JAI ... namaskaar....kind attention plzzz....vinayak sen wala profile kiskaa hai....ham nahi jaantey...but chahe to jiskaa profile hai wo khud use ho raha hai...yaa aaplogo ko use kar raha hai...acctually vinaayak sen kaa sympathyser apne desh kaa bhakt ho hee nahi sakta.....aapko shayad maaloom ho ke vinaayak per deshsdroh kaa aarop hai...aaur supreme court tak ne usko zamaanat nahi dee hai....so plz aap gumraah mat ho....aaur judiciary ko apna kaam karne dijiye...aap tai maaniye ke abhee bhee is desh mae 100 doshi bhale hee bach jaayein but 1 nirdosh ko saza nahi ho saktee....mai fir kehta hu aapka yeh so called frnd yaa to khud gumraah hai yaa aaplogo ko gumraah karne kaa prayaas kar raha hai chhattisgarh mae rahne ke kaaran ham naxaliyo ko behtar jaantey hai...aaur vinaayak per lage aarop bahut hee sangeen hain...uspe raham karna bharat ke saath droh karna hai...aaur chuki maamla court mae hai so court kee awmaanaa bhee....dhanyabaad.
Mrityunjay - ........bhai sahab apne baat shuru ki hai to uska jawab bhi aap sun len.. Dr. Binayak Sen agar desh ki nazar men apradhi hai .. to mera nam us desh se kat dijiye.. Jisne apna pura jeevan garibon ki seva me lagaya woh isliye kharab ho jata hai ki uspar naxaliyon ka sath dene ka arop hai...
aur wo log jo din raat garibon ka khoon pi rahe hain..
desh ke humran bane baithe hain.. wo deshbhakt hain..
aisi deshbhakti apko hi mubarak ho..
JAI - ....aadarniya bhai saahab....sen ke dedication pe koi question mark nahi hai.....uske tailent pe bhee koi shako-shubaha nahi hai kisi ke....but yahi kaafee nahi hota...is maandand pe to aap OSAMA-BIN-LAADEN ko bhee naayak kaa darzaa de sakte hain....hai naa????sawaal itnee hee hai ke aapko loktantra aaur unkee paramparaao kaa samman karnaa hee hota hai...at least ek sabse kam buree padhati ke roop mae hee sahee.....democracy kaa koi vikalp nahi hai...aaur naxali kitne gareebo ke maseeha hai...wo SALWA-JUDUM ne saabit kar diyaa hai.....mera nivedan bas itna hai ke yadi waastava mae aapke pass JANAADHAR hai....to usko saabit karne kaa CHUNAAV hee ekmaatra tareeka hai......aaur sansdiya pranaalee hee ekmaatra raasta.....thats all.
Mrityunjay - ..na to main naxali hoon, na hi unse samvedna rakhta hun, par ek patrakar hone aur rational insan hone ke nate (agar tum man sako to) itna jaroor kah sakta hun ki salwa judum ne sach men yah sabit kar diiya hai ki naxal hi garibon ke/adivasion ke sath hain.. wahaan ki sarkar nahin. kyunki jo salwa judum sarkar ne chalaya.. unhen wahan ke logon ne apne ghar/gaon se bhaga diya hai.
jahan tak rahi loktantra ki baat.. to ek loktantrik sarkar kamse kam yah nahin karti jo wahan ki sarkar apni hi janta ke sath kar rahi hai. is loktantra ne kuch hi logon ka bhala kiya hai usme main aur tum shamil hain.. baki 60-70 % janta jis tabahi ke daur se gujar rahi hai.. uska tumhe koi andaja nahin hai.. tum chahte bhi nahin kunki tumhari ankhon par woh nasha sawar hai jo har tript admi ke ankhon me hoti hai.
jahan tak rahi osama bin laden ki baat.. aisa tark tum jaise sampradayik charitra ke log hi dete hain.. tumne narendra modi ka nam laden ki jagah par kyun nahin liya.
narendra modi laden se jyada desh ke liye ghatak hai.
Showing posts with label Matters of Nation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matters of Nation. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 June 2008
Monday, 27 August 2007
Why This Scurrilous Campaign Against Left?
OPPOSE THE INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL
THE CPI(M)'s opposition to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal and the associated efforts to draw India into a US-dominated strategic partnership has, naturally, led to a violent reaction from the ruling classes and its media voices. Through these columns, over the past couple of years, since the first joint statement on strategic partnership released by prime minister Manmohan Singh and US president George Bush in July 2005, we have been drawing attention to the dangers of India being turned into a supplicant of US imperialism. Apart from negating the consensual declared objective of pursuing an independent foreign policy, such a partnership with US imperialism has consequent serious implications on India 's defence and security concerns. These issues and such concerns will continue to be debated in this issue and subsequently in these columns. Hence, these arguments are not being repeated here.
However, the important point that merits consideration here is that instead of meeting our criticism of the deal and its consequences, our detractors are mounting a scurrilous campaign against us. US imperialism's cheer leaders and the drumbeaters of the Indian ruling classes are advancing absurd reasoning of the CPI(M)'s opposition to the deal instead of contesting what we publicly state.
One such reasoning is that while the government is engaged in this deal for increasing the electricity generation capacity in the country to benefit our farmers and poor people, the CPI(M) is opposing it at the behest of China. This is not unusual for the ruling classes to resort to such obnoxiously low level arguments when their analytical bankruptcy to contest the CPI(M)'s point of view is exposed. Further, the resort to such tactics is also to conceal their unabashed eagerness to ally with US imperialism at the expense of exposing the country's sovereignty to greater vulnerability.
Let us take up the issue of augmenting India 's energy capacities and generating more electricity. There can be no two opinions on the need to expand our capacities to generate more power. As India develops further, energy augmentation is of utmost importance. The moot question, however, is whether the nuclear energy expansion is the only option, or, even the best option that we have at the moment.
As of 2005, nuclear power generation was 3,310 MW or a mere 2.5 per cent of India's total power generation capacity. Now, if this were to increase to 10,000 MW by the year 2015 as planned, this would still be only 5 to 7 per cent of India's projected capacity generation then. Thus, this deal and the attendant consequences to India's sovereignty and foreign policy are being undertaken for such a miniscule part of our power generation.
This, apart, is nuclear power generation the most cost-effective? On the contrary, it is the most expensive option. As compared to coal, nuclear energy would be one and a half times more expensive. Compared with gas, nuclear power would be twice as expensive. So is the case with hydro electricity. Therefore, by all counts, nuclear power is the most expensive.
The National Hydro Power Corporation has estimated that India has at least 50,000 MW of untapped hydro electric potential. They have estimated that in Nepal , the untapped potential would be higher at 83,000 MW. On the basis of our friendly relations with Nepal and through international agreements, the tapping of such huge hydro electric potential will not only augment our energy capacities at half the cost of nuclear energy, but will also tame these rivers which regularly consume the lives of hundreds of people through torrential floods. This year's floods have been described by the United Nations as 'unprecedented' in human memory.
In addition, India is indiscriminately allowing the export of coal and other non-renewable mineral resources. Instead, if this coal were to be utilised for generating electricity, it would cost us much less than producing nuclear energy.
Given this, the government's arguments that the Indo-US nuclear deal is to augment our energy resources and to provide electricity to the farmers and poor sounds, indeed, hollow. On the contrary, it appears that as a consequence of this deal, huge commercial orders running into thousands of crores of rupees for the purchase of nuclear reactors would be placed on US and other advanced countries corporations. The profit bonanza to multinational corporations is there for all to see with the attendant benefits to sections of corporate India. Is India then actually going in for this deal to bolster US economic interests? Can we allow this to happen under the false propaganda of benefit to the Indian farmers? If the same amount of resources were to be spent on generating power through hydro or coal, as would be spent on the purchase of nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel, India's energy augmentation would be many times higher. Thus, the nuclear deal not only exposes India to greater vulnerability on various scores, it drains a huge amount of our scarce resources and, thus, prevents India from exploiting fully its available less expensive energy options. These are the facts.
The more bizarre disinformation campaign is that the CPI(M) is opposing the deal at China's behest. This charge, however, does not apply to the BJP presumably, for its opposition of the deal. The reason for the BJP's opposition, of course, is entirely different from that of the CPI(M)'s. Given the BJP's track record when in government, the current opposition is a mere posturing and smacks of a 'hurt' that such a deal ought to have been concluded under its government and not under the UPA government!
Be that as it may, those who know of the CPI(M)'s birth and history will know that for nearly two decades both the international communist giants – the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China – opposed the CPI(M)'s policies from different perspectives. The CPI(M)'s policy directions are determined by its own perceptions of what is in the interests of India and its people. Those who are willing to eagerly surrender India's sovereignty to US imperialism should be the last ones to dole out unsolicited advise and certificates of patriotism. If our detractors are worthy of character and substance, then they ought to meet our arguments on their merits rather than take recourse to such perfidy.
We heard similar arguments when the CPI(M) opposed Pokhran-II. In fact, the then NDA's defence minister, George Fernandes, publicly announced that the nuclear tests were necessary to meet the Chinese challenge. Once Pakistan responded by its nuclear tests, India's huge advantage in conventional warfare vis-à-vis Pakistan was wiped out in a single stroke. Far from enhancing India 's security and defence potential, the BJP/NDA through Pokhran-II reduced us to the level of Pakistan's capabilities. The BJP today argues that the Indo-US nuclear deal limits our strategic programme which can only be to China 's and Pakistan's advantage.
Who, may we ask, is vigorously pursuing this Indo-US nuclear deal which, we are told, will limit India's strategic capacities, thus, providing advantage to our neighbours? It is those who are propagating and supporting the deal who are, thus, by this logic, acting at the behest of China and Pakistan !
While the pen-pushers of US imperialism and the Indian ruling classes continue to spread canards exposing their complete incapacity to meet the CPI(M)'s objections on merit, the Indian people, surely, will not allow India to be reduced to a US supplicant.
In the 60th anniversary of our independence, the 150th anniversary of 1857 and the 250th anniversary of the battle of Plassey which heralded the colonial rule over India, we cannot allow any erosion of our hard won sovereignty and independence. On the contrary, we need to strengthen it.
By ANIRBAN
THE CPI(M)'s opposition to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal and the associated efforts to draw India into a US-dominated strategic partnership has, naturally, led to a violent reaction from the ruling classes and its media voices. Through these columns, over the past couple of years, since the first joint statement on strategic partnership released by prime minister Manmohan Singh and US president George Bush in July 2005, we have been drawing attention to the dangers of India being turned into a supplicant of US imperialism. Apart from negating the consensual declared objective of pursuing an independent foreign policy, such a partnership with US imperialism has consequent serious implications on India 's defence and security concerns. These issues and such concerns will continue to be debated in this issue and subsequently in these columns. Hence, these arguments are not being repeated here.
However, the important point that merits consideration here is that instead of meeting our criticism of the deal and its consequences, our detractors are mounting a scurrilous campaign against us. US imperialism's cheer leaders and the drumbeaters of the Indian ruling classes are advancing absurd reasoning of the CPI(M)'s opposition to the deal instead of contesting what we publicly state.
One such reasoning is that while the government is engaged in this deal for increasing the electricity generation capacity in the country to benefit our farmers and poor people, the CPI(M) is opposing it at the behest of China. This is not unusual for the ruling classes to resort to such obnoxiously low level arguments when their analytical bankruptcy to contest the CPI(M)'s point of view is exposed. Further, the resort to such tactics is also to conceal their unabashed eagerness to ally with US imperialism at the expense of exposing the country's sovereignty to greater vulnerability.
Let us take up the issue of augmenting India 's energy capacities and generating more electricity. There can be no two opinions on the need to expand our capacities to generate more power. As India develops further, energy augmentation is of utmost importance. The moot question, however, is whether the nuclear energy expansion is the only option, or, even the best option that we have at the moment.
As of 2005, nuclear power generation was 3,310 MW or a mere 2.5 per cent of India's total power generation capacity. Now, if this were to increase to 10,000 MW by the year 2015 as planned, this would still be only 5 to 7 per cent of India's projected capacity generation then. Thus, this deal and the attendant consequences to India's sovereignty and foreign policy are being undertaken for such a miniscule part of our power generation.
This, apart, is nuclear power generation the most cost-effective? On the contrary, it is the most expensive option. As compared to coal, nuclear energy would be one and a half times more expensive. Compared with gas, nuclear power would be twice as expensive. So is the case with hydro electricity. Therefore, by all counts, nuclear power is the most expensive.
The National Hydro Power Corporation has estimated that India has at least 50,000 MW of untapped hydro electric potential. They have estimated that in Nepal , the untapped potential would be higher at 83,000 MW. On the basis of our friendly relations with Nepal and through international agreements, the tapping of such huge hydro electric potential will not only augment our energy capacities at half the cost of nuclear energy, but will also tame these rivers which regularly consume the lives of hundreds of people through torrential floods. This year's floods have been described by the United Nations as 'unprecedented' in human memory.
In addition, India is indiscriminately allowing the export of coal and other non-renewable mineral resources. Instead, if this coal were to be utilised for generating electricity, it would cost us much less than producing nuclear energy.
Given this, the government's arguments that the Indo-US nuclear deal is to augment our energy resources and to provide electricity to the farmers and poor sounds, indeed, hollow. On the contrary, it appears that as a consequence of this deal, huge commercial orders running into thousands of crores of rupees for the purchase of nuclear reactors would be placed on US and other advanced countries corporations. The profit bonanza to multinational corporations is there for all to see with the attendant benefits to sections of corporate India. Is India then actually going in for this deal to bolster US economic interests? Can we allow this to happen under the false propaganda of benefit to the Indian farmers? If the same amount of resources were to be spent on generating power through hydro or coal, as would be spent on the purchase of nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel, India's energy augmentation would be many times higher. Thus, the nuclear deal not only exposes India to greater vulnerability on various scores, it drains a huge amount of our scarce resources and, thus, prevents India from exploiting fully its available less expensive energy options. These are the facts.
The more bizarre disinformation campaign is that the CPI(M) is opposing the deal at China's behest. This charge, however, does not apply to the BJP presumably, for its opposition of the deal. The reason for the BJP's opposition, of course, is entirely different from that of the CPI(M)'s. Given the BJP's track record when in government, the current opposition is a mere posturing and smacks of a 'hurt' that such a deal ought to have been concluded under its government and not under the UPA government!
Be that as it may, those who know of the CPI(M)'s birth and history will know that for nearly two decades both the international communist giants – the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China – opposed the CPI(M)'s policies from different perspectives. The CPI(M)'s policy directions are determined by its own perceptions of what is in the interests of India and its people. Those who are willing to eagerly surrender India's sovereignty to US imperialism should be the last ones to dole out unsolicited advise and certificates of patriotism. If our detractors are worthy of character and substance, then they ought to meet our arguments on their merits rather than take recourse to such perfidy.
We heard similar arguments when the CPI(M) opposed Pokhran-II. In fact, the then NDA's defence minister, George Fernandes, publicly announced that the nuclear tests were necessary to meet the Chinese challenge. Once Pakistan responded by its nuclear tests, India's huge advantage in conventional warfare vis-à-vis Pakistan was wiped out in a single stroke. Far from enhancing India 's security and defence potential, the BJP/NDA through Pokhran-II reduced us to the level of Pakistan's capabilities. The BJP today argues that the Indo-US nuclear deal limits our strategic programme which can only be to China 's and Pakistan's advantage.
Who, may we ask, is vigorously pursuing this Indo-US nuclear deal which, we are told, will limit India's strategic capacities, thus, providing advantage to our neighbours? It is those who are propagating and supporting the deal who are, thus, by this logic, acting at the behest of China and Pakistan !
While the pen-pushers of US imperialism and the Indian ruling classes continue to spread canards exposing their complete incapacity to meet the CPI(M)'s objections on merit, the Indian people, surely, will not allow India to be reduced to a US supplicant.
In the 60th anniversary of our independence, the 150th anniversary of 1857 and the 250th anniversary of the battle of Plassey which heralded the colonial rule over India, we cannot allow any erosion of our hard won sovereignty and independence. On the contrary, we need to strengthen it.
By ANIRBAN
Why We Are Against India-US Nuclear Deal
Much has been said and written about the India-US Nuclear Deal; beginning with the statement issued by many eminent nuclear scientists soon after the talks on the deal began between India and US governments. Public fora and People's organisations such as Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace called it anti-Sovereignty. Today when it is seen as an issue of conflict between the UPA and its Left front allies, we as representatives of people's movements must re-iterate our stand, which is that the deal is not just anti-democratic but against peace, and against environmentally sustainable energy generation and self-reliant economic development.
The Left front is questioning the fact that such an international deal with significant implications is imposed on the Indian people and Parliament, with no public debate and consultation in India. While US Congress took a year and a half to discuss the proposed change in the US laws, permitting nuclear commerce with India, the process in India has been totally undemocratic.
The deal is part of a successful attempt by the United States to build a strategic relationship with India, in confronting the rising capitalist challenge from China where India will be used as its client in the region. Directly or indirectly, the US will also enter the Indian sub-continent, to manage intra-regional, inter-country relations. This whole process is likely to escalate the arms race between Pakistan and India, sabotaging the India-Pakistan peace process. How can we ignore that fact the US sells arms to both India and Pakistan?
The agreement also facilitates a full-fledged international exchange of nuclear fuel and technology with insufficient caution and control. There will no doubt be a corporate rush to extract, export and misuse nuclear fuel and technology, and it will be very difficult to prevent misuse even for the arms trade. Highly superficial clauses don't instill any confidence against such a possibility.
However, our basic objections to this deal stem from our opposition to the production and use of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The irreversible dangers of radioactivity and its ongoing impact on health, water, and the environment are factors that are being summarily dismissed in an irresponsible manner. The whole cycle of nuclear production beginning with uranium mining, is fraught with catastrophic dangers, and as a nation we cannot use the decisions of another country as justification for our own. Places like Jaduguda in Jharkhand, Kota and Pokhran in Rajasthan, have already demonstrated the ongoing dangers of nuclear use to the common citizen.
We, in India, have inherited rich renewable sources of energy, which are environmentally benign and abundantly available. The solar, wind, and ocean waves along with human power need to be fully tapped and put to use with people's control. Appropriate technology, research and development for production of cheaper equipment and tools, need to be combined with just distribution, for the right priorities. There is no political will for this in the ruling establishment. Estimates show that India can generate far more energy through alternative, environmentally sound sources. The nuclear energy option should be put up for widespread public debate giving citizens a full opportunity to make an informed choice.
This deal however raises questions beyond nuclear energy opening up large spaces for US government and corporate control in India. This, no doubt, is a symbol of imperialism already demonstrated through the Iraq war and the obvious links of US policy with corporate control over resources. With unbound exchange of information, data and material, knowledge and technology the dominant global power is all set to encroach upon Indian reserves and impinge upon our sovereignty. The deal ensures supply of sufficient nuclear material to nuclear reactors in India for the next 40 years, but the precautionary agreements to negotiations and consultations are only promises for the future. All this is subject to approvals and conditions to be monitored by the US Congress, while sidelining the Indian parliament.
The UPA government is proving to be increasingly submissive to the exploitation of our resources, knowledge and cheap labour by commercial interests and corporate interests. The BJP and its allies are also in the power game, using capitalist forces for support. The Left has raised an important issue using their bargaining power. Non-party people's formations may not have the power in parliament, but we have an important set of issues that need to be considered.
The Indian Constitution which allows deal such as this, as well as international treaties and agreements to be reached without democratic consultation, needs an amendment to make public debate and referendums mandatory and pre-conditional. We need an approval from the Indian electorate before we agree to sign the agreement.
By Sandeep Pandey, Aruna Roy & Medha Patkar
Sandeep Pandeyashaashram@yahoo.com
Aruna Roye-mail: arunaroy@gmail.com, mkssrajasthan@gmail.com
Medha Patkare-mail: nba.medha@gmail.com
Courtsey Countercurrents.org
The Left front is questioning the fact that such an international deal with significant implications is imposed on the Indian people and Parliament, with no public debate and consultation in India. While US Congress took a year and a half to discuss the proposed change in the US laws, permitting nuclear commerce with India, the process in India has been totally undemocratic.
The deal is part of a successful attempt by the United States to build a strategic relationship with India, in confronting the rising capitalist challenge from China where India will be used as its client in the region. Directly or indirectly, the US will also enter the Indian sub-continent, to manage intra-regional, inter-country relations. This whole process is likely to escalate the arms race between Pakistan and India, sabotaging the India-Pakistan peace process. How can we ignore that fact the US sells arms to both India and Pakistan?
The agreement also facilitates a full-fledged international exchange of nuclear fuel and technology with insufficient caution and control. There will no doubt be a corporate rush to extract, export and misuse nuclear fuel and technology, and it will be very difficult to prevent misuse even for the arms trade. Highly superficial clauses don't instill any confidence against such a possibility.
However, our basic objections to this deal stem from our opposition to the production and use of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The irreversible dangers of radioactivity and its ongoing impact on health, water, and the environment are factors that are being summarily dismissed in an irresponsible manner. The whole cycle of nuclear production beginning with uranium mining, is fraught with catastrophic dangers, and as a nation we cannot use the decisions of another country as justification for our own. Places like Jaduguda in Jharkhand, Kota and Pokhran in Rajasthan, have already demonstrated the ongoing dangers of nuclear use to the common citizen.
We, in India, have inherited rich renewable sources of energy, which are environmentally benign and abundantly available. The solar, wind, and ocean waves along with human power need to be fully tapped and put to use with people's control. Appropriate technology, research and development for production of cheaper equipment and tools, need to be combined with just distribution, for the right priorities. There is no political will for this in the ruling establishment. Estimates show that India can generate far more energy through alternative, environmentally sound sources. The nuclear energy option should be put up for widespread public debate giving citizens a full opportunity to make an informed choice.
This deal however raises questions beyond nuclear energy opening up large spaces for US government and corporate control in India. This, no doubt, is a symbol of imperialism already demonstrated through the Iraq war and the obvious links of US policy with corporate control over resources. With unbound exchange of information, data and material, knowledge and technology the dominant global power is all set to encroach upon Indian reserves and impinge upon our sovereignty. The deal ensures supply of sufficient nuclear material to nuclear reactors in India for the next 40 years, but the precautionary agreements to negotiations and consultations are only promises for the future. All this is subject to approvals and conditions to be monitored by the US Congress, while sidelining the Indian parliament.
The UPA government is proving to be increasingly submissive to the exploitation of our resources, knowledge and cheap labour by commercial interests and corporate interests. The BJP and its allies are also in the power game, using capitalist forces for support. The Left has raised an important issue using their bargaining power. Non-party people's formations may not have the power in parliament, but we have an important set of issues that need to be considered.
The Indian Constitution which allows deal such as this, as well as international treaties and agreements to be reached without democratic consultation, needs an amendment to make public debate and referendums mandatory and pre-conditional. We need an approval from the Indian electorate before we agree to sign the agreement.
By Sandeep Pandey, Aruna Roy & Medha Patkar
Sandeep Pandeyashaashram@yahoo.com
Aruna Roye-mail: arunaroy@gmail.com, mkssrajasthan@gmail.com
Medha Patkare-mail: nba.medha@gmail.com
Courtsey Countercurrents.org
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Japan may use pact to dump waste
Environmental and social activist groups in the country have expressedconcern that Japan may dump toxic wastes into India by takingadvantage of the proposed comprehensive economic partnership agreement(CEPA)."We are concerned that in the proposed CEPA, toxic waste and otherbanned substances may be included in the list of goods enjoyingpreferential tariffs. This will incentivise trade of hazardous wastefrom Japan, which produces it in large quantities," said Gopal Krishna of the Ban Asbestos Network of India, an alliance of scientists, doctors, public health researchers, trade unions, activists and civil society groups.The concerns are fuelled by Japan's reputation for dumping poisonousand hazardous waste in the south-east Asian countries with which ithas free trade agreements.According to Krishna, Basel Action Network (BAN), a Seattle-basedenvironmental action group, recently complained to the United NationsEnvironment Programme that Japan was using bilateral trade agreementswith Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand to exporthazardous wastes like incinerated ash, waste oil and pharmaceutical waste.These wastes contain residues of highly toxic heavy metals likemercury, lead and traces of organic substances.Civil society groups in the Philippines have been vocal about theinclusion of toxic wastes in the trade agreement with Japan."When BAN did research on the trade pacts of Japan with Singapore, thePhilippines and Malaysia, it found that the toxic wastes were eligiblefor preferential tariff reductions. Moreover, the trade pacts hadprovisions prohibiting non-tariff measures against poisonous wastes.We hope this doesn't happen with India," Krishna said.Environmental and social groups have urged the commerce ministry notto reduce the import tariffs on any toxic technology andinternationally-controlled or banned waste and substances.The groups have also urged India and Japan to follow the provisions ofthe Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements ofHazardous Wastes, which regulates the movement of toxic waste."Due to scarcity of land Japan incinerates its municipal waste. Theash from this incineration, which can be used to make bricks, ishighly toxic. India already imports toxic waste from Japan but theproposed CEPA may open the flood gates for such toxic waste to enterthe country," said Nityanand Jayaraman, member, Collective forEnvironmental, Social and Economic Justice, Chennai.A recent analysis of trade data by Chennai-based CorporateAccountability Desk revealed that Japan exported 2000 tonnes of waste(excluding e-waste) to India between 2003 and 2006. this included 270tonnes of hazardous trash. Such items included zinc ash, lead acidbattery wastes and PVC-coated copper wires, export of which isprohibited by the Basel Convention.
By Rituparna Bhuyan
By Rituparna Bhuyan
The Changing Nature Of Centre-State Relations
IN the late seventies and early-eighties, there had been a massive upsurge in the demand for a re-ordering of centre-state relations, for greater fiscal autonomy for state governments through much larger non-discretionary devolution of resources from the centre to the states, and for a more authentic realisation of the federal spirit of the Constitution. This upsurge was led by the Left, but it had the support of most state governments and a large number of political parties, especially the regional parties. The Left governments of the time played a key role in this upsurge, and organised a number of conclaves, including the famous Srinagar conclave. The Left governments of the time, especially the West Bengal government, were facing acute fiscal difficulties. But these difficulties, far from deterring either the Left governments or other state governments, spurred them on to demand greater autonomy.
Matters today are vastly different. State governments, including the Left governments, are again facing acute fiscal crises. But there is hardly a murmur of protest. On the contrary, most state governments are vying with one another to be in the good books of the central government whose level of interference in state government affairs has reached unprecedented levels. The question naturally arises: why this difference between the two situations? The answer lies in the current triumph of neo-liberalism over our economy. The old struggle was over the fiscal resources at the command of state governments. Now, fiscal resources at the command of the state governments do not seem to matter much, as they vie with one another to attract private investment, and access external donors, always waiting in the wings with loans and "conditionalities", to supplement fiscal resources. "Conditionalities" in turn do not arouse much hostility since the current triumph of neo-liberalism makes them appear necessary and even desirable.
ADOPTION OF NEO-LIBERAL AGENDA
Neo-liberalism in short has brought about a re-ordering of centre-state relations. At the same time however a re-ordering of centre-state relations was a precondition for the triumph of neo-liberalism. In short we have here a dialectical process which was initiated with the adoption of "reforms" in 1991. Let us try and capture this process.
In 1990-91 the ratio of the total tax revenue of the centre (net of states' share) in Gross Domestic Product at factor cost was 8.4 per cent, while that of the tax revenue of the states and the Union Territories (including tax revenue transferred from the centre) was 8.8 per cent. In 2000-01 the corresponding ratios were 7.1 per cent and 8.7 per cent respectively. Throughout the decade of the nineties in other words it is the centre that was slackening its tax effort while the states were maintaining theirs. But at the end of the decade virtually all the states were in dire fiscal straits. There were two basic reasons for this paradoxical situation: first, there was a decline in the relative magnitude of central transfers to the states; and secondly, there was a substantial increase in the interest rate charged on central loans, including Plan assistance, to the states. In most cases, the interest rate charged exceeded the nominal rate of growth of the Gross State Domestic Product of the states, which is a condition for entrapment in a debt-trap.
The centre did not just impose a fiscal crisis on the states. It also used the Finance Commission to enfeeble state governments, by imposing "conditionalities" upon them. The Eleventh Finance Commission started the process. While giving to the states what is legitimately their due under the Constitution, which after all is what the Finance Commission is set up to decide, it set out a number of "conditionalities" that had to be fulfilled before the states could access a part of the devolved resources. These "conditionalities" included power sector reforms which are not a matter for the Finance Commission at all; moreover these "conditionalities" had to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the central government! A neo-liberal agenda was thus thrust upon the states through the illegitimate use of a Constitutional body, the right to appoint which had been usurped by the centre for a long time.
The Twelfth Finance Commission followed in the footsteps of the Eleventh. It made debt-relief to states "conditional" upon their passing Fiscal Responsibility legislation which put a 3 per cent ceiling on their fiscal deficit relative to GSDP (and similar other caps) to be achieved by a certain target date. The centre too had enacted a Fiscal Responsibility and Budgetary Management Act placing a similar ceiling on its own fiscal deficit. This fiscal conservatism, which was a continuation of the doctrine of "sound finance" practiced during the colonial period, and which was invariably demanded by finance capital in its effort to push the State back from its role as an investor and provider of welfare services to the people, was thus imposed on the entire system, both the centre and the states, as a part of the generalised adoption of the neo-liberal agenda.
The shift to lower levels of deficit meant expenditure curtailment on the part of the states, and since committed expenditures, like interest payments, pensions and salaries (which increased in most states in the wake of pay revisions that sometimes preceded and sometimes succeeded central pay revisions), could not be curtailed, the axe invariably fell on plan outlays. This of course was exactly what the neo-liberal agenda demanded. As state governments increasingly became incapable of fulfilling their role of being an investor and provider of welfare services, they perforce had to rely on private, including external, agencies to play this role. For undertaking investment in social and economic infrastructure they had to entice private capital, and enter into Public-Private Partnership arrangements which the central government encouraged through "viability gap financing" (i.e. meeting a part of the project cost that the private investors were unwilling to meet). For undertaking investment in education and health, they had to approach agencies like DFID of the British government or the World Bank.
Of course, to the extent that these agencies gave loans, such loans were counted as part of fiscal deficit, and hence were subject to the "Fiscal Responsibility" ceilings; but the adding of a grant component to such loans made them irresistible from the point of view of the state governments, even though all such social sector schemes carried with them the "conditionality" of enhancing user charges that necessarily put a burden on the poor. And once the tendency to rely on the private sector and external donors had taken root, it became the preferred option for most state governments, since state government bureaucracies became increasingly infused with neo-liberal ideas acquired from their colleagues at the centre and from the several World Bank training programmes they were made to participate in.
BIZZARE SITUATION
The reliance on private investment and external donors gave rise to a bizarre situation. Since all the states were in a similar predicament, they desperately competed against each other to attract private investment or to climb on to the World Bank/DFID bandwagon. The defenders of capitalism usually locate its virtue in the fact of competition between the capitalists, which prevents them from extracting illegitimate monopoly gains. Here we had the very opposite situation: it is the state governments that were competing against one another to attract capitalists to invest on their respective soils, and, since substantial investments could be undertaken only by a few large capitalists, offering them larger and larger social "bribes" for doing so. The competition was not between capitalists but between state governments; the competition was not against monopolists but in favour of the monopolists. Neo-liberalism had triumphed.
All these phenomena are amply evident in the case of Kerala. Even though Kerala is in some ways unique, having a cash crop economy hit by an acute crisis, having embraced neo-liberalism with unusual gusto, and having an unusually poor revenue-raising record during the previous administration, nonetheless its travails are similar to those of other states, only magnified. Its fiscal conservatism (it passed in 2003, before being asked to do so, Fiscal Responsibility legislation restricting the size of the fiscal deficit to 2 per cent of GSDP), together with its unwillingness to raise any additional revenue (the tax-GSDP ratio of Kerala has remained absolutely stagnant since 2002-03 while it has increased for all states taken together and also for other south Indian states), has resulted in such a drastic squeeze on its plan outlays that not more than 75 per cent of the tenth plan outlay will be realised. It has also led to significant dependence on foreign loans, which has entailed shortfalls in utilisation, cost and time over-runs, a devaluation of planning and a loss of administrative élan. What is more, public expenditure on education and health, which had sustained the famed "Kerala Model", has declined as a proportion of GSDP between 1999-2000 and 2005-06, as has the expenditure on social services and water supply and sanitation. The same is true, in varying degrees, of other states as well.
TOWARDS ALTERNATIVE TRAJECTORY
What, it may be asked, can be done about this situation in a particular state, within the overall context of the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the centre? Apart from the fact that resistance on specific issues can be mobilised along with other states, e.g. on the "conditionalities" being imposed by the centre under JNNURM for a reduction in Stamp Duty, or on the curtailment of the central share in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to 50 per cent from 75, or for introducing a degree of flexibility on VAT rates, or on preventing cut-throat competition among states for attracting private investment, there is also scope for action within the state itself. Central to any such action is additional resource mobilization from the affluent sections, for which there is plenty of scope. If additional resources are mobilized, if these are used at least for improving the state of public education and health-care and on some measures of amelioration of peasant distress, and if the neo-liberal predilection of the bureaucracy is kept in check, then the beginnings of a movement for an alternative trajectory would have been made.
By Prabhat Patnaik
Matters today are vastly different. State governments, including the Left governments, are again facing acute fiscal crises. But there is hardly a murmur of protest. On the contrary, most state governments are vying with one another to be in the good books of the central government whose level of interference in state government affairs has reached unprecedented levels. The question naturally arises: why this difference between the two situations? The answer lies in the current triumph of neo-liberalism over our economy. The old struggle was over the fiscal resources at the command of state governments. Now, fiscal resources at the command of the state governments do not seem to matter much, as they vie with one another to attract private investment, and access external donors, always waiting in the wings with loans and "conditionalities", to supplement fiscal resources. "Conditionalities" in turn do not arouse much hostility since the current triumph of neo-liberalism makes them appear necessary and even desirable.
ADOPTION OF NEO-LIBERAL AGENDA
Neo-liberalism in short has brought about a re-ordering of centre-state relations. At the same time however a re-ordering of centre-state relations was a precondition for the triumph of neo-liberalism. In short we have here a dialectical process which was initiated with the adoption of "reforms" in 1991. Let us try and capture this process.
In 1990-91 the ratio of the total tax revenue of the centre (net of states' share) in Gross Domestic Product at factor cost was 8.4 per cent, while that of the tax revenue of the states and the Union Territories (including tax revenue transferred from the centre) was 8.8 per cent. In 2000-01 the corresponding ratios were 7.1 per cent and 8.7 per cent respectively. Throughout the decade of the nineties in other words it is the centre that was slackening its tax effort while the states were maintaining theirs. But at the end of the decade virtually all the states were in dire fiscal straits. There were two basic reasons for this paradoxical situation: first, there was a decline in the relative magnitude of central transfers to the states; and secondly, there was a substantial increase in the interest rate charged on central loans, including Plan assistance, to the states. In most cases, the interest rate charged exceeded the nominal rate of growth of the Gross State Domestic Product of the states, which is a condition for entrapment in a debt-trap.
The centre did not just impose a fiscal crisis on the states. It also used the Finance Commission to enfeeble state governments, by imposing "conditionalities" upon them. The Eleventh Finance Commission started the process. While giving to the states what is legitimately their due under the Constitution, which after all is what the Finance Commission is set up to decide, it set out a number of "conditionalities" that had to be fulfilled before the states could access a part of the devolved resources. These "conditionalities" included power sector reforms which are not a matter for the Finance Commission at all; moreover these "conditionalities" had to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the central government! A neo-liberal agenda was thus thrust upon the states through the illegitimate use of a Constitutional body, the right to appoint which had been usurped by the centre for a long time.
The Twelfth Finance Commission followed in the footsteps of the Eleventh. It made debt-relief to states "conditional" upon their passing Fiscal Responsibility legislation which put a 3 per cent ceiling on their fiscal deficit relative to GSDP (and similar other caps) to be achieved by a certain target date. The centre too had enacted a Fiscal Responsibility and Budgetary Management Act placing a similar ceiling on its own fiscal deficit. This fiscal conservatism, which was a continuation of the doctrine of "sound finance" practiced during the colonial period, and which was invariably demanded by finance capital in its effort to push the State back from its role as an investor and provider of welfare services to the people, was thus imposed on the entire system, both the centre and the states, as a part of the generalised adoption of the neo-liberal agenda.
The shift to lower levels of deficit meant expenditure curtailment on the part of the states, and since committed expenditures, like interest payments, pensions and salaries (which increased in most states in the wake of pay revisions that sometimes preceded and sometimes succeeded central pay revisions), could not be curtailed, the axe invariably fell on plan outlays. This of course was exactly what the neo-liberal agenda demanded. As state governments increasingly became incapable of fulfilling their role of being an investor and provider of welfare services, they perforce had to rely on private, including external, agencies to play this role. For undertaking investment in social and economic infrastructure they had to entice private capital, and enter into Public-Private Partnership arrangements which the central government encouraged through "viability gap financing" (i.e. meeting a part of the project cost that the private investors were unwilling to meet). For undertaking investment in education and health, they had to approach agencies like DFID of the British government or the World Bank.
Of course, to the extent that these agencies gave loans, such loans were counted as part of fiscal deficit, and hence were subject to the "Fiscal Responsibility" ceilings; but the adding of a grant component to such loans made them irresistible from the point of view of the state governments, even though all such social sector schemes carried with them the "conditionality" of enhancing user charges that necessarily put a burden on the poor. And once the tendency to rely on the private sector and external donors had taken root, it became the preferred option for most state governments, since state government bureaucracies became increasingly infused with neo-liberal ideas acquired from their colleagues at the centre and from the several World Bank training programmes they were made to participate in.
BIZZARE SITUATION
The reliance on private investment and external donors gave rise to a bizarre situation. Since all the states were in a similar predicament, they desperately competed against each other to attract private investment or to climb on to the World Bank/DFID bandwagon. The defenders of capitalism usually locate its virtue in the fact of competition between the capitalists, which prevents them from extracting illegitimate monopoly gains. Here we had the very opposite situation: it is the state governments that were competing against one another to attract capitalists to invest on their respective soils, and, since substantial investments could be undertaken only by a few large capitalists, offering them larger and larger social "bribes" for doing so. The competition was not between capitalists but between state governments; the competition was not against monopolists but in favour of the monopolists. Neo-liberalism had triumphed.
All these phenomena are amply evident in the case of Kerala. Even though Kerala is in some ways unique, having a cash crop economy hit by an acute crisis, having embraced neo-liberalism with unusual gusto, and having an unusually poor revenue-raising record during the previous administration, nonetheless its travails are similar to those of other states, only magnified. Its fiscal conservatism (it passed in 2003, before being asked to do so, Fiscal Responsibility legislation restricting the size of the fiscal deficit to 2 per cent of GSDP), together with its unwillingness to raise any additional revenue (the tax-GSDP ratio of Kerala has remained absolutely stagnant since 2002-03 while it has increased for all states taken together and also for other south Indian states), has resulted in such a drastic squeeze on its plan outlays that not more than 75 per cent of the tenth plan outlay will be realised. It has also led to significant dependence on foreign loans, which has entailed shortfalls in utilisation, cost and time over-runs, a devaluation of planning and a loss of administrative élan. What is more, public expenditure on education and health, which had sustained the famed "Kerala Model", has declined as a proportion of GSDP between 1999-2000 and 2005-06, as has the expenditure on social services and water supply and sanitation. The same is true, in varying degrees, of other states as well.
TOWARDS ALTERNATIVE TRAJECTORY
What, it may be asked, can be done about this situation in a particular state, within the overall context of the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the centre? Apart from the fact that resistance on specific issues can be mobilised along with other states, e.g. on the "conditionalities" being imposed by the centre under JNNURM for a reduction in Stamp Duty, or on the curtailment of the central share in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to 50 per cent from 75, or for introducing a degree of flexibility on VAT rates, or on preventing cut-throat competition among states for attracting private investment, there is also scope for action within the state itself. Central to any such action is additional resource mobilization from the affluent sections, for which there is plenty of scope. If additional resources are mobilized, if these are used at least for improving the state of public education and health-care and on some measures of amelioration of peasant distress, and if the neo-liberal predilection of the bureaucracy is kept in check, then the beginnings of a movement for an alternative trajectory would have been made.
By Prabhat Patnaik
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
