Answer

Introduction

The Beijing Consensus stresses state-led capitalism and stability over freedoms, unlike the Washington Consensus of liberalisation and minimal state role. Its success makes it attractive even to democracies like India, raising concerns of authoritarian drift.

Body

Positives from the Beijing Consensus over Washington Consensus with respect to India

• State-led growth model: The Beijing Consensus validates state intervention in economic growth, which aligns with India’s mixed economy approach.
• Resilience during crises: Unlike the rigid fiscal discipline of the Washington Consensus, the Beijing approach allows flexibility in public spending during crises.
  Eg: During the COVID-19 pandemic, India expanded public welfare schemes and fiscal stimulus without strict adherence to deficit limits.
• Strategic industrial policy: State capitalism supports strategic sectors like defence and infrastructure, crucial for India’s long-term goals.
• Knowledge-driven development: China’s model highlights investment in human capital and R&D, which India can adopt to sustain growth.
  Eg: India’s focus on Digital India and AI missions resonates with China’s knowledge-based growth framework.
• Balancing global pressures: The Beijing Consensus provides alternatives to Western-dominated financial institutions, allowing India strategic autonomy.
  Eg: India’s participation in BRICS New Development Bank reflects a move beyond Washington’s IMF-World Bank dominance.

Limitations of Beijing Consensus over Washington Consensus with respect to India

• Erosion of democratic freedoms: Excessive state control risks curbing rights and surveillance, undermining India’s democratic fabric.
  Eg: Concerns over increasing use of investigative agencies against dissent highlight this risk.
• Crony capitalism: State-led models often favor a few billionaires, leading to economic inequality and reduced competition.
  Eg: Allegations of favoritism toward select business houses in India’s infrastructure and energy sectors mirror Chinese patterns.
• Global mistrust of authoritarianism: Adoption of authoritarian practices may strain India’s democratic credentials in the global arena.
• Dependence on state over markets: Over-centralisation risks reducing market efficiency and innovation, slowing long-term growth.
• Geopolitical risks: Aligning too closely with Beijing-style state capitalism may create suspicion among partners aligned with the US.
  Eg: India’s participation in QUAD requires balancing democratic values with economic pragmatism.

Way forward for India

• Hybrid model of governance: Blend the efficiency of markets with targeted state support to avoid extremes of both models.
  Eg: Continue liberalisation while safeguarding sectors critical for national security like defence and energy.
• Safeguarding democratic institutions: Preserve institutional independence to prevent authoritarian tendencies while pursuing development goals. 
• Inclusive economic growth: Avoid cronyism by ensuring transparent policies and equal opportunities for all enterprises.
• Focus on human capital: Emphasise education, healthcare, and skill development to build a knowledge-based society like China’s, but within democratic safeguards.
  Eg: Initiatives like Skill India and NEP 2020 strengthen India’s demographic dividend.
• Strategic global positioning: Use a multi-aligned foreign policy, learning from both Beijing and Washington models without compromising sovereignty.
  Eg: India’s simultaneous engagement with BRICS, QUAD, and G20 showcases this balanced approach.

Conclusion

The Beijing Consensus demonstrates the benefits of state-led growth, strategic industrial policy, and crisis resilience, but its authoritarian tendencies threaten democracy, freedoms, and global trust. India can adopt a hybrid approach by combining market efficiency with targeted state support while safeguarding institutions to ensure sustainable development and maintain sovereignty.

DOWNLOAD PDF