Dhurjati Mukherjee
The last leg of election 2014 has sadly seen almost all political parties mired in personal barbs at each other rather than talk about their vision and plans for the next five years. The buzz word of development has indeed taken a back seat. Additionally, poll campaigning has revealed that the spirit of community development, that was once a part of our national behaviour, has steadily vanished because certain traits like jealousy, greed and hatred have overtaken the human individual. And politicians are no exception.
While the much-talked about Gujarat model triggered a debate, its import has got lost in the fight for votes on the basis of religion and caste. That development means something that benefits the masses, assures them not just food but other basic necessities such as potable water and sanitation and, of course, shelter – what politicians call ‘inclusive approach’ – has not transformed into reality because most present day politicians are not interested in this vital aspect.
“Is the growth big business, the making of huge profits, the achievement of high production – what we seek? Or is it the quality of life for the majority in terms of affordable basic goods and services and the freedom to take forward the cultural aspirations of our plural, social groups that make up India?”, was a pertinent question raised by a principal of a Mumbai college, which unfortunately got entangled in a controversy of politicising the college campus.
But wasn’t his approach very much Gandhian in nature? He had stated that the human development index indicators and the cultural polarization of the population show that “Gujarat has had a terrible experience in the last 10 years”. Schools for ordinary people were neglected while higher education hasn’t been allowed to move forward. Likewise, renowned economist, Prof. Amartya Sen, too stated that “Gujarat’s record in education and health is pretty bad” though the State grew at over 10 per cent between 2002 and 2012. Moreover, the State’s average monthly per capita income of Rs 2472 per person was lower than the national average though it may be considered relatively developed. It is only when there is social infrastructure development, the poor and the economically weaker sections can enter the mainstream of life and activity.
Indeed, the industrial growth rate of a State cannot be the sole criterion of grassroot development of the people as such progress has been seen to benefit the business Houses. And, since such Houses have close relations with political leaders, these prosper, causing problems for the poor.
Gandhi had questioned the mode of development that has been adopted by Gujarat. He had pointed out way back in the early 40s: “I do visualize electricity, shipbuilding, iron works, machine making and the like. But the order of precedence has to be reverse. Henceforth industrialization has been so planned as to destroy the villages and their crafts. In the state of the future it will subserve the villages and their crafts”. This has resulted in the rural sector being neglected, there is heavy influx from the rural to the urban areas and unemployment and underemployment showing an upward trend.
The college principal has thus been realistic in noting that no magic or divine miracle will come to the aid of the Indian people. “Their reasoned choice of individuals and political parties who promise to work for a real quality of life for all will see India prosper or flounder on the precipice”.
If Modi follows Chidambaram’s policy of only focusing on high growth rate without adhering to other requirements of grassroot development, the quality of life of the poorer segments cannot be improved. Thus there is need to change the strategy of development and adopt a policy of good governance with inclusive growth that is so often voiced by our political leaders but rarely put into practice.
Today, the problems facing the country are of diverse nature from increasing pollution and warming temperature, affecting food production to declining agricultural productivity to insufficient funds for health and education as also rise in unemployment and underemployment. All these are primarily affecting the economically weaker sections, for whom the powers-that-be have little concern.
There is a need to focus on the rural sector and utilize maximum resources for social and physical infrastructure development. The amended Companies Act, which has made corporate social responsibility mandatory, must be utilized and the government needs to direct them in this regard. A company should not be allowed to spend money in areas of its choice but there should be a central committee of the Corporate Affairs Ministry which should hand out the projects it could take up.
This could be one way of resource generation but other areas have also to be thought of, such as additional taxation of the super rich and reduction in defence expenditure. For rural areas to develop, all types of illegal mining must be stopped and strong monitoring ensured. The Environment Ministry has to play a crucial role to see that the affected population – who mostly reside in rural and/or remote areas — are properly rehabilitated and that mining activities do not cause much pollution – whether air, water or soil contamination. Corporate houses not adhering to the laws of the land have to be booked.
The rural sector has to be rejuvenated and the disparity in incomes and facilities between cities and towns, on the one hand and rural areas, on the other reduced to the extent possible. One is reminded of former President A P J Kalam’s vision of PURA (Providing Urban Facilities in Rural Areas) to ensure that sustainable rural development takes place. If the new government has the political will and proper insight, making this a reality will not be an impossible task.
The whole point is that the exodus from the rural to the urban areas has to be arrested at any cost and this could only be done through micro-level planning and rural development efforts. No form of subsidizing the urban middle class at the cost of the rural poor should be entertained. In this connection, Modi’s assurance of increasing agricultural support price may help boost up the sector. However, while such a policy has positive traits of gearing up the languishing farm sector, the resultant effect of food inflation has also to be considered.
The question that obviously emerges is will the desired change in our developmental approach come about? One needs to be optimistic on this count as there are enough indications of a transformation in outlook occurring in the minds of some– activists, economists and a larger section of society. If the young generation gets the leadership of the political parties, there is hope of a perceptible change in the developmental policies of the government – both at the Centre and in at least some of the States.
But one thing is certain that the poor and the backward sections – the tribals, dalits and other such communities – cannot be neglected for long as this will have more serious consequences both on the social and economic front. There has to be developmental growth – more businesses by the people, for the people and of the people. The vision for the future should be based on Gandhiji’s charkha, which symbolized that people would be earners and owners of their own enterprise – the new meaning of inclusive democratic capitalism. INFA
Follow our WhatsApp channel