To Hegemony and Beyond

"We have, I fear, confused power with greatness."

Stewart L Udall

US Politician, Secretary of the Interior under John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson

The degree of heat in the outside air is stifling. I have not yet traveled 100 meters, and already I am drenched in sweat. Walking home after five consecutive hours of class, two-wheelers and auto-rickshaws maneuver expertly between air-conditioned sedans and overloaded goods carriers, and on either side of Fergusson College Road vendors take blissful refuge in the shade of thin canopies stretched tightly over bamboo supports. Women walk by with their heads covered in scarves, not from modesty, but rather to protect themselves from the pollution and dust that rises from the ground like gunpowder. Students pause briefly for cold coffee, pani puri or coconut water, and the sound of engines revving and horns blaring blend together in an imperfect, disorienting symphony. Where sidewalks exist the gutters are filled with discarded litter, and in many places the sidewalk is interrupted by piles of stones being used to fill in the gaps. Buses pull up along the curb without stopping, and men and women jump on and off while the bus is still moving. In the afternoon heat some of the shopkeepers take a siesta, yet FC Road remains a thriving, lively avenue for all who venture along the bustling shops, cafes, libraries, and universities. This is the setting along which I walk and experience everyday. 

Classes are over for the day, and with the majority of papers behind us it is only a week and a half before our weeklong vacation. As the heat intensifies, absences have increased, and more and more students have complained of exhaustion, nausea, and a substantial reduction in sleep. Lectures seem to go on for hours, and the relentless sun seems to burn brighter everyday. We are nearing the endpoint of our courses, for once we return from our recess we begin our internships or directed research projects, and only two classes will continue to meet. 

Today in Issues in Political and Economic Development we discussed the prospects of India as a superpower. The noticeable rise in Indian economic performance, measured mainly by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is often cited as an indication that India, a nation whose growth is nearly 9% per annum, will ultimately establish itself as a global hegemonic power. The emergence of a global multipolarity (a system of global relations in which there are multiple centers, or poles, of power), would fundamentally alter the nature of international relations, as the United States, no longer the sole dominant hegemony, would be joined by one or more peers equal in economic prowess if not military capability. 

Such a positive trend of economic growth has been observed in India since the early 1990's. During that time, Manmohan Singh (then the Finance Minister and now the Prime Minister) dismantled what was known as the License Raj, a protectionist series of tariff and non tariff barriers that prevented foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) from directly investing in India. This was done to safeguard fledgling domestic industries in order to ensure their competitiveness in the global economic system. The License Raj also mandated compliance to a plethora of bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Government of India, and consequently made investment and the management of business unnecessarily complex. 

Beginning in 1991, Singh began to lessen the stringent requirements of the License Raj, and along with a reduction in bureaucratic restrictions came economic liberalization with external investors. At this time, India experienced tremendous economic growth, a trend that is still continuing to this day. Because of the robust economy, observers worldwide have become increasingly fascinated by India, whose growth is second only to the People's Republic of China. While the Chinese economy still remains larger and is currently growing at a faster rate relative to India's, scholars, and students (such as a certain Chhatrapati Lukeji) have hypothesized that such growth is artificial and unsustainable in the long term. Following this line of thought, China, a de jure Communist state with a de facto capitalist market, is a politically authoritarian state that remains largely opaque to international observers. In contrast, India is, according to its Constitution, is a Sovereign Secular Socialist Democratic Republic. What this translates into in practice is a mixed economy with a nationalized financial sector that is otherwise basically liberalized. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI, or the investment of external actors typically from the private sector in factors of production, i.e., factories, equipment), was initially limited, and there are several prominent MNCs that have tried (and failed) to open up new markets in India (example: Walmart). While a country  whose market could potentially consist of 1.1 billion consumers and whose government remains on increasingly favorable terms with the United States is inconceivably desirable to many MNCs, it is important to note that the current Indian economy is not yet fully mature, but is undeniably in a stage of exceptional economic expansion. 

And so it was that today we discussed the ramifications of India attaining the status of a global economic superpower. It is firstly important to recognize that the term "superpower" itself can have varying definitions. For the purposes of our discussion, we recognized that such status required unparalleled military capability, but has recently shifted toward a greater emphasis on economic influence. Perception is critical for a superpower, as it has visible effects on the behavior of other countries engaging in diplomatic relations with the perceived superpower. In the case of India, we introduced the idea that no country should aspire to become a superpower for the sake of the label, but should rather focus on improving domestic infrastructure and standards of living. In doing so, the intrinsic benefits of such initiatives may lead to that country attaining the status of a global hegemony, but the implicit goal of becoming a superpower is in itself arbitrary and narrowly focused. 

The United States became the global hegemony around the same time as the British Empire became a Commonwealth. Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States was at the peak of its economic industrial output. In addition, the Old Guard of European nations had been decimated by the madman dictator Hitler, and countries in Africa, South Asia, and East Asia were in the midst of struggles for sovereignty. Furthermore, at the time the US was the sole country in the world that held nuclear capabilities. Though the US is still perceived as a hegemony today (some historians argue that the contemporary influence of the US is greater than the Roman Empire was during its zenith), according to Saint Luc's (Chhatrapati Lukeji's European based alter ego) professor in Brussels, at no point in the past or present has US power rivaled that of the immediate postwar period. 

This is not to assert that India is free of its own challenges. Even if it were universally prosperous and fully saturated, India would still have to experience a 400% expansion of its economy to exceed that of its dragon neighbor China, and over 1000% to approach that of the United States. This is overlooking the obvious problems that 35% of the nation remains illiterate, and some 42% of all children suffering from malnutrition can be found in India alone. A sizable and widening gap remains between the wealthy and the poor (an illustration of Gunnar Myrdal's concentration of wealth concept to which I alluded in my response to Miss Chhatrapati Lukeji several weeks ago), and corruption rocks the government all across the board. 

The presentation today featured a graphic depiction of Uncle Sam as a beggar, with the words "former superpower" written as a caption. My objection to this depiction is nothing to do with patriotism, but rather with the inherent fallacy in such a notion. A common thread in the world in international development appears to believe that the minute that one country's economy overtakes another the country with a now lower GDP will either vanish from the international scene or descend into poverty and oblivion. This notion is wrong. If and when the United States GDP is surpassed, the US will still remain a leading global economic influence. Furthermore, given that both of the current challengers to the US are China and India, the standard of living in the US will remain far higher than in either China or India. Status as a global hegemony does not correlate to a higher standard of living, as such countries as Denmark and its Scandinavian counterparts will suggest (the aforementioned countries are perceived to have the highest standards of living in the world, as well as the happiest citizens). I was once conversing with a Hamburger (resident of the German city of Hamburg) about this very topic. He told me to consider Germany (this may be a poor example, as Germany is its undisputed regional power). Though Germany did experience a brief period as the global hegemony, it later declined. Yet today, life is good in Deutschland, and though it is not a global superpower it remains a country with both a high standard of living and robust economic performance. as the Greeks have duly noted. 

India may surpass both China and the United States. Perhaps it will find a way to address the large social divide that it currently faces. Maybe it will become the most economically influential nation in the world. But whatever the case may be, India should not proceed along this train of thought. It should not pursue hegemony for the sake of global dominance, but rather for the welfare of its citizenry. Students should not be encouraged to go into engineering or medicine simply because they are the most lucrative careers; rather they should be encouraged to discover that which most profoundly interests them. It may sound pretentious or patronizing, but India, in my mind, represents the best opportunity of humanity to rethink development and to create a new model that reflects human realities rather than abstract statistics. As India rises, as Gandhian ideas and traditional values disintegrate, my hope for such direction may already be lost. But maybe India will implement radical new ideas that change the narrative of development for the better. Maybe India will find a new system that works at the lowest levels of society as well as the middle. If so, India will prove to the world that for all the figures, strategies, and statistics, the best focus is the people themselves. Though existing quantitative measurements have direct application in economic policy, it is humanity itself that ultimately reflects the true success of economic development.