The real importance of 2003

Historians often have lively arguments over which years should be marked for posterity. Usually something fairly epochal has to happen before a particular year finds its way into school examination questions.

Thus, 1526 (the first battle of Panipat), 1707 (the death of Aurangzeb), 1757 (the Indian defeat at Plassey) and so on until you come to 1947, 1956, 1964, 1969, 1975, 1984 and 1991.

How long do we have to wait, then, before we get the next memorable year? Not very, as I expect the best candidate to have qualified tomorrow. 2003, I am willing to bet, is one of those years whose real significance will dawn only slowly.

Actually it has been a truly epochal year because it has been the year when Indians abruptly altered the way they view themselves. Not all of them did so, of course, and certainly not the Left, either the political or the intellectual one. But in spite of their whinging, the rest did.

Ashis Nandy wrote in the mid-1980s that real colonisation occurs when minds are colonised, and that in India although colonialism formally ended in 1947, the minds were yet to be decolonised. It is certain now that our minds have been finally decolonised. It is useful to look for the possible reasons.

One not-so-obvious one could simply be that we have physically, if that is the word, left the 20th century behind. Colonialism, independence, Gandhiji, partition, Nehru, Patel, the Constitution, etc happened in the last century.

The impact of the psychological break the new century provides is something that professional mass-psychologists like Mr Nandy could usefully examine.

More tangibly the sudden plenitude of the three things India has always considered itself short of "" money, power and influence "" has had a deep impact on how Indians view ourselves. The old feelings of vulnerability, which arose from shortages, chiefly of foreign exchange, are gone. That is surely important, whatever economists may say about the optimal level of exchange reserves.

Why, ask some, wasn't there a similar surge of confidence in the 1970s when the food shortages of the previous 500 years disappeared? The answer is that there was indeed such a surge but it was quickly destroyed by Indira Gandhi's style and practice.

Because "" and in spite of her "" the 1970s saw unprecedented political strife. In a sense, if the 1990s were years of economic settling in, of finally understanding how an economy should be run, the 1970s were years of political settling in.

But the process took longer because politics is not about making rules and policies and sitting back to let things take their own course. We have, I believe, now got the hang of it.

The 2003 assembly elections strongly suggest that. And the 1990s have been largely free of deeply divisive strife except when the BJP stupidly provoked it, as in 1992 (Babri masjid) and 2002 (Gujarat).

Where power is concerned, the psychological impact of Pokhran II in 1998, the Kargil victory in 1999 and, of course, Operation Parakram in 2002 that made elections in Kashmir possible, sank in fully only in 2003.

Indians now see themselves as having real power and not just vis a vis Pakistan. The last time they felt this way was in 1971 after Pakistan had been dismembered. But Indira Gandhi quickly dissipated that huge burst of national energy.

Combine this sense of military power with the sense of economic power that $100 billion worth of exchange reserves give and we begin to see why Indians now view themselves very differently. Nationalism, until recently in defensive mode, has gone into the assertive mode.

Ask the kids in the 15-25 age group and see how different their view of India is. Since a lot of marketing is aimed at this age group, the positive reinforcements are influencing all viewers.

What about influence, without which both money and military power can be of limited utility? Has India become more influential now? If so, why? Influence is not directly measurable "" so economists would probably say it does not exist "" and has to be found in the way the tea leaves are arranged and from the little stirrings in the bushes.

These are far too numerous to recount here. Suffice it to say that in 2003 India has been more influential that it has ever been before.

As to why, the answer is simple, though in some senses, not very palatable. We have become allies of the US. The word is out from the Boss, this here is my friend, and you'd better know it. That change had begun from about 1999 but it was only in 2002 that it sank in.

Everyone respects the Boss' pals, even Brother Pervez. Those in the Left who are shuddering with exaggerated revulsion should recall that the east European countries similarly respected us when it was the USSR that had put out the word.

If the changes had related only to the external aspect, the story would be incomplete. As things have turned out, there has been a massive internal change as well. For the most part, this has been in the way political parties deal with each other.

But the way in which they deal with the people "" the ideology thing "" has also played an important part. The giving up of political Hindutva by the BJP in 2003 is the most important contributor.

Politics has ceased to be about major civilisational differences, and is becoming about the little differences. It is also becoming about the things we don't have "" such as normal economic freedoms that are taken for granted in well-run societies, access to good government and the ordinary things that make life comfortable such as schools, hospitals, roads and so on.

Central to these political changes is the recognition by the political class generally that regional interests do not necessarily have to be represented by accommodating them under a single umbrella but that the same results can be achieved in coalitions. The exception is the Congress.

One gap remains, which if completed, would put 2003 on par with 1885. This is the eviction of the Gandhi family from the Congress space. If there is one thing Indians are ashamed of today and hard put to explain (and not just to foreigners) it is the Congress party.