The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity

Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision for a classless India, inspired by Tennyson’s forward-looking verse, was an ambitious one that remained unrealized in his lifetime, with subsequent progress being disappointingly slow. The battle against class divisions in India has weakened, overshadowed by a lack of political, economic, and social attention. New privileges reinforce class barriers, complicating the struggle against inequality. Recognizing class isn’t the sole source of disparity is critical, as gender, caste, and other divisions also contribute significantly. Decades ago, gender inequality was largely ignored due to an overwhelming focus on class, but this has since changed, with increasing awareness of gender and other disparities.

However, understanding how these disparities interact is key. They are not merely additive but interdependent, with class inequality exacerbating other forms such as gender discrimination. This calls for an integrated understanding of injustice, considering class’s amplifying effect on other inequalities. Furthermore, interventions against class inequality can inadvertently reinforce it, which is akin to friendly fire, necessitating a reevaluation of strategies and the need to address class not just in isolation but in conjunction with other disparities.

The pervasive influence of class is evident in the intersection of gender, caste, and community-based inequalities. For instance, gender inequality in South Asia is stark, with women, Sen states, of higher classes achieving prominence while their less privileged counterparts suffer. Caste disparities are intensified by poverty, and caste-based violence often has class dimensions. Likewise, communal violence disproportionately affects poorer individuals within targeted communities. The class dimension of such violence is often overlooked due to a focus on communal identity. Thus, while class is not the only source of disparity, its interplay with other forms of inequality necessitates a dual recognition: class is significant on its own and as a factor that intensifies other inequalities.

Inequality manifests in various forms such as economic poverty, illiteracy, political disempowerment, and lack of healthcare, which are not congruent in incidence and can mislead if considered solely as income poverty. Different types of deprivation can reinforce each other, particularly at the extremes of society, highlighting a dividing line between the haves and have-nots that is crucial for class analysis. This division is not only a rhetorical device but also a diagnostic tool that can deepen social, economic, and political understanding. The concurrence of deprivations underscores class as a significant source of inequality. However, some distributional institutions designed to alleviate inequality may inadvertently exacerbate it for those at the very bottom, a phenomenon referred to as friendly fire. This is evident in India’s public policy, where actions to overcome class barriers sometimes end up reinforcing them.

As illustrated by food policy and hunger, Sen argues, India has successfully prevented famine since independence but fails in addressing endemic hunger and undernutrition, performing worse than sub-Saharan Africa. Despite large food grain stocks, these do not reach the impoverished due to high support prices that benefit producers but keep the food out of reach for poor consumers. The subsidy system also favors medium and large farmers more than undernourished consumers, calling for a radical class analysis. High food prices, while aiding some poor farmers, have a regressive effect on the distribution of resources, particularly impacting the extremely poor. This creates a friendly fire situation, where policies intended to be equitable inadvertently perpetuate significant injustices against many.

Primary education in India is marred by multiple deficiencies, including financial constraints leading to insufficient and poorly equipped schools. The Pratichi Trust study revealed further issues like teacher absenteeism, particularly in schools serving Scheduled Caste or Tribe students, where 75% faced this issue. Teacher unions, once defenders of teacher rights, now seem to resist accountability, Sen argues, exacerbating inequities, especially as teacher salaries have risen substantially, creating a social divide between teachers and underprivileged students. Teacher remuneration has become comparatively high, distancing them further from the poorer families they serve. These developments thwart Nehru’s vision of surmounting class barriers, as institutions intended to bridge disparities end up reinforcing them. However, solutions are suggested, such as empowering parents in school management and utilizing surplus food for societal benefit. Effective policy reform, with an acute understanding of class impacts, is crucial for addressing these entrenched inequalities.

Gender inequality presents itself in various forms, with disparities evident in different areas of life, impacting countries worldwide irrespective of economic status. While some countries like Japan do not exhibit significant gender bias in healthcare or education, a noticeable gap in leadership roles demonstrates that men have a distinct advantage. The concepts of “well-being” and “agency” are pivotal in understanding these inequalities. Well-being relates to the quality of life, while agency refers to the capacity to pursue personal objectives, which can be unrelated to one’s well-being. Women’s movements have evolved from a focus on well-being to emphasizing the importance of women’s agency in enacting social transformation.

Gender inequality is multifaceted, with survival, natality, access to facilities, ownership, household responsibilities, and violence as different “faces” of this issue. “Survival inequality” is highlighted by the higher mortality rates of women in certain regions due to gender-biased healthcare, leading to a significant number of “missing women.” For instance, estimates from 1986 suggested over 100 million women were “missing,” and this number has likely increased since then. Natality inequality manifests through sex-specific abortions, driven by a societal preference for boys and facilitated by technologies that enable prenatal sex determination. This has led to skewed birth ratios in countries like China and South Korea, and even in India, particularly in its northern and western states. The Indian government’s efforts to ban sex determination tests have been undermined by poor enforcement, resulting in continued sex-selective abortions.

Educational inequality is also a concern, with fewer schooling opportunities for girls, especially in Asia and Africa. This contributes to their exclusion from politics, commerce, and social participation, thus undermining their well-being and agency. The enduring influence of historical gender roles, even subtly in developed countries, continues to skew professional and educational opportunities.

Despite instances of female political leadership in South Asia and elsewhere, these do not negate the presence of gender bias. Ownership inequality, particularly in land, significantly affects women’s economic participation. Exceptions like Kerala’s matrilineal inheritance system show how property rights can enhance women’s roles in society. In households, gender biases are perpetuated through an unequal division of chores and benefits, which is often misrepresented as a division of labor but is more accurately an accumulation of labor on women. Additionally, the misperceptions about household tasks, such as those evident in nutrition guidelines, reflect a misunderstanding of their effort and value. Additionally, violence against women remains a brutal and widespread issue across societies. The attitudes that condone or dismiss such violence need changing, as they exacerbate the gender inequality.

Empirical evidence points out improving women’s education, property rights, employment, and independent income significantly reduces gender inequalities in well-being and survival. Women’s economic participation, education, property rights, and literacy converge to enhance their agency, fostering independence and empowerment. Women earning independently influence household decision-making, and employment outside the home symbolizes their contribution to family prosperity, elevating their societal status. Education informs decisions and strengthens functionality, while property ownership boosts influence in family and societal decisions.

Women’s agency also has an influence on child mortality and fertility rates. For example, women’s empowerment, particularly through literacy, has a positive effect on child survival in India, whereas the effects of women’s employment are mixed due to the increased burden of domestic responsibilities. However, both employment and literacy contribute to reducing gender disparities in child survival rates. The agency of women is linked to a decline in birth rates, with Kerala’s below-replacement-level fertility rates serving as a non-coercive example, largely attributed to women’s education and agency. The relationship between women’s literacy and fertility rates suggests educated women opt for fewer children and have a better grasp of family planning. The Barker thesis also links gender inequality and maternal undernourishment to increased adult disease incidences, indicating a chain of health consequences starting from female deprivation. Lastly, women’s agency extends beyond personal well-being to enhance overall societal quality of life and economic success. The work of organizations like the Grameen Bank exemplifies the positive societal impact of women’s empowerment.

Nuclear weapons, Sen argues, with their daunting power and the prestige they carry, are often glorified, much like the displays of might in ancient epics. Yet, there remains a question of whether they truly enhance a nation’s power or undermine its moral integrity and safety. The case of India’s nuclear policy brings this dilemma to the forefront. Rabindranath Tagore’s early 20th-century reservations about the spiritual cost of military power echo through the country’s contemporary moral and practical concerns surrounding its military ambitions.

India’s nuclear journey, marked by covert tests in Pokhran in 1974 under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and more overt ones in 1998 during the BJP government, illustrates a pivotal change in the nation’s stance and the public’s perception. The BJP, despite its minority position, managed to spearhead India’s nuclear assertion, aided by strategic alliances with various political entities. This shift in policy has been both romanticized by some at home and criticized by the international community and some domestic factions. The visceral impact of nuclear prowess, famously embodied by J. Robert Oppenheimer’s reaction to the first atomic explosion, is countered by the mixed feelings within India post its nuclear tests. The country seems to grapple with its nuclear identity, desiring the status nuclear weapons confer yet reluctant to embrace their potential use, a sentiment echoed by writers like Arundhati Roy.

When assessing the benefits of India’s nuclear ventures, the discussion pivots to the nation’s quest for global respect and strategic upper hand, particularly against Pakistan and China. Yet, these aspirations may have compromised India’s conventional military edge, especially as Pakistan dismisses a no first use nuclear stance, heightening tensions between the two countries. The nuclear brinksmanship has limited India’s military strategies, as seen during the Kargil conflict, which resulted in substantial casualties and financial loss. Moreover, the 1998 tests seemed unnecessary given India’s established nuclear presence since 1974, inadvertently giving the impression of equal nuclear footing with Pakistan.

Pakistan, on the other hand, had clear scientific reasons for its nuclear tests, and India’s actions provided them with the political justification they needed. The aspirations of countering China and securing a permanent UN Security Council seat remained unachieved, as China took on a role of regional stability and the global community did not acknowledge India’s self-perceived equivalence with the nuclear-armed superpower.

The Indian leadership’s miscalculation of ignoring its non-nuclear strengths and overvaluing nuclear leverage is critiqued. A strategic posture of nuclear restraint is advocated for by Sen, which could enhance India’s diplomatic influence globally, promoting a vision of denuclearization. It is posited that India’s real interests are better served by a stable and economically thriving Pakistan, with a preference for civilian governance over military conflict, challenging the notion that nuclear armament is the ultimate means to national security and prosperity.