If the image of the Indian politician today is a deplorable one, that of the Indian economist seems to offer a competition to it. No less a person than the doyen of Indian economists, Prof. C. N. Vakil, had to plead before the economists gathered at the Golden Jubilee Conference of the Indian Economic Association to take care of their doings in order to maintain professional dignity and prosperity.
He said: “It is a poor state of affairs when the degree of competence in economic matters is adjudged by the jelliness or the missing of the viewpoints of individuals in the face of conflicting political or opportunistic pressures. The standards of economic competence must be set within the profession and from without. It is here that a strong Economic Association means a strong bulwark for democracy.”
The politicians fall from grace because of their own doings. The fall of the Indian economists is likewise their own doing.
The era of planning opened new opportunities to economists to come before public eyes by rendering a useful service by employing the tools of economics to solve the economic problems of the country. But that opportunity seems to have been lost.
Many economists have used their economic tools for demonstrably political purposes and in the bargain sacrificed what should constitute professional standards. An impression has gained ground that many have fallen prey to the lure of public office, and that the butter of government patronage has been allowed to be applied to the economist’s research bread.
This careerism has advanced to such a stage that even among economists, the very mention of the name of a former academician now in governmental authority is greeted with sneers.
Many economists have proved themselves in public eye at more than one stage to be completely out of touch with economic realities. This has happened in two ways.
Some of them seemed too eager at one stage to endorse government’s economic policies which are subsequently discredited in practice. At that stage, with tide of public opinion running strong against the Government’s policies, these economists started criticising the very policies they earlier endorsed. One major instance is about the Second Plan.
An official publication, comprising Papers Relating to the Formulation of the Second Plan, gives the views of Panel of Economists and of the Planning Commission on the Second Plan Draft. With the exception of Prof. B. R. Shenoy, whose minute of dissent proved prophetic, all others endorsed the Plan. Later on, when the Plan brought disaster to the country, some of the economists started vehemently criticising the Plan. The public was thus free to draw its own conclusions; these economists had either endorsed the Plan to please the Government and mobilised sufficient courage to criticise it only when the public became restive, or they were mere theoreticians who had no idea of realities.
Another way economists were discredited was when they handled economic affairs from position of power. Some of them, known for their discourses on economic subjects, made complete shambles of their portfolios.
Lack of restraint is another reason for the fall of the Indian economist in public eyes. One instance is the recent report on industrial licensing. This valuable analysis has been vitiated because, in the process of analysis, an impression has been created that it is an attack on one business house. It is of the essence of public policy that individuals should not be singled out for attack unless they are guilty of transgressing the laws of the country in which case established procedures are to be followed.
Also the reference to “Marwari Capital”, “Gujarati Capital” and “Parsi Capital” in an official document, at a time when the need for national integration is the face of sub-nationalism is great, is a deplorable lapse on the part of the author of the report who should have known better than to lay stress on communal aspects of ownership of capital.
Lack of restraint, and a possible desire for publicity, once again characterise the same report when the economist by his own admission, “oversteps” the terms of reference and recommends nationalisation of commercial banks.
Another glaring example of economists giving up a scientific approach to economic problem is to be found in the so-called report of four economists on bank nationalisation. It is not a research document, but a pamphlet based on the apparent ideological bias of its authors in favour of bank nationalisation. Economists, like other citizens, are free to hold any ideology of their. But they should be careful to present their ideological thesis as ideological thesis and not as a research document. In presenting it as a report of economists they seem to have lent themselves as a tool in the hands of professional politicians.
Prof. Vakil aptly remarked at the recent conference that: “We must remember that economists are not saints. They have their own careerist goals and aspirations. They too are tempted by the lure of office, by the glamour attached to association with those who wield power and authority. The dreams of all economists may not wholly be in the sphere of scholarship. It is therefore not proper to consider the viewpoint of any economist as the economic viewpoint under all circumstances. Hence, it is a special task of all economists, or it should become their task, that they should drastically and ruthlessly criticise one another’s viewpoints.
They should constantly lay before the profession and before the public the different aspects of an economic issue. Only then can the public be made aware of when and where an economist who steps into the world of policy has drawn a conclusion based upon his non-economic bias, or upon the non-economist influences operating upon him. It is well known that the men in authority are always on the quest for those who will support their particular positions. The public may be deluded into thinking that such and such an economist influences the politician or the authorities, though more often than not, it is the latter, who by picking the suitable brand of advisers, gets some technical support for his own positions.”
Also read: Without free enterprise in economic life, we cannot maintain democracy: Minoo Masani
The independence of many economists has been seriously compromised by their acceptance of research assignments from Governmental agencies, particularly the Planning Commission. In private, some economists admit this as having happened in their case. They regret their inability to appear on public platforms where they may have to express views which would be unpalatable to the powers that be, and thus jeopardise the patronage doled out to them.
Many an Indian economist has fallen into another trap also. He has sought to become a politician in order to gain “popularity”. At best they have become half-baked politicians just as many a full-fledged politician has become a half-baked economist with disastrous results to the country. The economic mess in the country is a tribute to the combined efforts of both.
Unless the economists adopt a code of conduct and assert their independence of thinking and maintain their integrity, they will incur the wrath of the public for dereliction of their duty.
This essay is part of the Indian Liberals archive series by the Centre for Civil Society, available at Indian Liberals. It is excerpted from the March 1968 issue of Freedom First, under the title The Image of the Indian Economist. The original version of the essay can be accessed here.