Hernando de Soto is making big waves in India these days. The Peruvian economist who champions land titling as the solution to the "mystery of capital" is talking to our The State about property titles for slum dwellers in our cities of joy. But the bureacRATS are not too happy. The IAS dud who heads the minitsry of urban development is quoted in this feature as saying:
"De Soto's approach is essentially based on capitalist economic principles. Our government will try to meld them into our socialist objectives," he added.
Note that every poor Indian does not live in a slum. In Goa, poor people also have homes. Simple homes, but homes. Slums are ubiquitous in all our big cities because The State controls real estate development here. In New Delhi, land is never bought and sold; it is always "allotted" - by The State. Hence the slums. It is these "socialist objectives" that have caused slums. Not that DDA localities are any better.
But I would take de Soto with a pinch of salt if I were you. As he says in this long interview, he runs an institution called Institute for Liberty and Democracy. He proudly says he "believes in both." He has obviously not arrived at the truth that a private property natural order is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Throughout the democratic world, Property is under relentless attack.
In India, things are far worse. We cannot build anything on farmland unless The State allows us to "convert" the land to alternative use. If this ridiculous assault on Property was done away with, and if local governments built roads into the surrounds, lots and lots of new properties would be built and owned by Indians. Cities would decongest. People would have real homes. Read my brief paper, "Bungalows for all" by clicking here. I am not talking of "slum development." I am talking of real estate development. Donald Trump language. Capitalism. Property.
Indeed, Property is not just an "economic principle." Property is truly the "name of the game." All that we see in markets is people exchanging properties. Homes are basic properties. Even cavemen "owned" their caves. If you forcibly occupy Baba Mast Ram's "Surya Gupha" in Devaprayag, the good baba, with whom I have smoked many chillums, will turf you out. From caves we moved to tree-dwellings. Now we have skyscrapers. If the Property Principle prevails, all Indians will have liveable homes someday soon. There will be no slums. But roads will have to be built as Top Priority. This must be done especially at the local level, using local knowledge.
Property is not just the name of the game, it is the pith and essence of civilization, of cities and markets, of prosperity and social order. It speaks volumes of our absent political leadership that a senior IAS man does not see that without this Principle in operation, no "rational-legal administration" can be built. They are all Maoists, these IAS duds.
You say:"Throughout the democratic world, Property is under relentless attack." Surely not "throughout"? In countries like England, for example, i think property rights are taken very seriously. Also, you seem to assume that the lack of property rights is somehow caused by democracy and therefore one should discard democracy. But this is clearly absurd. In totalitarian states it would obviously be worse simply because any change would be impossible. In a democracy, on the other hand, it's likely to happen over time. Even in India.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: Even in Merrie England the pound note stands in violation of written contract and Property. There are legislative bans on smoking in private bars and restaurants; there is the legislative ban on ganja. There are immigration restrictions that also violate Property.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is therefore fundamentally antithetical to Property because we confuse Law with Legislation. We take the noisy deliberations of the House of Commons too seriously. Law is too serious for that.
In India things are far worse than in Britain because our Constitution grants untrammeled powers and endless responsibilities to The State without bothering to secure the Property of the citizenry. This Constitution was adopted by the "democratic process"; that is, it was legally adopted by an elected assembly. This itself should indicate the fundamental disjoint between democracy and Property. Democracy always tries to expropriate certain groups in order to benefit others. It's basic "neeti" (ethic) is anti-property. The antidote is Law - the "private law world of Property, Contracts and Torts.
Nice post. And I also enjoyed the PDF that you'd linked.
ReplyDelete