The Country We Live In

We are the world’s largest democracy, one of the most celebrated sturdily projected facts, which need not be deny. We are a country developing as a ratio of around 9% as projected by the business experts. We are the country which is the second best preferred site of investment in the eyes of the business tycoons and multinationals of the world. We are now a country which is the lullaby of the world’s richest countries and their multinational companies. We enjoy it. Celebrate it. We love to be Indian. We feel proud when someone mentions (an NRI) mentions that now they don’t have to tell the people of the host country that what India is. They know us. Our voice is heard now a day on international level.

The national highway no. 8 which leads the wheels to the Gulabi Nagari of the country called Jaipur, shows us the symptoms of the development. Skyscraper buildings, with dark glasses are the common sight on the highway for more than 7-8 kilometres. The national capital is expanding day by day. It is reaching the soil of Rajasthan after crossing the neighbour state Haryana. It’s all evident or made evident in actuality by the Indian nation state. The reality of the fact can’t be undone.

But the nation is witnessing yet another hard fact. A cast called Gujjar of the same region had stopped the normal routine life of the area for last few days. And it is no the first time they have done so. They are doing it in the continuation of their last struggle and they seem more determined this time rather than the last one. They have learnt lessons from the earlier struggle and they are more consolidated and gritty this time. The lifeline of Indian Passengers the Indian Railway has failed to resume its services even after almost one week has crossed.

The other route, the road route is also under threat during the call of bandh and all.

Now look at their demands. The Gujjars are demanding the status of ST for them. The average Indians must be thinking that this is a complete bullshit. The movement to get the status of ST means they want to demote themselves in the social hierarchy. What, it means, do the status of SC/ST has climbed the ladder of social strata. Or do the SC/ST has have atleast a kind of respect in the society. Do they no more in that vulnerable situation like their past? Are they better off? No, the answer should be loud and clear. The SC/ST is still living in mess. They are still at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Neither, the society has overlooked their earlier view about them. The incidents of Dalit killings happening in Haryana and Rajasthan on a regular basis would convey us the ground realities. Then, obviously the reason is to get the privilege SC/ST has been given by the Indian constitution to get over from the vulnerable condition they have to live with.

Now, look at the fact again, Haryana is the most privileged state of India especially after India has adopted the neo-liberal policies and flow of capital started to boost up the Indian economy. Being, the closest neighbour state it become the hot spot for the real state lobby and the industrialist lobby of the country. It has got maximum no. of investment in all these sectors. Gurgaon, the projected picture of new India, pays the state alone the 20% of the total state revenue. But, still the inhabitant of the area, demands that they need the status of SC/ST. What it means? It simply means the whole development has little to do with betterment of the life of the local people. The local population is frustrated with the kind of development India as a state is following. A handful of persons are becoming billionaires at a glance but the local population have been even denied the fundamental services.

It clearly shows that the path India as a state is following for the development of the country is not the right one. Indian rulling class should or have to reconsider its policies of economical growth otherwise it would feel the heat like this more often in near future. The solution of the Gujjar crisis doesn’t lies in giving them reservation. It would only deepen and expand the crisis. The solution of the crisis would be the inclusive economical, social development of the society. How long the ruling class would be overlooking this fact?

By Mrityunjay Prabhakar

“TWO NATIONS”

KRUPSKAYA tells us in her Memories of Lenin that when she and Lenin were in exile in London at the beginning of the twentieth century, they would often take omnibus rides in the areas of London frequented by the bourgeoisie; they would also walk along the streets of the working class areas, where omnibuses did not ply. Lenin was so struck by the contrast between the two Londons that he would often refer to “two nations” within one country. Now, six decades after India’s independence, which came as the result of a prolonged anti-colonial struggle, in the course of which the modern Indian nation was born, we are in the process of slipping into the reality described by Lenin: “two nations” within one country. The so-called “two nation” theory which was used to justify the partition of the subcontinent was palpably false: the Hindus and the Muslims did not constitute separate and distinct nationalities. But neo-liberalism has spawned a more plausible division of the country into two “nations”, a term that may not stand up to strict scrutiny under the canons of Marxist theory, but nonetheless contains a rich description, reminiscent of Lenin, of the Indian context.

What is striking about this hiatus is that one of these two nations, the “nation of the rich”, believes that it belongs to the first world, would like to be accepted within the first world as belonging to it, and is even in the most “fortunate position”, in its own perception, of being acceptable to the first world, though as a slightly inferior relative. The other, “the nation of the poor”, remains stubbornly stuck in the third world, experiencing the same agrarian crisis, the same unemployment, and the same privations on account of cuts in government expenditures in areas that matter to it, that pervade the entire third world. Some have referred to this hiatus as the “secessionism of the rich” within the third world, but, no matter how we describe it, the phenomenon is unambiguously present: a fracturing of the nation into two quite distinct components.

COLLOBORATION WITH IMPERIALISM

This transition from a situation where the whole nation-in-the-making was waging an anti-colonial struggle, to one where the nation-that-came-into-being is getting fractured into two distinct components, can be understood in class terms as a shift in the position of the big bourgeoisie vis-à-vis imperialism. From leading the anti-imperialist struggle of the people, and hence belonging to the camp of the people, notwithstanding all its tendencies to vacillate and compromise, it moves into a position where it carries its collaboration with imperialism to a point at which it effectively deserts the people, or does a volte face against the people. It does so not only because of the intense pressures upon it from the side of imperialism in the era of globalisation, but also because its ambition of building a relatively autonomous capitalism, autonomous, that is, vis-à-vis imperialism, runs into serious contradictions, even as imperialist globalisation opens up new pastures for it.

The two most significant components of the policy of the post-colonial State, both aimed at asserting this relative autonomy, were: the public sector, and non-alignment. The distinguished Marxist economist, Michael Kalecki, whose overall characterisation of the post-decolonisation regimes as “intermediate regimes” was rather off the mark, was nonetheless accurate in identifying these two elements as the key elements of State policy. The public sector, built up in most third world countries with the support of the Soviet Union, was a bulwark against metropolitan capital. It was used for building up a domestic industrial base, for achieving technological self-reliance, for developing the skill base of the economy, and for providing the overall setting in which domestic capitalists, including the newly emerging peasant and landlord capitalists of the agricultural sector, could prosper. And non-alignment made it possible to keep the requisite distance from imperialism, to keep a door open to the Soviet Union which was so essential for the relative autonomy of the capitalist development path that was pursued.

Imperialism had always attacked both these elements of third world State policy viciously. It had attacked the public sector first by boycotting it, and later by infiltrating and subverting it through the so-called “aid” provided by its agencies like the World Bank. And it had attacked, and does so to this day, the policy of non-alignment. From the days of John Foster Dulles right down to the days of Condoleeza Rice, this attack has been relentless.

It is instructive that precisely these two elements of State policy are being sought to be abandoned in the period of globalisation. The public sector is being sought to be privatised, and would have been privatised but for the intervention of the Left. And non-alignment is being sought to be abandoned in favour of a closer strategic alliance with imperialism, of which the Indo-US nuclear deal is a clear example. What this points to is the volte face on the part of the big bourgeoisie, the shift in its position vis-à-vis imperialism, the replacement of its project of a relatively autonomous development of capitalism by an alternative project of bourgeois development through greater collaboration with imperialism in the context of globalisation. To go back to the Leninist description, one of the “two nations”, the “nation of the rich” consisting of the big bourgeoisie and its hangers-on, wants to become part of the first world.

OBLITERATING THE MARGINALISED

It is a hallmark of this “nation of the rich” within the country that it sees itself as the sole and true nation, as the embodiment of the nation as a whole. It simply pretends that the other “nation” within the country, the one facing the massive agrarian crisis thanks to the same process of globalisation, the one reeling under the impact of unemployment and underemployment, the one steeped in debt and hunger, the one consisting of the marginalised and the economically disenfranchised, does not exist. And the media at its command, the opinion-forming devices it controls, work overtime to obliterate the marginalised, to present the “nation of the rich” as the “true nation”. The la dolce vita of the former is passed off as “India shining”. The economic bonanza reaped by the former is passed off as the “nation’s progress”.

And nowhere has this role of the so-called “opinion makers” manifested itself so clearly as in their response to the Left’s rejection of the Indo-US nuclear deal. One commentator was simply amazed how anybody could reject such a relationship with the US, when “our children” go there! One newspaper (The New Indian Express August 23) editorially commented: “the Left’s knee-jerk opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal again suggests a lack of empathy for the national consensus, and a sympathy for China’s position on the issue.” Obviously, since no sample survey covering the entire country has been conducted on the issue, the “national consensus” referred to in the editorial is the consensus among the SMS-sending crowd! The nation apparently consists of those whose children go to the US, and those who send SMS messages to the questions accompanying the so-called TV “discussions” where the audience is drawn from the same crowd. The “nation of the rich” simply appropriates for itself the mantle of the Indian nation!

The more sophisticated defenders of the deal do not explicitly refer to the strategic alliance with the US. They continue to profess commitment to non-alignment but argue the need for the deal in terms of the country’s energy requirement. And the still more sophisticated defenders even drag in climate change, which makes carbon-based energy sources dangerous, to buttress their argument. Interestingly however no cost-benefit analysis has ever been cited to argue the case for nuclear energy. No convincing case has ever been made out on purely energy grounds for having such a deal. The energy argument serves as a cover for having a strategic alliance with the US, which is the objective of one of the “two nations” into which the country is getting increasingly divided.

CONTRADICTORY INTERESTS AND IMPLICATIONS

Non-alignment, autonomy vis-à-vis imperialism, breaking loose from the shackles of globalisation that leads to the dispossession and expropriation of petty producers, and having an autonomous State that can intervene in favour of the marginalised, and will do so because of the pressure of having to face the electorate, are what the “nation of the poor” needs. But this is precisely what the “nation of the rich” abhors. The interests of the “two nations” are sharply contradictory. (This explains why the prime minister’s “packages” for the peasants have not stopped the spate of suicides, since these “packages” have been worked out ensuring their compatibility with imperialist globalisation).

The fracturing of the nation into “two nations” and the growing ascendancy of the “nation of the rich” for which it needs the support of imperialism, has serious implications for the country’s future. The most obvious relates to democracy. Broad-based democracy, democracy based on universal adult franchise as we have known it, is basically in the interests of the poor, since political empowerment gives them some opportunity for arresting or even reversing the process of their economic marginalisation. On the other hand, such broad-based democracy which threatens the ascendancy of the “nation of the rich” is anathema for the latter. Its attempt therefore is always to attenuate democracy, to make it hollow, to reduce the effectiveness of the people’s political choice. Not that it necessarily wishes to do away with universal adult franchise, but it wishes to enfeeble its significance. It wishes to institutionalise the kind of democracy which the Americans push everywhere: “the government must be chosen by the people but must follow the policies we like”. Indeed the very instance of a government pushing ahead with a nuclear deal (which it would have done but for the opposition of the Left), even though a majority in the parliament is opposed to such a deal, throws light on the kind of “democracy” that the “nation of the rich” and its imperialist backers want.

There are a number of ways in which a democracy that has struck roots among the people, that has captured the people’s imagination, and that is vigorously used by them to assert themselves, is sought to be enfeebled. These vary from a substitution of parliamentary democracy by a presidential form of government; to a substitution of politicians by bureaucrats and technocrats as the heads of government even within a parliamentary democracy (to facilitate which a process of vilification of politicians is unleashed by the bourgeois media and “opinion makers”); to the institutionalisation of a uniformity among all political parties on policy issues, ostensibly for the sake of “development”. One national daily has even called upon both the prime minister and the CPI(M) to quickly reach a settlement (for which, needless to say, the latter must abandon its opposition to the nuclear deal), so that the “stock markets are not disturbed”! The interests of finance capital in short must take precedence over the people’s interests, and the country’s future.

The introduction of capital account convertibility greatly increases the voice of finance capital in the country’s affairs; and it is instructive that in the very midst of the stand off between the prime minister and the Left, a committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of introducing capital account convertibility. You may think it is a case of bull-headed obtuseness; but it is not. It is a part of a strategy.


By Prabhat Patnaik

Religions: For the Nation

The World Parliament of Religions, opened on September 11, 1893 in Chicago where Swami Vivekananda was the greatest figure, reminds us of the importance of religion in every sphere of human life. A nation is not just a conglomeration of people unrelated to any religion or ideology. Religion plays a significant role in shaping a nation. The Indian society has been religiously and culturally pluralistic for a long time, more than any other country in the world. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated and grew on the Indian soil. The Semitic religions of Christianity and Islam came to this country as missionary movements. The tribal and primal religious traditions have their own unique features expressed through oral traditions and distinctive cultural life.
Religions have played an ambiguous role throughout Indian history. Very often religions have hindered social and scientific progress by clinging on to outdated beliefs and practices, such as the ideas of fate and predestination. Religions have justified and legitimized structures of injustice and oppression such as caste discrimination and patriarchal system in our society. Moreover, religions allied with political power have caused communal tensions and conflicts.
But religions also provide visions, values and spiritual resources for purposeful living. They provide spiritual and cultural resources for the survival of different people in their search for identity and dignity. Religions provide strength and resources to fight against injustice in society and propose different solutions to human problems. The plurality of religions introduces an element of choice by providing alternative visions of reality and alternative ways of life. There are peace potentialities, liberating streams or prophetic voices in every religion. Another great advantage of plurality of religions, cultures, ethnic groups and languages is that it can be a guarantee against fascism because it will refuse to accept any ‘‘one and only’’ imposition of a religious or political ideology on all people.
The unity and integrity of our nation is of primary importance. There is a constant fear of terrorism, militancy and other divisive forces operating within and across the borders. For national integration, our first and foremost identity should be as Indian citizens, then our religion or region. For instance, an Indian Hindu should be dearer than a Bangladeshi Muslim to an Indian Muslim and likewise for an Indian Christian vis-a-vis a Christian in the West. Our religious convictions should not contradict patriotism which is inherent in all religions. A Hindu prayer says Om Shanti; Islam means ‘‘peace or submission’’; and a Christian believes Jesus as the ‘‘prince of peace’’. Thus, there is no reason why people of all faiths cannot work together for peace in society.
Historically, it is true that the gap between profession and practice in any religion has been almost unbridgeable and that religious fanaticism has caused untold harm to the society. All religions can play important roles in the process of national integration: by teaching each community to practise what is professed; to be tolerant and respectful toward other religions; to avoid fanaticism and fundamentalism; and then to collaborate with other communities in matters of social and humanitarian concerns towards the making of the nation. Moreover, interfaith relations and cooperation can foster communal harmony and remove misconceptions and prejudices of one community against other communities, thus building trust and fraternity among them.
The basis for interfaith relations should be the common concerns of all religions such as search for peace and justice in society, and unity and integrity of the nation in which religions can play a very vital role. This envisages certain issues that can be sorted out. The great advantage of religions playing significant role in our country lies in our secular democracy. Our secular democracy provides perspectives and challenges where people can enjoy religious freedom and equality and can come together for dialogue and collaboration to tap religious resources in bringing about greater communal harmony, to generate common action to correct social evils, and to work together for national reconstruction. Therefore, interfaith cooperation in this attempt is both disirable and inevitable in our country.

Aziz-ul Haque
(The writer is the Pastor of Guwahati Baptist Church)

Govt tries to cleanse Dow investment of Bhopal stain

NEW DELHI: In a bid to clear Dow Chemicals, the American giant that took over Union Carbide in 2001, of civil liabilities in the Bhopal gas tragedy — said to be the worst industrial disaster in the world — the Centre is making a concerted effort for an out-of-court settlement with it. The victims of the tragedy may find this hard to believe, but documents with TOI show that the PMO, backed by finance and industry ministers and the vice chairman of the Planning Commission are trying to find ways to clear Dow Chemicals of any legal liability, so that the company agrees to invest in India. Key issues of the 1984 disaster remain unresolved. While direct victims of the poisonous gas leak have been compensated, toxic waste from the plant in a 7-hectare area is said to have contaminated Bhopal's ground water. While the case is going on at the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh HC, Union Carbide was bought over by Dow. With that, it would have taken over Carbide's civil liability. In the Jabalpur court case it is named as one of the respondents and the chemicals and fertiliser ministry has raised a demand of Rs 100 crore from Dow to clean up the contaminated factory site in Bhopal. Faced with this, as well as the prospect of higher demands if the court holds it responsible for the ground water contamination, Dow first offered in 2005 to invest in a giant petrochemicals hub, covering 250 sq km, and then showed its reluctance to do so, citing the potential risk to its investment should liability come on it from the Bhopal case. This is where, it appears, government machinery got whirring to allay Dow's fears by seeking to reach an out-of-court settlement and thus pave the way for the investment in the petrochemicals hub. Documents acquired through an RTI application show a series of rapid-fire moves.If settled out of court, Dow won't have any liability

NEW DELHI: Documents in TOI's possession show that an offer by Ratan Tata, who heads the Indo-US business council, to take up 'remediation' - in plain words, cleaning up - of the Union Carbide plant site has been picked up by the PMO and top ministries to find a way out for Dow. The problem with this, say activists, is that once settled out of court, Dow will no longer be responsible for compensating for the water contamination. In other words, while the site might be cleaned up with the help of Tata and other industrialists, the indirect victims of Carbide's cavalier factory management might be left high and dry. What do the documents show? They consist of several notes generated by the PMO, finance and industry ministers, the Planning Commission and the Cabinet Secretary. Commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath wrote to the PMO in February 2007, ''While I would not like to comment on whether Dow Chemicals has a legal responsibility or not, as it is a matter for courts to decide, with a view to sending an appropriate signal to Dow Chemicals, which is exploring investing substantially in India, I would urge that a group under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary be formed to look into the matter in a holistic manner.'' He added," In a similar manner as was done with respect to the Enron Corporation with respect to Dabhol Power Corporation.'' In the Dabhol case, an out-of-court settlement was reached with its now defunct promoter, Enron. Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia wrote to the PM, Finance Minister P Chidambaram and Kamal Nath in December 2006: ''Ministry of Industry has granted foreign collaboration approval for a technical collaboration between Dow and Reliance. This was greatly appreciated as a signal that Dow was not blacklisted. ''However, they have sought a statement from GoI in the court clarifying that GoI does not regard Dow as legally responsible for liabilities of Union Carbide. Similarly Shri Ratan Tata has written to the FM suggesting that we should launch an industry led intiative. Dow Chemicals indicated that they would be willing to contribute to such an effort voluntarily, but not under a cloud of legal liability.'' Ahluwalia goes on to advise: ''Cabinet secretary should be asked to try and resolve the issue in an inter-ministerial meeting including Ratan Tata or his representative.'' Earlier, Tata wrote to Ahluwalia in November 2006: ''Dow has mentioned in their letter that it is critical for them to have the ministry of chemicals and fertilisers withdraw their application for a financial deposit by Dow against remediation costs, as that application implies that the Government of India views Dow as liable in the Bhopal Gas Disaster case. This is obviously a key aspect and I want your assessment as to whether it is possible.'' He also wrote to Chidambaram. The finance minister concurred with Tata while writing in December 2006 to PMO: ''I think we should accept this offer and constitute a Site Remediation Trust under the chairmanship of Shri Ratan Tata and including executives from the private sector.'' Dow, in the meanwhile, was in touch with top officials in PMO, in which they got the advice to consult top lawyer and Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Documents show the legal advice given by Singhvi saying that Dow could not be held responsible for the disaster and also not be held liable for any alleged contamination and consequent cleaning up of the Bhopal site. This advice forms part of the PMO file. When contacted on the advice given, Singhvi said, ''I have been appearing as a senior counsel in this case for over 18 months. I was engaged by a leading solicitor firm. I am not in any manner engaged in any matter of the case except appearing at the Jabalpur High Court case and advising Dow on various legal aspects involved in those proceedings. I am not aware of anything else.'' Eventually, in April 2007, the cabinet secretary put up a note that says: ''It stands to reason that instead of continuing to agitate these issues (Dow's legal liability) in court for a protracted period, due consideration should be given to the prospect of settling these issues appropriately. An important aim is to remove uncertainties and pave the way for promoting investments in the sector.'' It adds that instead of leaving the matter to be settled by the court, the government should reconstitute the existing group of ministers (overseeing the work at Bhopal site) with an appropriate mandate.

30 Jun, 2007
Courtsey TIMES NEWS NETWORK
__._,_.___

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

Shame of Indian Democracy

According to a survey conducted by a fact finding team consisting of Voice for Child Rights – Orissa (VCRO), Vasundhara, Centre for World Solidarity, Ruchika society, Human Rights Law Network and on 6th June 2007 in the Similipal Sanctury area, it was found that 29 children in the age group of 0-6 has died due to malnutrition. The survey was conducted in the three grampanchayats (GP)of the sanctuary area ie. Gudgudia (15) Barehipani(09) and Astakunar (5). These casualities has occurred from the period 01Jan 07 to 05 June 07. The medical officer and the CDPO of Jashipur block confirms these deaths. These children died due to various diseases mainly due to lack of nutrition. Severe anemic children and mothers also found in the area. Last year also 21 children died out of which 13 are due to malnutrition.

Field observation

Geographical arena
Similipal area is declared as tiger reserve and comes under protected area. Three Panchayats come under this protected area. Gudgudia Panchayat is situated 36 kms from Jashipur. Barehipani is about 50 km away from Jashipur. Located inside the Similipal Wildlife Sanctuary boundary (buffer zone), the village has no roads and during the rains remains cut off from the outside world for more than 4 months. Located inside the boundary (buffer zone) of the Simlipal Wildlife Sanctuary, the village has no roads and, during the rains, remains cut off from the outside world for over four months. Starvation and malnutrition-related deaths are common both in the buffer zone as well as the core zone

Scope of livelihood status
After the Supreme Court ban on collection of NTFP they adhere to cultivation of Rice. This production of rice lasts for six months. Another six months they migrate for work to nearby districts.

Social- Cultural system
The inhabitants of similipal area are mainly tribals. Mainly Kolha tribe. They have to walk 27 KM to buy salt or vegetables. Main food item is rice and salt. As the cost to hire a vehicle to bring a ailing patient to the hospital is high they prefer to black magic to save the life of the patients.

Status of government employment generation work
NREGA functions in the area. But tribals do not get required jobs from it.
Status of health, education and child support service
In Gudgudia panchayat there are 7AWC centres. the nutrition status of the Gudgudia GP is given below.
Nutritional Status Period ( 30.05.07 to 01.06.07)
Total No of Children
Normal
Grade I
Grade II
Grade III
Grade IV
345
59(17.2%)
126(36.5%
119 (34.5%)
34(9.8%)
07(2%)

Total Malnutrition – 82.8% (As Per the report of Medical Officer, Govt. Of Orissa)
Except for the health camp, not much is being done to fight the situation. People cannot travel long distances in order to avail of government facilities, and doctors don’t visit regularly to the area. According to the tribals, there is one anganwadi for every 1,000 people and immunisation programmes are not being carried out properly. A child must be immunised with measles vaccination within nine months. But none of the children in l have been immunized. Children and women are not given medicines for malaria at the anganwadi. Other immunisations (DPT, pulse polio) too have not been carried out properly by the anganwadi workers. “The villagers, mostly tribals, are thus forced to resort to traditional medicinal practices and, in some cases, witchcraft,”
One primary school is there at Gudgudia Panchayat. High School is 27 Km away from it. Most of the time the teacher does not come to the school. So the education of the tribals is a major concern. Due to lack of education they are adhering to traditional techniques to cure diseases.

Voice for child rights – Orissa, an alliance working for the protection and promotion of child rights in the state of Orissa staged a dharna condemning this malnutrition deaths at Similipal Sanctury area in front of state assembly on 8th June 2007. It has also placed a memorandum to the WCD minister for a immediate intervention of the government. The Hon’ble minister met a delegation of VCRO led by the state convener to take the memorandum. But the response of the Hon’ble minister is discouraging. Though she instructed her dept to look into the matter but the way she talked to the delegation is not a behaviour of a responsible minister and that to in charge of an important department.

Extract of the Meeting with Minister
The minister did not take the issues as a serious matter. She questioned the delegation that why are we bothered about the death at Similipal sanctuary area as several issues are there in other parts also. One can easily make out from the minister’s opinion on the issue that how sensitive the state government is towards the issue. She said lots of children are working in the dhabas and questioned what why you people are not solving the issue. Perhaps she is not aware of the fact that only government can enforce law to prohibit child labour. Instead of supporting the cause she questioned the credibility of NGOs. When we wanted to know if at all the government will look into the matter she said lets see what can be done on part of the WCD dept only pertaining to ICDS.