces into the trajectory roles. Sutcliffe (1999)
metaphorically explains development as travel ‘transfer of labour from low
productivity agriculture to higher productivity industry and modern services,
and all nations end up at more or less the same destination, where high
consumption matches the high productive capacity (135). Considering development
characteristics the state is expected to do in any country. In contrast to this
and always counting values of colonial legacy, the input during the colonial period
by British regime in India
does count very minimal.Kohli also
agrees this fact as- ‘the British in this nineteenth century setting provided
political unity, a ‘national market, and infrastructure but these development
were insufficient for sustained economic growth of any type including
industrialization. Among the proximate factors militating against
industrialization during the colonial phase were considerations of both supply
and demand: low rates of saving and investment, primitive technology and a poor
economy with limited internal demand’. The question is if there were no British
in India where India would be
and how it would be? If colonizers were not penetrating the cultural and social
structures, where will India
be now in this global market? Will it be like this now or would have been even
better could be an interesting developmental discourse.
Conclusion:
The message, Kohli is trying to flow
through the ‘State Directed Development’ is that the state either should be
coercive or highly tangible to mobilize internal capitalists in the form of
national movement, this neither is applicable io India nor it contributes to Indian
infra structure development. Did British only teach India to be civilized? If it were a
contribution why India
had been remained very poor country until late eighties?Well established bureaucracy and fragmented
multi-class state has of course a wider range democratic practice and strong
institutions like civil society and political parties, however it doesn’t
change any thing miraculously in the short term as South Korea did after the
liberation form Japanese colonization. In the globalization era, the world
which believes in capitalism, human rights and democracy, it is not worse to
say that colonialism played vital role for the development in India in long
run. The rapid development in South Korea under Japanese model must be observed
as mere a coincidence because a huge investment was left as a treasure to South
Korea when second World Warpersuaded
Japanese regime return withouttaking
back their legacy and outcomes of their incredible structural investment.
References:
Cowen,
M.P. and R.W. Shenton (1997) Doctrines of
Development. Routledge, London
Kohli,
A. (1999) State Directed Development:
Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge
Munck,
R and D. O’Hearn (eds. 1999) Critical
Development Theory: Contribution to a new paradigm. Zed Books.
Schuurman,
F. J. (ed.) (2001) “The Nation-State, Emancipatory Spaces and Development
Studies in the Global Era” in Globalization
and Development Studies: Challenges for the 21st Century, London: Sage (PP. 61-76)
Sutcliffe,
B. (1999) ‘The Place of Development in Theories of Imperialism and
Globalization’ in Munck, R and D. O’Hearn (eds. 1999) Critical Development Theory: Contribution to a new paradigm. Zed
Books.
