This is the text of the lecture that I had delivered at a national symposium titled “Only HR – Driving Global Competitiveness”. Organized by Insignia.
“When I was a young boy at school, I read about the British historian E.P. Thompson’s prophecy, which claimed that India would be ‘the most important country for the future of the world’. I was a bit sceptical and perhaps a bit confused back then. And today, as we speak, Indians constitute a whopping 16.7% of the world’s population and I have no doubt in my mind that the choices that a billion individuals make will surely resonate around the world.
When Insignia asked me to talk about Demographic Dividends and asked me to examine whether it is a myth or a reality, I thought it would be a great opportunity to empirically verify the truth in Thompson’s prophecy. And so, this lecture is a rather personalized attempt at such verification. It is very subjective and I hope you find it informed and interesting.
In the recent past, the debate about the relation between population change and economic growth has taken an added importance, especially in the developing world. Experts have been debating about this issue and there are a multitude of interesting perspectives that one can gather. But broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought.
On the one hand there are those – the ‘population pessimists’ - who argued that high fertility and rapid population growth will inhibit economic progress. And this was primarily the thought process that had provided the rational for funding the family planning programmes in India in the 60’s and seventies. And on the other hand, there are those – the ‘population optimists’ – who argue that demography provides a window of opportunity to increase output per capita. Their argument is based on the fundamental premise that a large population size promotes economic growth by furnishing abundant human and intellectual capital and also by increasing the market size. The most quoted examples in favour of this argument are the economic miracles of the East Asian Tigers and the economic boom in Ireland.
However, a working paper presented By David Canning at the Harvard’s Centre for International development has argued that population size in isolation from other factors has little impact on economic performance. And today I would like to adopt this argument to the Indian context and examine the issue of demographic dividends vis-à-vis its socio economic indicators. But, as Shashi Tharoor says “any truism about India can be immediately contradicted by another truism about India”.
So, I wondered how I could present a synergistic perspective of this country, which has educated the world’s second largest pool of trained scientists and engineers but still has 36% of its population illiterate? I wondered how I could present a synergistic perspective of this country, which invents a greater quantity of software for the U.S. computer manufacturers than any other country in the world, but has four out of five citizens scratching a living from the soil? I wondered how I could present a synergistic perspective of a country which is the tenth Industrialized nation in the world and the sixth nation to have gone into outer space but yet does not have clean drinking water for many of those who live in its villages?
Today, when the macroeconomic indicators indicate an progressive India, economic growth seems to be a given. In a scenario where national income and the per capita income have shown a steady increase in the past few years, I am tempted to conclude that Demographic dividends are a reality. But, the more pertinent question, I feel we all need to ask is not whether an emergent India can reap these demographic dividends. Rather, WHO is reaping these demographic dividends?
Sixty years after Independence, macro economic growth, led by economic liberalization has shown a positive trend. But, its benefits are not reaching everyone. Growth has not been inclusive. There has been an enormous churn, brought about by faster economic growth, globalization and technology, but inequitable distribution of income and wealth has widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
At a time when the economy has become more open and more competitive, we have to care, we have to belong and we have to be involved, because “an India that denies itself to some Indians could end up being denied to all Indians” And therefore, it is in the interest of all stakeholders - The Government, Private enterprise, NGO’s, Civil society and the Media to work towards ensuring that the benefits of an economically emergent India are equally distributed so that growth becomes equitable and therefore sustainable.
To make growth sustainable, I believe that it is important to go back to the basics. Primary focus should be on strengthening the core sectors – Education, Agriculture Public health and Infrastructure in rural areas, because that is where the majority of the work force is. This will also ensure that it have its gains in terms of job creation and applicable skill development in rural areas.
It is also imperative that benefits in Education are equally distributed among men and women. Special emphasis should be given towards bridging the gap between the male and female literacy rate. And providing adequate organizational, managerial, and technical support is an imperative. And last but not the least, demographic dividends can be reaped by everyone in an equitable manner only if a good delivery system can be ensured by effective governance and proper planning.
It was not long ago that the French Nobel Laureate Romain Rolland (1866-1944) said “if there is one place on the face of the earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India”. I am glad we are moving in that direction. However, it must be inclusive. Lets work towards it together.”
Germaine Greere in her book, The Female Eunuch, wrote ... “even if he is crushed against his brother in the tube, the average Englishman pretends desperately that he is alone.” This statement Sounds true especially when I commute in the London Underground. At a first, I would have thought it was just the ‘British’ reticence at work. But, as I think a little more about it, there seems to be more to this. I think it is not only the unidentifiable “Englishman” traveling on the London Underground, but also with everyone else on the tube including myself. It’s a strange characteristic that every one who commutes on the London Underground shares.
Instinctively, I would think it has got to do with the strangities of living in a cosmopolitan city. To a certain extent, it is a reflection of how little we trust "others". The "Enforced Cosmopolitanism" of living in a city is often full of insecurities that arise out of our own perceptions of the others. This may be partly because of uncertainties of arising out of our own ignorance of the otherness of the other and Partly, because we fail to intuitively acknowledge such otherness as co-existent and harmonic with our own.
The “Others” bring with them, a sense of curiosity and a sense of intimidation, drawing a line between the “our” and the “other”. A drastic affirmation of "ourness" by the other can only increase a sense of intimidation to the preceptors of such an affirmation. In retrospect, the created perceptions of such divergent otherness of the other, has manifested itself in nasty ways. It has created unseen and unknown ideas of identity and unwanted structures of power, laid the foundations of war and led to the destruction of vast masses of humanity, yet "it is stupefying that society does not revolt as a unit against the very sound of the word "war."
DECENTRALIZED COMMUNICATION AND THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Victoria Carty, in her article, “Technology and Counter hegemonic movements,” argued that the “Internet plays a major role in enhancing and redefining political struggle by providing for a “cohesive organized resistance to corporate culture.” Although it would be hard to deny that “Globalization” and “Digitization” have unveiled a dynamic and striking phase, I wondered if these metaphorical “alternative”, “decentralized” modes of communication, lacking a clear incentive and structure, were indeed powerful, effective and sustainable in fighting the colossal structures of capitalism.
Implicit in the argument is the assumption that dissemination of information by itself would effect change. But given the fact that there is an information overload, information exchange through interconnected networks, runs the risk of becoming meaningless and disempowering. Especially in metaphorical democracies, where global structures of corporate capitalism ferment with traditional structures of feudalism, such mediation can pave the way for twisted interpretation and vested implementation, strengthening the linkages between corruption and power. Hence it is important to distinguish between dissemination of information and the ability to effectively resist things to effect change.
I am by no means suggesting that dissemination of information has not been helpful in enlightening people and shaping public opinion. It is and has been. But how many of us would agree that it has effected change or has achieved its desired goals? Let us consider the War in Iraq as an example. Information was disseminated through “alternative” modes of communication, millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. But the war was prosecuted; the occupation is in full stride. Intervention and activism through decentralized structures run the risk of being ephemeral.
In such an instance, multiple centers of decentralized modes of communication may create parallel layers of localized hierarchy by promoting “activists,” “public thinkers”, and other such self styled messiahs of social good, helping them to accumulate tacit power through the display of self-righteousness. After all, fame is a brand - created, nurtured and cultivated. It would be pertinent to mention that pristinely ideological didactic dogmas professing “perfection” can be lethal prescriptions and “non-conformism” can become a conformist trap without necessarily being useful in dismantling or resisting global structures of vested interests.
As a prisoner of mediated cognition, juxtaposing the apparently right and the apparently wrong, I struggle to find my place in this continuum of conflicting interests.
The violent events that are unfolding all over the world are being dubbed as a prelude to the “clash of civilizations”. But I wonder if “civilizations,” which are based on the very foundations of civility can clash. As the former President of India Shri K.R.Narayanan articulated, “it is not civilizations that clash but barbarism. Civilizations give rise to dialogue, cross fertilization of ideas and the confluence of different streams of mankind.”
Having said that, it is important to take cognizance of the fact that “dissonance between creed and deed is the root of innumerable wrongs in our civilization… which gives institutions and men split personalities.” This requires correction and that can be achieved only through peaceful means and passive resistance, by establishing a harmonic relationship between doctrine and deed.
Misconstructing and integrating barbaric acts of violence to certain cultures or civilizations only lays the foundation for pitting the “our” against the “other.” A discourse on such a constructed dichotomy and clash between the perceived otherness further deepens the chasm. This can have catastrophic consequences. Therefore, such an approach is misconstructed and it is important for us to take cognizance of this, as “it is imperative that, for a better tomorrow, interaction among nations be based on coexistence not conflict, co-operation not confrontation, concord not coercion”.
