Time and again this debate comes in modern Indian intellectual circles what place religious symbols have in a secular society? Our modern society is very much fascinated and inspired the secularism in France. We are increasingly opposing the display of religious symbols in the public places. Many a time it is believed that a section of society getting more favourable treatment while others are discriminated. Fundamental problem and confusion is created by forgetting the definition of Indian secularism and taking example of French secularism.
India has a completely different socio-cultural environment to France so the comparison is quite baseless. India is a country where a large number of Hindus (a majority by population) visit dargah and mosques in hope of getting divine blessings. Religion and faith does not come into the mind of these people. At the same time at many places, particularly Kashmir, a large number of Muslims help Hindus in their pilgrimage to holy shrines in Himalayas. Followers of different religion help each other in getting divine blessings. Everyone follows his/her religion but does not bother what the religion of other person is. But the point is that everyone is (or most of the people are) religious in some sense. Religion can not be, at least in near future, removed from Indian life.
When I grew up in a Muslim dominated town, I had seen Muslim women always wearing burqua but it never bothered me. If they came to our shop to buy something then we were not concern about their attire. For us, it has always been their choice. If they, by choice, want to wear burqua than what is wrong. Recently a case of a Muslim girl , Ayesha, made national headline when she was not allowed to attained college in burqua. How does it should matter to other students and the faculty if she comes in burqua. Burqua is not a Satan that will eat away everything that comes near it. It is just a piece of cloth. If someone does not like than that person has freedom not to be friend with this girl but there is no need for agigation or banning the burqua altogether.
Some people start questioning that the Hindu or the Sikhs are allowed to display their religious symbols than why not Muslims. Arguments and counter-arguments can go like that burqua (and beard) is not religious requirement but the sikh's turban is. It can go on and on. But the basic questions is why argue at the first place. France has ban all the religious symbols from all public places. People sitting in India gets excited and start demanding similar structure. But they forget that France is a pseudo-secular country that is suppressing its minorities in the name of secularism. If one look closely than one finds that a lot of christian symbols are allowed in France but nothing for other religions. For example, why there is Christmas and Easter holiday if it is secular country? Or then why not Id is national holiday in France? One can carry engagement or wedding ring everywhere in France. Is this ring system not very christian? May be at one time when Muslim population in France was really low, it did not matter much but now it is not fair. No one questions when a Jew rabbi roam around the street of Paris in sporting Jews cap or a catholic nun wear almost-burqua like dress but Muslim burqua is not welcome.
In India, religion has not been eradicated like China nor been tried to uniformalised as in France (though it is bias towards Christianity). Religion is part of life. Expecting that the symbols can be removed and a uniform society can be created in India is hugely hypothetical. India need to learn to bear and tolerate the difference. In fact, it has been part of Indian culture and society for so long. Why some of the intellectuals are trying to create a resistance between the different faiths by thinking homogeneous society. Some of the intellectuals suggest that religion is a bane in Indian progress but they forget that upto 3 centuries ago India commanded almost 25% of international trade and it was religious society even then. We need to learn from our own history rather than copying a model from others (France) that will not work in India.
If Ayesha want to bear burqua than let her bear. Do not need to show hatred but need to show genereousity.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Why IIT professors need more salary?
IIT professors took casual leave to protest against the snipped pay hike. It is democratic right for all the workers (employees) to protest peacefully if they are not happy with something, particularly salary. There is no problem in that. As being from engineering college they perhaps felt necessary to provide reason. But the logic behind their strike is little unreasonable.
First, some of them have compared their salaries to the professors at Harvard and MIT. No doubt professors at American universities get Rs 500,000 a month that is whopping amount when seen as such. But it needs to be talked in purchasing power terms. Purchasing power factor is almost 5 for India and America. So the amount professors earned in America is equivalent to Rs 100,000 when this factor is taken into account. As reported in the media and can be calculated from the IITs recruitment websites that a professor of IIT gets almost Rs 50,000. Does this really look so less as made by the professors and the media?
Second, some of the professors have given interviews to the media that they left some lucrative offers at Stanford and other US universities to come to India. Well, it is good that they decided to come, teach and research in India but what else they expect? They have not done any personal favour to anyone or the country at large. Expect a few, most of them come back because they did/could not fit into the US or any other society. They miss their home and parents. They want their kids to grow up in India with Indian "traditional" values.
Third, they get the best possible facilities in India for research in comparison to any other university. Not only they have freedom to do research whatever they want to but also they get all the resources, including the best brain of India to work for them. For a career in academic what else one needs? They get almost free on-campus accommodation with electricity and water supply for 24 hours. Their kids have Kandriya Vidyalaya in campus. They live a life free of many day-to-day hassle that an ordinary citizen of India faces. And after all they get respect from the society and the government for being a teacher of repute in an institute of excellence.
IIT professors are asking for scholastic payment of Rs 15,000 per month. Their argument is that spend six years in doing a Phd on their subject. They lost the opportunity to earn in those years so they need to /should be compensated for the lost opportunity. Is it a joke? Any professor teaching in a smaller university also spends six years for doing Phd and they do not even get scholarship during those years but they do not get any benefits for the lost opportunity. They why the IIT professors should get? They should be equal in terms of direct compensation from the government.
One should not forget that the IITs are government institutes and run on government funding. MIT, Harvard and Stanford are private institutes. They have different objectives. Neither IIT professors should compare themselves with their students who get offer of Rs 9 lacs in their forth year. Many of these professors are from IITs and they had chance to accept these corporate offers but they choose to spend life in academic. This is life they have chosen and imposed on them. If they are not happy they are welcome to join corporates and work for 60 hours a week on subjects that the companies like them to work and lose their freedom to do research. It is a balancing act. One can not get everything in one life.
First, some of them have compared their salaries to the professors at Harvard and MIT. No doubt professors at American universities get Rs 500,000 a month that is whopping amount when seen as such. But it needs to be talked in purchasing power terms. Purchasing power factor is almost 5 for India and America. So the amount professors earned in America is equivalent to Rs 100,000 when this factor is taken into account. As reported in the media and can be calculated from the IITs recruitment websites that a professor of IIT gets almost Rs 50,000. Does this really look so less as made by the professors and the media?
Second, some of the professors have given interviews to the media that they left some lucrative offers at Stanford and other US universities to come to India. Well, it is good that they decided to come, teach and research in India but what else they expect? They have not done any personal favour to anyone or the country at large. Expect a few, most of them come back because they did/could not fit into the US or any other society. They miss their home and parents. They want their kids to grow up in India with Indian "traditional" values.
Third, they get the best possible facilities in India for research in comparison to any other university. Not only they have freedom to do research whatever they want to but also they get all the resources, including the best brain of India to work for them. For a career in academic what else one needs? They get almost free on-campus accommodation with electricity and water supply for 24 hours. Their kids have Kandriya Vidyalaya in campus. They live a life free of many day-to-day hassle that an ordinary citizen of India faces. And after all they get respect from the society and the government for being a teacher of repute in an institute of excellence.
IIT professors are asking for scholastic payment of Rs 15,000 per month. Their argument is that spend six years in doing a Phd on their subject. They lost the opportunity to earn in those years so they need to /should be compensated for the lost opportunity. Is it a joke? Any professor teaching in a smaller university also spends six years for doing Phd and they do not even get scholarship during those years but they do not get any benefits for the lost opportunity. They why the IIT professors should get? They should be equal in terms of direct compensation from the government.
One should not forget that the IITs are government institutes and run on government funding. MIT, Harvard and Stanford are private institutes. They have different objectives. Neither IIT professors should compare themselves with their students who get offer of Rs 9 lacs in their forth year. Many of these professors are from IITs and they had chance to accept these corporate offers but they choose to spend life in academic. This is life they have chosen and imposed on them. If they are not happy they are welcome to join corporates and work for 60 hours a week on subjects that the companies like them to work and lose their freedom to do research. It is a balancing act. One can not get everything in one life.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Delhi Mumbai among the least expensive cities in the world?
This very exciting news has come in almost every newspapers (The Hindu, Indian express,) in the country. It is a refreshing news in a time of recession and when the commodity prices are shooting up. We, people living in the metros, can at least feel that we are living in the least expensive city in the world. But if you ask anyone in these cities they will tell you that this is not true. So, where is the mistake? I tried to find the answer for this and explain in next paragraphs.
First thing that should strike in any statistics based analysis is that what the parameters chosen for the data collection and how they are analysed. As the reports says that the basket for this analysis has been selected based on the western European consumer preferences then the same basket, with little variations, has been used through out the world cities. It is a questionable assumption and the whole analysis will be altered if this is challenged. This report has given only 14% for the food and groceries and 15% for the transportation. How many of the Indian in these cities spend more money on the transport and less on food? It is true for the western Europe but not for the Indian cities. People living in these cities spend money on the transport but the weightage given to these items do not reflect the regional realities.
If one looks at the other table, net and gross wages, then it is clear that the Indian workers are the least paid among the 73 cities selected for the survey. This is also reflect in the domestic purchasing power for these cities. Most of the Asian cities, Indian cities are on the bottom, can buy only upto 5.5 of the basket while people in European cities can buy 13 standard baskets. In North America and Sydney this ratio is 16 times. So they can by 2-3 times than the average worker in Indian metro. Is this is still really cheap to live in Delhi and Mumbai?
Other problem with the survey is that the price comparison should be done for the same commodities. For example, when one travel in a local train in Geneva or Zurich then the quality of the train and the speed and overall experience is not comparable to the local in Mumbai.Other example is of the accommodation. Whatever one pays, quality of accommodation in Indian metros is worse than in western European cities. So even if one pays less for the service, the services is not the same. So ideally these can not be compared. Same products are like 8GB ipod. But how many people in Indian metros can really afford this gadget? These things are, to some extent, reflected in the Human Development Index of UN report where Indian cities perform badly.
This report can give good indication to compare western European cities but to extend beyond that is meaning less. So no hype. It conveys no sense to any sensible person.
First thing that should strike in any statistics based analysis is that what the parameters chosen for the data collection and how they are analysed. As the reports says that the basket for this analysis has been selected based on the western European consumer preferences then the same basket, with little variations, has been used through out the world cities. It is a questionable assumption and the whole analysis will be altered if this is challenged. This report has given only 14% for the food and groceries and 15% for the transportation. How many of the Indian in these cities spend more money on the transport and less on food? It is true for the western Europe but not for the Indian cities. People living in these cities spend money on the transport but the weightage given to these items do not reflect the regional realities.If one looks at the other table, net and gross wages, then it is clear that the Indian workers are the least paid among the 73 cities selected for the survey. This is also reflect in the domestic purchasing power for these cities. Most of the Asian cities, Indian cities are on the bottom, can buy only upto 5.5 of the basket while people in European cities can buy 13 standard baskets. In North America and Sydney this ratio is 16 times. So they can by 2-3 times than the average worker in Indian metro. Is this is still really cheap to live in Delhi and Mumbai?
Other problem with the survey is that the price comparison should be done for the same commodities. For example, when one travel in a local train in Geneva or Zurich then the quality of the train and the speed and overall experience is not comparable to the local in Mumbai.Other example is of the accommodation. Whatever one pays, quality of accommodation in Indian metros is worse than in western European cities. So even if one pays less for the service, the services is not the same. So ideally these can not be compared. Same products are like 8GB ipod. But how many people in Indian metros can really afford this gadget? These things are, to some extent, reflected in the Human Development Index of UN report where Indian cities perform badly.
This report can give good indication to compare western European cities but to extend beyond that is meaning less. So no hype. It conveys no sense to any sensible person.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Dawn of intellectual darkness in Indian politics
India is a world's largest democracy but unfortunately her political parties are not. For most of the time after independence, India has been rules under one party - Indian national congress. Charismatic leader Pt. Nehru and autocratic leader Indira Gandhi never allowed much space within the party for any discussion. This was one of the reason that many of the leaders came out of the Congress to form their own parties. It was a good step. It gave room to evolve thoughts. Implementation Mandal commission report by VP Singh was an example of this free system. He wanted to implement genuinely for the benefit of the lower caste people or not can be debated but the very act of implementing the recommendations was not something that might have come out from one party.
But sadly enough, all the parties those were supposed to be place of discussion and thoughts have become the same leader-founder based parties. Whether it is Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi Party or Mayawati's BSP. There is no discussion. BJP was and still to large extent a party in India that has no charismatic leader anymore. Its founder members led the party for decades but they gave enough opportunity to the other leaders to grow and debate on many topics. Leaders could get more opportunity based on their abilities and potential. This was remarkable departure from rest of the parties and a hope for the political leaders to have their own space. But it seems that BJP is also changing its tolerance for having different views and expressing them.
As it is made out in the case of Jaswant Singh. He has been expelled from the party he was part of since its inception. Only argument given against him is that he has written a book that does not subscribe the the views/believes of the party. First of all, most, if not all, of the leaders of the party who took decision to expel him have not read the book. They might in best case have seen the interview of Jaswant Singh before the book release. Making a decision, as harsh as, to expel someone without giving a showcase notice needs more interrogation. Even if in the book, Jaswant Singh said that Nehru, Gandhi and Patel were equally responsible for the partition of the country then whats wrong? He is not claiming that he is right. It is his perspective and he has analyse the events of pre-independence based on his research and abilities. He might be wrong. So what. Party is out of power. Its leader should have freedom to think and introspect on various topics. Otherwise how the knowledge will grow? Or the party thinks that they have gained enough knowledge they need to run a party and the country if they come power.
This harsh and unfortunate step will discourage other leaders to speak out their different opinion. It might be difficult to bear criticism from within the party but it also gives opportunity to correct one before other parties take advantage of the weakness/mistake. Learning can happen only in an environment that encourages debate, dialogue and allow space for difference. Yes, everyone needs to agree on some core/fundamental issue to move together. But, definitely one should have freedom to pursue one's academic interest and write books. We always criticise when a movie is banned in one state for some reasons under the pressure from some extremists and now how can this be supported? Gujrat government has banned the book, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence. Though it is symbolic because people can buy from other sates and of course online but it is a big move to show the inwards and conservative attitude of today's politics in India.
This controversy will have an impact on Indian politics that will be far reaching and we can say it the dawn of intellectual darkness in politics.
But sadly enough, all the parties those were supposed to be place of discussion and thoughts have become the same leader-founder based parties. Whether it is Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi Party or Mayawati's BSP. There is no discussion. BJP was and still to large extent a party in India that has no charismatic leader anymore. Its founder members led the party for decades but they gave enough opportunity to the other leaders to grow and debate on many topics. Leaders could get more opportunity based on their abilities and potential. This was remarkable departure from rest of the parties and a hope for the political leaders to have their own space. But it seems that BJP is also changing its tolerance for having different views and expressing them.
As it is made out in the case of Jaswant Singh. He has been expelled from the party he was part of since its inception. Only argument given against him is that he has written a book that does not subscribe the the views/believes of the party. First of all, most, if not all, of the leaders of the party who took decision to expel him have not read the book. They might in best case have seen the interview of Jaswant Singh before the book release. Making a decision, as harsh as, to expel someone without giving a showcase notice needs more interrogation. Even if in the book, Jaswant Singh said that Nehru, Gandhi and Patel were equally responsible for the partition of the country then whats wrong? He is not claiming that he is right. It is his perspective and he has analyse the events of pre-independence based on his research and abilities. He might be wrong. So what. Party is out of power. Its leader should have freedom to think and introspect on various topics. Otherwise how the knowledge will grow? Or the party thinks that they have gained enough knowledge they need to run a party and the country if they come power.
This harsh and unfortunate step will discourage other leaders to speak out their different opinion. It might be difficult to bear criticism from within the party but it also gives opportunity to correct one before other parties take advantage of the weakness/mistake. Learning can happen only in an environment that encourages debate, dialogue and allow space for difference. Yes, everyone needs to agree on some core/fundamental issue to move together. But, definitely one should have freedom to pursue one's academic interest and write books. We always criticise when a movie is banned in one state for some reasons under the pressure from some extremists and now how can this be supported? Gujrat government has banned the book, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence. Though it is symbolic because people can buy from other sates and of course online but it is a big move to show the inwards and conservative attitude of today's politics in India.
This controversy will have an impact on Indian politics that will be far reaching and we can say it the dawn of intellectual darkness in politics.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Jaswant Singh expelled from BJP for good but not with good reason
As always something unexpected happens and it makes news. This time BJP has expelled senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh from party's primary membership. This needs to be analysed in the perspective of the recent events in the party. He served for the party for over 30 years and today he has been expelled for writing a book. Jaswant singh has repeatedly said that this book was his academic interest rather than political statement. Very few people might have read the book yet in last two days so the argument that he has blamed Sardar Patel or Nehru for partition does not go down well.
The question that raises is why he was not given any opportunity to explained himself before the party leaders? Though this question is quite irrelevant in itself because everyone knew that he was working on this book for last four and a half year. Many of the leaders must have been aware of his findings and thoughts on Jinnah for years. It seems that the answer lies in the fact that he has no more potential for the future. He is already over 70 and by the time next election will come he will cross the age of 75. He has recently said in an interview that he did not want to be potential for all his (remaining) life. It can be taken as an indication that he was planning to retire anyway but not in this way.
In recent months some of the party leaders have displayed open rebellion behavior and Jaswant Singh was one of them. Yaswant Sinha, Arun Jaitly, Arun Soorie and a few more have also spoken too much in the media and shown their displeasure with the way party works. Now Vasundhra Raje in Rajasthan is opposing the central leadership for last week. The party needed to sent this singnal to these that they are important to the party but if the need may be they will be face the disciplinary action. In case of Jaswant Singh it is too harsh because the reason given is that he has written a book praising Jinnah. But it was needed. He became scapegoat that is sad.
No one can/should support BJP that it is criticising the academic interest of a senior leader. Every party aspiring to the top office in the country should have some people who are visionaries, thinkers and philosophers. A new generation of people will undoubtedly come out from within the party but this action will force the members not to express their views that do not align with the party views. For a successful running one needs to listen to the criticism. If this comes from within than it is better because it can be discussed, argued and resolved amicably.
With current realities, saddened Jaswant Singh will have more time to work on the projects he likes most. He will lots of free time now to follow his passion for writing and there will be many willing to listen him. So he should not be sad at all but look for what lies ahead of him.
The question that raises is why he was not given any opportunity to explained himself before the party leaders? Though this question is quite irrelevant in itself because everyone knew that he was working on this book for last four and a half year. Many of the leaders must have been aware of his findings and thoughts on Jinnah for years. It seems that the answer lies in the fact that he has no more potential for the future. He is already over 70 and by the time next election will come he will cross the age of 75. He has recently said in an interview that he did not want to be potential for all his (remaining) life. It can be taken as an indication that he was planning to retire anyway but not in this way.
In recent months some of the party leaders have displayed open rebellion behavior and Jaswant Singh was one of them. Yaswant Sinha, Arun Jaitly, Arun Soorie and a few more have also spoken too much in the media and shown their displeasure with the way party works. Now Vasundhra Raje in Rajasthan is opposing the central leadership for last week. The party needed to sent this singnal to these that they are important to the party but if the need may be they will be face the disciplinary action. In case of Jaswant Singh it is too harsh because the reason given is that he has written a book praising Jinnah. But it was needed. He became scapegoat that is sad.
No one can/should support BJP that it is criticising the academic interest of a senior leader. Every party aspiring to the top office in the country should have some people who are visionaries, thinkers and philosophers. A new generation of people will undoubtedly come out from within the party but this action will force the members not to express their views that do not align with the party views. For a successful running one needs to listen to the criticism. If this comes from within than it is better because it can be discussed, argued and resolved amicably.
With current realities, saddened Jaswant Singh will have more time to work on the projects he likes most. He will lots of free time now to follow his passion for writing and there will be many willing to listen him. So he should not be sad at all but look for what lies ahead of him.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Bollywood stars like Sahrukh Khan need VIP and deplomatic status
It is an irony that the day we were expecting to watch parade on Rajpath on national television channel what we found was that SRK was frisked on an airport in America. News was so big, if we believe media, that many felt as if the Indian sovereignty has been stripped off by a immigration officer in America. How sad! How come an immigration officer do this with our star entertainer. He is King Khan. His name is Khan. Perhaps this was the reason.
Media did not allow us to think or reflect on the incidence and Internet forums were filled with the support for SRK. National pride came into picture. Online bloggers and facebook and twitter society found this an outrageous and unacceptable behavior. Media also found support from some of the minister in Indian government. Twitter savvy External minister of state Shashi Tharoor wanted to take this issue with the US government and Ambika Soni wanted tit-for-tat.
But the biggest question is who is Sahrukh Khan? For a foreign country like America he is just a traveller who comes very often to America. Incidentally his surname is Khan that is very common surname among the perpetrators against America. He was not arrest at all. He was just questioned by the immigration officer. There is nothing wrong in that. All the visas for most of the countries do not allow automatic entry into the borders of the respective countries. All visas are conditional. One needs to satisfy the immigration officer on the airport for the purpose of visit and whatever the doubt immigration officer might have.
Unfortunately, Mr Khan found this insulting that someone questioned him. He is treated like god (small g, and not God) Khan in India. Whatever he says, everyone wants to listen. He has access to all the top people of the country. He can whatever he wants to. But he forgets that he is not a VIP by status, only by demand or box office success. He has no official authority. In fact, officially he can not get any support from the Government of India other than an ordinary citizen of India when he is abroad. Though through his contacts, he can expedite his questioning on the airport. That's it.
In fact, if the US embassy takes offence of what has been said against the US immigration policies in the media, by SRK and his supporters, in last couple of days, he will be disciplined by the ministry of external affairs. India do not want to (or can not afford) to jeopardise Indian diplomatic relationship with US at this juncture for SRK. He needs to realise that. Perhaps he has understood that he has overreacted and now his is downplaying and not demanding any apology or special treatment from US government.
Media did not allow us to think or reflect on the incidence and Internet forums were filled with the support for SRK. National pride came into picture. Online bloggers and facebook and twitter society found this an outrageous and unacceptable behavior. Media also found support from some of the minister in Indian government. Twitter savvy External minister of state Shashi Tharoor wanted to take this issue with the US government and Ambika Soni wanted tit-for-tat.
But the biggest question is who is Sahrukh Khan? For a foreign country like America he is just a traveller who comes very often to America. Incidentally his surname is Khan that is very common surname among the perpetrators against America. He was not arrest at all. He was just questioned by the immigration officer. There is nothing wrong in that. All the visas for most of the countries do not allow automatic entry into the borders of the respective countries. All visas are conditional. One needs to satisfy the immigration officer on the airport for the purpose of visit and whatever the doubt immigration officer might have.
Unfortunately, Mr Khan found this insulting that someone questioned him. He is treated like god (small g, and not God) Khan in India. Whatever he says, everyone wants to listen. He has access to all the top people of the country. He can whatever he wants to. But he forgets that he is not a VIP by status, only by demand or box office success. He has no official authority. In fact, officially he can not get any support from the Government of India other than an ordinary citizen of India when he is abroad. Though through his contacts, he can expedite his questioning on the airport. That's it.
In fact, if the US embassy takes offence of what has been said against the US immigration policies in the media, by SRK and his supporters, in last couple of days, he will be disciplined by the ministry of external affairs. India do not want to (or can not afford) to jeopardise Indian diplomatic relationship with US at this juncture for SRK. He needs to realise that. Perhaps he has understood that he has overreacted and now his is downplaying and not demanding any apology or special treatment from US government.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Large part of India drought hit but No problem
Official statement had been for last two months that there is no problem and monsoon will come in few days or weeks but it never happened. Now state after state, district after district being declared drought hit. But still the government is not much concerned. This is the same government that claims "Congress ka hath admi ke sath". Where is that hand when the aam aadmi needs that hand? Is this only election gimmick? They make lots of policies that free electricity to the farmers and NREGA but how the react to the ground situation does not approve that they think and do the same things.
Prime Minister and many of his cabinet things in terms of numbers only. What is worried for the government is how much will be the growth this year? By some estimates still 70% population lives in the villages and over 40% poupulation is below poverty line but for the government answer is simple to this problem. Sharad pawar recently said India has enough food stock so no need to worry. Finance minister says drought or not, India will achieve over 6% GDP growth. But who says that the problem is with the GDP growth of India? Problem is of the increasing unemployment and disgrace in life for the aam aadmi.
There are two problem that arise from the drought. First, people involved in farming will lose their income from the farms. Though the dats shows that Indian farms are too small (on average) to be depended on only farm income for any family. This is true but it gives morale boost to the people involved in farming. When they see their crops growing they get satisfaction and go to spend money that runs the rural economy. When there is no farm income they will little food in the villages and that will drive them crazy. If the government gives free food the feeling of high morale and dignity can not be brought back. No self respecting man (or woman) would like to queue outside the ration shop for free food when they can earn and buy if they had given opportunity. They do not like to beg. They prefer to die. This why we have seen farmers' suicide in UP and Andhra Pradesh recently.
Second problem is that government system does not work. Whenever there is drought or any other natural disaster public distribution system has failed to perform. Good quality rice and wheat go to the black market. In many cases, people just do not get anything from the ration shop. These shops are closed and food comes and directly unloaded in the market rather than the ration shops. If the ration shops are really nice then they will provide some really cheap quality food with stones in it. It is not in the movies of Manoj Kumar and Amitabh in 1960s and 70s, it still happens in India. One example is reported by NDTV.
Prime Minister and many of his cabinet things in terms of numbers only. What is worried for the government is how much will be the growth this year? By some estimates still 70% population lives in the villages and over 40% poupulation is below poverty line but for the government answer is simple to this problem. Sharad pawar recently said India has enough food stock so no need to worry. Finance minister says drought or not, India will achieve over 6% GDP growth. But who says that the problem is with the GDP growth of India? Problem is of the increasing unemployment and disgrace in life for the aam aadmi.
There are two problem that arise from the drought. First, people involved in farming will lose their income from the farms. Though the dats shows that Indian farms are too small (on average) to be depended on only farm income for any family. This is true but it gives morale boost to the people involved in farming. When they see their crops growing they get satisfaction and go to spend money that runs the rural economy. When there is no farm income they will little food in the villages and that will drive them crazy. If the government gives free food the feeling of high morale and dignity can not be brought back. No self respecting man (or woman) would like to queue outside the ration shop for free food when they can earn and buy if they had given opportunity. They do not like to beg. They prefer to die. This why we have seen farmers' suicide in UP and Andhra Pradesh recently.
Second problem is that government system does not work. Whenever there is drought or any other natural disaster public distribution system has failed to perform. Good quality rice and wheat go to the black market. In many cases, people just do not get anything from the ration shop. These shops are closed and food comes and directly unloaded in the market rather than the ration shops. If the ration shops are really nice then they will provide some really cheap quality food with stones in it. It is not in the movies of Manoj Kumar and Amitabh in 1960s and 70s, it still happens in India. One example is reported by NDTV.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Old taxi owners in Kolkata should be compensated for buying new auto
Kolkata has finally been forced to take the commercial vehicles older than 15 years. It is a welcome step for a city that has almost 70% population suffering from some sort of respiratory disorder (Indian cancer institute, 2007). This number could be over 10 million. After the ban in the city some estimate shows that pollution level has gone by 50% in some of the most polluted crossing in the city.
Behind all this there is a big issue of the livelihood of 3000 bus drivers and the 6500 taxi drivers. Their jobs are at the stake for none of their fault. No doubt, the pollution level should go down but these people should have been given notice well in advance of couple of year to make smooth transition to greener option such as CNG. A large number of taxi owners might still not be able to or willing to change their old vehicle because they do not see any real benefit for themselves. When they are struggling for their day-to-day life, they have no benefits and can die any day in any road accident why they should care about the respiratory disease for themselves or other fellow citizens of the country?
The people who are in the public administration need to understand this issue and try to provide some kind of compensation to the vehicle owners who choose to buy new greener vehicles. A few thousands of rupees in tax benefits might cost a thousands of crore to the Exchequer but it should be seen as a long term investment in the human resource of the country. As a direct consequence, when more fuel efficient vehicles will be used then the cost of the oil and gas import should go down. Tangible benefits will be in reduction of the cost of medicine in the country.
No one has taken this issue so seriously and when, if, the political parties jumps in this debate then they will make this uglier than solving the problem through some sort of concession. And overall, it is the poor drivers and owners who will suffer this mismanagement of public grievances.
Behind all this there is a big issue of the livelihood of 3000 bus drivers and the 6500 taxi drivers. Their jobs are at the stake for none of their fault. No doubt, the pollution level should go down but these people should have been given notice well in advance of couple of year to make smooth transition to greener option such as CNG. A large number of taxi owners might still not be able to or willing to change their old vehicle because they do not see any real benefit for themselves. When they are struggling for their day-to-day life, they have no benefits and can die any day in any road accident why they should care about the respiratory disease for themselves or other fellow citizens of the country?
The people who are in the public administration need to understand this issue and try to provide some kind of compensation to the vehicle owners who choose to buy new greener vehicles. A few thousands of rupees in tax benefits might cost a thousands of crore to the Exchequer but it should be seen as a long term investment in the human resource of the country. As a direct consequence, when more fuel efficient vehicles will be used then the cost of the oil and gas import should go down. Tangible benefits will be in reduction of the cost of medicine in the country.
No one has taken this issue so seriously and when, if, the political parties jumps in this debate then they will make this uglier than solving the problem through some sort of concession. And overall, it is the poor drivers and owners who will suffer this mismanagement of public grievances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)