Dilemmas of Indian Political Economy: Modern Versus Post-Modern Development

Historically, modernity has been characterised by industrialism and urbanism. The so-called first- and second-world nations have both emphasised industrialisation and urbanisation in their respective development processes. However, that path of modernity now appears problematic to many a developing nation today because, by the time the developing countries caught on with industrialisation and urbanisation, an ecological catastrophe is looming large. Despite discussions over industrialisation 4.0, the only hope of securing livelihoods beyond agriculture appears to be manufacturing and urban industrial development. This chapter argues that countries like India are trapped between the Scylla of agrarian backwardness, which reinforces pre-modern identities and loyalties, and the Charybdis of environmental destruction and cataclysm. The way out, as the argument goes, is skill-based silicon capitalism and service sector-led development, which is what we are witnessing anyway. This alternative, however, seems to reinforce the same pre-modern loyalties and identities that industrialism supposedly rids people of. Also, urbanisation with the service sector and without industrialisation seems to be leading to exponential inequalities in society. Both classical Marxian theory and Modernisation theory in the context of developing country politics argue in favour of orthodox modernist approaches to industrialisation and urbanisation, which today appear inadequate in the context of ecological crises and increasing inequalities. Moreover, a large section of people also appear to be irrelevant in skill-oriented capitalism. Thus, we have a development of service sector, skill-oriented industries, which exclude a major section from participating in economic growth. While global capitalism adapted itself to the changing conditions quickly by large-scale exclusion of people from the growth process and economic opportunities, those who are excluded face an acute dilemma as to whether to believe in modernist orthodox approaches to industrialisation and urbanisation. The only solution to this dilemma lies in recognising the fact that it is capitalism that destroys ecology, not ordinary people. Those who critique this dilemma need to overcome the misconception that socialist modernism would be as bad as capitalist modernism, as the history of both the Soviet past and Chinese present shows. The path to ecological sustainability and social equality is through adopting critical modernism that is both aware of its past limitations and yet does not jeopardise the achievements of modernity in India and elsewhere.