The Post-American World - Fareed Zakaria [68]
Those words, which Indians of a certain generation know by heart, were spoken by the country’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, just after midnight on August 15, 1947, when Britain transferred power to India’s Constituent Assembly. Nehru was referring to the birth of India as an independent state. What is happening today is the birth of India as an independent society—boisterous, colorful, open, vibrant, and, above all, ready for change. India is diverging not only from its own past but also from the paths of other countries in Asia. It is not a quiet, controlled, quasi-authoritarian country that is slowly opening up according to plan. It is a noisy democracy that has finally empowered its people economically.
Indian newspapers reflect this shift. For decades their pages were dominated by affairs of the state. Usually written in cryptic insiders’ jargon (PM TO PROPOSE CWC EXPANSION AT AICC MEET), they reported on the workings of the government, major political parties, and bureaucratic bodies. A small elite understood them, everyone else pretended to. Today, Indian papers are booming—a rare oasis of growth for print journalism—and overflowing with stories about businessmen, technological fads, fashion designers, shopping malls, and, of course, Bollywood (which now makes more movies a year than Hollywood). Indian television has exploded, with new channels seeming to spring up every month. Even in the news business, the number and variety are bewildering. By 2006, India had almost two dozen all-news channels.5
There’s more here than just glitz and glamour. Consider the response to the 2005 tsunami. In the past, the only response in India worth noting would have been the government’s, which would have involved little more than coordinating foreign aid. In 2005, New Delhi refused offers of help from abroad (one more indication of growing national pride). But the more striking shift was elsewhere. Within two weeks after the tidal wave hit, Indians had privately donated $80 million to the relief effort. Four years earlier, in 2001, it had taken a year to collect the same amount of money after a massive (7.9 Richter) earthquake in Gujarat. Private philanthropy in Asia has typically been a thin stream. When the rich give, they give to temples and holy men. But that seems to be changing. One of India’s richest men, Azim Premji, a technology multibillionaire, has said he will leave the bulk of his fortune in a foundation, much as Bill Gates has. Anil Aggarwal, another self-made billionaire, has donated $1 billion toward setting up a new private university in Orissa, one of India’s poorest regions. Private and nonprofit groups are getting involved in health care and education, taking on functions that should be the responsibility of the state. By some measures, more than 25 percent of schools and 80 percent of the health system in India now lie outside the state sector.6 The software firm Infosys Technologies has started its own corporate foundation to provide rural areas with hospitals, orphanages, classrooms, and schoolbooks.
All this sounds familiar. In one key regard, India—one of the poorest countries in the world—looks strikingly similar to the wealthiest one, the United States of America. In both places, society has asserted its dominance over the state. Will that formula prove as successful in India as it has in America? Can society fill in for the state?
The Necessity for Government
The Indian state is often maligned, but on one front it has been a roaring success. India’s democracy is truly extraordinary. Despite its poverty, India has sustained democratic government for more than sixty years. If you ask the question “What will India look like politically in twenty-five years?” the answer is obvious: “As it does today—a democracy.” Democracy makes for populism, pandering, and delays. But it also makes for long-term stability.
India’s political system owes much to the institutions