Read this too http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20060301/bs_bw/pi20060228699220
India is arrivign right at top dear sirs,,, just hang on On 3/3/06, Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C'da, > >I am glad to hear it has. Question is where :-)? The following > >appeared in the Sentinel a couple of days back. > > Well, it has 'reached'. India has reached the world stage as a major player. > For all its inherrent problems, India has been able to hold on to democracy > and at the same time shown the world that it has the essential ingredients > of a country of ideas, of markets, resources, and of tolerance. > > The economic boom of the mid 90s laid the foundation and today India sees > increased foreign direct investment (FDI), and an all time high foreign > investments in Indian stocks. > > In the interview with Premji (and others), he did acknowledge the problems > faced by India in mainly 3 or 4 areas, > > Infrastructure (roads/transportation) > Govt. bureaucracy/corruption > Communication (phones/land lines etc) > Poverty > > Premji went on to add, that the Govt. would be forced to deal with these > problems and correct them because the air of expectation in India is very > high, and no govt. could ignore that for long. > > Take the case of revamping the airports. The Govt. is now serious about > this. It realizes this is must for attracting investments from overseas. The > nuke deal is supposed to solve a big chunk > of the energy problem. > More importantly, (according to the chief editor of the Hindu at the > interview with Rose), for the each of last 25 years, 1% of Indians have > crossed the poverty line (above it). So, today we see 25% of the Indians > have crossed over to a lower middle class status and the trend continues. > This is a huge sign of progress (for a country written off by so many & some > netters). > > Today, India is no longer hyphenated as India-Pak or India-China. Now Pak is > no longer said in the same breath. Its India and China. Further, China is > India's largest trading partner, and India too is a major trade partner in > China. Most major companies in India have set up shop in many countries > (including China) and the US is not the sole market. And India itself has a > huge market for its products. > > And lastly, its NOT just outsourcing of tax analysts or software in India - > most of the large Indian companies have moved up the value chain. They are > now strategic partners with multinationals like Microsoft, Intel, IBM, > Kraft, Baskin-Robbins etc etc. So its now just IT and X-Ray scans. > > While Nayar's article has some truth to it, it is the same regurgitation he > has been spewing for decades. The new India has a completely different, but > pragmatic view of the country's pluses and minuses. They know of the > problems, they are now able to take advantage of inherrent skills, while at > the same time make corrections and eliminating problems on their way up. > Nayar belongs to the old school. Many of these journalists have listed > complaints over time but few solutions have ever been put forth.They have > never been innovators and have not yet been able to rid themselves shackles > of the Raj. > > --Ram > > > > On 3/2/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ram posted : [Assam] India Has Arrived > > > > I am glad to hear it has. Question is where :-)? The following > > appeared in the Sentinel a couple of days back. > > > > cm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BETWEEN THE LINES > > Price of Development > > Kuldip Nayar > > > > > > B udgets in the early years of independence were an > > enigma wrapped in secrecy. India's economic base > > was limited. The dependence was, therefore, on > > the ingenuity of finance minister. Crises could not be pulled out of > > a hat to maintain the morale. Yet he would do the rope trick because > > the government's popularity depended on that. The haves grumbled over > > fewer benefits than before but realised that they still had enough. > > Other people did not count in the scheme of things. The growth rate > > averaged 3.5 per cent annually but it did not disturb anybody's > > sleep. The debate after the budget would not be whether the proposals > > had merit but whether they gave the country an ideological tilt, > > close as we were to the culmination of freedom struggle. > > One point that evoked discussion was the distance between Jawaharlal > > Nehru's way of development, the socialistic pattern with the state > > playing prime role, and Mahatma Gandhi's concept of self-sufficient > > countryside without interference by the state. Over the years, the > > first became urban in character and the second rural. One got > > associated with the growth, however slow and slovenly, and the other > > with values and idealism. > > The first has manifested itself through consumerism. The other has > > got stuck in simple but marginalised living. One has all the opulence > > and wasteful expenditure whereas the other has all its adverse > > fallout: poverty and neglect. Nehru's associates, lessening day by > > day, still talk radical and they recall the period from Karl Marx to > > Harold Laski. But the Gandhian followers, close to the ground, have > > grown skeptical of ideologies which draw inspiration from abroad. New > > India has moved away from it and the governance is directed towards > > higher growth through globalization or whatever the means. > > It is difficult to run away from the plazas, the malls and the new > > eating places. But of what use they are or the multi-storey > > buildings, big dams and foreign direct investments when at least 300 > > million people, more than the entire middle class, are destitute? > > Those who live below the poverty line are roughly 400 million, > > official figures testify. > > All budget speeches - Finance Minister Chidambaram's are no > > exception - applaud the role of the farmer or small man. But there is > > very little left for him when the real beneficiaries have eaten from > > the plate. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been promising the > > countryside a good deal for some time now. But agricultural growth is > > stagnant. The import of food grains is, in fact, ominous. Rural > > unemployment is rampant. Farmers are committing suicide, not only in > > Andhra Pradesh and Kerala but in the soya-belt of Punjab and the > > cotton-growing areas of Maharashtra. It has been noticed at many > > places in the countryside the students leaving schools and colleges > > and opting for work on the fields. > > There is a loud demand for another Green Revolution. But this may > > well be wishful thinking. Farmers have no money to invest in land to > > make it productive. The corporate sector, if given a chance, will > > convert it into another industry, changing the very ethos of the > > countryside. Land is for people, not people for land. Bhoodan (gift > > of land) did not work. Even what was offered was being reclaimed. > > Even in the distribution of bhoodan land, an element of corruption > > had crept in. No inquiry was ordered because some important people > > were suspect. > > The Employment Guarantee Scheme that the government has introduced > > in 200 districts is only a palliative, not a solution. The government > > has yet to spell out specific schemes for employment. However, the > > budget on defence and security has been increasing year after year. > > The explanation is that the naxalites and the desperate people in > > Kashmir and the north-east are to blame. Pakistan also comes into the > > picture. Maybe, the reading is correct to some extent. But what about > > the causes that are responsible for the deterioration of the economic > > condition? The budget is of little help to those who are at the lower > > rung. The government says that it has no money. But its bureaucracy > > is bloating and the non-plan expenditure increasing. > > Have our priorities been wrong? The first five-year plan which Nehru > > formulated was to industrialise the country so as to lessen its > > dependence on land which is a victim of whimsical monsoons. Some may > > interpret it as a scientific approach. But it has been left half way. > > Services have done better than industry. On the other hand, people > > living in villages, India's two-thirds of population, have been left > > high and dry. Nehru initiated land reforms and had to amend the > > Constitution - it was India's first Constitution amendment after > > independence - to implement them. > > Still, he could not give land to the tiller free. All that he did > > was to put a ceiling on the individual's holding: 18 acres per > > family. Sheikh Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir was the only one in the > > country who gave land to the tiller without compensation. Nehru > > wanted to emulate him but he could not do so because the Congress was > > dominated by kulaks. The landed aristocracy still plays an important > > role in the party. > > True, there is a case for constituting a commission to go into the > > land reforms. But does the government have the guts to do so? Vested > > interests in the party will not allow that to happen. Nonetheless, > > with land getting divided and re-divided among children and their > > children, there is a fragmentation of holdings all over the country. > > This affects food production as well. Some way must be found to > > redistribute the land. > > As things are today, discontentment will grow. Already, the dalits, > > the tribals and the marginalised farmers are migrating from their > > village in search of job. The basic fact that India must face is: it > > has not enough land for the people who depend on it. The countryside > > can be made attractive. The best schools can be opened there. It does > > not matter if teachers are given salaries five times more than they > > get in cities. The standard of teaching should be so high that > > students from cities could prefer to travel to the countryside for > > studies there. Not only teachers but doctors should also be tempted > > to go to villages. Salaries should not come in the way. The purpose > > is to focus attention on the countryside where most people live. > > We talk of the good of society. Is this something apart from and > > transcending the good of the individuals composing it? We may mock at > > the Gandhian values. But what type of society is it where the > > individual is "ignored?" Whatever name we may give it, the progress, > > however impressive, is creating more and more disparities. Probably, > > this is the price the development of sorts exacts. Can we pursue this > > path without peril? > > > > -- Manoj Kumar Das B 109 Gr Floor Rear Sarvodaya Enclave New Delhi 110017 India Tel: 91 11 26533824 Telefax: 91 11 26533829 Hand Phone: 91 9312650558 _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
