[Assam] BETWEEN THE LINES--from the Sentinel

[Manoj Das]

Read this too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20060301/bs_bw/pi20060228699220

India is arrivign right at top dear sirs,,, just hang on

On 3/3/06, Ram Sarangapani <assamrs at gmail.com> wrote:
> C'da,
> >I am glad to hear it has. Question is where :-)? The following
> >appeared in the Sentinel a couple of days back.
>
> Well, it has 'reached'. India has reached the world stage as a major player.
> For all its inherrent problems, India has been able to hold on to democracy
> and at the same time shown the world that it has the essential ingredients
> of a country of ideas, of markets, resources, and of tolerance.
>
> The economic boom of the mid 90s laid the foundation and today India sees
> increased foreign direct investment (FDI), and an all time high foreign
> investments in Indian stocks.
>
> In the interview with Premji (and others), he did acknowledge the problems
> faced by India in mainly 3 or 4 areas,
>
> Infrastructure (roads/transportation)
> Govt. bureaucracy/corruption
> Communication (phones/land lines etc)
> Poverty
>
> Premji went on to add, that the Govt. would be forced to deal with these
> problems and correct them because the air of expectation in India is very
> high, and no govt. could ignore that for long.
>
> Take the case of revamping the airports. The Govt. is now serious about
> this. It realizes this is must for attracting investments from overseas. The
> nuke deal is supposed to solve a big chunk
> of the energy problem.
> More importantly, (according to the chief editor of the Hindu at the
> interview with Rose), for the each of last 25 years, 1% of Indians have
> crossed the poverty line (above it). So, today we see 25% of the Indians
> have crossed over to a lower middle class status and the trend continues.
> This is a huge sign of progress (for a country written off by so many & some
> netters).
>
> Today, India is no longer hyphenated as India-Pak or India-China. Now Pak is
> no longer said in the same breath. Its India and China. Further, China is
> India's largest trading partner, and India too is a major trade partner in
> China.  Most major companies in India have set up shop in many countries
> (including China) and the US is not the sole market. And India itself has a
> huge market for its products.
>
> And lastly, its NOT just outsourcing of tax analysts or software in India -
> most of the large Indian companies have moved up the value chain. They are
> now strategic partners with multinationals like Microsoft, Intel, IBM,
> Kraft, Baskin-Robbins etc etc. So its now just IT and X-Ray scans.
>
> While Nayar's article has some truth to it, it is the same regurgitation he
> has been spewing for decades. The new India has a completely different, but
> pragmatic view of the country's pluses and minuses. They know of the
> problems, they are now able to take advantage of inherrent skills, while at
> the same time make corrections and eliminating problems on their way up.
> Nayar belongs to the old school. Many of these journalists have listed
> complaints over time but few solutions have ever been put forth.They have
> never been innovators and have not yet been able to rid themselves shackles
> of the Raj.
>
> --Ram
>
>
>
> On 3/2/06, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ram posted : [Assam] India Has Arrived
> >
> > I am glad to hear it has. Question is where :-)? The following
> > appeared in the Sentinel a couple of days back.
> >
> > cm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BETWEEN THE LINES
> > Price of Development
> > Kuldip Nayar
> >
> >
> > B udgets in the early years of independence were an
> > enigma wrapped in secrecy. India's economic base
> > was limited. The dependence was, therefore, on
> > the ingenuity of finance minister. Crises could not be pulled out of
> > a hat to maintain the morale. Yet he would do the rope trick because
> > the government's popularity depended on that. The haves grumbled over
> > fewer benefits than before but realised that they still had enough.
> > Other people did not count in the scheme of things. The growth rate
> > averaged 3.5 per cent annually but it did not disturb anybody's
> > sleep. The debate after the budget would not be whether the proposals
> > had merit but whether they gave the country an ideological tilt,
> > close as we were to the culmination of freedom struggle.
> > One point that evoked discussion was the distance between Jawaharlal
> > Nehru's way of development, the socialistic pattern with the state
> > playing prime role, and Mahatma Gandhi's concept of self-sufficient
> > countryside without interference by the state. Over the years, the
> > first became urban in character and the second rural. One got
> > associated with the growth, however slow and slovenly, and the other
> > with values and idealism.
> > The first has manifested itself through consumerism. The other has
> > got stuck in simple but marginalised living. One has all the opulence
> > and wasteful expenditure whereas the other has all its adverse
> > fallout: poverty and neglect. Nehru's associates, lessening day by
> > day, still talk radical and they recall the period from Karl Marx to
> > Harold Laski. But the Gandhian followers, close to the ground, have
> > grown skeptical of ideologies which draw inspiration from abroad. New
> > India has moved away from it and the governance is directed towards
> > higher growth through globalization or whatever the means.
> > It is difficult to run away from the plazas, the malls and the new
> > eating places. But of what use they are or the multi-storey
> > buildings, big dams and foreign direct investments when at least 300
> > million people, more than the entire middle class, are destitute?
> > Those who live below the poverty line are roughly 400 million,
> > official figures testify.
> > All budget speeches - Finance Minister Chidambaram's are no
> > exception - applaud the role of the farmer or small man. But there is
> > very little left for him when the real beneficiaries have eaten from
> > the plate. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been promising the
> > countryside a good deal for some time now. But agricultural growth is
> > stagnant. The import of food grains is, in fact, ominous. Rural
> > unemployment is rampant. Farmers are committing suicide, not only in
> > Andhra Pradesh and Kerala but in the soya-belt of Punjab and the
> > cotton-growing areas of Maharashtra. It has been noticed at many
> > places in the countryside the students leaving schools and colleges
> > and opting for work on the fields.
> > There is a loud demand for another Green Revolution. But this may
> > well be wishful thinking. Farmers have no money to invest in land to
> > make it productive. The corporate sector, if given a chance, will
> > convert it into another industry, changing the very ethos of the
> > countryside. Land is for people, not people for land. Bhoodan (gift
> > of land) did not work. Even what was offered was being reclaimed.
> > Even in the distribution of bhoodan land, an element of corruption
> > had crept in. No inquiry was ordered because some important people
> > were suspect.
> > The Employment Guarantee Scheme that the government has introduced
> > in 200 districts is only a palliative, not a solution. The government
> > has yet to spell out specific schemes for employment. However, the
> > budget on defence and security has been increasing year after year.
> > The explanation is that the naxalites and the desperate people in
> > Kashmir and the north-east are to blame. Pakistan also comes into the
> > picture. Maybe, the reading is correct to some extent. But what about
> > the causes that are responsible for the deterioration of the economic
> > condition? The budget is of little help to those who are at the lower
> > rung. The government says that it has no money. But its bureaucracy
> > is bloating and the non-plan expenditure increasing.
> > Have our priorities been wrong? The first five-year plan which Nehru
> > formulated was to industrialise the country so as to lessen its
> > dependence on land which is a victim of whimsical monsoons. Some may
> > interpret it as a scientific approach. But it has been left half way.
> > Services have done better than industry. On the other hand, people
> > living in villages, India's two-thirds of population, have been left
> > high and dry. Nehru initiated land reforms and had to amend the
> > Constitution - it was India's first Constitution amendment after
> > independence - to implement them.
> > Still, he could not give land to the tiller free. All that he did
> > was to put a ceiling on the individual's holding: 18 acres per
> > family. Sheikh Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir was the only one in the
> > country who gave land to the tiller without compensation. Nehru
> > wanted to emulate him but he could not do so because the Congress was
> > dominated by kulaks. The landed aristocracy still plays an important
> > role in the party.
> > True, there is a case for constituting a commission to go into the
> > land reforms. But does the government have the guts to do so? Vested
> > interests in the party will not allow that to happen. Nonetheless,
> > with land getting divided and re-divided among children and their
> > children, there is a fragmentation of holdings all over the country.
> > This affects food production as well. Some way must be found to
> > redistribute the land.
> > As things are today, discontentment will grow. Already, the dalits,
> > the tribals and the marginalised farmers are migrating from their
> > village in search of job. The basic fact that India must face is: it
> > has not enough land for the people who depend on it. The countryside
> > can be made attractive. The best schools can be opened there. It does
> > not matter if teachers are given salaries five times more than they
> > get in cities. The standard of teaching should be so high that
> > students from cities could prefer to travel to the countryside for
> > studies there. Not only teachers but doctors should also be tempted
> > to go to villages. Salaries should not come in the way. The purpose
> > is to focus attention on the countryside where most people live.
> > We talk of the good of society. Is this something apart from and
> > transcending the good of the individuals composing it? We may mock at
> > the Gandhian values. But what type of society is it where the
> > individual is "ignored?" Whatever name we may give it, the progress,
> > however impressive, is creating more and more disparities. Probably,
> > this is the price the development of sorts exacts. Can we pursue this
> > path without peril?
> >
>
>


--
Manoj Kumar Das
B 109 Gr Floor Rear
Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi 110017 India
Tel: 91 11 26533824
Telefax: 91 11 26533829
Hand Phone: 91 9312650558