- Our Home Minister wants Delhiites to behave. This sudden discipline alert comes in the wake of the Commonwealth games that the capital city will host next year. He has said that in the past many years, he had not noticed any change in the behaviour of Delhiites.
Why single out Delhiites? Is it because it is the national capital, the drawing room of our home, which we like to showcase for our guests for that first impression? Mr home minister, dusting and cleaning up the drawing room is not enough. Why don’t you suggest a revamp of the whole house, which is untidy and in a mess?
We Indians like to “show” that we are disciplined and clean. So while the drawing rooms in our house are kept well, the insides tell a different story. And, we pass this thinking to our children too, who feel it is okay to live in a messed up environment. And we carry the same method in disciplining our children. How many of us police them on their talking/behaving at home? But we expect them to “behave” when guests are around, or when we take them out.
Ditto is our home ministry’s mentality. The commonwealth games are approaching and the errant Indian need to clean up his/her act. So the minister says stop jumping signals, stop flouting traffic rules, stop jaywalking, stop spitting on roads, stop breaking civic rules etc etc. But why do we have to wait for an occasion to “start behaving” ourselves. Why cannot we Indians just start inculcating the values of good civic life and set an example for the younger generation, with or without high-profile guests gracing our nation?
Mr Chidambaram has also said, “Those coming to Delhi from other places in the country must accept the discipline of living in a big city. We are not living in countryside. We are living in a city. Therefore, we must behave as citizens of a big city.” So does he mean we can get ruthlessly unruly in countryside without a damn for discipline? This irresponsible “cattle class” statement reeks of a wannabe.
A thought on our cities, big and small: we have signals, flyovers, zebra crossings, stop lines, overhead bridges and underground subways for pedestrians, and traffic police to monitor these. But vehicles, not just the "ordinary" 800 ccs, but also the super luxury BMWs, Mercs and Skodas, jump signals, cross the stop line and hog the zebra space when the red light is on, with pedestrians given no choice but to cross the road past the zebra crossing. In fact, I have even seen these so-called luxury car travellers, lowering the tinted glass windows and throwing waste paper/plastic out on the road. Oops! That is the education our children are getting on road and civic sense. Let us not blame the next generation. They just follow what they have seen at home and on the road.
But just observe the same lot when they step out of our country. They are extra careful about keeping the foreign country and its countryside clean. And, the same set come to India and complain of bad roads, bad traffic, litter and a host of “wrong behavior” that seem to irritate them! Never mind our Indian "guests". - This message is for the Indians who chose to stay, or did not have any choice to move out. There is filth, traffic, chaos and indiscipline. But let us not just wait for a Commonwealth games or an Olympics to clean up our dirty roads and filthy manners. Chidambaram’s message is too narrow-minded. He must at least take this opportunity to encompass the entire nation for the clean-up message. It is time the police, civic authorities and the people begin to get sensitive about keeping the house and its inmates in order for ourselves, rather than to show the outsiders what we are.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Behavioural 'hom'ily
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Clipping the wings
Sharad Pawar finally decided to fly the “crammed” economy class with a commercial airline. After a lot of fuss and furor, ministers are slowly weaning themselves away from the luxurious lap of business class comfort.
The monsoons have failed and the clouds of drought are looming over the nation. The UPA government, in an austerity mood swing, requested ministers to go slow on their lavish lifestyles to show solidarity with the less fortunate farming community.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s repeated requests to ministers to trim costs were, however, not without friction. Unhappy ministers were trying to justify their five-star accommodations and fancy travel arrangements. The suave Shashi Tharoor, chose to enter public service, but wanted to keep his privacy intact. He preferred a five-star stay to Kerala House because it had “no gym or privacy”, to quote him. S.M. Krishna was also censured for staying in five-star comfort, though he claimed he was on a Spartan diet of the made-in-Taj sambhar, rice and rasam. Both claimed to have sponsored their stay.
Sharad Pawar felt flying economy class would curb his privacy, and would leave him without time for seeing files. How many files will Mr Pawar clear on-board, that he does not while sitting in his office. A flight to anywhere in India could take two to two-and-a-half hours. Of this, some time would be spent on on-board snacking. Or does he refuse his snack? At least, his frame belies that.
There were other issues of the travails of travelling by economy class like seats being inhospitable to the “tall order”. The repeated austerity announcements shocked and shook our khadi-clad politicians. They ultimately sobered down, especially after the media splashed ugly stories and edits on the wailing, fussy politicians. Despite loving their “privacy”, their image took a beating in public, and that is where their vote count is.
The austerity drive by the government is, no doubt, a good decision. But it is rather difficult to snatch this opulence from ministers suddenly after letting them savour expensive tastes. The country’s leaders must learn to disembark from this orbit of luxury cushioned by public money at all times. The obscene amount of money being spent on them could be channelised and spent for deprived sectors like public health, housing and education. The ministers could spare a thought towards the 41.6 per cent of population (approximately 445 million) that is living below the poverty line. (Source: http://www.ijcm.org.)%0d/
The reason for quoting this report is to juxtapose this scenario, coupled with the threat of drought, with the heavy ministerial balance sheet, showing inflated travel and telephone bills. The government talks austerity only when there is crisis. Why must there be a crisis to trigger this reaction?
Our politicians treat their ministerial berths like a five-year recurring deposit scheme, helping themselves to luxury benefits and suitcase politicking, squeezing the coffers dry. Is there no hope?
The monsoons have failed and the clouds of drought are looming over the nation. The UPA government, in an austerity mood swing, requested ministers to go slow on their lavish lifestyles to show solidarity with the less fortunate farming community.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s repeated requests to ministers to trim costs were, however, not without friction. Unhappy ministers were trying to justify their five-star accommodations and fancy travel arrangements. The suave Shashi Tharoor, chose to enter public service, but wanted to keep his privacy intact. He preferred a five-star stay to Kerala House because it had “no gym or privacy”, to quote him. S.M. Krishna was also censured for staying in five-star comfort, though he claimed he was on a Spartan diet of the made-in-Taj sambhar, rice and rasam. Both claimed to have sponsored their stay.
Sharad Pawar felt flying economy class would curb his privacy, and would leave him without time for seeing files. How many files will Mr Pawar clear on-board, that he does not while sitting in his office. A flight to anywhere in India could take two to two-and-a-half hours. Of this, some time would be spent on on-board snacking. Or does he refuse his snack? At least, his frame belies that.
There were other issues of the travails of travelling by economy class like seats being inhospitable to the “tall order”. The repeated austerity announcements shocked and shook our khadi-clad politicians. They ultimately sobered down, especially after the media splashed ugly stories and edits on the wailing, fussy politicians. Despite loving their “privacy”, their image took a beating in public, and that is where their vote count is.
The austerity drive by the government is, no doubt, a good decision. But it is rather difficult to snatch this opulence from ministers suddenly after letting them savour expensive tastes. The country’s leaders must learn to disembark from this orbit of luxury cushioned by public money at all times. The obscene amount of money being spent on them could be channelised and spent for deprived sectors like public health, housing and education. The ministers could spare a thought towards the 41.6 per cent of population (approximately 445 million) that is living below the poverty line. (Source: http://www.ijcm.org.)%0d/
The reason for quoting this report is to juxtapose this scenario, coupled with the threat of drought, with the heavy ministerial balance sheet, showing inflated travel and telephone bills. The government talks austerity only when there is crisis. Why must there be a crisis to trigger this reaction?
Our politicians treat their ministerial berths like a five-year recurring deposit scheme, helping themselves to luxury benefits and suitcase politicking, squeezing the coffers dry. Is there no hope?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Infertile imagination
Rajdeep Sardesai signed off a news capsule saying, “What Bengal thinks today, the country has thought yesterday”. This CNN-IBN news channel boss, referring to the West Bengal government cancelling the IT project, obviously needs a lesson or two on objective news presentation.
Anyway, the point here is not really on our loud and opinionated television anchors. The issue here is the way the media, both electronic and print, have been projecting the scrapping of the IT park project near Kolkata as a day of mourning for West Bengal. Infosys and Wipro were to set up an IT park on the delightfully fertile land. The media reacted as if the decision has denied the IT giants of nourishing Bengal, starving after the Nano pullout.
This question rattles me on and off: Is development only about industrialisation? Or can we really get on to a fast track with giant agricultural strides?
Why are the states, and even the media, not showing maturity in understanding development. It is a myth that only industrialization will grant high returns and generate employment opportunities. This myopia has to be corrected. We can, if we look in that direction, tap the rich agricultural opportunities, and convert them into a highly advanced industry. This will, in turn, generate unbelievably good work prospects.
Every state has different geographical identities. While few states have highly productive and fertile land, the others have to work harder for increasing soil efficiency. The states having greater capacity for agriculture can be tapped for just that, rather than trying desperately to woo industries.
West Bengal is a case in point. It is nestled in the most fertile part of the Gangetic plain, where the Ganges deposits rich alluvial soil as it meanders in its final course before ending up in the Bay of Bengal. This delta is nature’s bounty to the country. No wonder then that the state occupies around three per cent of India’s productive land, with more than eight per cent of the country’s food being generated by the state’s agricultural sector, cultivating 68 per cent of the total area (source: http://business.mapsofindia.com/state-agriculture/west-bengal-agriculture.html).
Naturally, agriculture becomes the major means of livelihood in Bengal, especially after the effective land reforms. In fact, until 1980s, West Bengal recorded a slow agricultural growth.
According to data available for the period from 1980-81 to 1998-99, while the average annual growth of foodgrain production for all major states was 2.5 per cent, the corresponding rate of growth for west Bengal was highest at 4.2 per cent (source: www.rdiland.org/PDF/PDF_reports/RDI_112.pdf). And, increase in yields per acre has also been impressive, with 3.5 per cent in relation to 2.8 per cent in other states.
These changes were possible by private investments in groundwater irrigation. The agrarian reforms had created a favourable climate for such private investment in agriculture.
The state has also registered remarkable growth in vegetable production in recent years. But more important than agricultural growth is the uplift of West Bengal’s rural population, including its poorest sections. West Bengal’s poverty line dipped from 60 per cent in 1977 to 25.1 per cent in 1997 (35 percentage points) as compared to 29.1 percentage points in the all-India level (source: planning commission data). The state scores in cash crop production too, with tea and jute as its major revenue spinners.
However, the agricultural growth in West Bengal declined significantly in the mid-1990s from an impressive growth rate of the 1980s. There has been a sharp fall in yield growth during the 1990s. But with changing the dynamics of crop diversification, the state can exploit the advantages of globalization to achieve a higher growth rate.
So can we spare a thought on how we can leverage the wealth of agricultural land and pour in investments to magnify employment prospects in that sector? Let us not assume that agriculture will not fetch high returns.
In a federal set-up, states are meant to co-exist, constantly exchanging ideas and technology. We can easily earmark agriculturally productive states and get them take the lead in providing food for the nation, while the relatively barren states can take care of hosting industrial zones. After all, India is one big nation. Every state can have its own area of expertise. Why should there be a race for brutally killing the fields to attract industrial investments to become a me-too industrialised state? Why should there be a tournament for bagging the most industrial contracts?
But more than that, why should the media bias towards industrialization shape public opinion or policy decisions? In spite of negative inflation, food bills are pinching hard. Bengal is unwittingly keeping the right path. So Mr Sardesai, what Bengal is thinking today, the nation will think only tomorrow.
Anyway, the point here is not really on our loud and opinionated television anchors. The issue here is the way the media, both electronic and print, have been projecting the scrapping of the IT park project near Kolkata as a day of mourning for West Bengal. Infosys and Wipro were to set up an IT park on the delightfully fertile land. The media reacted as if the decision has denied the IT giants of nourishing Bengal, starving after the Nano pullout.
This question rattles me on and off: Is development only about industrialisation? Or can we really get on to a fast track with giant agricultural strides?
Why are the states, and even the media, not showing maturity in understanding development. It is a myth that only industrialization will grant high returns and generate employment opportunities. This myopia has to be corrected. We can, if we look in that direction, tap the rich agricultural opportunities, and convert them into a highly advanced industry. This will, in turn, generate unbelievably good work prospects.
Every state has different geographical identities. While few states have highly productive and fertile land, the others have to work harder for increasing soil efficiency. The states having greater capacity for agriculture can be tapped for just that, rather than trying desperately to woo industries.
West Bengal is a case in point. It is nestled in the most fertile part of the Gangetic plain, where the Ganges deposits rich alluvial soil as it meanders in its final course before ending up in the Bay of Bengal. This delta is nature’s bounty to the country. No wonder then that the state occupies around three per cent of India’s productive land, with more than eight per cent of the country’s food being generated by the state’s agricultural sector, cultivating 68 per cent of the total area (source: http://business.mapsofindia.com/state-agriculture/west-bengal-agriculture.html).
Naturally, agriculture becomes the major means of livelihood in Bengal, especially after the effective land reforms. In fact, until 1980s, West Bengal recorded a slow agricultural growth.
According to data available for the period from 1980-81 to 1998-99, while the average annual growth of foodgrain production for all major states was 2.5 per cent, the corresponding rate of growth for west Bengal was highest at 4.2 per cent (source: www.rdiland.org/PDF/PDF_reports/RDI_112.pdf). And, increase in yields per acre has also been impressive, with 3.5 per cent in relation to 2.8 per cent in other states.
These changes were possible by private investments in groundwater irrigation. The agrarian reforms had created a favourable climate for such private investment in agriculture.
The state has also registered remarkable growth in vegetable production in recent years. But more important than agricultural growth is the uplift of West Bengal’s rural population, including its poorest sections. West Bengal’s poverty line dipped from 60 per cent in 1977 to 25.1 per cent in 1997 (35 percentage points) as compared to 29.1 percentage points in the all-India level (source: planning commission data). The state scores in cash crop production too, with tea and jute as its major revenue spinners.
However, the agricultural growth in West Bengal declined significantly in the mid-1990s from an impressive growth rate of the 1980s. There has been a sharp fall in yield growth during the 1990s. But with changing the dynamics of crop diversification, the state can exploit the advantages of globalization to achieve a higher growth rate.
So can we spare a thought on how we can leverage the wealth of agricultural land and pour in investments to magnify employment prospects in that sector? Let us not assume that agriculture will not fetch high returns.
In a federal set-up, states are meant to co-exist, constantly exchanging ideas and technology. We can easily earmark agriculturally productive states and get them take the lead in providing food for the nation, while the relatively barren states can take care of hosting industrial zones. After all, India is one big nation. Every state can have its own area of expertise. Why should there be a race for brutally killing the fields to attract industrial investments to become a me-too industrialised state? Why should there be a tournament for bagging the most industrial contracts?
But more than that, why should the media bias towards industrialization shape public opinion or policy decisions? In spite of negative inflation, food bills are pinching hard. Bengal is unwittingly keeping the right path. So Mr Sardesai, what Bengal is thinking today, the nation will think only tomorrow.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Democratic dynasties
Mauryas, Guptas, Rashtrakutas, Satvahanas, Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Mughals…in ancient and medieval India.
Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Pawar, Abdullah, Scindia, Prasada, Patnaik, Pilot, Thackeray, and now Reddy in post –Independent India.
In our history lessons on ancient and medieval India, there would be maps indicating various dynasties holding sway over India: the Mauryas and Guptas based in Patliputra, the Kushans in north-east India, the Gaudas of Bengal, the Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras of south India, the Bahamani and Vijayanagara kingdoms of the Deccan (mostly Andhra Pradesh), and of course the Mughal’s pan-Indian reach.
Will tomorrow’s history lessons be similar? Will the pages have accounts of the Karunanidhis of Tamil Nadu, the Pawars of Maharashtra, the Patnaiks of Orissa, the Abdullahs of Kashmir, the Scindias of Gwalior…and the Congress’ Nehru-Gandhi-Vadhra(?) with its countrywide reach?
Why is it that one of the largest democratic institutions nurtures the growth of dynastic regimes? Probably Mahatma Gandhi got wind of this Indian tendency to resume the dynastic system even in a democracy. He had asked for dismantling of the Congress party post-Independence. Obviously, Jawaharlal Nehru felt otherwise. His political ambitions for his daughter reaffirmed his feeling of “ownership” of the Congress. He groomed his daughter Indira, who nurtured son, Sanjay, and after his sudden death, Rajiv. Then post-Rajiv Gandhi, the sycophants took over to “force” a “reluctant” Sonia Gandhi to control the reigns of Congress ownership...sorry leadership. The foreign origin issue came between Sonia and the prime ministerial chair. So her son, Rahul, emerged in the political space. Her daughter, Priyanka, is still a key player, though she is yet to reveal her political wings.
Karunanidhi had already set the stage for his son, M.K. Stalin, to lead the DMK in Tamil Nadu. His estranged son, Azhagiri, was confined to being a Madurai muscleman. In this age of coalition politics, where Dravidian ideals splintered and found representation in several political groups, he rebuilt the burnt bridge with Azhagiri and ensured his place in the Manmohan ministry. His daughter and cultural heir, Kanimozhi, has also been given a “fair” deal in the Tamil political space. Karunanidhi has managed to distribute his political property among his children. His is one big happy family now.
The Abdullahs, Scindias, Pilots, Patnaiks and Pawars have all added to the great Indian dynastic bouquet.
Wonder why the Indian polity fails to look beyond the closed circuit of family members to accommodate the sincere party workers out to make a difference in the system?
Now, yet another state in democratic India is violently succumbing to dynastic tendencies. Violently, because there have been demonstrations, protests and violence by a Congress camp rooting for Jagan Mohan Reddy, the 38-year-old son of Y.S.R. Reddy, who was killed in the helicopter crash last week, as chief minister. Even before Reddy senior’s funeral, the sycophants had begun pushing for the case of Reddy junior. The hysterical spate of resignation threats and dissidence to prop Jagan Mohan Reddy has only fueled the political greenhorn‘s chief ministerial ambition. He is currently basking in this hero worship.
Will India ever be able to get out of this dynastic noose? Shall we get out of the medieval mindset to evolve as a mature democratic institution?
Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Pawar, Abdullah, Scindia, Prasada, Patnaik, Pilot, Thackeray, and now Reddy in post –Independent India.
In our history lessons on ancient and medieval India, there would be maps indicating various dynasties holding sway over India: the Mauryas and Guptas based in Patliputra, the Kushans in north-east India, the Gaudas of Bengal, the Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras of south India, the Bahamani and Vijayanagara kingdoms of the Deccan (mostly Andhra Pradesh), and of course the Mughal’s pan-Indian reach.
Will tomorrow’s history lessons be similar? Will the pages have accounts of the Karunanidhis of Tamil Nadu, the Pawars of Maharashtra, the Patnaiks of Orissa, the Abdullahs of Kashmir, the Scindias of Gwalior…and the Congress’ Nehru-Gandhi-Vadhra(?) with its countrywide reach?
Why is it that one of the largest democratic institutions nurtures the growth of dynastic regimes? Probably Mahatma Gandhi got wind of this Indian tendency to resume the dynastic system even in a democracy. He had asked for dismantling of the Congress party post-Independence. Obviously, Jawaharlal Nehru felt otherwise. His political ambitions for his daughter reaffirmed his feeling of “ownership” of the Congress. He groomed his daughter Indira, who nurtured son, Sanjay, and after his sudden death, Rajiv. Then post-Rajiv Gandhi, the sycophants took over to “force” a “reluctant” Sonia Gandhi to control the reigns of Congress ownership...sorry leadership. The foreign origin issue came between Sonia and the prime ministerial chair. So her son, Rahul, emerged in the political space. Her daughter, Priyanka, is still a key player, though she is yet to reveal her political wings.
Karunanidhi had already set the stage for his son, M.K. Stalin, to lead the DMK in Tamil Nadu. His estranged son, Azhagiri, was confined to being a Madurai muscleman. In this age of coalition politics, where Dravidian ideals splintered and found representation in several political groups, he rebuilt the burnt bridge with Azhagiri and ensured his place in the Manmohan ministry. His daughter and cultural heir, Kanimozhi, has also been given a “fair” deal in the Tamil political space. Karunanidhi has managed to distribute his political property among his children. His is one big happy family now.
The Abdullahs, Scindias, Pilots, Patnaiks and Pawars have all added to the great Indian dynastic bouquet.
Wonder why the Indian polity fails to look beyond the closed circuit of family members to accommodate the sincere party workers out to make a difference in the system?
Now, yet another state in democratic India is violently succumbing to dynastic tendencies. Violently, because there have been demonstrations, protests and violence by a Congress camp rooting for Jagan Mohan Reddy, the 38-year-old son of Y.S.R. Reddy, who was killed in the helicopter crash last week, as chief minister. Even before Reddy senior’s funeral, the sycophants had begun pushing for the case of Reddy junior. The hysterical spate of resignation threats and dissidence to prop Jagan Mohan Reddy has only fueled the political greenhorn‘s chief ministerial ambition. He is currently basking in this hero worship.
Will India ever be able to get out of this dynastic noose? Shall we get out of the medieval mindset to evolve as a mature democratic institution?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Killing the fields
Farmers in Maharashtra’s four villages, Wagholi, Kesnand, Bakori and Lonikhand, have succeeded in getting the proposed Videocon Special Economic Zone (SEZ) scraped after a two-year struggle. The Maharashtra government's decision has, no doubt, been made with a hawk eye on the October Assembly elections. But if this decision helps salvage the agricultural landscape, election sop operas are pleasant music.
This is a triumph for the farmers who have been precariously facing the prospect of being deprived of their irrigational land to make way for a corporate entity. The politicians (read state chief ministers) have been flashing this SEZ card by doubling up as land sharks, sincerely usurping lush, agriculturally productive land to curry favour with big investors. In this race to “attract” investments, they have been constantly throttling farming as a means of livelihood.
Unfortunately for the landowners, the government has always been in a position to “wrest” land for development, as per the archaic land acquisition laws. The colonial power seized land in the name of development using the Bengal Regulation Act, 1824, whereby it could acquire land for constructing roads, canals and other public works, after paying compensation. In 1850, the ambit of this law was expanded to include acquisition for railways. Post-Independence, the Nehruvian era saw construction of dams, fondly called modern temples by our first Prime Minister, and other heavy engineering units, displacing farmers. This divorce of agriculture and industrialization has made India tread the lopsided development path. The number of people displaced by these projects between 1951 and 1995 is estimated at 50 million people (source: http://www.indiatogether.org/).
The Indian government’s latest muscle for land acquisition, the SEZ Act of 1995, allows the state machinery to broker a land deal between land owners (mostly farmers) and industrialists for setting up special economic zones. The act also enables the government to shower benevolence on the capitalist machinery with tax cuts and other obscene fiscal benefits.
This is at best a draconian measure. Why should the government twist the arms of the unwilling farmers? The states are queuing up with best land prices to lure investors in their respective states. So in what is a battle of money and muscle, a Narendra Modi effortlessly upstages a Buddhadev Bhattacharjee or a Naveen Patnaik at the SEZ auction ring.
Large tracts of cultivable land are being doled out for industrialisation. The real estate developers are completing the ugly circle. I am not against industrialisation. But there could be a workable ratio between cultivable and non-cultivable land, with the former strictly not being used for non-agricultural purposes. Otherwise, what will happen to our nation's food security? The monsoons have failed this year, ushering in a possible drought. The agriculture ministry has just stopped short of ringing the alarm bells. It claims last year’s surplus food grains will be tapped to fulfill this year’s crisis.
Shall we spare a thought for planning a sustained food production enterprise? Food is getting scarce because land used for that purpose is shrinking. It is high time the government machinery wakes up to the abuse of agricultural land. Already, we are leaving behind a planet in ruins for the next generation. By killing the rice and wheat fields using the "development" weapon, are we leaving behind an empty granary for our children?
This is a triumph for the farmers who have been precariously facing the prospect of being deprived of their irrigational land to make way for a corporate entity. The politicians (read state chief ministers) have been flashing this SEZ card by doubling up as land sharks, sincerely usurping lush, agriculturally productive land to curry favour with big investors. In this race to “attract” investments, they have been constantly throttling farming as a means of livelihood.
Unfortunately for the landowners, the government has always been in a position to “wrest” land for development, as per the archaic land acquisition laws. The colonial power seized land in the name of development using the Bengal Regulation Act, 1824, whereby it could acquire land for constructing roads, canals and other public works, after paying compensation. In 1850, the ambit of this law was expanded to include acquisition for railways. Post-Independence, the Nehruvian era saw construction of dams, fondly called modern temples by our first Prime Minister, and other heavy engineering units, displacing farmers. This divorce of agriculture and industrialization has made India tread the lopsided development path. The number of people displaced by these projects between 1951 and 1995 is estimated at 50 million people (source: http://www.indiatogether.org/).
The Indian government’s latest muscle for land acquisition, the SEZ Act of 1995, allows the state machinery to broker a land deal between land owners (mostly farmers) and industrialists for setting up special economic zones. The act also enables the government to shower benevolence on the capitalist machinery with tax cuts and other obscene fiscal benefits.
This is at best a draconian measure. Why should the government twist the arms of the unwilling farmers? The states are queuing up with best land prices to lure investors in their respective states. So in what is a battle of money and muscle, a Narendra Modi effortlessly upstages a Buddhadev Bhattacharjee or a Naveen Patnaik at the SEZ auction ring.
Large tracts of cultivable land are being doled out for industrialisation. The real estate developers are completing the ugly circle. I am not against industrialisation. But there could be a workable ratio between cultivable and non-cultivable land, with the former strictly not being used for non-agricultural purposes. Otherwise, what will happen to our nation's food security? The monsoons have failed this year, ushering in a possible drought. The agriculture ministry has just stopped short of ringing the alarm bells. It claims last year’s surplus food grains will be tapped to fulfill this year’s crisis.
Shall we spare a thought for planning a sustained food production enterprise? Food is getting scarce because land used for that purpose is shrinking. It is high time the government machinery wakes up to the abuse of agricultural land. Already, we are leaving behind a planet in ruins for the next generation. By killing the rice and wheat fields using the "development" weapon, are we leaving behind an empty granary for our children?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)