Bhagwati V/s Sen : The Real Deal

Jagdish Bhagwati's attacks on Amartya Sen, Sen's own involvement in political discourse, and their supposed political affinities, have become topics of discussion recently. On one hand, of course, I feel glad that a discussion in this country is happening lead by two of the best intellectuals this country is supposed to have produced. At the same time, the sweeping brushstrokes painting this debate as Sen's Socialism versus Bhagwati's Capitalism, or Sen's Kerala versus Bhagwati's Gujarat, have been rather unfortunate. I have read a bit of what Bhagwati has to say about development themes, and am beginning to understand Sen's views. With that caveat, I would like to try to show that this debate is nowhere as sharp as it is being made to be.

Firstly, does either of the economists disagree that growth must benefit the marginal sections of society? No. Sen's views on this aspect are fairly well known. On the other 'side', Bhagwati repeatedly mentions that growth is a means to achieving human development. Moreover, his passionate defense of India's performance on development indicators betrays the centrality of human development in his world view. That Sen would have a lot of intervention in human development is fairly well known. But Bhagwati has discussed at length various methodologies that can be used to improve the standard of living of the people. Bhagwati at no point defends laissez faire or even the now-ridiculed trickle down theory. Hence, there is a commonality of human development as the 'end' in both their arguments.

So what is different? Given my limited reading of both, I have been able to identify two sources of 'discord'. The first is regarding the prioritisation, and the second regarding the implementation. Let me talk about the former first. Laymen have often rejoiced at the growth versus equity debate - and Sen and Bhagwati are seen to be at opposite sides of the spectrum here. But on closer look, the differences do not seem to be all that significant. Sen has merely said that growth (of the kind that India has experienced since 1991) is a great thing, but the lack of an improvement in human development at the same time is shameful. He seems to argue that growth for the sake of growth is immaterial, which I do not believe any sensible person would debate. At no point have I seen Sen argue that India should have grown at a lower pace, and instead redistributed its national income. On the Bhagwati side, he clearly demarcates 'Track I' and 'Track II' reforms. All of his Track II reforms are directly targeted at human development, and even his 'Track I' reforms around economic liberalisation, are supposed to eventually lead to human development. The minor divergence here is the prioritization. Sen would say that equity and human development will eventually lead to growth, whereas Bhagwati would say that growth will generate the necessary resources for equity and development. Neither of them would disagree, I assume, with the fact that growth and development essentially go hand-in-hand. I do not believe there would be any country which focused on any one while ignoring the other.

The second, and apparently more substantial difference, is their view on Government provision of basic services. Here, Bhagwati is distinctively right-wing. He praises the virtues of the private sector in provisioning (with the Government acting as a facilitator), and also suggests replacing the NREGA with cash transfers. I have not read Sen's views on different Government services yet, but on the food subsidy, for example, he openly confesses his lack of knowledge. His support for the food security bill, if at all, is a grudging realisation of no better alternatives. Sen says we need to intervene more effectively in the poor's lives, and if state intervention is the best way to do it, then so be it. For example, Sen extols the virtues of the Bolsa Familia in Brazil, a cash transfer that would be something even Bhagwati would praise. 

In conclusion, the differences between these two great economists is not as great as it seems to be. Bhagwati is by no means a capitalist, and Sen is even farther from being a socialist. A welfare state within the structure of capitalism is neither unique nor surprising.  We, as readers, can rationalise the debate between two great minds to hone our own understanding of the country we live in.

Was Gandhi a Marxist?

This article was published in Satya 2013, annual journal of Gandhi Study Circle, St. Stephen's College.

Was Gandhi a Marxist? This question arises from the fact that both Gandhi and Marx had similar views. Gandhi fought against caste, race and various other social sufferings. He fought against economic exploitation and oppression of the poor by the rich. Marx fought against political subjugation and oppressed humanity in his own way. According to him, capitalism, where the workers are exploited is an unstable system and leads to crises.

Their views were similar but not identical. Gandhi’s approach was quite different from that of Marx. Both of them believed that social conflicts existed because of disparities between the rich and the poor. But, they differed on their views on how the conflicts would be resolved. Marx believed in revolutionary means while Gandhi believed in reformist means.

To elaborate further, Marx’s Dialectical Materialism explains his views regarding class struggles. According to Marx, it is the internal contradictions within the system that brings about a change. The people who are being exploited will organize themselves together and revolt. This revolution would abolish the existing class structure. The English Revolution and The French Revolution are the examples of how revolutions took place because of internal contradictions and finally led to the emergence of a capitalist class.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” – Karl Marx

Gandhi, on the other hand, found class struggles to be quite superficial. His approach to resolving conflicts was through non-violence and Satyagraha. However, there is certain inconsistency in what he believed. On one hand he believed in harmonious co-operation between the poor and the rich, labour and capital and landlords and tenants. On the other hand, he also believed in struggling against exploitation.

According to Gandhi, the struggle against exploitation, unlike what Marx believed, will not take place through bloody revolutions, but through non-cooperation. If the workers can come together in the form of trade unions and refuse to co-operate with the capitalists, then they will be able to control the supply of labour. The capitalists will be forced to increase their wages. In Marxian terminology, Reserve Army of Labour is the biggest hindrance to the increase in wages and Gandhi believed that the only way to overcome this was non-cooperation.

"The idea of class war does not appeal to me. In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence.” – Gandhi

What makes me believe that Gandhism is irrelevant today is the fact that people have become excessively self-centred and they are involved in an unending pursuit of acquiring more and more at the cost of the others. Gandhi believed in the mutual love between the labour and the capital. He wanted to convert the capitalists – the exploiters, which he thought could be done only through non-violence and Satyagraha. His theory of trusteeship was based on moral transformation of the capitalists, but we know that in today’s world, people do not give away their wealth (acquired through exploitation of labour and the poor) listening to moral preaching.

What Gandhi wanted to achieve was to educate and awaken the masses, make them conscious of their exploitation, bring them together into a powerful organization, so that they can struggle against the exploiters and fight for their rights. Even though Satyagraha and the non-violent ways might be thought of as moral preaching in the 21^st century, but we shouldn’t forget that it was this weapon which in part led to our Independence. Critics argue that Gandhi’s approach was applicable only to a specific historical context. True, but the need is not to side-line his ideas but to study them and revise them according to the changing situations.

Marx and Gandhi had very similar philosophies about what an ideal society should be. Both of them focused on a society free from exploitation. But again, their approaches to the achievement of this ideal state were different. Marx believed in a classless, stateless communist society which is described in the Communist Manifesto. On the other hand Gandhi believed in a non-violent, egalitarian and a democratic society where everyone is treated equally, irrespective of caste, race, and sex and where there is no discrimination based on income because the entire wealth belongs to the society as a whole.

According to Marx, we would reach communism because of the process of Dialectical Materialism. The germs of a future society lie within the present society and these opposites within the system contradict it and lead to revolution. Feudalism gave way to capitalism, because the germs of capitalism (the exploitation of the peasants and serfs by the lords) lay within the system itself. Similarly, capitalism will give rise to socialism and finally communism would emerge. It would be a society of dignity and freedom, a society with human conditions rather than ‘animal’ conditions of existence.

Gandhi asserted that one day moral transformation would take place which would lead to, what he called, Ramrajya. He explained the evolution through non-violence.  Violence and self-centredness are the qualities of a beast. Earlier we were beasts, wandering and hunting animals. Realizing the need to curtail violence, we took to agriculture. Hence Gandhi had faith that this streak of progressing through non-violence would continue till the ideal state is achieved. A man understands co-operation and is morally sound. This is what Gandhi believed we are heading to – from beasts to a man.

In today’s world, Marx seems to be winning the race because we foresee that communism might follow capitalism and socialism. China already claims to be a communist country. But, nowhere is Gandhi’s Ramrajya to be seen. The reason, I believe, Gandhi’s approach is difficult is because it is too ideal, it’s like bringing heaven on earth and converting the devils to angels. Marx’s communism might emerge as a future society because it’s not all that ideal and solves only those problems which can be tackled, given the current stage of human development.

Though both Gandhism and Marxism are similar in spirit, they are very different in practice and it becomes essential to re-read them and make changes to them as the society progresses.