CAN LEGISLATION PUT AN END TO CORRUPTION?

CAN LEGISLATION PUT AN END TO CORRUPTION?

Corruption appears to be as old as human beings themselves.  The first incident of corruption is narrated in the Bible.  Jacob, the younger brother of Esau fooled Isaac his blind and old father and stole his blessing and inheritance which rightfully belonged to Esau .³ (Genesis chapter 27)

Another serious incident involved the King David.  David was attracted by a beautiful woman Bathsheba wife of his army general Uriah.  He wanted to marry her.  To do this David organised to get the general killed in the battle (2Samuel, chapter 11).⁴

Later we come across historical accounts of how the leaders of the Jewish community sitting on the judgement seat and passing unfair judgements against the weak, the poor and the widows.

Judas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus sold Jesus to his enemies for 30 silver pieces.

In the third century BC Kautilya in his Arthashatra speaks about corruption as the most serious crime deserving severe punishment, even a punishment by death.  But he also recognizes the inevitability of corruption.  He compares the tax collectors to fish breathing under water.  Both would partake at least some quantity of medium in which they find themselves.  There is an age old saying which goes like this: “one who guards a lake would obviously drink water from the same lake”.  Commenting on the shrewdness of the corrupt officials Kautilya notes, “It may be possible to mark the movements of birds in the sky, but it is impossible to gauge the hidden intention of corrupt official. 

There is an old Bengali folklore which goes like this: “There was a king who had a highly efficient and equally corrupt official.  The king used to get numerous complaints against him where ever he was posted.  Getting exasperated the king wanted to punish him by assigning him the duty to count the waves of a river that passed through his territory.  Alas and what a wonder as soon as he took over his new duty there were again floods of complaints from the merchants.  No boat could cross the boundary in the river without paying bribe to that person as their movement would interfere with his duty of counting the waves.”

Gandhiji too was baffled by the enormous corruption among the British rulers in India.  But what shocked him most was when the Indians were appointed as officials under the British rule were equally corrupt.  He said he would go to the length of giving the whole Congress a decent burial than put up with the corruption that he has seen so rampant among the Indian officials under the British rule.

There are serious reservations among many about the idea of ending corruption through legislation. Anna Hazare is not the first one to start a movement against corruption.  In the year 1975 Jayaprakash Narayan launched a nationwide movement for ‘total revolution’ to end corruption and authoritarianism.  From his time till today corruption has not gone away.

The common belief was the licence raj and government departments were corrupt.  The private sector was believed to be corruption free and efficient.  But after the 1991 reform when there was large scale privatization drive corruption in India has grown in leaps and bounds.  Privatization and liberalization has given rise to massive corruption.

Legislation against corruption either through Lokpal bill or through the so called strong Jana Lokpal bill of Team Anna will not make corruption disappear from the society. 

One, Lokpal talks about dealing with people after corruption has taken place.  The processes that are spoken about in these bills will not help to prevent corruption.  These procedures may help in faster action against the corrupt people.

Two, the notion of corruption expressed in the movement of Anna Hazare is very shallow.  It is understood only in terms of financial irregularities or money misappropriated by politicians or political class and the state bureaucracy directly or indirectly.  There is no analysis of corruption nor is the corruption seen as linked to the overall economic and political system of our society.  Therefore it finds an easy solution in a piece of legislation can put an end to corruption.

The western advanced capitalist countries propagated that corruption was characteristic of the third world countries where the states are weak and underdeveloped.  They used this argument to justify the Washington consensus.  But this myth was exploded during  2007-2009 global financial and economic crises.

Three, corruption is linked to the overall social, economic and political system of our society.  De Sardan in his article states, “Corruption should be understood as a ‘moral economy’ underpinned by value systems and cultural codes.  There is an imaginary world where corruption does not exist, which is nowhere realized in a pure form, and there are ‘real world’ economies where extant corruption is inevitable.  It is the very impossibility of realizing corruption free economy which produces its disciplinary power, for its realization would dissolve traction.” “A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa” (Journal of Modern African Studies).⁵

Four, Nithin Gadkary defended corruption of Yeddyurappa by asserting ‘what he did might have been morally wrong but he was legally right’.   When we speak of corruption we do not speak about what is legally right only.  What is legally right should also be morally right.  What is morally wrong cannot and should not be legally right.  We need to go one step further and consider that what is legally right should also be socially just.  Justice and equity are high moral values and legal system cannot over rule these values and declare some acts as legally right though socially unjust and morally wrong.  Legal system is creation of human institution to uphold justice, equity and morality in governance and in functioning of society.   Legal system should converge with social justice and morality.

(to be continued)

Bharat Band

BHARAT BANDH, 20^TH SEPTEMBER 2012.

We all have witnessed the tamasha on Bharat Bandh, a call given by BJP and eight opposition parties.  Otherwise what would have been a serious affair has turned out to be a ridiculous event.  What is very strange and unacceptable is that CPM and CPI were sharing the stage with BJP.  Later Sitaram Yechuri was questioned about his participation in the Bandh and sharing the stage with BJP. He resorted to justify his stand by saying that the event was called by traders and he was with the traders’ agitation against FDI in retail.  He even went out to bring Mulayam Singh Yadhav to the venue to share the cause with BJP and others.  We shall reflect on the drama staged by Mulayam Singh later.

Does CPM and CPI not know that when NDA under the leadership of BJP was in power they were keen to get FDI in multi brand retail to India?  Do they not know the stand NDA and particularly BJP had taken on disinvestment and their zeal to implement the Neo Liberal policies initiated by Narasimha Rao?  BPJ and its spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad admitted just two days before the Bandh that they would allow FDI in retail but their approach would be different.  He admitted this when he was cornered with a question of their plan to bring in FDI in retail to India during their rule and that in Panjab where they share power with Akali Dal, Walmart is already operating since some years.  He had argued that the time for FDI retail is not ripe yet.  The he was taunted with a statement, ‘the time will be ripe when BJP comes to power’.  There seems to be so much truth in this.

We should recall the revelation made by Wiki leaks cables.  On May 6, 2005 Arun Jaitley seemed to have remarked to Robert Blake at the US embassy that 'Hindu nationalism' is an 'opportunistic issue' for his party (Economic Times and DNA March 26, 2011).   Given this revelation we know that the agitation by BJP against FDI in retail is also an opportunist issue and they will implement this the moment they come to power.

It is pity that when the toiling masses are looking at the left parties to champion their cause and take a principled stand on the issues related to their plight that the left decides to play a drama.

After a while CPM leaders are seen into another honeymoon with Mulayam Singh Yadhav about 20 meters away from the venue of NDA drama.  Mulayam made it clear that he was not with BJP and NDA in their bandh.  He even succeeded in preventing Telugu Desam chief, Chandra Babu Naidu from joining with the BJP on their stage.  Here Mulayam Singh Yadhav declares a third front, an alternative to BJP led NDA and Congress led UPA.  Who authorised him to make this declaration?  He complains that the UPA did not consult him on FDI retail or diesel price hike.  But an important issue such as formation of Third Front he seemed to have consulted no one and all the parties outside UPA and NDA are supposed to be part of this front.  May be the Left parties and TDP would be the only constituents of this front.  With all his show of agitation against FDI in retial, diesel price hike etc he still continues to support UPA.  Whereas Mamata walked out of alliance with UPA on these issues she did not call for a bandh in West Bengal.

We are not sure why Mayavati, Naveen Patnaik, Jaya Lalitha, Shiv Sena, Mamata Banerjee did not participate in the bandh.  Are they in the Fourth Front?

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IRONY

Political irony: it takes courage to be coward!

Today we find ourselves in irony of sort.  This irony is both on political level as well as economic level.

On Political Level:  The parties who oppose each other and some sit on the extreme poles from each other find themselves on the same side.

Trinamool congress of Mamata Banergee is a staunch opponent of the Left Front.  The cadres of CPM and Trinamool kill each other.  But today they speak in the same tune.  They oppose Congress’ reform programme.  Similarly, the BJP is an antithesis of the Left Front, CPM, in particular.  But both the parties will be together in Bharat Bandh on 20^th of September.  Sitaram Yechuri spoke in exactly the same language as L.K. Advani while announcing the date for Bharat Bandh.  This scenario speaks for the chaos in our political situation in the country. 

 This is exactly the same scenario we find in the economic situation.

The Coalgate scam has revealed that every political party is in involved in this scam.  Starting with the Left Front government, Binju Janata Dal and ending with BJP everyone has a share in this scam.  BJP who makes a hue and cry of the (perceived) loss in the coal gate did not have any issue in making the entire monsoon session get washed out in the flood of their agitations in the house of the Parliament.  This loss is a loss to the public exchequer.

Today we seem to be in another crisis caused by the so called courageous stand taken by Manmohan Singh.  He has announced the series of reforms to bring the nation out of crisis and put it on growth mode.  

BJP’s call for National bandh on 20^th of September is an irony.  In the heart of heart BJP has nothing against these reforms.  They would have carried out these reforms ten years ago. BJP’s spokesperson Mr. Piyush claimed to the NDTV that NDA disinvested only loss making Public sector units.  This is a false claim as NDA had disinvested profit making units at rock bottom prices by lumping these with the loss making units. "Rs. 87 crores shares were sold stood at Rs 34.83, as compared with the average price of Rs 109.61 realized since then."  "In June 2002, Batra Hospitality Private Limited (BHPL) acquired the Centaur Hotel at Mumbai airport for Rs 83 crore on a 'slump sale' basis, involving the transfer of the entire business and property of the hotel to the buyer. A few months later, in October 2002, BHPL sold the same property to the Sahara India group for Rs 115 crore. The fact that BHPL could earn a close-to-40 per cent return on its investment in the matter of four months makes clear that the original sale price was grossly undervalued."

C.P. Chandrasekhar has brought out in his most recent article in the Front Line the irony of growth.  Let me quote:

“Judged in terms of content and not just outcomes, economic reform under the UPA has involved reshaping the role of the state. Earlier, especially during the post-Independence years until the 1970s, the role of the state was seen as that of using the tax-cum-subsidy regime as a means to raise the rate of investment in the economy and ensure that such investment was allocated across sectors in ways considered appropriate for maximising growth. This not only made the state a growth-leader of sorts, but required it to regulate and also engage in economic activity, including production.

“Unfortunately, the outcome of this strategy pursued relentlessly by UPA I and II despite the "lack of consensus" has been quite divisive. While growth has boosted profits and delivered some benefits to a small upper-middle class, it has failed to ensure employment and livelihoods for the majority. The results from the National Sample Survey with reference year 2009-10 suggest that while the deceleration of employment growth recorded during 1993-94 to 1999-2000 had been partially reversed in the period 1999-2000 to 2004-05, the record over the five years after 2004-05 is even worse than it was during the 1990s. Over the five-year period 2004-05 to 2009-10, employment declined at an annual rate of 0.34 per cent in rural areas and rose at the rate of just 1.36 per cent in urban areas. In the aggregate, the volume of principal and subsidiary status employment rose by a negligible 0.1 per cent. This period included the years when GDP growth was at its highest. But that growth did not generate livelihoods for the unemployed and the underemployed in the country.”  C.P. Chandrasekhar, “Nation Redefined”, Front Line Sept 21, 2012.

What Manmohan calls as a bold step and a big risk is in reality an easy way out of the present economic slowdown.  Creating a climate for foreign investment is not an act of great courage.  It is a surrender of a weak and helpless nation.  It does not need courage to make the foreign investors to come and take over.  This approach comes from a false notion of development. 

The only people who praised this move of Manmohan Singh are the corporates and the American press.  There were no takers of this reform in other section of people in India. 

It would have taken a great courage on the part of the Prime Minister to bring about reform in agriculture.  It would need a great vision to bring about land reform and infrastructure development in rural area so that the productivity and growth in agriculture could be speeded up.  This would generate employment in rural area, stop migration and generate demand so that we do not need to worship the holy cow of export dependent economy.  Export dependence has another face called import dependent.  These both faces get squared up and in the process the large population, particularly in the country side get left out of the development goals.

I would particularly like to invite the Left Parties to do a little bit of introspection rather than tail the BJP in participating in their Bharat Bandh on 20^th of September. It is important that they should set for themselves a task of increasing their influence among people and in the political process to bring the poor, the oppressed and the exploited to the centre stage of politics and economic development.  They had discounted the possibility of a Third Front.  While this could be right calculation they should realise that the rightness of this calculation is because the Left is of no consequence in the political scene of the country.  Their hands are soiled with the blood of the farmers who gave their lives in opposing land acquisition in Nandigram and Singur.

20 Years of Reform in India

Report of the workshop on “20 Years of Reform in India”

PRAXIS, Bangalore and Indian Social Institute, Bangalore organized a three days workshop from 27^th to 29^th July on “20 Years of Reform in India”.  The workshop tried to evaluate the performance of the Neo Liberal policies that India had been following since 1990.

Prof. John Itty gave an inaugural speech spelling out the tenets of ‘Neo Liberal Programme’.  He pointed out that the programme of Privatization, liberalization and globalization was basically meant for the developed countries like United States of America, United Kingdom and European countries to find entry into India for investment and a market.  It is meant to take advantage of cheap labour in India to make super profit and exploit natural resources and mineral wealth of the country.  Even the financial capital managed to get entry into India to overcome their economic stagnation.

There was a brief recount of Indian economy from 1950 to 1990, pre-reform era.  The significant fact of the pre-reform era was that there was a socialist nuance to the economy.  Immediately after independence India took up the challenge of eradication of poverty, production of more food and industrialization.  Indian state was loud in its opposition to imperialism, feudalism and monopoly capitalism. India followed a path of five year planning for development.  This gave the state a major role in regulating the economy.  India was trying to follow a model of mixed economy with a share for private sector and a share of public sector.  The state assumed a great responsibility for irradiation of poverty by playing a role in education and health system, food security through universal PDS.  It undertook several rural development programmes.

The failure of land reform and gradual shift from self reliance to import dependence landed India in to economic crisis.  The total bankruptcy in the balance of payment forced India to approach IMF for a massive loan.  This loan came with a condition to implement structural adjustment policy dictated by US controlled IMF.

While reviewing the post reform performance of Indian economy a constant comparison was made between pre reform economy and post reform economy.

While India has been praised by the world as the second largest growing economy the performance of the neo-liberal policy has been dismal.

 

On the growth front there is no spectacular performance.  Before 1990 India has seen 8% economic growth.  By 1970 Indian economy has seen massive growth in industry that made her the 9^th most industrialized country in the world at that time.  Whatever growth in GDP India is boasting of today is an imbalance growth.  We see more growth in the automobile and consumer durable industry.  In 2009-10 the average growth was 10.8% .  But the automobile and consumer durable had 26% share. This sector cares only for the middle class and upper middle class.  Performance in agriculture has been dismal it has gone down to 0.7%. The consumer non durable sector grew only by 1.5%.  Agriculture and consumer non durable caters for the majority of the population of India.

Through privatization and disinvestment policy the government has handed over most of the public sector units to the private capital with a half sung song. Many of these units have been profit making and were called Nav Ratna units. 

Private players are given free entry into education and health sphere.  All social programmes meant for the upliftment of the poor have been systematically decimated.  The integrated rural development programmes which helped the rural poor to acquire income generating assets have been turned into part of the MGNREGA where the poor receive only wages for 100 days. 

Land acquisition for industrial development, developing SEZs and mining precious minerals by private and multinational companies has driven away the adivasies, daliths and farmers to rely on casual employment and pavement dwelling in the urban centres.  

The earlier food security through universal Public Distribution System has been converted into Targeted PDS as a result many poor have to buy food grains from open market at high price.  

Employment looks rosy only for the IT employees who have capacity to get into higher studies like engineering.  Labour legislations have been amended to ensure industrial peace for the private sector investors to make huge profits.  The blue collar workers have been deprived of their trade union rights which they earned through long struggle by sacrificing their lives. Golden hand shake, VRS has succeeded in bringing huge population into the ranks of unemployed.  Out sourcing by private companies, employing labourers through contractors and turning the employees into casual labourers has turned the employment sector into a nightmare.

The Reform that we would like to see is the reform where the growth should be directly targeted to eradicate poverty.   Instead of searching for market in the foreign developed countries, which have lost their capacity to import, the government should look at the internal market.  If the rural development and growth in agriculture takes place it will serve as a massive market.  We have to ensure that land reform is taken up once again.  It will increase the productivity of farm sector.  There will create massive employment and market for industrial goods.  This means the character of the state has to be changed.  It should play a major role in the economy to regulate the economy -production and distribution.  The myth of Market being a perfect regulator should be abandoned.

AGRICULTURE MATTERS

LAND RIGHT AND LAND ACQUISITION

1.        There appears to be a conflict between Industrial interests and Agricultural interests.

Industry is trying to take away the space of agriculture.  Industry wants to subordinate agriculture.  This seems to happen in several ways.  In the name of industrialization of agriculture through introduction of technology, genetically modified seeds (BT Brinjal), high yielding variety seeds and fertilizer the industry is trying to gain control on agriculture.  Industrial capital is trying to gain control of production and marketing of agricultural goods.  The corporate like Cargill, Monsanto, and ITC have entered into agricultural sector trying to direct the course of agriculture towards industrial interests and thereby changing the very objective social need of agricultural production.

2.       The policy makers guided by the interests of the industrial capital want to make sure that contribution of agriculture to the GDP comes down to lower than 20%.  The population involved in agriculture similarly comes down to less than 20%.  There is a projection made that more than 60% of population should live in the urban centres and less than 40% in the rural areas.  The rise in the urban population will provide abundance of labour force for industry.

3.       When an economy gets heavily transformed in favour of industry there are issues:

·         The department that produces the means of subsistence essential to any society gets relegated to a secondary position.

·         Wages in all sectors depend on the value of the means of subsistence.  This means the cost of production of means of subsistence determine the wages.  This concern often makes the wages in agricultural sector and price of food grains to be kept low.  This is responsible for the uneven standard of living between the urban population and the population involved in agriculture.

·         When vast majority of the population gets shifted to the urban and industrial sector it means these people get reduced to property less masses depending on volatile employment and wages.  Only the minuscule population then owns capital.  The rest of the people find themselves outside the economic, political and social life.  They live on the fringe (edge) of the society with loss of purpose, relevance and meaning of life.

·         While consumption in terms of industrial products will be high in value involving high value of capital, consumption in terms of means of subsistence will be low in value resulting in low return in agriculture.  This will make capitalism unsustainable leading to crisis of over production and under consumption.

4.       There is no agricultural policy to boost its growth.  Agricultural growth is not considered in an attempt to revive overall growth.    Since agriculture cannot attract FDI it is relegated to the last space.  Only urban and industrial sector is considered to evaluate GDP.  In the Neo Liberal ideological perspective growth is seen only in terms of FDI and exposure to foreign capital.  Foreign investment is not a stable bench mark for growth.  It comes and goes like wind along the rumours and gossip about economy of the nation.

5.       When the land acquisition bill is debated apparently some interest for the problems of the farmers is shown.  But it is totally eyewash.  How can land acquisition be discussed without a discussion on the future of agriculture and the farmers?

It is not enough to have rehabilitation and resettlement plans.  This is looking at the issues of land and farmers negatively.  What is required is a positive agricultural policy which keeps the farmers’ interests in the centre stage. 

What is required is to identify the unproductive and uncultivable land and promote industrialization in these areas.  Of course this will require development of infrastructure and transport.

The rich farmers and big landlord often hold vast stretch of land.  They leave some land fallow.  Their per acre productivity is much lower than the small and medium farmers.  A more rational land reform is needed to make sure that the farmers hold viable size of land and the big landlords are forced to give up excess land.

The fertile lands should not be touched for industrialization.  There should be robust development of infrastructure like irrigation, power, cold storage and food processing units, transport and market facilities.  The rural roads are in horrible state.  Power supply is absent for the most part of the time.  There are possibilities for installing small power plants based on solar power, wind energy and through use of biomass.

Bank credit should be made available for the farmers on the lines of credit available to industry.  They should be able to draw on the basis of their product and stock.  If the banks function well in the rural areas along the line of urban banks there will not any need for loan waving.

If the small farmers become self sufficient it will solve the problem of unemployment and nutrition in the rural areas.  These farmers should be able to live in dignity and have access to modern education and lifestyle without having to give up agriculture.  Agriculture should become a dignified way of life like any other dignified occupation. 

While analysing the defeat of the Left Front government there were several point put forward as explanation for its defeat.  The left front held on to power for more than thirty years.  The reason for this long rule was that it enjoyed the support of the rural population which had immensely benefitted from the land reform (operation Borga).  But these people had developed aspiration bigger than just holding land.  The left front government was not able to meet these aspirations.  The rural masses wanted to enjoy the life style their urban peers were having.  They wanted to have access to modernity and the luxuries enjoyed by the urban middle class.  Since this is only at the analytical level it is not very clear what kind of economic engagement the rural masses were looking for.  Did the people want to give up agriculture and look for jobs in the urban centres?  In that case why were there strong protests against land acquisition in Singur and Nandigram, where many had given their lives?   Did the rural masses expect better life style by migrating to the urban centres and would that be possible.  The answer to these questions is probably very simple.  The growers of the food for the nation did not have the life they deserved.  The economic organization was unfair to the crucial agricultural sector.  The policy makers did not have imagination to think that given proper policies and plans the rural population should lack nothing in terms of good housing, health, education, infrastructure of every kind which would put their life style on par with the urban middle class.  But this could not happen given the liberalization.  When there is no regulation and planning the industrial and urban interests get better of the economy and society.    The growth oriented and market driven economy looks for higher profits and does not have eye for equity and justice.  They are so engrossed in their pursuit for profit that they forget the fact that it needs a market, i.e., people with purchasing power to realise their profits.  The fact that the economy has taken the turn for the worst is a clear proof of its non inclusive nature.  Inclusiveness should not be expressed by giving doles to the rural poor.  It should mean the rural agriculture should come in the calculation.  The rural infrastructure and way of life should be so cared for that it will provide people resources to life and benefit equitably from the growing wealth. 

There is a need for regulation and planning for the entire society.  The rural economy and the rural population should be able to grow along with the growth of the urban sector.  The dream of pushing 60% and more population to the urban centres and make them employable in the urban industries by depriving of their land and productive assets will turn this dream into nightmare.  It is like killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

6.       Market and Trade is thought of only in terms of export – export to US and Europe.  The Central Asia and Pacific is not considered.  The domestic market is totally left out of calculation to promote growth.  The large population of about 60% to 70% living in the rural area in a vast country like India with more than a billion people offers the biggest market opportunity for Indian economy.  But this market needs to be developed by promoting development of agriculture.  This will also go a long way in defending food sovereignty and food security for the nation.

LAND RIGHT AND LAND ACQUISITION

AGRICULTURE AND LAND RIGHT: Introductory remarks

Alex Tuscano

Land Right:

=Respect for land rights is essential to sustainable development. Land is central to people’s identity, livelihood and food security. International standards and frameworks are abundantly available.

Yet time and again the human rights of the people who own or use land are violated due to policies and practices relating to its improper use and acquisition. Sub-Saharan countries are a poignant example.

For the past decade, foreign investors have been looking for greener pastures in Africa. Some foreign governments and private enterprises acquire long-term leases of large portions of arable land as part of efforts to secure sufficient food and energy for their home populations. Such actions could be explained in human rights terms. This is not the case, however, if foreign governments are acquiring land only with a view to trade in international markets.

Most of the poor share three traits: they live in rural areas, rely on agricultural labour to survive, but don’t own the land they till.

Immediately after independence there was only one official slogan ringing throughout the country.  It was “Jai Jawan Jai Kisan!”  The Jawans had just fought the first war with Pakistan to protect Kashmir.  And the nation that was predominantly agrarian needed Kisan to produce for the people.  But it was also admitted that this Kisan who fed their countrymen was himself lived a miserable life.

After independence Jawaharlal Nehru announced land reform as the immediate task before the nation.

Since then till today a lot of water has run down the bridge.  In India we saw two centres of power.  At the rural and state level the landlords dominated the economic and political power and at the centre the Industrial capitalists were trying to push themselves forward.

THE CONDITION OF FARMERS OF INDIA:

Extensive Indebtedness

·        The findings of NSSO 59th round (2005) clearly shows that 48.6 per cent of the farmers are indebted, and have incurred significant liabilities.

·         The estimated prevalence of indebtedness among farmers was seen to be highest in Andhra Pradesh (82 per cent) and lowest in Uttaranchal (less than 10 per cent).

·         More than 50 per cent of the farmers have availed loans for capital or to meet current expenditures for farming purposes.

·         58 per cent of borrowing accrues to cultivation and other agricultural activities while the remaining percentage suffices to meet other consumption needs.

·         Out of the estimated 43.4 million indebted farmer households, 6.9 million indebted households are from Uttar Pradesh, whereas 4.9 million are from Andhra Pradesh. Maharashtra follows close with 3.6 million farmers and West Bengal is not far behind with 3.5 million.

·         The highest proportion of indebted farmers belongs to the other backward castes (OBC) category with 41.5 per cent, followed by the scheduled castes (SCs) with 18 per cent. Indebtedness and distress are quite significant among the scheduled caste farmers. It needs no emphasis that it hurts them more than those belonging to other castes. As a result, landlessness among scheduled castes and marginalisation of their holdings has been increasing in recent years.

·         The largest percentage of indebted farmers is located in the size class of 0.01 to 1 hectare. More than 70 per cent of farmers who own less than two hectares are in the indebted category. The average amount of loans outstanding is Rs 12,585.

Banks function differently for Industry and agriculture:

·         Non availability of banks.

·         No link of agricultural production to banking.

·         No advance on stocks.

·         No facility of over draft on current account.  Bank money is available only to industry.

·         Market for agriculture not organized to link with bank credit or over draft.

Insignificant growth in Agriculture:

·         However, all through the 1990s, farm business income showed insignificant growth.

·         grew at 1.02 per cent per annum during 1990-91 to 1999-2000

·         as against 3.21 per cent during 1983-84 to 1990-91 [Sen and Bhatia 2004: 241].

Far from Safety Nets:

It is evident that about one-third of farmers did not really like farming; because it is not a profitable activity and 40 per cent of farmers are even ready to give up farming provided they could secure some other job [NSSO 2005b]. In sum, almost 70 per cent of the farmers are frustrated with their profession.

Technology

The farmer does not get sufficient information from the extension worker, but it is rather the progressive farmer, who provides information to the farmer and this constitutes the best source as acknowledged by the farming community

A general survey of land reform policy and programmes in India up to mid-sixties, therefore, suggests that:

(1) The social motivation for agrarian policy in India was provided by the contending pressures of the erstwhile semi-feudal landlords on the one hand and the emerging class of medium landowners and superior tenants on the other.

(2) Within this common frame, the regional variations in India were determined by the relatively greater pull of the old landed class in the eastern region and of the upper layer of the peasantry in the north-west and the western regions.

(3) In both types of regions the rural poor were neither articulate nor organised at the political level to exercise influence on the land reform policy and programme in their favour either at the stage of legislation or of implementation.

(4) The impact of land reform was positive for the intermediate classes which were upgraded and pushed into a position of prominence both in the land and power structure. On the other hand, the impact was by and large negative for the rural poor. It was mainly instrumental in disturbing the old framework within which the rural poor had some security without creating for them alternative forms of security.

Colonial Land Acquisition Act:

Along with the failure of land reform there was a colonial ‘Land Acquisition Act 1894’ which was used for the colonial powers and subsequent Indian governments against the interests of the farmers. 

In its 117 years of existence, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (LAA 1894) has influenced the expansion of the power of the State to acquire and take over land. It has helped institutionalise involuntary acquisition. Premised on the doctrine of eminent domain, it presumes a priority to the requirements of the State which, by definition, is for the general good of the public, over the interests of landowners and users.

 In 1984, when the LAA 1894 went through elaborate amendment, the role that the State had taken on in acquiring land for companies was reinforced. The neo-liberal agenda, or the reforms agenda as some term it, forged a partnership between the state and compa­nies.

 Where it guarantees certain conditions and terms that would make projects friction free while guaran­teeing profits; as agents in procuring land and providing clearances; as disinvestors, through which process the transfer of assets would occur.

 In 1984, the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SoR) of the Amendment Act referred to the “sacrifices” of the affected population. “The individuals and institu­tions who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the com­munity”,

 A model of development that requires extraordinary sacrifices, that is ecologi­cally and in socio-economic terms of ques­tionable repute and which is linked with such phenomena as marginalisation, exclusion and impoverishment has not been able to cross the credibility barrier to convince those who are sometimes referred to as “victims of development”. Macroeconomic projections of growth and prosperity have not succeeded in convinc­ing the project affected that their sacrifice has value that they must respect;

The decades since the development project got underway in the 1950s has caused “development-induced displace­ment”.

It was not till February 2004 that a National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation 2003 was notified, to be replaced in 2007 by the National Rehabili­tation Policy 2006.

A “Foreword” to the draft bill that Union Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh displayed on the ministry’s web­site on 27 July 2011 begins with these words: “Infrastructure across the country must expand rapidly. Industrialisation, especially based on manufacture, has also to accelerate. Urbanisation is inevitable. Land is an essential requirement for all these processes.”

“In every case, land acquisition must take place in a manner that fully pro­tects the interests of landowners and also those whose livelihoods depend on the land being acquired”. This sets up a lexical priority for industry, urbanisation and infrastructure, and introduces pragma­tism into issues of displacement and reha­bilitation. This approach runs through the entire LARR 2011. In the bill introduced in the Lok Sabha, the preamble uses adjec­tives such as “humane”, “participatory”, “informed”, “consultative”, “transparent”, but the juggernaut of “development” is not to be slowed down; the process of dealing with its wake may be modified.

The attempt to reconcile conflicting interests has, however, produced some interesting elements. So,

• the idea of “legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition which necessitates acquisition of the land identified” (Clause 8(2)(a));

• that “only the minimum area of land required for the project” can be sought to be acquired (Clause 8(3));

• that “minimum displacement of people, minimum disturbance to the infrastruc­ture, ecology and minimum adverse im­pact on the individuals affected” should be ensured (Clause 8(3)).

The LAA 1894 was concerned exclusively with acquisition; it was innocent of the need for rehabilitation.

In 1984, “public purpose” was redefined to include the pro­vision of land for residential purposes “...to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by government...” (Section 3(f)(v)). There was no procedure prescribed, and no entitlements created. It was among the purposes for which the state had the power, under the Act, to acquire land.

The notion of the “affected family” (Clause 3(c)) has been introduced, and this is distinct from the “person interested” who was, and continues in this bill to be the person enti­tled to compensation. “Affected family” includes agricultural labourers, tenants, sharecroppers, artisans, those working in the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition, “whose primary source of livelihood stands affected by the acquisition of land” as also the person who loses land.

Diluting Forest Rights Act

If the state is itself to be acquiring the land, then the protection is diminished to that degree. If the state is legally permit­ted to acquire the land to be handed over to a private company, that dilutes the pro­tection further.

The idea of recognising rights so that they can be monetised and taken over could be viewed as amounting to a fraud on the tribals and forest dwellers. If land has to be diverted for the purposes of industry or infrastructure in scheduled areas and in areas in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, some route other than the coercive power under the land acquisition law will have to be found.

Change of public purpose – where acquisition is based on one purpose but it is used for another purpose – has been among the practices that brought co­ercive acquisition into disrepute. It revealed  casualness about state power.

Agriculture and Industry at cross purpose?

There is apparently conflict between the interests of the industrialists and the land owning agriculturists.

Industry is trying to take away the space of agriculture.

Industrial capital, essentially the multinational capital is bringing agriculture under their control, making farmers’ existence irrelevant.

The corporate are also taking possession of production, in the form of corporate or contract farming, procuring the food grains and marketing agricultural products.  

India is aiming to be one of the leading nations in the world along the ranks of most powerful advanced nations.  It boasts of its fastest growing economy.  The profile that is being slowly sold is that Indian is going to have economy where 80% of which will be contributed by industry and more than 60 % of the population would be living in the cities.  The planners would like to have less than 20% of the population living on agriculture.

The policy of the UPA II government was enumerated recently by Montek Singh Ahlluvalia in his interview with the NDTV on 25.03.2010.

1.      He wants to ensure that the economy is put on the growth mode of 10% and above.  This would mean more investments, greater exploitation of natural resources and mineral wealth, foreign investment and creation of more Special economic zones.

2.      The second element of the policy is infrastructure development in the cities, more green field airports, flyovers and express high ways.  To ensure faster urbanization which would mean that today there are 300 millions living in the cities; it should reach to 600 million people living in the cities. His expectation is that within ten to fifteen years the urban population will increase to 60% and above of the total population of India,  30% population to stay in the rural areas.

3.      Reform in education to create space for skill training for the youth to make them employable in the urban economy.

We shall take one by one to understand how these points expose the policy of the government with regard to Agriculture.

A.      Creation of more Special Economic Zones, exploitation of natural resources and minerals, building express high ways and green field airports have directly impacted on the rural masses, i.e. the adivasis, the daliths, the peasants and the fisher people.  So fare such projects have been implemented we have seen that the wealth of the middle class, , peasants, daliths, adivasis the poor and the marginalised people have been taken away from them and passed on to the hands of the industrialists.  It has resulted in displacement, converting the peasants and self employed masses into wage labourers. 

B.      We have been told that the 60% and more people will live in the cities.  It is very difficult to understand this as the people displaced from the rural agricultural economy will migrate to the cities in search of jobs.  In most of our metros between 25% to 30% people live in slums and glorified slums.  They are partially employed or unemployed.  The power and water supply in all the cities is dismal.  The transport system is inadequate and in shambles.  To these cities we will see more people, i.e., the double of the people already living in the cities are going to be added to.  These are not necessarily HSMP category of people but those who have been displaced from the rural agrarian economy.

C.      The government is speaking of giving skill training to the youth to make them employable.  But the kind of industries emerging in our society does not require semi skilled or unskilled workers that the skill training is going to generate.  This will lead to the frustration among the so called skill trained youth.

D.     Agriculture will be subordinated to industry.  This is already happening in several ways – industrialization of agriculture by promoting technological revolution in agriculture in the name of increasing productivity. There will be concentration and centralization of agricultural land.  Multinational companies and corporate like Cargill, Monsanto ITC, Reliance trying to push their interests by taking control of seeds and fertilizers and essentially research in agriculture, introducing genetically modified seeds known as BT technology. who will take over the agriculture of our country.   This process will push the farmers from their control on seeds and method of agriculture. There will be no place for self employed peasant economy.

E.        There will be contract farming.  No wonder the BT Brinjal controversy has been treated like highly sensitive security issue where any criticism would be dealt with serious consequences.

F.       The food sovereignty will be given a solemn burial.  Food security will be converted into dole of “25 kg rice per month at the rate Rs. 3.00 only”.  There will be very simple social analysis as there will be a few owning corporate and the rest will be wage labourers in our country.

To conclude: The government agricultural policy is neo liberal policy directly taken out of the text books from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Let me quote form David Smick’s book, “The world is Curved”.  By the way David Smick is the most insightful financial market strategists in the world who for more than two decades has conferred with central bankers such as Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and has advised Wall Street Executives.

“To be sure, Clinton advisers, such as Summers and Sperling, are correct when they argue that the middle class has not fully enjoyed the benefits of the global wealth machine. In today's financial system, where the wage-earning sector itself is shrinking, middle-class wages alone may never be enough to keep families from financially backsliding. This problem will remain a reality regardless of any government sponsored programs, including hikes in the minimum wage and targeted educational benefits.

Moreover, the gap between the haves and have-nots will likely continue to grow if globalization is allowed to continue. This is because there is an exponential aspect to wealth creation.  And as a result, the entire economic system becomes poorer with fewer jobs. Moreover, schemes aimed at aggressive welfare intervention have destroyed people's dignity, robbing them of any sense of accomplishment.

In the end, the political tensions created by vastly unequal income distribution will likely be difficult to measure and predict, and even harder to control. Highly entrepreneurial economies create big winners and losers. The challenge comes down to how to dramatically expand society's base of winners. The best way to do that is to expand the base of the investor class. In fact, bringing more people into the economy as capital owners may in the long run be the only means politically of saving globalization.

For the middle class, wages alone are not enough to prosper in today's new economy.

In recent years, the global economy has boomed to almost unprecedented levels. Mere wage earners, however, relative to those with a global stock portfolio, can't participate in this wealth creation. They are left at a huge disadvantage by having no way to benefit from worldwide economic growth.

To this extent, I agree with Barack Obama when he said in March 2008: "The core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well-being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned."

Here is one astonishing statistic that makes the point: Today 40 percent of Americans do not have adequate liquid savings to live at the poverty level for three months, according to New York University's Edward N. Wolff. For a family of four, living at that level for that amount of time would require $5,300 in savings.

As is obvious by now, I passionately believe working-class families want to ride the great financial wave. They want to be transformed from labour workers into capital owners. They want a real stake in the entrepreneurial capitalist system, and they are not resentful of the entrepreneurial success of others so long as the door for wealth creation and opportunity remains open for all.”

I would like to make one last point before I conclude.  The present growing nature of world economy is heavily leaning towards war economy as a safety valve to let out the steam that will be generated by the crisis of over production and under consumption.

We have seen war and production weapons have become inherent part of the economy.  Earlier we had cold war between the USSR and USA.  This cold war is replaced by a new cold war between USA and China in an attempt to gain greater control of the Pacific Ocean.  I warn you that this will trick the countries like India into believing in the need to align with USA.  But the fact remains that USA and China are so interdependent that they need each other for their existence.

Political Crisis in India.

ELECTION TO THE FIVE STATES:

An exercise of throwing out the governments of the day for the earlier thrown aways to occupy the vacuum created.

The election results to the five states very clearly show that there is a deep political crisis in our country.  The national parties are rejected by the voters and the regional parties are no great politics to choose from.

Punjab:  No one had predicted that Akali Dal could make a comeback.  This party in combination with BJP had lost its face in Punjab.  In 2007 Akali Dal had 49 seats and BJP had 19 seats.  In 2012 Akali Dal improved its tally by 7 seats while BJP lost 7 seats. Congress had 44 seats in 2007 and it gained just 2 seats. There are two reasons why Akali Dal and BJP came back to power.  One, the PPP played a spoiler game.   Arnob Goswamy of Times Now had already stated this.  This party did not get a single seat. But it prevented Congress from coming to power.  PPP took 10% of votes which could have gone to Congress if people had preferred Congress to Akali Dal.    In spite of the accusation levelled against Akali Dall of nepotism and corruption it came to power only because the people rejected both Congress and BJP.  The significant fact is the loss of 7 seats of BJP indicates that people would have preferred Congress to BJP.  Nobody sheds any tear for Congress not coming to power in Punjab.

In Goa too there is nothing great for the BJP to rejoice.  Goa is a very small state and the Congress had consumed enough poison from the mines that its demise was not surprising.  The victory of BJP was only the last straw the people had.  Their strategy to give some tickets to Catholic candidates was useful.  One should realise that Goa had never been a bastion of congress.  Manohar Parrikar will be a chief minister for a third time.

Similar to the case of Punjab the Uttara Khand had seen enough corruption under BJP and their effort to cover up all this by bringing Khanduri was like giving a straw to a drowning person.  The man who was supposed to save BJP’s sinking ship himself could not save his seat.  Here the voters wanted to reject both the BJP and Congress.  The people did not want to choose the Congress under any circumstances.  There was no third alternative to the voters.  It is because of this the congress got just one seat more than BJP.

The UP situation is no better.  Strictly speaking the case here is very similar to that of all the other three states.  The rejection of BSP was a consequence of the fact that the BSP could not use the political opportunity for the stated objectives of the party.  The signs of this were not just the statues built by Mayavathi but more seriously the rampant corruption that had prevented from the daliths, backward class and the poor to get the fruits of their trust reposed in BSP and Mayawati.  The health department which caters predominantly to the poor was fraught with corruption.  BSP had to settle down with only 79 seats.  Though SP won 224 seats, 126 more seats compared to 2007, it is no great certificate to the party.  Its vote share is just 2.5% above the BSP vote share.  This indicates that the loss of BSP in terms of vote share is not great.  BSP still holds its core vote base. There is a widespread belief that SP is a party of goons and goondas.   Immediately after the election results were declared the SP cadres did prove this.  The ministry formation adds insults to injury.

The congress party with Rahul Gandhi had put in enormous efforts in campaigning for the party.  He was seriously campaigning for the change of the face of UP state.  Rahul had begun his work long before the election.  Even in 2009 election he had worked hard. The leaders of the congress were trying to reach out to the Muslim even at the expense of model code of conduct. Congress had hopes of staging remarkable achievements.  Perhaps capturing power was not a realistic hope.  Given all the energy poured in and the absolutely miserable performance of the party is an indication that the people have lost hope in Congress Party.  The Muslims did not see any hope in the congress party, in spite of the tall Muslim leader Selman Khurshid who stuck his neck out for increased quota for Muslims.  The result in Rae Bereli and Amethi are most baffling for Congress.  In Rae Bereli not a single assembly seat came to Congress.

BJP had slided down from their position of 2007 both in terms of vote share and the number of seats it won.

It can be confidently said that if the people had “a right to reject” as an option then all the parties in all the states would have been rejected.  But there would have been constitutional break down and in that case there would be president’s rule in all the four states.  This would mean the most discredited UPA would rule these states indirectly.  Since there was a talk, prior to voting, that there could be a president’s rule in UP the people must have hesitantly voted for Samajwadi Party.  Here again we feel "the right to reject" would have been no solution to the political crisis.

The people in these states and perhaps in the rest of the country are between the devil and the deep sea.  It is clear that neither the national parties nor the regional parties have anything that people should cast their votes for.

BJP had been most vociferous in attacking UPA and the Congress on corruption issues. They spoke for a strong Lokpal and shared dais with Anna Hazare.  They had condemned the action of the UPA government against Baba Ramdev and the arrest of Anna Hazare.  BJP was trying to give an impression that it was anti corruption and a proponent of a very strong Lokpal bill.  But they never stated at any stage their position on Lokpal bill.  Their hypocrisy and double standard was exposed in both the houses of the parliament when the Lokpal bill failed in Rajya Sabha where they had an edge over UPA.  BJP is not a shining example of providing corruption free governments.  The entire struggle of the people for Lokpal bill is a wash out.  Anna Hazare and his team have lost the momentum and enthusiasm.

 

What is evident in these five state elections is that it is not a defeat of the political parties but a defeat of the people and the democracy.  There are few politicians and still less political parties that measure up to the expectation of the people and give good governance and development to the nation.

Soon after the election results the BJP started speaking about midterm Parliamentary election.  Mamata’s Trinamul Congress was very vocal in saying they would be happy if immediately there is midterm election.  This idea was floated through their lone representative in the Union cabinet, the Railway Minister Dinesh Trivedi.  TMC wants to get more MPs in the parliament to have more muscle power.  SP, JDU, AIADMK are hoping that they too would improve their tally in the parliament if midterm polls are held now.  One needs to analyse if the hopes of these parties are based on the interest of the nation.   Is the objective situation favourable for a clean and viable alternative government?   The parties want midterm poll to improve their tally in the Parliament.  There is no thought about giving the country a stable government.  All the parties will improve their tally and they will create a chaos in the parliament.  No one, with whatever combination, may float an alliance and give the country a stable government.  

The political crisis is political chaos in the country.  No party is above corruption, no party looks at the national interest.  Whenever the opposition parties get a chance they gang up together to give rise to instability and chaos.  There is no political discourse between the political parties.  BJP looks for every chance to put the UPA on the mat.  It does not have numbers to give an alternative government.  It has no hope of coming to power if the elections are held immediately.  They want to discredit the government of the day so that they can improve their chances in the next election.  Even if the country’s resources are wasted through the washed out parliament sessions or blockades of the policy decisions the opposition parties and principally the BJP has no problems as long as it improves its chances to come to power in the next election.  The voters were clever to see the game plan of BJP.

Above all the talk of midterm poll is a clear indication that no one has learnt any lesson from the elections to these five states.  In these elections the voters have not elected any party to power rather they have thrown away the government of the day.  Once these governments are thrown away the parties whose governments were thrown out earlier have come to occupy the vacuum.  In the eyes of the voters they do not have any merits to form a new government.  No party has moral grounds to claim that they have an image good enough to aspire for power.

    

These parties throw up a smoke screen to attract the votes of the people. 

What has the Congress and UPA done all through the years of their rule?  They have ushered in reforms to put the country on a fast forward track.  It is not only the Congress, who started this reform with Manmohan Singh as the finance minister under Narasimharaj government.  This reform process was followed even more vigorously by the NDA under the leadership of BJP.  But their ‘India shining campaign did not break ice and the Congress won under their slogan of “aam aadmi”.  But Congress combined reform with populist measures for the aam aadmi.  They have legislated NREGA which was later termed as MGNREGA.  This is a spectacular achievement which has given employment to the scores of rural women and men and has increased their income.  This has had a very positive result of increasing the wages of the agricultural labourers.  If UPA came to power the second time it is one the merit of this programme.  Apart from this the Right to Information Act has been a very bold move. By this bill the democratic character of the country is strengthened and the people are able to enjoy this right to demand transparency in the administration and governance. Even in the rural areas people have used this to get their ration card and other facilities.  Though this programme has put UPA in trouble and thought there was a demand to water down this Act Sonia Gandhi has stuck to her stand to keep this Act as radical as it was passed.

Shekhar Gupta had once said on the TV show that the Congress party has done the maximum for the urban people. UPA may pass the food security bill to ensure that 60 % of the people of the country will benefit from this.  But the impact of these will be short lived.  If the NREGA brought the UPA back to power it did not help the UPA (Congress) to win even one seat more in UP or other states where the elections were held.  The new magic of food security bill, if passed now will have some impact for a year till the election and it might give Congress an advantage.  But that advantage too will soon wear out.

  

Two rupee rice was promised by several political parties and this promise was fulfilled.  Tamilnadu under DMK had the best PDS, mid day meals, health care and NREGA implementation.  DMK gave TV sets to the people, as promised.  But all this did not keep DMK in power during the elections in Tamilnadu.

   

The caste and minority based politics too has shown the signs of weakening.  Minorities too are not fooled by the parties that try to champion their cause. The people are beginning to realize that all promises the political parties make and all freebies and populist programmes they come out with contribute very little to achieve their long term interests. People want land, employment, food sovereignty.  They want to be in the main stream of economic and political life.  They want justice and equity and not doles.

The one thing that got UPA into deep trouble is the 2G scam and Common wealth Games scam.  UPA cannot come out of this come what may.  Manmohan Singh offered a “compulsion of coalition” as an explanation.  This is most unwise if not dishonest way of getting out of this scam.  If Manmohan has difficulties in tackling A. Raja, as he belonged to DMK what prevented him and UPA from taking Suresh Kalmadi to task?  If A. Raja was restrained and consequently if DMK had withdrawn the support to UPA Congress would have come out very clean.  If no other party had bailed out UPA Congress could hold its head high and go to the people for a fresh mandate.  The accusation of complicity in the 2G scam is not all that unreasonable.  History will not forgive Congress and Manmohan Singh for this failure.

They way Congress leaders handled Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev was another indication of Congress going out of their mind.  With the huge 2G scam and CWG scam over their head they should have gone cautiously with regard to Anna’s campaign.  The way Congress is handling the Koodam kulam anti nuclear power plant movement shows that Congress is desperate.  The manner in which a German national was deported from Nagercoil and the refusal of visa to 30 year old Japanese girl is nothing but lack of self confidence on the part of Manmohan Singh and the UPA.  These instances are signs of ruthless undemocratic and almost fascist behaviour on the part of UPA.  If the people are afraid of Nuclear plant in their neighbourhood then that fear has to be taken into consideration in the light of Fukushima.  The anti nuclear plant got a momentum only after the Japanese Fukushima experience.  There was already one tsunami in Kanyakumari. When the government is coming heavily on the foreign funds of the NGOs, supporting the agitation of the people against nuclear plant what about the government taking foreign funds and collaborating with foreign governments to import weapons of mass destruction, either in the form of defence weapons, or nuclear technology?

The reform is talked about all the time.  It is not only Congress but all the parties are talking the same language.  Only difference is that each of these parties came to power by pulling the other.   Mamata pulled down CPM front by opposing the Tata Uno project. But she is not able to escape the reform agenda.  Nitish Kumar opposes UPA but wants to follow reform.  Narendra Modi is bringing about reform and he is rated as a role model.  What is the problem of BJP with Congress?  It is only that Congress has power and BJP is out of power.  But all the parties regional and national are on the bandwagon of reform.  The 2G and Common Wealth Games corruption are part of the problems of reform.  If we look across the country all the states are floating in corruption, in Goa the Congress, in Karnataka, MP and Uttarakhand BJP, in Punjab Akali Dal/BJP combined governments.  Mayawati had number of ministers who were involved in corruption and murders.  They were thrown out just on the eve of elections in UP.

All Governments of all parties serve the interests of the corporate and foreign capital and put the aam aadmi on the street.  Every state government, no matter to which party it belonged to had been trying to attract investors to their states.  Yediyurappa was trying to build land bank by taking over lands of the farmers so that more SEZs could be created and more industries would come to Karnataka.  Foreign direct investment is another big dream all the governments have been seeing.  FDI in multi brand retail is thought to be giving employment to vast number of people.  But it does not see how many will be displaced from the existing retail traders.  The urban middle class are thought to get wide choices to purchase commodities that they do not really need.  How many brands will come in from foreign countries and how many brands from India will disappear from the market and production?

 

Since we do not have power (energy) to support the industrial growth any means to generate power is alright.  The maximum pollution is generated from power generation.  Nuclear power, the most dangerous source of power is considered to be the best option, in spite of history repeatedly sowing that Chernobyl, Fukushima can keep repeating.  The industries that consume the power are located far away from the hazard of power generation. Growth is considered to be a god on whose alter thousands of citizens can be sacrificed.  We have several examples of how the government goes out of its way to support the people whose craze for profit had resulted in genocide.  The Bhopal gas tragedy is still haunting us.

It is estimated that 600 million will live in the cities by 2030.  This is by no means growth of the nation and its people.  Some of these people may have homes but all of them will depend on employment at the hands of the multinational and corporate companies. Productive assets and the land will go from the hands of the farmers into the hands of the minority people in corporate and transnational companies.  As David Smick has observed in America a small miniscule minority will own capital and the rest will be deprived of it.  When there are crisis in Capitalism the non owners of capital will be affected as it happened in the economic crisis in US, UK and Europe.

All the political parties who come to power consider the corporate, industrialists and foreign companies as their godfathers.  These governments surrender the fate of the 80% of the population in the hands of the profit seeking monsters.  The 20% of these will be pampered middle class who will call themselves civil society at whose feet the government will fall in obeisance.

When all the political parties follow this one dharma of giving full support to the devastation of the majority of the citizens and when these parties go to them for handing over the power to continue their cruel acts what chance will the people have to usher in government with human face.  The citizens have only one chance to throw away the government of the day.  The election process is not electing a government but throwing away a government.  Unfortunately the vacuum created by throwing out one government gets filled by those who were thrown away earlier.

We need a political power and political system that will give governments that are free from corruption and will think of those reforms which promote the long term interests of the 80% of the population of the country. 

In order to understand the need for such a magic creating government and it economic policies we need to assess the history of our political economy.  Full detailed assessment is not possible here but we can put down main points for further elaboration in the future.

1.      Soon after independence India began it path of development with a multiparty democracy and mixed economy.  The private sector was given a prominent role in the national economy.  The state was having control on the public sector in primary industries and a fair share for invention in the economy.

 

2.       Our experiment was considered as unique and had been looked up on with a lot interest by several developing nations.

3.       However the western advanced capitalist countries and principally America looked at our experiment with a lot of hostility.  America which has a strong allergy about the word 'socialist' looked at India and our friendship with Soviet Union with suspicion.

4.       The noble ideas of mixed economy (democratic socialism) could not make head way as these ideas went counter to the domestic private interests.  The land reform which would have contributed to rural transformation was sabotaged by the feudal and landlord interests in the rural area who also held political and administrative power at the state level.

5.       The bureaucracy, the vested political interests and the leading private sector capitalists made sure that the noble ideas of democratic socialism did not succeed.

6.     The advanced capitalists took advantage of this unsuccessful attempt at socialism tried to bring India into their neo liberal frame work.  In 1980ies liberalization was gradually introduced.  This led to the increased dependence on import resulting in the imbalance between import and export leading to the crisis in balance of payment.  Our foreign reserve went so low that we had to pledge our gold to get foreign exchange and later go in for a huge loan from IMF with a host of conditionalities.  Our country opted for a full blown neo liberal economic policies: Liberalization, Privatization and globalization.

7.       The neo liberal economic policies by definition cannot reconcile the interests of the foreign and multinational capital, corporate sector with the interests of the 80% of our population. We must be clear that the foreign capital is here to stay.  When the trickling down effect of the economy did not do any good to the vast population of our rural masses under the national economic and political dispensation it is bound not to work when the foreign capital is added to our economy with the changed or abandoned state’s intervention in the economy.  Now the principle role of the state has come to mean that it would promote foreign investment, growth in industrialization and full freedom for private capital. It is forced to privatise the economy that was under its control.  It will work only as an estate agent for the foreign and corporate capital.   The role of the state in education, health services and public distribution and services is getting eroded.

8.       The growth of the economy cannot happen through the normal means of capitalist laws.  Rapid growth in India essentially means a wide spread corruption with the politicians at its centre.  As a result politicians and political parties have lost the moral right to rule the nation with more than 40% of the population which is poor.

9.       The euphoria of “India shining” is not large enough to spread its light beyond a very limited social space.  Political parties cannot come to power only with the votes of minority people on whom India is shining. 

This is at the root of the political crisis that we are experiencing now and it will not be over within a short run.