What Amartya Sen said and what he did not
By Anirban Chattopadhyay. Translated by Debarshi Das, Sanhati
Amartya Sen has made his views on industrialisation in West Bengal known. To him, industrialisation is necessary for the development of the state, it is the only way for income growth. How will industrialisation come about, where will it be located – most of these issues will depend on market, on the requirements of those who are going to invest. For example, investors may like to have their industries set up near Kolkata. To facilitate this some farm land may have to be sacrificed. Otherwise industrialisation will itself get hampered, which would imply a lost opportunity for the people of the state. It even means loss for the farmers. Too many people are dependent on land, resulting in a constraint on their earnings. As long as these additional people are not moved away from farming by means of industrialisation, their lot will not improve.
The rulers of West Bengal and their sympathisers have lapped up these words. The impression they are creating is, “Now see for yourself, no less a person than Amartya Sen has certified what we are doing is the right thing.” Sen, however, had some unpleasant things to say about the police action as well. Ignoring those should be the most intelligent thing to do. Incidentally, Sen often offers wise advice on primary education, public health, maternal nutrition. He vents displeasure at West Bengal’s failure on these counts, but never have we seen the state government getting worked up as a result. Perhaps bitter truths are inaudible to them.
But neither have the protests against Sen’s views been rare. Criticisms of Sen have been robust in newspapers and magazines, on the internet, in civil discussions and debates. Surely this will not surprise the author of The Argumentative Indian (2006). And he knows, in this regard, Bengalis come first. A Bengali loves to argue. One of his plus points is, he does not hesitate to answer back a great scholar. She does not get awed with “O, Amartya Sen!” On the contrary, she retorts with double the enthusiasm, “So what if he has got the Nobel? Surely one has a right to raise questions and criticise!” There are many facets of these discussions and questions. There are inanities such as, “What does a non-resident Sen know about our land?” There are justified questions on comparing Europe with India on matters of industrialisation. Making a list of such criticisms will be useless. But there is a common thread running through these discussions. Many have asked, “Sen has written so extensively on human development, he has been saying so strongly for so long that rise in income does not guarantee rise in capability – but his present advocacy of industrialisation is one-dimensional. He is not dwelling much on if education, health, nutrition, quality of life will improve as a result of industrialisation! Is industrialisation the in thing, and human development out? Industrialisation sweeps away human development?” [an allusion to a memorable phrase in Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay’s Anandamath]
A simple answer to this question is, Sen has not said anything new, his opinion on industrialisation springs from his own position. There is a sentence in his interview (The Telegraph, 23 July, 2007) which is significant. He is saying, “The market economy has many imperfections, on which I have written extensively. But it also creates job and income and if the income goes up, government revenues go up, so there is money available for education and healthcare and other things.” It’s a simple logic: market will create income growth, the government will use a part of the additional income for human development. To be sure, Sen will not assert that government alone is responsible for education, health etc. He will be of the view, civil society may share the responsibility; it’s better and an imperative that it does so. But he wants that the state should have the primary obligation to satisfy these conditions of human development. The state should make up for the deficits of the society in this regard. He has repeatedly underlined: many a time government ventures into doing things that it should not do (such as running factories or hotels), and does not do what it should do (setting up suitable system of primary education or public health). Industrialisation is the task for the market; government can merely create an environment for it. Therefore, he would consider advocacy for industrialisation non-antagonistic to the philosophy of human development.
The theoretical structure which Sen espouses makes the abovementioned logical sequence natural, and appropriate. If one wants to raise questions, those questions should better be directed at the very structure itself. This structure is founded on a division – the division between production and distribution. The task-division between market and state that we have just mentioned also contends that production should be within the domain of the market. The state may have a welfare-oriented role to play in distributing income generated from production. This division is not specified explicitly in the development related discourse of Sen, but his development theory is based on it. To him, capabilities which are born out of education, health, nutrition are necessary conditions for development. These are synonymous with development (Development as Freedom). To provide people with these components of capability are important responsibilities of society and state. He underscores the role of free media and multiparty democracy in encouraging or compelling the state in carrying out the responsibility. But the discourse keeps silent on production. It is implicitly assumed, once the harvest of development is reaped a part of it will be utilised in providing for human development.
This discourse is incomplete. One has to get out of the theoretical structure of Amartya Sen in order to move towards a direction of completion. Why should we get confined to the domain of income or tax distribution if capability is the final goal? Why not raise questions about nature of industrialisation? Why should we remain satisfied that the car factory of Singur will create income? Why should we not ask, by what degree will the capabilities of people (which people? how many of them?) will get enhanced by that factory and its subsidiaries, directly and indirectly? This question can be raised for any investment project for that matter – factories or expressway, super facility hospital or retail market. It does not mean opposing investments. Neither does it imply that state should order investment about: “Get out of Singur, go to Purulia”. But neither can investments be completely left to the whims of market, for market looks at investment solely in terms of income and production. This yardstick, in Sen’s own formulation, is not sufficient. The yardstick of capabilities is also necessary. Why leave production out of the discourse of capabilities?
The questions trace their origin to Sen’s line of thought, and they tend to go beyond the structure created by him. Any true science moves in a similar fashion. So does a proper argument. The question is, will the argument-loving Bengali be argumentative? If she does, surely Prof. Sen will be pleased!
