Wrong Target Mr. Mehta

I don’t wish to be the resident Middle Class defender on the blogsphere but increasingly I seem to be assuming that role. But being part of that ‘’selfish” class, I cannot but help defending it against vitriolic attacks by some of our well meaning but largely ill-informed commentators.

In a scathing opinion piece in Outlook, Vinod Mehta writes

My purpose is to point out that the passion-charged street power and the virulent rhetoric against reservations should be seen as part of a larger, disturbing pattern. India’s smug, selfish, self-centred, satiated middle class, fattened on the fruits of the booming economy, is positively hostile to any policy which sets out to empower the poor

Further

Take the employment guarantee scheme or selling cheap grain to BPL card-holders or the Right to Information Act (which allows the marginalised to check corruption in moneys spent in their name) or increasing subsidies for essential commodities used by the aam aadmi

Now, if only Mr. Mehta could tell us when exactly has anyone opposed the Right to Information Act? The only opposition to the Act has come from the government officials. Hell! Is the middle class stealing all the funds meant for the poor that it should be afraid of it? Does it not empower the middle class? But fine details are immaterial when the purpose is to score a point.

Now, let us set the record straight. The economic reforms were not the result of middle class demands, they resulted from BoP crisis which had India begging at the doors of IMF. The resultant reforms were solely the result of the conditions which the IMF had imposed. The Middle Class, as we know today, did not even exist then.

For 40 years after independence, all we heard was that garibi was being hatofied. Nothing of that sort ever happened, the only people who benefited were the government officials, and the contractors who formed an unholy alliance, which siphoned of billions and billions of dollars. The number of poor actually increased while per capita income stagnated.

Where were Mr. Mehta and his ilk then? Did they advocate a mid course correction, a re- look as to where we were going? As long as the thought of removing poverty was there, the modalities were immaterial. The sheer intellectual bankruptcy of our political class is clear from the fact that if not for the BoP crisis, we could have continued on our ”Hindu rate of growth” for ever. As long as the equity of poverty was maintained, it was all hunky-dory.

Those who think that our Socialist era failed the rich live in a fool’s paradise. No system of governance ever fails the rich. Did it stop the Ambanis and Tata’s and the Wadias from playing their little games? It never stopped wealth accumulation but only stymied wealth creation. It failed the poor, and that is why no party not even the Communists can afford to go back on the reforms.

Yes, the Middle Class is wary of huge government schemes. But that wariness is the result of government’s own failure to show the results of any of its schemes. Show me one large government scheme which has benefited the poor, and I will show you ten which have only enriched the politicians. Let the government show us some result on the ground, show us how it has improved the fate of the people. But still, I am yet to see anyone marching on the streets demanding that rural employment guarantee scheme should be rolled back.

And yes, if the government is using my tax dollars, don’t I have the right to demand accountability. Who pays tax in India? The politicians don’t, the super-rich don’t, not the rural rich but only the salaried middle class. It has every right to ask questions and even demand changes. If we had learned to ask questions earlier, perhaps we won’t have been so poor.

The 90 million or so middle class is NOT responsible for India’s poverty. Yes, it has benefited from the economic reforms but the gains have been wide spread. What was the size of the middle class before economic reforms? If you don’t like economic reforms and free markets, suggest a better alternative.

This is not to make economic reforms a holy cow. In fact, the very opposite. How can we make our growth more widespread, how do we make India a richer country? For example, during the N.D.A rule, there was lot of talk about farmer suicides. Fine, N.D.A is gone, have they stopped? Why not? Is it because the kind of agriculture we practice in India is unsustainable. It really is, you just have to look at the US agriculture scene to understand that. Obviously. IT does not hold all the answers, but why are we lagging behind in manufacturing while China has become the factory of the world? What is holding back our industrialists?. To label all of them as selfish (as if being selfish is bad thing) is self- defeating and stupid.

Mr. Mehta, as is his wont, is attacking the wrong target, perhaps, he should ask the government as to why it has managed to keep India poor.

Finally, Mr. Mehta further writes-

these 900 million people have something called the vote. And they use it extremely craftily. In 2004, they threw out a government which considered itself invincible

I am tired of this cliched argument about oh-the-so-smart Indian voter. Let me say it clear: the Indian voter is among the most stupid, parochial and bigoted voters in the world. Can someone explain to me with this kind of smart voter, how do people like Narendra modi and Laloo Yadav get elected, how do parties like DMK win elections on the promise of providing free T.V sets, how have people with murder and rape charges managed to enter our parliament and legislatures? Our vile and self serving political class is itself a reflection of how mature the Indian voter is. Funnily, this extends from the guy in Bihar who votes solely on the basis of caste to the middle class throwing out a government because onion prices have risen by a few rupees!

Besides, B.J.P in the 2004 elections lost in almost all the urban areas, so this talk about the poor voting it out is total hogwash.

Finally, Mr. Mehta despite loud claims about how his column was not about defending the new quota regime, proceeds to do exactly that! He breaks no new ground, and frankly even the Blogsphere has moved far beyond the kind of arguments he is making. I don’t have the patience to refute his arguments, especially, when he seems unable to understand the difference between AA action in USA and quotas.

Perhaps, Mr Mehta should read a few blogs!