Decolonization and Development: India Rising
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 251 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising INTRODUCTION The story of almost every developing country in the world today is a story of breaking free from a mother country (decolonization) and learning to expand their economic and social capacity (development). Doing so involves struggles against many foes, both internal and external. Not only must a national liberation move- ment decide how to confront a foreign power endowed with considerable resources, but it must also convince local citizens to join in and figure out what to do with those who do not. But achieving independence for some countries has proven to be the easy part. The next step involves organizing a state, establishing proper roles for the government, and finding ways to obtain and channel resources to the best targets. Decolonization began almost as soon as the first empires were established. In some ways, the collapse of the Roman Empire could be seen as the emergence of numerous new political entities. Generally we focus on modern imperialism–specifically the period of global conquest that began in the late 18th century and involved the estab- lishment of European control over Africa, Asia, and Oceania. It was these regions that, beginning in the late 1940s, were able to take advantage of the relative decline in European power after World War II to negotiate or fight their way to sovereignty for their new nation. This was done in almost every conceivable way and with broad range of outcomes. For example, as we will see, Indians were largely able to pressure the British to withdraw by means of a series of large-scale strikes, peaceful protests, and civil disobedience—known collectively as “non-violent resistance.” On the other extreme, Algerians fought house to house for six years against determined French resistance, resulting in almost a half million casualties on both sides. 251 M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 252 252 CHAPTER 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising In most cases, leaders of newly elected or appointed indigenous governments negotiated their independence over a period of time, then peacefully stood side- by-side with representatives of the colonial power as European flags were lowered and local flags were raised. These new states quickly joined the United Nations as fully independent, sovereign states. During the 1960s, more than forty new states became members, raising the organization’s total membership from eighty-two to 126 (UN 2008). Some did not achieve complete independence right away or they retained special ties to the mother country. Canada, for example, achieved home rule in 1867 but was not fully sovereign until 1982. It still maintains its membership in the British Commonwealth—an economic and political organization designed to give former British colonies special privileges. Palau, administered by the United States for thirty years under UN auspices, became independent in 1978 and is now governed under a “compact of free association” with the United States, giving the United States responsibility for its national defense. As was mentioned, achieving independence and becoming a member of the UN was the easy part for some countries. Some slipped into economic and political chaos almost as soon as their new flags were raised. Belgian Congo was granted inde- pendence precipitously in 1960 in the face of an increasingly violent independence movement. Only the thinnest veneer of government was in place as the Belgians left. Congolese soldiers rose up against the few Belgian officers who had remained behind to help create an indigenous army. This prompted a Belgian re-intervention, Belgian support for a rival government in the south, and a year-long civil war followed by UN peacekeeping. Stability did not come until Mobutu Sese Seko—one of the world’s most corrupt and ruthless dictators—seized power in 1965 (Callaghy 1984). Other newly independent countries experienced precipitous economic collapses requiring emergency assistance from abroad—often from the former colonial ruler. Within two years of its independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh experienced a cat- astrophic famine, for example. But most enjoyed positive, if not sustainable, growth. Far more common was the emergence of dependent economic relations with the outside world, based on heavy reliance on a few export markets, foreign capital, and foreign technology. To address this problem of dependency, and to establish themselves as the cen- tral authority in the new state, governments across the developing world adopted state-centered economic strategies. The problem they faced was deciding what the goal should be. For some states it was merely economic independence. For others it was overall economic growth, as measured by the gross national product divided by the total population. Still others imagined an end point where all the citizens of the country would have their basic needs met and be productive members of the econ- omy. These advocated the use of UN Development Program’s “human development index” to measure development. “The HDI measures the overall achievements of a country in three basic dimensions of human development—longevity and health, education and knowledge, and a decent standard of living” (Dutt 2006, 120). A few have even gone so far as to define development as the “self-actualization” of all of their people—the achievement of a deeper and more meaningful sense of self and fulfillment. As envisioned by Amartya Sen, this is nothing less than genuine personal and societal freedom (Sen 1999; Dutt 2006, 157). M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 253 India before Independence 253 Regardless of their ultimate aim, almost every newly independent country’s government opted for increased economic independence and self-reliance. They expanded the size of the public sector, hiring large fractions of the citizenry into government jobs. They restricted foreign imports and foreign investment as a matter of national policy and directed considerable money into local industry, often nation- alizing foreign assets. One of the more extreme examples of this is the Saudi Arabian government’s decision in 1973 to buy controlling interest in Aramco, an American- owned oil company that had been operating in the country since the 1930s. Control of oil exports has generated untold wealth and power for the House of Saud. Fidel Castro seized control of American and other foreign assets in Cuba without compensation in the 1960s after his successful Communist revolution. Most govern- ments, such as Mexico, found a middle ground by permitting foreign firms to operate on condition of increased local ownership and management, as well as a require- ment to keep more profits in the country. During the 1980s, a major financial crisis prompted most developing countries to pursue public loans from Western government and the International Monetary Fund. These actors had always been skeptical of the nationalist approaches to devel- opment and instead advocated a more classically liberal approach of limited govern- ment and increased free trade and investment. They used their new leverage to push governments into a variety of policies, including selling off state-owned firms (priva- tization), reducing public spending—especially of programs designed to prop up inefficient companies, lowering barriers to foreign goods and capital, and lowering the values of their currencies so they more correctly reflect the strength of the national economy. The result has been a dramatic increase in foreign investment in the developing world, although not necessarily a dramatic increase in economic growth or public welfare. In many cases this is due to financial mismanagement and even corruption. But some advocates of the new approach, such as Joseph Stiglitz, formerly of the World Bank, have even questioned whether it will ever work, even if implemented correctly (Stiglitz 2003). The experience of India will help us better understand the dilemmas nations face as they strive for independence from a colonial master only to find they must now struggle to define their economic future. INDIA BEFORE INDEPENDENCE Indian civilization is more than 8,000 years old and has been conquered and occupied by a dozen foreign nations. As a result, Indian civilization is an amalgam of much of human civilization with a result that is nonetheless unique and distinctive (Bose & Jalal 2004, 16). Every major religion is represented, as are many of the world’s races and cultural traditions. Key influences, however, are those of the Aryans in 1500 BC, who introduced Hinduism and the caste system; the Mughals in the 1500s and 1600s, who brought Islam and strong central government; and the British in the 1700s, who brought parliamentary government and the English language, among other things. Taken together, India is uniquely positioned to interface with the modern world economy (Dutt 2006, 13). This does not mean, however, that it has always done so M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 254 254 CHAPTER 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising Figure 15.1 India During and After the British Raj Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/British_india.png successfully. India has found that interacting with the outside world can be extremely painful and has therefore displayed considerable ambivalence. Although they established democratic institutions, built a nationwide network of railroads, and introduced modern technology to India, the British, who had arrived in the early 1600s and established control over most of the sub-continent of South Asia by 1800, were a mixed blessing at best. They began as traders and businessmen under the East India Company, one of the world’s first multinational corporations. As their control increased, spreading from east to west, the British Crown directed their activities more and more directly until 1858 when India was annexed as a colony after the suppression of an uprising of Indian soldiers against their British commanders (see Figure 15.1).