On Jungle Drums... And Pretty Boys

Just the other day I discussed a peculiar schizophrenia my perpetually stoned, simple-minded chillum-yaar suffered from. If you recall the tale of Guru, his precise error lay in suggesting “good things” for The State to do. He said: “Why don’t they clean up all the pollution in the Ganga and the Jumna instead of putting bamboos up our backsides?" It took me time and effort to cure him of this delusion, and that story can be read here.

However, today, the venerable Times of India seems to be suffering from this very same mental affliction. Their lead editorial, on the Maoist-Naxalite uprising, is titled “Carrot & Stick.” There is a sub-title too, on the paper but unfortunately not on the webpage, which goes, “Fight Naxals with both guns and development.” These eminent editors, all very learned men, seem to believe that “development,” which is something “good,” can happen from State action. A great delusion indeed. I am reminded of a paper I presented at the very first Freedom Workshop of Liberty Institute some 15 years ago. It was titled, “Bauer Power: Getting The State OUT Of ‘Development.’”

What, indeed, is “development”? And what is the “Role of The State”? The way all classical liberals viewed these issues, from Adam Smith right down to Ludwig von Mises, is that The State is nothing but an instrument of compulsion and coercion, to be exercised only upon the lawless, and, that too, in full accordance with the law and “due process.” The State to them was but magistrates, policemen, judges, jailors and hangmen. How can such an institution – and they all believed it was a vital institution – employing such personnel, achieve “development”?

To all classical liberals, “development” was something DIY. You had to “Do It Yourself.” Individuals, under the “system of natural liberty,” were to develop themselves, through hard work, enterprise, and all the good and great virtues. It is to The Market they all pointed. And they all called for Liberty for this Market: Liberty From The State.

Adam Smith was a staunch Whig in his politics. The Whigs wanted to curb the powers and discretions of the King; to set the markets free; to put and end to all monopolies, restrictions and privileges; to freely trade between national borders unobstructed by States – and thereby put an end to ruinous wars. They were certainly not worshippers of The King.

Adam Smith admired the republicanism of Geneva – and even visited this fair city to breathe its free air for himself. Smith and Hume took an interest in Rousseau, the great democrat – but he turned out to be quite a bum. Yet, I daresay that if Smith could see the modern world, mass democracy â la Rousseau, with legislation, legislation and even more legislation, restrictions, restrictions and even more restrictions, rampant protectionism and perpetual wars, he would emerge shell-shocked. For people like Smith and Hume, and all those who believed in Liberty, had an abiding faith in progress. Looking at our Rousseauesque tyrannies, Smith and Hume would have been forced to concede that we moderns have not progressed at all. Technology, yes; but in politics, no. And let us not forget that technology was progressing rapidly in their time as well, for James Watt developed his steam engine, which powered the progress of the entire 19th century, in a workshop within the University of Glasgow, while Smith was Professor of Moral Philosophy there.

The real reason for this retrogression is just this: the grave error of expecting that The State, with its guns, can also achieve “good things.” What good can violence ever achieve? Sure, the State, which is nothing but an institution of coercion and compulsion, can ruthlessly suppress all dissent – the “stick” the editors so gleefully and carelessly recommend. But what of the “carrot”? That can only come from The Market.

This grand delusion is widespread in India, so there is nothing to be ashamed of. After all, the University Grants Commission, of which Chacha Manmohan S Gandhi was once chairman, doles out mammoth funds – “carrots”? – towards teaching us that the Role of The State lies in occupying the “commanding heights of the economy.” To our State professors, like those who taught me, and those who are still teaching our kids, the affairs of entrepreneurs, investors, traders – indeed, the day to day affairs of humanity – are best directed by an institution of coercion. We must all rue the day when this pernicious philosophy was unleashed upon our minds. And it is this error that today’s lead editorial in the Times of India suffers from.

If my reader wants to permanently cure himself of this dreadful mental disease, the alpha and the omega of Statolatry, which is the worship of power, I suggest Bastiat’s short and humorous essay, “The State.” It is here that he offers his famous definition of this peculiar beast:

The State is that grand fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

The editors say that The Chacha State is “planning to pump in big money for infrastructure projects in Naxalite-affected districts.” This is their famous "carrot." This funny money will go to its clients. It will come from us. Some will continue to live off others. Parasitism. No “carrot” at all.

Let us say a loud “NO” to such dreadful ideas. The great goal of “development” has nothing to do with the institution of The State – even if it was the most perfect and law-abiding State ever to have been constituted, entirely staffed by very honest and sincere personnel, which our Chacha State most certainly is not.

As far as the “development” of these poor forest-dwellers is concerned, the editors note what has actually transpired ever since the Brits were chucked out and the CONgress took over. They say:

Tribals have benefited the least from the Indian state and its development policies. Worse still, their lands and livelihoods have been ruthlessly destroyed over time.

Note the term “development policies.” Quite obviously, these ideas are all cock-and-bull. There is a huge mass uprising underway. The editors mention that the rebels “waylaid a train near the West Bengal-Orissa border.” They omit mentioning that this was the prestigious Rajdhani Express, the flagship of the Indian Railways. Not only are they not “getting the message” being tom-tommed by all the drums in all our deep and dark jungles, they are also playing down that message. They are playing ostrich. And their concluding para really shows how deep in the sand their heads are buried:

Naxalites, or anyone else for that matter, do not have the licence to take up arms. Rule of law is a prerequisite not just of democracy but also of development, both of which are negated when armed militias rule the roost. Anyone who breaks the law, whatever may be his motivation, must pay the price. The only way for Naxalites to have a place in this country is to play by the rules of our constitutional democracy.

Oh yeah? Illegal guns flourish throughout India. And all of us break laws, having no respect for them – like the prohibition on ganja, which I proudly and publicly break every single day. Lawlessness is rampant throughout India. Further, and most importantly, it is the State Police who are fundamentally “lawless” – and this implies that there are no “constitutional checks” on State powers. Now, when masses are revolting, these pretty boys find it all too disgusting, as it disturbs their happy make-believe in which the Chacha State is in heaven and all is well with the world. Sitting in their poky little air-conditioned cubicles on, most appropriately, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, they declaim that these rebels from our deepest and darkest jungles have “to play by the rules of our constitutional democracy,” failing which they will have “no place” in our society. As if they have a “place” today. To have a “place” means Property, stupid!

Anyway, I am proudly on the other side. We need more and more rebels. We must shake up The Chacha State. I am extremely happy that these poor, illiterate, and systematically oppressed forest-dwellers have shown the GUTS to take on our Chacha State. I wish them well. I have no sympathies for our The State. They must hear the grievances of the people and redress them. This requires “politics,” not guns.