Not just about Modi, BJP: Why it isn’t wrong to be right

In India’s mainstream thinking, it is almost taboo to carry the label of right-wing. It usually conjures up images of Trishul-wielding fanatics who are out to penalize minorities, or more accurately anyone who disagrees with their view of the world. Now, every label has its fringe. The extreme right, usually wedded to some form of cultural nationalism or brute majoritarian instincts, has been a destructive force in history. But then so has the extreme-left. Adolf Hitler committed unspeakable crimes in the name of right-wing politics, just as Joseph Stalin murdered millions of innocent people in the name of left wing politics. Fortunately, in democracies like India, there is very little room for either extreme – the loony fringe is also the isolated fringe. Pluralistic societies inevitably pull politics to the centre. There is, however, room to lean either left or right while standing at the Centre. A center-right vision of India’s future gives primacy to market forces (rather than the state) in determining the country’s economic future. It does not preclude cultural liberalism. In fact, the health of free market economy depends on the freedom of its participants, unencumbered by cultural conservatism of any kind. [caption id=“attachment_127245” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Right for the economy?[/caption] India has long been dominated by forces of the centre-left. In the economic sphere, the mixed up policies of Congress-style socialism have resulted in sluggish growth, inflationary spells and continuous poverty. Countries that were far poorer than India in 1950 (Korea, Malaysia, Thailand) are now much richer, because they relied more heavily on market forces. Now, after 10 years of uninterrupted rule by the populist, centre-left, Congress and its allies which will end with an economy in the doldrums, a centre-right economic agenda is the only alternative. India stands on the cusp (of either sinking into stagnation, or rising from the dead) just like advanced economies like the US and UK did in the late 1970s. The rise of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher was at least partly due to the dramatic failure of the centre-left in the decade that preceded their arrival. In the Indian context, there are other advantages to unleashing a market economy. Several old divisions – whether based on religion, caste, region or language – are reinforced by the polity and the state. The bogey of reservations, based on some historical cleavage in society, is the basic instinct of almost every political party. Markets, which give preference to merit than accidents of birth can paper over these cleavages. Markets can be a stronger force for more liberalism and tolerance in society than any political party can ever be. Is there a role for the state in this centre-right vision of India? Yes, there is. The state needs to be a referee. It needs to be an effective regulator of market forces so that excesses of the kind which we saw in the global financial sector before the onset of the global financial crisis of 2008 are curbed. In India the state must also play a role in financing the building of infrastructure; physical infrastructure like roads, ports and irrigation; social infrastructure like education and health. But financing is not the same as delivery. In India, the Government has been a poor deliverer of public services. There is, therefore, a case to be made for public financing combined with private deliver. The state must ensure that everyone has the basic necessities they need to participate in the market – dole is never the answer, productive investment in human capabilities is. An efficient market, which is be populated by skilled individuals (who have all constitutionally guaranteed rights) is India’s only path to economic prosperity, and modern society. That’s a centre-right vision. And it isn’t wrong.