Politics and ideas of development

The chapter opens with a case from Orissa (now Odisha): the state wants to let companies build steel plants on land rich in iron ore. Each group sees it differently:

• the state government: investment, jobs and revenue;
• the companies: profit from the ore;
• the tribal people living there: losing their land, homes and way of life;
• environmentalists: damage to forests, water and air;
• the Central government: the national economy, and fairness to all.

So 'development' means different things to different people. An industrialist and an Adivasi do not mean the same thing by it.

Such decisions weigh the interests of one group against another, and of today's people against future generations. That is why they are political decisions, to be made through democratic debate, and cannot be left to experts alone.

After independence, development was often understood as becoming modern, more like the industrialised West: factories, cities, science and technology.

There were two main models in the world:

• the liberal-capitalist model of the US and western Europe: private businesses and free markets;
• the socialist model of the USSR: the state owns industry and plans the economy.

Many Indian leaders, including Nehru, were impressed by the Soviet model, which had turned a backward country into an industrial power quickly. But India did not copy either model fully.

In political language, the 'Left' usually means those who favour the poor and state control of the economy; the 'Right' means those who favour free markets and less state control. There were also debates on whether to put industry or agriculture first.