Uganda must learn from Indian lesson
Arthur George Kamya
Relying on a recently published book titled “In Spite of the Gods” by Edward Luce, this article attempts to draw some lessons for Uganda from the economic organisation of post-independence India, initially organised around policies of import substitution (Mohandas Gandhi’s handspun and homespun cotton substitute for Manchester-manufactured, imported yarn), self-reliance and tight state control.
In 1991, the Indian government ushered in a period of economic liberalisation responsible for today’s so-called Indian economic miracle. In addition to being a vibrant and pluralistic democracy, pre-liberalised India built up an intellectual and technological prowess unequalled in the Third World.The Indian economy was buttressed by a widespread use of English as the language of higher education instruction. An average GDP growth rate of 3.2% prior to 1990, however, was derided as the “Hindu rate of growth”. While per capita incomes of India and South Korea were roughly at par in 1947, the latter was ten times the former by the 1980s. Questions were rightly raised about the pre-1991 Indian economy: Were the large resources (equal to budgetary allocation for elementary schools) poured into English language universities for the urban elite justifiable in a country with 84% illiteracy rate?
The economic advantages latent in pre-liberalised India came to bloom with liberalisation. India’s scientific and technical capacity spawned miracles. The software industry in America’s Silicon Valley, dominated by Indians, reproduced several satellites in India. Western patients now routinely travel to India to be treated by India’s brain and hip surgeons. Indian drug companies have more pending patent applications in the US than any other country (including the USA). Owing to its facility with the English language, India is the world’s call centre capital.
A comparison between the Chinese and Indian model of economic growth is instructive. Chinese economic growth has been relatively more labour intensive compared to India. China spends a comparatively higher share of its budget on elementary education as opposed to India which spends more on higher education. With respect to textiles, while China competes on price, India competes on quality. Essentially, while China has developed in the same sequence as most western countries (agriculture to low cost manufacturing, climbing up the value-added ladder, to hopefully burst into the nirvana of internationally tradable services), India (half of whose economy comprises of services, with agriculture and industry, each accounting for about a quarter each) is more akin to a middle-income country.
How is the foregoing analysis applicable to Uganda? Post-independence India’s economic experience demolishes three shibboleths of President Yoweri Museveni. First, contrary to Movement dogma, it is possible for a country to democratise prior to having a sizable middle-class or majority literacy. Secondly, India’s post-liberalisation rapid economic growth in the absence of broad-based manufacturing-driven industrialisation teaches that destructive industrialisation such as the Mabira Project is not a necessary. There is more than one way to skin the economic development cat. Thirdly, the argument that we can populate ourselves to economic prosperity (India and China have large populations; India and China are developing very fast; therefore, in order to achieve high development, a country needs a high population) is a fallacy. There is neither correlation nor causation between the magnitude of populations and the rate of economic growth of countries. Proponents of this piffle mistake population size for population growth. Respectively, 2006-2007 figures of population size, population growth and GDP growth are for India (1.1 billion, 1.6%, 9.2%), China (1.3 billion, 0.6%, 10.7%) and Uganda (30 million, 3.6%, 5.3%), translating into rates of increase in living standards (economic growth rate less population growth rate) of 7.6, 10.1 and 1.7 percent respectively With respect to the ultimate goal of economic development (raising living standards), Uganda lags behind the other two countries not because they have bigger populations but because Uganda has a higher population growth rate..
The bigger question, though, is this: As a former British colony, with a decent higher education system (at least prior to recent changes), our economy is more akin to India than China. Yet we seem determined to follow a China-type model of development. Is this wise? Are not government policies (such as not teaching English until Primary Four) in a world where English is the coin of the globalised realm misguided?
The writer is a regular commentator on contemporary issues affecting Uganda.agkamya@hotmail.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Monitor Article: Chogm: Reflecting on India’s past
Chogm: Reflecting on India’s past
Arthur George Kamya
In 1599, Queen Elizabeth I granted a royal charter to the East India Company (EIC), which ruled India until 1857, when Indian colonial administration was transferred to the British government in London. (Compare, the Imperial British East African Company, whose administration of Uganda was similarly terminated in the 1880s). Thereafter, for administrative purposes, India was divided into provinces (ruled directly by British governors) and princely states, presided over by Maharajas, Nawabs, and Nizams, absolute, hereditary rulers of their states (assisted by British Residents), save for certain enumerated spheres (defence and foreign affairs) for which British supremacy was recognised by treaty. Indian traditional rulers were renowned for their outrageously and outlandishly luxurious lifestyles. Some British Residents were not above collecting damaging information about the odd Maharaja to use as blackmail to achieve British interests.
This colonial template should be familiar to anyone knowledgeable about Ugandan history. Colonial Uganda was administered partly through traditional kings (assisted by British Residents), with the rest directly administered by the colonial administration. Traditional rulers such as the Kabaka of Buganda were under the illusion that their relationship with the colonial administration was anchored in certain treaties (1900 Agreement) which could be terminated to their advantage. Alas, we know little about the private lives and peccadilloes of our traditional rulers or their Residents. Did any of the Kabakas or Bakamas indulge in outrageous or outlandish or super-luxurious behaviour? Did any of the British Residents dabble in the black arts of blackmail against their princely charges? Can columnist Peter Mulira enlighten us?
Louis Mountbatten, India’s last Viceroy, arrived early in 1947 to lay the groundwork for Indian independence. His plan initially called for each of the princely states to choose either to join India/Pakistan or to become independent. The latter option was successfully resisted by the Indian nationalist parties (Congress Party of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel and the Muslim League of Muhammad Ali Jinna) as a route to balkanisation. The princes’ argument that the powers previously transferred to Britain by treaty should naturally revert to them was ignored by the British. Similarly, the princes’ threats to cancel agreements with the British permitting Indian railways, posts and telegraphs to pass through their lands came to naught. Ultimately, the princes agreed to give up their political power and accede to either India or Pakistan. In return, they were allowed to hold onto many of their titular and pecuniary emoluments, which they maintained until 1973 when most of such privileges were abolished by constitutional amendment.
All this similarly tracks Uganda’s history. The struggles and arguments between the Indian states and the colonial administration mirror similar arguments and struggles between the likes of Buganda and the central government (colonial or otherwise) that culminated in the Buganda crises of the 1950s, the exiling of the Kabaka, and ultimately the 1966 Crisis and the abolition of the kingdoms. To put in a good word for India, while it managed to keep its independence deal with the princes for 25 years, and only abolished princely privileges by legitimate constitutional amendment, Uganda only managed four years, and the abolition was extra-constitutional.
There is a lot which we owe to India and India’s independence leaders. It is to them that we owe the formation of a multiracial Commonwealth of monarchies and republics, the Non-Aligned Movement and the precedent of a written constitution with both enforceable and aspirational provisions (such as the Ugandan Constitution). The founders of India (Gandhi, Nehru and Patel) were exceptional men. Between them, Gandhi and Nehru spent 10 years each in British jails prior to 1947. (Were Uganda’s post-independence leaders so cavalier with democracy because they never paid a high personal price? Ironically, the only Ugandan independence agitator who paid dearly (exile) for his activism, Kabaka Muteesa II, fared least well in post-independence Uganda). All three of the Indian founding fathers were English-trained barristers. Could it be for this reason that they were very respectful of the democratic process, unlike our leaders (Milton Obote) whose professional training is, at best, unclear? While Uganda’s party of independence (UPC) owes to the corresponding Indian party its name (Congress) and party symbol (open palm hand), it owes little else to the hallowed Nehruvian Indian Congress party.
So, in this year of Uganda hosting Chogm, also an anniversary of the independence of the Commonwealth countries of India (1947) and Ghana (1957), can we spare a moment to reflect on that which we owe to these our pioneering peer Commonwealth nations?
The writer is a regular commentator on historical and contemporary events affecting Uganda.agkamya.blogspot.comagkamya@hotmail.com
Arthur George Kamya
In 1599, Queen Elizabeth I granted a royal charter to the East India Company (EIC), which ruled India until 1857, when Indian colonial administration was transferred to the British government in London. (Compare, the Imperial British East African Company, whose administration of Uganda was similarly terminated in the 1880s). Thereafter, for administrative purposes, India was divided into provinces (ruled directly by British governors) and princely states, presided over by Maharajas, Nawabs, and Nizams, absolute, hereditary rulers of their states (assisted by British Residents), save for certain enumerated spheres (defence and foreign affairs) for which British supremacy was recognised by treaty. Indian traditional rulers were renowned for their outrageously and outlandishly luxurious lifestyles. Some British Residents were not above collecting damaging information about the odd Maharaja to use as blackmail to achieve British interests.
This colonial template should be familiar to anyone knowledgeable about Ugandan history. Colonial Uganda was administered partly through traditional kings (assisted by British Residents), with the rest directly administered by the colonial administration. Traditional rulers such as the Kabaka of Buganda were under the illusion that their relationship with the colonial administration was anchored in certain treaties (1900 Agreement) which could be terminated to their advantage. Alas, we know little about the private lives and peccadilloes of our traditional rulers or their Residents. Did any of the Kabakas or Bakamas indulge in outrageous or outlandish or super-luxurious behaviour? Did any of the British Residents dabble in the black arts of blackmail against their princely charges? Can columnist Peter Mulira enlighten us?
Louis Mountbatten, India’s last Viceroy, arrived early in 1947 to lay the groundwork for Indian independence. His plan initially called for each of the princely states to choose either to join India/Pakistan or to become independent. The latter option was successfully resisted by the Indian nationalist parties (Congress Party of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel and the Muslim League of Muhammad Ali Jinna) as a route to balkanisation. The princes’ argument that the powers previously transferred to Britain by treaty should naturally revert to them was ignored by the British. Similarly, the princes’ threats to cancel agreements with the British permitting Indian railways, posts and telegraphs to pass through their lands came to naught. Ultimately, the princes agreed to give up their political power and accede to either India or Pakistan. In return, they were allowed to hold onto many of their titular and pecuniary emoluments, which they maintained until 1973 when most of such privileges were abolished by constitutional amendment.
All this similarly tracks Uganda’s history. The struggles and arguments between the Indian states and the colonial administration mirror similar arguments and struggles between the likes of Buganda and the central government (colonial or otherwise) that culminated in the Buganda crises of the 1950s, the exiling of the Kabaka, and ultimately the 1966 Crisis and the abolition of the kingdoms. To put in a good word for India, while it managed to keep its independence deal with the princes for 25 years, and only abolished princely privileges by legitimate constitutional amendment, Uganda only managed four years, and the abolition was extra-constitutional.
There is a lot which we owe to India and India’s independence leaders. It is to them that we owe the formation of a multiracial Commonwealth of monarchies and republics, the Non-Aligned Movement and the precedent of a written constitution with both enforceable and aspirational provisions (such as the Ugandan Constitution). The founders of India (Gandhi, Nehru and Patel) were exceptional men. Between them, Gandhi and Nehru spent 10 years each in British jails prior to 1947. (Were Uganda’s post-independence leaders so cavalier with democracy because they never paid a high personal price? Ironically, the only Ugandan independence agitator who paid dearly (exile) for his activism, Kabaka Muteesa II, fared least well in post-independence Uganda). All three of the Indian founding fathers were English-trained barristers. Could it be for this reason that they were very respectful of the democratic process, unlike our leaders (Milton Obote) whose professional training is, at best, unclear? While Uganda’s party of independence (UPC) owes to the corresponding Indian party its name (Congress) and party symbol (open palm hand), it owes little else to the hallowed Nehruvian Indian Congress party.
So, in this year of Uganda hosting Chogm, also an anniversary of the independence of the Commonwealth countries of India (1947) and Ghana (1957), can we spare a moment to reflect on that which we owe to these our pioneering peer Commonwealth nations?
The writer is a regular commentator on historical and contemporary events affecting Uganda.agkamya.blogspot.comagkamya@hotmail.com
Uganda's Extortionate Pentecostal Pastors
Uganda is suffering an epidemic of extortionate "health and wealth" Pentecostal pastors who compel congregants to tithe and require "donations" in exchange for the pastors praying for congregants' health and wealth problems. The bigger, more dire a congregant's problem, the bigger is the requisite "donation". This is no modern problem. It is akin to the scandalous sale of indulgences that characterized the pre-reformation Roman Catholic church in Europe. In defence of RC, they at least bequeathed to us the priceless artifacts and magnificent buildings that make today's Rome. Not so Uganda's pastors. Unlike the notorious Cardinal Woolsey who feigned humility riding around England on a donkey even as he kept multiple palaces (and a mistress or two), or the good Lord who would only ride a donkey, Uganda's pastors are competing to import Hummers worth hundred of thousands of dollars to cruise around Uganda's traffic and exhaust-fume filled roads. Time for a Ugandan reformation, anybody?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
African Sex Games of Politics
Here is the latest in the series of the sex games of politics afflicting Africa. Zimbabwean Archbishop Pius Ncube, foremost Mugabe critic, has been hit with an adultery lawsuit. Also, compromising pictures of the cleric have appeared in the press. Both obviously the work of Mugabe's security operatives. This follows on the heels of Ugandan opposition leader Kiiza Besigye being accused (and later acquitted) of grotesque rape charges in the middle of his electoral challenge to ruling strongman Yoweri Museveni, as well as out of favor South African Vice President Jacob Zuma suffering same fate. What's up with Africa's strongmen? What takes the cake is fact that Mugabe only married his current wife, a divorcee, after special papal dispensation. Shame on the Vatican!!
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Bull, the Hindus, Mad Cow and the Act
Here are a couple of stories illustrating different religious exercise legal standards in the US and Europe. According to a British High Court, the right of a Hindu community to keep alive a venerated bovine-TB infected bull trumps the state's interest in putting down the cow to prevent spread of the disease. AGK thinks that in the US (standard: such state action is only unconstitutional if it substantially burdens the exercise of religion) the case would have gone the other way. Is Europe now more protective of religious practice than the US? Do the Brits realize that, via the back door of the European Convention of Human Rights, they now have a written bill of rights, possibly more constraining of the state than is the case in the US?
The other case--girl cannot claim same right as Hindus to wear a chastity ring in school against contrary compulsion by school because ring not intrinsic Christian symbol--is interesting too. Who gives the judge the right to decide what constitutes intrinsic religious symbols? Why not assert right to free speech, which surely could have been a winner in the US?
The other case--girl cannot claim same right as Hindus to wear a chastity ring in school against contrary compulsion by school because ring not intrinsic Christian symbol--is interesting too. Who gives the judge the right to decide what constitutes intrinsic religious symbols? Why not assert right to free speech, which surely could have been a winner in the US?
State Enables Prisoners getting High Safely
One of agk's fascinations are the mutual incomprehensibilities of each other between America and Europe. Here is one of those touchy-feely, social democratic, post-history European quirks that Americans would probably not understand: providing clean syringes to prisoners so they can safely inject drugs they are not supposed to have, compensating prisoners (by court order) for the withdrawal symptoms they suffer as a result of prisons forcing them to quit drugs "cold-turkey" and providing gay porn to gay prisoners in order not to discriminate against them, all in the UK. Something about lunatics running the assylum?
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Tintin racist?
While agk was not a comics buff as a boy, he thought he had read all the Tintins there were (according to the guide on the back-cover of each one), until the emergence of a long-lost one, Tintin in the Congo. Now agk does not believe in airbrushing history, and thus would not be in favor of banning this one. Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)