REWIND

New Delhi, 18 January 2024

Opposition Unity And V.P. Singh

By Inder Jit

(Released on 11 October 1988)

All those interested in seeing a strong Opposition emerge as a credible alternative to the Congress-I at the national level will need to keep their fingers crossed. The Janata, Lok Dal-B, Congress-S and Jan Morcha are due to meet at a foundation conference at Bangalore today to launch their unified party to be called Samajwadi or Rashtriya Janata Dal. High drama preceded this meeting during the past fortnight and more. On occasions, the unified party appeared to be coming through. On others, its formation looked like going up in smoke. It was touch and go on Monday last week when the Steering Committee failed to meet. Hopes revived when the Committee met a day later on Tuesday. But a question mark again went up over its future by Friday night. Fortunately, Mr. V.P. Singh, backed by Mr. R.K. Hegde, Mr. Biju Patnaik and many others, persevered in their decision to hold the party’s foundation conference on October 11, birth anniversary of Jayaprakash Narayan. Nevertheless, one question remains. Will the leaders merely pay lip service to the Lok Nayak or will they truly emulate JP and put the country before self?

The problem is the unified party’s leadership has been resolved in favour of Mr. V.P. Singh, notwithstanding some unnecessary and graceless remarks reportedly made by Mr. Chandra Shekhar. Mr. Singh is undoubtedly the Opposition’s best bet today for the next general election. He is widely viewed as a fine person and a man of character and probity, unaffected by sharp Congress-I attacks on him and his policies. But he has still to show that he has vision and qualities of leadership required for guiding our huge country of over 800 million people and for providing a good government. (Remember, self-government is no substitute for good government!) Candidly, his popular image today no longer shines as brightly as it did when he founded the Jan Morcha or impressively triumphed over the Congress-I in the Allahabad by-election to the Lok Sabha in mid-June. Even his friends and known supporters are concerned, if not worried. Willy nilly, he seems at the moment to have needlessly reduced himself to the level of the other Opposition leaders, most of whom have little charisma and even less credibility.

Many Opposition leaders feel that “VP” has not shown the decisiveness and boldness expected of him as the new leader in the past few weeks. Mr. Singh, they argue, was given full authority by the Janata, Lok Dal-B, Congress-S and Jan Morcha to go ahead and form the unified party --- the SJD and a Steering Committee. But the exercise has left much to be desired and, in the bargain, not only raised doubts over the unity moves but even given a convenient handle to persons who have been basking in his reflected glory during the past year to attack him publicly. One can understand Mr. Singh’s desire to carry the leaders of all the four parties with him in the footsteps of JP. I recall his telling me some time back that the real art of politics lies in the management of disharmony and not just of harmony. However, the outcome so far has been far from flattering. The Steering Committee and its composition has not inspired much confidence, apart from the fact that it has attracted avoidable flak and created an impression of superficial ad hocism and absence of a national perspective. Surprisingly, Mr. Singh failed to consult all those concerned.

The Steering Committee, intended to be the nucleus of the new party, is dominated by persons from UP and the rest of the Hindi States. True, the Hindi heartland is crucial for winning the next poll battle. Nevertheless, the Committee needed to be more representative of various regions and special interests such as the minorities, women and youth. Surprisingly, the South is represented only by Mr. Hegde and Mr. K.P. Unnikrishnan, who hails from Kerala. Maharashtra, Punjab and West Bengal, too, are unrepresented. (Prof. Madhu Dandavate has been included only as a special invitee) Equally surprisingly, women are conspicuous by their absence. Several names come to mind easily, especially those of Mr. Mrinal Gore and Mrs. Premila Dandavate. The Committee’s strength could have been increased to at least 2 and even to 31 and not limited to 17, a figure which had no special sanctity. Advantage should have been taken of the experience and approach of the pre-independence Congress. Its Working Committee normally comprised 21 members plus some special invitees, if necessary.

The Opposition leaders have none but themselves to blame if their image has slumped and fresh doubts have arisen about their ability to provide credible alternative to the Congress-I. Far too many among them have been speaking out of turn --- often at cross purposes. Far too many meetings have been handled tactlessly, leading to avoidable heart-burning. A case in point is the meeting of the Steering Committee, which failed to be held on October 3. It should have been convened only after differences had been ironed out and ground work completed. Failure to hold the meeting only tarnished the image of the Opposition at a time when it desperately needs to win friends and influence people. Mr. Singh should have striven to ensure that there was no confusion over the Jan Morcha’s stand in regard to the basic issue of unity, leading to messy situation in which Mr. Ram Dhan felt emboldened to publicly attack Mr. Singh as well as the entire leadership of the Janata, Lok Dal-B and Congress-S and denounce it in astonishingly strong terms.

Not a little of the blame must go to Chandra Shekhar. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chandra Shekhar is a man of ideals and has not few other admirable qualities which made JP choose him as the youthful President of the Janata Party in 1977. Sadly, however, he has allowed his unrequited ambition to run away with his better sense and the ideal of selflessness advocated by his mentor --- JP. Instead of helping the Opposition parties to come together in response to popular demand, he has been dragging his feet and seems to have left no stratagem untried to block unity and “VP”. Mercifully, he did turn up at the Steering Committee meeting on Wednesday last even if he was late by an hour. He also greed to the persuasion of Mr. Singh and Mr. Hegde to head the Sub-Committee set up to draw up the SJD’s policies and programmes. But his attitude at the meeting and subsequently has left on observers the clear impression that he has been out to “delay if not sabotage” the birth of the unified party at its foundation conference on October 11. At one stage, he even wanted it called only the “sponsoring conference.”

Mr. Chandra Shekhar was theoretically correct when he said some weeks back that the Opposition should seek to provide an alternative to the Congress-I and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and not merely substitute. He, therefore, insisted that the proposed unified party and its policies and programmes were more important than Mr. Singh as the new leader. But this stand ignored certain practical realities in a country like India which continues to be soaked in feudal ethos. What ultimately counts here is the individual who leads a party and not the party and its policies and programmes. Nothing illustrates this more than the great success which the Congress achieved under the charismatic leadership first of Mahatma Gandhi, and thereafter under Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. The Janata Paty, too, won its great victory in 1977 because of JP and his leadership. Equally illustrative is the dismal failure of the CPI and CPM to make any great impact. The CPM has, no doubt, continued to achieve remarkable success in West Bengal. But the credit for this goes mainly to the personal popularity of its top leader, Mr. Jyoti Basu.

In retrospect, many wish that Mr. Singh had heeded the advice of some of his trusted friends and founded a new party, instead of taking on the sticky job of unifying the Opposition. He could have transformed the Jan Morcha from what Mr. V.C. Shukla smartly described as “a transit lounge” to a full-fledged party with a constitution and a policy. He could then have invited individual members of the Opposition as also intellectuals, academicians and professionals to join the new party. Alternatively, he could have invited the Opposition parties to merge with the Jan Morcha. In other words, he could (and should) have called the shots. There is little doubt that most of the rank and file of these parties would have gladly jumped on to his bandwagon, leaving their leaders high and dry. Mr. Singh could have thereby saved himself the trouble of having to knock time and again on the doors of Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Bahuguna and some others. In essence, he would have taken over the Opposition armies and forced their Generals either to surrender or take retirement.

Popular opinion increasingly favours a strong Opposition. Even those who continue to stand for Mr. Rajiv Gandhi feel that such an Opposition would be in the best interest of the ruling Congress-I and the country. Much ultimately will depend upon the quality of leadership Mr. Singh is able to provide and the success with which he and his supporters can neutralize the mischief of those who are unreconciled to his leadership and are certain to prevent him from functioning effectively. Bangalore could help resurrect JP‘s dream provided the Lok Nayak’s not remembered only ritually. He needs to be followed in practice and in action, in sharp and distressing contrast to the happenings after the Janata Government came to power in 1977. As we all know, JP died a sad and disillusioned person. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Bahuguna and several others owe it to the Lok Nayak to give the country a credible alternative to the Congress-I, having failed to prevent the collapse of the Janata Government in 1979. It is time for them and other veterans to see the writing on the wall and, like Mr. Devi Lal, make way for the younger leaders --- and the new heroes. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 24 January 2024

Poverty Data

CONCOCTED, FOOLING PUBLIC?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

A very recent discussion paper released by Niti Aayog titled ‘Multidimensional Poverty in India since 2008-09’, authored by member Ramesh Chandra and senior adviser Yogesh Suri, claimed that nearly 24.82 crore Indians have been lifted out of poverty over the last decade. The paper showed a decline from 29.17 percent in 2013-14 to 11.28 percent in 2022-23. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), based on Alkire and Foster (AF) method, identifies people as poor based on universally acknowledged metric designed to assess acute poverty, providing a complimentary perspective to conventional monetary poverty measures. 

Several economists have questioned the assessment based on the MPI as also the method of calculation. They contended that the MPI, which mainly measures possessions and access to certain services, is a poor and inaccurate method of estimating poverty, traditionally measured through household expenditures on certain goods and services. 

The projections of the report are based on the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) for which data was collected before the pandemic. Based on the overall numbers, it concluded that Uttar Pradesh managed to get 5.9 crore out of poverty followed by 3.8 crore in Bihar, which is the home to the highest share in the country. 

Recall that the last poverty estimation was done in 2011-12 by applying the Tendulkar methodology after price indexation and based on the last consumption pattern data from the NSSO survey. As per that estimate, 21.9 percent of the population were below poverty line in 2011-12. Meanwhile, it is indeed surprising that poverty reduction has been announced though the government has not released the Household Consumer Expenditure Survey report for 2017-18, citing high divergence between the survey findings and administrative data. Many economists pointed out that MPI is not used as a measure of poverty and deprivation. They maintained that the MPI simply shows the percentage of people unable to access facilities provided by the government. 

Just on the heels of this report, the Oxfam came out with a more revealing and judicious report. it came out with the startling revelation that ending poverty, the target for which is 2030 under the SDGs may not be possible for another 229 years. This has been in sharp contrast to the Niti Aayog report that predicted India is likely to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of “halving multidimensional poverty well before 2030”.   

Oxfam observed that runaway inflation across the world has destabilised governments and pushed people to desperation but if there’s one thing that has grown faster than prices of bare necessities it is the wealth of the ultra-rich. It found that the “super charged surge” enjoyed by the wealthy in the last three years has meant that billionaires are $3.3 trillion richer than in 2020; their wealth growing three times faster than the rate of inflation. In fact, there has been 114 percent jump in wealth of the richest men since 2008. Their combined wealth has more than doubled – going from $406 billion in 2020 to $869 billion now. Moreover, one percent of wealthy people own 43 percent of all global financial assets. 

Mention may also be made of Oxfam India’s ‘Survival of the Richest: The India Supplement’ that reveals some stark findings proving that the gap between the rich and the poor is indeed widening. Some of the key findings from the India supplement are:-
the top 1 percent in India now owns more than 40.5 percent of total wealth in 2021 while the bottom 50% of the population (700 million) has around 3 per cent of total wealth. 

While these contrasting reports of the government and Oxfam make interesting reading, it is surprising that why the present dispensation is trying to project things in a distorted manner. If one delves deep into the matter and considers other international surveys, there is little justification in the data projected as also the laughable estimation of the elimination of poverty by the year 2030. 

One cannot doubt the fact that the ground reality presented a stark rebuttal. Former finance Minister, P. Chidambaram expressed concern over Modi government’s alleged tendency to manipulate research and data. It was pointed out that the fact that the government manipulated data showing only 15 crore poor in India, then there has possibly been no justification of giving free ration to 80 crore people. Supriya Shrinate of the Congress pointed out that the Niti Aayog has measured poverty based on the government’s flagship programmes, ignoring the standard parameters adopted the world over. 

According to her, “The government’s recent growth figures suggested the consumption growth was 4.4 percent. If people are getting more money, why are they not buying basic stuff such as soap, hair oil, toothpaste, biscuit and so on?” Some economists and even the Congress are of the opinion that the government is compelled to rely on such manipulated data after its 10-year tenure because it has somewhat failed to solve the country’s economic problems. 

Let us turn to a recent UN estimate which found that over a billion people in India could not afford a healthy diet in 2021 and this puts a question mark on the government’s recent estimate of decline in poverty levels. The 2023 report on food security and nutrition released by five UN agencies earlier this week stated that 74.1 percent of Indians or 1043 billion people were unable to afford a healthy diet in 2021. The report also estimated India’s proportion of undernourished population at 16.6 percent during 2020-2023. Comparatively 66 percent of people in Bangladesh, 82 percent in Pakistan and 30 percent in China were unable to afford a healthy diet in 2021. The report from FAO emerged amid what some food security advocates and nutrition experts view as the Indian government’s efforts to deny the persistence of food deprivation and poor nutrition among large sections of the population. 

Meanwhile, one may also refer to the Global Hunger Index (GHI) which ranked India as low as 111 among 125 countries though the government alleged that it was “an erroneous measure of hunger with serious methodological issues” that displayed a “a malafide intent”. Some experts pointed out that though the government has been bragging about its food aid programmes and challenged the GHI, but it is quite surprising that its own estimate of 813 million people need food aid contradicts the government’s contention. 

Thus, the present estimation is not quite justified and does not reveal the true picture of the poor in India. The basics of decent livelihood which consists of nutritious food, potable water and a permanent shelter is possibly not available to at least 15 percent of the population. The government’s attempt to bring forward concocted data may not be acceptable to the really educated sections though the aam janata can be swayed with such irrelevant findings.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 23 January 2024

Ram Lala’s Consecration

OPP HINDUISM VS BJP HINDUTVA

By Poonam I Kaushish 

Circa September 1984: Vishwa Hindu Parishad begins campaign against Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid threatening to break open locks. Two years later then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi acquiesces and Hindus enter mosque.

Circa 1989:  Rajiv allows temple shilanyas and begins Lok Sabha campaign from Ayodya  promising Ram Rajya.

Circa 25 September 1990: BJP President Advani becomes “charioteer” of rath yatra from Gujarat’s Somnath temple which culminates in Ayodhya October. Asserting he did not imagine  response would be so overwhelming whereby yatra took the monument out of its religious context and gave it a potent political thrust for installing Hindu nationalism as India’s dominant political credo. Followed by kar sevaks demolishing Masjid 6 December 1992.  

Circa  9 November 2019: Supreme Court in a historic unanimous judgment  says rights of 2.77 acres disputed Ayodhya plot where Babri Masjid stood is Lord Ram’s birthplace and will be handed over to Ram Lalla, one of the three litigants in the case. Muslims will get “alternate land” a five-acre plot elsewhere for a mosque, thereby putting to rest Sunni Waif Board claims the mosque was built by Babar.

Circa 20 January 2024: Congress’s leaders Sonia Gandhi, President Mallikarjun Kharge decline , invite calling it “an RSS/BJP event.” Ditto other INDIA bloc Opposition leaders. While TMC’s Mamta dubs it a “political gimmick,” NCP’s Pawar is more circumspect, “I will go later,” “so will I” coos SP’s Akhilesh, RJD’S Lalu and AAP’s Kejriwal, DMK’s Stalin states cannot accept temple built after razing mosque and BJD’s Patnaik who has maintained equidistance from all inaugurates a grand parikrama of Puri’s Jaganthnath temple.

A triumphant BJP slams decision saying “Opposition feels jealously, malice and inferiority complex” towards Prime Minister Modi.” For the Party the consecration is a masterstroke, a seminal moment, an act of faith and assertion of Hindu identity. The road to attaining political nirvana in the upcoming polls. From a mere two seats in 1984 to 303 in 2019 it hopes to total over 400+ now.

Circa 22 January 2024: Undeniably, Modi has established the centrality of religion in today’s politics, an embodiment of belief. Proved post Ram Lala’s pran pratishtha that he knows aam aadmi’s pulse as the tidal wave in support of Ram temple underscores Lord Ram resonates in people’s hearts. More important its construction and consecration finally rests centuries-old dispute. Ironically, Congress opened the lock but BJP got the key and will go down in history as its legacy to transform India to Ram Rajya.

In the midst of Opposition-BJP tu-tu-mein-mein over who is a true blue Ram bhakt vs 'seasonal Hindu' and religion is a personal affair. Congress’s Rahul contends “temple’s unveiling is timed deliberately close to elections soon. While Hinduism is not about persecuting people belonging to different faiths, Hindutva is. Hinduism is not about beating a Sikh or a Muslim, Hindutva of course is.”

Alas, Congress and Co does not have a language on Hinduism for people. By staying away from pran pratishtha follows their dismal pattern of me-too and boycott politics. Even as they profess to be devout Hindus and visited temples in respective States on 22 January so as not to be seen as anti-Hindu, yet most are perceived  as indulging in appeasement politics, part of the “tukde-tukde gang” which favours Muslims.

Worse, they did not checkmate BJP by launching an equally vigorous counter campaign or made any attempt to invoke secular ideals or Constitutional values to strike a cord among those who share their views on politicization of temple and strict separation of religion and State to run a multi-cultural country like India. Also, they do not seem to have the wherewithal for a mass connect programme.

Clearly, in the ongoing tussle between Hindus and ‘extreme Hindus’ the onus of deciding what one expects from one's religion --- whether it should be command-driven and enslaved to a Party hunting for power in the religion's name, or not -- rests with Hindus.

Questionably, is Hindutva same as Hinduism? According to Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Hindutva as defined in the classic statement of its ideology, is the “culture of the Hindu race” where Hinduism is but an element and "Hindu dharma is a religion practiced by Hindus as well as Sikhs and Buddhists.” The Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Hindutva is a concept of “Indian cultural, national and religious identity. The term conflates a geographically based religious, cultural and national identity: a true ‘Indian’ is one who partakes of this ‘Hinduness.’

In the early 1920s RSS ideologue Sarvarkar wrote the Essentials of Hindutva whereby he sought to define these as common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture or civilisation (sanskriti). Indian culture as a manifestation of Hindu values; this concept grew to become a major tenet of Hindu nationalist ideology.

Interestingly, he defined his idea of Hindu resurgence in political terms, not religious. The nation, he said, was based on the unifying Hinduness of its people. Hindutva refers to “cultural nationalism” and is “not a religious or theocratic concept.” He called as much for a combative spirit as a cohesive one, if India were to retain its essence, which in his opinion was its Hindu civilization and Hindu way of life.

Besides, Hindutva and Hinduism have been a part of several Supreme Court judgments. In 1966 Court held, “Hinduism is impossible to define and is complex. Historically it has an ‘inclusive nature’ and can be described as a way of life. The theist and atheist, sceptic and agnostic may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu system of culture and life. Hindutva is not hostility to any organised religion nor does it proclaim its superiority of any religion to another.”

Plainly, Opposition needs a more imaginative, more political and bold response. They need to frame an alternative idea and politics, do hard political labour, communicate it to people in a language that is persuasive, appealing and uplifting, not just react to agendas set by BJP. As running away isn’t nimble politics.

Undeniably, the Sangh Parivar has amplified Ram Lala’s narrative by resurrecting enormous Ram literature, Ram bhajans, mythical stories of Ram through social media to start a new chapter in Indian history, a 'new world order'. 22 January is modern India’s national carnival as there has been no event this size which can be dismissed as BJP's propaganda only. It symbolises India’s transformation from a Constitutional State to a civilizational State distinguished by different levels of culture and heritage

Time now, for Parties to close ranks and re-dedicate themselves to a truly secular nation and focus on matters pertaining to governance, development, social and economic prosperity. They need to remember that India is a pluralistic society where Hindus and Muslims have to live and die together.

In fact, the temple is a symbol of national unity as all castes and communities were involved in rebuilding it. Those at the helm of governance must desist from showing a bias towards any faith as it could seriously strain inter-religious relations. After all, it was none other than Mohammad Iqbal who hailed Ram as Imam e Hind.

Undoubtedly, our polity has to desist from playing ducks and drakes with the aam aadmi’s religious beliefs, be it Ram Bhakti or Rahim Bhakti. It is only through sheer force of political will and authority that a Government and Opposition can bring about communal harmony for the betterment of a future India. Can it deliver?  --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 22 January 2024

Ayodhyanomics Energises UP

LIGHTING UP THE GRAY AREA

By Shivaji Sarkar 

Ayodhyanomics unveils an ambitious vision with Rs 85,000 crore investment for the township of 30 lakh people, as majestic Rs 1800 crore Ramlala Mandir sets to open on January 22 amidst grand celebrations and inauguration by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.It is wonder economics. The state government invests a mere Rs 20 crore for Ayodhya for housing schemes and the largesse goes to Agra and Varanasi, Rs 400 crore each, Moradabad and Meerut Rs 200 crore each, New Kanpur Rs 170 crore of a toral Rs 3000 crore allocation for housing schemes. 

The Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust estimates the cost at Rs 1800 crore to be met from an approximate collection of Rs 5500 crore. This is swelling.More than its economics, the politics around Ram keeps people more engaged. Not only the BJP sees it as the trump religious card, even the Opposition finds it uncomfortable, if not troublesome to handle. 

The small township of less than 5 square km sees flurry of activity to welcome an estimated 45 lakh visitors and the Ayodhya commissioner says it would see an investment boost of Rs 85000 crore over the next ten years. This is largely an estimation. The dream is of turning it into a hub to rest on 178 projects and an array of various levels of hotels, OYO with 1000 beds to a number of 5-star hotels. 

A contrast is Jagdishpur industrial hub, 66 km from Ayodhya, attempted to be developed in 1980s by Sanjay Gandhi and after him Rajiv Gandhi with thousands of crores of public sector investments. The latest of that was in the 2012 plan for creating a food hub. It all collapsed partly for it being an interior area and largely for unsustainable business model and as some alleged because of unfavourable political atmosphere. 

Ayodhya is seeing building of roads, bridges, new railway station, airport to water metro service and similar other facilities and cultural centre.The redevelopment of Ayodhya, as envisaged in Master Plan 2031, broadly hinges on eight themes to guide civic authorities for the upcoming smart city. The scheme includes a spiritual university, a green-field township, an urban forest, to name a few. Other highlights include a central business district, hotels, riverfront, water bodies, and dharmshalas. The footfall as of now is said to be around 30000 a month. 

Property prices, as per industry sources, have risen nearly four times over the past three years. Top five-star hotel brands such as the Taj, Radisson, ITC are opening new properties to cater to the projected rise in demand. In fact, over 73 new hotels are in the pipeline in Ayodhya. A new property, Ayodhya Tent City, has also come up and offers stay at luxurious tents.   

Indian Hotels (IHCL) launched two new hotels in Ayodhya under the Vivanta and Ginger brands. Both are greenfield projects in partnership with Bhardwaj Global Infraventures. “Ayodhya is an important pilgrimage site and likely to receive high footfall throughout the year. These hotels will also complete the travel circuit with Lucknow and Varanasi”, IHCL said in a statement.

Interestingly, civic authorities are projecting a ratio of 1:10 of residents to tourists. According to industry estimates, around 3.25 lakh tourists visited Ayodhya in 2021 and the following year this number rose to 2.39 crore. Now, after the inauguration of the temple, local authorities are expecting over 4 crore pilgrims to visit Ayodhya this year.The state-government has promised that the holy town will become a world-class city in the coming years with modern amenities around its cultural aesthetics. 

There are 324 five-star hotels in the country. Agra is said to have a dozen, but they do rarely have full occupancy as most people prefer to stay in Delhi and make short trips. Vrindavan a popular pilgrim centre has no 5-star accommodation. Pilgrims spend moderately. The ground breaking ceremony in Ayodhya, scheduled for February, will launch 126 hospitality sector projects worth Rs 3,800 crore. This includes four mega projects, including hotels and resorts. The largest investments in the district are in the hospitality sector, totalling Rs 420 crore. Out of the 126 projects, 46 have MoUs signed, worth Rs 1,923 crore. 

Ayodhya has been one of the low priority stations for most devouts. The hype created would need efforts to sustain. The government investment is low and so far, it seemingly has not much of an industrial activity planned. The flow of tourists at ratio 1:10 or residents would be the only factor for sustaining an economy. 

The political atmosphere contributes a lot to sustain a project. Jagdishpur, launched with much fanfare did not succeed. The region was planned to become an industrial hub and public sector companies were forced to setup factories in the region, irrespective of feasibility and concerns of profitability. Many big PSUs like SAIL, HAL, BHEL and thousands of small companies set up units in the area out of political compulsions. The region flourished as the PSUs pumped money to set up factories but in less than a decade, decline began as almost all the 135 units turned out to be unprofitable because the region is not feasible for industrial development. Even Malvika Steel, a Rs1500 crore mega plant of SAIL and Rourkela Steel collapsed despite central government financial support from 2012 to 2014. 

Similarly, Amethi, 100 km away from Ayodhya suffered what congressmen say, “politics of revenge” and BJP minister Smriti Irani says unviable projects pushed by the UPA government. The few projects that could ultimately be propped up failed to bring about the promised growth and development. The fate of several projects pushed by UPA 2 in its final months now hang in balance. 

Small traders are having a spurt in business. There is growing demand for handicrafts such as decorative pendants, bangles, lockets, key rings, garlands, among others. Exports from Ayodhya, according to reports, rose by 130 percent to Rs254 crore in 2023. 

Ayodhya has not much of public investments. It is designed mostly to survive on private investments. Dinesh Goyal, Vice President, Indian Industries Association, told the press that he expects a business turnover of Rs50,000 crore because of ongoing preparations ahead of opening ceremonies at Ram Mandir. Business entities across the country are capitalising on these opportunities. A tall order or not, the unfolding developments beyond the temple consecration would reveal.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)