DANTEWADA MASSACRE
(Written on 8th April, 2010)
I was shocked by the killing of 75 CRPF jawans in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh by the maoists. It only increased my resolve and readiness to go and work in such remote and backward areas. Even now, I do not have deep ill will against the naxals. But, I do not support such dastardly attacks by any stretch of imagination. I realise that winning the confidence of the people is the answer to the problem. But, right now it has reached such a stage that outright military action can only establish civilian administration in such areas.
I am hopeful that the cycles of offensive and counteroffensive by the government and the ultras does not degenerate into mere blood bath without addressing the core concern of the backwardness of the regions. If human rights violation takes place in further operations, the government may end up alienating itself from more number of tribals. In fact, I was shocked to know that many tribal people were also involved in the Dantewada massacre with their bows ans arrows. What may have led to such innocent people taking up arms and fighting against the mighty establishment?
I was initially angry with the naxals for their antiquated ideology and the path of violence that they adopted. But, after reading newspaper reports about various committees' findings, I realised the deep rooted nature of the problem. Now, both the parties (the government and the naxals) claim to be the champions of the poor and berate others as betrayers. It looks that the poor tribals living in far flunged forests are the ultimate victims.
We must admit that even after sixty years of independence, the government is unable to play a central role in the lives of the people living in such remote areas. The systematic denial of user rights to the forest dwellers through various forest laws led to the loss of their livelihoods. All the dams and development projects only led to the displacement of the underprivileged. All the mining projects and factories are perceived by the tribals as looting ventures by outsiders. We also could not get them educated so that they can be reasonably employed in such projects. Unfortunately, tribals are not as vociferous and agitating like many dalits and OBCs in the northern belt who got awakened in the last couple of decades.
Tribals must have felt that naxals can offer them a better deal when they distributed public land in such areas. Naxals started operating parallel administration and delivered instant justice through local courts by punishing the moneylenders and land grabbers from outside. As the violence component kept increasing, the naxals now have grand dreams about overthrowing the civilian administration and hoisting red flag over the red fort.
The measures adopted by the government could not sufficiently address the quantum of seriousness of the problem. Poor police response initially and insufficient training of the police personnel only allowed strong linkages that naxals forged across the 'red corridor' and even from outside the country. Idealogical support to 'salwa judum' only led to dividing the tribals into mutual faction groups affecting their livelihoods very badly. Now, the writ of the elected government does not run in many districts at all. Hence, law and order administration and development administration must go hand in hand to solve the issue.
It looks to have become natural that we do not listen to the voice of the hungry people unless they start agitating. So, we must thank the naxals for shaking the government to the grave needs and aspirations of the remote and inaccessible areas. We can afford to forget such areas only at the expense of losing such territory to misguided elements. Let us use this opportunity to integrate tribals and their habitat with the mainstream on equitable terms. Their unique culture needs to be preserved and the pristine natural surroundings must be conserved. But, they also need to be educated like us, get health facilities and must have infrastructure like in other places.
The same issues that government raised in the early days of independence like land reforms are now used by the naxals. Hence, the government must walk the extra mile and display utmost commitment in addressing the concerns of the people. As long as government servants look at the work in inaccessible areas as punishment postings, the tribals will remain like before. The urban conglomerations are moving ahead at such a rapid pace that we can not imagine how the world will look like in the coming decade. Hence, we want the best of talented people to work in geographically disadvantaged areas as well. The government must be ready to provide extra facilities so that people do not work out of compulsion, but out of volition.
The increasing human needs will place more demands on the ecology and forests. The new paradigm of sustainable development must aim at rejuvenating the resource base in proportion to the growing needs. There are no more contradictions, but all mutual interconnections. The battle against naxals is a military one only in the short one. But, it is an ideological and developmental challenge in the long run. Let us take the challenge for the benefit of all.
As I write these lines, I become impatient to go and work in such districts. I am hopeful that GOD gives me an opportunity to go and do it this year. If I do not get through now, I will not be disappointed that I did not get a job. But, there will be definite unhappiness that I need to wait for some more months. Anyway, now or in future, the destiny remains the same.
May 5, 2010
DEVELOPMENT – A PAKKA BUSINESS PROPOSITION
(Written on 31st December, 2004 in IRMA)
At the outset, I understand my limited capability to comment on different development theories proposed by knowledgeable thinkers over the decades. The term ‘development’ is thought to be so vague that all the explanations given carry some amount of credibility when looked at from that perspective. In this small note, I would neither attempt to question any of the previous theories nor propose a new theory of my own. I just put down my notion of development from my two-year experience in IRMA.
Perhaps, most of us might have not have attempted to look at the society from the dichotomous perspective of development sector and commercial sector had we not come to IRMA. But, I feel that after our two-year stint with IRMA, either we get romanticized with the words ‘development’ and ‘sector’ or get disillusioned about the same words. The first category of people nurture the notion that commercial organisations would not benefit the targeted sections of rural populace whose cause we want to champion. The second category of people gets disillusioned with the notion of ‘development’. They consider development sector as a place where nothing substantial gets materialized. For them, development essentially means personal sacrifice and non remunerative in monetary terms. The first lot may compare the noble mission that they have embarked upon with the monetary loss and gratify themselves that the former is more dignified in the eyes of the society. Based on this kind of thinking, students join either ‘development’ organisations (Essentially involves sacrifice in the eyes of majority of the batch mates) or the ‘commercial’ organisations within the ‘sector’. Some students are even ready to redefine the boundary of ‘sector’ by choosing those organisations, which are still not designated. Those adventurers will essentially be branded as ‘out campus’ students.
Does Development Involve Sacrifice?
I would not question the idea of classifying the organisations into development or commercial as per their nature. The logic of classification could be the legal status or the intended target beneficiaries or the residual claimants. I only question the thinking that development essentially involves sacrifice or social work. In other words, I would not agree to the point that business logic is absent or is not the main motive in development. Whenever we talk about the business logic, my understanding is that there is no free meal in business. But we bring the notion of philanthropy in development. I say that development is equally strong in terms of business logic. Unless the resources used in the effort generate adequate returns, which can outweigh the physical, technological, financial and human resources used in the effort and also the corresponding depreciation of such resources, we cannot claim that development has taken place. So, let us not call or attempt to name any effort, which has failed to generate sufficient returns as development unless it meets the above criteria. In all such cases, development is nothing but a failed business.
Development is Very Much Quantifiable
One more notion about development is that it is qualitative in nature. It is supposed to be a social transformation process, which is very difficult to detect. I am referring to terms such as empowerment, participation and emancipation, which are often quoted to be the goals of development. My understanding is that development effort is not worth it if it fails to generate substantial financial returns at the individual as well as societal level. Unless the development efforts impact local economies significantly by increasing and improving livelihood opportunities for all, even as they bring to their members sustainable and significant financial gains, there is no meaning to such efforts. So, let us not escape from our failure of not being able to generate such surplus by quoting the amorphous goals of participation and empowerment. Let us not persist with such goals as elusive entities. In fact, nothing is non-quantifiable in this world. The only thing could be that the degree of difficulty in quantification may vary. So, let us first put them in strict quantifiable terms. Then not only our effort becomes much more meaningful but we always have a reference to check with.
Does Development Mean Championing the Cause of the Poor?
One more feeling about development is that it wants to champion the cause of disadvantaged and the marginalized (I am in fact sufficiently bored with the usage of these terms). My feeling is that this idea assumes the existence of inequality in the society with regard to the power balance or the distribution of assets. Why should we always start with the assumption that there is great amount of inequality and imbalance in the society and therefore the need for intervention as a corrective mechanism? My feeling is that the society is not that bad as we visualise to be. In most of the cases, there is nothing like exploitation as we think it to be. After all, depending on the ability, pro activeness and innovative instincts of some individuals in the society, some enjoy a better position over others either in terms of ownership of assets or enjoying certain benefits. I mean to say that rich are not rich because they always exploit the poor but because they must have been more entrepreneurial and proactive than the others.
If I say that existing societal balance is fair, is there any need for development? When I say that poor are poor because of their inability to grab the chances, perhaps there is no need for any development effort. But still such need exists. Why? The problem arises because of the non-fulfilment of the basic needs of the poor. Here I make the distinction between the needs and the wants of human beings. The society would have been perfectly fine had there been parity in the exchange among different sections. However, the fundamental assumption to my early argument is not satisfied when there is pressure of basic needs on the poor. So the pressure of ‘basic needs’ works to the transactional disadvantage of the poor. Hence the need for external assistance. Assistance is not about philanthropy. It is a much bigger challenge. The one who wants to help these poor people who are at a transactional disadvantage should be able to understand the resource base that they have so that comparative advantage of such base is taken care of. It is not about making the poor owners of assets with the help of externally pumped money. It is about creating the transactional advantage for the local resource. So identification of the correct usage of the resource (May mean canalising from the current usage or non usage), which leads to value creation at the local economy, is the cornerstone of development. That is why we refer to development as an enabling effort or making the people realise their potential. (I am again not satisfied with myself if I use the word ‘capacity building’) So, such effort should not be disabling by making them dependent on the external agencies.
Challenges in Development
Development effort should be able to tackle the institutional, financial, marketing and technical challenges involved. Such challenges are listed in detail as below.
Institutional – It is about taking care of the existing societal power structures and income disparities. As I wrote earlier, rich does not necessarily represent evil in the effort just because they are likely to get a bigger proportion of the benefits. They may get a bigger share because of the existing disparity in the asset ownership. But as development professionals, our challenge lies in creation of such institutions that benefit the disadvantaged without offending those whom we may not want to be the major beneficiaries.
Let us also not be guided by the stupid notion of equality. We often to resort to this idea of equality as being fair and democratic. If all the people fail to contribute equally, why they should get an equal share? It is simply like awarding the same grade to all the students despite the varying efforts as reflected in the performance. Here, our ingenuity in the design of benefit sharing mechanism comes into picture. To the extent we are successful in linking the benefits to the efforts put in by the people, we are more successful in our development efforts. When we want the poor to be benefited in the process, we can make efforts to link the pay offs to such contributions that the poor are more comfortable with.
Financial: Here I go beyond the project’s economic viability measured in terms of Net Present Value and Cost Benefit Analysis. My focus is more on the scale of operations. Unless the threshold level of operations is achieved, the effort may not yield adequate results to set off the depreciation of resources used in the process. Therefore, we should be careful in our planning to see that we achieve such scale. Scale may also mean better replicability, which can impact the local economies on a large scale in a wider geography.
Marketing: There are various competing forces in the society who are always ready to serve the unfulfilled needs. The question is about the detection of such opportunities at the earliest. Here market orientation as opposed to production orientation assumes significance. When we want our venture to be one the of best value propositions in the local economy, we should be able to serve the customer’s needs in the most appropriate manner. We should not look at the actors involved in traditional marketing mechanisms as always detrimental to the interests of the poor. So, middlemen that we see in almost all the supply chains of agricultural commodities do not necessarily exploit the poor. They also add value to the chain in their own way and take a share in the rupee paid by the consumer. Unless we remove the information asymmetry through innovative ways, we cannot think of giving the farmer better share in the final price realised. So, instead of cribbing over the so-called middlemen’s mal practices, let us take the challenge of bringing better coordination in the overall chain.
Technical: Technology is something that helps us to add value or create utilities (form, time or place). I view technology to be more important from the angle that only an enhanced technology can solve the problem of depleting resource base and the increasing needs of the burgeoning population. I would not say that technical solution comes free of cost. It may mean different order costs to the society. But in the current context of raising concern over the ecological sustainability of the resource base, I feel that only a higher order of technical solution will solve the problem. If even that solution proves to be inadequate after sometime, mankind has the challenge of finding even a higher degree solution.
I would not discount the need for conservation of the existing resource base. Whenever we raise concern over the global phenomena, we should realise that it is the sum result of breakdown many local eco systems. So, unless corrective action is initiated at all such micro level local contexts, global issues cannot be addressed. If such coordinated effort does not take place at all the places, only a technical solution can improve the things on large scale. So, whenever we think of development at the local level, let us be aware of the necessity for local level action as a small step towards correcting the global level issues.
However, a resource cannot be sustained for the sake of future generations’ needs if the immediate needs of the poor are not satisfied. Strong interlinkages exist among the sustainability of the resource, livelihood and institutional processes. Therefore, it is important to create a balance among them for ensuring institutional robustness. Challenge lies in the design of such institutions, which can balance the present generations’ needs, and that of the future. We can also talk about concern for other creatures in the world if we do not want to be branded as anthropocentric.
Development as a joint exploration
All the time, I was talking as if the external interveners like the development professionals will transform the local economies once they understand the idea of development. But it is not that the local people are oblivious of the opportunities. Perhaps they could be the better judges in many cases. Therefore we should also have the humility to accept their beliefs and learn from their knowledge system. I am not referring to the good old ‘participation’ in the development process. Development is a joint effort towards better future for the society. So let us bring synergy between the knowledge system of professionals like us and that of the local people and the soundness involved in traditional practices. There could also be elements which neither the interveners nor the local people are aware of. Let us use development as a joint exploration towards knowledge generation, value addition and happiness in the society.
Let Us Take a New Perspective to Development
Development organisations are certainly odd creatures in this society. Most of the time, they act as brokers. They depend on the generosity of the donor agencies for generation of the resources for their existence. Such donors cannot get a direct feel of the effectiveness of the resources, as they do not directly receive the services. Even the target beneficiaries are not aware of the cost of provision of such services. As a result, many of the development organisations continue to exist in spite of their failure to do justice to the resources that they have used from the society. We as development professionals should take it as a challenge to check the staggering consumption in the society.
For that to happen, we need to reorient ourselves about the notion of development. As long as we see it as a noble act or an act of philanthropy or part of societal concern, we can never do justice to the resources that we use. Let us brush away from our mind any feeling that we are sacrificing something by committing for development. In fact, we are taking a much bigger challenge upon ourselves of doing justice to the resources that we take from the society. Let us take it as a pakka business proposition and prove that we can win in a business context too. But we should realise that it is a much tougher proposition, as we do not get the much-needed feedback unlike a business enterprise, which gets ditched by its customers once they find the services to be inferior. In a development context, we should be true to ourselves about the value that we could generate. The funding agencies may crib about some particular aspects. Within the constraints imposed by them, we should be able to convince ourselves about the work that we did as being value adding to the society.
In fact, it does not really matter in which sector we are (it is only a matte of semantics or the so called ‘sectoral’ concerns that we embrace as a default choice of being in IRMA). Let us take the bigger challenge wherever it is present, and prove that IRMANS have a bigger heart. In my opinion, a true test to our self is provided by the following question. ‘Am I able to make this place much better than what it was earlier?’ If we can tell to our heart that I am able to help these many people to realise their dreams, nothing else can mean more significant to our life. Let us take the bigger challenge of development not because we need to sacrifice our life for the sake of it but because it is a much tougher business proposition and worth it.
(Written on 31st December, 2004 in IRMA)
At the outset, I understand my limited capability to comment on different development theories proposed by knowledgeable thinkers over the decades. The term ‘development’ is thought to be so vague that all the explanations given carry some amount of credibility when looked at from that perspective. In this small note, I would neither attempt to question any of the previous theories nor propose a new theory of my own. I just put down my notion of development from my two-year experience in IRMA.
Perhaps, most of us might have not have attempted to look at the society from the dichotomous perspective of development sector and commercial sector had we not come to IRMA. But, I feel that after our two-year stint with IRMA, either we get romanticized with the words ‘development’ and ‘sector’ or get disillusioned about the same words. The first category of people nurture the notion that commercial organisations would not benefit the targeted sections of rural populace whose cause we want to champion. The second category of people gets disillusioned with the notion of ‘development’. They consider development sector as a place where nothing substantial gets materialized. For them, development essentially means personal sacrifice and non remunerative in monetary terms. The first lot may compare the noble mission that they have embarked upon with the monetary loss and gratify themselves that the former is more dignified in the eyes of the society. Based on this kind of thinking, students join either ‘development’ organisations (Essentially involves sacrifice in the eyes of majority of the batch mates) or the ‘commercial’ organisations within the ‘sector’. Some students are even ready to redefine the boundary of ‘sector’ by choosing those organisations, which are still not designated. Those adventurers will essentially be branded as ‘out campus’ students.
Does Development Involve Sacrifice?
I would not question the idea of classifying the organisations into development or commercial as per their nature. The logic of classification could be the legal status or the intended target beneficiaries or the residual claimants. I only question the thinking that development essentially involves sacrifice or social work. In other words, I would not agree to the point that business logic is absent or is not the main motive in development. Whenever we talk about the business logic, my understanding is that there is no free meal in business. But we bring the notion of philanthropy in development. I say that development is equally strong in terms of business logic. Unless the resources used in the effort generate adequate returns, which can outweigh the physical, technological, financial and human resources used in the effort and also the corresponding depreciation of such resources, we cannot claim that development has taken place. So, let us not call or attempt to name any effort, which has failed to generate sufficient returns as development unless it meets the above criteria. In all such cases, development is nothing but a failed business.
Development is Very Much Quantifiable
One more notion about development is that it is qualitative in nature. It is supposed to be a social transformation process, which is very difficult to detect. I am referring to terms such as empowerment, participation and emancipation, which are often quoted to be the goals of development. My understanding is that development effort is not worth it if it fails to generate substantial financial returns at the individual as well as societal level. Unless the development efforts impact local economies significantly by increasing and improving livelihood opportunities for all, even as they bring to their members sustainable and significant financial gains, there is no meaning to such efforts. So, let us not escape from our failure of not being able to generate such surplus by quoting the amorphous goals of participation and empowerment. Let us not persist with such goals as elusive entities. In fact, nothing is non-quantifiable in this world. The only thing could be that the degree of difficulty in quantification may vary. So, let us first put them in strict quantifiable terms. Then not only our effort becomes much more meaningful but we always have a reference to check with.
Does Development Mean Championing the Cause of the Poor?
One more feeling about development is that it wants to champion the cause of disadvantaged and the marginalized (I am in fact sufficiently bored with the usage of these terms). My feeling is that this idea assumes the existence of inequality in the society with regard to the power balance or the distribution of assets. Why should we always start with the assumption that there is great amount of inequality and imbalance in the society and therefore the need for intervention as a corrective mechanism? My feeling is that the society is not that bad as we visualise to be. In most of the cases, there is nothing like exploitation as we think it to be. After all, depending on the ability, pro activeness and innovative instincts of some individuals in the society, some enjoy a better position over others either in terms of ownership of assets or enjoying certain benefits. I mean to say that rich are not rich because they always exploit the poor but because they must have been more entrepreneurial and proactive than the others.
If I say that existing societal balance is fair, is there any need for development? When I say that poor are poor because of their inability to grab the chances, perhaps there is no need for any development effort. But still such need exists. Why? The problem arises because of the non-fulfilment of the basic needs of the poor. Here I make the distinction between the needs and the wants of human beings. The society would have been perfectly fine had there been parity in the exchange among different sections. However, the fundamental assumption to my early argument is not satisfied when there is pressure of basic needs on the poor. So the pressure of ‘basic needs’ works to the transactional disadvantage of the poor. Hence the need for external assistance. Assistance is not about philanthropy. It is a much bigger challenge. The one who wants to help these poor people who are at a transactional disadvantage should be able to understand the resource base that they have so that comparative advantage of such base is taken care of. It is not about making the poor owners of assets with the help of externally pumped money. It is about creating the transactional advantage for the local resource. So identification of the correct usage of the resource (May mean canalising from the current usage or non usage), which leads to value creation at the local economy, is the cornerstone of development. That is why we refer to development as an enabling effort or making the people realise their potential. (I am again not satisfied with myself if I use the word ‘capacity building’) So, such effort should not be disabling by making them dependent on the external agencies.
Challenges in Development
Development effort should be able to tackle the institutional, financial, marketing and technical challenges involved. Such challenges are listed in detail as below.
Institutional – It is about taking care of the existing societal power structures and income disparities. As I wrote earlier, rich does not necessarily represent evil in the effort just because they are likely to get a bigger proportion of the benefits. They may get a bigger share because of the existing disparity in the asset ownership. But as development professionals, our challenge lies in creation of such institutions that benefit the disadvantaged without offending those whom we may not want to be the major beneficiaries.
Let us also not be guided by the stupid notion of equality. We often to resort to this idea of equality as being fair and democratic. If all the people fail to contribute equally, why they should get an equal share? It is simply like awarding the same grade to all the students despite the varying efforts as reflected in the performance. Here, our ingenuity in the design of benefit sharing mechanism comes into picture. To the extent we are successful in linking the benefits to the efforts put in by the people, we are more successful in our development efforts. When we want the poor to be benefited in the process, we can make efforts to link the pay offs to such contributions that the poor are more comfortable with.
Financial: Here I go beyond the project’s economic viability measured in terms of Net Present Value and Cost Benefit Analysis. My focus is more on the scale of operations. Unless the threshold level of operations is achieved, the effort may not yield adequate results to set off the depreciation of resources used in the process. Therefore, we should be careful in our planning to see that we achieve such scale. Scale may also mean better replicability, which can impact the local economies on a large scale in a wider geography.
Marketing: There are various competing forces in the society who are always ready to serve the unfulfilled needs. The question is about the detection of such opportunities at the earliest. Here market orientation as opposed to production orientation assumes significance. When we want our venture to be one the of best value propositions in the local economy, we should be able to serve the customer’s needs in the most appropriate manner. We should not look at the actors involved in traditional marketing mechanisms as always detrimental to the interests of the poor. So, middlemen that we see in almost all the supply chains of agricultural commodities do not necessarily exploit the poor. They also add value to the chain in their own way and take a share in the rupee paid by the consumer. Unless we remove the information asymmetry through innovative ways, we cannot think of giving the farmer better share in the final price realised. So, instead of cribbing over the so-called middlemen’s mal practices, let us take the challenge of bringing better coordination in the overall chain.
Technical: Technology is something that helps us to add value or create utilities (form, time or place). I view technology to be more important from the angle that only an enhanced technology can solve the problem of depleting resource base and the increasing needs of the burgeoning population. I would not say that technical solution comes free of cost. It may mean different order costs to the society. But in the current context of raising concern over the ecological sustainability of the resource base, I feel that only a higher order of technical solution will solve the problem. If even that solution proves to be inadequate after sometime, mankind has the challenge of finding even a higher degree solution.
I would not discount the need for conservation of the existing resource base. Whenever we raise concern over the global phenomena, we should realise that it is the sum result of breakdown many local eco systems. So, unless corrective action is initiated at all such micro level local contexts, global issues cannot be addressed. If such coordinated effort does not take place at all the places, only a technical solution can improve the things on large scale. So, whenever we think of development at the local level, let us be aware of the necessity for local level action as a small step towards correcting the global level issues.
However, a resource cannot be sustained for the sake of future generations’ needs if the immediate needs of the poor are not satisfied. Strong interlinkages exist among the sustainability of the resource, livelihood and institutional processes. Therefore, it is important to create a balance among them for ensuring institutional robustness. Challenge lies in the design of such institutions, which can balance the present generations’ needs, and that of the future. We can also talk about concern for other creatures in the world if we do not want to be branded as anthropocentric.
Development as a joint exploration
All the time, I was talking as if the external interveners like the development professionals will transform the local economies once they understand the idea of development. But it is not that the local people are oblivious of the opportunities. Perhaps they could be the better judges in many cases. Therefore we should also have the humility to accept their beliefs and learn from their knowledge system. I am not referring to the good old ‘participation’ in the development process. Development is a joint effort towards better future for the society. So let us bring synergy between the knowledge system of professionals like us and that of the local people and the soundness involved in traditional practices. There could also be elements which neither the interveners nor the local people are aware of. Let us use development as a joint exploration towards knowledge generation, value addition and happiness in the society.
Let Us Take a New Perspective to Development
Development organisations are certainly odd creatures in this society. Most of the time, they act as brokers. They depend on the generosity of the donor agencies for generation of the resources for their existence. Such donors cannot get a direct feel of the effectiveness of the resources, as they do not directly receive the services. Even the target beneficiaries are not aware of the cost of provision of such services. As a result, many of the development organisations continue to exist in spite of their failure to do justice to the resources that they have used from the society. We as development professionals should take it as a challenge to check the staggering consumption in the society.
For that to happen, we need to reorient ourselves about the notion of development. As long as we see it as a noble act or an act of philanthropy or part of societal concern, we can never do justice to the resources that we use. Let us brush away from our mind any feeling that we are sacrificing something by committing for development. In fact, we are taking a much bigger challenge upon ourselves of doing justice to the resources that we take from the society. Let us take it as a pakka business proposition and prove that we can win in a business context too. But we should realise that it is a much tougher proposition, as we do not get the much-needed feedback unlike a business enterprise, which gets ditched by its customers once they find the services to be inferior. In a development context, we should be true to ourselves about the value that we could generate. The funding agencies may crib about some particular aspects. Within the constraints imposed by them, we should be able to convince ourselves about the work that we did as being value adding to the society.
In fact, it does not really matter in which sector we are (it is only a matte of semantics or the so called ‘sectoral’ concerns that we embrace as a default choice of being in IRMA). Let us take the bigger challenge wherever it is present, and prove that IRMANS have a bigger heart. In my opinion, a true test to our self is provided by the following question. ‘Am I able to make this place much better than what it was earlier?’ If we can tell to our heart that I am able to help these many people to realise their dreams, nothing else can mean more significant to our life. Let us take the bigger challenge of development not because we need to sacrifice our life for the sake of it but because it is a much tougher business proposition and worth it.
March 28, 2010
Kurien's Dream
Date: 28/02/2010
I want to note down few impressions on Kurien’s autobiography “I TOO HAD A DREAM” which provided me a fascinating reading experience for the last couple of days. I never got bored during any part of the book. In fact, he has the wonderful knack of conveying ideas without using difficult words at all. I felt like I was listening to him face to face like I was during my IRMA days. Even then, I remember that he was candid and out rightly ruthless. In the book even, he agrees that he is rude at many points of time. Still, I defend him to the extent that he always spoke for the farmers of rural India. He is open enough to quote all such instances where he did not mince words either in front of multinationals or cabinet ministers.
One of the striking aspects of his personality is the wonderful rapport that he built with all the successive PMs of India. I think all of them backed him because he delivered what he promised. It suggests that politicians do not mind supporting outsiders even at the risk of bureaucrats and angering fellow ministers if they can foresee tangible benefits on the ground.
One more heartening thing that I like about Kurien is that he always defended villages vis-à-vis cities, cooperatives (as peoples’ institutions) vis-à-vis multinationals. In spite of the name and fame, possibility of earning more and living a luxuriant life, he preferred to lead a simple life in Anand. His simplicity and modesty of his lifestyle becomes more striking when I look at the luxurious ways of living adopted by present day corporate bigwigs.
I want to remember his core belief for my life. “If the instruments of development are placed in the hands of the people, true progress happens.” He did not look at Anand pattern cooperatives as simply milk cooperatives. He understood and reiterated the need for democratic way of functioning of the cooperatives. He saw cooperatives as means of building future leadership, as means of developing a sense of hygiene, health, technology, as vehicles of women empowerment and social equality etc.
But, before all this, he realized that need to organize the cooperatives as true market players giving value for money both to the customers and the producers. His vision of cooperatives as means of generating wealth in the villages by producing such goods demanded by the city dwellers is a noble one and remains more relevant even today and in future. He never emphasized on government grants and avoided them to the extent possible so that the true financial of cooperatives is never harmed. But, he beautifully utilized the available foreign grant to build the needed infrastructure that can generate sustainable future revenue streams.
He was rude to those bureaucrats and politicians ho were inimical to cooperatives and at the same time more than acknowledged the good help rendered by some of them I learnt one more important lessons here – “In spite of our noble intentions, things will not automatically fall in place. I need to stick to my heart and tackle the obstacles.” Kurien quoted numerous instances where he did wonderful troubleshooting. Of course, the most touching and inspiring lesson remains – “True satisfaction comes from worthwhile contribution to the cause of farmers, the underprivileged and making them stand on their feet.” This is what I take as my goal and motto of life after studying in IRMA and reading him.
I also did not like him whenever I found his statements to be arrogant to others. But, his nationalistic fervor and passion for cooperatives made him go to any such extent. It is rather unfortunate that he was unceremoniously removed from the chairmanship of IRMA and GCMMF. I will not treat it as his fate due for his over confidence and highhandedness. I still pray for more decent gestures and respect towards him.
Kurien’s experience has implications for the development models that are now needed for effective public service delivery. Any top down structures will not deliver goods. At the same time, marketable and business-worthy opportunities need to be crafted into appropriate people’ institutions. All the commodities (be them mangoes, sapotas, poultry birds) are unique by themselves and the cultural context of different places also varies. But, the underlying experiences of Anand pattern will still be relevant.
Kurien always took pride in working as a professional manager for the farmers. “What began as a bonded servitude turned out to be five decades of reward and satisfaction for him.” I do not know what dream I have now. But, shall I also not have such passion to pursue dreams like him? I realize that my heart must bleed for the poor. But, not out of emotion and sentiment. The bleeding must be out of logic and conviction that they deserve their right share of access and opportunities and I must do my bit as my duty not as a service or charity.
I want to note down few impressions on Kurien’s autobiography “I TOO HAD A DREAM” which provided me a fascinating reading experience for the last couple of days. I never got bored during any part of the book. In fact, he has the wonderful knack of conveying ideas without using difficult words at all. I felt like I was listening to him face to face like I was during my IRMA days. Even then, I remember that he was candid and out rightly ruthless. In the book even, he agrees that he is rude at many points of time. Still, I defend him to the extent that he always spoke for the farmers of rural India. He is open enough to quote all such instances where he did not mince words either in front of multinationals or cabinet ministers.
One of the striking aspects of his personality is the wonderful rapport that he built with all the successive PMs of India. I think all of them backed him because he delivered what he promised. It suggests that politicians do not mind supporting outsiders even at the risk of bureaucrats and angering fellow ministers if they can foresee tangible benefits on the ground.
One more heartening thing that I like about Kurien is that he always defended villages vis-à-vis cities, cooperatives (as peoples’ institutions) vis-à-vis multinationals. In spite of the name and fame, possibility of earning more and living a luxuriant life, he preferred to lead a simple life in Anand. His simplicity and modesty of his lifestyle becomes more striking when I look at the luxurious ways of living adopted by present day corporate bigwigs.
I want to remember his core belief for my life. “If the instruments of development are placed in the hands of the people, true progress happens.” He did not look at Anand pattern cooperatives as simply milk cooperatives. He understood and reiterated the need for democratic way of functioning of the cooperatives. He saw cooperatives as means of building future leadership, as means of developing a sense of hygiene, health, technology, as vehicles of women empowerment and social equality etc.
But, before all this, he realized that need to organize the cooperatives as true market players giving value for money both to the customers and the producers. His vision of cooperatives as means of generating wealth in the villages by producing such goods demanded by the city dwellers is a noble one and remains more relevant even today and in future. He never emphasized on government grants and avoided them to the extent possible so that the true financial of cooperatives is never harmed. But, he beautifully utilized the available foreign grant to build the needed infrastructure that can generate sustainable future revenue streams.
He was rude to those bureaucrats and politicians ho were inimical to cooperatives and at the same time more than acknowledged the good help rendered by some of them I learnt one more important lessons here – “In spite of our noble intentions, things will not automatically fall in place. I need to stick to my heart and tackle the obstacles.” Kurien quoted numerous instances where he did wonderful troubleshooting. Of course, the most touching and inspiring lesson remains – “True satisfaction comes from worthwhile contribution to the cause of farmers, the underprivileged and making them stand on their feet.” This is what I take as my goal and motto of life after studying in IRMA and reading him.
I also did not like him whenever I found his statements to be arrogant to others. But, his nationalistic fervor and passion for cooperatives made him go to any such extent. It is rather unfortunate that he was unceremoniously removed from the chairmanship of IRMA and GCMMF. I will not treat it as his fate due for his over confidence and highhandedness. I still pray for more decent gestures and respect towards him.
Kurien’s experience has implications for the development models that are now needed for effective public service delivery. Any top down structures will not deliver goods. At the same time, marketable and business-worthy opportunities need to be crafted into appropriate people’ institutions. All the commodities (be them mangoes, sapotas, poultry birds) are unique by themselves and the cultural context of different places also varies. But, the underlying experiences of Anand pattern will still be relevant.
Kurien always took pride in working as a professional manager for the farmers. “What began as a bonded servitude turned out to be five decades of reward and satisfaction for him.” I do not know what dream I have now. But, shall I also not have such passion to pursue dreams like him? I realize that my heart must bleed for the poor. But, not out of emotion and sentiment. The bleeding must be out of logic and conviction that they deserve their right share of access and opportunities and I must do my bit as my duty not as a service or charity.
March 3, 2010
Budget 2010-2011
There were tears in my eyes even before I completed reading P Sainath’s article on the budget 2010-11. The article is a satirical piece accusing the budget as pro corporate and pro agribusiness friendly in the garb of a farmer friendly and aam admi’s budget. I do not fully attach myself with the tone of the article, though I realize that many of the budget proposals meant for the common man are not going to make substantial change on the ground.
I do not deem myself competent to comment conclusively on the budget. I do not want to become a leftist nor a socialist condemning all the government’s actions as anti poor. I have strong appreciation for the present political brass in power (Manmohan, Pranabda, Chidambaram etc.) that they are seriously committed to alleviating the suffering of the poor. But, I also realize that the budget proposals are essentially driven by the corporate world that have well funded representative institutions like FICCI, CII, ASSOCAM etc. I think it is natural that when the industry and services sector contribute 85 % of the GDP, their say is more heard than the farmers who are geographically spread, unorganized and ignorant mostly.
I am not anti-corporate asking for more role for the government restricting the activities and scope of the private sector. But, within the limited role of an enabler and a facilitator that the government wants to play, what shall it do? Kurien also wrote that the best government is one which governs the least and simply places the instruments of development in the hands of the people and creates such structures that they can command.
Even the budget speech mentions about the need for effective and reformed public service delivery, improved rural infrastructure so that opportunities are created more firmly. But, are the allocations and the schemes likely to deliver? I was happy to note the increased allocations for MNREGA (40,100 crores), Bharat Nirman (48,000 crores), BRGF (7,300 crores) etc. But, I was also aghast to read that RD ministry wants to build Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendras in all the 2.75 lakh panchayats with the money meant for MNREGA. When social activists opposed construction of buildings with the money for creation of labour, RD ministry decided to take the material component from BRGF (Backward Region Grant Fund).
What will the new buildings in the villages transform the rural sector and agriculture? Do not villagers presently have places congregate if they are serious to meet? These buildings each costing 10 lakhs at the village level (totaling 30,000 crores expenditure) are sure shot means of commission for the local contractors, block officials, the panchayat members. Effectively it implies that MNREGA funds will not create any tangible future revenue except creating some demand for cement, steel etc.
Media, PM, RBI, finance minister are everyday concerned about the growth rate figures. Some say 7.2 % and others are optimistic about 7.5 %. Few others are gung ho about even 8 %. I am not critical about the industry or the service sector. I only want to point out that agriculture which employs 55 % of the work force shrank by 0.2 % when other sectors are growing around 10 %. So, what stimulus package we have for agriculture? The government was ready to forego more than 2 lakh crores as taxes to bring industry on the track of growth again. In the present budget, FM proposed 400 crores for green revolution in Eastern India, 300 crores for organizing 60,000 oilseeds and pulses villages and 200 crores for stabilizing the earlier green revolution benefits, 100 crores for the Mahila Kisan Shaktikaran Pariyojana.
The intentions are good. But what will these 1000 crores transform the ailing agriculture except for covering the staff cost, their TA and DA? Finance minister prayed for the good wishes of God Indra and allocated a mere 11,500 crores for the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme when A.P. government allocated more than 15,000 crores for irrigation projects and still found them insufficient to complete the ongoing projects in the next decade. The burden of credit delivery to the farmers is given to the public sector banks who keep sanctioning either tractors or warehouses for the local bania in the name of priority sector lending and forget the small farmers. I am not antithetical to private sector participation in agriculture or in retail trade. We need cold storages, processing facilities, warehouses so that value addition takes place in agriculture. But, do not we need to do something more to help the small farmer who faces multiple problems battling with the rain God, costly and unreliable inputs, uncertain market prices and finally soaring prices when goes to purchase the same items.
The allocation for Bundelkhand region is increased by 1200 more crores. But, I am at a loss to imagine how this money can be utilized to mitigate the present misery and at the same time ensure future revenue streams. Water harvesting structures and land reclamation are definitely better than cement roads and community buildings. What goods and services can be produced in villages which can fetch value in urban centers? How to organize rural producers so that they get due share in the value chain by embarking on functions apart from production? How to use the upcoming R & D and technological revolutions for the benefit of the rural masses? I only have lot of questions and not many answers.
I am still hopeful and optimistic about the present system. The government has already come up with RTI, Right to work under MNREGA, Right to education and now talks about Right to food. It has started the National Social Security Fund with 1000 crores for the workers in the unorganized sector. Let us all work together to go beyond rhetoric and token gestures.
I do not deem myself competent to comment conclusively on the budget. I do not want to become a leftist nor a socialist condemning all the government’s actions as anti poor. I have strong appreciation for the present political brass in power (Manmohan, Pranabda, Chidambaram etc.) that they are seriously committed to alleviating the suffering of the poor. But, I also realize that the budget proposals are essentially driven by the corporate world that have well funded representative institutions like FICCI, CII, ASSOCAM etc. I think it is natural that when the industry and services sector contribute 85 % of the GDP, their say is more heard than the farmers who are geographically spread, unorganized and ignorant mostly.
I am not anti-corporate asking for more role for the government restricting the activities and scope of the private sector. But, within the limited role of an enabler and a facilitator that the government wants to play, what shall it do? Kurien also wrote that the best government is one which governs the least and simply places the instruments of development in the hands of the people and creates such structures that they can command.
Even the budget speech mentions about the need for effective and reformed public service delivery, improved rural infrastructure so that opportunities are created more firmly. But, are the allocations and the schemes likely to deliver? I was happy to note the increased allocations for MNREGA (40,100 crores), Bharat Nirman (48,000 crores), BRGF (7,300 crores) etc. But, I was also aghast to read that RD ministry wants to build Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendras in all the 2.75 lakh panchayats with the money meant for MNREGA. When social activists opposed construction of buildings with the money for creation of labour, RD ministry decided to take the material component from BRGF (Backward Region Grant Fund).
What will the new buildings in the villages transform the rural sector and agriculture? Do not villagers presently have places congregate if they are serious to meet? These buildings each costing 10 lakhs at the village level (totaling 30,000 crores expenditure) are sure shot means of commission for the local contractors, block officials, the panchayat members. Effectively it implies that MNREGA funds will not create any tangible future revenue except creating some demand for cement, steel etc.
Media, PM, RBI, finance minister are everyday concerned about the growth rate figures. Some say 7.2 % and others are optimistic about 7.5 %. Few others are gung ho about even 8 %. I am not critical about the industry or the service sector. I only want to point out that agriculture which employs 55 % of the work force shrank by 0.2 % when other sectors are growing around 10 %. So, what stimulus package we have for agriculture? The government was ready to forego more than 2 lakh crores as taxes to bring industry on the track of growth again. In the present budget, FM proposed 400 crores for green revolution in Eastern India, 300 crores for organizing 60,000 oilseeds and pulses villages and 200 crores for stabilizing the earlier green revolution benefits, 100 crores for the Mahila Kisan Shaktikaran Pariyojana.
The intentions are good. But what will these 1000 crores transform the ailing agriculture except for covering the staff cost, their TA and DA? Finance minister prayed for the good wishes of God Indra and allocated a mere 11,500 crores for the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme when A.P. government allocated more than 15,000 crores for irrigation projects and still found them insufficient to complete the ongoing projects in the next decade. The burden of credit delivery to the farmers is given to the public sector banks who keep sanctioning either tractors or warehouses for the local bania in the name of priority sector lending and forget the small farmers. I am not antithetical to private sector participation in agriculture or in retail trade. We need cold storages, processing facilities, warehouses so that value addition takes place in agriculture. But, do not we need to do something more to help the small farmer who faces multiple problems battling with the rain God, costly and unreliable inputs, uncertain market prices and finally soaring prices when goes to purchase the same items.
The allocation for Bundelkhand region is increased by 1200 more crores. But, I am at a loss to imagine how this money can be utilized to mitigate the present misery and at the same time ensure future revenue streams. Water harvesting structures and land reclamation are definitely better than cement roads and community buildings. What goods and services can be produced in villages which can fetch value in urban centers? How to organize rural producers so that they get due share in the value chain by embarking on functions apart from production? How to use the upcoming R & D and technological revolutions for the benefit of the rural masses? I only have lot of questions and not many answers.
I am still hopeful and optimistic about the present system. The government has already come up with RTI, Right to work under MNREGA, Right to education and now talks about Right to food. It has started the National Social Security Fund with 1000 crores for the workers in the unorganized sector. Let us all work together to go beyond rhetoric and token gestures.
February 25, 2010
Gandhiji and me
I do not want to claim any greatness by clubbing my name with the Mahatma. I see this piece of writing as introspection on the influence of writings (on and by Gandhiji) on me. I neither consider myself fit to comment on Gandhiji nor have any grand dreams become like him. But, I have so many simple things to learn from him.
Earlier, I used to feel shameful to tell that I am doing something because Gandhiji also used to do so. I thought that others would regard it silly. But, Gandhiji never restrained himself from expressing himself. He told, wrote and did what he believed in or what as GOD enjoined him to do regardless how others may take it.
Shall I also not take this virtue from him? I occasionally do things either to impress others or not to anger them. But, my actions shall be more guided by my conscience and the values that I regard as irrevocable. There is always intentional or unintentional urge to get others’ approval for my actions. Perhaps, I want to write on the blog to be read by others. Am I ready to bear criticism and not disregard others’ views?
Gandhiji preached love, caring for others, non-violence not in expectation of any return, but as non-negotiable values. Is there not so much to pick from them?. There is instantaneous hatred or ill will for anyone whom I do not like. I sometimes despise the rich, the businessmen or the less intelligent. Can I help others out of hatred for some other people?
I may not be able to reach a stage whereby I do not carry an inch of ill will for those whom disapprove. Bur, shall I not continuously pursue stage by keeping Gandhiji in mind? After all, love for others keeps me emotionally stable and helps to take more rational decisions. I shall never forget to distinguish between the evil and evildoer. I shall have the courage to oppose the wrong, but never hate the person. I am reminded by others that too much ideals do not hold relevance in the present day world. Do we need to be shrewd to survive in a world marked by violence, vengeance, corruption etc? I do not know the answer. But, at least, there is no need to deviate right at the beginning from the values that I value so such. Let me go ahead with the hypothesis and experiment as I move along.
The most difficult challenge that I face after reading about Gandhiji is what kind of life shall I live? What is luxury and what is a necessity? My heart is with Gandhiji when he says tat bread can be eaten only after physical toil. So, shall I wash my clothes, cook food for myself and clean the room and utensils? I read that Babu Rajendraprasadji used to wash his clothes even after he became the president. I do not dare to quote about Gandhiji because he had set such precedents of austerity and physical labour that I cannot do justice to him.
But, is Mahatma only an epitome of selflessness and modesty who can neither be emulated fully nor be followed practicably? Where I need draw the line? Sometimes, I feel that efficiency shall not be hampered by savings. Gunjan also tells me the same. It is rue that by spending little extra or even more, many things can be done better. I today’s world of filthy cities, I may even fall ill if I am too fussy about savings. Cleanliness and hygiene come with price. Even good health through nutritious food is not free of cost. But, I continue to suffer from the psychological disorder of spending little and limiting to necessities because others cannot afford it.
Whether I like or not, comfort gets redefined everyday in this fast moving world. Gandhiji was even opposed to railways. But, the truth remains that he could not have reached to so many millions in distant places without railways. At least I am clear that I do not want to become a fundamentalist opposed comfort and technology. There are no mutually contradictory propositions. The old and the new, the rich and the poor, the good and the evil will remain forever for mutual benefit.
What do I take from him about my food and physical stamina? Though my experimentation with food started little early, the real fuel was provided by his small booklets. I went to the extreme of hating normal food as utterly useless and used to tell the same to others. But, without scientific rigor, I reduced my diet to such an extent that I developed body pains. Later, only when amma forced me to eat properly during her stay, I recovered. Now, I realize that fitness is a primary necessity to my health and my desire to do fruitful work. The alternative items such as brown rice, jaggery, sprouts are definitely good. But they should not lead to repulsion of other food. Ultimate guide shall be my fitness. Gandhiji walked 241 miles during Dandi satyagraha when he was 61 years old. If public duty is my aim, I shall carefully nurture my body to support it.
Now I want to write about oaths that Gandhiji used to take. He used to publicly declare them and later disclose any deviations from them. I took cues from Gandhiji and took certain oaths not to repeat the mistakes. I realized that oaths help. I derive more and more strength by sticking to them like my oath not to eat non-veg. But, Gandhiji used to take oaths on the name of GOD. I am not so religious as him. I agree that I am slightly arrogant not to do even a bit of prayer everyday. I tell myself that I am modest, rational and awareful of mistakes through reflection. Somewhere, it strikes me inside that bind allegiance of GOD is also not inferior. Many a time, there is more comfort and peace of mind in following faith rather than logic and rationality.
“GOD spoke to me through Chauri Chaura” – Gandhiji declared when he suspended the non-cooperation movement. He invoked GOD’s name whenever he fasted. Will I also derive more strength, resolve and determination if I put faith in GOD? I am only sure to the extent that GOD is a formless ‘being’ who exists in our perception. The notion of GOD can definitely help m to realize my mistakes and not be self-conceited. But, is it not a mistake to revere GOD in expectation of his blessings and some good fortune? The positives shall be seen as his blessings and negatives as an opportunity for introspection and reminder of my inadequacies.
Finally, I realize that I am still not compelled to go for any daily prayer reciting few mantras. I agree that there is orderliness, inner beauty in performing such rituals as amma does everyday. But, I am not motivated to do them. I am still hopeful that the absence of ituals does not reduce my faith in HIM and does not lead to vanity.
Gandhiji told that all our actions must be subordinated to the ultimate purpose of ublic duty. He preferred even Brahmacharya for this. I neither dismiss it as foolish not impractical through I do not want to follow it. I definitely realize the need to be less lustful so that the energies are more creatively used for public good. But, what after all is public good? Do only selfless actions qualify as public service? I do not know. Presently, I believe that even if I read good books to appreciate new thoughts to broaden my perspective, I am doing public service. It looks to be selfish to claim so, but I cannot lead to any definite understanding now.
Gandhiji went to the extreme extent of not allowing his children to study abroad what he studies even with the scholarships offered by his clients. But, is it not selfish to endeavor to look impartial to outsiders and gain sympathy from them? Finally his elder son Harilal became his staunch opponent and finally an alcoholic and destitute. May be even the Mahatma is not completely perfect. But, he never claimed to be perfect and great. It is we who set such standards for him and feel deceived when he could not meet them an despondent when we cannot match them at all.
He openly urges that consistency is not any great virtue and was more happy to find his own mistakes. So, I do not need to feel miserable when I cannot match him. I m not committing any sin if I am taking care and comfort to enhance efficiency to do more. Let me accept beforehand that I can only be self-less and not self-nil.
I feel embarrassed to call myself a Gandhian because I may not be even following one-millionth of what he did. What do I take from him? Five virtues that I take from him are truth – to myself and others, resolve – commitment to my beliefs and goals, tolerance – to opposing beliefs, compassion for the poor, humility. Are they lofty ideals that I may fail to do justice? I take them as simple values that can guide my actions.
February 15, 2010
Telangana
Telangana And Beyond
The issue of Telangana seems to have reached a point of no return. Public debate is now limited to emotional outburst. The emotional rift seems to have widened so much that no patchwork may be sufficient in future. Either one is termed as a traitor or a champion of Telangana and therefore looks to be no middle ground left in between.
At this juncture, many key developmental issues may not appeal to rationality of the political leaders, but still hold relevance for all the people. Unfortunately, things have come to such a stage that rational, logical debate is virtually rendered impossible. Even the Sri Krishna committee consisting of eminent personalities from respective fields looks only to be a time buying exercise. Political leaders may not be ready to accept the findings of any such intellectual exercise. The same findings will be praised and denounced by different sections in future.
River water sharing will be one contentious exercise. Looking at the Kaveri river dispute, it looks that respective political governments are never ready to accept independent tribunals’ awards. Even the final Kaveri award announced in 2007 after protracted wrangling for more than two decades is again challenged in Supreme Court. One realises that facts can never win over sentiments. People and leaders of Telangana always have a grudge that river water is disproportionately exploited by the coastal regions. But, what alternatives do they have? Most of the proposed major irrigation projects like Pranahita – Chevella, Devadula etc. are lift irrigation projects. Even after their completion, which looks unlikely in the next decade even, the running expenses of irrigation per acre are estimated to be around Rs. 20000. Can a small state like Telangana be able to construct such gigantic projects, when the unified state itself is precariously perched in terms of finances?
The iniquitous feudal order in Telangana does not hog headlines everyday. There may not be any ‘newsworthy’ atrocities visible in the present movement, but the everyday deprivation and disabilities suffered by the dalit and tribal sections is mostly unnoticed. In fact, the old feudalistic setup gave birth to naxalism and communist movements in Telangana immediately after independence. Presently, the political elite in Telangana are questioning the domination of the political elite from coastal and Rayalseema. But the challenge of reversing the age long suppression of other marginalized sections may need to wait for more decades.
The issue of protectionism resorted to by the leaders of Telangana merits discussion. Telangana people deserve sympathy for the fact that their rightful share of jobs was taken over by people from other regions. Now the political leaders want to assure all the jobs, seats in educational institutions for Telangana residents. But where will this ‘anathema for outsiders’ lead Telangana to? It is easy to drive away outsiders and then claim to have championed the cause of Telangana. But don’t we want Telangana people to go to other states and work as competent people? The real issue is developing the competencies of people so that talented Telangana students can get seats in IITs and IIMs and professionals get employed outside on remunerative terms.
We are witnessing the idea of ‘flat world’ or ‘one global village’. Because of the fears of the local population, we now can see demands for rigidification of state boundaries and opportunities in Telangana, Assam, Maharastra. But the real issue of iniquity will not be solved by the creation of Telangana and limiting Singareni coal to Telangana. In our quest for seamless borders, it is natural that fears are expressed. But is it not better to take on the challenge systematically rather than getting into the ‘shell’ for cover?
One more contention is with respect to Hyderabad. Cities are places where the village level rigid compartments such as caste, class gives way to one cosmopolitan culture which speaks one language. It is not reasonable now to start attributing the growth of Hyderabad to people from a particular region. Even people from outside A.P. contributed. Our developmental model seems to result in islands of prosperity such as Hyderabad whereas none of the other cities come close to even half the size of it. There are no industrial clusters in A.P. except in Hyderabad and Vizag. Why do we allow other district headquarters to suffer silently when all the talented youth, industry flock to few cities? The future development paradigm must aim at dispersal of prosperity and opportunities rather than concentration of it.
The concerns of underdeveloped regions such as Rayalseema and north coastal A.P. also merit attention. If Telangana people resent the so called tyrannical rule of others now, will people from other backward regions remain silent later on? The future possibility of demand for even smaller states on the basis of self respect and backwardness cannot be denied. The extent of backwardness and alienation in places such as Vidarbha and Bundelkhand is already palpable. If separated, will they be able to compete and attract the private enterprise that is needed to generate employment? All such small poor states will be branded as bastions of localism hostile to entrepreneurship and free enterprise from outside.
Economic viability will remain a big issue. Political leaders may be competing to announce populist schemes and resort to rhetoric more often. What kind of investment climate can these states project when they repeatedly knock the doors of the centre for more grants? If political uncertainty engineered through defections becomes a reality as in Jharkhand, the regions may well be worse off than before.
Phisiography (in terms of climate, rainfall, soil quality, gravity needed for irrigation) provides the basic setting and background for any region for its growth. Culture and history are also a product of it. When different regions are endowed with different resources, inequalities tend to grow. But human endeavor and perseverance has the potential to correct the deviations. Extra effort is needed to drive growth in the disadvantaged regions. The political and social processes which have done injustice to Telangana must be introspected upon and the people from other regions must be ready to walk the extra mile to undo the past inaction and unfulfilled promise. At the same time, Telangana people will not gain anything by recrimination and protectionism.
Why do we allow the discontent to simmer for long? For example, the dialect of Telangana is not given adequate space in mainstream media, text books, cinema and official communication. Why shall we allow denigration of certain aspects of our culture? The folk songs and rich art forms of Telangana should be made part of early school curriculum. Then everybody in all the districts will appreciate the historical and cultural context of the other districts. Knowingly or unknowingly, we have a dealt a blow to our diversity and aimed at uniformity which led to alienation of others. Within A.P. or in India, there are endless diversities as well as common traits. Mutual tolerance and respect were the hallmark of Indian culture which assimilated people and customs from so many distant countries. Reconciliation is definitely possible even under present stalemate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)