We are free when there are no restraints placed upon us -- other than those we place upon ourselves. That is the definition of `self-rule'. We rule ourselves. Even Thomas Hobbes, whose writings are invoked by those who justify the statal behemoth, Leviathan, was a liberal who wrote that ``there are few so foolish that would not rather govern themselves than be governed by others''. As we celebrate 50 years of `freedom' and `self rule', it becomes necessary to examine the essential meaning of these concepts and judge whether either of these can be attained by the method India chose under the strong state.

The state is not an entity endearing to liberals. They tend to see it as a set of institutions that coerce -- albeit in the `public interest', whatever that means. Sanjay Gandhi's programme of mass sterilisation demonstrates the validity of the liberal theory of the state -- and also how nebulous the concept of `coercion in the public interest' really is.

The strong state is the creation of those who made a certain assumption: that its personnel would comprise an `intellectual-moral elite'. Leviathan, to Hobbes, was a `Mortal God' that invoked `terror' with `consent'. The economist Gunnar Myrdal, while justifying socialist planning in Third World countries, argued that their poor were so clueless that only the authoritative resource allocation decisions by an `intellectual-moral elite' acting on their behalf could secure `development'. Thus, the use of naked terror as well as the exercise of authoritatian economic power have been justified by assuming away moral and intellectual imperfections in the personnel of the state. Is such an assumption valid in India today -- when a politico-administrative scam is unearthed daily?

A political science is as good as it is real. If what is described closely resembles reality, then that approach can be labelled `scientific'. The political science of the strong socialist state does not seem to deserve this label. One could contrast it with public choice theory, the latest in the liberal arsenal, which assumes politicians and bureaucrats are `rational' and seek their own interests within the political process. On the basis of this assumption, public choice theorists make predictions about their behaviour which appear chillingly true in contemporary India.

For example: while looking for reasons behind the phenomenal growth in government budgets public choice theorists argued that the cause is the bureaucrat, who `rationally' maximises his agency's budget. Politicians, in league with such bureaucrats, make `special' expenditure programmes directed to serve their clients' interests. Not only does this result in fiscal crises, it also leads to a diversion of public money away from public goods like roads. Sounds like a page out of our own book.

It would appear that we made a critical mistake thinking `freedom' and `self-rule' come by replacing one elite with another, and thereafter giving the new elite more powers. We made no efforts to secure accountability mechanisms. And while the state sought refuge under the label `democratic', we did not make any attempt to set up strong institutions of local self-government. We do not possess the sort of civic democratic society shown every week on Picket Fences. Instead, we have English, August -- in which a DM and an SP consider themselves `kings'. The contempt with which institutions of civic society are treated by the DM-SP combine unrestrained by local democratic institutions is seen in the forcible takeover of the premises of the Mirzapur club to house the offices of the new Divisional Commissioner.

Freedom and self-rule will not come to us unless we carefully probe these concepts and realise how much at variance they are from what the strong socialist state is dishing out to us.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.