The Elephant, The Dragon and the Beehive Theory

 

Rahul Gandhi at CII : India is a beehive

 

Which is stronger – a dragon, a beehive or an elephant?

Answer – they are not comparable.

Congress leader and possible prime ministerial candidate Rahul Gandhi in his first address to captains of Indian industry, stressed the need to decentralise the Indian power structure in the manner of a `beehive’ to cut through red tape to make `doing business’ easier.

His favourite description of India, of course, is the beehive and not the usual lumbering elephant that most writers and thinkers associate with India. No would he like to think of it as the dragon which symbolises India's northern neighbour China, and Gandhi does believe the three symbols can’t be compared.

Wisecracks about India being a beehive with his mother as Queen bee and everyone else as drones apart, Rahul may have a point. India is teeming with a creative if chaotic society, which encourages thought cross currents and does not shut out dissent, the way regimented societies like China does.

Elephant Vs the Dragon

The India-China debate is old, almost as old as the emergence of the two nations as independent countries in the late 1940s. And much of what he said at a meeting organised by the business chamber – Confederation of Indian Industry – has been heard before. However, he is a young leader, who should be heard, if only to find out whether he is different.

The difference between the two rising Asian economies, according to Gandhi, lies in how the two view power. "China applies power by hand - they are a manufacturing behemoth. India on the other hand applies people's power - the power of the mind."

Gandhi emphasised India needs to continue developing the infrastructure needed to unleash India’s “soft power” – both in terms of roads, ports, electricity, etc., as well as in terms of revolutionising education and linking academic research with industry.

Now that’s a good and popular way of putting it across, even if it’s slightly clichéd. But the fact remains that China has become a super-power and India is still a wannabe power. And the transformation has happened during the last three decades. Nine years of that period, saw India being ruled by his father and grandmother. Five years by another Congress leader trained by his grandmother. Another nine years by a man handpicked by his mother for the job. Someone needs to do some more explaining than the play-acting Rahul did with industrialist Ajay Shriram to explain why India’s `soft power' has not been able to keep pace with China’s `hard power'.
 

The Beehive Theory

On the other hand,  Gandhi’s  complaint that unlike a "beehive which gives every member a voice", the system in India is "clogged" and voices of many at the bottom of the pyramid are not heard, is partially true. Despite boasting of a free press and the longest running democracy in Asia, marginalisation of the poor and unheard, were and are certainly the causes for the small and large rebellions India has witnessed over the decades.

That the ‘unclogging’ of the system is happening is apparent - the number of rebellions has come down – but the few remaining ones ( and they are big ones – a Maoist rebellion in central India and an ongoing disturbance in Kashmir)  are signs  that much more needs to be done.

Gandhi of course, led his `beehive’ allegory onto a subject which was a favourite with his late father prime minister Rajiv Gandhi – decentralisation to the district and village level. The desire to decentralise may not be purely altruistic.

The Congress rule in the centre in Rajiv’s time and now, was and is being increasingly challenged at every stage by states ruled by different ideologies. This is why the Congress party wants to cut past state governments and link up straight with district level governments.

In Jawaharlal Nehru’s time, dealing with provinces was not a problem. Ideologically they were one with him. They were all ruled by Congress party bosses. The chief ministers were strong men – Dr B.C.Roy in West Bengal, K Kamaraj in Madras, Govind Bhallab Pant in Uttar Pradesh – but they were all Congressmen and consultations that the prime minister used to carry out with them on economy, polity or foreign policy were more in a closeted club-like culture.

Mrs Gandhi solved the consultation problem, by simply ignoring state governments. Her force of personality and the fact that she picked up issues which were popular with the masses, meant the states squirmed when their rights were trampled on but did not have the ability to oppose her policies.

Take the example of coal and steel freight equalisation – it hurt Eastern states the most – West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa saw de-industrialisation as a result of this mis-thought policy. But no chief minister dared oppose it as the entire deal came shrink wrapped in Socialist rhetoric which talked about bringing the benefits of industrialisation to backward regions.

In reality, nothing of that sort happened. The policy which had the central government subsidising freight cars carrying steel and coal so that they could be sold at the same price anywhere in the country, helped some moneybags in Bombay make a killing at the expense of mineral rich Eastern India. The poor states remained poor.  

Mrs G got away with it. However, that kind of a deal is no longer possible. When the Dr Manmohan Singh wanted to play down the Sri Lankan Tamil issue at the UN, his DMK `friends’ and his AIADMK `former friends’ just didn’t let him have his way.  When he wanted to gift industrialists like the Ambanis, Adanis and Tatas with a subsidy on  costly imported coal to fire their new electricity plants, by raising the price of locally mined coal which feed ageing state electricity board run electricity plants, states raised a stink, forcing the `good doctor' to backtrack.

No wonder, Rahul called for decentralisation of the beehive, and described that as the panacea for India. The Queen Bee needs to connect with the drones minus the doubting chief ministers in between.