|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
Research Holds Key:CHINA TO OVERTAKE AMERICA, by Dr. Vinod Mehta,14 February 2008 |
|
|
ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS
New Delhi, 14 February 2008
Research
Holds Key
CHINA TO OVERTAKE AMERICA
By Dr. Vinod Mehta
(Former Director, Research, ICSSR)
China is being billed to replace the US as a
powerhouse of scientific research and development of new technologies in the
coming years. As acknowledged by even the Americans. A new study of worldwide
technological competitiveness in the US
suggests that “China may
soon rival the US as the principal
driver of the world's economy - a position the U.S. has held since the end of
World War II. If that happens, it will mark the first time in nearly a century
that two nations have competed for leadership as equals.”
Thus China
will overtake the US
in the critical ability to develop basic science and technology, turn these
developments into products and services and then market them to the world.
“Though China is often seen as just a low-cost producer of manufactured goods,
the new ‘High Tech Indicators’ study done by researchers at the Georgia
Institute of Technology clearly shows that the Asian powerhouse has much bigger
aspirations.”
The US
researchers have also noted that in 2007 China
had a technological standing of 82.8, compared to 76.1 for the US, 66.8 for Germany
and 66.0 for Japan.
Just 11 years ago, China's
score was only 22.5. The US
peaked in 1999 with a score of 95.4.
Again, Israel, a nation of just 6 million
people, is also fast becoming a world leader in high technology. With 135 engineers
per 100,000 people, it has the highest number of engineers per capita in the
world, a proportion double that of the US. Numerous American and Silicon
Valley firms have set up research and development facilities in Israel like
Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and IBM. And the country,
home to some 2,000 technology start-up companies - has the world's greatest
concentration of such firms outside of Silicon Valley.
Where does India stand in
terms of scientific research and development of technologies? We are a nation of one billion plus and one
of the fastest growing economies. Can we sustain this growth rate without
scientific research and development of new technologies? Some of our business houses are taking over
businesses in other countries including developed countries but what do we have
to contribute to technological innovation of these businesses?
Frankly, speaking except for a few
areas like space we are duds as far as scientific research and development of
new technologies are concerned. We have
spent large funds over the years on developing a main battle tank and a light
combat aircraft and yet we are still nowhere.
Given the situation in our
neighbourhood, our defence preparedness requires that we are battle ready with the
latest technologies. Sadly, since we are unable to develop critical
technologies the country is spending huge sums on importing defence
equipments. If we were to make these
equipments with our own technologies we would not only be generating jobs in
the manufacturing sector but also saving a lot of money.
India has one of the largest railways
networks in the world but the country is dependent upon nations like France and South
Korea for reliable signaling system, on Germany for
designing of ultra modern passenger coaches. This is true of many other areas
like machinery for the manufacturing and the construction sectors. Yes, India is way ahead in the
development of IT software but we cannot design and manufacture a pen drive or
flash cards for use in the computers, digital cameras and mobile phones.
Scandalously, all these are being imported from China!
Sometimes while purchasing
equipments from foreign companies the powers-that-be insist on the transfer of
technology. But in most cases, the so-called transfer of technology is a mere
eyewash. No country or foreign company which has spent millions or perhaps
billions of dollars on scientific research and perfecting technologies is going
to transfer it to India.
And why should they?
If India wishes to be counted among nations like the
US, Russia, UK,
France, Germany, Japan,
South Korea and China it has no
option but to rely on its own basic and applied scientific researches. It needs
continuous development and perfecting of new technologies in every field be it
defence, space, industry or agriculture. To achieve this we have to attract
talent and reward them handsomely. At
times even hire foreign talent for critical technology.
Remember, what set the US apart from
other countries as an economic power after World War 1 was its scientific
research and the technologies it developed and used in various fields like
space, defence, medicine, industry, agriculture et al. The strong point of
European countries particularly UK,
France and Germany along with Japan too was the same.
However, the Soviet
Union directed all its energies to develop defence and space
technologies, given the Cold War Era. And, Long after World
War II, South Korea
concentrated on scientific research and development of new technologies and
today stands close to Japan
in terms of research and technology in the industrial sector. Israel, like
the Soviets, has concentrated on defence technologies. Except for the US and erstwhile Soviet Union most of the other
countries are smaller or much smaller in size than India.
However, unlike India, where
researchers are paid peanuts, other countries reward their researchers
handsomely. In the Soviet Union scientists
engaged in defence and space research are paid salaries and perks which are
much higher than the salaries and perks of the Politburo members. In the US those
engaged in scientific research are not only highly paid but it faces no problem
in hiring the best foreign researchers. However,
post 9/11 hiring of foreign scientists has become strict leading to the US losing
ground to other countries in the development of new technologies.
On the heels of
the US, China too is following
suit. It is single-mindedly concentrating on training scientists and engineers
who conduct researches needed to maintain the country’s technological
competitiveness. And if China persists as it will, India by
comparison will become a weak economy.
Clearly, if the
country has to maintain its growth rate at around 10 per cent to be counted as
a developed nation and stand up to others, we must strengthen our research
base, develop our own technologies and stop looking up to other nations for
joint researches or transfer of technology.
Attract talent and reward them handsomely. There is no short cut to this. ---- INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
More Economic Reforms:CHANGE MINDSETS PLEASE, by Dr. Vinod Mehta,7 February 2008 |
|
|
Economic
Highlights
New
Delhi, 7 February 2008
More Economic
Reforms
CHANGE
MINDSETS PLEASE
By Dr. Vinod
Mehta
Former
Director, Research, ICSSR
The process of economic reforms has taken roots
in the past 15 years. The CPM too cannot deny its necessity. Deng Xio Ping was
the first Chinese communist to have understood the importance of market economy
and economic reforms. He knew these could catapult China into a major economic power
and put the economy on the reform path. It was in the 80s, much earlier than India
did. Look where the Chinese economy stands today.
And, if we even after these long years were to
ask: what is the greatest hurdle in the way of economic reforms the answer
would be the bureaucracy. Yes, even today. That is to say, those who are
responsible for liberalizing the economy have still somewhat outdated mindsets
and are unwilling to implement the reforms in spirit. But they are a hurdle not by any design but by
a mindset, which has been nurtured over the past six decades i.e to say the
least anti-developmental.
Let’s go step by step. The first point to be
noted is that the main duty of any bureaucrat is to provide efficient
government administration -- in all aspects, such as maintenance of law and order,
provision of welfare measures, including education and health care, provision
of clean drinking water, maintenance of land and other records, collection of
taxes etc. And, this calls for a particular mindset and a different kind of
administrative training.
But, when you put such administrators to take
economic or business decisions they would in all probability mess up the whole
situation by applying the same yardstick as in basic administration. A person good at maintaining law and order or
in running a good system of schools will not necessarily
run economic enterprises with same efficiency.
This is because the Indian Administrative Service
produces general administrators, who are rotated throughout their tenure in various
departments or ministries. An officer could well be posted one day in the Law Ministry,
the next day in Commerce Ministry, the next in the department of animal
husbandry (Ministry of Agriculture), or the next to the Department of higher
education (Ministry of Human Resource Development) and eventually retire in the
Department of surface transport.
Therefore, when such people are asked to man
economic enterprises majority of them would mess up. One can list a number of
examples, but let’s take the case of Air India and Indian Airlines, which
stand merged today. While the world over, airlines are run by professionals, it is in India that the bureaucrat has been
given the day-to-day charge of Air India; elsewhere airline companies have expanded
at a feverish pace, whereas Air India and Indian have yet to grow (of course
some have closed down). Airlines such as Singapore
or Thai are popular with travelers, however, Air India is opted by those who have no
other option or when the Government forces its employees to fly only this
carrier.
So, bringing untrained bureaucrats to man
business-related units will not only mess up the whole unit but may also bring
a bad name to bureaucrats. Thus, the best way out for the Government would be to
get out of the business of running
economic enterprises and concentrate on governance alone. If this is not possible
in the immediate future, the Government could consider at least retraining them.
It would help change mindsets so that they are capable of running economic
units.
At the same time, the Government needs to re-look
the structure of ministries; a comparison with other countries would show that
some of the ministries existing here don’t exist elsewhere. For instance, countries such as the U.K. and Thailand have no ministries as
Civil Aviation, Information and Broadcasting, Food Processing. Further, many countries do not have like us the department
of banking under the Ministry of Finance as commercial banks come under the
supervision of the central bank.
Then there are so many additional ministries that
bureaucratization of every activity appears to have taken place. Abroad, say the
Ministry of transport would cover all modes of transport, whereas here we have
the three ministries-- railways, transport and civil aviation, which have
little coordination amongst each other. Likewise, when there is a ministry of
industry where is the need to have separate ministries for steel, for textiles
and food processing? Add to this,
equal number of bureaucrats in each ministry. Let us, therefore, rethink structures
of our ministries and wonder why any ministry should be running hotels, steel
mills or textile mills?
On the question of mindset, it is equally, if
not more important to change the mindsets of people at the junior level – say of
directors, deputy secretaries, undersecretaries and section officers. This is
because it is they who put up the cases before their seniors --joint
secretaries, additional secretaries and secretaries. In all likelihood, the senior
officers do not have the time to go through all details and to quite an extent
would accept opinions and take a
decision on the notes put up by their junior staff.
Tragically, the ministry of finance, which is
supposed to be pioneering the economic reforms, is too a victim of this mindset. Ask staff in the autonomous bodies under various
ministries whether the babus in the
finance ministry have forced them to have sleepless
nights over questions which could pass off as irrelevant. The answer may well
be a resounding yes.
This apart, it needs to be emphasized that most
of the ministries have their fingers in every pie. Though there are autonomous
bodies, statutory bodies or special organizations created under an act of
Parliament, at the end all would ultimately be controlled by the babus in ministries. Unless we make
efforts to change mindsets, which don’t go well with the philosophy of economic
reforms we shall not be able to implement economic reforms, even if we
seriously wanted to.
Given the developments of the past 15 years, it
is clear that unless we spell change
the process of implementation of
economic reforms is going to be tardy. Outdated mindsets, which we have
inherited, shall unintentionally continue to put spokes in the wheels of economic
reforms.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
PDS Should Be For Poorest:EXCESS FOOD, NO MORSEL TO EAT, by Dr. Vinod Mehta, 31 January 2008 |
|
|
ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS
New Delhi, 31 January 2008
PDS Should Be For Poorest
EXCESS FOOD, NO
MORSEL TO EAT
By Dr. Vinod Mehta
(Former Director, Research, ICSSR)
Over four
years ago, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee admitted that the implementation of
the Public Distribution System (PDS) had not measured up to the public’s
expectation. He observed that the targeted PDS did not seem to be working well
in many places especially in the rural North and North-Eastern States.
He confessed this while inaugurating
a seminar on “Towards a Hunger Free India” organized jointly by the Planning
Commission, World Food Programme and
the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.
At another forum he expressed
his concern over the peculiar dilemma the country faced: of excess food and low consumption. Recall, in 2002 some of
the NGOs had reported tribal deaths due to starvation in Rajasthan’s Baran
district and Kashipur in Orissa. Primarily
because the people could not afford to buy the grains even at the subsidized
rates.
Not only that. Many of them did not even possess the Below
Poverty Line (BPL) cards that entitled them to purchase foodgrains at
subsidized rates in ration shops. Some of them even mortgaged their BPL cards
to money lenders or local traders.
Though no starvation deaths have been reported in recent
times yet it is also well known that food is not reaching the targeted poor
people. It is in this context that the functioning of the PDS needs a closer look,
is suitably revised and revamped so that food reaches the really needy people.
Look at the irony. Despite surplus
food stocks, reportedly at least 50 million Indians are on the brink of
starvation and over 200 million Indians are under-fed. Scandalously, about 60
million tonnes of surplus foodgrain is rotting in various Government warehouses
in the country.
Clearly, the fact that people are
starving when there is a surplus of grains is an indictment of the Government’s
Public Distribution System. The PDS has a network of about 4,60,000 ration
shops across the country through
which grain, sugar, cooking oil etc are sold at subsidized rates.
It is reported that at
the national level leakages from the PDS amount to nearly 1.5 times the actual
amount of grain needed. A Planning Commission report on the PDS states: “In the
year 2003-04, out of 14.07 million tonnes of foodgrain issued to 16 States at
BPL prices from the Central pool, only around 5.93 million tonnes were
delivered to the poor families.”
Also
remember, the need for the PDS was felt in 1958 when the food production had
dropped. Prior to that there was the rationing system which was introduced
during the Second World War to manage the limited food stock but this was discontinued
in 1943. It was again introduced in 1950 to regulate the public distribution of
foodgrain as a deliberate social policy.
The main idea
behind the public distribution system was: a) to provide foodgrain and other
items of daily necessities to the
poorer sections of the society at affordable (subsidized) price; b) to
influence the market prices of cereals to keep them under control and c) to
ensure equity in the matter of distribution of essential
commodities. In other words, the PDS from rationing evolved into a national
food security system.
The PDS was
established during the period when India was facing shortages of
essential agricultural commodities. For a number of years it served the purpose
well for which it was introduced. However, today we have reached a situation
where there is no shortage of foodgrain etc. but still some of the poorer
sections of the society are not getting the foodgrain they need.
This has been
attributed to various factors. One, the PDS itself leaves much to be desired.
The grain, though available in godowns,
is unable to reach those sections of the society which need them the most. The
district Administration has been found wanting in transporting the grain to the
poorest of the people.
Two, even
after subsidies, the price of grain is so high, due to the increase in the
procurement price of grain along with the rising components of cost of the Food
Corporation of India, that many poor people in the target group cannot afford
to buy it. It is common knowledge that approximately 36% of the population live
below the poverty line which means that their income is not sufficient to buy
adequate quantity of food. Also, about 80% of the poor people live in rural and
tribal areas.
Three, the
poorest sections of the society are not able to meet their food requirements because
our PDS concentrates heavily on rice and wheat and leaves out coarse grain like
maize, barley, millet and sorghum.
Moreover, the
Government’s support to rice and wheat has led to the neglect of these grains
which are not only relatively cheaper but the staple diet of many of the rural
people. Since there is no support price for them the farmers are shifting to
wheat and rice production. Hence, we have a situation where the Government
policy has favoured wheat and rice production at the cost of the poor peoples’
staple diet.
However, as the things stand, there is a surplus of grain
but people do not have the sufficient purchasing power to meet their
requirements from the market. Undoubtedly, the country needs to approach this
problem at various levels.
First, the employment opportunities for the BPL people will
have to be increased so that they can earn enough to buy their grain
requirement from the market. Plainly, they need remunerative employment on a
regular basis. The food-for-work programme is not enough. It needs to be
strengthened.
Second, we should look at the institutional arrangements to
distribute the foodgrain directly to the starving people. In such cases there
is no need of selling them any grain as they can’t afford to buy. But at the
same time, institutions like the Panchayats
should see to it that these people do not go hungry. The district Administration
should help the Panchayats organize
community kitchens and the cost for giving food to them should be borne by the Government
itself.
Third, the emphasis should be shifted from the production of
rice and wheat to the production of coarse grain which is cheaper and
affordable for many of the poorer sections of the society. Unlike rice and
wheat, coarse grains do not need a lot of water and fertilizer and are cheaper
to grow in areas of scarce water.
That apart, since the output of grain has reached a comfortable
level, questionably is it essential to keep large quantities of grain in state godowns beyond a certain level? The cost
of storing so much grain is also responsible for keeping the prices very high.
We may have to think of alternative ways of storing grains so that the costs
become lower. Keeping in view the costs involved, it is uneconomical to store
grain by the State beyond a certain level.
One way could be to issue food coupons so that the poorest
people may buy their food requirements from the market and the State reimburses
the money to the shopkeeper. But it will be difficult to implement this in
tribal and remote areas.
However, the nation must find a way out to balance the grain
storage requirement of the nation from the security point of view and the need
of the poorest people to get food. The money saved on storage costs could
perhaps be used to give free grain to the poorest people in times of distress.
The long term solution however, is to generate jobs and give
adequate purchasing power to the poorest of the people so that they can
purchase their own food from the market.---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Growth Of Small Sector:KEEPING UP WITH THE MNCs, by Dr. Vinod Mehta,23 January 2008 |
|
|
ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS
New Delhi, 23 January 2008
Growth Of Small
Sector
KEEPING UP WITH THE
MNCs
By Dr. Vinod Mehta
Former Director,
Research, ICSSR
It was feared that the economic reforms which generally
favoured big industries would undermine the existence and development of small
and tiny units. However, the developments of the past one and a half decade
show that the small sector far from being undermined is not only surviving the
competition but is also growing and changing to adapt to the new marketing
environment.
Short of entering into expensive and sometimes unwinable
advertising wars, the small, the tiny and the unorganized sector are
concentrating on quality aspects of marketing to retain and expand their share
of the market. Some have even tied up with the bigger companies in the form of
backend linkages for supplying of certain components to one single
manufacturer. These are the stories coming out of small and medium towns of India.
Before we dwell on this, let us be clear about three points.
One, as an economic historian would say, when the market is growing in a very
general way every manufacturer finds that the demand for his product is also
growing. Be it a multi-national company (MNC) or a small scale sector firm.
Also, along with an increase in the demand of a commodity, the demand for its
substitutes also grows. For instance, if the demand for a MNC drink grows, the
demand for lemonade produced in the small sector also grows; if the MNCs
advertise for biscuits, the tiny sector finds that its sales of biscuits are
also growing.
Two, even as we always perceive one monolithic market for
one kind of product, the reality is somewhat different. For practical purposes the
market can be broadly divided into two categories --- a market of individual or
family buyers and a market of institutional buyers (like hotels, hotels,
canteens, offices, establishments etc). The individual buyers usually buy
things in small quantities while institutional buyers buy in bulk; the
institutional buyers are relatively more cost-conscious than individual buyers.
Again, in the case of an individual or a family buyer it is the carry home pay-packet
which generally determines its demand pattern.
Finally, within these two broad categories of markets,
namely individual and institutional, there are various layers of markets
catering to different segments of people and institutions. For instance, both a
five star hotel restaurant and a dhaba need
edible oil for cooking purposes but both will use different qualities of edible
oil, and hence their sources or procurement would be different. Besides, the
products of the MNCs and large industrial houses may appeal to the people of
upper income brackets and to the institutions patronized by them but the vast
majority will still be attracted to goods which are relatively cheaper and
produced in the small sector.
Coming to the changes that are occurring in the small scale
sector, we find that one of the consequences of the liberal economic policies
has been that both the consumers and the producers have suddenly become
conscious of quality. The consumers are now demanding quality products at
competitive prices. The small scale sector including the tiny sector has
started responding to this by improving the quality of their products.
From biscuits and other bakery products, readymade garments
to food processors and coolers one can see a significant improvement in the
quality of their products --- in some products the improvement is more and in
some others it is less. But the most
important fact is that the small scale sector has come to realize that it
cannot survive without improving the quality of its products and that it has to
be constantly innovative. Since these units cannot advertise their products,
one has to see for oneself the quality of their products in actual shops.
The second consequence of liberalization for the small scale
sector has been that it has now started paying serious attention to packaging.
The goods are now being packed by them in colourful attractive packages. Be it
biscuits or bread, a shirt or a jean, a bath soap or a detergent powder. The
individual shopkeepers of groceries can now be seen cleaning bulk products like
pulses and packaging them in convenient packs for retail sale. Similarly, new garments being sold on the
roadside are being packed in a similar fashion as those in big stores. Many
things which the shopkeepers used to weigh in front of us are today sold in a
pre-packaged form.
Thirdly, the small and the tiny sector have also started
using brand names for their products. Though these brands are seldom
advertised, yet the small scale sector is attempting to build its own brand
following despite being limited to a particular territory. For instance, a few years ago, Delhi citizens could buy
bread made by one of the two big bread manufacturers or from one of the
numerous small bakeries. But in the past 10 years apart from the two big bread manufacturers,
a large number of other branded breads from the small scale sector are being
sold in large numbers in Delhi.
Fourthly, the concept of neighbourhood provision stores is
slowly giving way to supermarkets of all kinds where all the products for sale
are displayed on the shelves. One finds the
products of the small sale sector getting the same exposure as the products of the
large sector leaving the decision to the consumers. This was not possible under the old concept
of provision stores where one had to demand an item by name.
The arrival of the concept of the supermarket has brought
the unadvertised products of the small sector on the open shelves for the
public to choose from. Even the highbrow supermarkets are displaying the
products of the small and tiny sector and thus helping them enlarge their
customer base. The reason supermarkets display and sell the products of small
sector is that they earn higher profit margins on these products.
As far as the non-food sector is concerned, the small scale
units are upgrading their technical base with help from large companies with
which they may have backend linkages like auto parts. Since large companies
outsource the manufacture of their small components they also maintain quality
control by helping these units buy and assimilate new technologies. In these
kinds of backend linkages the small scale units do not have to worry about
their sale targets.
There are some problems with the small scale units in rural
areas as their demand base is limited to a few nearby villages and have almost
no forward linkages with large companies to sustain them. Thus, there is an
urgent need to study the impact of economic reforms on the small scale and tiny
units in rural areas and then devise policy measures to help them to sustain
themselves.
There is no gainsaying that the small scale sector, far from
being overawed by the MNCs and by the large domestic sector has not only
changed but is still continuing to change with the times, adopting new
approaches and strategies to stay put in the vast Indian market.
Going by the experience of the past 15 years, competition
from the MNCs and the large domestic companies has not spelt the death knell of
the small sector. Besides, if the country were to fully de-reserve the small
sector, it would not only survive but become more robust. It has its own dynamics. --- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Joining Developed Nations League:GET CRACKING ON INFRASTRUCTURE, by Dr. Vinod Mehta,17 January 2008 |
|
|
ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS
New Delhi, 17 January 2008
Joining Developed
Nations League
GET CRACKING ON
INFRASTRUCTURE
By Dr. Vinod Mehta
(Former Director,
Research ICSSR)
For almost five decades India
was content to be known as a “developing” or a “Third World”
country. Then in the last decade of the 20th
century economic reforms happened and the growth rate doubled from around 4 per
cent to 8 per cent and India
came to be known as the “emerging” economy, one of the fastest growing
economies in the world after China.
The developments of the past one and a half decade have
brought a sea change in the thinking of some of our leaders. They all want that
India
should become a developed country in the next few years. It was the former
President of India, A.P.J.
Abdul Kalam, who in his book “Vision 2020” shared his vision of India as a
developed nation.
This change in the mindset of some of our leaders is very
important and gives the necessary confidence to the nation to achieve that
milestone. The acquisition of foreign companies by Indian companies, the
confidence shown by multinational companies in Indian managers, the enhancement
of Indian engineering skills as witnessed with the introduction of the Tata's
small car Nano etc. provides the necessary psychological prop to think of
ourselves as a developed nation in a few years from now.
The average citizen has also started thinking in those
terms. The date 2020 is not sacrosanct in the sense that on 1 January 2020 we
would become a developed nation like Japan
or Germany.
The important thing is that we should start working in that direction and
endeavour to achieve that goal say in the next 20 to 25 years. The timing is
correct, what we need is a clear road-map to achieve that status. The Eleventh
Five Year Plan could be termed as a beginning point for our journey towards a
developed country.
Some people may think of it as a cynical idea. Even after 60
years of Independence we have not been able to
ensure safe drinking water to every person or achieve 100% literacy so why talk
about India
as developed nation? Well this is a brute fact and should be recognized so, and
efforts doubled to solve these issues on an urgent basis.
However, it is the vision which is very important. Nehru had
a vision of India
as a developed country over a period of time. This vision led him to set up
institutions like the IITs, IIMs, Centre for Scientific & Industrial Research,
Indian Space Research Organisation, Atomic Energy Commission. Defence Research
& Development Organisation, Agricultural universities, AIIMS and even
research in the field of social sciences and humanities.
People had at that time also laughed at him but today after
60 years the achievements by Indian scientists, engineers, doctors, managers,
social scientists are known the world over. We are at a stage now where we can
talk about and think about achieving
the status of a developed country in the coming years.
The eyes of many countries are focused on India. The
events and developments are being closely watched by them. There are some
powers which would not like India
to become a developed nation and so are engaged in pinpricking. It could take
the form of denial of certain technologies or ill-treatment of software
personnel, medical doctors etc. Therefore, keeping in mind that other countries
would like to stall or delay our march towards a developed nation, we must have
a clearly defined path to achieve the goal of becoming a developed nation.
As a first step, problems like illiteracy, lack of safe
drinking water which have been with us since Independence need to be tackled on a war
footing. Most of the diseases are water borne. If we can ensure safe drinking
water to everyone the health of the population will generally improve and there
will be less pressure on our hospitals.
As far as education is concerned it is simply not enough to
have literate people but people with a qualification up to a minimum school
level say 10th standard. If the country is going to use computers in almost
every aspect of life, it is essential that the population is educated enough to
handle and work on these gadgets. The Knowledge Commission has rightly
emphasized the quality aspect of our elementary and higher education.
Having said that, let’s now try to build on our strengths.
As we know, the process of economic reforms is on for the past 15 years. In the
past one and a half decade many new first time entrepreneurs have emerged in
the country such as Infosys, Wipro and many others. The process of economic
reforms needs to be accelerated further so that we are able to complete this
process in the next five years.
If the economy is competitive in the international market it
will automatically become a strong over a period of time. Without a strong
economy and a strong financial system we will not be able to keep abreast with
the developed nations. The results of economic reforms are now for everyone to
see; Indian firms are becoming lean and cost effective now.
After the reforms in the industrial sector we should now
complete the economic reforms in the financial sector also. Steps have already
been taken like the establishment of private sector banks, private insurance
companies, setting up of Pension Funds, relaxation in foreign currency
regulations and so on. But we must speed up the reforms in this sector and get
rid of Non Performing Assets at the earliest.
However, we have yet to start reforms in the agricultural
sector. This is an area which has a very big potential to make us a developed
country. Till date, we do not have any agricultural policy worth the name. Our
productivity of agricultural crops per hectare is much lower than the
productivity in other countries. Though we are number one in milk production today
it is due to the fact that we have a large number of milch cattle and not
because the productivity of our milch cattle is high as in other developed
countries.
The market for agricultural products is still
under-developed in terms of infrastructure and access to international markets.
Countries like Holland and Germany grow more grains per hectare than India and get
more milk from limited number of cattle stock. Therefore, to make India a
developed country we will have to bring the agricultural sector on par with the
agricultural sector in the developed countries.
Technologies play an important role in making a country
developed or not so developed. Why America is on the top today is
because of the fact that it has the best technologies in the world. Indian
scientists have also done well to develop technologies which can put India at par
with other developed countries. In fact,
many of our scientists and technologists working outside India have
contributed to scientific research in those countries. If we can get our act
together and consolidate our position in the technological sphere then we can
claim to become a developed country.
There is also a need to change the mindsets of the people to
bring them in tune with the one in developed countries. For instance, over a
period time we should start reducing our dependence on concessional loans from
various countries and instead start giving concessional loans to other
developing countries.
When collaborating with foreign countries on research we
should always insist of becoming an equal partner instead of a junior partner.
For participation in international conferences we should stop taking any
assistance from developed countries for our travel and stay by arguing that we
belong to a Third World country. We should be
able to pay from our own resources for participation of our academics in
international conferences and symposia.
Finally, we also need to have a world-class infrastructure
ready in the next 15 years. We need to set up a world-class communication
system, transport system including good road and rail network. All these are minimum requirements for the
emergence of a developed nation, which India aspires to be. ---- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 Next > End >>
| Results 5959 - 5967 of 6263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|