Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Profile: Pratap Bhanu Mehta is president of New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Policy Research, and is a member of the National Security Advisory Board and the World Economic Forum’s Global Governance Council. His areas of research include political economy, constitutional law, governance and international affairs.
There is widespread consensus that India does not have a political culture propitious for business freedom. It fares poorly across all global indicators that measure ease of doing business. The daily uncertainty, arbitrariness, obstruction and degrading humiliation that anyone trying to honestly do business in India faces is living proof of an institutionalised hostility to business. But contrary to widespread perception, the main source of this hostility is not just the state. The evolution of Indian capitalism itself is in large measure responsible for it. The bourgeoisie of this country has not come of age; when it complains it squeals more like a sulking child than a confident class. Instead, it needs to ask hard questions about why India is less pro-business.
When the history of India’s reforms is written, scholars will blame their slow pace on many factors: The vested interests of the state, the inability of politics to take economic arguments seriously, the anxieties of the middle classes that continue to depend on the state, the complexities of policy in an agrarian society, the wages of populism and the inherited baggage of socialist illusions. But one influence that will stand out is that of India’s capitalist classes. For it is now palpably clear that Indian capitalism, despite the developments of the 1990s, is the biggest obstacle to further economic reform. Individual capitalists are undermining the long-term prospects of a free economy for their own immediate short-term gain.
One of the principle objectives of reform is to reduce the discretionary power of the state so that the ground rules regulating economic transactions are open, clear, predictable, competitive and fair. Licences and production controls were only one aspect of this discretionary power; tax exemptions and a plethora of other regulations are its other facets. But apart from production, the government has to regulate industry on labour issues, environmental concerns, land permission and so forth. It is wishful thinking to suppose that you can have capitalism that is not thus controlled. The question is whether the regulation is sensible and predictable. The government often has its own interests in an absurdly regulated or an over-regulated but under-governed system. But Indian capital, rather than collectively fighting for rational regulation, spends its energies extracting its own form of rent from this misregulation. Industry uses inordinate resources in keeping its exemptions intact or manipulating rules to its advantage. While rational from the point of view of particular entrepreneurs, cumulatively, the politics of exemption-seeking impedes reforms. It reinforces the view that the function of the state is not to set fair rules, but to dole out selective benefits. Indian industry still inhabits a world of deals rather than rules.
Capitalism survived in most places, in part, by socially legitimising itself. It was able to, for all its vicious faults, present itself as a perpetual innovation machine introducing new products and efficiencies, a source of expanding revenues that the state could then use for other social purposes, a mine of new knowledge that expanded the frontiers of technology.
Check out our Festive offers upto Rs.1000/- off website prices on subscriptions + Gift card worth Rs 500/- from Eatbetterco.com. Click here to know more.
(This story appears in the 23 August, 2013 issue of Forbes India. To visit our Archives, click here.)
To alleviate poverty in India, governance must be really decentralized with will and wisdom. Every state in India should have their own currency.
on Oct 23, 2013Supermarkets or Boardrooms; Politicians or Commoners- Indians love deals. We are proud of a bargain on a kilo of onions rather than support towards establishing the robust infrastructure that can keep prices within bounds so every common man can buy them. The idea of selfish gains is well entrenched in our way of life; so much so that even governement policies or even traditional business is done with the same ethics. Until you hit a road block while doing business, rule books and policies never matter. If the going is smooth, it has always been \'aapna kaam banta; bhad mein jaye janta...\'
on Aug 20, 2013It is probably the sign of times, of angst about economic prospects, that Mr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta has now concluded that something is terribly wrong with the mindset of the capitalists in India, and that the capitalism that we see in India has emerged as one that fleeces the State, and the nation. Not too long ago, a little over 2 years, the Supreme Court in two historic judgments, one banning the use of SPOs (or commonly referred to as Salwa Judum), and the other on the issue of prosecution of Mr. Hassan Ali, who had been charged with owing the State Rs 60,000 to 80,000 crores, and yet the Enforcement Division had done little to investigate for next four years. In both the judgments, the SC had lamented the rise of what it called \"predatory capitalism\". Mr. Mehta\'s take at that time was that the critique by the Court would have been amusing but for the fact that it has far reaching consequences. At that time I thought that his comment was both intemperate, and revelatory of the Delhi mindset - that it knows everything. Yet, much that the Supreme Court had written was prescient about what Mr. Mehta has come to now conclude. In neither of those two judgments did the Sc advocate a return to Nehruvian Socialism, but very poignantly underscored the acute divergence of imperatives of constitutional governance as stated in the Constitutional text, and the practice of misgovernance. In Ram Jethmalani v Union of India, the Court had remarked that the State had become a \"soft state\" where the law makers, the law keepers and the law breakers were in an unholy alliance. In Nandini Sunder v State of Chattisgarh, the Court had remarked very exasperatedly that \"tax breaks for the rich, and guns for the poor\" was hardly conducive to long run stability. I can only hope that Mr. Mehta would go back and reread those two judgments, and reflect on his own role in critiquing them rather churlishly. Nevertheless it is good to see Mr. Mehta return back to his days of scholarship when he wrote \"Burden of Democracy\" and turn his back on his days writing apologia for misgovernance towards the late 2000s. Welcome back the real Mr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta. We missed you for nearly half a decade or more now when you had been seduced by the rhetoric of the politico-business class.
on Aug 19, 2013Indian Business means fleecing the Government and making profits may be with the exception of Tatas,and very few others. In this fleecing,which ultimately means honest Tax payers,politicians to a very great extent and babus to smaller extent are all hand in glove.Any new rule or law means more avenues for extra chai paani for lower rung!
on Aug 16, 2013Very good analysis-correctly sums up the situation. The examples are there for all to see-difficult to name any Indian manufacturing company with world class design or an IT company which has successfully transformed itself into a world class IT product company....
on Aug 15, 2013Interesting viewpoint and a point that I think applies to many emerging markets which continue to have inconsistent policy regimes in some sectors - 3-4 specific examples would really help bring it to light though.
on Aug 14, 2013I disagree. One of the principle objectives of reform is to reduce the discretionary power of the CENTRAL government and its skewed tax collection policies. We cant have high income generating states funding the poor over-populous corrupt states with their fancy welfare schemes. If the ground rules regulating economic transactions are open, clear, predictable, competitive and fair; then Central government has to stop playing big daddy and stick its nose into defense, foreign affairs etc.
on Aug 14, 2013The biggest illustration of above mention issues is 2G spectrum allocation, alleged Wadra land deal and recent gas pricing in favour of big corporates or some particulars individuals. Those who have access to corridor of state, never wants the licence raj to be reduces. In recent years, I have never seen or heard of Reliance expressing dissatisfaction against any wrong or unnecessary rules of government and consequence of this, Small or new players never gets fair play ground. Both government and big corporates and preferred individual never wants to loose control over it.
on Aug 15, 2013