- Neo-liberalization had its way.
- I support the basic fabric of India which makes India is the essence of socialism it carries.
- It should make its citizens self-reliant as enshrined in Gandhian socialism.
The advent of the liberalization in the Indian context when P.V. Narsimha Rao opened the economic gates in 1991 was a major step in the opening of what I call a Pandora box. The country that got its very freedom on the ideals of non-violence prospered by Mahatma Gandhi. Still remembering the Poona pact in 1932 where he himself, went on fast till the communal awards were taken back, has neglected its socialism.
What did we get after the opening the economy?
The answer is not all negative. In the initial phase we did succeed in supplying the population with good food choices, with newer clothes and new automobiles, but did we need all those? The day when classical liberalism mounted by Adam smith changed its clothes, the classical phenomenon which was synonymous with progression changed.
Neo-liberalization had its way when the slow but consistent power changed hands and the powerful public sector gave way to the infant private sector. Slowly and steadily what India was, as a Gandhian socialism follower, turned its mask and started becoming a mammoth in the hands of laissez-faire.
India has seen the development of its economy, the world has seen its growth and appreciated but what was hidden behind was its turn from Gandhism.
Being against tneo-liberalization is not what I am here for, but the basic fabric of India which makes India is the essence of socialism it carries.
It should make its citizens self-reliant as enshrined in Gandhian socialism and should deliver the best as it used to. We have turned our blind eye towards the fact that everything is going private and just watching the economy rise. Even the inherent nature of health of being a right to all is discussed on the platform of private partnership. If results are achieved nothing is wrong in that is what the counter argument says, but why in the first place the state fails?
We never were so anxious to involve private players in everything. Is it just the neo-liberalization or the fact that we are killing the Gandhian socialism with the other hand?
In this present scenario of Covid-19, where threat looms on our foreheads.
Where economy is left in shambles, if we just could have focused more on Gandhism and not the liberalization we would have achieved what we did a little sooner. Both the hemispheres are required for the full circle but lately one of them is occupying the other half also. The things are still there to pick up from where we left, if we just have the courage. The recent events showed us what is necessary is generally ignored and if not, stacked more than required.
We defied the very definition of necessary.
Won’t it be enough if everyone just gets the necessaries and then we decide where to focus for growth? I just wonder where does all these things have been written previously, definitely not in texts of liberalization.