Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of Center for Policy Research, New Delhi gave two lecutre under Golden Jubilee Seminar Series:
Meritocracy and its discontents on 27^th January, 2010.
The future of democracy in India on 28^th January, 2010.

About the speaker: Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta is currently the president of the Centre for Policy Research, an independent, non-partisan research institute and think tank in New Delhi. Educated at Princeton and Oxford, he has taught at Harvard and Jawaharlal Nehru University. He has done extensive public policy work and has published widely in the fields of political theory, intellectual history, constitutional law, politics and society in India and international politics. His most recent publications include, The Burden of Democracy and an edited volume India's Public Institutions. His forthcoming work are books on "Constitutionalism in Modern India" and "India's Great Transformation". Dr. Mehta has co-editor of the Oxford Companion to Politics in India.

Meritocracy and its discontents

'Emerson once famously said that the only thing what one person can receive from another is provocation and not instruction', these were the opening lines of the lecture on meritocracy. The purpose of the talk was to provoke the audience to think about the theme of meritocracy in a democratic life that we often talk about but whose implications we do not frontally confront.
Contrary to the expectations of many the entire talk focused on the complexities associated with the system of meritocracy rather than the arguments for or against the meritocratic system. It was highly impressive to hear Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta unravel the myths associated with the idea of meritocracy and put forth a clear and in depth analysis of the system which is the need of the hour.
What makes the idea of meritocracy so attractive are the principles of non-discrimination, equality and justice associated with it. We consider it as a system where jobs, opportunities, responsibilities are allocated on the basis of merit. A meritocratic society rewards those who show their talent and competence ensuring equality and justice. But these principles hold true only partially.
Dr. Mehta quoted several examples drawing the attention of the audience towards the unattended consequences of the ideology of meritocracy that we don't often think about. Like the Singaporean society that has become the meritocracy of exams rather than that of talent. This proves that the criteria to choose merit must be broader than the conventional notion of exams. The biggest challenge for a meritocratic society is to create a structure that ensures equal opportunities to the relevant pool of candidates to compete and reservations in a way exemplify
He ended his talk by stressing on the fact that even though this concept gets legitimatized and a lot of people move up the ladder but there will be no structural transformations and with increasing structural inequalities in a society can enough support be garnered for meritocracy.

The future of democracy in India

We take lot of pride in saying that India is a democratic country, an emerging power, but underneath this democracy several serious issues are brewing up that need the undivided attention of the government. What is alarming is not the number or the seriousness of these issues but the approach of the government towards them. It is for this reason that Arundhati Roy has called Democracy as Demon-crazy in her latest collection of essays: 'Listening to Grasshoppers'. Therefore, the most debatable question today is as to what is the Future of Indian Democracy - vibrant or bleak?
Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta began his talk with a famous Sufi saying 'Those who speak about the future are lying even when they speak the truth.' Rather than predicting the future of democracy he laid out some interesting tendencies and compositions of it.
At present India is witnessing the best of times with extraordinary economic growth. Compared to 1900-1947 when the per capita GDP growth was -0.1 today Indian economy is booming at 7.2%. And due to this unprecedented growth it is for the very first time in modern Indian history that people are beginning to see the possibility of change. Though it doesn't give the whole picture but this growth has changed the intellectual and mental horizons of the people. Dr. Mehta revealed how the lifestyle and the aspirations of even the most impoverished people in India have undergone a drastic change.
He agreed that this democracy has several shortcomings like the issues of naxalism, higher education, corruption, poverty, that compels you to paint a grim picture of Indian democracy. But one must think of it in comparative perspective. And democracy has just emerged stronger in past 10-15 yrs. The government's expenditure is increasing, welfare schemes like NREGAs of the order of 100,000 crores are being doled out. Bihar alone has given contracts for 17,000 kms of roads in last month which is astonishing.
But, yes, state governments have failed to invest in there capacities and the biggest challenge that we face today is at which level of governments what decisions should be taken. Therefore, we must look towards the multilevel governance and devolving powers to new institutes.

Excerpts from an interview with Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta:

We take lot of pride in saying that Indian democracy is one of the best models of the world but what we tend to overlook are the serious issues brewing up underneath this democracy. And what is alarming is not the number or the seriousness of these issues but the approach of the government towards them that makes you sit and ponder where is our democracy heading? Wouldn't it be right to say that the future of Indian democracy is weak?

With any of these questions most important thing one needs to keep in mind is the historical perspective so when we talk about democracy we need to consider as to what time period or as to what democracy. Anybody who knows India in 1980s would disagree to the assessment that it is going down. I agree there are challenges but in past 15-20 yrs it has become stronger. Second question is to be analytical and careful in breaking down individual problems to their root causes and sources. One of the most frustrating things in debates over democracy is that a lot gets overloaded onto the term of democracy. If we think of 6-7 serious problems India is facing today like poverty, corruption, naxalism all of these are an indictment of democracy. Each of these problems has different root causes and need to be discussed individually. We can get deep democracy that makes wrong policy choices.

Let's take up naxalism. Naxalites blame the government and government blames them for hampering the development activities in states. So it is a vicious cycle. On the other hand, we have people like Dr. Binayak Sen and Himanshu Kumar who are working for the tribal people and can serve as a useful link in solving this problem. But government rather than working with these people it is distancing itself from them. What do you think has gone wrong and what can be the possible solution to this problem?

Well you are absolutely right that the naxal problem is just not only a military problem. Two different set of issues are involved here. First, adivasis and STs have received a raw deal at the hands of Indian democracy. Now the question is why. The answer turns out to be lot more uncomfortable. One is the social distance - privileged people do not care about these people. The difficult question is either to think of them on a development trajectory like the rest of India or you have a development model that preserves their community. But difficulty is that we have never been able to decide their future trajectory. We haven't invested in their education, skills, languages, etc. so they cannot participate in development process. They are the tragic victims of democracy and it is difficult to craft a policy for them.
Second element is that huge money is at stake in these areas because of mining, forests. Wherever money is involved stakes are very high. Certain states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand have never invested in themselves. So whenever problems arise states respond with brutality. Like Salwa Judum where state outsourced its security which is outrageous and violation of national and international laws. West Bengal is a different story where political parties have acquired a stake in political violence. Bihar again is an ebb and flow of naxals. There was another form of violence in Bihar i.e. Ranbir Sena but no one has heard of it in past 5-6 yrs. Reason. State had an interest in keeping it alive. Yes, the way government has reacted against Binayak Sen and Himanshu is outrageous.

As you said state governments of these areas have completely failed so isn't it a failure of democracy?

No. I began saying that all these problems need to be dealt separately. This democracy has serious shortcomings but we need to keep historical perspective in mind. In this instance, democracy alone cannot be the solution. What you have to think about is the state structure and the ethical responses the democracy produces and answers to these wouldn't arrive through democracy…….

For photographs please click here.

Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of Center for Policy Research, New Delhi gave two lecutre under Golden Jubilee Seminar Series: Meritocracy and its discontents on 27^th January, 2010. The future of democracy in India on 28^th January, 2010.
About the speaker: Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta is currently the president of the Centre for Policy Research, an independent, non-partisan research institute and think tank in New Delhi. Educated at Princeton and Oxford, he has taught at Harvard and Jawaharlal Nehru University. He has done extensive public policy work and has published widely in the fields of political theory, intellectual history, constitutional law, politics and society in India and international politics. His most recent publications include, The Burden of Democracy and an edited volume India's Public Institutions. His forthcoming work are books on "Constitutionalism in Modern India" and "India's Great Transformation". Dr. Mehta has co-editor of the Oxford Companion to Politics in India.

Meritocracy and its discontents 'Emerson once famously said that the only thing what one person can receive from another is provocation and not instruction', these were the opening lines of the lecture on meritocracy. The purpose of the talk was to provoke the audience to think about the theme of meritocracy in a democratic life that we often talk about but whose implications we do not frontally confront. Contrary to the expectations of many the entire talk focused on the complexities associated with the system of meritocracy rather than the arguments for or against the meritocratic system. It was highly impressive to hear Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta unravel the myths associated with the idea of meritocracy and put forth a clear and in depth analysis of the system which is the need of the hour. What makes the idea of meritocracy so attractive are the principles of non-discrimination, equality and justice associated with it. We consider it as a system where jobs, opportunities, responsibilities are allocated on the basis of merit. A meritocratic society rewards those who show their talent and competence ensuring equality and justice. But these principles hold true only partially. Dr. Mehta quoted several examples drawing the attention of the audience towards the unattended consequences of the ideology of meritocracy that we don't often think about. Like the Singaporean society that has become the meritocracy of exams rather than that of talent. This proves that the criteria to choose merit must be broader than the conventional notion of exams. The biggest challenge for a meritocratic society is to create a structure that ensures equal opportunities to the relevant pool of candidates to compete and reservations in a way exemplify He ended his talk by stressing on the fact that even though this concept gets legitimatized and a lot of people move up the ladder but there will be no structural transformations and with increasing structural inequalities in a society can enough support be garnered for meritocracy.

The future of democracy in India We take lot of pride in saying that India is a democratic country, an emerging power, but underneath this democracy several serious issues are brewing up that need the undivided attention of the government. What is alarming is not the number or the seriousness of these issues but the approach of the government towards them. It is for this reason that Arundhati Roy has called Democracy as Demon-crazy in her latest collection of essays: 'Listening to Grasshoppers'. Therefore, the most debatable question today is as to what is the Future of Indian Democracy - vibrant or bleak? Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta began his talk with a famous Sufi saying 'Those who speak about the future are lying even when they speak the truth.' Rather than predicting the future of democracy he laid out some interesting tendencies and compositions of it. At present India is witnessing the best of times with extraordinary economic growth. Compared to 1900-1947 when the per capita GDP growth was -0.1 today Indian economy is booming at 7.2%. And due to this unprecedented growth it is for the very first time in modern Indian history that people are beginning to see the possibility of change. Though it doesn't give the whole picture but this growth has changed the intellectual and mental horizons of the people. Dr. Mehta revealed how the lifestyle and the aspirations of even the most impoverished people in India have undergone a drastic change. He agreed that this democracy has several shortcomings like the issues of naxalism, higher education, corruption, poverty, that compels you to paint a grim picture of Indian democracy. But one must think of it in comparative perspective. And democracy has just emerged stronger in past 10-15 yrs. The government's expenditure is increasing, welfare schemes like NREGAs of the order of 100,000 crores are being doled out. Bihar alone has given contracts for 17,000 kms of roads in last month which is astonishing. But, yes, state governments have failed to invest in there capacities and the biggest challenge that we face today is at which level of governments what decisions should be taken. Therefore, we must look towards the multilevel governance and devolving powers to new institutes.

Excerpts from an interview with Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta: We take lot of pride in saying that Indian democracy is one of the best models of the world but what we tend to overlook are the serious issues brewing up underneath this democracy. And what is alarming is not the number or the seriousness of these issues but the approach of the government towards them that makes you sit and ponder where is our democracy heading? Wouldn't it be right to say that the future of Indian democracy is weak? With any of these questions most important thing one needs to keep in mind is the historical perspective so when we talk about democracy we need to consider as to what time period or as to what democracy. Anybody who knows India in 1980s would disagree to the assessment that it is going down. I agree there are challenges but in past 15-20 yrs it has become stronger. Second question is to be analytical and careful in breaking down individual problems to their root causes and sources. One of the most frustrating things in debates over democracy is that a lot gets overloaded onto the term of democracy. If we think of 6-7 serious problems India is facing today like poverty, corruption, naxalism all of these are an indictment of democracy. Each of these problems has different root causes and need to be discussed individually. We can get deep democracy that makes wrong policy choices. Let's take up naxalism. Naxalites blame the government and government blames them for hampering the development activities in states. So it is a vicious cycle. On the other hand, we have people like Dr. Binayak Sen and Himanshu Kumar who are working for the tribal people and can serve as a useful link in solving this problem. But government rather than working with these people it is distancing itself from them. What do you think has gone wrong and what can be the possible solution to this problem? Well you are absolutely right that the naxal problem is just not only a military problem. Two different set of issues are involved here. First, adivasis and STs have received a raw deal at the hands of Indian democracy. Now the question is why. The answer turns out to be lot more uncomfortable. One is the social distance - privileged people do not care about these people. The difficult question is either to think of them on a development trajectory like the rest of India or you have a development model that preserves their community. But difficulty is that we have never been able to decide their future trajectory. We haven't invested in their education, skills, languages, etc. so they cannot participate in development process. They are the tragic victims of democracy and it is difficult to craft a policy for them. Second element is that huge money is at stake in these areas because of mining, forests. Wherever money is involved stakes are very high. Certain states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand have never invested in themselves. So whenever problems arise states respond with brutality. Like Salwa Judum where state outsourced its security which is outrageous and violation of national and international laws. West Bengal is a different story where political parties have acquired a stake in political violence. Bihar again is an ebb and flow of naxals. There was another form of violence in Bihar i.e. Ranbir Sena but no one has heard of it in past 5-6 yrs. Reason. State had an interest in keeping it alive. Yes, the way government has reacted against Binayak Sen and Himanshu is outrageous. As you said state governments of these areas have completely failed so isn't it a failure of democracy? No. I began saying that all these problems need to be dealt separately. This democracy has serious shortcomings but we need to keep historical perspective in mind. In this instance, democracy alone cannot be the solution. What you have to think about is the state structure and the ethical responses the democracy produces and answers to these wouldn't arrive through democracy…….

For photographs please click here.