Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
''PROHIBITING THE USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR INDUSTRIES IS ULTIMATELY SELF-DEFEATING'
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen speaks to Sambit Saha of The Telegraph on land acquisition for industrialisation, one of the most important issues facing Bengal and large parts of the country.
Q: What are your views on farmland acquisition for industry and the Singur-Nandigram controversy?
Amartya Sen: That is a very complicated question and has many aspects. Let me separate them out.
First of all, the need for industrial priority in West Bengal, which is a big long-term question and an extremely important issue.
It is sometimes underestimated the extent to which Bengal has been de-industrialised. Bengal was one of the major industrial centres in the world, not only in India. In European writings, Bengal has again and again come up as being one of the most prosperous areas in the world as an industrial base. The kind of reputation that some parts of Italy gained later.
It is often said that historically, Calcutta was founded 300 years ago by Job Charnock but it is also true that there was an urban settlement based on trade and industry, apart from agriculture, in this area. This we see not only from Indian records but also from the writings of Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder. The Europeans were aware of that.
Very near from Calcutta, there were industrial areas of huge prosperity. There is also mention in the writings of Fa Hien who came here in 401 and spent 10 years. He went back by boat. He took the boat from Tamralipta, which is very close to Calcutta. Effectively, it was greater Calcutta. So this has been a trading and industrial area for a very long time.
When Charnock came and the Battle of Plassey happened, there was not only English but the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Flemish and the Danish merchants. They were all interested in the industrial products of this area. Under the British, there was de-industrialisation of classical industry but new industries came in the form, for example, of jute. But gradually that went off after Independence and there was further de-industrialisation.
The policy of the Communist Party itself was not well thought-out. The industrial agitation may have given the workers a little bit more rights, but they lost many more rights by the industries withdrawing out of Calcutta.
Jyotibabu was aware of the problem and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has tried to carry the understanding forward by trying to make it possible to have a big industrial base here. And it is extremely important.
It is also very important to recognise that production of industrial goods was based on the banks of the Hooghly and the Ganges, which are fertile areas anyway. So to say that ‘this is fertile agriculture land and you should not have industry here’ not only goes against the policy of the West Bengal government but also against the 2,000-year history of Bengal.
This is where industry was based because even though the land may be very fertile, industrial production could generate many times more than the value of the product produced by agriculture. The locations of great industry, be it Manchester or Lancashire, these were all on heavily fertile land. Industry has always competed against agriculture because the shared land was convenient for industry for trade and transportation.
Q: What about land acquisition?
Sen: I think some mistakes were made and the government should admit it and to some extent the government has admitted it.
Singur’s location could be questioned because there were some other locations one could have thought of like Kharagpur. But one of the difficulties is that Calcutta has such a huge attraction that it is very much easier to attract engineers and managers to an industrial base near Calcutta for the Tatas than in Kharagpur. And this is a dominant factor. Because Calcutta has such reputation.
I recently wrote in a book edited by Gopal Gandhi on Gandhi and Bengal about Gandhi’s relationship with Bengal. Interestingly, the first day he arrived in Calcutta in 1896, he went to see a play. In his stay of six days, he went to see another play. So here is a Gujarati arriving here, but he is so interested in the cultural life of Calcutta that he goes to see two plays in six days. So you just can’t say that because it is fertile land, you cannot allow managers and industrialists to be based in Calcutta and they have to be based in district towns. So the locational decision of Singur was probably not wrong.
Q: What are your views on the compensation paid for land?
Sen: The government paid much higher price than the value of the land in the free market. From that point of view, it was fair. Had there been no industry, they would have got the best value for the land. (Had the land not been taken for industry, the price they got would have been considered the best value, Sen explained.)
Where there is a mistake in the government’s thinking, and I think it is a big mistake of a tactical kind, is not to recognise that if this land were available for industry in general, and not just for the Tatas, the value of the land would have been much greater. While the compensation paid is greater than the value of the land seen as agricultural land, the compensation paid by the government is less than what the value would have been had it been free for competition with industries. If you are part of the market economy, then you have to take into account what the value of the land would have been had it been freely available for industry. So there is an issue to be addressed. I think it is a mistake, an honest mistake and it can be corrected in the future.
Nandigram is a much more complex issue. There is a question whether that kind of operation was needed, whether it was the right place. But I have not studied it in the way I have studied Singur. So I won’t comment.
Q: What, according to you, are the other issues here?
Sen: It is now very important for both the government and the Opposition to avoid violence. There is never a case for violence. The government’s policing has been in some cases over-strong. I understand that some Opposition parties have now created ‘free regions’ where they would not allow anyone to come in. That is also violent activity. It is not in line with Indian tradition of non-violence. The government and the Opposition have to recognise that. It is possible that in the past, the violence committed by the government was greater, but from what I hear, it is possible the opposite might be the case now.
Whichever way it may be, we don’t have to judge. But it is extremely important that in a free country, any people can come in and go out from any place they like and you cannot establish restriction of movement either by the government or the Opposition. This is a subject for rational discussion, which has become so impossible as everything is politicised now. Ultimately, those who want to prevent industrialisation of Bengal do not look enough at the interest of the people of the state. They may intend well, but they are not serving the interest of Bengal’s working class or peasantry. The prosperity of the peasantry in the world always depends on the number of peasants going down. That is the standard experience in the world.
It is not that historically agricultural production goes up so much that they become hugely rich on that basis. Bengal has done very well in terms of agriculture compared to other states. But that has not made Bengal immensely prosperous. In countries like Australia, the US or Canada, where agriculture has prospered, only a very tiny population is involved in agriculture. Most people move out to industry. Industry has to be convenient, has to be absorbing.
When people move out of agriculture, total production does not go down. So per capita income increases. For the prosperity of industry, agriculture and the economy, you do need industrialisation. Those in effect preventing that, either by politically making it impossible for an industrialist to feel comfortable in Bengal or making it difficult to buy land for industry, do not serve the interest of the poor well.
The Communist Party made a mistake earlier when it drove industries out by union action, which was intended to create benefits for workers but ended up making the workers having no job. Second time it is happening now, not from the Communist Party but from the Opposition, preventing industrialisation, which is not in the interest of Bengal in general and the poor in particular. So if Bengal is to regain what it used to be — being one of the richest in the world — industrialisation has to happen.
Prohibiting the use of agricultural land for industries is ultimately self-defeating.
Q: Why not develop other areas in Bengal where land is less fertile and build infrastructure so that industry goes there?
Sen: You have to bring industry everywhere. But there is no way in which you will be able to avoid industrialisation around Calcutta, any more than you could have avoided it in London, Lancashire, Manchester, Berlin, Paris, Pittsburgh. You will find industry will come up where there are advantages of production, taking into account also the locational preferences of managers, engineers, technical experts as well as unskilled labour.
But we should not make the mistake of thinking that somehow while you are trying to attract business based on the market that the government can say: ‘I want you to go to Siliguri and that is where you are going to be.’ That is not the way the market economy works. 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.
So in order to do that, you have to give the market economy the operational rational of choosing one location over another, depending on their market-based calculation. You cannot be governed by the market but nor can you ignore the logic of the market if you want to use the market as one of the instruments in advancing the country. So the whole idea of thinking in highly bureaucratic terms that ‘I want it in Siliguri and Bankura but not here’, that is not going to work. That is not the way industry functions in a market economy.
Courtesy: The Telegraph, Kolkata
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Playing Cards in the Village
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
At many places the people in the villages play Cards.
Bhagat Singh Thinks through a Folk Song
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
One day Bhagat Singh was reading revolutionary literature. The plight of India and torture of Britishers was in his mind.How he thinks all that ?
Monday, January 14, 2008
PROTESTS IN FRANCE
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
Vibrant Student And Workers Movement In France
US fashion magazine ‘Vanity Fair’ ranked the ‘smart’ French President Nicolas Sarkozy to be the 68th best-dressed person in the world along with Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt and English soccer hero David Beckham. Like the pied piper of Hamlin, Nicolas Sarkozy initially enchanted eminent figures on all sides with his verve and brio. The media were equally spellbound and joined in the mass hysteria. France was virtually hypnotised by their new president. .
The scales began to fall from everyone’s eyes when the true nature of the sideshow was revealed. The magician was just a neo-liberal in disguise. This was clear from the first economic and social measures announced: reductions in tax on high incomes and death duties, a tax shield, medical franchises, longer working hours – the essence of neo-liberalism. And it was even clearer from Sarkozy’s speeches on September 5, at the Medef (Mouvement des entreprises de France) business seminar, and on September 18, the 40th anniversary of the AJIS, the association of social security reporters.
Sarkozy said that his government’s priority was to deal with the question of special pension schemes. According to him reforms in that sector was necessary without delay. He also declared of reviewing the Health service funding because the health insurance system could not cover everything. Some costs should be met by individual insurance schemes. In other words, patients must have private insurance as they do in the United States, where almost 50 million people have no health cover.
Sarkozy repeated that the 35-hour week rule would have to be abolished. He also proposed to end early retirement schemes, and introduce stronger and more effective procedures and sanctions against unemployed people who refused two job offers. The Left condemned it as the greatest offensive to be mounted against the social security system in 50 years and urged the French people to rise in all-round protests.
Vibrant Student And Workers Movement In France
US fashion magazine ‘Vanity Fair’ ranked the ‘smart’ French President Nicolas Sarkozy to be the 68th best-dressed person in the world along with Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt and English soccer hero David Beckham. Like the pied piper of Hamlin, Nicolas Sarkozy initially enchanted eminent figures on all sides with his verve and brio. The media were equally spellbound and joined in the mass hysteria. France was virtually hypnotised by their new president. .
The scales began to fall from everyone’s eyes when the true nature of the sideshow was revealed. The magician was just a neo-liberal in disguise. This was clear from the first economic and social measures announced: reductions in tax on high incomes and death duties, a tax shield, medical franchises, longer working hours – the essence of neo-liberalism. And it was even clearer from Sarkozy’s speeches on September 5, at the Medef (Mouvement des entreprises de France) business seminar, and on September 18, the 40th anniversary of the AJIS, the association of social security reporters.
Sarkozy said that his government’s priority was to deal with the question of special pension schemes. According to him reforms in that sector was necessary without delay. He also declared of reviewing the Health service funding because the health insurance system could not cover everything. Some costs should be met by individual insurance schemes. In other words, patients must have private insurance as they do in the United States, where almost 50 million people have no health cover.
Sarkozy repeated that the 35-hour week rule would have to be abolished. He also proposed to end early retirement schemes, and introduce stronger and more effective procedures and sanctions against unemployed people who refused two job offers. The Left condemned it as the greatest offensive to be mounted against the social security system in 50 years and urged the French people to rise in all-round protests.
SENSEX OR HUNGER INDEX
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
What Is The Govt's Priority - Sensex Or Hunger Index?
BOTH the policy makers and dominant sections of the media have been ecstatic over the more than 45 per cent rise in sensex during the last year. It is being highlighted as one of the major national achievements in the background of 8 to 9 per cent GDP growth in economy. But in the midst of the so-called booming share market index can the country forget its Hunger Index? In a country where 836 million people have per capita daily consumption of Rs 20 or less (as per the Report of National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector), hunger remains one of the major problem and most important challenge facing the nation. Higher percentage of GDP and sensex touching 21,000 become irrelevant unless this important issue is addressed, notwithstanding the misplaced concern of the prime minister on so-called high subsidies on food and fertilizer.
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) measures Global Hunger Index based on following three equally weighted indicators:
· The proportion of undernourished as a percentage of the population (reflecting the share of population with insufficient dietary energy intake);
· The prevalence of underweightedness in children under the age of five (indicating the proportion of children suffering from weight loss and/ or reduced growth);
· The under-five mortality rate (partially reflecting the fatal synergy between inadequate dietary intake and unhealthy environment).
Combining the proportion of undernourished in the population with two indicators relating to children under five ensures that both the food supply situation of the population as a whole and effects of inadequate nutrition on a physically very vulnerable group are captured. The Global Hunger Index goes beyond the dietary energy availability which is the focus of FAO's measure of under-nourishment and reflects the multidimensional manifestation of hunger.
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2007 prepared by IFPRI was calculated on the basis of data from 2000-2005 and released in its report titled The Challenge of Hunger 2007 in October 2007. The calculation was limited to 118 developing countries excluding western developed countries and a few eastern European countries. The GHI score varies between the best possible score of 0 (zero) and worst possible score of 100. Higher the score, greater the hunger and lower the score, the better the country's situation. GHI score above 10 are considered serious, above 20 alarming and above 30 are extremely alarming.
INDIA'S
POSITION
India ranks 94th in GHI scoring 25.03 coming under alarming category. Only 12 countries come under extremely alarming category. Among our neighbours Sri Lanka ranks 69th (GHI – 16.6), Pakistan 88th (GHI – 22.70), Nepal 90th (GHI – 24.30) and only Bangladesh below us on 103 (GHI – 28.10).
In the data underlying the calculation of GHI of India, the three major indicators show that proportion of undernourished in the population is 20 per cent, prevalence of underweight in children under five years is 46.6 per cent and under five mortality rate is 8.5 per cent.
The above phenomenon has been analysed in IFPRI report in the following words:
In South Asia the prevalence of underweight children is relatively high whereas in sub-saharan Africa child mortality and the proportion of people who can not meet their calorie requirements play a major role.… In India where the large majority of South Asia's population lives, economic growth in the agricultural sector has lagged considerably behind growth in other sectors over recent years. This has negative effect on progress in alleviating poverty and hunger in rural areas. Furthermore members of the lower castes and certain ethnic minorities continue to be discriminated against in society and are therefore disadvantaged with regard to educational opportunities and the labour market.
ICDS
It is a matter of national shame that we rank 94th mainly because of prevalence of undernourishment in children, who are supposed to be the future assets of the country, inspite of the fact that government of India started Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Schemes/project way back in 1975-76 with the specific objective to improve the nutritional and health status of children in age group of 0-6 years. This was so because the then planners had felt, and we quote There has, for some time, been an awareness of the importance of organising early childhood services for the future development of the child though resource constraints and basically sectoral approach to the needs of children had prevented the development of a co-ordinated strategy. It is now however realised that any deferment of action will be detrimental to the development of country's human resource which is a key factor in development (emphasis added). The organisation of early childhood services should therefore be regarded as an investment in the future economic and social progress of the country.
We have fared badly even after the above mentioned was spelt out in the government documents two and half decades back.
WHERE IS
THE REALISATION?
One of the major components of ICDS Scheme is providing supplementary nutrition to children below 6 years of age, in low income group through ICDS centres, commonly known as anganwadi centres. What is the factual position today? As per the written reply to a question in parliament on November 26, 2007, the government of India admits that only 60 million children out of 164 million children have received supplementary nutrition under ICDS Scheme as on June 30, 2007. This is because there are not sufficient numbers of anganwadi centres to extend total coverage of this service to the children. The realisation as envisaged by policy makers during the Fifth Five Year Plan for treating ICDS as an investment in the future economic and social progress of the country has been ignored by successive governments at the centre. The UPA government had committed to universalise ICDS Scheme to provide a functional anganwadi centre in every settlement to ensure full coverage for all children. Even the Supreme Court had to intervene and in its order in 2006 directed government of India to sanction and operationalise 14 lakh anganwadi centres by December 2008. Inspite of that, the lack of priority is clear from the aforesaid reply of the government in parliament wherein it states that As on June 30, 2007, out of 10,52,638 sanctioned centres in the country, only 8,63,472 are operational and of these, 7,97,155 centres were providing supplementary nutrition, which means that only 7.97 lakh centres are operational. Yet no target has been set and the government is totally silent on a time-frame action plan to universalise ICDS though the Supreme Court had fixed a target of 14 lakh anganwadi centres by December 2008. What prevents the government to stick to the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court? Why is the government, which shivers at the fall of sensex, so callous about India's position in global hunger scenario as depicted by GHI?
The fact is human development is not on the agenda of the government's agenda. The major motivating force to move forward the ICDS Scheme is the untiring work of the approximately 14 lakh anganwadi employees who are paid abysmally low honorarium viz. Rs 1000 per month for workers and Rs 500 for helpers. There have been continuous struggles by anganwadi workers, trade unions, Left parties to universalise the ICDS Scheme, to increase the honorarium to the workers and to improve their service conditions to ensure proper delivery of services in the anganwadi centres. The prime minister himself was apprised time and again of this issue which is closely linked with national development. Shockingly, being otherwise so loquacious on 10 per cent GDP growth and high sensex figures, he is eloquently silent on this issue.
The government's apathy is clear from the budgetary allocation for ICDS in 2007-2008 which was Rs 4761 crore. The minimum allocation should have been Rs. 12,000 crore to provide for expansion of ICDS and improving the conditions of anganwadi employees. Is it too much for a government which extends tax concessions to the extent of more than Rs 1.7 lakh crore to SEZ developers? Whether spending Rs 12,000 crore for 17 crore children i.e. Rs 700 per child per year is too much of a burden for a country whose Global Hunger Index status is ALARMING? It is high time that the UPA government goes back to Common Minimum Programme to find the answer, otherwise the hungry millions would give a befitting rebuff through the ballot boxes, taking into account prime minister's undue concern on food subsidy for a country whose hunger and under-nourishment is so sadly reflected in Global Hunger Index.
Let the government decide its priority – sensex or Hunger Index?
Dipankar Mukherjee
What Is The Govt's Priority - Sensex Or Hunger Index?
BOTH the policy makers and dominant sections of the media have been ecstatic over the more than 45 per cent rise in sensex during the last year. It is being highlighted as one of the major national achievements in the background of 8 to 9 per cent GDP growth in economy. But in the midst of the so-called booming share market index can the country forget its Hunger Index? In a country where 836 million people have per capita daily consumption of Rs 20 or less (as per the Report of National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector), hunger remains one of the major problem and most important challenge facing the nation. Higher percentage of GDP and sensex touching 21,000 become irrelevant unless this important issue is addressed, notwithstanding the misplaced concern of the prime minister on so-called high subsidies on food and fertilizer.
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) measures Global Hunger Index based on following three equally weighted indicators:
· The proportion of undernourished as a percentage of the population (reflecting the share of population with insufficient dietary energy intake);
· The prevalence of underweightedness in children under the age of five (indicating the proportion of children suffering from weight loss and/ or reduced growth);
· The under-five mortality rate (partially reflecting the fatal synergy between inadequate dietary intake and unhealthy environment).
Combining the proportion of undernourished in the population with two indicators relating to children under five ensures that both the food supply situation of the population as a whole and effects of inadequate nutrition on a physically very vulnerable group are captured. The Global Hunger Index goes beyond the dietary energy availability which is the focus of FAO's measure of under-nourishment and reflects the multidimensional manifestation of hunger.
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2007 prepared by IFPRI was calculated on the basis of data from 2000-2005 and released in its report titled The Challenge of Hunger 2007 in October 2007. The calculation was limited to 118 developing countries excluding western developed countries and a few eastern European countries. The GHI score varies between the best possible score of 0 (zero) and worst possible score of 100. Higher the score, greater the hunger and lower the score, the better the country's situation. GHI score above 10 are considered serious, above 20 alarming and above 30 are extremely alarming.
INDIA'S
POSITION
India ranks 94th in GHI scoring 25.03 coming under alarming category. Only 12 countries come under extremely alarming category. Among our neighbours Sri Lanka ranks 69th (GHI – 16.6), Pakistan 88th (GHI – 22.70), Nepal 90th (GHI – 24.30) and only Bangladesh below us on 103 (GHI – 28.10).
In the data underlying the calculation of GHI of India, the three major indicators show that proportion of undernourished in the population is 20 per cent, prevalence of underweight in children under five years is 46.6 per cent and under five mortality rate is 8.5 per cent.
The above phenomenon has been analysed in IFPRI report in the following words:
In South Asia the prevalence of underweight children is relatively high whereas in sub-saharan Africa child mortality and the proportion of people who can not meet their calorie requirements play a major role.… In India where the large majority of South Asia's population lives, economic growth in the agricultural sector has lagged considerably behind growth in other sectors over recent years. This has negative effect on progress in alleviating poverty and hunger in rural areas. Furthermore members of the lower castes and certain ethnic minorities continue to be discriminated against in society and are therefore disadvantaged with regard to educational opportunities and the labour market.
ICDS
It is a matter of national shame that we rank 94th mainly because of prevalence of undernourishment in children, who are supposed to be the future assets of the country, inspite of the fact that government of India started Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Schemes/project way back in 1975-76 with the specific objective to improve the nutritional and health status of children in age group of 0-6 years. This was so because the then planners had felt, and we quote There has, for some time, been an awareness of the importance of organising early childhood services for the future development of the child though resource constraints and basically sectoral approach to the needs of children had prevented the development of a co-ordinated strategy. It is now however realised that any deferment of action will be detrimental to the development of country's human resource which is a key factor in development (emphasis added). The organisation of early childhood services should therefore be regarded as an investment in the future economic and social progress of the country.
We have fared badly even after the above mentioned was spelt out in the government documents two and half decades back.
WHERE IS
THE REALISATION?
One of the major components of ICDS Scheme is providing supplementary nutrition to children below 6 years of age, in low income group through ICDS centres, commonly known as anganwadi centres. What is the factual position today? As per the written reply to a question in parliament on November 26, 2007, the government of India admits that only 60 million children out of 164 million children have received supplementary nutrition under ICDS Scheme as on June 30, 2007. This is because there are not sufficient numbers of anganwadi centres to extend total coverage of this service to the children. The realisation as envisaged by policy makers during the Fifth Five Year Plan for treating ICDS as an investment in the future economic and social progress of the country has been ignored by successive governments at the centre. The UPA government had committed to universalise ICDS Scheme to provide a functional anganwadi centre in every settlement to ensure full coverage for all children. Even the Supreme Court had to intervene and in its order in 2006 directed government of India to sanction and operationalise 14 lakh anganwadi centres by December 2008. Inspite of that, the lack of priority is clear from the aforesaid reply of the government in parliament wherein it states that As on June 30, 2007, out of 10,52,638 sanctioned centres in the country, only 8,63,472 are operational and of these, 7,97,155 centres were providing supplementary nutrition, which means that only 7.97 lakh centres are operational. Yet no target has been set and the government is totally silent on a time-frame action plan to universalise ICDS though the Supreme Court had fixed a target of 14 lakh anganwadi centres by December 2008. What prevents the government to stick to the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court? Why is the government, which shivers at the fall of sensex, so callous about India's position in global hunger scenario as depicted by GHI?
The fact is human development is not on the agenda of the government's agenda. The major motivating force to move forward the ICDS Scheme is the untiring work of the approximately 14 lakh anganwadi employees who are paid abysmally low honorarium viz. Rs 1000 per month for workers and Rs 500 for helpers. There have been continuous struggles by anganwadi workers, trade unions, Left parties to universalise the ICDS Scheme, to increase the honorarium to the workers and to improve their service conditions to ensure proper delivery of services in the anganwadi centres. The prime minister himself was apprised time and again of this issue which is closely linked with national development. Shockingly, being otherwise so loquacious on 10 per cent GDP growth and high sensex figures, he is eloquently silent on this issue.
The government's apathy is clear from the budgetary allocation for ICDS in 2007-2008 which was Rs 4761 crore. The minimum allocation should have been Rs. 12,000 crore to provide for expansion of ICDS and improving the conditions of anganwadi employees. Is it too much for a government which extends tax concessions to the extent of more than Rs 1.7 lakh crore to SEZ developers? Whether spending Rs 12,000 crore for 17 crore children i.e. Rs 700 per child per year is too much of a burden for a country whose Global Hunger Index status is ALARMING? It is high time that the UPA government goes back to Common Minimum Programme to find the answer, otherwise the hungry millions would give a befitting rebuff through the ballot boxes, taking into account prime minister's undue concern on food subsidy for a country whose hunger and under-nourishment is so sadly reflected in Global Hunger Index.
Let the government decide its priority – sensex or Hunger Index?
Dipankar Mukherjee
GROWTH FOR WHOM?
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
Growth For Whom?
THE euphoria time for India Inc. continues. The sensex has now breached the 21,000 mark. At the other end, every 30 minutes, a farmer is committing suicide somewhere across the country. The hiatus between `shining’ India and `suffering’ India is not merely growing but is galloping. This growing divide is not only because of the inefficiency of the distributive aspects in our economy that prevent an inclusive growth. It is also not because the government of the day is insensitive to this growing divide. The divide grows on the basis of a simple fact – under the given conditions for the rich to get richer, the poor needs to get poorer. This is the very logic of capitalism based on intensification of economic exploitation.
Take for instance, the continuing rise in the prices of essential commodities. This heaps additional economic burdens on the people. But, at the same time, inflation is a policy instrument in the distributive aspect of the economy which increases the income share of the profit earner while impoverishing the consumer. Inflation influences income redistribution in favour of the rich.
R.S.Dahiya
Growth For Whom?
THE euphoria time for India Inc. continues. The sensex has now breached the 21,000 mark. At the other end, every 30 minutes, a farmer is committing suicide somewhere across the country. The hiatus between `shining’ India and `suffering’ India is not merely growing but is galloping. This growing divide is not only because of the inefficiency of the distributive aspects in our economy that prevent an inclusive growth. It is also not because the government of the day is insensitive to this growing divide. The divide grows on the basis of a simple fact – under the given conditions for the rich to get richer, the poor needs to get poorer. This is the very logic of capitalism based on intensification of economic exploitation.
Take for instance, the continuing rise in the prices of essential commodities. This heaps additional economic burdens on the people. But, at the same time, inflation is a policy instrument in the distributive aspect of the economy which increases the income share of the profit earner while impoverishing the consumer. Inflation influences income redistribution in favour of the rich.
R.S.Dahiya
GHUNGHAT TAAR BAGAYA HEY
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
GHUNGHAT SEY NIJAAT PA RAHI HAIN MAHILAYEN
AAJ BHI GHUNGHAT KAYON
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
GHUGHAAT SEY AANKH KAAN NAAK JEEBH CHAR INDRIYAN BAND HO JAATI HAIN TO GYAN KAISEY MILEY?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)