Maoist Threat and Development.
Nitin Desai in his piece, The Indians we forget, and B.S.Raghavan in his article, There is a much simpler answer ( India Abroad, 23/4) have highlighted the neglect of the adivasis who constitute almost 8 percent of the population in the country. The economic development through 40 years of socialist paternalism and 20 years of liberalization has not made much difference to the lives of the poor in India, especially the Scheduled Tribes (STs). The Tendulkar Committee Report estimates the number of poor in India to be 37 percent, 10 percent more than the earlier estimate of the Planning Commission. However, in the case of STs, it is 47 percent.
Both the writers have proposed good governance and a share in the mineral wealth to uplift their economic status. It is incumbent on any democratic government to rehabilitate all displaced persons for the development purposes. This has not been done in adequate measure. This, and the neglect of villages and the agriculture in the last three decades since the Green Revolution, has given rise to the Maoist menace and the proliferation of slums in India. Poor people without the means of sustaining themselves in their own areas, either go to cities and towns in search of work and live in slums or fall a prey to the false promises of Maoists of a bright future through violence though their vision has failed to create a society of the free and the equal in the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries, and even in China and Cuba.
The time has come for the political parties and economists to pause and think afresh regarding the poverty in our country. GDP growth, which went up from 3.5 percent in the socialist era to 6 to 8 percent in the capitalist era, alone cannot be the goal in a democracy if it does not percolate down to the poor. Mahatma Gandhi said that India lives in villages. He always spoke about sarvodaya ( welfare of all) and unto the last ( poorest of the poor). He had even given a guideline to the rulers to judge their policies – how they affect the poor, whether their policies would improve his lot , whether he can take charge of his destiny. He also emphasized the need for mass employment, not just mass production.
However, in our frenzy to catch with the rich and industrialized countries, we created more facilities and jobs in the cities than in the villages. Some of the irrigation dams on rivers, especially during the first five-year plan, and later the Green Revolution, have enriched the rich farmers. Poor farmers and farm workers have not benefitted at all. With almost 70 percent of Indians living in villages and 60 percent depending on the agriculture contributing less than 20 percent to the GDP, the villages should have been the focus of development.
Since the economic development has not percolated to the poor, we have to reverse the model of development from top down to bottom up – progress through empowerment of villages with primary education and primary health-care. A cluster of villages should have facilities for vocational education which should include modern agricultural practices – selection of seeds, fertilizers, marketing, soil testing, dairy and poultry farming, cultivating fruits and vegetables, drip irrigation and rainwater harvesting, food-processing and agro-industries. All these should provided to the farmers or their children at a small fee, if not free of charge in their own language.
All these years the state has made people depend on its dole. State gives subsidies and freebees – free electricity, subsidized food-grains, low-priced LPG etc. The state spends colossal amount of money on this. This has benefitted the well-off than the poor. Even the flagship schemes suffer from leakages. A report in the Times of India (2/10/09) states :" A government investigation into the working of the Scheme ( The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) with an annual budget of Rs.40,000 crore has revealed the siphoning-off of a whopping 40 percent of the allocation and woefully inadequate implementation of the Scheme in the districts where it is needed most." All this money could be easily diverted to empower people. Poor should be provided with the tools of improving their economic life. It is better to teach fishing rather than give fish to the poor so that they can live a life of dignity, not of charity.
The poor and the illiterates are not poor in wisdom and even invention. Dr.Anil K.Gupta's Indian Innovation Foundation has some 12,000 innovations in its Honey Bee database collected from the poor and the illiterate. They are all self-taught mechanics and entrepreneurs. Sebastian Joseph, a school drop-out developed a high-yielding cardamom variety in Idukki in Kerala. Amrutbhai Agrawat of Junagadh in Gujarat invented a multi-purpose tool bar, a wheat planting box and a pea-nut digger. He also devised a pulley with a ratchet for village wells and a bullock cart with a tilting bed. There are many more such useful gadgets in the database. They are all poor and illiterate because the state never provided them with the tools of progress – education and access to credit.
Since the change in the strategy of growth for the poor would take time, a new idea of directly helping the poor has been mooted by Bhagwan Chowdhry, Finance Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, as mentioned by the Economist of London recently. The professor has proposed that every child born in the world should have a bank account at birth with an amount of $100. It is called FAB ( FinancialAccess@Birth). The amount would not be touched until the child attains the age of 16. This would encourage parents to register the birth of their children. The government or charities could transfer monetary help to the child's account for education and health. This simple idea has the potential to empower the poor children in the world.
India can pioneer and promote this idea with its UID programme being implemented by the central government. If there is anything that can empower the poor people apart from education and health, it is the access to financial resources (capital and credit). .
Ever since I heard in Saudi Arabia, where I was working for a couple of years as a journalist in the early 'eighties, that all graduates were entitled to get 50,000 riyals to start their life, I fancied we in India should have a similar facility. It could be Rs.5000 at birth as now suggested by Chowdhry or an amount of Rs.25,000 to each child when he/she reaches the age of 16/18 to start his/her life after the graduation or vocational education irrespective of gender. He/she should be eligible for an additional loan at a low rate of interest if he/she has a feasible idea. The Government of Madhya Pradesh gives an amount Rs. One lakh to a girl child when she reaches the age of 18 and this has improved the sex ratio in the state. Entitlement after education has the potential to promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
This amount could be used to improve whatever occupation the person has inherited or an occupation the person has learnt. It could be even used to build a house or repair a house as it would create employment in the village. It could be used to purchase the latest tools of his occupation.
India should focus on the villages, the poor and the agriculture. India should empower the people, not the state. India should promote small towns and villages, not mega-cities with slums. With telecommunications facilities, television and internet, there is no need to be in a city. Let us re-think our strategy of growth and progress.
April26.2010.
*****
