On the eve of the 2019 elections, Ruchir Sharma, the chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley, expressed his disappointment for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a New York Times column. According to Sharma, beneath the Modi rhetoric of “minimum government, maximum governance” lay a Bernie Sanders-like socialism including a welfare splurge, which disappointed a free-marketeer like him who expected a Reagansque redux of reform and small state. In a subsequent book, he ascribes Modi’s socialism to electoral exigencies instead of philosophical moorings.
Sharma’s analysis is partly true. In a country where three-fourths of the population is either facing acute poverty or dependent on agriculture that is contingent upon the grace of rain gods, welfare spending becomes imperative rather than a choice. Hence, when American political scientist James Manor asked P.V. Narsimha Rao who his role model was, he intuitively named social democrat Willy Brandt, the German Chancellor whose economics was animated by expanding both private capitalism and welfare spending. Astute politicians like Rao and Modi, both boasting a humble background, understand social welfare as a fait accompli in India. While Modi never publicly espoused the likes of Brandt as his hero, his former chief troubleshooter and strategist, the late Arun Jaitley, alluded to this balance: “Being pro-poor and pro-business are not mutually exclusive.”
But what makes a government pro-business? The Ruchir Sharmas sitting in global capitals are much more ambitious in their ask from what is termed as a right-wing government in India. They can grudgingly countenance an increasing welfare spending so far as reforms remain on track. Lesser taxes, divestment, and minimum state interference start their wish list followed by a range of expectations. Reagan and Thatcher personify their ideas of economic governance, and hence, they sum up their pro-business laundry list by citing these conservative British and American giants.
The lack of an Indian Reagan is partly due to electoral reasons but also partly due to the lack of an intellectual ecosystem that produces Reaganomics. President Reagan enacted policies that incubated in the American conservative movement for decades. The likes of the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation prepared the fine print that was impregnated with political will before those policies were finally conceived. Reagan was a heavy consumer of Friedmanite worldview even before he considered running for the presidency. However, it was The Heritage Foundation, headed by Edwin Feulner, that injected conservative principles and policies through a 1000-odd pages prescription-laden manual, which encompassed a potential policy outlook for all major US cabinet departments and federal agencies. To see these policies through, the Foundation manned key political appointments with suitable conservatives.
Thatcher’s story is no different. Her two steady sources of prescriptions were the Institute of Economic Affairs and then-inchoate Center for Policy Studies. Sir Keith Joseph, another Friedmanite and founder of CPS, is considered the most significant influence on Thatcher while she was in office. He chose to be the Secretary of State for Industry in the Thatcher administration and kicked off the divestment program in Britain on an unprecedented scale.
Coming back home, where are Modi’s Edwin Feulner and Keith Joseph? Where are BJP’s Heritage Foundation and Center for Policy Studies? Surely, Sangh has affiliate organisations working on economic policies—Swadeshi Jagran Manch (focuses on indigenous economic development), Bharatiya Vitta Salhakar Samiti (for finance and taxation professional), Laghu Udyog Bharati (for small and medium enterprises), and Sahkar Bharati (for cooperatives). These organizations, more than producing an economic canon that defines the Indian right, have mostly served as a feedback loop for RSS and BJP. Something that comes closest to a CPS is Vivekanda International Foundation in terms of personnel, but its impact on policy is not that evident.
Economics, it seems, is barely on the mind of even modern Hindutva ideologues. For example, BJP MP Swapan Dasgupta in his book Awakening Bharat Mata curated two dozen essays by the pantheon Indian right would like to venerate. From historian R.C. Majumdar to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and current Sangh ideologue S. Gurumurthy, it features the writings of who’s who. The anthology attempts to collate and create a philosophical canon sans a single essay on economic thought.
Another BJP MP, Subramanian Swamy, now a little sidelined politically, produced his version of ‘constitutional Hindutva’ in his book The Ideology of India’s Modern Right outlining five dimensions that suggest how Hindutva can exist within a constitutional framework. To his credit, Swamy, an old free-market warhorse and professional economist, sporadically mentions minimalist state as a governance desideratum. His subsequent work Reset makes a modest attempt to add to his earlier work using the framework of Integral Humanism of Pandit Dindayal Upadhyaya but falls short of adumbrating a complete economic program.
The illustrations of two oft-visible ideologues broach the lack of clarity and focus on economic thought in the broader Hindutva intellectual imagination. Their relevance to and influence on policy, if at all, remain questionable. Somehow, the Indian right, too preoccupied to parry itself from secular salvos, have failed to produce an ecosystem that can moor itself in a coherent economic philosophy. Such an ecosystem has to function outside of the party in the quiet, away from the rough and tumble of incessant elections.
Finally, such an intellectual ecosystem not only incubates policies but reconciles economics with other priorities of the movement. When Tory Brexiteers faced the challenge of squaring business interests with their Euroscepticism, the policy ecosystem outside the party salvaged them. Through its extensive outreach, it also brought on board scores of businesses who otherwise saw Brexit as detrimental to their trade.
Ruchir Sharma is correct to predict that India would never have its Reagan or Thatcher. In toto import of Western economic conservatism would be both unsuitable and undesirable. Given electoral exigencies, an occupant of 7 Lok Kalyan Marg would never be able to sign-up for it either. India would need a cocktail of Sanders and Reagan is a given. The Reagan part of it still remains undefined, and to an extent, unimagined. It is high time for this intellectual vacuum to be filled by the Indian right drawing from two ancient ideals: Sarve sukhinah santuh (prosperity for all) and making India vishwaguru (a leading major economy).
Chirayu Thakkar is a Visiting Fellow at the Stimson Center, Washington DC. The views expressed are personal.
Ruchir Sharma is correct to predict that India would never have its Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. In toto import of Western economic conservatism would be both unsuitable and undesirable. Given electoral exigencies, an occupant of 7 Lok Kalyan Marg would never be able to sign-up for it either. India would need a cocktail of Sanders and Reagan is a given.