One thing that I admire about American President's is that they know what they want. In the last 10 years or so whenever I have read about an American President visiting China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and other countries, I have always noticed that before the US President leaves the American shores, he would announce that he is going to return with so many jobs.
President Obama is no exception. And within hours of reaching India, he managed to bag 53,000 jobs for America. By the time he flies out of New Delhi on Nov 9, I am sure he would have added another 50,000 or so.
When was the last time you heard the Indian Prime Minister say so. Except for the use of usual cliches like ' it is a goodwill visit' and 'the visit will strengthen the ties,' I don't know what our successive Prime Ministers have achieved all these years from such state visits. Except for a few business deals, I think successive Indian Prime Ministers have actually failed the nation. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is no exception.
Compare this with China. During the term of President Clinton, he made a statement that the US will not trade with China because of its bad human rights record. Within a day or so the big US corporations made life tough for Bill Clinton, but more significant was the courage and political statesmanship shown by the then Chinese President. I remember watching the BBC World TV Beijing correspondent asking the question to the Chinese President. His reply was: "Trading with America, we never trade with America for the last 4000 years. So how does it matter."
The US has never again brought up the human rights issue.
Remember Manmohan Singh's visit to G-20 Summit in Toronto after the Bhopal gas tragedy court verdict. He didn't even have the courage to talk about justice for Bhopal victims when he met President Obama in Toronto. What can you expect from such spineless leadership.
President Obama knows what he wants. He wants India to provide more market access for the American manufacturing and agricultural products. And he wants India to provide jobs in America. He has come to sell American hardware, and with India Inc. in tow, he knows he will get what he wants.
The tragedy is that India does not even know what it needs to get from America. If you have been following the endless debates and discussions on the TV, it is obvious that we are a confused nation. Most of the experts on the show are not talking business, but giving us a feel of how much they know about strategic relations. This is because they are completely cut-off from the realities of the ongoing economic developments that are shaping the upheavals in the global economy.
I was therefore very surprised when I heard a Mumbai student (when interviewed by a TV journalist today) as to what he intends to ask President Obama when he meets the generation next on Sunday morning. He replied that he is going to ask about the unjust TRIPs and TRIMs agreements which are heavily loaded against the developing countries, and which would lead to the rich becoming richer and the poor being driven to the wall.
I bet the correspondent didn't know anything about TRIPs or TRIMs !
No wonder, while the US has come with a laundry list, India has no such shopping list. Except for the controversial issue of outsourcing (which is nothing compared to market access that India should be seeking in the US), there is nothing that seems to be on the radar screen. If you have no shopping list, you have no reason to complain later.
US knows where it has to walk the extra mile for its own strategic business interests. India does not even know how to take advantage of the huge market that it can offer to the American corporations. We are on a position of strength. Even if America has the sophisticated technology (not much of it is actually required in India), it desperately requires customers to buy it. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before the American company pulls down the shutters in the absence of buyers.
Remember George Bush when he came to India in 2006. Media had played up the story of the US willing to allow imports of Indian mangoes. In return, the US had wanted access for selling its Harley-Davidson motorcycles. What is little known is that while India lowered the emission norms to allow the sub-standard motorcycle into India, the US has still not softened the sanitary and phytosanitary standards that blocks the entry of mangoes.
India is a Mango Republic.
Obama’s Visit: US Merchants eyeing Indian agriculture
At a time when America is faced with an economic downtrend, US President Barack Obama comes calling in a few days hoping that India will bail him out of the seemingly unending economic crisis. With a huge business team – more than 200 top business chiefs -- accompanying him, US is expecting to increase it exports to India by at least 400 per cent.
Food and Agriculture is one of the major thrust areas where President Obama is likely to make a strong pitch.
In 2006, the last time the US President visited India, George Bush had formally launched the Rs 1000-crore Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agricultural Research and Education, when he made a quick visit to Hyderabad. For years later, in 2010, the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative (KIA) appears to be almost in a cold storage, but after having successfully promoted unwanted US technologies on several farm universities.
This followed from the previous visit of prime minister Manmohan Singh to Washington in 2005. Addressing a joint session of the US Congress during his visit, prime minister had said: “The Green Revolution lifted countless millions above poverty.... I am very happy to say that U.S. President George Bush and I have decided to launch second generation of India-US collaboration in agriculture."
Following the agreement, a team of Indian agricultural scientists visited US in December 2005 to work out the modalities of the programme. It was followed by a return visit by US agricultural scientists, and the entire exercise has been kept confidential and prepared in a hush-hush manner.
It was feared that the Indo-US agricultural treaty would bring Indian agriculture under the direct control of US Corporate houses. The dominance of the American agri-business became clear when it became known that the US supermarket giant Wal-Mart, food giant Cargill and the seed multination Monsanto were on the board of the Indo-US Initiative. All these companies are now well entrenched, ready for the next phase.
President Obama is likely to re-energise the dead Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture. Since the agreement is facing un-surmountable hurdles because of the inability of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) to pay for staff travels and technologies being imported, it is likely that the US would push through more collaboration in agricultural scientific research through the US-India Strategic Dialogue.
While collaboration in farm research will pave the way for the entry of US agribusiness multinationals, especially technology companies like Monsanto and Du Pont, the thrust of the US talks is going to be on opening up of the food retail and insurance sector. A few weeks back, President Obama had expressed hope that India would allow FDI in big retail. The G-20 Summit in Toronto some months back had also in its final communiqué decided to lift all hurdles to allow big retail to operate.
As a welcome gesture, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is likely to announce the formal approval for FDI in big retail. It was primarily to justify the need for FDI in retail that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) had come out with a highly flawed discussion paper to indicate government’s rethinking on the controversial subject. “The agriculture sector needs well functioning markets to drive growth, employment and economic prosperity in rural areas,” the discussion paper said. A number of economists and researchers joined the chorus singing praise for the role the supermarkets can play.
Despite the destruction of farming globally by the supermarkets, the Ministry for Commerce and Industry is gung-ho about allowing foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing, which means allowing the big players like Wal-Mart and Tesco to swamp the Indian market. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has time and again spelt out the need to allow FDI in big retail. Ministry for Commerce had even set up a small committee to prepare the ground for its entry.
If the supermarkets were so efficient and provided dynamism, I would like to know why the US is providing a massive subsidy for agriculture. After all, the world biggest retail giant Wal-mart is based in America and it should have helped American farmers to become economically viable. But it did not happen. American farmers have instead been bailed out by the government, providing a subsidy of Rs 12.50 lakh-crore between 1995 and 2009, and this includes direct income support.
The supermarkets have therefore failed the American farmers.
India is therefore importing a failed economic model, which otherwise would help the economic recovery of America.
Entry of the big US food retail signals the complete corporate takeover of Indian agriculture. At a time when the government is busy laying out the infrastructure for the 2nd Green Revolution, which means strengthening agribusiness, a plethora of Indian laws on water, seeds, pesticides, fertilisers, land use policy, contract farming, biodiversity, intellectual property, biotechnology and genetic engineering have either been suitably amended (or are in the process) to facilitate the entry of multinational companies. One of the major thrust areas where Manmohan Singh is expected to assure President Obama of his un-stinted support is the introduction of the controversial genetically engineered crops.
India has already prepared a bill – National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority bill -- awaiting introduction in parliament that allows for a single-window clearance for genetically-modified crops, something that even the US does not allow within its own borders.
In the last few weeks, multinational companies like Monsanto, Wal-Mart and also the US Grain Council has been making a fervent pitch to life the barriers that have come in the way of US exports to India. It is not without reason that the Ministry of Commerce has been seeking fast conclusion of the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation. In the last few weeks, the US has forced Russia to cut down its agricultural subsidies by 50 per cent as a pre-requisite for its entry as a member of the WTO. It is also asking India, Brazil and China to further reduce the industrial tariffs.
India is expected to assure President Obama that it will not press for the reduction of the massive US farm subsidies, especially in cotton, but will provide more market access to US farm goods. All non-trade barriers are being gradually removed, and the US will find it easy to rebuild its sagging economy on the strength of the Indian market.
Indian agriculture provides a sustained market for the US companies. What is good for the commercial interest of the US companies is not necessarily going to be productive for Indian farmers. But then, Manmohan Singh has time and again talked of shifting 70 per cent of the rural population into the urban centres. Bringing agriculture under the yoke of the US business and industry will hasten this population transfer.
Food and Agriculture is one of the major thrust areas where President Obama is likely to make a strong pitch.
In 2006, the last time the US President visited India, George Bush had formally launched the Rs 1000-crore Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agricultural Research and Education, when he made a quick visit to Hyderabad. For years later, in 2010, the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative (KIA) appears to be almost in a cold storage, but after having successfully promoted unwanted US technologies on several farm universities.
This followed from the previous visit of prime minister Manmohan Singh to Washington in 2005. Addressing a joint session of the US Congress during his visit, prime minister had said: “The Green Revolution lifted countless millions above poverty.... I am very happy to say that U.S. President George Bush and I have decided to launch second generation of India-US collaboration in agriculture."
Following the agreement, a team of Indian agricultural scientists visited US in December 2005 to work out the modalities of the programme. It was followed by a return visit by US agricultural scientists, and the entire exercise has been kept confidential and prepared in a hush-hush manner.
It was feared that the Indo-US agricultural treaty would bring Indian agriculture under the direct control of US Corporate houses. The dominance of the American agri-business became clear when it became known that the US supermarket giant Wal-Mart, food giant Cargill and the seed multination Monsanto were on the board of the Indo-US Initiative. All these companies are now well entrenched, ready for the next phase.
President Obama is likely to re-energise the dead Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture. Since the agreement is facing un-surmountable hurdles because of the inability of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) to pay for staff travels and technologies being imported, it is likely that the US would push through more collaboration in agricultural scientific research through the US-India Strategic Dialogue.
While collaboration in farm research will pave the way for the entry of US agribusiness multinationals, especially technology companies like Monsanto and Du Pont, the thrust of the US talks is going to be on opening up of the food retail and insurance sector. A few weeks back, President Obama had expressed hope that India would allow FDI in big retail. The G-20 Summit in Toronto some months back had also in its final communiqué decided to lift all hurdles to allow big retail to operate.
As a welcome gesture, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is likely to announce the formal approval for FDI in big retail. It was primarily to justify the need for FDI in retail that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) had come out with a highly flawed discussion paper to indicate government’s rethinking on the controversial subject. “The agriculture sector needs well functioning markets to drive growth, employment and economic prosperity in rural areas,” the discussion paper said. A number of economists and researchers joined the chorus singing praise for the role the supermarkets can play.
Despite the destruction of farming globally by the supermarkets, the Ministry for Commerce and Industry is gung-ho about allowing foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing, which means allowing the big players like Wal-Mart and Tesco to swamp the Indian market. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has time and again spelt out the need to allow FDI in big retail. Ministry for Commerce had even set up a small committee to prepare the ground for its entry.
If the supermarkets were so efficient and provided dynamism, I would like to know why the US is providing a massive subsidy for agriculture. After all, the world biggest retail giant Wal-mart is based in America and it should have helped American farmers to become economically viable. But it did not happen. American farmers have instead been bailed out by the government, providing a subsidy of Rs 12.50 lakh-crore between 1995 and 2009, and this includes direct income support.
The supermarkets have therefore failed the American farmers.
India is therefore importing a failed economic model, which otherwise would help the economic recovery of America.
Entry of the big US food retail signals the complete corporate takeover of Indian agriculture. At a time when the government is busy laying out the infrastructure for the 2nd Green Revolution, which means strengthening agribusiness, a plethora of Indian laws on water, seeds, pesticides, fertilisers, land use policy, contract farming, biodiversity, intellectual property, biotechnology and genetic engineering have either been suitably amended (or are in the process) to facilitate the entry of multinational companies. One of the major thrust areas where Manmohan Singh is expected to assure President Obama of his un-stinted support is the introduction of the controversial genetically engineered crops.
India has already prepared a bill – National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority bill -- awaiting introduction in parliament that allows for a single-window clearance for genetically-modified crops, something that even the US does not allow within its own borders.
In the last few weeks, multinational companies like Monsanto, Wal-Mart and also the US Grain Council has been making a fervent pitch to life the barriers that have come in the way of US exports to India. It is not without reason that the Ministry of Commerce has been seeking fast conclusion of the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation. In the last few weeks, the US has forced Russia to cut down its agricultural subsidies by 50 per cent as a pre-requisite for its entry as a member of the WTO. It is also asking India, Brazil and China to further reduce the industrial tariffs.
India is expected to assure President Obama that it will not press for the reduction of the massive US farm subsidies, especially in cotton, but will provide more market access to US farm goods. All non-trade barriers are being gradually removed, and the US will find it easy to rebuild its sagging economy on the strength of the Indian market.
Indian agriculture provides a sustained market for the US companies. What is good for the commercial interest of the US companies is not necessarily going to be productive for Indian farmers. But then, Manmohan Singh has time and again talked of shifting 70 per cent of the rural population into the urban centres. Bringing agriculture under the yoke of the US business and industry will hasten this population transfer.
Small borrowers must stop repaying the loans from MFIs. This is the only way to curb the social evil
Yesterday, when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) announced the credit policy review in Mumbai, I was discussing the implications on a national TV. Within minutes of the announcement of the upward revision in repo and reverse repo rates -- sixth time this year -- I found that the media focus had shifted to the tightening of the home loans. It was then that I asked a question as to why the RBI had refrained from tightening the screws on the micro-finance segment.
For some strange coincidence, the UPA President Sonia Gandhi who was addressing the All India Congress Committee (Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN later in show extended the acronymn AICC to 'All India Crooks Corner') at the same time, also skipped talking about rampant corruption within the party. Is it merely a coincidence or a pointer to the evil that the Congress party as well as the RBI is finding it too hot to handle?
I thought my poser on the TV show had gone unnoticed. But I was pleasantly surprised when I found George Mathew of the Indian Express (Nov 3, 20101) asking the same question to the RBI governor D Subbarao. He asked: Microfinance companies are charging very high interest rates. Why is the RBI not doing anything to bring them down?
Subbarao replied: "The RBI regulates only one segment of the MFI sector, which is the non-banking finance companies involved in the microfinance sector. There’s no such separate categorisation of NBFC-MFIs. There are 37 NBFCs which are MFIs and regulated by us and none of them are deposit taking. Only about 13 out of 37 NBFCs are systematically important with business of over Rs 100 crore. The segment of the MFI sector that comes under RBI regulation is small but in terms of total lending, it might be significantly higher. Now there are questions about regulating interest rates and our stance is to move away from regulating interest rates. We can’t now turn towards this and start regulating interest rates. In any case, this is a question that Malegam committee will go through and we will take a view after the report is available."
While this may be partly true, I think the RBI (like the Congress party) is trying to turn a blind eye to the gory ongoings in the MFI sector. How can the RBI governor first express helplessness, and then say that 'in any case, this is a question that Malegam committee will go through and we will take a view after the report is available." Does it mean that Malegam committee will give additional regulatory powers to RBI? The answer is No. The RBI is simply trying to avoid taking a harsh decision lest it reflects on the lending rates of the nationalised banks (which provides refinance to MFIs and others).
Only a few days back, the Sunday Indian Express (Oct 24, 2010) had in a full-page article entitled Andhra's Small-Debt Trap (Read the full report at: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Andhras-smalldebt-trap/701577/) written by Sreenivas Janayala clearly brought out the malaise that afflicts the micro-finance sector. It quoted R Subramaniam, Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Andhra Pradesh, as saying: “But it is the fine print in the clauses and loan agreement that really create the debt trap. When borrowers fail to pay one EMI, the additional interest is calculated at double or triple the interest rate. The interest continues to remain the same until the principal amount is paid off. More often than not, the final interest rate works to nearly 50 per cent.”
Now please tell me, isn't this shameful? Does it make the MFIs any different from the moneylenders that they depict as the villain of the story?
On Oct 16, the Andhra Pradesh government, for the first time in the history of India, promulgated an ordinance, restraining the MFIs from using coercive tactics to recover loans and weekly interest, and keep lending rates in check. This is only one part of the criminal activity that MFIs indulge in. In my understanding, as numerous reports/studies have shown, the main problem is the high interest rate that is being charged from the small borrowers. The AP government as well as the RBI is silent on this. The conspiracy of silence is taking a human toll.
The answer lies in what I had first suggested some days ago on this blog. I had asked small borrowers (including the SHGs) to stop paying back the loans. I am glad the former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, who is on a three day visit to Ranga Reddy district, also asked "women who have taken loans not to repay till interest rates are reduced."
In a democracy, people must raise their voice. They must express their anger in a peaceful way so that the powers that be sit back and take notice. MFIs charge such exorbitant interests because the nation does not care nor is it aware. The MFIs will come under pressure only of we exert that pressure. As Rajan Alexander has in a letter to Ground Reality wrote: "And how do know they are vulnerable? Because Vijay Mahajan, the father of MFIs in India tells us so:
“We are facing collapse. Unless something changes on the ground, the industry as we know it is basically gone.”
Mahajan, we have news for you. The day when the likes of you are gone, that will be the turning point for the fight against poverty!"
For some strange coincidence, the UPA President Sonia Gandhi who was addressing the All India Congress Committee (Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN later in show extended the acronymn AICC to 'All India Crooks Corner') at the same time, also skipped talking about rampant corruption within the party. Is it merely a coincidence or a pointer to the evil that the Congress party as well as the RBI is finding it too hot to handle?
I thought my poser on the TV show had gone unnoticed. But I was pleasantly surprised when I found George Mathew of the Indian Express (Nov 3, 20101) asking the same question to the RBI governor D Subbarao. He asked: Microfinance companies are charging very high interest rates. Why is the RBI not doing anything to bring them down?
Subbarao replied: "The RBI regulates only one segment of the MFI sector, which is the non-banking finance companies involved in the microfinance sector. There’s no such separate categorisation of NBFC-MFIs. There are 37 NBFCs which are MFIs and regulated by us and none of them are deposit taking. Only about 13 out of 37 NBFCs are systematically important with business of over Rs 100 crore. The segment of the MFI sector that comes under RBI regulation is small but in terms of total lending, it might be significantly higher. Now there are questions about regulating interest rates and our stance is to move away from regulating interest rates. We can’t now turn towards this and start regulating interest rates. In any case, this is a question that Malegam committee will go through and we will take a view after the report is available."
While this may be partly true, I think the RBI (like the Congress party) is trying to turn a blind eye to the gory ongoings in the MFI sector. How can the RBI governor first express helplessness, and then say that 'in any case, this is a question that Malegam committee will go through and we will take a view after the report is available." Does it mean that Malegam committee will give additional regulatory powers to RBI? The answer is No. The RBI is simply trying to avoid taking a harsh decision lest it reflects on the lending rates of the nationalised banks (which provides refinance to MFIs and others).
Only a few days back, the Sunday Indian Express (Oct 24, 2010) had in a full-page article entitled Andhra's Small-Debt Trap (Read the full report at: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Andhras-smalldebt-trap/701577/) written by Sreenivas Janayala clearly brought out the malaise that afflicts the micro-finance sector. It quoted R Subramaniam, Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Andhra Pradesh, as saying: “But it is the fine print in the clauses and loan agreement that really create the debt trap. When borrowers fail to pay one EMI, the additional interest is calculated at double or triple the interest rate. The interest continues to remain the same until the principal amount is paid off. More often than not, the final interest rate works to nearly 50 per cent.”
Now please tell me, isn't this shameful? Does it make the MFIs any different from the moneylenders that they depict as the villain of the story?
On Oct 16, the Andhra Pradesh government, for the first time in the history of India, promulgated an ordinance, restraining the MFIs from using coercive tactics to recover loans and weekly interest, and keep lending rates in check. This is only one part of the criminal activity that MFIs indulge in. In my understanding, as numerous reports/studies have shown, the main problem is the high interest rate that is being charged from the small borrowers. The AP government as well as the RBI is silent on this. The conspiracy of silence is taking a human toll.
The answer lies in what I had first suggested some days ago on this blog. I had asked small borrowers (including the SHGs) to stop paying back the loans. I am glad the former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, who is on a three day visit to Ranga Reddy district, also asked "women who have taken loans not to repay till interest rates are reduced."
In a democracy, people must raise their voice. They must express their anger in a peaceful way so that the powers that be sit back and take notice. MFIs charge such exorbitant interests because the nation does not care nor is it aware. The MFIs will come under pressure only of we exert that pressure. As Rajan Alexander has in a letter to Ground Reality wrote: "And how do know they are vulnerable? Because Vijay Mahajan, the father of MFIs in India tells us so:
“We are facing collapse. Unless something changes on the ground, the industry as we know it is basically gone.”
Mahajan, we have news for you. The day when the likes of you are gone, that will be the turning point for the fight against poverty!"
Stupid Economics: Blaming the poor and hungry for food inflation
Obsessed with the growth figures, the planners have tried but failed to hide the ugly underbelly of India’s economic growth.
Montek Singh Ahluwalia has been at the helm of India’s planning process for quite some time now. It is during his tenure as the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission that India has been pushed deeper and deeper into the quagmire of poverty. With the largest population of hungry in the world, the Global Hunger Index 2010 has placed India in the pit.
I wasn’t therefore shocked when I read Ahluwalia blame the hungry for the rise in food inflation. From someone who literally lives in the ivory tower of the Yojana Bhawan, anything can be expected. But what, of course, surprised me was the audacity with which he blamed the poor and hungry in the rural countryside for the rising inflation. Although I hate to say but there can be nothing more stupid than blaming the poor in the villages as if they have started eating more and therefore the pressure on food prices.
A few years back, former US President George Bush had made that ignominious remark shifting the blame for the 2007 global food crisis to the hungry Indians. He had said that the food crisis was because the Indians had started eating more. In an interview, I had then replied that if Indians started eating as much as the Americans do, then probably the world would need to grow food crops on the moon.
While one can ignore what George Bush had said, how can one pardon the head of India’s planning process who should know much better. It also reflects on the disconnect India’s Planning Commission has with the existing ground realities. Obsessed with the growth figures that continue to be tossed around with much fanfare, the planners have tried but failed to hide the ugly underbelly of India’s economic growth.
Only a few weeks back, India was ranked 67th among 84 hungry countries of the world. Two years back, in 2008, the Global Hunger Index had placed India at 66th position among 88 countries. In other words, India had slipped still lower down the pit in the past two years. I can’t fathom how the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) had placed India in such a low esteem if the poor in the villages had started eating more.
Take another international report that was submitted by the Save the Children Fund just a few days prior to the UN Summit on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that was held in the last week of September in New York. With over 5,000 children succumbing to malnutrition every day, India had once again topped the global ranking. This shocking disclosure is enough to put every Indian to shame. I wonder how the head of Indian Planning Commission can even walk with his head held high.
Let me also draw your attention to the 2006-07 report of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) which brings out the stark truth. It tells us that the correlation between hunger and economic growth is robustly positive -- more the economic growth, more people go to bed hungry. This challenges the widely held view that economic growth pulls poor out of poverty and hunger.
What makes the alarming situation still worse is that ever since economic liberalisation was launched in 1991, the NSSO tells us that cereal consumption has been on a steady decline, with no corresponding increase in the intake of more nutritious eggs, vegetables, fruits and milk. It means hunger has been on a rise and is now more widespread and well-entrenched. So far the feeling was that with the changing food habits, people have shifted from cereals to nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables and milk. This assumption too does not hold true anymore.
Cereal consumption
The decline in cereal consumption has more or less followed a steady pattern in the rural and urban areas, and of course, much faster in the rural areas. I don’t think Ahluwalia ever read this report. Accordingly, per capita cereal consumption per month in the rural areas across the country has fallen from 13.4 kg in 1993-94 to 11.7 kg in 2006-07.
The decline has been sharper between the period 2004 and 2007 when just in three years, cereals consumption fell from 12.1 kg to 11.7 kg. In the urban centres the decline was from 10.6 kg in 1993-94 to 9.6 kg in 2006-07. In a largely vegetarian society, cereals constitute the single important source of nutrition and therefore its importance in the Indian context is well established.
This is still not the real picture. The NSSO survey does not cover the period 2007-08 when the world was faced with an unprecedented rise on global food prices. In any case, the average household expenditure on food shows an increasing trend, but does not translate into more food consumption. It only means food prices have been on an upswing, and the poor are finding it difficult to fill their bellies. The recent price rise had made it still more difficult for the poor to be well fed. Cereal consumption therefore is expected to fall still further in 2009-10, and the impact it must have had on the poor and hungry can be well imagined.
Source: Deccan Herald, Oct 28, 2010
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/108143/ahluwalias-sermons.html
Montek Singh Ahluwalia has been at the helm of India’s planning process for quite some time now. It is during his tenure as the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission that India has been pushed deeper and deeper into the quagmire of poverty. With the largest population of hungry in the world, the Global Hunger Index 2010 has placed India in the pit.
I wasn’t therefore shocked when I read Ahluwalia blame the hungry for the rise in food inflation. From someone who literally lives in the ivory tower of the Yojana Bhawan, anything can be expected. But what, of course, surprised me was the audacity with which he blamed the poor and hungry in the rural countryside for the rising inflation. Although I hate to say but there can be nothing more stupid than blaming the poor in the villages as if they have started eating more and therefore the pressure on food prices.
A few years back, former US President George Bush had made that ignominious remark shifting the blame for the 2007 global food crisis to the hungry Indians. He had said that the food crisis was because the Indians had started eating more. In an interview, I had then replied that if Indians started eating as much as the Americans do, then probably the world would need to grow food crops on the moon.
While one can ignore what George Bush had said, how can one pardon the head of India’s planning process who should know much better. It also reflects on the disconnect India’s Planning Commission has with the existing ground realities. Obsessed with the growth figures that continue to be tossed around with much fanfare, the planners have tried but failed to hide the ugly underbelly of India’s economic growth.
Only a few weeks back, India was ranked 67th among 84 hungry countries of the world. Two years back, in 2008, the Global Hunger Index had placed India at 66th position among 88 countries. In other words, India had slipped still lower down the pit in the past two years. I can’t fathom how the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) had placed India in such a low esteem if the poor in the villages had started eating more.
Take another international report that was submitted by the Save the Children Fund just a few days prior to the UN Summit on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that was held in the last week of September in New York. With over 5,000 children succumbing to malnutrition every day, India had once again topped the global ranking. This shocking disclosure is enough to put every Indian to shame. I wonder how the head of Indian Planning Commission can even walk with his head held high.
Let me also draw your attention to the 2006-07 report of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) which brings out the stark truth. It tells us that the correlation between hunger and economic growth is robustly positive -- more the economic growth, more people go to bed hungry. This challenges the widely held view that economic growth pulls poor out of poverty and hunger.
What makes the alarming situation still worse is that ever since economic liberalisation was launched in 1991, the NSSO tells us that cereal consumption has been on a steady decline, with no corresponding increase in the intake of more nutritious eggs, vegetables, fruits and milk. It means hunger has been on a rise and is now more widespread and well-entrenched. So far the feeling was that with the changing food habits, people have shifted from cereals to nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables and milk. This assumption too does not hold true anymore.
Cereal consumption
The decline in cereal consumption has more or less followed a steady pattern in the rural and urban areas, and of course, much faster in the rural areas. I don’t think Ahluwalia ever read this report. Accordingly, per capita cereal consumption per month in the rural areas across the country has fallen from 13.4 kg in 1993-94 to 11.7 kg in 2006-07.
The decline has been sharper between the period 2004 and 2007 when just in three years, cereals consumption fell from 12.1 kg to 11.7 kg. In the urban centres the decline was from 10.6 kg in 1993-94 to 9.6 kg in 2006-07. In a largely vegetarian society, cereals constitute the single important source of nutrition and therefore its importance in the Indian context is well established.
This is still not the real picture. The NSSO survey does not cover the period 2007-08 when the world was faced with an unprecedented rise on global food prices. In any case, the average household expenditure on food shows an increasing trend, but does not translate into more food consumption. It only means food prices have been on an upswing, and the poor are finding it difficult to fill their bellies. The recent price rise had made it still more difficult for the poor to be well fed. Cereal consumption therefore is expected to fall still further in 2009-10, and the impact it must have had on the poor and hungry can be well imagined.
Source: Deccan Herald, Oct 28, 2010
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/108143/ahluwalias-sermons.html
MFIs are loan sharks, not saviours of the poor
LAST WEEK, the 2010 Global Hunger Index placed India in the pit. Except for Bangladesh, India fared much below all the other South Asian countries. The same week, Andhra Pradesh proposed an ordinance to curb the malpractices that have become synonymous with microfinance institutions (MFIs) forcing a large number of rural poor to take their own lives. Coming in the wake of disturbing news reports of a seemingly unending serial death dance by small borrowers, the AP Ordinance, for the first time, tries to regulate the plethora of MFIs and is likely to provide a debt-swap arrangement. “What started off as an initiative for social and economic upliftment of rural poor has now morphed into a highly competitive business with the sole aim of making profits,” said Chief Minister K Rosaiah. “People are getting caught in debt traps and they see no way out.”
No wonder, the business has grown manifold. India Microfinance Report 2009 tells us that the portfolio of MFIs has grown by 97 percent, and the number of beneficiaries has gone up by 60 percent. The unprecedented growth is in a way shifting the game from the hands of the villains of the story, the sahukars or moneylenders, to a sophisticated, media-friendly organised class of neo-moneylenders. These are not the usual banias but a highly educated class who literally rob the poor. And they have done it remarkably well.
Take the case of this woman from Karimnagar district in AP, who escaped a suicide attempt. Harassed for not being able to repay a Rs. 4,000 loan, she was being forced to sell her house. Another woman lost her husband, and while the body awaited cremation, the MFI goons were at her door demanding their pound of flesh. While the RBI remains a mute spectator, the finance ministry too is unwilling to act.
The reason is simple. For the banks, microfinance has come as a saviour. It is a highly profitable business with assured and timely returns. Without making any effort, all that banks and other donors need to do is to provide refinance at roughly 12 percent interest. The MFIs do the rest, including timely repayments. These intermediaries add another 10-12 percent, and therefore end up charging the borrowers anything above 20-24 percent, which effectively comes to 36 percent on cumulative terms. With more than 98 percent assured returns, the banks couldn’t have asked for more. Realising that there is money in exploiting the hapless poor, private banks and companies like Monsanto, Citicorp, Infosys, ABN Amro, ICICI, and even the United Nations and donors like Ford Foundation have joined to earn profits from poverty.
The debt-swap that the AP government is trying to bring in is unlikely to stem the rot. From what appears in the media, it is designed to let the crooks off the hook. While the recent spurt in suicides in AP and Odisha should have landed many of the MFI CEOs in jail, all that the ordinance is trying to do is to pass on the burden to nationalised banks by forcing them to take over the loans. While they will come under an unmanageable financial burden, the MFIs will emerge the true beneficiaries. In reality, what was once intended to be a charitable activity has now turned predatory. It has resulted in multiple borrowings and defaults, thereby adding on to the hunger index.
What is needed is to provide the poorest of the poor with loans not exceeding an annual interest of 3 percent. Like the Society for the Elimination of Rural Poverty in AP, which provides such loans to self-help groups (SHGs), the banks are directly linked to the poor borrowers. The remaining interest is subsidised by the state. By eliminating the middlemen, the SHGs have built a corpus of Rs. 5,000 crore.
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 43, Dated October 30, 2010
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ne301010Proscons.asp
No wonder, the business has grown manifold. India Microfinance Report 2009 tells us that the portfolio of MFIs has grown by 97 percent, and the number of beneficiaries has gone up by 60 percent. The unprecedented growth is in a way shifting the game from the hands of the villains of the story, the sahukars or moneylenders, to a sophisticated, media-friendly organised class of neo-moneylenders. These are not the usual banias but a highly educated class who literally rob the poor. And they have done it remarkably well.
Take the case of this woman from Karimnagar district in AP, who escaped a suicide attempt. Harassed for not being able to repay a Rs. 4,000 loan, she was being forced to sell her house. Another woman lost her husband, and while the body awaited cremation, the MFI goons were at her door demanding their pound of flesh. While the RBI remains a mute spectator, the finance ministry too is unwilling to act.
The reason is simple. For the banks, microfinance has come as a saviour. It is a highly profitable business with assured and timely returns. Without making any effort, all that banks and other donors need to do is to provide refinance at roughly 12 percent interest. The MFIs do the rest, including timely repayments. These intermediaries add another 10-12 percent, and therefore end up charging the borrowers anything above 20-24 percent, which effectively comes to 36 percent on cumulative terms. With more than 98 percent assured returns, the banks couldn’t have asked for more. Realising that there is money in exploiting the hapless poor, private banks and companies like Monsanto, Citicorp, Infosys, ABN Amro, ICICI, and even the United Nations and donors like Ford Foundation have joined to earn profits from poverty.
The debt-swap that the AP government is trying to bring in is unlikely to stem the rot. From what appears in the media, it is designed to let the crooks off the hook. While the recent spurt in suicides in AP and Odisha should have landed many of the MFI CEOs in jail, all that the ordinance is trying to do is to pass on the burden to nationalised banks by forcing them to take over the loans. While they will come under an unmanageable financial burden, the MFIs will emerge the true beneficiaries. In reality, what was once intended to be a charitable activity has now turned predatory. It has resulted in multiple borrowings and defaults, thereby adding on to the hunger index.
What is needed is to provide the poorest of the poor with loans not exceeding an annual interest of 3 percent. Like the Society for the Elimination of Rural Poverty in AP, which provides such loans to self-help groups (SHGs), the banks are directly linked to the poor borrowers. The remaining interest is subsidised by the state. By eliminating the middlemen, the SHGs have built a corpus of Rs. 5,000 crore.
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 43, Dated October 30, 2010
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ne301010Proscons.asp
Seven seed companies to control Rajasthan agriculture
Last week, you read how Monsanto had quietly entered into an agreement with the Rajasthan government virtually taking over its agricultural research and extension [http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2010/10/monsanto-takes-over-agriculture-of-semi.html]. Well, we now learn that Monsanto is not alone. There are six other companies which have signed almost a similar kind of agreement with the Rajasthan government.
An indication to this came from State Agriculture Minister Harjiram Burdak. He was quoted in Dainik Bhaskar (Oct 13, 20101) as saying that several other MoUs are in the offing.
After Rajasthan government wrote a letter on June 23 inviting seed companies under public-private partnership to come to the 'rescue' of the semi-arid State, Pioneer Seeds was the first to formally sign an MoU on July 20. Monsanto was probably the last of the lot to reach an agreement on July 27. As per the invitation letter, the State government would finally devise an action plan within three months of signing the agreements. It will therefore be interesting to see what action plan the State government is secretly developing with the private seed companies.
The six companies, besides Monsanto, are:
1. Pioneer Seeds
2. Advanta Seeds
3. Krishi Dhan
4. JK Seeds
5. Sriram Bio Seeds, and
6. Kanchan Jyoti
I will not repeat what I have already said in my earlier blog post Monsanto takes over agriculture of semi-arid Rajasthan. My colleague Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, has meanwhile expressed his concerns. I would like to share his viewpoint with you:
Its really scary to see this kind of agreement between a State and all its agriculture machinery (Add. chief secretary, commissioner agril, vice chancellors, director hort, state seed corporations) to create an appropriate policy environment to encourage innovation in agriculture. this agreement raises few fundamental issues.
This is in response to a invite by Rajasthan govt dated 23rd june, 2010 and the agreement was signed on 27th July 2010. what made the state govt to issue such letter? lack of innovation (if so on what basis?), why in such a hurry and how come so quickly? who are others who responded for this letter?
This MoU provides for identifying suitable high yielding maize/cotton/vegetable hybrids for rainfed areas of rajasthan whereas the experience till now shows that the hybrids are not suitable for rainfed areas. the report of planning commission on vidharba farmers suicides clearly stated that the Bt cotton hybrids not being suitable for rainfed areas as they are water guzzling
Cross licensing for hybrids developed by SAUs to Monsanto will give away public germplasm to private profits. the licensing of Monsanto hybrids to state will make state to spend public money to give private profits. In fact who needs these hybrids? the state? if so what happened to all the public sector maize var/hybrids released so far by rajasthan state agriculture universities? and All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize and Directorate of Maize Research?
Fair opportunity for Partnership seems to be to capture the seed subsidies provided by the department of agriculture/horticulture/tribal development and other development department to help farmers. on what basis such assessment would be made?
Feasibility of protected varieties and honoring the Proprietary rights Monsanto holds seems to be one of the real intentions behind this MoU. We may recall that in India patents on seed are not accepted and Monsanto and its affiliate MMB are using such license agreements (in fact private agreements which have no legal validity) to control their IPRs. Given the Bt cotton royalty experience in Andhra Pradesh (royalty on bt cotton is Rs. 150/packet) and Rajasthan (royalty on bt cotton is Rs. 1200/packet) shows how crucial it is for state governments to act on behalf of farmers rather than to benefit the private companies.
State providing land and infrastructure for the company to establish their units is completely unacceptable. the state governments which are not providing any funds to the state universities and state seed corporations spending huge money to support private industry is completely unacceptable.
Monsanto will take up Feasibility assessment of activities based on its own standard processes of decision making where as state and its machinery has not put in any such conditionality.
This MoU should be immediately withdrawn. Any new proposal made under this MoU should be subjected to public scrutiny and have a public debate. State cannot decide on its own as it has large ecological and economic implications and legal implications in long run.
An indication to this came from State Agriculture Minister Harjiram Burdak. He was quoted in Dainik Bhaskar (Oct 13, 20101) as saying that several other MoUs are in the offing.
After Rajasthan government wrote a letter on June 23 inviting seed companies under public-private partnership to come to the 'rescue' of the semi-arid State, Pioneer Seeds was the first to formally sign an MoU on July 20. Monsanto was probably the last of the lot to reach an agreement on July 27. As per the invitation letter, the State government would finally devise an action plan within three months of signing the agreements. It will therefore be interesting to see what action plan the State government is secretly developing with the private seed companies.
The six companies, besides Monsanto, are:
1. Pioneer Seeds
2. Advanta Seeds
3. Krishi Dhan
4. JK Seeds
5. Sriram Bio Seeds, and
6. Kanchan Jyoti
I will not repeat what I have already said in my earlier blog post Monsanto takes over agriculture of semi-arid Rajasthan. My colleague Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, has meanwhile expressed his concerns. I would like to share his viewpoint with you:
Its really scary to see this kind of agreement between a State and all its agriculture machinery (Add. chief secretary, commissioner agril, vice chancellors, director hort, state seed corporations) to create an appropriate policy environment to encourage innovation in agriculture. this agreement raises few fundamental issues.
This is in response to a invite by Rajasthan govt dated 23rd june, 2010 and the agreement was signed on 27th July 2010. what made the state govt to issue such letter? lack of innovation (if so on what basis?), why in such a hurry and how come so quickly? who are others who responded for this letter?
This MoU provides for identifying suitable high yielding maize/cotton/vegetable hybrids for rainfed areas of rajasthan whereas the experience till now shows that the hybrids are not suitable for rainfed areas. the report of planning commission on vidharba farmers suicides clearly stated that the Bt cotton hybrids not being suitable for rainfed areas as they are water guzzling
Cross licensing for hybrids developed by SAUs to Monsanto will give away public germplasm to private profits. the licensing of Monsanto hybrids to state will make state to spend public money to give private profits. In fact who needs these hybrids? the state? if so what happened to all the public sector maize var/hybrids released so far by rajasthan state agriculture universities? and All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize and Directorate of Maize Research?
Fair opportunity for Partnership seems to be to capture the seed subsidies provided by the department of agriculture/horticulture/tribal development and other development department to help farmers. on what basis such assessment would be made?
Feasibility of protected varieties and honoring the Proprietary rights Monsanto holds seems to be one of the real intentions behind this MoU. We may recall that in India patents on seed are not accepted and Monsanto and its affiliate MMB are using such license agreements (in fact private agreements which have no legal validity) to control their IPRs. Given the Bt cotton royalty experience in Andhra Pradesh (royalty on bt cotton is Rs. 150/packet) and Rajasthan (royalty on bt cotton is Rs. 1200/packet) shows how crucial it is for state governments to act on behalf of farmers rather than to benefit the private companies.
State providing land and infrastructure for the company to establish their units is completely unacceptable. the state governments which are not providing any funds to the state universities and state seed corporations spending huge money to support private industry is completely unacceptable.
Monsanto will take up Feasibility assessment of activities based on its own standard processes of decision making where as state and its machinery has not put in any such conditionality.
This MoU should be immediately withdrawn. Any new proposal made under this MoU should be subjected to public scrutiny and have a public debate. State cannot decide on its own as it has large ecological and economic implications and legal implications in long run.
Rural India and Rural China: both battling against land acquisitions
In a few days from now, the Narmada Bachao Andolan will reflect on the 25 years of struggle 'questioning displacement, assertion of land and forest rights, right to fisheries, right to food and health, livelihood security, exposure of corruption and navnirman (reconstruction) through the Jeevanshalas (life schools), micro-hydel projects, and solar projects.' The struggle that began in 1985 questions the flawed policies in the name of development and economic growth. Growth for whom and what cost?
According to the NBA, rallies and public meetings at both the places -- Dhadgaon in district Nandurbar in Maharashtra, and Badwani in district Badwani in Madhya Pradesh on Oct 22 and 23, respectively -- amidst adivasis of Nandurbar, Alirajpur and farmers from the plains of Nimad would be reinforced with presence of some of the well-wishers from outside. Some months back, after I returned from the Narmada valley, I had written an analysis: Over 200,000 Narmada Dam oustees still to be rehabilitated; a crime that goes unpunished for 25 years.
In that article I had not touched on the issue of construction of the proposed canal systems leading to destruction of irrigated lands. I don't know how the planners can justify the need for canals in an area which is already irrigated by pipes and water bodies being saturated by water from the Narmada river. The dichotomy is brought out clearly in a letter to the Minister for Environment & Forests by a group of respected citizens. You must read the letter to know how development is flawed, and how it aims at only helping usurping land from the control of poor tribal.
"The land being acquired for the canals are the best of fertile agricultural lands on the banks of the Narmada and nearby; which are already receiving pipeline irrigation supply from the river itself and hence do not require canals to feed them. it is absolutely irrational to bring in river water through a canal by destroying the best of land -- and livelihoods -- when the same water is already irrigating village land. The already irrigated land for more than 50 per cent of the proposed command area to be irrigated," the letter says. It has been signed among others by L C Jain, Upendra Baxi, and Kuldeep Nayyar.
The battle for land is not only confined to the Narmada valley. In the past few years, the government is trying to acquire agricultural land across the country under one pretext of the other. In one of my blog posts, I had written: Pitched battles are being fought across the country by the poor and deprived, who fear further marginalisation when their land is literally grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. Over the years agriculture has been deliberately turned into a losing proposition as a result of which farmers, in most places, are keen to move out provided they get a better price for their land. [You can read the article at http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2010/08/rural-india-on-boil-land-literally.html]
In Madhya Pradesh alone, in central India, as per the data released by the Home Department and tabled in the State Assembly, the number of rural protests had soared from 67 in 2005 to 252 in 2009. To dispel the public protests, police acted acted 35 times, using tear gas 17 times and firing bullets on 8 occasions. As per the official statistics, most of the rural protests were by farmers against land acquisitions.
As rural India rises in protest against land acquisitions, a section of the English media has been telling us that the nation has to draw a lesson from China where land acquisitions have transformed the country and is projecting it on the path to high economic growth. Somehow the impression being given is that it is as if the rural people in China are voluntarily giving up their land for the sake of country's economic growth. Nothing can be further from truth. Rural China too knows that the forcible land
acquisitions is aimed at snatching away from them their last hope of economic security.
According to the NBA, rallies and public meetings at both the places -- Dhadgaon in district Nandurbar in Maharashtra, and Badwani in district Badwani in Madhya Pradesh on Oct 22 and 23, respectively -- amidst adivasis of Nandurbar, Alirajpur and farmers from the plains of Nimad would be reinforced with presence of some of the well-wishers from outside. Some months back, after I returned from the Narmada valley, I had written an analysis: Over 200,000 Narmada Dam oustees still to be rehabilitated; a crime that goes unpunished for 25 years.
In that article I had not touched on the issue of construction of the proposed canal systems leading to destruction of irrigated lands. I don't know how the planners can justify the need for canals in an area which is already irrigated by pipes and water bodies being saturated by water from the Narmada river. The dichotomy is brought out clearly in a letter to the Minister for Environment & Forests by a group of respected citizens. You must read the letter to know how development is flawed, and how it aims at only helping usurping land from the control of poor tribal.
"The land being acquired for the canals are the best of fertile agricultural lands on the banks of the Narmada and nearby; which are already receiving pipeline irrigation supply from the river itself and hence do not require canals to feed them. it is absolutely irrational to bring in river water through a canal by destroying the best of land -- and livelihoods -- when the same water is already irrigating village land. The already irrigated land for more than 50 per cent of the proposed command area to be irrigated," the letter says. It has been signed among others by L C Jain, Upendra Baxi, and Kuldeep Nayyar.
The battle for land is not only confined to the Narmada valley. In the past few years, the government is trying to acquire agricultural land across the country under one pretext of the other. In one of my blog posts, I had written: Pitched battles are being fought across the country by the poor and deprived, who fear further marginalisation when their land is literally grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. Over the years agriculture has been deliberately turned into a losing proposition as a result of which farmers, in most places, are keen to move out provided they get a better price for their land. [You can read the article at http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2010/08/rural-india-on-boil-land-literally.html]
In Madhya Pradesh alone, in central India, as per the data released by the Home Department and tabled in the State Assembly, the number of rural protests had soared from 67 in 2005 to 252 in 2009. To dispel the public protests, police acted acted 35 times, using tear gas 17 times and firing bullets on 8 occasions. As per the official statistics, most of the rural protests were by farmers against land acquisitions.
As rural India rises in protest against land acquisitions, a section of the English media has been telling us that the nation has to draw a lesson from China where land acquisitions have transformed the country and is projecting it on the path to high economic growth. Somehow the impression being given is that it is as if the rural people in China are voluntarily giving up their land for the sake of country's economic growth. Nothing can be further from truth. Rural China too knows that the forcible land
acquisitions is aimed at snatching away from them their last hope of economic security.
This picture above is a scene of a bloody protest that took place in Longxu town in Guangxi province in China on Oct 13. According to reports, about a thousand villagers clashed with hundreds of police officials. They battled with homemade gasoline bombs, bricks and rods. They were protesting against an irrigation project. So it is not only in India that people rise against unwanted irrigation projects, China too faces the same problem.
According to GlobalVoices blog: "During the fight, one police officer's eyeball was smashed, another one had a head injury. All the police officers from Cangwu county were blocked at the intersection of Xindi Road. Two police dogs were beaten to death. Later, 8 military carriages of armed police from Wuzhou city were mobilized to the spot and later 5 other military carriages of armed police from Cenxi also joined in. The move had attracted thousands of onlookers and eventually the police had to use tear gas to clear the scene." [Read the full report at: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/10/16/china-riot-against-land-acquisition-in-guangxi/]
This is what a Chinese villager said: "At present, my village only have 9 pieces of water rice field nearby the lower stream of the river. All have been sold away… what we had got from the compensation was not even enough to buy an apartment… Have you ever tried to understand the situation?? How can we make a living in the future?? For the past 20 yeas in Cangwu county, I have witnessed how the government cheated the people… Now what we have here is all about property market. Limshui is the best example. The government did not even preserve land for relocation in Longwu, Xianglong and Guangchang. In Kan Village, all the lands were acquired in the name of public interest. The government cheated away our land and now I have little confidence but a lot of anger and resentment."
Much of China and India, the two giants, is being rendered landless. Thanks to our political leaders, the masses are being pauperised so as to fill the pockets of the rich and influential. The profits that the rich garner in the process is counted as economic growth. Whether it is a democracy or a communist regime, both follow the same flawed economic prescription. We should also remain perpetually grateful due to the mainline economists for actually laying out a faulty paradigm of economic growth that in reality widens economic disparities, and has led the world to a tripping point. Not only global warming, the economic model of development has also brought the world close to an unprecedented social unrest and chaos.
You just have to wait and watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)