Open Forum
New Delhi, 14
June 2023
Developmental
Priorities
WELFARE
OF MARGINALISED VITAL
By Dhurjati
Mukherjee
In the
midst ofManipur burning, a grand Parliament building was inaugurated. For the
Prime Minister and his government it’s a great development for the country and perhaps
the half educated people believed this. But the question arises is this true
development? As more than seven-and-a-half decades have passed since we
attained independence, it is time to re-analyse what do we really mean by
development and welfare? Can we not question the ruling dispensation about
their vision of inclusive development, which they do not follow but claim at
various public meetings?
Over the
decades, we have followed policies claiming to help the people and develop the
nation. But social and economic exploitation has continued unabated, specially
in the last two decades, and the masses have not benefited from policies, which
have rightly been described as anti-poor. This is manifest from the fact that
the disparity in incomes has widened with the richer sections controlling
over70percent of wealth and resources. This obviously was not the state of
affairs that the leaders of the independence movement envisaged.
Coming
to Manipur, where the recent violence has taken around 50 and displaced around
45,000 people, the majority Meitei community is concentrated in the densely
populated valley that accounts for just 10 percent of Manipur area while
various tribal communities, including the Kukis and Nagas live in the hills
that make up the rest of the population. As is normally the case, the lack of
balanced development, largely skewed in favour of the valley has been at the
forefront of peoples’ grievances as the tribes have been economically deprived
and exploited over the years.
As
universities, medical and engineering colleges and tertiary hospitals came up
in the valley, a sense of deprivation grew among the tribal communities.
Moreover, of the 60 Assembly seats, 40 were in the valley and just 20 in the
hills, leaving the tribals feeling politically marginalised. Thus, it can
safely be concluded that the root of the problem lies in unequal distribution of
resources. Was it not necessary to develop the area equitably so that all
sections get the benefits of development?
This is
not the case of just Manipur but many other states such as Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Odisha to name only a few. In Uttarakhand, it is
slightly different. Thousands of poor people have been rendered homeless due to
subsidence, attributed by experts to wanton construction activities in the
Himalayan terrain.
It is
not important whether these homeless people get shelter, but the priority is to
enable people to visit the so-called holy sites comfortably as religion is more
important than livelihood. This is typically a pro-rich phenomenon as for the
well-off sections, poverty, hunger and livelihood are unknown to them.
Delving
back, one may refer to the miraculous growth of the steel city, Jamshedpur, but
few have ventured to go into reports of how land was acquired and whether these
people benefitted, in any way, from this Tata empire. It may be recalled that
since at that time there was no rehabilitation policy, land was acquired from
the tribals at very low prices, and they were left to fend for themselves. No
rehabilitation was provided and most of these tribals squandered the money as
they did not know how to wean out an alternate means of livelihood. In fact,
most of the tribal families perished in distress. Can this be called
development?
It is
indeed surprising that at frequent intervals the GDP growth parameters are
discussed and compared but the question very crucial at this juncture is
whether such growth reflects the true nature of development. Economists tend to
judge the country’s development through GDP growth, which is erroneous. This is
amply demonstrated by the Oxfam report. ‘Inequality Kills’ released in January
last year where it showed that 10 percent of the population cornering 77
percent of the total national wealth.
The
deprived and the vulnerable with poor healthcare and low-quality education have
continued to live on the margins of the economy. They mostly belong to tribals,
OBCs and Dalits, spread across in states like Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh and Odisha. Even with new investments, the prospects of new jobs,
specially those that require low skills and minimum education, where these
people are mostly engaged are rapidly vanishing. As is well known, technology
has increased the labour productivity almost ten-fold. Earlier a 4 percent
growth would result in a 2 percent increase in employment. Now with around 8
percent growth, there is just 0.5 percent rise in employment. Local politicians
take advantage of the present state of affairs and use the youth for
anti-social activities.
The
present type of growth has created massive degrees of inequality in wealth and
income distribution during the past four decades or so with the lower castes at
the receiving end. The jobless growth accentuated inequality and the rising
inequality has shaped such a pattern of growth that enriches the small
consuming class. Despite tall talks of the leaders, economic reforms have
failed to transform the lives of the majority of Indians.
The
paradox of development has really been a dilemma before economists and social
scientists, but the ruling dispensation feels that they can ignore the
sentiments of the impoverished and backward sections of society through
centralised, bureaucratic machinery. It would not be wrong to say that before
the present government, economic exploitation was not rampant but now there is
another form of suppression through social exploitation.
Development
must have a different connotation for a populous country like India and
comparisons with Western nations do not have any meaning. Development has to be
such that it reaches the bottom tiers of society and there is upgradation in
their living standards through higher incomes. The frequent focus on GDP and
claims of higher growth is somewhat erroneous as such growth reveals that of
the nation as a whole, which is cornered by the rich and the upper middle-income
sections. The index of development should show the income increase of the
majority population who still struggle for existence.
As I
have reiterated a number of times, the development strategy has to be so framed
that it has to be rooted in the welfare of the impoverished and the
marginalised. Mahatma Gandhi had talked of development from below and
rejuvenation of villages and making them self-sufficient and agents of change.
Are the political leaders of the present dispensation willing to adopt such an
approach instead of making tall claims about the country and the economy?---INFA
(Copyright,
India News Feature Alliance)
|