Recently, I saw a report by the well-known think-tank “Fund for Peace” on failed states. I was surprised to see that India’s score on the index of failed states in 2009 was as high as 78 out of 120. Although India did not yet figure in the list of top 38 failed states, ranging from Somalia to Iran, it was not far behind. What this meant was that, according to the criteria used in the index to rank states as well-functioning or lawless and anarchical, India ranked pretty high in the latter category.
This was shocking in the light of worldwide admiration for India as the world’s largest democracy with free and fair elections; its celebrated and universally-acclaimed leaders; and its emergence as one of the fastest-growing economies of the 21st century. India is among the most favoured destinations for foreign capital with highest number of top billionaires and one of largest pools of highly-skilled management personnel. It also has a free press with the largest number of newspapers and news channels.
On the face of it, wherever one looks, India seems to be emerging on top and for us as Indians, there is plenty to be proud of. And then, there is this shocking index that tells that India is a “failing” state, if not yet a failed one. How does one reconcile this paradox of a rising and vibrant India with that of a country that is actually failing to function effectively as a nation?
My initial hypothesis in trying to resolve this enigma was that the index itself was perhaps flawed. I looked at the 12 social, economic and political indicators, across countries, that were used to compile this index. In the context of India, there were some criteria (like demographic pressures or “brain drain”) that one could disagree with. However, by and large, the criteria used to rank countries seemed reasonable (such as, violation of human rights, rising inequalities, criminalisation of politics or insufficient internal security).
As a further check on the quality of the index, I looked at the list of countries classified in different groups — failed or failing states on the one hand, and functioning or sustainable states on the other. While there were again some surprises, most of the states were classified along expected lines. Thus, for example, several Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore figure in the list of sustainable states (with scores of 40 or below), while some of the neighbouring countries on our sub-continent, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, had scores which were significantly higher than India’s (95 or above).
The answer to India’s paradox of a giant, but failing, state dawned on me in mid-December 2009. The most important political news, as the readers of this paper will recall, was the blatant failure by the State of India, at the Centre and in the state of Andhra, in managing the demand for a separate state of Telangana. There we were — on one day, the Cabinet met and approved the creation of a separate state and the chief minister of Andhra went along along with this decision. And the next day, it was all over! The centre’s decision was quickly withdrawn because of violent protests in other parts of the state of Andhra. A couple of days later, the assembly of the state was also adjourned sine die.
The question that arose about the functioning of our State in this particular episode was simply this: Why did the Centre have to swing from one end of the spectrum to the other within a couple of days? I have no definite answer to this question. However, I wonder whether the negative impact of the earlier decision to create a new state could not have been foreseen and forestalled. Why was it necessary for this great nation of ours, at the highest level of government, to swing from one extreme to the other within two days?
More From This Section
In the past, as citizens, we have, of course, been concerned about several disconcerting developments in our polity and our economy from time to time, such as, rising incidents of political corruption, slow progress in alleviating poverty, poor administration and the shrinking role of Parliament. Having been a part of the executive branch earlier and a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha recently, I had also written a couple of books on “Future of India” and “India’s Politics” (Penguin, 2005 and 2007), highlighting some of these negative developments. However, there was an underlying expectation that, with appropriate action and reforms, corrective measures would be taken over time under public pressure. After Telangana, is there any hope? Are we really a failing State?
As I brood about Telangana/Andhra political fiasco, I am reminded of WB Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”: “Things fall apart; the Centre can not hold...” And this, despite some of the most eminent and qualified leaders that our country has been fortunate to have over the years. Perhaps the answer to this riddle is also to be found in the same poem of Yeats:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
It is striking fact that all the institutional pillars of our great democracy, despite talented and qualified persons who manage them, are showing some signs of terminal decay. Where do we go from here? Is it all gloom and doom — as the Supreme Court observed in August 2008 that “In India, even God cannot help...”? Is India moving inexorably towards becoming a failed state or can something be done to prevent a looming catastrophe? The issue cannot be ignored, and we as citizens have to put our heads together to see what can be done and how.
This is the first of a monthly column