Liberalism is a sensibility, not an ideology
Delhi’s metro stations have been a boon for fuel-driven and pedal-pushed rickshaws as disembarking commuters pay a tidy sum for a short ride to their destination. But business at a “hospital station” was rudely interrupted by the arrival of battery-operated rickshaws that ferry visitors for a much lower fare. That forced pedal pushers to slash rates by half for the kilometre ride. Even autorickshaw drivers complained that their earnings had dropped and little was left after paying monthly loan installments. At several other places, e-ricks are now swarming dense city pockets, uncontrolled and unregulated.
Indian rulers have responded in the only way they can, staying comatose. The state government did not take notice till it got a rap from the Supreme Court after which it notified that e-ricks were illegal. And now, competitive populism has taken over—out of power in the province for four terms, the central government has vowed to exempt them from law. Its principal opponent says this is a ploy to grab its supporters. In this political grab-fest, the real issues are obfuscated.
On the other hand, how would a right-of-centre, rules-based and market-oriented system respond? First, it would welcome e-ricks as a smokeless alternative. It would prescribe and enforce their areas of operation, the minimum speed and safety standards. Norms for engine efficiency would be set and the sale of those which do not meet the grade would be blocked. An enlightened government would coach drivers in traffic rules and courteous behaviour, especially with women. Manual tricycles would be replaced over time, and their operators given cheap loans on easy installments to upgrade. Such a system does not drip with breast-beating “compassion”, but would be more respectful of the dignity of the individual and his desire to do well in life, than the one that governs us, which oozes “care” and “concern”, but robs those it is meant to serve.
The same analogy would apply to street food vendors, who make the streets of East Asian cities like Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) and Shanghai so vibrant. A right-liberal establishment would recognise their activities as incubators of enterprise. It would demarcate hawking areas, set and enforce hygiene standards, and provide electricity, water and garbage disposal options. At the moment, hawkers are at the mercy of municipal and police officials who make their livelihoods very uncertain despite generous pats of palm grease.
I give these earthy examples to dispel the notion that advocacy of a right-liberal policy shift is an invitation for a crony-capitalist takeover. Rather, it is meant to encourage people’s initiative. Most political outfits across the country are left-of-centre believers in a strong, meddling state. They may be pro-business, but not necessarily pro-market. When in power, they frame the terms of engagement in such a way that discretion is the rule, not the exception.
Corporate groups themselves have done much to sow suspicion of the private sector. The way cronies manoeuvred to capture 2G telecom licences, grab coal mines, usurp farm land for special economic zones or game infrastructure projects has eroded public trust. Corporate avarice makes political and bureaucratic corruption a less intolerable evil. We need more business leaders who regard enterprise as an endeavour for the common good. Wealth should be regarded as a marker of achievement.
The motive force of liberalism is individual initiative. This presupposes personal liberties, the rule of law and an enabling state. Implicit in this is freedom of enterprise, the right to own property and limited government. Liberalism is a sensibility, not an ideology. It does not operate through formulae. There is no mould that all nations must fit into. The size of government and the latitude given to individual enterprise depend on national contexts, with the caveat that there should be no concentration of power—whether in the state or business corporations—that threatens personal liberties or social good.
Modi’s promise of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ will not become meaningful to a large number of Indians unless he liberalises agriculture. “A livelihood in agriculture does not have to be a promise of poverty,” says this year’s Economic Survey. It will be so long as “the most comprehensive central planning system is in the market for cereals.” Modi must set the farmers free—to buy and sell to whoever they want, across the borders of the country or their own states—and to get market prices. The farmer’s job is to produce. It is the state’s duty to make food affordable to the poor. So the current procurement system must be replaced by one that does not impound grain in excess of requirements, or drives away private trade.
(This story appears in the 22 August, 2014 issue of Forbes India. To visit our Archives, click here.)