Make in India or Making India

Bhaskar Majumder

There was a time immediately post-1947 when products, whether or not internally produced, were branded as ‘Made in India’. Time changed and import more of white goods that included electronic goods came to show different foreign brands probably because of consumer’s choice. Most of the goods at the bottom like rice-fish-vegetables did not need either home branding or foreign branding–the immediate implication was goods that required advertisement also required branding.

It was, of course, not manifest if nationalism-patriotism was associated with ‘Made in India’. Now post-2014 in ‘New India’ the slogan ‘Make in India’ has replaced ‘Made in India’. While 1956-1966 essentially characterised import-substitution, the slogan ‘Make in India’ did not occupy place of prominence. It seems when the state is uncertain about the credibility of the product, the slogan gets a new Avatar.

In the simplest of terms, Indians make use-value understood as consumer goods and capital goods that aim at trade sovereignty in the sense of attaining self-reliance. The ratio between home production and imports of goods rises gradually in import-substitution with several implications like increasing employment of manpower, expanding home market and so on.

Conventional idea is that resources are limited in any economy–limited because people need more than what quantity of resources can be transformed to satisfy their need. This need is not static; there are inter-class variations in need. The question, thus, is relevant on what is to be made in ‘Made in India’ or in ‘Make in India’. Outside material needs there are service needs that are not readily cardinal and hence difficult to be seen as ‘Made in India’ or ‘Make in India’.

What are to be made in India are the following though the population did not reveal it. Something concealed does not necessarily imply that that did not exist–obstructed choice is one such possibility.

Man does not live by bread alone; but bread is the basic need for both–rich and poor. People at the bottom talk about ‘Roji-Roti’; hence, Roji or employment is also a basic need–they are not for begging-stealing-borrowing. The other needs are corollaries like non-dispossession, non-deprivation, non-marginalisation. Once these are understood at the level of the nation, the core questions come as following:

Gender Question
Whether or not acknowledged, gender is a major issue for ‘Making India’ for women at least as home-makers have a respectable position in upbringing children through education-culture that is they have an inter-generational effect. A nation is made when children are made. Unfortunately, women across ages have remained victims because of domestic violence, honour killing, trafficking, rape, gang-rape, disappearance and so on.

Democracy Question
India practices Parliamentary Democracy. She has an esteemed Constitution. People cast votes once every five years. Democracy in reality is more than casting votes–it is based on consensus arrived at voluntary participation of people for all activities that affect them or what may be called decentralised democracy. There are Panchayati Raj institutions that got delayed to be set up; however, the caste-class often obstructs people at the bottom to participate to express their voice in these institutions. Making India is everybody’s India–hence, consensus in decision-making is the pedestal for ‘Making India’. If hegemon-consensus is taken as ‘majority-consensus’ and ultimately interpreted as ‘general consensus’, then that type of consensus may be spurious. Even if it is non-spurious, the decision-making from bottom by voluntary participation is the way.

Dignity Question
Dignity of man is non-negotiable and non-transferable. The concept of dignity may also differ by sections of people across regions. The most important factor that determines human dignity is education. In case the core state is adamant to destroy the public educational institutions or go for privatisation based on donation of huge money, the country will only claim ‘Make in India’ for all wrong reasons.

Making India

Making India is a process–it is in her continuity. People make it. This India is in her civilisation that started from pre-history because of her oral tradition. This history is in myth-mythology. Science as knowledge base and technology as praxis remodeled the idea of India but the civilization is now where it was centuries ago.

Most of the people in India are less ambitious and more religious. Family is the centre for living in spite of migration-mobility. Women had respect though understood as constrained by ‘Lakshamanrekha’. Some of these are not to be measured by some specified rights like right to cast votes. Even the most dominant coloniser had no provision of women casting votes till 1928. Socio-cultural atrocities, of course, polluted the right of women to live with dignity that may be understood from Satidahain undivided Bengal or elsewhere in disguised form and Devdasi system on the long coastal states of India along the Bay of Bengal. India will remain in ‘unmaking’ if women are not allowed entry in the public domain with voice. In India’s Epic, Draupadi had the voice to question the King (officiating) after she was dragged to the courtyard.

India will remain in ‘unmaking’ if money determines merit and voice of political power suppresses voice of the sane-wise persons. India will remain in unmaking if the public educational institutions are maligned. India will remain in unmaking if duopoly is protected-glorified at the cost of people. Unmaking India is much easier than making India for power to destroy is easy.

Essence of Making India
The essence lies in social justice, equitable distribution of whatever is made in India, respect for elderly and women in family and in public, caste-neutrality, truth, honesty, fraternity, love and care for children and the people of different ability. The essence lies in hunger-free India, shelter for all India. The essence lies in freedom of speech as different from despotism or anarchy. The responsibility of making India rests more on the state for reasons obvious. The essence rests on educational institutions.

It seems extremely difficult to be a part of ‘Making India’ as it requires commitment-honesty, as it is based on voluntary participation based on equality, as it respects diversity by regions and languages, as it is not based on force. Honesty itself is a difficult proposition for power and honesty follow divergent trajectories. In India’s epic, Yudhishthira had to pay a heavy price for his honesty and it was not clear if his participation in the game of chess second time was voluntary or not, but it was commitment for sure. Being part of ‘Making India’ is more difficult because the willing person may find doors shut in rooms where decisions are taken and/or allowed to enter to keep mum.

The major mishap in ‘Making India’ is the imposition of force by the majoritarian political party in a political society as most of India shows. Dysfunctional democracy is difficult to understand for it camouflages many of the measures kept in secret box. False images are also manufactured through inclusion-exclusion mechanism in which situations the ‘Nation-making India’ gets perplexed. People need to be convinced that the nation comes first that is more than the state. This nation is the people.

[Bhaskar Majumder, Professor of Economics (Retd.), G.B.Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad–211019]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 58, No. 10, Aug 31 - Sep 6, 2025