JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH, Professor of Economics, Harvard University; visiting lecturer in Asia for the Department of State, 1957; author of "The Affluent Society," "Study Guide on Modern Far Eastern History" and other political and economic works
IF WE are to understand the impact on India of foreign economic ideas we must first recognize how immune the Indian economy is to influence from any source, including that of the Indian Government. Indian life, as we have so often been told, resides in the villages. The great cities--Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi, Madras--are, in any quantitative sense, on the fringe of Indian society. Eighty-three percent of the people live in the villages; and these number a nearly unimaginable 612,000.
The isolation of the Indian village is something that can be both seen and felt. The thin, searching people, the mud and thatch, the patrol of silent cows, the meagre surrounding fields, all convey a sense of solitude. Village government is primitive and but slightly tied to central authority. There is no priest who is in communication with his hierarchy and no telephone or telegraph lines to the city. Often the village can be approached only on foot. Those who have approached it over the mud dikes or along the dusty paths in centuries past have been the agents of old oppressions or the harbingers of new misfortunes. At best they have been bearers of promises that were never kept or prophets of reforms that were never made. Out of the depths of this experience the village has a deeply ingrained mistrust of the world outside, and this mistrust is directed first of all at those who presume to govern.
The economic life of the village is concerned, indeed preoccupied, with the production of food. And so, therefore, is Indian economic life as a whole. Approximately half of India's gross national product is made in agriculture, and approximately 70 percent of the people are directly dependent on agriculture for their livelihood.
In an economy where food is so important, so, inevitably, is land. There are very few generalizations which can be made about landholding in the Indian villages. Some people own a great deal more land than others, but a great many people do own some. The state governments are trying with varying degrees of efficiency, determination and success to broaden the base of land ownership. Perhaps it is enough to say that the Indian agrarian community is one of marked but not limitless economic and social inequality. At its bottom, however, are to be found perhaps the world's most unfortunate men--the mass of landless laborers for whom idleness, hunger and privation are endemic. All in all, the Indian village is no Auburn...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
TO Jawaharlal Nehru, India's present danger is within. Wherever he has gone across his vast country since Independence, whatever his immediate pronouncement on the affairs of India or the world, Nehru has appealed above all for national unity. "Integrate," he warns, "or perish." He sees it as his historic mission to overcome an endemic challenge to Indian nationalism--a challenge as elemental as the Hindu-Moslem schism which ended in partition and separate statehood for Pakistan less than a decade ago.
Since 9/11, Muslim schools have been denounced as breeding grounds for terrorism. But instead of seeing madrasahs as a threat, Western policymakers should recognize that they present an opportunity for engagement and reform.
India's military humiliation at the hands of China in 1962 set in motion a process of internal political deterioration which still continues. The first impact of the unimpeded Chinese advance had brought a temporary surge of fellow feeling and patriotic fervor; but the deeper and more lasting consequence of the rout at Bomdila was the virtual destruction of the unprecedented sense of national confidence so carefully nurtured by Nehru during his years of leadership. What was left of dynamism and élan soon faded away as India's inability to strike back in the foreseeable future became more and more abundantly clear to a demoralized nationalist élite.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.