On the other, there are signs of deepening political unrest. Repeated political setbacks and mid-term rumblings in the ruling coalition, the agrarian unrest, violence in Nandigram leading to tragic deaths, and the killing of 55 hapless policemen in Chhattisgarh by Maoist guerillas—all these paint a more sombre and distressing picture. Which of these two versions reflects the reality? And what can the society at large, and the wealthy in particular, do to protect the gains of reform and minimise social strife?

Send your comments to the columnist Name Your E-Mail Your Comments

It is now universally acknowledged that the ‘invisible hand’ of the market is a greater force of common good than the benevolence of the rulers. But even 30 years ago, this was not so obvious. I entered government service as a starry-eyed socialist with great faith in the power and intentions of the state. Then, in early 1980s, my stint as special officer of Visakhapatnam Steel Project, then India’s largest public sector project (Rs 8,000 crore), the job of looking after land acquisition, rehabilitation, labour relations and pubic order issues, cured me of my illusions. I learnt to my consternation that the public sector in India is largely the private sector of those in public office, assuring endless opportunities for pelf, privilege, patronage and petty tyranny. Mercifully, things have improved since then, with the progressive expansion of competition and choice. The communications and consumer goods revolution, and accelerated growth are two obvious gains of liberalisation.

But the market cannot be the panacea to all our problems. The state clearly cannot abdicate its responsibility in key sectors without creating opportunities for vertical mobility of the poor. We cannot promote growth at the cost of equity. Even in developed democracies, there is evidence that birth and wealth determine a child’s future much more than talent and hard work. Despite the avowed classlessness of the American society, the bottom quintile of population is finding it harder than ever before to reach the top quintile. Such social stagnation is not only detrimental to harmony but it also undermines growth as the talent and potential of a large section of people are underutilised. The modern state has a vital role in helping fulfil that potential, and preventing avoidable suffering.

But what about the privileged and wealthy? Do they have an obligation to society beyond wealth creation in search of profits? Market fundamentalists may argue that it is glorious to be rich, and greed is good; therefore, pursuit of wealth in self-interest is the best contribution the wealthy can make. But that is not how the capitalist West behaves. The great North American universities of Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Stanford, McGill, Duke, Illinois Institute of Technology and Vassar College were all built through private charities. Smithsonian Museum, and several foundations—Ford, Kellogg, Rockefeller, Mellon, Carnegie and Kresge—all promote public causes with private funds. Those wealth creators understood the best value their money could get, and pursued public causes with vigour.

Market fundamentalists may argue that it is glorious to be rich, and greed is good; therefore, pursuit of wealth in one’s self-interest is the best contribution the wealthy can make. But that is not how the capitalist West behaves

There are three areas in which private fortunes can promote the public good in contemporary India. First, wealthy citizens must work for political transformation. The recent Lok Sabha byelection in Karimnagar (AP) is widely believed to have cost nearly Rs 90 crore for the parties and candidates—mostly for vote-buying. The Chamundeswari (Karnataka) assembly byelection easily holds a record for expenditure, at over Rs 50 crore. In some cases, the vote of an MLA in the Legislative Council election in AP is rumoured to cost Rs 1 crore. These astronomical sums show how politics has become big business, with attendant corruption, cronyism and perversion of justice. The causes of fair competition and wealth creation are bound to suffer in such a political climate. The wealthy would be wise to invest a part of their fortunes in creating new politics for the new generation, and transform politics into a moral endeavour again. Or else, the political rot will devour the robust economy.

Second, education and healthcare need not only public attention but also private funding. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffett dream eliminating all preventable diseases all over the globe, our wealthy entrepreneurs can fund these activities in our own country. If the poor are driven to desperation for want of opportunities, it will hurt the economy at some point. In the collapse of higher education and inadequacy of school education lie future perils.

Finally, many public goods—libraries, museums, parks—can be funded by private charities. Our cities are becoming unlivable concrete jungles and ghettos, even as real estate prices are skyrocketing. If we value our quality of life, we need to improve our own neighbourhoods. Our true legacy is what we leave for posterity in the form of public goods, not the fortunes our children inherit, making them smug and slothful.

It is time that those who, by talent and hard work, or birth and privilege, command vast resources stood up for the larger public good in their own enlightened self-interest.

—Jayaprakash Narayan is the coordinator of Voteindia, a national campaign for political reforms. Email: loksatta@satyam.net.in