How India’s Failed And Psychotic Ultrasocialist Experiment, That Has Left 40% Of Its Children Suffering Malnutrition, With The World’s Highest Child Mortality Rate, Could Lead To A Globally Apocalyptic Nuclear War, And Destruction Of The Entire Ozone Layer
“India’s per capita arable land is comparable to that of Italy and Germany. Thus the nation as large as it is in terms of population, is not over populated in terms of its agricultural recourses while compared to its highly developed European counterparts.”
Despite it being the cradle of civilization, by some estimates over 10,000 years old, the question that riddles the mind is, why is India still so poor in the 21st century? After an immense effort for independence, what really went wrong for democratic Republic of India, nearly a century on?
These questions indeed, do still painfully linger. Particularly in light of a Millennium Development Goals report by the United Nations, which indicates that one third of the world’s poorest people live in India. This makes India, the sovereign state, that is home to the largest population of poor people in the history of the planet.
India’s Socioeconomic and Caste Census (SECC) dismally reveals, that in rural areas only 10% of the population have a salaried job, and that just 3.5% of students graduate. The tragic failure is even more sickening, when one discovers that over 600 million citizens of India, have no access to a toilet.
According to the World Bank 99.62% of the nation’s 1.3 billion population live on less than $5 dollars a day. This has become the sad fate of the world’s oldest continuous advanced civilization, and largest democracy, that was formed at a time of great technological and industrial advancement in 1947.
So why did India, fail in adopting successful macro-economic principles throughout the entire 20th century, and the early part of the 21st century, despite having such an illustrious legacy and access on modern industrial means?
To understand the underlying fundamental economic issues, it is worth considering the example, and comparison to another Asian country. South Korea, gained its independence from the Japanese Empire, around the same time India had done so from the British Empire in 1947.
South Korea’s neighbor, North Korea exemplifies the causes of this style of abject and extended poverty, illiteracy and hunger still rife in many Asian states today. The source of cultural and economic failure, rose from the application of communist and what can now be considered extremist socialist economic principles.
These protectionist, anti-competitive economic policies had further implications, as they have caused decades of harm, to the collective creative phycology of the populace. This aggression against evolved, liberal and innovative human culture, was levied via a centralist controlled propaganda and media, which had been under close government control and censorship. Thus, nearly a century on from India's independence today, their exists an incapacity by all political parties to practically apply liberal economic, and social models to stimulate structural growth, in-order to end poverty for good. The entire nation had been censored and shut down for too long.
The comparison of India, and South Korea is rather telling. It highlights the positive development and economic results that could have been achieved, through economic liberalization, even under the duress and threat of nuclear armed conflict.
Both India and South Korea have been burdened, with high military expenditure in their recent histories. South Korea, has had to manage decades of constant animosity with its communist neighbor North Korea. India, since 1947, has been at a constant state of conflict with Pakistan, in regards to the sovereignty of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Both conflicts have posed a threat of nuclear war to the world.
With a population density of 505/sqkm, South Korea is more densely populated than India, which is 385/sqkm. In percentage terms, that equates to South Korea being 31% more populated than India per square kilometer.
India, possesses the world's second largest area of cultivated land for farming and producing food. This is ahead of China, with only the USA having more arable farm land than India. Cultivated land in India, stands at 1,535,063 sqkm, where as South Korea has 18,254 sqkm. These figures compared to ratio to population, give India 788 people per sqkm of cultivated land, South Korea thus faces more stress on its resources having to feed 2,810 people / sqkm of cultivated land.
Despite India, having 350% more cultivated land resources per capita than South Korea, India's economic productivity and growth has been massively stunned. India is one of the worst afflicted nations in regards to child malnutrition.
In 1961, India had a GDP per capita of $121.70, which was approximately 15% more than South Korea’s $105.13. However by 2013, while India’s GDP per capita had grown to $1,498.87, South Korea’s GDP per capita, had catapulted, and reached a staggering $25,976.95 in comparison.
Despite being stressed by far more per capita population, and having far less agricultural resources, how could South Korea not only overtake India's per capita GDP, but exceed it by a colossal 1,600%?
One thing that India did, and still does differently from South Korea is its foreign trade.
Oddly India, the world’s second most populous nation, with a population of over a billion people, had the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as its largest trade partner in 2013. The UAE, had a population of 9 million people at the time.
In contrast India's bordering neighbor, China’s biggest trading partner at the time was the United States of America. Once again more harmoniously relative to its population and geolocation, the Russian Federation’s largest trading partner was the European Union.
In 1960, total trade stood at 11% of GDP for India, and 15% for South Korea.
India's trade grew to around 14% of GDP in the 1990s. By contrast, South Korea’s trade figure had grown far more, to 55% of its GDP by then.
In 2013, South Korea’s foreign trade reached 103% of GDP.
This rapid growth in trade, occurred in South Korea based on the back of liberal economic policies, during a period of dictatorship under General Park Chung-hee, who rose to power following the May 16 coup d’etat of 1961.
After the collapse of India's main cold war ally, the communist Soviet Union in 1991, India was forced to adopt market economic policies, under IMF dictates, in order to borrow emergency finance and stay solvent. Following the application of these forced IMF economic policies, India’s trade eventually rose from 14% to 53% of GDP by 2013.
Prior to 1991, Indian government policy was to close the economy. Under its extreme socialist, and protectionist principals. These were designed to restrict autonomy of business under a preposterously long strip of centralized red tape.
The Indian Rupee could not be converted freely. Foreign imports were restricted by extremely high tariffs, and abstruse import licensing laws. Central government planning, strictly controlled what business and sectors should receive investment. Businesses had to acquire licenses, and approval through a draconian bureaucratic process, to simply invest or pursue development goals.
This cumbersome feat, could mean satisfying up to 80 governmental departments, and agencies prior to approval of one single license, and with the government still deciding on what could be produced, its price point, supply quantity and permitted source of capital. Corruption, under such impossible circumstances was massively rife, with politicians, bureaucrats, and business people engaging in cronyism, election rigging and monetary theft; in this the largest democratic market ever collated in human history in terms of the sheer number of consumers. Thus this was corruption applied on a scale impacting more people, as never witnessed before in all known history.
However in 1991, India's attempted protectionist economy, that was ultimately an ideologically Soviet dependent satellite state collapsed miserably, as its fatally miss-planned economy imploded. As the Soviet Union headed for disintegration, India was faced with bankruptcy. India had been dependent on the Soviet Union, for its exports at the time, and most crucially, it had been dependent on subsidized Soviet oil imports to meet the energy demands of its large population.
In 1991, not only was the Soviet Union heading for a complete crash, but also Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. This sent oil prices sky-rocketing. India, being dependent on net oil imports was doomed, and its cumbersome command style economy could not react rapidly enough. It was a major balance of payment crisis for India. The nation, direly was left with only two weeks of foreign reserves, prior to it going insolvent. India was forced to urgently seek assistance from the IMF.
The opportunity to request assistance from the IMF, had existed since March 1988, when the Managing Director of the IMF, Michael Camdessus, had offered aid to then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, leader of the Indian National Congress (INC) party.
However, Gandhi, who at the time was suffering from a corruption scandal, that revealed he had stolen $9.3 million, in the Boffer arms trade deal with Sweden, chose not to take IMF assistance, as a general election was on the horizon.
Rajiv Gandhi, was grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, who was an ardent and hardened socialist believer. His daughter Indira Gandhi, in 1966 became the 3rd prime minister of India, following the death of India’s second prime minister Lal Shastri, under mysterious circumstances, during a visit to the Soviet Union. Lal Shastri had wished to loosen Nehru’s central planning of the economy, which deviated from the Soviet Union’s desires.
Nehru’s grandfather, Gangadhar Nehru, was Head Magistrate and Chief of Police for Delhi, in the court of Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, up until 1857. His son Motilal Nehru, served his second term as president of the Indian National Congress in 1928, at the time Nehru wrote and indoctrinated his daughter Indira, then just 10 years old, with his extremist socialist beliefs critical of private ownership and alternate governance models, as documented in the following letter.
“Everything in [the early] days belonged to the whole tribe and not to each member separately. Even the patriarch had nothing special to himself. As a member of the tribe, he could only have a share like any other member. But he was the organizer and he was supposed to look after the goods and property of the tribe. As his power increased, he began to think that these goods and property were really his own and not the tribe’s. Or rather he thought that he himself, being the leader of the tribe, represented the tribe. So we see how the idea of owning things for oneself began.
“But as soon as the patriarch started grabbing at the things belonging to the tribe and calling them his own, we begin to get rich people and poor people.
When the patriarch’s office became hereditary, that is son succeeded father, there was little difference between him and a king. He developed into a king and the king got the strange notion that everything in the country belonged to him. He thought he was the country. … Kings forgot that they were really chosen by the people in order to organize and distribute the food and other things of the country among the people. They forgot that they were chosen because they were supposed to be the cleverest and the most experienced persons in the tribe or country. They imagined that they were masters and all the other people in the country were their servants. As a matter of fact, they were servants of the country.
Later on … kings became so conceited that they thought that people had nothing to do with choosing them. It was God himself, they said, that had made them kings. They called this the “divine right of kings.” For long years, they misbehaved like this and lived in great pomp and luxury while their people starved.”
Later, his daughter, Indira Gandhi, as prime minister of India, would pass the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1971, abolishing recognition of over 500 Indian monarchies, their royal titles and their payments from the government. A 1985 declassified CIA report alleged, that 40% of MPs in Indira Gandhi’s INC party were being paid money by the Soviet Union.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Harvard University journalism fellow and PhD Dr. Yevgenia Albats, was appointed by Boris Yeltsin, to investigate the secret activities of the KGB. Dr. Albats disclosed in her book, that KGB chief Victor Chebrikov in December 1985 had sought in writing from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), “authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi.’ CPSU payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No. 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family, and ‘have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No. 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.”
In 1992 the media confronted the Russian government with the Albats disclosure. The Russian government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure and defended it as necessary for ‘Soviet ideological interest’. The Hindu newspaper of July 4, 1992 carried this report, following a news report in November 1991 by Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate, that had published an article revealing that prime minister Rajiv Gandhi had 2.5 billion Swiss francs, equivalent to roughly to $2 billion US dollars, in numbered Swiss bank accounts.
Plagued by the Swedish Boffers scandal, Gandhi lost the 1989 election. The incoming prime minister V.P. Singh, of the JD, then agreed to execute the IMF bailout. However, V.P. Singh's government lasted less than a year, and it was then left to the next prime minister Chander Shaker, of the SJP, to agree terms with the IMF.
In order to receive the bailout, India had to compromise its sovereignty, and under duress, was forced by the IMF to make market economic reforms, or else not get paid by the IMF, and consequently would have gone bankrupt.
The prime minister, was required to comply with the IMF's orders, (in contravention to Section 29A of the Constitution of India), in order to receive the monetary support. Thus a program of economic liberalization, based on foreign intervention was forced onto India.
Under IMF rules, trade tariffs had to be lowered, government monopolies were finally broken, and the private sector and market competition started to find their fledgling beginnings in India.
This short period of fruitful IMF dictatorship over a sector of India’s economic legislation, led to its greatest period of growth and success since its independence in 1947. However, as the economic liberalization of India was induced by the IMF, against the will of the nations corrupt political elites, the pace of economic reforms and privatization post, has remained excruciatingly slow, and dismal to the detriment and loss of opportunity of its own majority of citizens.
India to the gross detriment of its population, still gravely suffers from a debacle of ultrasocialist bureaucracy, and the sizable vestiges of a central command style economy.
Indian politicians for the majorly vast part, regardless of political party affiliation till date, lack a modern understanding of market economics, and effective liberal business policies.
During the long term government control of media, that disseminated radical socialist propaganda, to both India’s masses and its elites, political leaders too have been underexposed to liberal market and cultural models.
In essence, these leaders too believed their own failed protectionist hype. They had been indoctrinated to defend an evidently failed socialist model that became tied to the very core belief of their nationalistic identities.
Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated in May 1991, by a member of LTTE that were fighting for a Tamil state in Sri Lanka, who had believed in adopting more liberal economic principals. Rajiv Gandhi since 1989, had sent the Indian army to support the socialist Sri Lankan government status quo, fighting against the LTTE.
Following Gandhi’s assassination, prime minister Chandra Shekhar’s short-lived SJP government, that had agreed initial terms with the IMF fell. In June 1991, it was followed by prime minister Nershima Rao of the INC, who along with his finance minister Manmohan Singh, implemented a few further set of IMF fiscal dictates to get money, including devaluing the Indian rupee currency, raising fertilizer prices, lowering export subsidies, and raising petro product prices.
However, beyond this, these ultrasocialist politicians that hand been financed by the communist Soviet Union, balked at the further suggestions by the IMF. Which had included the crucial reforms for the privatization of state-owned companies, and the freeing of labour markets.
India from 1991 to 1993, borrowed $3.6 billion from the IMF, to stay afloat and solvent.
Due to a threat of nuclear conflict in the impoverished region, India’s economic failure, and that of its neighbor Pakistan, now concerns the security of the entire world. As the people's default to mass religious sentiment in Hindu majority India, and Muslim majority Pakistan could at worst lead to a globally apocalyptic nuclear war. Stemming for the long lasting dispute over the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), and the abundant fresh water resources in J&K that irrigate the rivers of India and Pakistan.
According to a report by Boston based, Nobel peace-prize winning body the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), a nuclear war for J&K, between India and Pakistan would contaminate global food supplies, and kill over two billion people.
Scientists further believe that a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, could destroy half of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This would mean the end of civilization, and the natural habitat as we know it, and the probable extinction of most animal species on Earth.
The desperate lack of any political party genuinely focused on market economics in India, can be pinned to actual written legislative discrimination, unveiling the fallacy of India’s claimed democratic status. Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. That is contradictory to the the freedoms of belief and expression enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Section 29A is a dictatorial law that has for over half a century, forcibly, and in malicious contradiction to democratic constitutional freedoms of speech and expression, required all political parties to hold allegiance, to only socialist economic policies.
This is a must in India, in order to be lawfully registered with the Election Commission. In other words, a political party with capitalist liberal market policies, cannot simply be registered by Indian law. All political parties in India have to be socialist by rote of law.
Thus, by such draconian central laws that plunged so many into dire poverty, one can actually question, if India should be considered a democracy at all. As by Section 29A, the entire nation was reduced to what was in all practical implementation a single party socialist state, albeit with multiple brand variations. Neighboring, China which has a similar population to India, is a one party communist state. However, even it has adopted greater liberal economic reforms than India. China’s GDP exceeded 9.5 trillion in 2013, whereas India’s GDP was less than $2 trillion in comparison.
So tragically, nearly thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, failed soviet style planning of domestic trade, agriculture and foreign investment restrictions continues to linger in India. This soviet ideological legacy and political paralysis to modernize, is the foremost cause of India’s mass poverty and child hunger.
The negative impacts of such can be witnessed most evidently by the 2012 report that found 40% of children under 5, in India, suffer from malnutrition. With child malnutrition levels twice as high as sub-Saharan Africa. India’s then prime minister, Manmohan Singh of the INC, admitted to the failure, calling it a “national shame.”
Manmohan Singh, a protectionist economist, had previously been responsible for leading the design of India’s extreme socialist economy since 1972, when he was appointed as Chief Economic Advisor.
Manmohan Singh had been educated by British economist Joan Robinson, at University of Cambridge To put this extreme socialist indoctrination into perspective, as more akin to religious practice, than a rational governing policy. Joan Robinson, had most erroneously, praised the North Korean premier Kim Jong-un, as a "messiah”, despite his most grossly failed planned economic policies, that have stolen the livelihoods and bright prospects of generations of North Koreans.
Tragically, these misplaced economic preachings from Cambridge, have enslave India's citizens to poverty, hunger and suffering on a scale as never witnessed before. Had India kept to its monarchies, in lieu of ultra socialism, it would have been far better off place today and the world would have been far safer, with less threat of nuclear war.
Manmohan Singh, had been finance minister, during the the IMF bailout process in 1991, who decided not not abide with further suggestions by the IMF of privatizing state-owned industries and labour reforms, which done then would certainly have greatly reduced child malnutrition in India today.
This most heinous, and unnecessary suffering of children in India is a monumental tragedy in world history. As India, has the world’s second highest total of cultivated farm land available for producing food for its starving children.
India’s per capita arable land is comparable to that of Italy and Germany. Thus the national as large as it is in terms of population is not over populated in terms of its agricultural recourses while compared to its highly developed European counterparts.
Under the ultrasocialist dictatorship of Indira Gandhi, the 42nd Amendment of 1976 was passed, this was after India’s dictator was being paid money by the Soviet Union according to Harvard scholars. Gandhi under the 42nd Amendment, then forcefully and undemocratically, added the words "Socialist Secular” to the name of the Republic of India.
Indira Gandhi was assassinated on October 31, 1984 by her own bodyguards of the Sikh religious fate. This occurred after she had ordered, the Indian army to attack main Sikh’ religious center the Golden Temple, and killed the leaders of the Khalistan Liberation Front (KLF) who were fighting for a theocratic but also more commercially liberal Sikh state, opposed to the secular socialist dictates of the Soviet Union, that was paying hypocritical Indira Gandhi billions of dollars to maintain. This also coincided with Operation Cyclone in the war for nearby Afghanistan when the CIA supported the Mujahideen rebels to fight against Soviet Union’s invasion of the country.
Thus, India that was once over 600 diverse royal principalities and kingdoms, has become trapped in a vicious cycle of mad and twisted sadomasochistic economic and cultural policies. Forced by a corrupt, idiotic, anti-competitive, and inept leadership profiting billions for themselves , based on governing a majority that was kept as vastly illiterate and controlled serfs.
Perhaps it was from good intention, or more ill from jealously, but the result has been the complete failure and ruining of the world’s oldest civilization, the Congress India will be remembered worse than any of the Emperors, that had governed it before, and thus reduced this illustrious and magical realm into sickeningly, the largest barbarian feudal serfdom ever constructed in all known human history.
