Events & Issues

New Delhi, 28 April 2008

Populist Agenda

MASSES CANNOT BE IGNORED

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

Programmes for the poor and the deprived sections are termed ‘populist’ though their importance in grassroot development cannot be undermined. One may recall the role of economist-politician Dr. Arjun Sengupta for his initiative in taking up with the Prime Minister the need for a “minimum programme of action that can be seen specifically targeting the poorest of the poor”.

Dr Sengupta had also categorically stated that notwithstanding high rates of economic growth and large expenditures on social development, the “benefits of all programmes usually bypass the poor and the vulnerable unless they are specifically targeted to them”. And, even if targeted for the poor, the benefits barely reach 30 to 40 per cent of the beneficiaries while the rest are cornered by the rich and the powerful.

These contentions speak very poorly of a country which has averaged around 9 per cent growth for the last five years as over 30 per cent (22 per cent officially in the BPL category) of the poor live in critical conditions, especially in rural areas. Whether it is the farming community, the unorganized workers, the tribals or the dalits, their condition leaves much to be desired.

This leads to the question whether development programmes being undertaken are cornered by the well off sections, leaving the needy in the lurch? And, whether the lackadaisical approach of the state machinery in ensuring that the benefits reach the real beneficiaries can be stemmed?

Various surveys and studies have been conducted at home and abroad, all of which point to the depressing conditions of the poorer sections of society and the inadequate steps being taken for their uplift. In these circumstances, some measures taken by the Centre need to be taken note of.

Take the case of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) which has now been extended to all the 604 districts of the country from this April. If implemented properly (and this proposition leaves a big question mark), this will take care of the dual purpose of generating employment as also building rural infrastructure, which is vitally necessary at such a juncture.

In the Union Budget Rs 16,000 crores has been earmarked for the NREGS, though the sum is indeed quite inadequate if all the districts are really to be covered. However, it is essential that the programme is monitored effectively so that the beneficiaries get the right amount of money for the work and for the entire period they have put in labour. There is every scope of the poor and the illiterate being cheated and this should not be allowed to happen at any cost.

It needs to be mentioned here that the performance of the NREGS in some States during the financial year 2006-07 has been utterly distressing. The draft report of the Comptroller & Auditor General reveals only 3.2 per cent of the 2.73 crore registered households could avail of the guaranteed 100 days work. The average employment under NREGS was merely 18 days and there have been reports of embezzlement and waste.

The above needs to be checked through careful monitoring both by the Centre and the States. Moreover, against the aim of 100 person days of employment, West Bengal was successful in creating only 14 person days, U. P. 32 person days, Bihar 35 person days and Jharkhand 37 person days. Rajasthan has been the highest performer with the average of 85 person days of employment followed by Madhya Pradesh with 68 person days.

It is also distressing to note that only a 10^th of the three crore households that the Government says received jobs over the past one year were employed for the full quota of 100 days. Also of the 15.61 lakh projects taken up, only 4.96 (less than a third) have been completed, according to reports. 

In this connection one may refer to the eminent agricultural scientist, Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, who recently pointed out that the rural sector needs to be the centre of planning and development not only to alleviate poverty but to aid the process of growth. The emphasis on rural infrastructure development could be the cornerstone for giving a fillip to employment generation in areas such as horticulture, floriculture, value-added crops and agro industries, most of which have high export potential and have largely been unexplored.

A significant development that may go a long way to help the poor has been the announcement of the National Policy on Rehabilitation & Resettlement 2007, which obviously tries to end the controversy of land acquisition by the States for industrial and/or urban development. In any civilized country where land acquisition has always denied the poor of their due rights the policy should have been in place at least by the early 70s. But there was no such policy of the Government and the States did not have the necessary guidelines to acquire land.

As a result of which, even multi-crop land was acquired in Singur, West Bengal and  other places for setting up industrial projects, without proper compensation, thus depriving farmers of their right to livelihood. The rural poor were the victims because of displacement and no employment opportunities guaranteed. This obviously evokes anger. And, we have recently been witness to violent protests all over the country as people felt, and quite rightly, that industrialization was being promoted at the cost of the rural poor.

The present policy has no doubt been a step in the right direction. It has stipulated that the State can now acquire 30 per cent of land demanded by corporates, that too only if 70 per cent of it has been bought by the latter.Farmland takeover would be minimum while multi-crop land has to be avoided. One key feature of the Policy is that the gram sabhas (village councils) must be consulted on the rehabilitation package before land takeover, dissenting opinion recorded and attempts made to persuade the Council to agree.

The Policy allows developers to give 20 per cent of the compensation in the form of shares in the project while a share of 50 per cent may be allowed in some cases. It has rightly been decided to extend the social benefits to the landowners’ tenants, agriculture and non-agricultural labourers and all those who made a living from the land acquired.

The cry for land by the State to help the industrial class in the name of globalization and rapid industrialization, depriving the farming community is nothing but shameful. Most economists and development experts have criticized such action as States had been vying with each other to attract industrialists and provide them land next to highways and roads at below market prices. But it is expected that things should change with the setting of the National Land Reforms Council (NLRC), hopefully a positive step in this direction.

In a welfare State like India, major policies have always benefited the rich and the powerful realization has dawned on the political elite that the rural masses cannot be neglected for long. As such, the extension of the NREGS, the rehabilitation policy and the NLRC are no doubt very crucial steps taken by the Government. But sincerity in implementation and allocation of adequate resources for the above two schemes, while formulation of a comprehensive land policy after deliberations with experts from all walks of life would make these effective and fruitful. Moreover with the unfinished task in land reforms being accomplished, land struggles would be checked to a great extent.   

Land and employment for the poor are necessary for their survival and reports reveal that in spite of the galloping GDP growth, a major segment of the rural population is struggling for existence. This segment has to be given certain benefits by providing employment for some part of the year and technological inputs for those who have small pieces of land for effective cultivation. One could also experiment with small cooperatives being set up by panchayats with land, of say 30-40 families and cultivating value-added crops. There has to be renewed emphasis on the rural sector simultaneously with industrial development, rural productivity and greater efficiency so as to ensure wider spread of the benefits of development. ---INFA 

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

People And IT

New Delhi, 25 April 2008

Low-Cost Computers

THE GREAT DIGITAL DIVIDE       

By Radhakrishna Rao

No doubt, India is acknowledged as the Mecca of IT and software services’ industry. But the digital divide is as wide as in any developing country. For instance, in Bangalore considered the Silicon Valley of India, the gap between those having access to computers and those forced to do without it is quite striking.

A recent study by a global technology company points out that there is just one PC for every 50 Indians. “The country has one PC (Personal Computer) for every 50 Indians today. This represents a watershed era in the history of the Indian market. However, we still have to go  miles as a country  to evolve an eco system that would help take this trend  to the next level so that the benefits of computerization reach the masses”, says its India Manager, Kapil Dev Singh. And as pointed out by Philp Clay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) one should not expect instant miracles in bridging the digital divide and creating digital villages.

Clearly, computer connectivity holds the key to usher in a veritable “knowledge revolution” which has the potential to spur the socio-economic progress in its varying manifestations. Indeed, the former Indian President has been stressing on the need to give quickening impetus to the process of “knowledge revolution in India”. As one commentator has put it, “Computers were never  the source of any one’s poverty and as for escaping poverty what people do for themselves matters more than what technology could for them”.

However, many bold and imaginative attempts made in India to boost the penetration of PC through the introduction of “affordable and low cost” computing devices have failed to meet their desired objectives. For instance, even after five years of its much acclaimed introduction,  Simputer, India’s own low-cost computing device, designed and developed by a team of computer scientists from Bangalore-based Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in association with the Indian IT industry has failed to make an impact on India’s computer connectivity scenario.

Touted as multi-purpose, easy to handle computing system, well-suited to bridge the digital divide in the country, Simputer, is yet to become popular.  It was originally envisaged that shared Simputers would be made available to village schools, community halls or other areas where common facilities are usually free. However, the failure of the promoters of Simptuer to tune to the specific needs of the targeted user community is believed to be the major reason for its slow penetration.

It may be recalled that not long back the Union Government had rejected the proposal of MIT Media Lab to popularize US$100 laptop in the Indian market. For the Centre had found the product was not suited to the Indian needs. The argument was that US$100 investment on a laptop could be spent more productively in other ways. “We cannot visualize a situation for decades when we can go beyond the pilot stage. We need classrooms and tables more urgently than any fancy toys” says a government spokesman.

On a more practical plan, serious doubts have been raised as to whether there is enough evidence to prove that children would spontaneously be interested in seeking out educational materials and interacting with the rest of the world with low-cost computers.  Further, there is also concern whether developing nations can set up a robust network in the rural areas.

For precisely these reasons the idea of Nichola Negroponte, one of the promoters of MIT Media Lab and a staunch champion of low-cost computing systems, to make available low-cost laptops to children of the third world has hit an unexpected roadblock. There is lukewarm response to the US $100 laptop proposal. For here again there is a concern whether children and teachers who have never seen a computer would be in a position to use them in a productive educational way.

It was in 2005 that Negroponte unveiled his by now famous “One Laptop per Child (OLPC) programme aimed at bridging the digital device in the third world countries. The idea was to distribute around 150-million low-cost laptops to the world’s poorest school children through the support of governments, the IT industry and voluntary organizations. Significantly, Negroponte had sought a pledge from developing countries to buy such laptops in bulk.

The global chip giant Intel which had earlier partnered with Negroponte’s project has now come out with its own version of the low-cost computer model. In fact, Libya showed preference for the Intel system. In India, Intel has tied up with HCL Info systems to popularize its low priced Intel powered classmate PC. Not to be left behind, Indian IT companies like Wipro and Zenith have too initiated their plans to market low cost computing systems. Interestingly, the Classmate PC forms a part of Intel’s pilot programme to improve education in developing countries.

On another front, the software giant Microsoft is also working towards making computer systems affordable by reducing the cost of software. Microsoft has already stated that it will offer developing countries a US $3 software package that includes window, a student version of Microsoft Office and educational programmes.

As pointed out by a research analyst affordability is not the basic constraint before the PC market in India. For in the ultimate analysis to what extent a low cost computing system would be put to use is the crux of the problem.--INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 17 April 2008

Farm Loan Waiver

TAKE A CLOSER LOOK

By T.D. Jagadesan

 The escalating price rise and food crisis has put into focus the state of our agriculture yet again. Only a month-and-a-half back an estimated Rs 60,000 crore loan waiver for farmers hogged the headline for days together. The government’s decision was on an unprecedented scale. And this aspect of Finance Minister Chidambaram’s budget speech attracted widespread comment. Almost all political parties welcomed the move as most had been clamouring for such a step to relieve the farmers from debt.

However, the Government still does not spell out the basis of the estimate nor of the institutions, loan categories, and class of borrowers that will be covered by the scheme. Thus, several aspects need to be clarified. Firstly, by definition, the scheme can apply only to those who have outstanding loans with institutions. Nearly three-fourths of all rural households and 60 per cent of farm households report that they do not have any outstanding debt. All households with outstanding debt may not have outstanding institutional debt. Thus, the large majority of farmers will not benefit from the waiver. If only farmer loans are eligible, the proportion of beneficiaries will be even smaller.

Secondly, both access to institutional credit and the proportion of outstanding debt, are skewed in favour of larger farms. Cultivator households with less than two hectares account for 85 per cent of all farm households, and report a lower incidence of debt (46 per cent) and of outstanding debt (30 per cent) than the overall average.

Thirdly, institutional loans include direct lending (to meet needs production as well as consumption) and “indirect lending” for allied activities (such as input distribution, trading, transport and processing of farm produce). The latter comprise about half of outstanding loans of cooperative; 55 per cent in regional rural banks; and a little under half in scheduled commercial banks. There is hardly any justification for waivers on indirect loans.

Fourthly, the magnitude of outstanding debt of rural households, going by the National Sample Survey (NSS) data, is less than outstanding debt reported by the institutions in the cooperatives and substantially so in regional rural banks. Since both are intended to lend mostly in rural areas, this difference suggests that they also carry a sizeable portfolio of non-household, non-rural loans.

Fifthly, the basis of the estimate that the waiver will cost Rs.60,000 crore is far from clear. There is good reason to believe that a generalized waiver of all over dues will benefit non-rural borrowers to a considerable extent, that the large majority of rural households, including those in the below two hectares category will not benefit; and that the magnitude of benefit accruing to them will be considerably less than the said amount. Benefits in rural areas will accrue to a rather small fraction of households and the magnitude of relief to beneficiaries is to be considerably less than the cited figure.

These considerations argue for a close second look at the rationale, scope and intent of the scheme. But it is also necessary to warn the public of the large adverse effects of waivers on the rural credit system. Supporters of the scheme argue that this one-time-relief is a necessary measure to address the current agrarian crisis and that it would enable farmers to restart on a clean slate. But this has been said every time in the past when such waivers were announced.

Experience shows that waivers encouraged borrowers to presume that they can sooner or later get away without repaying loans. It reinforces the culture of willful default, which has resulted in huge over dues and defaults in all segments of organized financial institutions. The deterioration in the cooperative credit system is, in large measure, due to the conscious state policy of interference in the grant and recovery of loan.

Cooperatives have by far the greatest reach in terms of accessibility, number of borrowers, and delivery of credit to the rural population. Concerned by their near collapse, the Central government set up a task force to suggest ways to arrest the trend and revive them. The task force suggested radical changes in the legal and institutional framework essential to enable and induce cooperatives to function as autonomous and self-regulating entities. It emphasized the need to eliminate government interference in grant of loans, recovery process, and waiving of dues from borrowers. The Central Government accepted the recommendations.

Extensive consultations with States led to a political consensus to accept and implement the reform package. The Central Government has committed to provide around Rs.18,000 crore to clear accumulated losses over a period of time and linked to actual fulfillment of specified conditions.

Most States have since given their formal commitment to this effect and agreed to abide by the conditions for availing of Central financial assistance. Supervised implementation is under way and has made significant progress in several States. This programme thus already covers a significant part of what is being attempted in the current waiver scheme.

It is ironical that the decision to go for a general waiver comes even as the above reform programme is under way. It obviously goes against the Central thrust and spirit of the reform programme. Since the proposed general waiver is wholly underwritten and funded by the Centre, the need for the kind of restructuring and conditionally attached to central assistance is likely to be questioned. Doubts will be raised and pressures will build to dilute or even to override the programme.

It is very important that the Centre clarifies its position on the status of the current reform programme and how such pressures can be contained so that apprehensions about the project of much-needed institution reform in cooperative credit institutions are to be allayed.

Loan waivers are at best temporary palliatives to the problems facing rural India. Significant and sustained improvement in the welfare of the rural population is not possible without a faster pace of growth in the rural economy and an improved quality of education and health services. Increased public spending will not achieve this.

It is essential to address deeper problems rooted in the over-exploitation and degradation of land and water, government policies that encourage wasteful use of resources, the inefficiency of public systems responsible for implementing programmes, regulating the use of common service facilities, and ensuring quality infrastructural and support services. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 10 April 2008

Beijing Games 2008

PROTESTS, BOYCOTT BORN WITH OLYMPICS

                                           By VS Dharmakumar

Politicians the world-over proclaim, whenever and wherever it is convenient, that politics has no place in sports and sports arena should be kept free of politics. However, many countries have mixed politics with the greatest sporting event—the Olympic Games, to promote their political beliefs. And, when publicity is the aim of protest, Olympics offers the best opportunity.   

The Beijing Olympic, 2008 is plagued by protests and threats of boycott. Political activists have already stepped up their activities. The torch relays in London, Paris, and San Francisco have attracted thousands of demonstrators, who want to focus the world attention on China's human rights record and its atrocities in Tibet.

Politicization of the Olympic Games began with the very first, held in Athens in 1896. It was meant to embarrass the Turks, then occupying Northern Greece. Thereafter, controversies have shrouded the Olympics with alarming regularity. The 1900 Olympic in Paris had its share of hullabaloo. The French team refused to compete on Bastille Day as it was their national holiday to commemorate the anniversary of storming Bastille. The game then got rescheduled to Sunday, an important day for Christians. But, it was the turn of the Americans then to refuse to compete on that day.

The 1908 London Olympic was also marred by some controversies. Complications arose with regard to the team parade with their national flags.  The Finnish team was expected to march under the Russian flag rather than its own and chose to march without a flag. Not displaying the national flags of the US and Sweden above the stadium led to the Swedish team’s non-participation in the ceremony and the US flag bearer’s refusal to dip the flag to the royal box created a protocol breach. Forcing the Irish athletes to compete for the British team, which led to a withdrawal by many.  

The world of the 30s and 40s was known for racial segregation and discrimination. Hitler’s Nazi regime that discriminated Jews used the 1936 XI Olympiad for celebrating the triumph Nazi ideology. His idea was to weed out the weak, Jews and others by hardening the German spirit. Many Jews and Gypsies were thus kept out of the Berlin Olympic. The United States, after planning to boycott XI Olympic Games, finally participated fearing that the very foundation of the Olympics will be damaged if individual countries are allowed to restrict participation by reason of class, creed, or race.

The Mexico Games in 1968 got off to a bumpy start, ten days prior to the actual beginning of the games. The scene was the Plaza de las Tres Culturas. About 5,000 Mexican college students, who were opposed to spending money on the Olympic Games wanted the money be spent on social programmes instead. They protested and the Mexican Army opened fire into the crowd of protestors, killing an estimated 200-300 people. Eventually, the games began as scheduled but were beleaguered by protests.  

Politics again played spoil-sport at the Munich games with deadly effect in 1972. A Palestinian terrorist group (Black September) invaded the Games village, broke into the apartment of the Israeli delegation and killed two Israelis and held nine others as hostages. At the end, the terrorists were offered a safe passage but were ambushed by the German security forces. Though the Games carried on they were dominated by these events.

The next Olympiad of Montreal in 1976 was also marred by boycott. The reason: participation of New Zealand. African leaders wanted the IOC to ban New Zealand as its national team had played rugby with South Africa. Recall that at that time, South Africa’s policy of racial apartheid had made it an international pariah. The IOC refused to oblige, forcing the Games boycott by 28 African countries.

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the cause of trouble for the 1980 Moscow Olympic. Many countries, including the US, thought of the Games as the best opportunity to protest and mortify the USSR. Thus, the US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow Olympic and 15 others lodged their protest by not marching in the Opening ceremony with their national flag. Instead, they used the Olympic Flag. In all, only 81 nations’ participated in the Games.  

Four years later, in 1984, it was the turn of the USSR to spearhead the ‘boycott politics’ with many other nations of the Eastern Block, at the 1984 Los Angeles Games, the US. The Soviet Union issued a statement, saying that it would boycott the Games due to "chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria being whipped up in the United States". Thirteen allies of the then USSR joined the boycott.

Let’s also look at South Korea. The political crisis there got intensified through demonstrations in 1987, a year before the start of the Seoul Games. Fortunately, the Olympic was not tarnished by widespread boycott. Only North Korea, Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua didn’t participate. Interestingly, with a participation of 160 countries, the Seoul Games witnessed the largest participation in Olympic history.  

The 29^th Olympiad in China on August 8, 2008, is marred in controversy. The Olympic torch, which had arrived in Tiananmen Square, and is being taken for a worldwide tour covering 85,000 miles, along 136 routes across 20 countries in five continents before lighting the flame on the opening ceremony, has been doused and lit again.  

However, many feel that boycotts and protests are not the best way to deal with the Tibet unrest and the human rights situation. It would be counterproductive. But France has made known that boycotting of the opening ceremony cannot be ruled out.

As for China, it has low tolerance level to protests. It is prone to suppressing dissent ruthlessly. The authorities have warned the Tibetans that the police in China will not tolerate political or social demonstrations to spoil the event. But the Tibetan activists are adamant. They plan to demonstrate and a potential flashpoint is Lhasa, which falls in the flame’s route to Mount Everest

What the world witnessed 40 years ago in Mexico should not be repeated in Beijing. Protests and boycotts are not going to solve the Tibetan problem. They will only lead to violence and loss of life. An amicable solution can emerge only through direct talks with each other. Vitiating the atmosphere prior to such likelihood is not in the best interest of both parties. But sadly, even as I write this, the unfolding events do not augur well.

Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic who accomplished the feat of perfecting the world’s greatest sporting spectacle and who presided over the IOC until 1925 said: “Peace, would be furthered by the Olympic Games . . . but peace could be the product only of a better world; a better world could be brought about only by better individuals; and better individuals could be developed only by the give and take, the buffeting and battering, the stress and strain of fierce competition”—INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)