Private airlines in India have threatened to cancel all their flights on Aug 18th, if the demands for a bailout package is not met.
True, the airline industry is in disarray due to high fuel prices and need a bailout...But do they, or for that matter any corporate entity deserve a bailout package by the government.
One, the private airlines are running a profit oriented business....Absolutely no problem in that......They slashed rates, provided better service to increase demand and thus their market profitability. Let us be very clear about this, there was no social service in it. The common man still doesn't travel by air. Till their purses allowed they kept the fares low.
Now came economic recession. Fuel prices went up, market demand and liquidity shrank and the airlines started suffering losses...They hiked fares to recover losses. No issue in that.
The problem starts when they demand a bailout package from the govt.on the state exchequer.
When they were making profits, buying private yachts, flats in spain just to see F1 racing, they never cared about the Government and its various social schemes. Apart from few symbolism like bringing back Tipu Sultan's sword, that too for political gain...these corporate honchos never contributed towards the social sector....they kept the fruits of economic boom to themselves...
Now they are suffering losses, who are they to demand bailout from the Government.
This bailout culture if we will copy from the western countries will go a long way in privatising profits and socializing losses. If I set a shop and it fails, does the govt. bail out me.
When the players start performing badly...that day is not far away when the Indian Paisa League (IPL) will too demand a bailout citing public entertainment.....Be ready for it Mr. Pranab Mukherji......!!!!!
25 comments:
The phrase "privatising profits and socializing losses" is a very catchy one.Though the message in the article is succicntly put, there is one question however which needs to be given serious thought. Even though the airlines industry may still be far from the reach of "aam aadmi", but one cannot overlook the role of the private players in making air travel more affordable for all. The turnaround Indian Aviation Sector has witnessed in the past decade has been a great one and one needs to decide about the bailout based on the role/importance/impact of aviation industry in Indian Economic Scenario. India's aviation sector was witnessing a growth phase when the bane of the recession hit it hard. If things continue this way for some more time, it would lead back to square one when we would have 2-3 air players only. Its not only about the private players, even our own "maharaja" is sick and needs a bailout. So should the "exchequer's" money be routed to bailout a sick PSU run ineptly by few, or should it be used to bailout private players, some of whom were on an expressway to bakruptcy??Or should we rescue both?
@pratyush:he he!
this is what the logic of captilalism is all about.these are the very guys who speak about the free market and how the state shouldnt intervene in this free play.but the inherent flaw of capitalism lies in the fact that it forgets that everthing goes on in a circle or to follow Marx in a helix...so they speak about growth and growth and have nowhere to go but the state when the recession (which is an inherent part of itself) arrives.but we've seen in history capitalism cannot survive without state intervention ..it is the nexus of the state and the ruling elite which maintains this condition of capitalism to be in a hegemonic position.i am sure they will be rescued this time too...after all the state has an interest in keeping the rich ,rich and the poor'poor.
@bk:i dont understand why for a country like india going back to one with having 2-3air players(which as i've stated above will not be allowed to happen) should be a panic...and what do u want to rescue them from?..from not being able to make more profit?after all we've some other rescue operations which need attention ...like children dying of malnutrition in MP and Maharashtra,the lowest health levels for women in the world, farmers killing themselves and a 70% of population which lives on an income of rs. 20 per day.so shouldnt the Exchequer bail these out first?Cant the maharaja wait to take its flight since some ppl are dying???
@ anagha: Going back to the earlier situation of 2-3 air players, or for that matter 2-3 players in any sector is not in the benefit of consumers. It leads to monopolistic attitude of one of the players which in due course of time becomes the "Big Daddy". This also eventually leads to bending of rules by the bigger players which in turn again is a perfect recipe for another discontent amongst the consumers. A market should not be confined to few, and effort should be to have more and more players with an equal chance to compete. I am not at any moment of time absolving the private air players from some of their over ambitious-cum-extravagant spending. If one analyses the reasons behind surmounting losses of Aviation Industry, one will realise that surcharge on the already overpriced ATF, landing and parking charges levied by airports, airport development costs have played their part in precipitating the matter further.
hey bk!
i think we are both argiung on very different planes(no puns intented!)u are worried about the monoploy of one player...i m against the monopoly of these capitalists;in fact i am against any monopoly in principle.these Capitalists who think ;and as presently things in this world are moving; very disturbingly,that the interest of the world lies in their profit.n wht consumers are we talking about here?only 2% of ppl in this country can afford to travel by air.there are much serious problems and its high time we decide our priorities.so i m not concerned how the civil aviation industry is doing..its merely adding notes to the already full pockets....but I am concerned about the farmers and the 77% of ppl in this country who struggle for a piece of bread for their children everyday.I am against this very ideology of the market by which we've set our lives, our minds and our body clocks.So if India's civil aviation lags behind the other countries thts absolutely fine...beacause if u see on the human development index...we dont need to go back to square one...we are still there!n whom is this race against....this is wht the market does!its a very dangerous creature i tell you..its only the market that can make u long to fly while u r still hungry for bread.
well...as far as the Human Development Index is concerned we are right there at no.132 behind countries like Congo, Botswana,Guatemala and even the war torn country Vietnam....countries whose GDP are not even near to that of ours.....
What is more worrisome is that this figure didn't even deserve to be on the 1st pages of our newspapers sponsored by the corporate media....
At the same time a small flicker in Sensex can cause flutters in the media and they behave as if the world has fallen down bcoz the rich have become a little lesser rich....that to mayb temporarily.....
The "trickle down theory" is a mirage which just draw u closer to it...the more closer u go...u realise its still far away....u wait for the wealth to trickle down indefinitely....and it doesn't....the situation in which each national decision aims at improving only GDP and not human development is a dangerous one....nd that is xactly what we r seeing right now.....we have been hardwired by the corporate media to think in terms of market and consumers.....and perhaps that is what dictating our priorities....the market treats people as consumers and the state should treat consumers as people......
@anagha:well, your comment "If India's civil aviation industry lags behind the other countries thats absolutely fine" deserves a bit more explanation. Without disagreeing with you on your opinion about human development index, I still hold the view that for India to be a strong, and developed nation, development and growth in all spheres is required. It makes not much of a sense to condmen/criticize a particular sector just because development is not visible in other spheres. It is about growth in all spheres and not growth in the "more important" sectors. I admit that air travel is still not the luxury of the majority and only few can afford it today. But one cannot discredit the fact that these private players had a major role in the increase of domestic passenger traffic from 65.69 million in jan-Dec 2006 to more than 100 million in Jan-Dec 2008. The number may be very small considering India's population but growth rate is for anybody to see. The fact that the Indian state has not been able to achieve much on the front of HDI in no ways means that growht in other "less important" areas need to be stunted. I do no support blind bailout package, it should be somewhat on the lines of bailout by erstwhile Thatcher Govnt. of British Airways. If Air India can be bailed out, somewhat lesser treatment must me meted out to private players, albeit with conditions.Its time to grow as mush as we can in as many areas as possible. The growth in Telecom industry, fuelled by Private players has benefitted all and sundry in India in some or the other way. No one could have conceived this around 1995.We must not view this debate from Capitalism vs Socialism, or Capitalism vs Marxism, rather it should be Capitalism and Socialism and Marxism. Because for Marxist theory to hold good, it must have some one capitalist !!
ok lets face it!
india is a poor country(i dont call a country with a high GDP but one of the lowest HDI a developing one.as i said already we need to redefine the very ways in which we conceptualise development and the very standards by which we measure it.)we are a different country facing societal problems very unique to us and thus the need to self-defined standards of development.(and this applies to all the countries).So, the point is, India has a limited quantum of resources and thus the need to give some sectors priority over the others coz here every sector that develops does it at the cost of the other and thus:
a.the need to give priority to some sectors over others
b.to understand that paying equal attention to all sectors at this point of time is unjust because societal actors as they are placed today are not equal and thus the government should favour the deprived sections.
c.Moreover,this is not to be taken as a sacrifice that the already rich or the ppl owning the "visibly"developed sectors of economy(to use ur terms and that makes me wonder hether u want to say that other sectors are also developing but their growth somehow is invisible)have to make.the poor are poor beacause of a history of injustice which needs to be undone.so, a bail-out for them is not a "trade off" but a right and a need.
so, once we look at this bigger picture we understand that the race is not against some other contries as to who as the highest GDP or a world class air travel facility.
knock knock!we are still a country discussing basic nutritional standards and so its completely fine if some ambani has to loose some crores coz he couldnt travel by air n had to catch a train.and thus "If India's civil aviation industry lags behind the other countries thats absolutely fine"
The telecom industry growth which you have talked about is just another example of how capitalism has evolved itself into reinventing new methods of driving the consumer into the market. This is the very commodity fetishism that i've been talking about all around where u lure people into taking debts for luxury items while their basic needs are not fulfilled.you are well aware of the marketing strategy used by comapnies like reliance where they gave out connections on installments and what not...not beacause they had this altrustic mission of connecting India and wanted a rickshaw driver to own a phone but because in this way they could encash the untouched consumer class which belonged to the lower economic strata.Capitalism has every source of making you want things you dont need(atleast immediately) for its profits.u tell me has the boom in telecom industry in anyway benifitted my 77% BPL population...has it altered their wretched existence???to cite pratyush "trickle down theory' is a myth and a strategy to 'keep the consumer in the market'.that may increase your GDP but not HDI.
So its incoherent to me how u can approach this debate fairly without taking into consideration capitalism and its effects.And bk, there can be no Captilalism and Socialism together as both are mutually exclusive...lets not be so Gandhian.
As regards Marxism and its dependence on Capitalism, Marx has already stated that the communist party will dissolve itself after putting an end to the bourgeios class.(he was a smart guy u see!) So perpetual holding good of Marxist theory is not our goal here.Marx would himself oppose it..as he himself said:"All that is sacred is profane."
I am in harmony with the following views of yours(expressed in the now deleted post):
a)There is a need of self defined standards of development
b)The need to give priority to some sectors over the others
c)The race is not against other countries
But I have other opinions on the following issues:
d)The premise that every sector develops at the cost of other
e)The assumption that "poor" are poor only because of a history of injustice against them
I will start from a) and move down to e). there is definitely a need of self defined standards of development. we have been independent for the last 62 years and have a past and legacy which very few other nations in the world can match. So if we compare ourselves on the scale of standards commonly used to denote development in other parts of the world it will not be completely right. We need to assess for ourselves what are our objectives, priorities and where do we wish to see our nation in times to come. People will have different views on the details of these, but a broad consensus can be arrived at some crux issues.
While fixing our priorities and goals we also need to keep in mind that we are not isolated from the world, and fortunately or unfortunately( depends on your outlook) we live in a world where any development in any part of the globe can have its immediate and direct/indirect impact in the diametrically opposite part of the globe. This is not about some wish-world/utopia but something practical. We cannot deny the reality around us. We can try to run away from it but its sheer existence cannot be done away with. it is in this context that I believe that stunting growth in one sector, howsoever minor it may be or appear to some, simply because of the "unjustice" meted out to other sectors does not sound that logical. attention might be diverted from it but we can not allow growth attained to degrade with time.
On point b), I am in coherence with the views expressed that we need to prioritise. But in arriving at a decision what parameters do we use? What will define which sectors are "more" important and which are less? agriculture has been the star of attraction for a majority of policies for a number of years, but is our state today in agriculture something to be very proud of? We have to accept that we have been inept in improving much in the field which genuinely needs the msot attention. More number of people are linked in some or the other way to this sector than any other sector, yet even today we are almost fully dependent on the erratic monsoons.
We have been lax in giving serious attention to the sector which affects the lives of almost everybody in India. Apart from blowing trumpets about our achievements in various sectors, have we introspected how much progress have we been able to achieve in areas like women emancipation, malnourishment, evils like dowry-child marriage,rural empowerment. I do not for a moment deny that progress has not been made, but the fact that even the sectors which gained the maximum attention have not been able to witness significant growth.
On the other hand sectors like telecommunications, infrastructure which were not considered that importanat have witnessed better growth. So in this context I emphasize that attention must be diverted to all sectors but not the cost of others. This will again hold back our progress.
And as far as c) is concerned, definitely race is not against other countries but India of 2009 must compare itself against India of 1947,India of 1957,1967,1977,1987,1997,2007. we must set a target for India of our dreams, India 2017,India of 2027 and so on. this way we will be on path of "humsey badhkar hum".
continuing with my previous post
Before commenting on d) I would like to hear from you what exactly is our perception of poor?poor in terms of disposable money?poor in terms of assets?poor in terms of land?poor in terms of education?poor in terms of attitude?poor in terms of resources?poor in terms of technical knowhow?poor in terms of available options?Is it a relative concept or an absolute one? By the way if possible do go through one of my articles on similar topic(link on the right hand side) in order to understand my views.
It is because of the above mentioned reason that I will refrain myselves from commenting on the point e).
If we start comparing sector based on their profits and then start discrimination then I feel the path we are onto does not lead to progress.
Let us keep the country apart for sometime and take an example of an organization with various arms. If any of its arms is in trouble the question it needs to ask itself is how should I stabilize it and strengthen it. The moment is not appropriate to compare whether it is contributing to a certain cause when compared to any other arm.
Now returning to the heated debate of HDI vs. aviation industry I feel many sectors are being left out. Let us get in the film industry, automobile sector and lets shut down rolce royes, Skoda and bmw so that all the money which these "capitalists" make gets distributed to people who really need it. But the question we need to ask ourselves is that can the people below poverty line and underprivileged prosper without the presence of these industries and entrepreneurs. Isn’t west Bengal suffering as many industries opt out and the rest black list it as s future option. Is Gujarat not a prosperous state? Or is it progressing due to a reason other than the presence of thriving industries?
I know this will sound capitalist to many but as a matter of fact every industry whether it is aviation, automobile or telecom it not only helps the rich flourish but also nourishes a huge working class. The fact is corroborated by the hue and cry which was caused by sudden cut down off jobs by air Deccan. Relating specifically with the aviation industry it is not only Ambanis and Tatas (who have their chartered flights) that travel via air but hundreds of professionals travel daily using the services of the aviation industry. I do not support cartel formation and ransoming government with strikes in order to achieve a bail out package. Having said that I agree that government intervention is needed in order to handle issues regarding airport costs, ATF costs and other related matters.
I think it is time that we move out of the realm of capitalists, socialist and Marxist and join the club of realists.
i had deleted the first two posts only to compile them into one...alright!it seems the debate has really heated up hmmm!
sorry was busy with some stuff.So bk it seems we have some points of agreement and serious disagreements.Well i guess, broadly the areas of contestations are a realistic approach which even Rahul, here suggests,the "how" factor when it comes to prioritising and my definition of poverty.
before answering these questions i would like to point out some features in your last blog which i found a little paradoxical to your own arguments and thus a reason for some discontentment.
firstly, you yourself blowed some trumpets about the growth in sectors like telecommunications and infrastructure, whereas i have been arguing for education, health, women empowerment, health which are basically related to the issue of poverty; all along.and i have made clear why i said that even if we want to be utopian and say that we want all sectors to develop rapidly and simultaneously the reality is that we do not have enough resources and more importantly available resources for various reasons dont reach to those for whom they are meant.
But i am not a realist, I am a dreamer and I believe that accepting reality merely beacause its reality is defeatism-we must believe in utopia-or how else will we make it happen?
But at this point of time, the way things are -we cannot be equal to all sectors without being unequal to the already deprived.
the second contradiction is-when there is no race as u urself accepted why say humse badhkar kaun?i mean providing basic facilities to everyone from available resouces should not be seen as a feat- this kind of chauvinism though seemingly benign plays huge role in structuring identities,which in turn demand too much in the name of emancipation.
as regards investment in agriculture-here are some figures
Budgetary Spending on the Rural Economy of India
Table-1: Share of Combined* Expenditure on Rural Economy of India (In %)
Year Total Expenditure %of GDP
2003-04 10.65 1.82
2004-05 9.91 1.57
2005-06 11.32 1.60
2006-07 14.58 2.05
2007-08 13.05 1.97
2008-09 RE 22.24 3.69
2009-10 BE 16.09 2.55
Source: Compiled from Annual Financial Statements (AFS), Budget at a Glance, Various Years and Indian Public Finance Statistics, 2007-08, Government of India (GoI)
Note: * Combined expenditure includes expenditure on Agriculture and Allied Activities, Rural Development, Special Area Programmes, Irrigation and Flood Control and Village and Small Industries
So we are not spending even 3% of our GDP on agriculture and related sectors mentioned above.This is our reality and i deny to accept it as fate.Globalistion and opening up of economy is no excuse for people dying of hunger.(But then we have to have that jet --the FRENCH have it...how can we be behind?)
As far as my definition of poverty is concerned the 77% people who live below the povery line by the reason of being below it are then more than poor.they are poor in terms of all the attributes youve mentioned.they hve no land, no food, no education, no oppotunity,no security, no dignity, no respect.
but the real poor according to me are the rest 23% of us who lack the vision to see it, strength to accept it and the "dream" and will to change it!
and i am looking forward to read your views on the history of injustice..but didnt find the specified link.
Your reply deserves a well thought of reply and it will be posted in some time but to clear some of your "misconceptions", I would again following points:
a)I have not blowed any trumpets about developments in the field of telecommunications. I have merely stated something which is known to all and felt by all. In fact the very medium which we are using to share our views(The Internet) is a subset of it. Progress has been made in the field of Telecommunications and it cannot be denied or falsified. It is not merely to "fill the pockets of Ambanis"(by the way there are other players also in this field),today cellular phone is finding its way in the lives of common people in varied forms. Whether to have information about latest grain prices, knowledge about irrigation(Reuters approach in Maharashtra),or health related information, cellular phone is used for various purposes and it depends on the person concerned to use it to his/her need. Gone are the days when one had to wait for a single channel to get latest news info, today one can come to know in advance about the weather forecast on his cellular phone. This is all possible because of the growth in telecom sector. This growth is not for the "Ambanis", or for the "Capitalists" or for the "rich who can afford the ""French JET"" ", it is for you, me, and any other Indian living in metros,cities,districts,towns,villages,talukas,or in jungle.
b) I have never intended to belittle the importance of other sectors which u presume is the case.Other sectors are as important as any other, only difference being that I strive for all round growth in all sector all at the same time, while you seem to be focussed on select sectors and ignore the rest till desired growth is achieved in the selected ones.
c) I am of the opinion that defeatism is not about accepting practical relaities but rather running away from it.Defeat means to lay your arms, and in accepting reality there does not arise any other question of laying arms. If we continue to deny reality how will we make efforts to change it for the better??If one goes by your "utopian" and "dreamer's dreams", one will continue to deny the existence of reality and live in a make-shift world.You cannot march ahead on the road unless and until you admit to your present situation and make efforts to move ahead.
d)And as far as link to my post in related you can click on bhaskarkalyan.blogspot.com
Well after reading Miss Anagha's utopian and unrealistic views I just have one thing to say that “Wars are won by fighting and not dreaming”. When armies go to war they first realize the strength of the enemy and their own thus deciding a strategy and then hope for results. An army of fifty against that of a thousand does not stand much of a chance. All things said and done they fight still. That is realism for you and not defeatism.
Moving on I would agree that different sectors need unequal contribution from the government’s side in order to grow as they are on different levels. Now that is exactly what we mean when we say that each sector whether it is power, telecommunication, railways, infrastructure, IT or any one else needs government support. As far the GDP and allocation of funds to various sectors is concerned the debate is never ending. Every budget has its own aims and the same cannot be repeated every year. If that be the case then the allotment of funds to defense services would be considered a waste by Miss Anagha. The ability to manufacture INS Arihant and the feat of launching Chandrayaan would be trifles. However when we talk about growth, infrastructure and ability to provide the basic amenities to all, over and above all we have to keep in mind inclusive and stable growth of the country as a whole. No sector can be ignored as each contributes on its own and as per its ability. As far the percentage of BPL quoted by Miss Anagha is considered I would like to quote recent figures from the internet
“Almost half of India's most severe poverty is concentrated in just 5 states: Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These poorest states also have to contend with the largest and fastest growing populations. Due to such regional disparities the Indian government rejects the World Banks $1 per day formula for the MDG benchmark, preferring a poverty headcount ratio based on a basket of essential food and non-food items valued separately for each state, and for urban and rural environments. On this unique basis, 37.5% of the population was below the poverty line in the MDG baseline year (1990), falling to 22% in 2005. This figure suggests that the target of halving poverty by 2015 will be achieved; indeed the alternative $1 per day basis gives a similar result of 24%. However, the World Bank has recently recommended that the threshold for extreme poverty should be raised to $1.25 per day which transforms the picture in India. The revised benchmark captures 42% of the population, over 450 million people, one third of the total world figure.”
I would put a wrap by saying GROW ONE GROW ALL.
prof .Utsa Patnaik, eminent econmist and scholar in JNU has done a
extensive study on poverty levels in the country and the figures i
have qouted are recent and from her study and not some government or
world bank datas. and dont even get me started on the policy
formulations that undergo these official surveys undertaken by the
mighty World bank.
Her research by the way has clinched the debate in the academic
world..so Rahul we are not unaware of these govt granted figures...we
have gone ahead into ground realities and proved them wrong!Bye the
way this very research has been recognised by the govt of
India....Wonder why it never makes it to the FIRST page of our
newspapers!!!
BK,as far as the attention paid to various sectors is concerned i
think i have already given my reasons in great length as to why its
not a feasible idea...(at THIS point of time under prevelant
socio-economic conditions).and i dont want to repeat myself again.
moreover people who dream do so because they know what reality
is...and they wish to change it.Dream is a conception of what u want
ur reality to be..its a vision into future.To Rahul I would say that
theoretically Realism is a canon of thought which accepts reality as
it is and believes in adjusting power equations based on optimum
possible outcomes.I guess we are discussing this realism and not some
lay man's understanding here.it is because i admit the present
situation BK that it reality seems so problematic and a dream for a
better future alongwith a will to change it becomes important.
Lastly,Rahul u got it right i am very against the enormous military
expenditures that not just india but other countries make while many
people are denied of their basic necessities.I am a student of
International Relations and thus i very well understand the need to
keep urself secure in an environment of international anarchy but
then this wont take any of us anywhere.So now you see the whole world
is talking about Disarmament.
As i said earlier you guys are debating on a very different plane
which is prevalant in the world today.But then yes "conciousness is
determined by Social existence"...the freedom lies however in escaping
it.
p.s.@rahul:i get your tone with "Miss"Anagha...but i would prefer
being called Anagha.
:)
@anagha
Before getting back into the field of debating again I would like to clear the air about my tone. I did not have any unscrupulous intention. However if I have offended you at any point I apologize. I think the heated debate took the toll on me. Hence forth you can trust me that you will be addressed as anagha strictly.:)I hope things have evened out between us. We will surely continue the debate after a short hiatus. I am sorry once again.
India is a diverse country and a sample of this diversity can be observed in the diversity of thoughts we have over a topic which originally was about the rumoured aid to private airlines, but which later on drifted to other topics.
To a person looking down at the ground, earth might appear to be flat, to a person looking up at the sky earth will look like a sphere. SO it depends on the position you are looking at the world from, change of position results in change of outlook!
I have tried to convey what my experience has been after spending time in the "capitalist" Mumbai,ancient "Kolkata",neglected North Bengal and the "backward" interiors of Jharkhand. Be it this time or be it some other time, overlooking any sector at the cost of other is always a mistake and will remain so howsoever hard we may try to accept it. The definition of reality can be debated in length but it will not change something which is there, something that is real.A student might have different opinion about a topic in the confines of School, but when the world is much more than books, tutorials and assignments,then the reality sinks in and the enormity of it starts making sense.
The issue is not about disarmament, nor about capitalism versus/and(it agains depends on the outlook) socialism, its about growth. Its about growth of a person in Naxal affected garwha district of Jharkhand, its about growth of a urbane scholar of Delhi NCR, its about growht of all and sundry with the collective aim of growth of nation as whole. I believe that growth attained in any sector cannot be allowed to degrade with time and I hold be my views.
Its about growth of one and all and it will be about one and all, be it this time or be it some other time.
( All the same I still refuse to believe that 77% of 1.15 billion Indians,i.e around 80 crores Indians are below poverty line. If that be the case, perhaps definition of below poverty line for me is different from the one conveyed.)
Well....this debate is goin nowhere.....I'm enjoying the fight!!!!!
Seriously speaking....I wud like to add my conclusion/observation/view after going through all ur comments:
1)I don't agree that equal growth in all sectors can happen simultaneously specially in India...This is an ideality which is very difficult to achieve if not impossible.We need to prioritise the allocations to various sectors according to our need. However the big question is that what exactly is our "NEED"...is it multiplicity of market players or is it that we are able to provide food, shelter and books to our disempowered people.
2) As far as poverty level in India is concerned....if u go by the international standards almost 41% of the people are extremely poor (under $1 per day)and 80% of the people are poor( under $2 per day).....
However tendulkar committee on estimating poverty levels has suggested a new methodology for estimating povert level...which hasn't been accepted yet....Kerala govt. has formulated a methodology based on people's access to a variety of necessities like sanitation, food, shelter etc...whereas the present system is based on income level only....so whatever be the xact poverty level..i am not sure...but its definitely higher than the govt. quoted figure...
3) enuf has been said about dreams and reality....in this i wud only like to quote APJ: "Dream, dream, bcoz dreams inspire action which turns into reality", However we must dream realistically....like dreaming that all sectors of india progresses equally in present circumstances is not possible....however we must not stop striving for creating such a circumstance....the closer we come 2 it....the better....
4)Wat i feel is to achieve growth we must take out of every principle: be it socialism, capitalism or marxism...its best parts and put it into practice.....history has shown that state which has gone for absolute capitalism/socialism/marxism has not done fairly well.....its not about being left or right...its about remaining in centre and creating policies which can satisfy both right and left......keeping in mind the interest of the last person in the society...
@ anagha & Rahul: i hope things have evened out between u ppl.....lets not get personal in discussing topics of national importance...
we are a nation of argumentative ppl.....the very fact that we have different views points to the fact that there is a need for a regulatory mechanism which can use money generated by corporations for social benefit...and not only for increasing GDP on paper....only a deliberate mechanism can push inside the society...the wealth created by the corporations.....and not by the "trickle down theory"......
@bk:
i think we are deviating from the crux of the debate...u r denying the very grounds on which a debate is layed..facts and reports remain crucial to a debate whether u choose to believe them or not...n yes its true that the standards by which concepts are defined make loads of things clearer.(in a debate n in life:))
@ rahul:
no issues...i guess the topic is too close to ur heart:)
@ pratyush:thank u for being a saviour n summing it up pratyush...its been a really long debate...n ur friends have made me repeat the same point over and over again...this debate has come a full circle....i agree with most of the part.
what's important is to see the numerous issues that came about which only prove that its all interconnected...there are no water tight compartments...no sphere of society is mutually exclusive...and thus each one's development is in symbiosis with and simultaneously at the cost of the other.There is a famous qoute which says "there is freedom in destroying all powers which claim to invent absolute truths"....unless and until we challenge the mechanisms of power constructed knowledge..which has constucted our very beings to be blind to these power stuctures ...which in turn inhibit the way we think and the very ways in which we can imagine change...there is no freedom.
i guess i'll leave u guys with this thought.phew!
gift delivery
cake delivery
birthday gift delivery
Post a Comment