The BJP leadership needs to be reminded that Hitler got built more roads, bridges, factories, rail tracks etc than any government of the world then in his first six years of government. But he got all of them ruined in the next six years because he lacked `mental development’.

During a short span of over two decades the British in India got built 60,000 kilometres of railway lines for which thousands of kilometres of rough terrain, dense forests and mountain ranges had to be cleared. This was done more than a century back with much out of date technology. The Indian Railways have not even built a quarter of rail lines in the last 57 years of independence.

The British got constructed lakhs of kilometres of roads throughout the country, be it in highlands of Kashmir, Frontier Province (now in Pakistan), North-East or desert of Rajasthan and flood-prone areas of North Bihar. Lakhs of labourers perished while completing these projects. Most of these works were taken up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 1857––the year the first independence movement was launched––the British established Calcutta, Madras and Bombay Universities. Apart from that they set up many other universities, colleges and schools. Power stations and telephone exchanges were set up all over the country.

Material development in itself is nothing. In fact it is a constant global phenomenon and no country can remain immune from it. We can find mobile phones and cyber-cafes even in Sub-Sahara African countries which are locked in bloodletting; where there is no grain to eat and where AIDS is wreaking havoc. Even neighbouring Pakistan has many express highways, foreign cars and cell phones. More average Pakistanis travel by planes than Indians. Even Nepalese market is flooded with foreign goods. Does this mean that they are developed than India?

The British created these infrastructure not without any ulterior motive. They wanted to give a boost to the industry back home, especially during the World Wars. Tracks were laid and roads built primarily to transport the raw materials from the interior of the country to the port cities only to be shipped out. Then the finished goods from Britain would be brought back to India and send to the markets throughout the country through the same road and rail routes.

It seems that we are building Golden Quadrilateral to pave the way for massive inroad of the foreign vehicles in Indian market rather than something else. Had the development of the common masses been the priority then the Union government would have done its level best to tone up the transport system within cities and towns, which are in extremely pathetic condition throughout the country.

Taking up mega-projects with the help of World Bank loan can not be termed as development. Even at the time of independence our share in the global trade was two per cent––now it is just half per cent. The so-called cyber-savvy chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, Mr Chandrababu Naidu, never hesitaed in taking Rs 50,000 crore World Bank loan in one go.

Similarly, the NDA government has no qualms in going for loan worth Rs 5,60,000 crores for its Linking of Rivers Project, which the experts say would lead to ecological disaster. The NDA top brass has no answer to the fact that this experiment failed in Russia. Besides, it would displaced over one crore people, more than partition, when 89 lakh people left the country to settle in Pakistan. (The number of those who came from Pakistan was 82 lakhs.)

Just as British are blamed for the death of millions in famines in 1942 and even earlier future historians would held the present-day brown sahibs of India responsible for the suicide and death of thousands of farmers in the last few years, and that too in advanced states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat etc. The British did not pay any attention to the farm sector as they had nothing much to take from the farmers save the revenue.

True, the British opened many educational institutions. But they imposed their own system of education. They required subordinate officials and clerks to assist them in running the government. But the creation of Dhaka University and AMU is a study in contrast. The British helped Sir Syed in establishing a college in Aligarh.

Whatever be Sir Syed’s aim the AMU did end up producing a large number of educated Muslims, which to much extent helped British consolidate their position. In contrast the British made every effort to educationally promote the Hindu Bengalis in East Bengal, as the move politically suited them. They consciously kept the Muslims educationally backward in Bengal, but not in UP. Thus Dhaka University was just the opposite of AMU.

Now in the post-liberalisation BJP era our rulers are feeling proud that we are producing good engineers, doctors, scientists, managers etc for the United States and Europe, the real rulers of the world. We have figure that about 35,000 IITians are serving in the US, but we do not know how many of their friends are toiling in India and even getting killed (as Satyendra Dubey of Golden Quadrilateral project).

The British developed the cantonment towns of Meerut, Kanpur, Agra and Allahabad. This led to the growth of leather and textile industries. The army was the biggest buyer of boots and uniform then. But in independent India we gradually shifted our defence machinery to further south in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, especially after the arrival of long range missiles and aircraft in the neighbourhood. This was the strategy adopted by Soviet Union during the World War-II when it set up a huge tank factory in the deep interior of Siberia even though the winter temperature used to dip to –30 centigrade.

Today Karnataka has five cantonment towns though it is not a bordering state. Other defence related developments (such as setting up of factories) are taking place in these states because it is safe.

The case in point is how much credit the existing government or an individual can take for the development? The development of a state or country does not only depend on better fiscal management as some gentlemen in the BJP would have us believe. If this is the criteria than Bihar should be the most developed state as, according to the Economic Times (October 22, 2003) it has brought down the fiscal deficit considerably and has one of the best produced budgets in the country.

Geo-sociological realities, global politics, climatic condition play more important role in development of a place. The sudden rise in oil prices or any US decision to impose complete ban on outsourcing may upset the BJP’s feel-good apple cart. In that case the NDA leaders will have to scamper for cover and the growth-rate may take a dip. Will we then said that the country had moved backward?

It remains a mystery as to why the BJP is so hell-bent upon cashing in on the outsourcing phenomenon. Not long back many of its leaders and their Socialists friends in the NDA were opposed to English, whose knowledge is essential for outsourcing.

The BJP intellectuals will have to answer some more questions. Who should in their opinion be given the credit for the development of Haryana. This is one state, which has always produced thoroughly corrupt, autocratic, tyrant and vision-less chief ministers ever since its inception in 1966. By the BJP’s argument Om Prakash Chautala of Meham fame should be the man of the moment. Or should it be the turncoats like Bhajan Lal. The semi-literate Sangh Parivar intellectuals do not know that Haryana owes its development to its proximity to the centre of political power. It is a global phenomenon that the areas around the national capital grow faster as they are naturally paid more attention.

Similarly Mumbai and South Gujarat were more advanced because it was easy for the British to set up their industries on the western coast. It was economically not viable for them to bring them to Kolkata. Yet slump in industry in Mumbai and Ahmedabad in 1960s and 1970s created a big crisis. Textile mills closed down. George Fernandes and Datta Samant emerged as union leaders.

The oil crisis of 1973 further worsened the situation. However, ten years later the economy of these two places took an upswing, thanks to the oil boom in the Gulf states. Petro-chemical factories started emerging and Mumbai became a market for the Arab Sheikhdoms. Even the present-day Kerala owes much of its credit to the Gulf money.

Development is such a complex phenomenon that no political party or personality can take credit. It is rather ironical that the two men whom we till now have been giving credit for having some developmental vision––Gandhi and Nehru––are today accused of keeping the country backward.

The growth rate is another ploy being used today. Perhaps the BJP think tank do not know that France had the fastest growth rate in the first 13 years after the World War-II. Surprisingly, in that period there was complete political uncertainty and about a dozen government came and went till General Charles De Gaulle took over in 1958. Similarly Italy and Japan had over 40 governments each since the World War-II, yet both the countries are leading industrial powers. No Prime Minister or President could be given credit in such a scenario.

Mr Vajpayee, India needs development of mind yet we are discussing the role of ojhas and place where certain god or goddess was born—all for electoral gain.