Abstract
One of the central goals of people-centred democracy is to goad the process of circumventing the acquired hiatus between haves and have-nots, caste-subjugated groups and caste benefiters and fight for sexual equality. Envisioning and shaping of the institutions by way of democratic participations have been sine qua non aspect of social visionaries and revolutionaries. Here, democracy takes the grandeur status in form of universal philosophy whereby outcomes are expected in equivalence. Nonetheless, democracy as universal philosophy does not produce universal outcomes. The hiatus needs to be explained to make functional aspect of democracy more diaphanous.
The book under review is a robust attempt to explain the democratic politics of two Indian states Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Democratic politics or in author’s lexicon ‘patrons of the poor’ is linked with caste politics and policy making. The exploratory aspect is to discern inter-linkages and intricacies of party politics, caste politics and policy making in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. A part of the title Policymaking in India is slightly misleading since the book is focused entirely on political economy and caste interlacement of these two states. Even the author is cautious of this generalisation while suggesting that ‘each state of India or other country where the arguments of this book might be applied, there is a need for caution in identifying the primary locus of mobilization’ (p. 234).
Amongst two debates, marginalisation of redistribution issue in policy cum academic circles and role of the state governments to reduce poverty, the author stresses on the latter issue. The linchpin aspect of this book is to explain why some state governments are great poverty reducers than others. The primary questions are ‘who gets what’ and ‘why’. Regarding the first question, resource allocation of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka between 1985 and 2000 has been analysed. Explanation of ‘what’ leads to the second question ‘why’. In other words, what has been distributed and why? It is being explained through recourse to political history of both states and thereafter implications on present outcomes.
There are two justifications for comparing both states to understand the poverty reduction. First, both states had experience of two-party competition during 1985–2000. Second, important constituents which affect poverty level like average yields in agriculture, agricultural infrastructure, central governmental allocation, levels of state domestic product and development expenditure do not differ significantly.
The landscape of this book runs through political economy (particularly chapter two) and political history of Tamil Nadu (chapter three) and Karnataka (chapter four). The political economy and political history are enmeshed towards realisation of impeccably holistic overview. The political economy explicates what are being distributed whereas political history unearths the beneath factor in terms of why are resources being distributed the way they are. Sales tax, Noon Meal Scheme and Liquor Excise are significant aspects of Tamil Nadu’s political economy. Sales tax is a major source of revenue and regressive sales tax affects poor badly. Noon Meal Scheme, universal in nature, has registered a tremendous success vis-à-vis poor upliftment, especially on nutritional and educational outcomes. The third point where political economy and fate of poor meets is Liquor Excise. Since 1991, arrack and toddy have been prohibited thus debarring poor from consumption. Author suggests that Noon Meal Scheme ‘itself was introduced partly to compensate poor households for income lost on alcohol consumption, and thus was, in a sense, a complementary policy to prohibition laws’ (p. 53).
Like Tamil Nadu, sales tax is a serious constraint on poverty reduction. In respect of Liquor Exercise, there is no prohibition but mere taxation on cheap domestic liquor which means siphoning off more resources from poor to the state. Unlike Tamil Nadu, there is hardly any major scheme in Karnataka like Noon Meal Scheme to compensate the poor.
Analysis of two major schemes (Noon Meal Scheme in Tamil Nadu and irrigation policy in Tamil Nadu) reveals the nature of distribution of resources. Noon Meal Scheme expenditure amount to 15 per cent of the state annual outlay or 11 per cent of the state’s tax revenue. Number of centres and benefitters has increased along with impact on development outcomes in Tamil Nadu. In Karnataka, irrigation is one of the major public expenditures. In contrast to Tamil Nadu’s Noon Meal Scheme, irrigation has had indirect impact on poor. Narayan Lakshman states ‘that there is likely to be a strong positive incentive for investment in this sector because this sector is particularly leakage prone in terms of deficiencies in the design of institutions that administer resource allocation in this sector. These deficiencies lead to elites at multiple levels (from the state governmental level to the local level) being able to capture resources before they reach the intended agents, often poor farmers…’ (p. 77). There was also no major initiation on poverty reduction front. Why have welfare measures adopted by two states producing different outcomes? Here the issue of political history becomes important.
There are two important factors which decide the pro-poor outcome before making sense of political history of both states. First, formation of poor as cohesive groups and non-co-option of leadership in non-poor groups. Second, greater centralisation of power of ruling parties or fierce competition between parties. Besides, institutionalisation of a pro-poor image is important at the local level to channelise the pro-poor resource allocation from the state institutions. In Tamil Nadu, fragmented caste dominance paved the way for poor mobilisation against the Congress by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). In DMK, people were mobilised by way of bypassing local elites. After pro-poor measures became evident, AIADMK accentuated policies through personal charisma of its leaders. These have generated pro-poor regimes in Tamil Nadu. In case of Karnataka, dominance of Vokkaliga and Lingayat perhaps face insignificant challenge on redistributive policies. Major policies have been formulated in tune with their interests. Absence of factors like charismatic leadership has prevented spreading movement across the state.
Lakshman argues that fractured caste domination in Tamil Nadu has generated class-based politics whereas it was denied in Karnataka due to caste dominance. The populist policies in Tamil Nadu generates a slew of welfare measures and in case of Karnataka’s patronage-based politics, benefits go to dominant caste while negating the interest of poor. Irrigation canals are not result of political mobilisation of farming class. Whatever the little mobilisation existed was diverted towards Cauvery dispute which was almost beyond the lone purview of Karnataka state.
The book captures and provides original insights on many accounts. First, fragmentation of dominant caste’s domination is needed and necessary for pro-poor outcomes and especially for class-based politics. Second, political economy cannot be understood, as trend exists in mainstream economists, sans political history. Third, political processes are equally important as organisation and ideologies of political parties because it cannot be argued that societal forces and social power play no role in the emergence of pro-poor regime. The explanation of political process remains bypassed in Atul Kohli (Kohli, 1987). The further explication of Dalits’ locations in Tamil Nadu in terms of ‘equal material and social benefits’ could have added the extra advantage to the book. Nonetheless, the book remains vital for everyone who resists differentiating between political economy and political history.