Amartya Sen’s dilemma

The global thinker is finding it hard to impress his own countrymen

Amartya Sen’s dilemma
Recently, Professor Amartya Sen delivered a talk on the current situation in India at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Increased intolerance and extremism against minorities, especially Muslims, killing and violence over eating beef, a ban on cow slaughter, violence against Dalits and  especially the Modi government’s response to these developments, have raised questions about India’s democratic secularist credentials and the ‘shining India’ narrative. Professor Sen always links his work to and uses argument from the rich sub-continental history to support his economic theory.

Of late, he has been subject of, and is engaged in, interesting domestic debates in India. One such debate is with his fellow countryman and a long-time rival, Columbia University economist Jagdish Baghwati. Baghwati supports a pro-growth policy, focusing solely on economic growth, and arguing that other things, such as social development, come later as fruits of economic progress. Baghwati is supported in the debate by his fellow Columbia economist and prodigy Arvind Panagariya. Panagariya returned from Columbia to India under the Modi government to become the Vice Chairman of the National Institution for Transforming India in Aayog, which the Indian Prime Minister himself chairs. It is his replacement of India’s famous and powerful Planning Commission. On the other hand, Sen supports a pro-development policy rooted in his most celebrated work ‘Development as freedom’, where human development is an integral part of economic progress. Sen was one of the close associates of late Pakistani economist Mahbubul Haq when the latter came up with the UN Human Development Index (HDI), which remains the key yardstick to measure contemporary human social progress. The venue of Sen’s talk, Bhagwati’s turf Columbia University, was also unusual.

Contrary to the western hype around Prime Minister Modi’s leadership, Professor Sen never had high expectations of him. He said that there was no failure on part of Modi. Modi’s affiliation with the RSS and its ideology since his youth is something he has never hidden.

According to Sen, India’s main distinction from Pakistan was its so-called secular credentials. However, with a ban on beef eating and the ensuing violence against minorities, those credentials have been compromised and “that is a big fall.” The Dadri tragedy of last year, when a violent crowd lynched a Muslim for allegedly eating beef, will  “stay with India for a very long time.”

While these developments have been taken as a big surprise by the western media, Professor Sen saw it a result of something “long in the making” and not only linked to Prime Minister Modi’s election. For him, India’s failure to invest in healthcare and education are key to its current dilemma. Unlike many other progressing nations, the Indian government abdicated social sector responsibilities, especially investments in health and education. There are across-the-board examples of governments investing in education and healthcare, both in communist models like China, Cuba, and Vietnam, or capitalist societies like Singapore and Republic of Korea.  Sen has evaluated this in his recent book “An Uncertain Glory”, which shows India lagging behind in social progress. As a result, India has the highest ratio of private healthcare practice in the world.

It would be apt to apply Sen’s observations on lack of public sector investment in education and healthcare in most of South Asia. Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen increased dependence on privatized education and healthcare available mostly to higher income groups – a contributor to rising inequalities and intolerance.

The 2015 UNDP Human Development report places India at 130, Pakistan at 147, and Bangladesh at 142 among the 188 countries listed in the report. South Asia as a region has a lower HDI (0.607) than the Arab region (0.686) and just above Sub-Saharan Africa (0.518).

Health and education are critical elements of HDI and less than satisfactory outcomes are evident by budgetary allocations. India spends 4%, Pakistan 2.8% and Bangladesh 3.7% of their GDP for public expenditure on health – much less than the average 4.3% for South Asia. For education, India has a public expenditure of 3.8%, Pakistan 2.5%, and Bangladesh 2.2% of their respective GDPs. The region’s average is 3.5% and that of developing countries is 4.7%.

It is an irony that Sen, with his Nobel prize and a global prestige, is struggling to draw attention to basic social planning lacuna in his own country.