EDITORIAL
Congress President in
the US
Congress President and
Leader of the Opposition Sonia Gandhi's current image in
India is no different than that of her mother-in-law
before she became the Prime Minister. But Indira was a
different person when she came to power. Those who kept a
track of Sonia’s current tour of the United States
are disposed to think that she too may prove a different
person. In fact they are jumping with joy over the
success of her visit to the USA. Indian reports could be
biased. However, when the American media not only takes
notice of her visit, but also compliments her for
creating a positive impact on the leaders she met,
including United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan,
the visit deserves more than routine mention. She was the
first Indian leader to meet US Vice President Dick
Cheney. That may not be a big achievement but it has an
impact in any case. Her real success lay in the political
deftness with which she answered inconvenient questions
from the media. Be that as it may, what should be of
special interest to political analysts, who had a poor
opinion about her political abilities before her visit to
the USA, would be her handling of the nitty gritty of the
complex affairs of the Congress in India. Media reports
say the US exposure has done a world of good to her
self-confidence. Whether the media assessment is correct
or based on incomplete information would be known in the
coming months.
Uttar Pradesh has always
been a crucial province in the Indian domestic politics.
It has made and destroyed the reputations of countless
politicians. Chief Minister Rajnath Singh is currently
putting together an innovative package for helping the
Bharatiya Janata Party recapture lost political ground
during the crucial assembly elections. After his meeting
with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in Agra Prime
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee too may be able to
supplement the efforts of the UP Chief Minister by
influencing a substantial chunk of the crucial Muslim
vote in favour of the BJP. That is not all. The Bahujan
Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party too have struck deep
political roots in UP. The challenge before Sonia Gandhi
is indeed daunting. It is one thing to make an impact on
the leaders of the West. Her upbringing in Italy helped
her accomplish it. How the US visit will help Ms Sonia
Gandhi relate better to ordinary Indians and build the
Congress at the grassroots level are questions which only
time can answer.
Congress certainly needs
an exposure and updating of its national and
international perceptions. For a long time now the party
that led India through her independence is bogged down
with internal differences and personal likes and
dislikes. Its role in the previous parliamentary session
has been far from pragmatism. Personal vendetta and the
one point agenda of pulling down the BJP-led government
have not created a good impression among the people. As
such, the Congress needs to refurbish its nationalistic
approach and policy. It is hoped that Sonia Gandhi will
have felt during her American tour that India’s
image is on the rise and nothing should be done to
obstruct its further achievements. This is bound to widen
the vision of Congress, a quality that it needs the most
at this point of time.
BLOWING HOT AND COLD
The Hurriyat meeting with
General Pervez is an issue-non-issue. Tracing the history
of the episode would show that Pakistani side has been
blowing hot and cold within a short span of time.
Evidently there is no clear-cut policy in Islamabad in
regard to the APHC, a cover for Pakistani interests in
Kashmir. The reason for lack of vacillating policy of
Islamabad is essentially its lack of trust in the
Hurriyat Executive Council. It suspects that some of its
members are time-servers and are not really committed to
taking Kashmir to Pakistan. Of late the Pakistani side
has sullied the third option and this created the real
confusion among the rank and file of APHC. The scathing
attack by Yasin Malik on the Hurriyat followed by that of
Amanullah in Muzaffarabad is a clear indicator that they
are up in arms against Pakistan’s refusal to accept
the third option viz. independent Kashmir. Within this
week, there have been more than three statements about
APHC’s prospective meeting with the Pakistani
President. While Pakistan gravely suspects the honesty of
the APHC Executive Council, it does not want to alienate
the organisation fully since it has been its own creation
and has been carrying out its agenda in Kashmir. Thus the
ISI is trying to manage a difficult task of balancing its
two positions vis-à-vis Hurriyat. The trust-no-trust
syndrome of Pakistan torments the Hurriyat, in turn. Of
course, the Hurriyat representatives in PoK, who are of
Kashmiri origin, are playing an important role in trying
to mollify the suspecting segments in the ISI and the
Presidential secretariat. It is they who were more vocal
than others are when the President interacted with a
cross section of London-based Kashmiri separatist
leadership.
It is true that the
Pakistani Mission in New Delhi has invited the Hurriyat
several times in the past and New Delhi did not object to
it. But this argument cannot hold good in the background
of the crucial talks that are likely to take place next
week at Agra. General Musharraf has met with various
Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri groups in his own country in
connection with the talks he will be holding with Mr.
Vajpayee. But to meet with a dissident, an outright
pro-Pakistan group on the India soil is totally a
different matter. In the first place, as a matter of
recognised norms of international protocol, it is not
fair that a visiting dignitary should insist on meeting a
local dissident group. Dissent by domestic elements in a
democratic country is a domestic matter and need not be
taken to international level. Second, India has to
stonewall any attempt that would create an impression
that in the case of Kashmir, she is accepting a
trilateral talks willy-nilly. If General Musharraf
insists on meeting the representatives from Kashmir, he
should have invited the party that is in power through an
election process. But then he may argue that since he
himself has set aside the entire election process in his
own country and cares two hoots for it, he is not morally
bound to call in the delegation from the elected
representatives of Jammu and Kashmir
|
Vajpayee-Musharraf
meet
Another
Simla Agreement in the offing ?
By Dr
Brahma Singh
The likely
outcome of the Vajpayee-Musharraf meet,
scheduled for 15 July has come up for
much speculation in the media and social
circles lately. The views and opinions
expressed so far have ranged between
optimism, bordering, at times, on wishful
thinking, and total pessimism borne out
of past precedence that presages the
summit as an exercise in futility. Only a
few, if any, seem to have taken a
rationalistic view based on hard facts
that cannot be wished away. Let us see
what these facts are and how they are
likely to influence the outcome of the
historic meet.
The first
and foremost fact is that, both India and
Pakistan- their professions to the
contrary notwithstanding- consider the
dispute to be between the two of them,
with the people of the State having no
role to play in its settlement. This is
how it has always been and this is how it
will always be. The self-determination
that Pakistan keeps harping on is only a
''rallying cry'' (as it would be known in
insurgency parlance), for influencing
international opinion, and for eliciting
the people's support for the proxy war
that it has unleashed in the State with
the avowed object of annexation.
Otherwise Pakistan has never been a
strong votary of the idea
self-determination for the people of the
State. As a matter of fact even as India
was acting imprudently (at the instance
of Mountbatten) and squandering away the
advantage of the Maharaja's support by
advocating the principle of accession on
the basis of the wishes of the people,
Pakistan was propagating the legalistic
view that, the Maharaja alone could
decide which way to go. It was only after
its raiders failed to ''liberate''
Kashmir that Pakistan switched over to
its third option of self-determination.
Even then it was not intended to be of
more than propaganda value. Little wonder
that when the UN finally decided to hold
a plebiscite in the State, and passed a
resolution on the details of the process.
Pakistan, not sure of gaining a verdict
in its favour, scuttled the issue by
refusing to implement its part of the
terms and conditions laid down in the
Resolution. These terms and conditions
formed an essential part of the process
for the conduct of the plebiscite and by
refusing to implement them Pakistan drove
the last nail in the coffin of
self-determination in Kashmir. The
conditions for the plebisicite that
Pakistan could not implement then are
harder- nay impossible- of implementation
now after the lapse of fifty years.
Plebiscite is therefore, a dead issue now
and if any one thinks that it might be
revived is living in a fool's paradise.
In any case the plebiscite that the UN
had considered, was for seeking a verdict
of the people on the option of either
going with India or with Pakistan and the
option of remaining independent was never
in question. Both India and Pakistan were
opposed to granting the people of the
State the third option, as they are even
today. So all those who are hoping that
in order to remove the bone of contention
between them, both India and Pakistan may
agree to grant independence to the State,
with some sort of joint control, are
certainly going to be disappointed.
Pakistan's attempts now to involve the
Hurriyat in the present talks also cannot
be termed as the involvement of the
people of the State. Propped up by the
gun wielding terrorists as it is, the
Hurriyat's claim to its representative
character would hardly stand scrutiny. At
best it represents the pro Pakistan
minority in the State that has acquired
political power through the barrel of the
gun. The silent majority is still with
India.
Another
hard fact is that the time wrap of over
half a century and the political
compulsions of both the countries,
resulting from opposing and irrevocable
stands adopted by them over the years,
have put a hold on the initiative of the
heads of the two countries, restricting
their option to just that of maintaining
the status quo in Kashmir. Neither can
afford to make concessions or indulge in
the diplomacy of give and take that is so
essential for solving any dispute. The
slightest concession made by one to the
other would be termed as a sell-out by
his people and could cause a political
upheaval large enough to spell his doom.
Even the status quo, against which so
much has been said by both sides during
the not too distant past, is not likely
to be accepted directly for fear of
people's reprisals, especially in
Pakistan. People of that country may well
ask of its leaders as to why this was not
accepted fifty years back when India had
made the offer of converting the
cease-fire line into an international
border and closing the chapter once for
all. The acceptance now would, therefore,
have to take the form that it took in the
Simla Agreement- both the sides sticking
to alter the present situation. A de
jure status quo that could be made de
facto ultimately, after emotions have
subsided on both sides.
The fact
that there is no solution to the Kashmir
issue other than that of maintaining the status
quo should not, however, be any cause
for undue pessimism taken to mean that
the present one will fail too. For, the
circumstances under which the present
summit is taking place are widely
different from those prevailing during
such summits in the past. The previous
agreements failed to take off because
Pakistan had been entering into
agreements with India in the past not
with the intention of solving issues but
only for extricating itself from sticky
situations that it found itself in after
every misadventure. Once out of the mire
it refused to implement its obligations
under the agreement, only to prepare for
yet another round of war. Evidently
India's low force level, just enough to
maintain a precarious balance of power
with Pakistan but incapable of delivering
crushing and decisive blows, was tempting
the latter to drag the former into a war
again and again in the fond hope that it
might win sometime. Pakistan could afford
to flout the terms of the agreement with
impunity because of the American
patronage that it was enjoying all the
while. But thanks to the very fine
diplomatic effort made by the present
Indian Government, things are different
today. The United States is no longer
anti India. It has realised that while
''India is now debating its future, and
strategic path, the United States must
pay it more attention'' (George Bush,
Strategic Analysis, IDSA, p 545). The
United States is today genuinely
interested in peace between India and
Pakistan. As a matter of fact the present
Indo-Pak summit is widely believed to be
the outcome of behind-the-scene efforts
of the United States. Even if it is
unable to infleunce the terms of the
agreement that India and Pakistan may
arrive at, the US could at least act as
the guarantor to ensure that whatever is
agreed upon is also acted upon.
The other
significant change in the general
scenario is that both sides seem to be
genuinely yearning for peace. While
Vajpayee has allo along been known to be
a man of peace, even Musharraf, who
sabotaged the Lahore Declaration appears
to have suffered a change of heart.
Apparently he has realised the futility
of wars with India, as none of the four
that have been fought so far have
produced any results favourable to
Pakistan. It may have, in fact, been the
other way round. Musharraf has in all
probability, therefore, decided to call
it a day as for as wars are concerned. He
would also, probably, withdraw Pakistan's
proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, because
as a General he would know that such low
intensity wars could'nt succeed without
some successful push from across the
cease-fire line. The Kargil experience
has amply demonstrated the
impracticability of such an action by
Pakistan.
|
 |
Child
labour situation unchanged
By M V
Kubede
Child
labour is a form of exploitation. A child
of tender age shoulders the
responsibility of a wage earner on
account of the limited income of family,
poor living conditions, more mouths to
feed, neglect by family members and
harassment.
According
to a report published by UNO, the number
of child labour in India is far more than
in any other part of the world. In India,
the number of child workers is between
440 lakh and 10 crores but, according to
authoritative sources, the number is said
to be 17.5 lakh. Thirty percent of the
total child labour are agricultural
labourers and 30-35 percent are factory
workers, lakhs of others are working in
stress, garages, restaurants and as
domestic servants. Moreover, they are
leading a life of slaves.
Despite
government schemes, legislations and
administrative measures, most of these
Indian children are passing through a
phase of hardship and miseries. In many
families,their guardians neglect them and
those giving them employment often resort
to their sexual exploitation.
Although
it has been demanded that employment of
child labour should be banned, but such a
blanket order is not possible under the
present economic and social set-up, as it
will be impracticable. However, spread of
education and effective implementation of
legislation will go a long way to reduce
the problems and then alone we can expect
a bright future for a maximum number of
children.
According
to the International Labour Organisation,
out of 30 crore children in our country,
4.44 crore are working as child labour in
various industries. On an average every
seventh child born in the country becomes
a bread winner. One more
unfortunate aspect of it that India leads
in the number of destitute children in
the world. Apart from this 12.5 lakh
illegitimate children are also born every
year in India. Many of them are forced to
become child labour after 5-6 years. The
Director, International Labour
Organisation, in his report on child
Labour, said that they were not among the
young children who worked, setting aside
their time for playing and studies to
defray their pocket expenses. They were
also not among those who were bound to
lead the life of an adult labourer. These
children were those who worked for 10 to
18 hours on low salaries and were
deprived of their education. According to
the Indian Council of Child Welfare,
child labour in the age group of 7-14
year have to work for 10-15 hours in
factories, shops and commercial
establishments and get remuneration of
one-two rupee per day.
According
to a survey report, in Delhi about 3 lakh
children work for 12-15 hours per day and
earn two-three rupees. According to
UNICEF, there are 4 lakh of child
labourers in Delhi. There are lakhs of
children who are not counted among child
labourers on account of technical
reasons. But they contribute to the
income of the family.
There are
thousands of such children who sleep
under the open sky and have no shelter.
There are about one lakh such shelterless
children in Delhi. Thousands of such
children pass their night at railway
station, bus stand, parks, public
buildings and in the ruins of old
monuments. According to a survey report
of the National Public Assistance and the
Child Development Centre, Mumbai tops in
number of child labourers in the country,
earning Rs 50-150 per month working 12-14
hours each day. In Kolkata there are 20.5
percent child labour, who, on an average,
are paid Rs 50 to 100 per month, while
20.6 percent have to survive without any
remuneration.
Children
are the legacy of any nation or society
and the responsibilities of their
security, upbringing education and
development devolves on the community,
because in due course of time these
children become the foundation pillars of
development and progress of the country.
Whereas on one side people the world over
are seriously considering many measures
concern ing child welfare,on the other
side the problem of child labour is also
thriving, specially in developing
countries it is where worse. Presently,
in the beginning of 21st century, the
total number of child labour in the world
has risen to 25 crores. Indian
Constitution provides free and compulsory
education up to 14 years of age. If this
law is effectively implemented the
increasing number of child labour could
be checked. Dr L M Singhvi says that the
priority which the child labour problems
should have received has not been given.
The schemes prepared to ameliorate the
conditions of child labour remain on
paper due to political complexities. He
infact suggested a joint parliamentary
committee should be formed so that the
schemes could implemented effectively.
The cases
of child exploitation are not being
collected on account of the indifference
of the Government and the people. In
India children have to face exploitation
at the hands of their guardians and
employers on account of poverty, lack of
education and large families. According
to a psychologist the main reason behind
child exploitation is personal
shortcoming and behaviour. When a parent
exploits his child it shows his mental
dissatisfaction. The problems of physical
and sexual exploitation are increasing on
account of secluded family background but
this has failed to attract the attention
of psychologists and social reformers.- BF-CNF
|
|
New
Islamic threats to Central Asia
By M Rama Rao
A new Islamic
movement is making rapid strides in Central Asian
nations. Terror is not its weapon. Persuasion is.
Volunteers of the Liberation Party, Hezbe Tahir,
rely more on personal contact to achieve their
goal of universal caliphate. Who is the real face
and force behind the movement? No body knows, as
of now, going by reports in the local media.
The movement
appears to have an operational base in southern
Kyrgyzstan, probably where it has had its birth
too. Several American scholars opine that
repressive regimes in these predominantly Muslim
countries have contributed to the spead of Hezbe
Tahir. It doesn't appear to be so.
If repressive
regimes alone are the propelling factor, Islamic
fundamentalists should have gained an upper hand
in the entire belt, which was once the backyard
of Communist Soviet Union. What ever be their
other failings, the Governments in these
countries stills swear by secularism. So do a
vast majority of the people. This doesn't get
well with the Islamists.
Uzbekistan, for
instance, is home to be an armed Islamist
Movement, IMU. It seeks to over throw the
Governments of Central Asia by force. It draws
inspiration and sustenance from Taliban, which is
comfortably in the saddle in Afghanistan, the
next door neighbour.
The Afghan war and
Taliban are a legacy of the Soviet past, the
Central Asian Republics (CARs) are finding it
painfully difficult to adjust to. From how to
open up to the world with the greenback for
speedy economic progress, their concern has
shifted focus to how to keep the borders secure
from religious extremism, organised crime and
terrorism.
The hold of the
central authority on the border regions in all
these countries is very tenuous. Take the
instance Tavil Dara and Karatengin Valley in
Tajikistan. This was an opposition strong hold
during the 1992-97 civil war. Islamists fought
side by side with the opposition and the opening
thus secured was exploited to the hilt to
entrench themselves.
Neither aerial
bombing nor repressive measures helped to curb
the spread of IMU led by Juma Namangani. IMU is
often termed the invisible force in this area.
Locals and local police maintain that they have
not seen IMU warriors in the past two years.
Their presence is felt but not seen; their
activities are discussed, not noticed.
Southern
Tajikistan is also facing increasing threat to
its security and tranquility from the Afghans.
This is largely a fall-out of deteriorating
conditions in Afghanistan where spectre of
starvation has begun to haunt the people.
Comparatively better off Tajik belt is a natural
attraction for cattle raiders.
Drug smugglers
have also become a threat, a real threat in a
manner of speaking.
Last month alone,
the drug peddlers had taken 17 people hostage,
killed three others and stolen 163 head a cattle
in Shurabad district of Khatlon region, some 350
km south of the capital city, Dushanbe. Stealing
cattle and taking hostages to pay off
drug-related debts has become a common occurrence
over a long period.
What is happening
now is that these raids have become
indiscriminate and more frequent as the level of
desperation has increased in Taliban territory
proper. Border guards are unable to prevent these
forays. The unarmed villagers feel defenceless
and unprotected against the night-time raiders,
who criss cross the un-patrolled highland areas
with impunity.
Frankly, it is
these virtual no-man lands, which are one too
many in the Central Asian Republics that are
offering a spring board to the Islamists. In its
execssive pre-occupation with the Osama factor
and the Taliban, the United States has not
appreciated the emerging threat to the region.
It is time the new
forms of Islamic fundamentalism like that of
Hezbe Tahir engage the US attention. Since these
movements are in their infancy of sorts, we
should begin to worry about them and consider
serious efforts to address the root causes.
As a columnist in
the Times of Central Asia (TCA) remarks, the fear
of insurgency and political instability is
imperilling the modest gains of a decade of
national consolidation in Central Asia No doubt,
the Governments of the region have redoubled
security measures to 'neutralise terrorists and
bandits.'
While casting
their net widely, they are 'ensnaring legitimate
critics as well as many perfectly innocent
vicrims'. This is unwarranted.
As experience has
shown elsewhere particularly in India's
northeast, unimaginative anti-insurgency drive
will offer a fertile ground to defeat the
Government efforts. Pooling of experience by the
Central Asian countries and interaction with
countries like India, which have had good track
record in handling such problem over a prolonged
period will go a long way.
Unilateralism has
its advantages. Limitations too. Experience bears
this out.
Take the case of
Uzbekistan. It has been heavily mining its
borders. Ostensibly, the move is aimed at
protecting areas not routinely monitored by
border guards. Police Chief Makhumud Utaganov was
quoted as saying (June 19) that the mining was
not indiscriminate but selective.
Based on
intelligence data, only the areas patronised as
corridors for the transit of drugs, weapons and
illegal movement of the Islamic Movement
Uzbekistan (IMU) were mined, he had said.
Utaganov claims
his Government has infored in advance Tajikistan
and Kyrgzystan, along whose borders the
mine-fields have been placed. But the two
neighbours are upset. Many of their people were
killed after hitting the mines.
Uzbekistan should
have no hesitation to share the 'data' with its
neighbours. In fact, it should be more than
willing to provide the maps of mine fields the
true good neighbourly spirit and in the interests
of fighting the common enemy, the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan, which has declared as
terrorist group by the United States.
For reasons, which
are unfathomable, Tashkent has remained
unresponsive.
Needless to say,
this is not the way to further global cooperation
for resistance to "medieval" Islamic,
as Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev,
describes the threat from Afghan Islamic
radicalism and its variants that want absorb 'all
Muslims under Sharia rule'.
"Some people
cherish the hope that the Muslim population of
our States will support (radicals), that the
clergy will take us back to the Middle Ages, put
the veil on women's faces and make men grow bears
to their waists. It is a pipe dream", he
said in an interview to a Kazakh television
channel as six good neighbours -- China, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan
- created the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO).
These challenges
(terrorism et al), President Nazarbayez says,
force us to united the threat from Afghanistan to
this region, which has immense natural and human
resources and is waiting to be tapped.
Who can disagree
with a voice of reason?
Certainly not,
Mircea Geoana, the Romanian Foreign Minister, who
visited the region as heads the European security
organisation, OSCE. The region is of critical
importance, he noted, because of its strategic
location, because of its abundant gas, oil and
other natural resources.
The stakes are
indeed high, as Central Asia has once again
become the 'pivot of Asia'.
Syndicate
features
|
The
current logjam in the reform process
By Sisir Basu
The grim reality
of an industrial slowdown aggravated by the NDA
Government’s tepid response to it in policy
terms has practically blunted the reforms agenda.
The budget presented to Parliament, by Mr.
Yashwant Singh, on February 28 this year, has, in
this sense, already become defunct. The
"second generation reforms"
encapsulated in the budget have certainly not
taken off.
Nor is the
ambitious agenda for farreaching economic
legislation set out in the budget politically
viable given the minority status of the NDA in
the Rajya Sabha. Is it a mere pause in the reform
process or a much more serious continuing malaise
of lack of political will on the part of the
Vajpayee Government compounded by a mounting
outcry against liberalisation and the market
ideology dominating it?
Disenchantment
with the way in which liberalisation of the
economy has proceeded is now common among large
sections of Indian industry. Although the
"Level Playing" school was scoffed at
during the earlier phase of reforms, it is now
becoming increasingly clear that the infusion of
competition in the economy through foreign
investment (in greenfield ventures or through
joint ventures with Indian firms) has exposed the
vulnerabilities of Indian industry composed of
unequal macro-economic fundamentals as between
India and the developed countries as well as the
managerial inadequacies of domestic corporates.
A parallel
movement towards macro-economic facilitation by
the Government involving upgradation of
infrastructure, public investments in the key
areas of infrastructure and the social sectors
and debureaucratisation, and towards improved
corporate governance by industry – in the
private and public sectors – would be
essential if reforms are not to result in the
persecution of Indian industry.
Equally crucial
for the credibility of the reforms would be the
synchronised rationalisation of fiscal and
monetary policies to deal with the inherited
problems of high transaction costs and the
paradox of a liquidity overhang in the financial
system and the scramble for funds among medium
and small enterprises (MSEs).
Much more than
Indian industry, especially the technologically
challenged sections in the SSI sector, it is the
political class which is stridently becoming
critical of the logic of economic reforms. The
former Prime Minister, Mr. Chandra Shekhar, has
set out on a national yatra to spread agony among
the already distressed sections of
agriculturists, small industry, the artisan
community and so on, over the adverse
consequences of economic liberalisation.
He raises a
fundamental question about the death of political
ideology in the country. How come successive
governments at the Centre since 1991 – led
by the Congress, the United Democratic Front
(With two Prime Ministers – Mr. Deve Gowda
and Mr. I. K. Gujral) and then on, by the NDA,
have all been functioning as the unabashed
votaries of the paradigm of economic
liberalisation propagated by the IMF-World Bank
duo? For Mr. Chandra Shekahr, it is all a western
conspiracy, this business of opening up the
Indian economy!
There are many
inter-related strands in the critique of
liberalisation presented by Mr. Chandra Shekhar.
The point about average GDP growth rates during
the Nineties being only marginally higher than in
the Eighties mostly relates to some statistical
jugglery, with a deliberate overlooking of the
repression of demand in 1991-92, However the
comparison of levels of subsidies as between
India and the OECD countries, suggesting that the
focus on subsidy reduction laid by Indian
policymakers is entirely misguided, is a queer
exercise in disinformation because the term
"subsidies" in the OECD terminology
covers a vast range of social security benefits
funded by public resources.
Mr. Chandra
Shekhar also believes that the reduction of tax
rates, as an integral part of economic reforms,
has resulted in a decline of tax revenue as a
percentage of the GDP. Here again, comparative
statistics on the ratio of tax revenue to the GDP
in Western countries, far from suggesting that
savage rates of taxation produce wholesome
benefits for the economy, could only be pointing
to the wide divergence in the skewness of
distribution of income as between India and these
other countries. In any case, it seems difficult
to believe that Mr. Chandra Shekhar is advocating
a return to high rates of taxation as a
palliative for many of the disorders including
stagnation in employment, flowing from the
liberalisation. Is he challenging the thesis that
economic reforms which have been put through
during the last decade are irreversible even if
they have been lopsided?
The many voice of
despair and dissonance on liberalisation (linking
it to the WTO dispensation as well) belong both
to Indian industry and to the political elite.
Industry is
harried by the all too painful dictates of
adaptation to global competition without adequate
policy support not meaning
‘protectionism" in its derisive
connotation. The political class is perhaps more
misinformed than sensitive to the outcries
against reforms. In retrospect, it is evident
that no government, since the very beginning of
reforms in 1991, has cared to communicate the
compulsions and priorities underlying reforms to
the people at large. The result is that the two
major constituencies of public opinion which
appear to be reasonably comfortable with economic
reforms are the "upper" sections of
domestic industry, more particularly in the New
Economy, and among consumers with hefty wallets
patronising the FMCG segments of industry and the
opulent offerings of the automobile industry.
It is scarcely a
panic-stricken reaction to the current logjam in
the reform process that it cannot be revived
without a concerted educational effort needed not
merely to allay misapprehensions about the
intended impact of reforms on Indian society as a
whole. But an educational exercise, by itself,
will prove futile unless the process of
governance is actively directed to ensure that
the benefits of reform reach out to the poorer
sections of Indian society.
To the extent that
a congeries of legitimate anxieties and vague
apprehensions about the process of liberalisation
are crystallising in the form of hostility to
reforms, and "operation" in the nature
of a national dialogue on reforms would seem an
urgent necessity. A reasoned pause in reforms may
not prove as calamitous as a helpless do-nothing
posture on the part of the NDA Government,
gripped by internal discord on economic policy as
well as by aggressive criticism from the likes of
Mr. Chandra Shekhar. INAV
|
|
| |
|
|
