Pax Indica

While demonetization, the sabre-rattling between India and Pakistan and the rancor filled  spat between India’s current political Goliath – Narendra Modi - and the Gandhi family scion – Rahul Gandhi – oft derided as `Pappu’ in social media, may have been what hogged headlines through the year, a little noticed statistical change underlined a trend that has been going in India’s favour  for the last several decades now.

India’s economy pipped that of its former colonial master Britain on the back of a  spectacular growth story spanning two-and-a-half decades and a drastic fall in the value of the British Pound after a vote in the island nation to exit from the European Union.

This makes India the 6th richest nation in terms of nominal Gross  Domestic Product or GDP, just behind France, though in terms of per capita income, the Asian giant remains at a lowly 149th .  In terms of GDP calculated using a complicated purchasing power parity formula which takes into account how much a dollar buys in a particular country, India is already the third richest nation after the US and China.

A 20 % decline in the value of the Great Britain pound through 2016, saw the former colonial power’s GDP slipping to $ 2.29 trillion, compared to India’s $ 2.30 trillion.  This gap is however expected to widen as India grows at between 6 – 7 % per year compared to Britain’s 2-3 % annual growth.

India was supposed to surpass Britain’s economy by 2020. However the quicker overtake by the former colony happened partly because she grew faster over the last decade or so and partly because of Britain’s own economic woes.

This marks an milestone of sorts for India’s economy which went into a decline after the British invaded the sub-continental nation taking advantage of India’s political disunity after the decline of the Mughal empire.

India in the 18th century produced 22.5 % of the globe’s GDP. In contrast in the same era, Britain accounted for just 1.8 % of world GDP. By 1820, when the British had more or less conquered most of India, the sub-continent’s share of the world economy had started declining and accounted for 16 % of world GDP.

Colonial rule turned India into a market for Britain’s industrial revolution as compared to a net exporter of spices, silks, cotton textiles and luxury goods. At the same time, high taxes which an arrogant  East India Company and afterwards British Queen  imposed on its conquered people  helped transfer India’s silver stock to the wind-swept, previously impoverished British Isles.

History has had many milestones which underline or accentuate a trend. India’s defeat at the hands of the British at Plassey in 1757, is widely considered a symbol of India’s and Asia’s fall from power. Similarly, Japan’s victory over Russia in 1905 is seen as marking the resurgence of Asia, giving revolutionaries in India and China confidence to fight to shake off their respective colonial shackles.

While the US victory in World War II  was seen as the beginning of the end of European dominance and the start of a bi-polar world, where besides the power which the USA emanated and used, America’s icons – jeans, pop music and Coca-Cola along with Hollywood movies - became pan-global symbols.

It may not be correct to place India’s upsetting Britain in the economic rankings at par with these epoch making events,  however, it does mark a trend.

Since 1947, when India won her freedom, economic growth grew at a leisurely 3.5 % annually, dubbed by the economist KN Raj as the `Hindu rate of growth',  as the country tried to cope with the aftermath of partition with its mass migration of millions of people; several wars; an unprecedented refugee crisis triggered by Pakistan’s 1971 civil war; natural calamities;  even as it built up an infrastructure for steel-making and machinery manufacture, harnessed its turbulent rivers to produce hydro-electric power, built colleges to produce one of the largest army of  scientists and engineers.

In the 1980s, a spate of trade and currency reforms ushered in under the tutelage of Pranab Mukherjee, then finance minister quickened the pace of growth to over 5 % for the first time. A burst of reforms which unshackled the economy  in the 1990s, curated by Dr Manmohan Singh saw growth leap to beyond 6 %. Through the last two-and-a-half decades the average GDP growth has averaged between 6-8 % annually, helping India turn into a two trillion dollar plus economy.

India’s ability to win a spectacular military victory in 1971, in just 14 days liberating Bangladesh, a nation the size of Greece, its ability to test a nuclear bomb in 1974 and launch a satellite in the very next year had marked India’s arrival in the global power stage. However, its image as a poor, third world nation with its crowd of motely beggars and snake-charmers and streets where elephants and camels still roamed persisted for decades afterwards.

By the late 1990s, by when the impact of India’s Perestroika were visible and by when the nation had been hailed as the software factory of the world, that image started changing. The overtaking of Britain, its former colonial master, was in a sense a continuation of the new narrative that India had started building for itself.

Psychologically, India overtaking Britain in the GDP rankings underlines an emerging trend, which acknowledges India’s arrival at the head of the table and marks a sea- change in relations’ between a former colony and the rest of the world.

British Prime Minister Theresa May at an Indian temple

This economic strength acquired over decades is what gave  India the ability to tell off British Prime Minister Theresa May when she refused to relent on the tough visa norms her government has adopted against Indians, while seeking a free trade deal with the Asian powerhouse. The new `Iron Lady’ had to fly back to London without a deal. 

However, before our rulers of the day pat themselves on the back and lay claim to this milestone, let us be very clear that the credit for this goes to the hard work put in daily by more than a billion ordinary Indians and their sacrifice of saving nearly a third of their incomes for the betterment of future generations, despite the glitter of consumerism unfolding before their eyes.

Our leaders need rather to remember that India still has a long path to traverse as it strives not only to feed, educate and keep healthy a huge population but to increase their average wealth at a fast pace so that they enjoy the benefits of a standard of living nearer  to that of the first world citizens.

Should We Celebrate World War I ?



Comic strip on the war

The War to end all Wars  - That is how leaders of that era sold the war to people at large !  It did not of course, end all wars. Not even in Europe where it was largely fought. 

This is a year when many people around the globe are celebrating the memory of that war. However, as nations pay homage and hold grand ceremonies to commemorate the `Great War' and the generation which fought it, many forget the reasons why the war  was fought in the first place.

Was it about naval rivalry? National Pride? Naked German aggression ? The inherent conflict between European royalty, all of whom were closely related to each other, triggered by the assassination of one of them in distant Sarajevo ?

All these were certainly factors, but the underlying reason for most wars are economic. The First World War too was no different. The war in truth, was a conflict over the spoils of colonialism.

The first world war was preceded by a mad scramble  to occupy Africa. All European powers joined in the race to claim bits and pieces of the `Dark Continent' with its immense riches. The major European powers had already carved up the Americas and much of Asia in the centuries before and in the process increased the per capita income of their citizens manifold. This was the last habitable bit of Earth which could be had to add to Imperial `estates.' In this battle for land and influence, as first movers, France and Great Britain, had an advantage over late comers like Germany and Austria and that triggered the tensions which transformed into a World War. 

The rivalry between the two camps – newly arrived Germany and land-locked Austria-Hungary  on the one hand and older sea-borne colonial powers – was not just for colonies, but also colonial trade, trade routes and privileges.

An insight into the scramble for colonies can be had from the two Moroccan crisis which occurred  just before the Great War began –

In 1904, France had concluded a secret treaty with Spain partitioning Morocco and agreeing not to oppose Britain’s moves in Egypt in exchange for a free hand in the till then independent kingdom of Morocco.  The next year, German emperor Wilhelm II visited Tangier and declared for Morocco’s independence, not really in support of an oppressed people, but because he wanted to parley with fellow European kings over colonial rights and needed a bargaining chip.

This `First Moroccan Crisis’, was resolved in January–April 1906 at the Algeciras Conference, where German economic rights in the region were upheld, while the French and Spanish were entrusted with the policing of Morocco.

The World Carved Up Among European Powers

The Second Moroccan Crisis sparked in 1911,  when the German gunboat Panther was sent to Agadir  ostensibly to protect German interests during a local uprising in Morocco but in reality to cow the French. This “Agadir Incident” sparked a flurry of war talk during that year, but international negotiations continued, and the crisis averted with the conclusion of a convention in November 1911, by which France became `protector' of Morocco and, in return, Germany was given strips of territory from the French Congo. Obviously, the local people were never consulted when they were bought or sold!

Map of the proposed railway

However, the Germans had ambitions further afield, which included nebulous control over the newly found oil wealth of Mesopotamia. A Berlin-Baghdad railway line was planned which could be later extended to Teheran. Germany would be supplied by oil and other supplies from the east, by this railway, while the Ottoman Empire which controlled Baghdad would gain a railway network for quick military mobilization into the Balkans were they were facing up to Russia's expansionist threats. The problem was that a German railway up to Baghdad or Persia, was just a step away from India !

Let me quote the American Orientalist Morris Jastrow, to explain what was at stake : "It was felt in England that if, as Napoleon is said to have remarked, Antwerp in the hands of a great continental power was a pistol leveled at the English coast, Baghdad and the Persian Gulf in the hands of Germany (or any other strong power) would be a 42-centimetre gun pointed at (England's dominion over) India."

Europe readied for war. The older colonial powers – France, England, Russia and Italy to protect their colonies and trading privileges, the newer ones – Germany and Austria, hand in glove with a  threatened tottering power – the Turkish Ottomans, in search of fresh colonies and trade routes. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand  of Austria at Sarajevo by Serbian-Bosnian rebels in 1914, was merely an excuse for the war to begin.

We, Indians, had no say in the war at all. Most Indians wanted only one thing - independence. Not rule by  King George V or by Emperor Wilhelm II. However, without any strong national leadership, Indians joined in the war effort in large numbers for the pay and job opportunity which came their way.  Boys from rural India fought bravely and possibly won the larger part of the war in the Middle East. Damascus, Palestine, Jerusalem, Gaza, Haifa, Kut-Al_Amara, Baghdad, Basra and Tigris, all figure in the battle honours list of the Indian Army. (Lawrence of Arabia and his motley crew of supporting Sheikhs, were considered by many as merely extras in that battle for Arab lands. The real muscle power was mostly Indian.) More than half of the Indian brigade thrown at Gallipoli died in a brave but futile attempt to take on Turkey's brilliant General, Kemal Pasha, side by side with the ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand) troops, though in the national memories of the West, that epic folly of a battle is associated with Australians alone. In all some 65,000 Indian soldiers died fighting the King's war. The Sub-continentals won some 13,000 gallantry medals including 12 Victoria Crosses, the highest gallantry award the British gave to a fighting man.

Recruitment Poster

Quite rightly, we need to celebrate our boys' bravery and mourn those who died. However, should we really celebrate this war which was not ours ? There is after all a distinction to be made in celebrating our own people’s bravery and someone else’s victory.

Neither was the victory ours nor the defeat. It was a white man's war fought also by brown and black boys, who were not allowed to be promoted to officer ranks nor get the same pay or perks that their white brethren received. The 140,000 Indian soldiers rushed to defend France were sent in without adequate winter clothing or footwear ! Despite that they fought and were decisive in the battles of -Ypres, Givenchy, Neuve Chaplle, Festubert and Loos.  Modern medi-care was given to the Indian wounded, but in segregated hospitals on the English coast. Barbed wire surrounded these hospitals and sepoys were not allowed into town un-chaperoned ! Even in matters of food they were discriminated.

An Indian soldier’s daily ration during the Great War consisted of :

¹⁄₄ pounds (lb) meat
(Non-meat eaters received 2 ounces of gur (coarse, unrefined sugar made from sugar cane juice) or sugar or 3 ounce (oz) of milk in place of 4 ounces of meat); ¹⁄₈ lb potatoes; ¹⁄₃ oz tea; ¹⁄₂ oz salt; 1 ¹⁄₂ lb atta (raw flour); 4 oz dhal (dried lentils or peas or beans); 2 oz ghee (clarified butter); ¹⁄₆ oz chillies; ¹⁄₆ oz turmeric; ¹⁄₃ oz ginger; ¹⁄₆ oz garlic and 1 oz gur (unrefined sugar)

While  a British soldier received :

1 & 1/4 lb fresh or frozen meat, or 1 lb preserved or salt meat
1 & 1/4 lb bread ; 4 oz. bacon; 3 oz. cheese
5/8 oz. tea; 4 oz. jam ; 3 oz. sugar ; 1/2 oz salt ; 1/36 oz. pepper
1/20 oz. mustard ; 8 oz. fresh or 2 oz. dried vegetables ; 1/10 gill lime juice (if fresh vegetables not issued);
1/2 gill rum (at discretion of commanding general) ; up to 2 oz. tobacco per week (at discretion of commanding general)

Britain is right in celebrating the first World War. It was  indeed her hour of glory. Britain is also right in apportioning some credit (belatedly?) to the 1.4 million Indians who donned the colours to fight for Britain.

This leads me to the logical question, could we  in any way be described as part of the victors' party? I would not hesitate to say `No'. Please remember Indians were not even allowed to enter certain streets and clubs inside India at that time or aspire to most of the higher ranks of service within their own motherland. India's revenues were being used to finance British colonial wars in all parts of the world - ranging from China to Africa and even to the European theatre, without our  agreement, and by beggaring our people in the process. During World War I, Britain stripped India of 3.7 million tonnes of supplies worth 80 million pounds and 146 million pounds of revenues for the war effort, the largest contribution by any country's colony.  To understand the value of that contribution at today's rate multiply the figures by 340 and that gives you the mind-boggling figure of  76.84 billion pounds or Rs 783,760 crore. This happened even as teenagers were being jailed for reciting `Vande Mataram' and hung for fighting for India's freedom. 

Landmarks in our nation's history - the Komagata Maru  incident - happened in May 1914, while - the Jalianwala Bagh massacre - happened in 1919.   Should we not commemorate those sad milestones in India's freedom struggle from Britain, rather than applaud a victory in an European war, which merely deprived us ?

Postscript:

India's First Flying Ace : Indra Lal Roy

First Day Cover to Commemorate India's first flying ace

Indra Lal Roy, India's first ace pilot, was born in Calcutta on 2 December 1898. Despite initial prejudices against him, Roy, a schoolboy at St Paul’s, London,  managed to win a commission in the Royal Flying Corps in 1917, at the young age of 18, within three months of joining the Corps. Credited with 10 kills including 9 in a span of just 14 days over the skies of France, he died a hero in 1918, to be  posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

The citation in the London Gazette on 21 September 1918 praised Roy as 'a very gallant and determined officer' whose 'remarkable skill and daring' had enabled him on occasion to shoot down 'two [enemy] machines in one patrol'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

India, Britain and the Aid Row

Rafale fighter jet

Little noticed, last Thursday, India tried to undo the damage which its order for French made warplanes did to David Cameron’s government in London, with finance minister Pranab Mukerjeree calling UK’s Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell to soothe ruffled feathers.

Labour party MPs and London dailies had torn into Cameron’s Conservative party led coalition government attacking it of giving 1.4 billion pounds in aid over 5 years to India while being unable to get an order for fighter aircraft.

What started out as agnst against not getting a lucrative multi-billion dollar aircraft order turned into a media war over why Britain should or should not aid India's impoverished millions. That it has poor millions is of course not in doubt, despite its boast of being the seventh largest economy in the world.

British newspapers pointed out quite appropriately that India has its own aid programme for African and Asian nations which is far larger than what it is recieving from abroad and had on many a occassion made it clear that it did not need aid.

Jingoistic Indian coloumnists also said basically the same thing: "We don't need aid." with many privately and impolitely adding "Britain can stuff its money ...."

Before we review the issue, lets recap for those who came in late on the news as it played out :

• India had preferred the French Rafale jet fighter over Typhoon, manufactured by a British led European consortium in selections made earlier this month. The French aircraft was preferred as it was cheaper and considered more versatile than Typhoon, whose upgrades have been long delayed.
• A London based daily had then highlighted how Mukherjee had in answer to a Parliamentary question said foreign aid was not needed to buttress its case that Britain’s development assistance to India should be discontinued. Others editorialised that the money given to India could have built hospitals in the UK.
• That Mukherjee’s comments in Parliament had been generic and not specifically aimed at British aid was lost in the din of the media battle. What all this did was to make Britain's India engagement politically extremely `hot’ for the Cameron government, which is credited with having brought the two governments closer in economic and strategic terms, after years of bilateral relations being in a state of mild freeze, not improved by Labour's younger Miliband trying to lecture India on Kashmir on one relationship building visit!
• “We felt a call at this juncture was needed to scotch unnecessary and wrong press reports and to undo any damage to our otherwise close bilateral relations,” said North Block officials, explaining Mukherjee's call.

Britain has been continuing the aid programme by arguing at home that it strengthens its influence in India, a key market while also  helping lift people in poorer parts of the country out of poverty.

The problem for Britain is that besides being unable to get the Typhoon order; last year, India pledged $ 5 billion in development assistance to Africa, besides another $ 1 billion in direct aid - $ 700 million in insitution building and $ 300 million in building the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway. A year bafore, India had announced a $ 1 billion aid package for Bangladesh to help build roads, ports and railways. In war-torn Afghanistan India has already spent some $ 1.5 billion in rebuilding roads, power stations, telecom networks, a new Parliament building and last year added a pledge of another half a billion dollars to top it up.

If a country can go around spreading largese to other poor nations, can it also ask for or recieve aid? Thats what the British tax-payer may well ask.

Related to this is the question - Why do countries give aid to each other - simply on humanitarian grounds?

Humanitarian considerations plays a role. Aid flowed to Haiti when disaster struck it. Even though the West supported Pakistan's brutal regime in 1971, individual contributions flowed to refugees from its Eastern wing living in miserable refugee camps in India.

But aid is also a way of winning friends abroad. Which is why the Cameron government is keen to fund drinking water programmes and more in India. Which is why India wants to build railways, ports abroad, supply rice to neighbours even when its own millions have little to go around.

The benefits for those doling out aid or help, are sometimes immediate - China managed to get contracts to gas fields in Africa almost at the same time as it offered roads there. It was almost like a barter deal. Sometimes it takes time, but far outweighs the help recieved in the first place. India has been saying thank you to Russia for standing by it in 1971 for decades, despite the dissolution of Soviet Union. It continued with an artificial rupee-rouble rate to protect Russian interests, even when the rouble had become worth pennies. There is an element of thank you when India orders none too great Russian fighter jets, grossly over-priced aircraft carriers and outdated nuclear power plants.

Its contracts to France - Mirage, again nuclear power plants and Rafale - have similar elements of thank you for the support France gave to India's quest for nuclear parity with China besides other things.

As one former British MP whom I met soon after the aid row surfaced, said: "If you are in it for the long haul, you disregard short term losses." Britain has in the past drawn much benefit from its `special relationship' with India. It sold helicopters in the 1980s which were described by the then Indian Prime Minister as “white elephants”. Earlier in the 1950s, it sold outdated fighter aircraft, whose parts cost more than the aircraft !

Where does that leave the question of whether India should or should not get aid or even more importantly from the Indian point of view - accept or not accept aid? Soon after Pokhran -II, when many countries came rushing with pious condemnation of nuclear India with added threats of withdrawing aid, the Vajpayee government quite rightly told them to a) shut up and b) to keep their aid to themselves.

The Congress government when it came to power, endorsed Vajpayee's or rather his National security advisor Brijesh Mishra's views and continued the aid ban imposed on minor European powers. Quite a few countries whose aid programme were stopped, still regret the loss of what they now see as a lever with a rising power.

Foreign aid is a miniscule fraction of India's GDP or for that matter even of total government sector spending. India as a nation could do without it. But can those dreadfully poor people who are getting something out of it, do without it? Can they wait till New Delhi or lets say in a specific case – Orissa – wait till Bhubaneshwar, finds time to look their way?

To tell those who are benefitting from what little foreign aid is coming in, that the programme is being stopped because some upper middle class urban Indians feel their ego, inflated by India's rising GDP and nuclear power status, has been punctured by news that Mother India still takes aid, may not exactly be acceptable to those poor people.

In any case, like good baniyas, which Indians have been for centuries, our motto on aid should be "let it flow, if it’s without strings attached." Its for those who are buying a good consience or better relations to decide whether their millions should be spent here or somewhere else.

Footnote:

Baniya  : Merchant