This is a well-written article on the subject. The author makes somegreat points with facts & figures. But, I have a question or two:"From first to seventh plan, Punjab and Haryana have received thehighest per capita allocation all along and the other three States ofGujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have also received largerallocation of plan outlay in almost all the five year plans. On theother hand, Bihar, Orissa, Assam and other northeastern States havebeen receiving smallest allocation of per capita plan outlay in almostall the plans thereby widening the regional imbalance." How are Central funds allocated? Obviously, a state can demand what itlikes, but surely it must back the demands up with solid projections? Or allocations just based on political bargaining power of these BigStates? In that case, why was Bihar left out? Bihar has a lot morepolitical clout than many big states? Its not enough to say the allocations are lopsided, we need to findout why they are so. Further, as we all know, Assam has a habit of NOT spending all of itsallocated amount. So, IMHO, it looses its bargaing chip when freshdemands are made for the next fiscal year. Every year Assam doesreturn unspent money back to the Central treasury. As far as private investment is concerned, these will not come inuntil and unless there is a 'safe investment climate'. Here we areconcerned mostly with small scale & cottage industries, because theseare the ones that provide more employment to the lower strata of theeconomic ladder. --Ram ___________________________North East : a paradox of development— Arijit BhattacharjeeThe northeastern region of India comprising eight constituent Statesof Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,Tripura and Sikkim is a remote area in the national context. 98 percent of the region is bounded by China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Bhutanand only with 2 per cent, it is connected with the mainland Indiathrough a 22km narrow corridor in the north Bengal known as "Chicken'sNeck". With its geographical area of 2.62 lakh sq km the region isknown for bounty of natural resources and admixture of differentcultures and groups of people numbering about 390.36 lakh. The regionhas abundant resources of rich minerals, petroleum, natural gas, coal,lime stone, sillimanite, agricultural, horticultural and forestproduce and vegetation like rice, maize, orange, pineapple, tea,rubber, sal, teak and most importantly the green gold bamboo. Theregion is also rich in handloom, ha! ndicraft and sericulture and hugehydro-power potential of 63257 MW representing almost 57 per cent oftotal hydro power potential of India which stands at 106900 MW. Despite having abundant natural resources and hydropower potentialneeded for any remarkable industrial growth and socio-economicdevelopment, the region remains industrially, infrastructurally andeconomically backward even after 57 years of independence. Accordingto some planning and development experts, locational disadvantage,dearth of transport and communication facility, low credit absorptioncapacity of the local people, lack of visionary outlook of the localpolitical leadership and social unrest are the major impedimentstowards economic development of the region. However, in order to have a better idea about the factors contributingtowards the region's economic backwardness as distinct from growth itis quite important to make an indepth assessment of various aspectswhich have been adding to the backwardness of the North East. It is anaccepted fact that industrial activities in colonial British Indiawere concentrated mainly in three States of Maharashtra, Tamil Naduand West Bengal and more particularly to three metropolitan cities ofMumbai, Chennai and Kolkata due to British industrialists' preferenceto these places. Accordingly, investment in industry andinfrastructure such as transport and communication facilities, power,irrigation made by the British in those areas resulted in unevengrowth keeping the other areas including the North East totallyneglected. During post-independence era, presence of various lacunae in planningmechanism has also enlarged the disparity between the developed andunderdeveloped States and regions of the country since, in respect ofallocation of plan outlay, developed States have been getting muchfavour than less developed States. From first to seventh plan, Punjaband Haryana have received the highest per capita allocation all alongand the other three States of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradeshhave also received larger allocation of plan outlay in almost all thefive year plans. On the other hand, Bihar, Orissa, Assam and othernortheastern States have been receiving smallest allocation of percapita plan outlay in almost all the plans thereby widening theregional imbalance. Since economic overheads like transport and communication facilities,power, banking and insurance facilities are considered important forflow of new investment in any development project and the privatesector investment always has a tendency to concentrate much in urbanand metropolitan areas having economic and industrial infrastructure,the north eastern region with its difficult hilly terrain, deniedforests, rivers and valleys with proneness to flood, faces poor rateof economic development due to its insensibility and other inherentdifficulties that make mobilisation of resources difficult in theregion. A little comparison of Assam's existing road network of 89486km with that of Kerala's 150851 km when the geographical area ofKerala is less than half of Assam (area of Kerala is 38863 sq km asagainst Assam's 78433 sq km) displays the most outward appearance ofthe region's infrastructural infirmity and calls for urgent need forallocation of massive funds for building the regi! on's road network tocatch up with other developed States and the regions. Unless immediatesteps are not taken to make region's various infrastructure bases anational level, the North East shall remain economically backward dueto inadequacy of such economic overheads. The established industrialised centres and States with their economicoverheads and better investment climate attract the flow of investmentand also enjoy competitive advantage in widening markets for theirproducts with improved rate of return on their investment creatingshortage of capital and thwarting the existing industrial andhandicraft activities in the backward region which slowly turn intoagricultural with lower level of productivity. As such when the percapita cumulative assistance sanctioned and disbursed by the all Indiafinancial institutions at the end of March, 2001 for Maharashtra roseto Rs 17600 and Rs 12,224 for Gujarat Rs 19856 and Rs 12727 for DelhiRs 27670 and Rs 19272 respectively, the per capita cumulativeassistance sanctioned and disbursed for Assam stood at a meagre sum ofRs 1059 and Rs 706 respectively. In case of Tripura the figure stillwent downwards to Rs 313 and Rs 288 respectively. The per capita consumption of electricity in the north eastern Statesin 2002-03 was the lowest in the country at 180.29 kwh as against thenational average of 566.69 kwh. During the same year industrialconsumption of electricity for the region was 26.83 kwh as against theall India average of 133.07 kwh indicating low industrial and economicactivity in the region. Non-allocation of adequate funds for approvedprojects in many cases, is also causing delay in implementation ofdifferent infrastructure projects thereby defeating the very purposefor which they were sanctioned and approved. The north eastern region,therefore, faces a circular and cumulative process known as viciouscircle of poverty which increasingly operates downwards creatinggrowing inequalities. For balanced economic development of the entire north eastern regionbased on the region's resources, skills, need and physical andsocio-economic hurdles, a regional planning body in the name of NorthEastern Council (NEC) was constituted in 1972 with its head office atShillong through the enactment of North Eastern Council Act of 1971. Ironically, despite spending over Rs 6000 crore during the last 33years since its inception in 1972, the NEC has failed to achievesuccess, to the desired level, in the quest of economic development ofthe region, primarily on two counts. First, due to adoption of thepractice of appointing constituent state governors who had no time,comprehension and perspective about the region's priority, needs andits physical and socio-economic obstacles as its chairman and second,choosing the practice of filling up different important facultypositions on deputation from different organisations a practice thatdoes not always assure selection of persons with in-depth knowledgeand competence in different fields since no professionally managedorganisation or management seeks to part with the best and competentprofessionals thereby turning NEC from a planning body to a merefunding body for governmental largesse. While prolonged economic backwardness and a near total economicstagnation in the region have given birth to militancy and terrorismcausing disastrous impact on the economy of the region, prevalence ofcontinued hostile environment has become so symbolic to the regionthat the word "North East" has become a brand name and an object ofmedia attraction that sells in mainland India. The only positiveimpact of the decades of blood-bath in the region is the realisationof the region's state of underdevelopment and initiating some actionsto reverse this downward trend by the Union government in the recentpast. Allocation of 10 per cent budgetary allocation from eachministry for special development of NE region under Non-lapsableCentral Pool of Resources, creation of a separate ministry fordevelopment of NER, nomination of 3 seasoned and experiencedbureaucrats known for their visionary zeal as whole time member of NECand appointment of the Union Minister for DoNER as the Ex-officioChai! rman of the Council are some of the pioneering steps that havebeen taken by the Centre the benefit of which are yet to be seen bythe people of the region. Paradoxically, even after earmarking about forty-five per cent ofNEC's budgetary allocation for the power sector development andinvesting almost Rs 2500 crore in hydro power projects during the last3 decades, when a portion of generated power is sold to other regionsat a price as is available in the North East, the region continues toplunge in darkness as a regular phenomenon making the North East aparadox of development and giving a solid food for thought for theplanners and policy makers of the region. Without a conscious reviewof the prevailing norms of the region's power pricing and allocationof power to the constituent States, the power scenario and prospect ofindustrial development of the region are likely to remain bleak evenafter commissioning of the ongoing projects worth over Rs 5700 croresanctioned in the year 2000 under the NE package. Sooner it is donebetter it is for the North East. _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
