Blame the Caste System for India’s poorly developed economy – includes sketch of Chinese vs. Indian social values [The 4th Media]

By Ekaterina Volozova
December 28, 2010

In a previous article I talked about some obstacles in economic development in the country, and one of those was underdeveloped infrastructure. This means that roads, train tracks, and other means of transportation are not equipped for sufficient transport of goods or resources across the country.

But one other important obstacle for development in India is the caste system, and although it has already been abolished, it remains an important point in Indian culture. The castes are a system of social stratification, and social restrictions in India in which social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups. The four main castes are Brahmans, Princes, Merchants, and Servants.

According to William A. Havilland, an anthropologist, although the Indian constitution of 1950 abolished the caste system, it is still deeply embedded in the culture, especially in rural India. One particularly important thing that I would like to touch upon is the Dalits, more commonly known in popular terms as the untouchables.

The majority of these people, about 90 percent, live in the rural areas of the country. Economic exploitation still remains their most acute problem; most of the people are either famers or landless laborers. Large numbers of them migrate across the country, and many are in debt, so they are forced to work off those debts as bonded labor, according to a recent study. Despite the fact that this practice was officially abolished in 1976, we still find many cases such as this.

“In these cases a laborer takes a loan from a landlord or moneylender and in return agrees to work for that person until the debt has been repaid. In practice such debts are difficult to repay as interest rates are high and poverty forces the laborer into deeper debt . The debt can then be passed on to the next generation and it is almost impossible to escape the cycle of bondage. In some areas many high-caste landlords pay their Dalit laborers minimum wages in cash or food, or nothing at all”, according to a speech given by Shobha D’Sami, a man from India who spoke at a UN conference for NGOs.

Many of the Dalits move from rural areas to cities, but here in most cases they are forced to live in the slums. According to statistics, more than 8- [?] percent of Dalits do not know how to read or write, because they do not have access to proper schooling.

This is one social reason that could be one of the main problems for the Indian economy. There is development on one hand, but if the country still has problems such as discrimination of people according to caste, this is a sign that the economy has not yet fully developed.

If we look at India’s largest neighbor, and the world’s second largest economy, China, we can see the difference in development. In China, when development reforms first began in the 1970s, there was a principle called “tie fan wan”, which is literally translated as “a metal bowl of rice” [iron rice bowl]. When China first began development reforms, the goal was to make sure that at least each person in the country had a metal bowl of rice to start with. [Actually that's not really a comprehensive explanation...] If compared with India, we can already see that this is something that is not being enforced. On the one hand, we do see extensive economic development, but on the other hand, it is just one sided, because India still has enormous social problems to deal with. The fact is, it’s not that China still does not have its own problems to deal with; just perhaps the economic reforms going on in China were more thorough than the ones in India.

Either way, we can see that the India’s economic troubles do have their roots in the social system, and perhaps the best way to stabilize the economy is to start with society.

Article link: http://en.m4.cn/archives/2670.html

2 Responses to “Blame the Caste System for India’s poorly developed economy – includes sketch of Chinese vs. Indian social values [The 4th Media]”

  1. Hi Ekaratina,

    Thank you for your article, it was quite interesting. Great blog too.
    If you do not mind, I would like to add my observations. I am conducting a series of interviews with Indian businessmen and entrepreneurs on a daily basis, and often ask them how to cope with China in the global competitive game.

    An often heard argument is that the two should not always be compared. The two political systems are just too different. Yet, those who did dare to jump into the discussion, ascribed the key difference between both economic structures to the level of governmental involvement. China is what it is because of the state, India is what it is despite the state. India, one said, is made my entrepreneurs.

    I personally believe that while the talent is there, India lacks a strong and efficient government to capitalize on its own people. It is the two-sided coin of democracy. In my view, Chinese policy will not easily hesitate to move one individual to ensure the progress of several. India, however, seems to see itself as different in that sense, and would rather go through a series of procedures to ensure a democratic process.

    Best regards

    • Hi Keon,

      thanks for your comments.

      However, I should point out that this blog is not Ekaratina’s; I’m just relaying her article here. As far as I can tell, she’s a Russian journalism student studying at Tsinghua University in China.

      Regarding comparison of India and China’s political systems, I recommend not following the common Western misperception, absorbed by post-colonial Indian people, that parliamentary democracy is the only kind of democracy there is. Indeed, socialism is otherwise termed “centralized socialist democracy”. When doing this kind of comparison I encourage objectively considering Marxism-Leninist (or Maoist) ideas, philosophical concepts such as utilitarianism, and comparing indices of social well-being as alternatives to whom is certifying or disqualifying whom as a “democracy”.

      In Marxist-Leninist political theory, the Western nations’ political system and that of its colonized offshoots such as India is technically called bourgeois parliamentary democracy, dictatorship of the bourgeois or simply “oligarchy”. Relying on that as the sole representation of democracy is nothing less than a travesty.

      In particular that idea that India “is what it is despite the state” or “made by entrepreneurs” must be objectively rejected as a “free market” capitalist myth. The political dynasticism of the Nehru-Ghandis alone blows that one away; that particular lie is further put to rest with the very recent scandals of gigantic-scale Indian government-based cronyism and monopoly corruption in telecommunications. This one example, which is merely one sector of the Indian oligarchical economic system, show that the highest levels of state and business are jointly carving up whole sections of the Indian economy together — entrepreneurialism may flourish in its way, and it some may perceive that as good cover for an essentially corrupt, classist and exploitational system, but it has a decidedly minor role in the overall scheme of India.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.