By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Human right activist Dr. Binayak Sen’s recent observation of stopping structural violence and repressive measures for tackling political opposition, specially Maoists, remains to be seen, though not much can be expected from the present political set-up. Notwithstanding, recent discourses on Maoism and reports and documents being prepared, mostly by Government agencies, on the causes of extremism and its consequences in the coming years. Indeed, this is a healthy trend because at least the neglect and oppression of the poor and impoverished are being highlighted. True, Maoist violence is being criticized but at the same time people are realizing that the militants are fighting for a cause albeit to improve the tribals’ and poor people’s living standards. Given that there is no direct intervention by the Centre or State Governments in Maoist-affected districts coupled with the fact that existing programmes do not reach the grass root level. Sadly, the Government is busy undertaking ambitious plans for beautification of cities, modernizing and building airports and looking after the comforts of the rich and upper middle classes.
Take the case of the Planning Commission’s definition of poverty: It told the Supreme Court that Rs 20 per day was enough to keep those living in urban areas out of poverty and Rs 15 for those living in rural areas. This works out to Rs 578 per month per capita expenditure which includes rent, conveyance, education, medicines, food etc. at a time when food inflation is hovering around 8 per cent. Recall, members of Sonia Gandhi’s much-touted National Advisory Council (NAC) recently held an agitation in Delhi but it failed to cut any ice. Clearly, the basis and justification for fixing such unrealistic and ridiculous figures needs to be made public as also the persons involved in the exercise. It is common knowledge that the poverty-line figures have either been cooked up or are under instruction from protagonists of liberalization, led by Planning Commission’s Dy Chairman Montek Ahluwalia. Their competence for arriving at such figures needs to be investigated. Interestingly, this happened within days of Sen making public the poor condition of nutrition standards prevailing in the country. According to him, over 50 per cent of the Schedules Caste population has a BMI (body mass index) of less than 18.5 per cent and 60 per cent of Scheduled Tribes. Shockingly, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) if 40 per cent of a community has a BMI less than 18.5, it is considered in famine. This is not all. The Planning Commission stipulates 2100 calories per day per person in cities and 2400 calories per day in rural areas to survive. This totals an expenditure of Rs 44 per day at current prices. But according to the Tendulkar report consuming 1800 calories per day is enough for poor people who put in hard labour. On the other hand, the National Institute of Nutrition prescribes 2320-3400 calories per day for good health. Why this dichotomy? Most scandalously, according to WHO figures many districts are experiencing famine.
Despite various NGOs’, civil society and media relentlessly agitating on the need for balanced regional development and upgrading living conditions of the poor and economically weaker sections.
Yet the Planning Commission puts the poverty ratio at 33 per cent of the population and Sonia’s NAC at 46 per cent. Classic cases of flawed reasoning as both estimates woefully fall short of the late Arjun Sengupta’s estimation that 77 per cent of the population was surviving on less than Rs 20 a day. Needless to say, our bureaucrats and policy makers, most of whom come from society’s higher echelons, have virtually no understanding of the grassroots situation, its squalor and struggle. Educated in an urban environment they seem to be either ignorant or oblivious of the poor living in rural India. Meanwhile, many politicians and Montek Ahluwalia in a recent report have criticized the media for focusing on “concentration of wealth and widening disparities”. Despite various NGOs’, civil society and media relentlessly agitating on the need for balanced regional development and upgrading living conditions of the poor and economically weaker sections.
The Government’s attempt to fudge figures, according to some social activists, is intended to bring down the number of poor who may not be the beneficiaries of the Food Security Bill, expected to be brought in Parliament’s monsoon session. Significantly, a Supreme Court order has echoed a 2007 Planning Commission report which observed that the Maoists rise is a “political movement with a strong base among poor peasants and Adivasis”. It asked the Government to deal with the problem of landlessness, ensure livelihood and have an effective land acquisition and rehabilitation policy. It further stated: “There is no denying that what goes in the name of ‘Naxalism’ is to a great extent a product of the collective failure to assure to different segments of society their basic entitlements under the Constitution and other protective legislation”. Thus, how can one justify the use of force to curb a movement where people are fighting for bare survival? Undoubtedly, there has been no effort by the Government in understanding the demands of the poor, voiced by the ‘extremists’.
Some assert that the Planning Commission needs to understand that what is being depicted in the media or what the NAC members are fighting for is to allow the majority to live a dignified existence, “live and let live”. Worse, according to some western economists, it was argued that the trend in Third World countries was to subsidize the urban middle class at the cost of the rural poor. In India, as also in many developing countries, the tendency is to maximize growth by ignoring agriculture and rural development and emulate the Western models of development. Similarly, the Human Development Report creator late Mahbub-ul-Haque, had aptly pointed out: “The basic concept of development is not too much GNP levels, important though that is, but to create an enabling environment in which people can enjoy long, healthy and creative lives”. This approach has not been followed in India thanks to our politicians and bureaucrats who have little or no concern for people at the lowest rung of the ladder. —– INFA