The Indian Social Contract: An Incremental Cultivation
Widespread protests have been observed more frequently across the globe in the recent past. These protests have emerged in the developed world, France, the US, the developing world, Sri Lanka, and Armenia. Though they have unique triggers, these protests have a common underlying theme. In these situations, the State fell short of meeting its obligations towards the citizens. This brings our focus to the notion of Social Contract.
Social Contract is an agreement between the State and its citizens. Citizens consensually cede certain rights in exchange for the government’s duty to provide for the people in material or other forms. This exchange of power in India has been known since Vedic times. The Dharma-raja ensured that everybody in his kingdom adhered to Dharma, which in this context means an ecosystem where every householder is supposed to give things to the world to receive things in exchange. Kautilya further said, “In the happiness of his (King’s) people lies his happiness; in their welfare his welfare.” Dharma placed the learned folk of a kingdom above the King despite the King having the divine right to rule. This limited the power of the King but placed a greater responsibility for welfare on him.
This civilisational social contract in India was disturbed by foreign rulers and colonialists. They replaced the rulers and changed the nature of the relationship with the natives. The foreign rule was extractive in two ways. Firstly, the people had already given up their rights to be governed by a sovereign. And Secondly, instead of protecting, they threatened the property rights of the natives. This double jeopardy degraded Indians to the position of becoming subjects in their land.
Post-independence, the Constitution of India became the supreme law and the formal social contract between the State and Indian citizens. This social contract defined that the sovereign power was derived from the citizens and would be used to empower and uplift the citizens. The social contract also defined the nature of the Indian State to be a sovereign, secular, socialist, democratic republic. Through Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, the Constitution defined the obligations and guidelines of the State in matters of governance. The Election Commission became the institution to conduct the process of citizens choosing their representatives, and the higher judiciary was created to protect the citizens against arbitrary actions of the State.
The social contract evolved beyond the constitutional mandate in the post-independence period. The State chose the Five Year Plan (FYP) vehicle to fulfill its contract obligations in the newly formed republic. The initial FYPs focused on infrastructure development but did not address the issue of poverty and basic needs head-on. Having identified this opportunity gap in obligation fulfillment, the narrative of “roti-kapda-makaan” became an electioneering slogan. This was when the features of socialism and populism were added to the social contract obligation fulfillment.
Socialism and populism became entrenched political positions. It should also be noted that once the State adds to its charter of obligation fulfillment, it is very difficult to roll back. This made the State powerful, and political patronage was extended at the leader’s will for her benefit. A direct consequence of this was the inability of the State to carry out pro-business reforms. Even in the late 1980s, such reforms were camouflaged as catering to the masses. The Indian State had to wait for a Balance of Payment crisis to finally change the terms of engagement with the citizenry.
Apart from poverty alleviation, the Indian State expanded its education, healthcare, and legal rights obligations. The State introduced the Right to Education as a fundamental right. Through the Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana, the State has tried to provide free and cashless care to nearly 500 million people. The State also introduced transparency reforms, like the Right to Information, to deepen the accountability aspect of the social contract.
Today, in the age of technology, the Indian State has transformed into an enabler rather than a provider to all. The Prime Minister openly talks about celebrating entrepreneurship and honest taxpayers. Policies like the Startup India and Production Linked Incentive Scheme indicate the State’s support for creating opportunities and wealth. Along with this, the State has not forgotten its basic duty of catering to the poorest. The State has introduced the JAM trinity and PM Mudra Yojana to reach the last person efficiently and empower them.
Going forward, the Indian State faces the challenge of fulfilling its obligations in an era of frontier technology. This will happen as India saturates its demographic dividend and faces the challenge of being trapped as a middle-income country. Summarily, India needs to grow and ensure equitable distribution of resources. For this, the Indian State has to use a multi-pronged approach. Firstly, the State has to support tech-based industries openly. Secondly, the State has to ensure a leakage-proof tax collection system. This will help the State to tap into the nation’s growth to serve the poor and create even better opportunities for all. And lastly, the State has to introduce a Universal Social Security program. This will ensure care for the elderly and those transitioning to the fourth industrial jobs.
The State must now act by invoking the age-old Indian wisdom of Sarve Sukinah Bhavantu. The Indian State must aim to establish Yogakshema rather than a competitive Matsyanyaya in the upcoming times.
Divya Singh Rathore, a public policy professional. She tweets at @_divyarathore
Suryapratap Babar, Public Policy researcher. He tweets at @SuryapratapBab3
