राष्ट्रवाद को समझना

राष्ट्रवाद को समझना 

  जब हिंदुस्तान की आजादी की लड़ाई के शुरुआती दो में , शहीदों में से एक, खुदीराम बोस ने फांसी का फंदा गले में डालते हुए विदाई के गीत ' हांसी हांसी पोरबो फांसी, देखबें मोर देशबासी' गाया  जिसका अर्थ था, कि "मैं खुशी खुशी फांसी पर चढ़ा और मेरे देशवासी मुझे इस बात के लिए याद रखेंगे।"

     भगत सिंह के "इंक़लाब जिंदाबाद " के नारे ने , भारत में ब्रिटिश शासन की खिलाफत करने के लिए एक पूरी पीढ़ी को प्रेरित किया। इस ताकतवर साम्राज्यवादी शक्ति की भारतीयों पर बढ़ती निर्दयता के खिलाफ जनता को एकजुट करने के लिए भगत सिंह की यह बात हमेशा याद रखी जायेगी कि" कानून की शुचिता लंबे समय तक , जनता की इच्छा के बिना नहीं बनाए रखी जा सकती।।"

      भारत के युवाओं को चंद्रशेखर आजाद के ब्रिटिश उपनिवेशवाद के खिलाफ संघर्ष के दौरान उन अमर शब्दों को याद करने की जरूरत है-- "अगर अभी तक आपका खून नहीं खौलता है, तो वह पानी है जो कि आपकी रगों में बह रहा है । तो युवाओं का यह रक्त किस काम का जो अगर मातृ भूमि की सेवा के काम ना आ सके है।"

    जब ब्रिटिश नौसेना के युवा भारतीयों ने , बम्बई बंदरगाह की ओर अपने जहाजों का रूख किया और बंदूकें चलाने से मना कर दिया और देश भर में मजदूरों ने एकजुटता दिखाते हुए , अपने औजारों और उपकरणों को रखकर काम बंद कर दिया। 

   आजादी के लिए हमारे इस संघर्ष ने पूरे देश की एकजुटता के उस सपने को साकार कर दिया जिसके लिए वर्षों से मेहनत की रही थी।

  क्रान्तिकारी कवि अशफाकउल्लाह खान के शब्दों में यह सपना नहीं है और यदि है तो वह यह होना चाहिए कि हम अपने बच्चों को भी इसके खिलाफ संघर्ष करते हुए देखें जिस साम्राज्यवाद को खत्म करने का बीड़ा उठाया गया है । 

   औपनिवेशिक शासन से मुक्ति के लिए जनता की एकता के सपने , का सिर्फ एक रंग नहीं था । औपनिवेशिक शासन के खिलाफ भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद का उदय सिर्फ मातृ भूमि को मुक्त कराने के अर्थ से बहुत आगे निकल गया था। भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद इंद्रधनुष के सात रंगों की तरह है , जिसमें देश में विभिन्न हिस्सों में बसी जनता ने स्वतंत्र, गौरवशाली और पूर्णतः नियंत्रित स्वतंत्र राष्ट्र, जो स्वयं अपना भाग्य विधाता हो , का सपना देखा और इसी सपने ने भारतीय दृष्टि का निर्माण किया । 

    यहाँ महिलाओं और पुरुषों , गरीब और अमीर, मजदूरों और किसानों , सभी धर्मों के लोगों के लिए समान ज़थं है । जाति, धर्म और लिंग से परे यह अविभाज्य एक राष्ट्र के रूप में स्थापित है । भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद के उदय के समय एक संघर्ष यह भी था कि देश शोषण और अन्याय के सभी बन्धनों से मुक्त रहे। 

     रवींद्रनाथ टैगोर के शब्दों में , जिस समाज या राष्ट्र में जनता को सम्मान और भय मुक्त जीवन हो, मुफ्त शिक्षा हो वह राष्ट्र अपनी संकीर्णता के दायरे से बाहर निकल जाता है। यह गौर करने की बात है कि भारतीय राष्ट्र के बारे में टैगोर की सोच सामजिक न्याय और गरिमा के साथ साथ, ज्ञान प्राप्त करने की स्वतंत्रता के बारे में भी है । सभी समुदायों और जातियों के प्रति सम्मान के बारे में वे इंगित करते हैं । 

सबका देश हमारा देश 

रणबीर सिंह दहिया 

9812139001

राष्ट्रवाद को समझना -2

  भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद का मुख्य आधार किसी भी रूप में हो रहे शोषण से मुक्ति है। गांधी जी के शब्दों में हमारे राष्ट्रवाद से किसी और राष्ट्र को खतरा नहीं हो सकता क्योंकि जैसे हम अपने साथ शोषण की अनुमति नहीं देते हैं बिलकुल उसी तरह दूसरे राष्ट्र के शोषण के पक्ष में भी नहीं हैं। गांधी जी साम्राज्यवादी राष्ट्र जैसे ब्रिटेन और भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद की निर्धारित करते हुए कहते हैं कि साम्राज्यवाद राष्ट्रीयता नहीं यह एक  बुराई है , संकीर्णता, स्वार्थीपन, एकात्मवाद है जिस पर आधुनिक राष्ट्र में प्रतिबंध लगना  चाहिए। 

   बाबासाहेब अम्बेडकर ने आगे दलील दी कि राष्ट्रवाद तब तक खोखला नारा है जब तक शोषितों की मुक्ति शामिल नहीं की जाती । यह संभव है कि राष्ट्र एक इकाई के रूप में हो लेकिन समाजशास्त्रीय दृष्टि से तब तक नहीं जब तक उसमें समाज के समस्त वर्गों को सम्मान नहीं दिया जाता। राष्ट्र की स्वतंत्रता का वास्तविक अर्थ समस्त वर्गों खास तौर पर गुलामी या दासता कर रहे वर्ग की स्वतंत्रता से है । सरोजिनी नायडू भी इसी धारा को आगे बढ़ाते हुए कहती हैं कि जब तक हम भाईचारे की भावना बनाये रखने में महारत हासिल नहीं करते तब तक यह विश्वास नहीं किया जा सकता कि हम साम्प्रदायिक नहीं हैं और एक राष्ट्र के रूप में स्थापित हो गए हैं ।

    स्वतंत्र भारत में राष्ट्रवाद की विस्तृत परिभाषा में विदेशी सत्ता के शोषण से मुक्त , सामाजिक , आर्थिक और राजनीतिक रूप से स्वतंत्रता और न्याय की गारंटी शामिल है। राष्ट्रवाद सिर्फ भौतिक सीमाओं की सुरक्षा भर नहीं है बल्कि अन्याय और शोषण के खिलाफ आवाज भी है।

     यह याद रखना महत्वपूर्ण है कि इसी समय में जब जनता की पूर्ण स्वतंत्रता के विचार के साथ भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद को व्यापकता में परिभाषित किया जा रहा था उसी समय दूसरे विचार के साथ राष्ट्रवाद को धर्म और जातीय आधारित संकीर्णता के रूप में भी परिभाषित किया जा रहा था। ब्रिटिश साम्राज्यवाद के खिलाफ चल रहे आजादी के संघर्ष ने राष्ट्रीयता और राष्ट्रवाद के विचार को विकसित करने में और मदद की। इसी समय यह दो व्यापक और संकीर्ण विचारधारा विकसित हो रही थी। राष्ट्रवाद के इन दो विचारधाराओं की जड़ें अठाहरवीं शताब्दी में यूरोप से प्रारम्भ हुई थी।

सबका देश हमारा देश 

डॉ रणबीर सिंह दहिया 

9812139001

आधुनिक राष्ट्र का उदभव

आधुनिक राष्ट्र का उदभव - नागरिक राष्ट्रवाद बनाम रक्तिय और नस्लीय
राष्ट्रवाद
               ‘राष्ट्र’ की आधुनिक परिभाषा अठारहवीं  सदी के यूरोप में उभरी । इससे पहले वहां पर राजाओं और शासकों का राज्य था । उनकी रियासतों की अपनी सीमायें थी , लेकिन कोई भी एक देश नहीं था । उदाहरण के तौर पर देखें तो आस्ट्रो -हंगेरियन साम्राज्य, तुर्क साम्राज्य मध्य यूरोप के लगभग आधे हिस्से में था , ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य इंग्लैंड के बाहर की दुनिया केे एक बडे़ हिस्से में फैला था । फ्रेंच और जर्मन ,जो बार- बार यूरोप में एक दूसरे से युद्ध लड़ रहे थे, यहां पर एक राष्ट्र की कोई अवधारणा नहीं थी । प्रत्येंक समाज अपनी सीमाओं और विभिन्न धार्मिक समूहों के रुप में आपस में संघर्ष कर रहे थे जैसे- कैथोलिक और प्रोटेस्टेंट आपस में एक दूसरे का विरोध कर रहे थे । दोनों ने पूर्वी रुढ़िवादी चर्च का विरोध किया । राष्ट्रों की अवधारणा , अठारहवीं सदी में परिभाषित की गई । कार्ल मार्क्स ने इसे पूजीवाद के तहत बाजार की आर्थिक सीमा कहा । यह आधुनिक राष्ट्र -राज्य का आधार बना।
 राष्ट्र -राज्यों के निर्माण की प्रक्रिया में पहचान हेतु एक सार्वजानिक सांस्कृतिक मापदंड बनाये गए ा इसमें सबसे अधिक भाषा को पहचान मिली | यह राष्ट्र निर्माण की प्रक्रिया का सबसे पहला भाग था |  भाषाओँ ,जिसके द्वारा हम यूरोप में सबसे अधिक देशों की पहचान आज करते हैं जैसे अंग्रेजी।, फ्रेंच ,इतालवी, डच ,जर्मन , पुर्तगाली , स्पेनिश आदि |  अपनी पहचान को बनाये रखने के लिए इन देशों का संघर्ष का एक लम्बा इतिहास है |   भाषाओँ की एक से अधिक संख्या की वजह से प्रमुख भाषा की पहचान के लिए विवाद हुए |  जैसे स्पेन में केटलोनिआ (बार्सिलोना के आसपास ) में लोगों का तर्क है कि कैटलन भाषा स्पेनिश भाषा से अलग है , फिर भी केटलिन भाषा को स्पेनिश के रूप में वर्गीकृत किया गया है |  इस प्रकार राष्ट्र के निर्माण की प्रक्रिया साधारण नहीं है कि अचानक , एक राष्ट्र का रूप ले ले | एक राष्ट्र के उभार में  बड़े सांस्कृतिक आदान - प्रदान का योगदान है | साथ ही अक्सर , हिंसक संघर्ष की भी हिस्सेदारी होती है |  राष्ट्र के निर्माण की प्रक्रिया में पूंजीवाद बाजार की स्थापना के साथ साथ एक भाषा को भी राष्ट्रीय पहचान के रूप में स्थापित होते देखा गया है |
           लेकिन क्या एक राष्ट्र और राष्ट्रवाद की परिभाषा को एक दो अलग अलग तरीकों से समझा जा सकता है |  दोनों परिभाषाओं में क्षेत्र या देश को एक भौगोलिक सीमा से परिभाषित किया गया है , जिसमें एक सीमाओं पर केंद्रित है जबकि दूसरी जनता को केंद्रित करती है |  नागरिक राष्ट्रवाद के विचा को फ़्रांसिसी क्रांति से प्रेरणा मिलती है |  जिसके अनुसार वे सभी लोग , जो देश की सीमा के भीतर रहते हैं फ़्रांस के पूर्ण नागरिक हैं |  इसलिए सभी नागरिकों को कानून के समक्ष समान रूप में देखा गया और इसलिए " स्वतंत्रता , समानता,और भाईचारे" का नारा दिया गया | फ़्रांसिसी क्रांति ने न केवल सत्तारूढ़ अभिजात वर्ग को उखाड़  फैंका  है , बल्कि फ़्रांस में रहने वाले , सभी लोगों को पूर्ण नागरिकता का अधिकार दिया है जिसमें यहूदी भी शामिल थे |

जिन लोगों ने इस धारणा को आगे बढ़ाया या उससे प्रभावित थे, जो जर्मनी के अतीत और उनके पूर्वजों से आकर्षित थे उन्होंने नस्लीय शुद्धता की बात पर जोर दिया। यह एक काल्पनिक अतीत पर आधारित था , जैसा कि हम जानते हैं कि दुनिया में कोई भी देश नहीं है जहां पर सिर्फ एक ही तरह के लोगों  की आबादी  निवास करती हो । आबादी का आवागमन अलग अलग जगहों पर चलता रहता है । शुद्ध जर्मन राष्ट्र की यह अवधारणा सिर्फ एक मिथक है कि एक राष्ट्र उसके मूल निवासी की नस्लीय विशेताओं के साथ एक विशेष नस्ल की पहचान पर आधारित है। यह अपवर्ज नात्मक राष्ट्रवाद कुछ मनमाने ढंग की विशेषता पर आधारित है, जबकि सभी दूसरों को छोड़कर लोगों में से एक नस्ल में शामिल है ।
    यूरोपीय इतिहास के अंतिम तीन सौ साल में राष्ट्र की इन दो विवादास्पद विचारों का एक प्रतिबिम्ब बनाया गया है। इस तरह के समरूप रक्त और नस्लीय राष्ट्र को बनाने के प्रयास को आगे बढ़ाया गया। उदाहरण के लिए , डेनमार्क और नार्वे  से कैथोलिक और फ़्रांस से प्रोटेस्टेंट को बाहर किया गया । यूरोप में सैंकड़ों साल तक समरूप रक्त और नस्लीय राष्ट्रों के निर्माण के लिए युद्ध होते रहे । युद्ध , नरसंहार , जातीय सफाई और अल्पसंख्यक जनता के निर्वासन का खूनी इतिहास यूरोपीय राष्ट्रवाद के साथ जुड़ा है।
       रक्त और नस्लीय राष्ट्र की अवधारणा ने जर्मनी में फासीवाद को जन्म दिया । जिनके भी पूर्वज जर्मनी में निवास नहीं करते थे वे शुद्ध जर्मन नहीं माने जाते थे। और उनके लिए जर्मनी में कोई स्थान नहीं था । यह हिटलर की बुनियादी समझ थी । इस आधार पर जर्मनी में यहूदियों और जिप्सी को मारा गया । इस प्रकार जर्मनी में फासीवाद का उदय हुआ और द्वीतीय विश्व युद्ध के एक ख़राब प्रभाव के साथ समापन हुआ ।
      हिटलर और जर्मनी में अन्य फासिस्टों के प्रस्तावित राष्ट्रवाद का यह रूप पौराणिक अतीत में अपने मूल में नहीं था । समरूप रक्त और नस्लीय राष्ट्रवाद के विपरीत दूसरी परिभाषा का निर्माण सैकड़ों - हजारों सालों से लोगों के बीच बातचीत के माध्यम से निर्मित हुआ है । साझा संस्कृति का उद्भव , सांझी ( या कई भाषाओं के देशों में ) भाषा और एक राष्ट्र के रूप में एक साझा उद्देश्य से प्रेरित राष्ट्रवाद का परिणाम है । यूरोपीय राष्ट्रों के उद्भव में बातचीत एवम खूनी संघर्ष के एक साथ हुए थे । 

राष्ट्रवाद को समझना

* जिस समय चीन ने अपनी तकनीकी क्षमताओं में वृद्धि की उसी समय भारत ने अपने बाजार विदेशी पूंजी के लिए खोल दिए ।

* विदेशी पूंजी को केवल तकनोलॉजी के लिए ही आमंत्रित नहीं किया बल्कि विदेशी कंपनियों को अधोसंरचना विकसित करने की भी इजाजत दी।

* पर-निर्भर आर्थिक पथ ने मैन्युफैक्चरिंग क्ष्रेत्र भारी औद्योगिक मन्दी को जन्म दिया।

* जो भी आर्थिक वृद्धि हुई , वह मुख्यतः सेवा-क्षेत्र से प्राप्त हुई। उदाहरण के लिए सेल फोंन'क्रांति' के कारण दूरसंचार में भारी स्थानीय बाजार पैदा होने के बावजूद, उपकरण निर्माण में गिरावट दर्ज की गई। कुछ ही देशी भारतीय कंम्पनियां निर्माण के क्षेत्र में शामिल हुई परन्तु अधिकांश हैंडसेट्स थोक में बाहरी देशों से आयात किये गए। जो यहाँ बने, उनमें भी अधिकांश मैन्युफैक्चरिंग चीन में होती है। 

* यहाँ तक कि दवा निर्माण क्षेत्र में भी, जहाँ जेनेरिक दवाओं के उत्पादन में भारत का महत्वपूर्ण स्थान है, आज भारतीय कंपनियां थोक में सक्रिय चिकित्सीय तत्वों को चीन से आयात कर दवा बनाकर पैकेज़ करती है। 

* चीन ने अपनी पंचवर्षीय योजनाओं को ही जारी नहीं रखा बल्कि उसके साथ साथ उसने मध्यम एवं लम्बी अवधि की योजनाएं भी बनाई हुई हैं जिनका फैलाव दशकों तक हैं।बुनियादी ढांचा निर्माण, शहर, विज्ञानं एवम प्रौद्योगिकी विकास , और यहाँ तक कि नवाचार विकसित करने की योजनाएं चीन ने बनाई हैं।

* यह दिलचस्प है कि मेड इन चीन 2025 नमक योजना इसने आरम्भ की है।

* इसके विपरीत हमारी वर्तमान सरकार ने योजना आयोग को समाप्त कर सभी योजनाओं को ही त्याग दिया है और अब हमारे पास केवल दंतविहीन नीति आयोग है। 

* हमारी आर्थिक योजनाओं को अस्वीकार कर विदेशी ताकतों द्वारा नियंत्रित बाजार के हवाले कर दिया है जिनकी रूचि राष्ट्र हित न होकर विदेशी हितों की सेवा करना है।

* हम पुनः प्रश्न पूछते हैं कि क्या यह वृहद पैमाने पर राष्ट्र विरोधी नहीं है?

* मौजूदा सरकार इस बात को स्वीकार नहीं करती कि आज प्रौद्योगिकी के क्षेत्र में ज्ञान महत्वपूर्ण है। उदाहरण के लिए एप्पल कम्पनी जो विश्व में सबसे बड़ी कम्पनी है ( बाजार पूंजीकरण के मामले में) इसकी आर्थिक ताकत कई समानांतर कम्पनियों से अधिक है । फिर भी इसकी अपनी एक भी फैक्ट्री नहीं है । यह आई फोन और मैक कम्प्यूटर "उत्पादित" करती है। यह कैसे करती है ? इसके पास डिजाइन है, साफ्टवेयर है और अपना एप्पल ब्रांड है। इस सबसे यह चीन की कम्पनी फॉक्सकोन को एप्पल ब्रांड के उत्पादों जैसे कि आई -फोन इत्यादि का निर्माण करने पर मजबूर कर सकती है जिसकी एवज में उसे अल्पपारितोषिक देती है। एक गणना के अनुसार एप्पल कम्पनी एक आई फोन से $ 300 कमाती है और फॉक्सकोन को देती है मात्र $ 7। यह है ज्ञान अर्थव्यवस्था की प्रकृति ।

* लोगों की क्षमताओं में वृद्धि किये बिना विदेशी पूंजी को न्यौता देना निश्चित रूप से "राष्ट्रवादी" कदम नहीं है। इसलिए इसमें कोई आश्चर्य नहीं है कि ' मेक इन इंडिया' के प्रचार प्रसार के बावजूद भी औद्योगिक क्षेत्र में लगातार गिरावट दर्ज की जा रही है । जबकि हर वर्ष लगभग एक करोड़ बीस लाख लोग रोजगार के बाजार में प्रवेश करते हैं परंतु मात्र 67% ही संगठित क्षेत्र में रोजगार प्राप्त कर पाते हैं । शेष या तो बेरोजगार हो जाते हैं या कैजुअल रोजगार प्राप्त करते हैं जो अनिश्चितता में जीते हैं ।

* एक राष्ट्र वादी कौन है ?

हम विचार विमर्श के लिए एक बुनियादी सवाल उठाते हैं । आज राष्ट्रवादी कौन है? जो लोग हमारे मूल्यों और स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन के सपनों को आगे लेकर बढे हैं? जो लोग भारत की मजबूती को देखना चाहते हैं , एकजुटता को, विविधता में एकता दिखाना चाहते हैं? या वे लोग जो भारत को कमजोर बनाते हैं , यह कह कर क़ि केवल खास तरह की संस्कृति,कुछ प्रकार की परम्पराओं को ही भारत में सम्मान दिया जायेगा। क्या एक व्यक्ति या व्यक्ति-समूह या एक सरकार राष्ट्रवादी होने का दावा कर सकती है जब वह इसके साथ -साथ हमारी राष्ट्रीय अर्थ व्यवस्था के नियंत्रण को विदेशी ताकतों के हवाले करके हमारे लोगों के जीवन को ही खतरे में डाल रही हो । राष्ट्रवाद और गैर राष्ट्रवाद के बीच असली बहस यही है ।

सबका देश हमारा देश अभियान

रणबीर

REGIONAL AIRPORTS AND AIR SERVICES

CASE STUDY 3: REGIONAL AIRPORTS AND AIR SERVICES

The last of the three Case Studies we are looking at relate to the new civil aviation policy that calls for government-supported promotion of new regional airports and subsidized regional air services.  Another example of elite-oriented "development," with public expenditure and subsidies to boot, whereas in direct contrast basic necessities of infrastructure and essential services such as health and education required by the common people are being denied or withdrawn by the government in the name of shortage of funds or austerity. Many people may ask: why are we discussing something as remote from the lives of common people as regional airports and air services? Surely, there must be more important things to discuss, which touch most of our lives? Even Urbanization and Rail Services impact

24Development for the Rich

on the lives of the common citizen and discussions of Smart Cities and Bullet Trains are therefore understandable. But why discuss obviously elitist infrastructure like airports? The answer is that this precisely shows that the model of "development" being followed by this government is pro-elite rather than pro-people. New Civil Aviation Policy The recently announced National Civil Aviation Policy (NCAP), much touted for being the first ever policy framed for this sector, is another such pro-rich policy. Two aspects in the NAPC stand out and are discussed here. First, an explicit commitment to invest State effort and public funds, including subsidies, on expanding the civil aviation customer base and related infrastructure, with the perspective that this will have a multiplier effect on the economy and will benefit the common man. Second, the idea that a set of fiscal, procedural and regulatory incentives will open the floodgates of private sector investment especially FDI into subsectors that are not doing well, even though the real reason behind the sluggishness is that, in the face of persistent private sector reluctance and lack of capacity, the State has been and continues to be unwilling to directly apply itself to the task. Two contradictory impulses are at work behind these policy directions, both based on fundamental misconceptions, and neither of which will yield the desired results. Regional Connectivity Scheme The big argument in NCAP is that civil aviation has a multiplier effect on the economy, generating 3.25 times economic growth per unit of investment, and over 6 times the number of jobs compared to average GDP growth, that too especially for "semi-skilled and unskilled workers" if NCAP is to be believed, presumably such as porters, loaders and taxi-drivers. It further argues that, if the estimated 300 million strong middle-class buys just 1 air ticket a year, this would mean a more than 4-fold increase! The Policy therefore seeks to "take to take flying to the masses by making it affordable and convenient… especially on regional routes" which are currently under-served. This is pure myth and serves only to mislead the public that this pro-rich expenditure is for the benefit of the common man who, of course, does not travel by air. NCAP argues that this potential calls for a massive and rapid expansion in air passenger and cargo traffic, which in turn "will require

25 .................

concessions by the Central and State Governments and Airport Operators." Through a new Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS), the Policy seeks to open up air connectivity to existing non-functional or new airports in small towns and cities on hitherto un-served or under-served regional routes.  The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) would provide subsidy or Viability Gap Funding (VGF) for a "significant part of the capacity," (some reports say this could be around 50 percent) of such routes of around 500-600km distance or 1 hour flight. Fares would be capped at Rs.2500 per seat, and a host of other concessions and incentives would be offered apart from fare subsidies. Currently, commercial operations are underway in 75 out of a total of 450 airstrips or airports in the country, some of which are being used for the odd charters, flying clubs or other purposes. RCS seeks to revive and upgrade selected airstrips/ airports on the basis of demand by airlines, with MoCA pledging to meet up to 80 percent of the estimated Rs.50-100 crore cost with State Governments meeting the balance 20 percent, the ratio being 90:10 in case of the North-East, "without insisting on financial viability" (emphasis added). State Governments will be required to provide all necessary land free, levy only 1 percent VAT on aviation fuel, reduce excise duties etc etc. The subsidy would come from a yet-to-be-specified levy on all air passengers travelling on trunk routes. There are many issues related to whether this scheme will work at all, as discussed below. But the bottom line is that the Government will pay for upgrading new airports, and will subsidize the airlines and passengers by contributing to around half the passengers’ fares and capping them. Corporate circles are overjoyed, airline shares have shot up and the pink press is overwhelmingly congratulatory. That is paradoxical indeed, considering that the corporate sector and proliberalization commentators in general have always cried hoarse against subsidies and government "hand-outs," especially when it comes to the masses, for instance the 90 percent of railway passengers who travel by second-sleeper or lower classes cross-subsidy for whom has long been begrudged as a drag on profitability and the economy. But subsidies for the rich and for private airlines are no problem, and viability of airports is of no concern! Not workable

26Development for the Rich

However, despite the fond hopes of a State-led and Statesubsidized expansion of air passenger traffic, the idea itself will simply not work, ironically because of contemporary market realities. Of the 75 airports currently in operation, several are already non-viable, have very slim passenger traffic or aircraft movement, and really have little to justify their continued functioning. For example, the once prestigious Mysore airport in Karnataka’s former capital and second city, today has no flights. The public sector Indian Airlines heroically kept up heavily loss-making flights, dwindling to a single flight a week, to Mysore which the Airports Authority of India (AAI) ran at a loss for several years. Vijay Mallya’s Kingfisher too ran some flights to Mysore out of hubris. All to no avail, and Mysore Airport is today shut. So too is the airport at Shimla. Not enough demand, with many alternative modes of travel available, even for the well-heeled passenger. Only state-owned Air India today flies to Kullu a few days a week with an astonishingly high fare of Rs.9,500 for a flight of just over one hour! Can this be subsidized to Rs.2500? Will any subsidy revive Mysore or Shimla airports? Back in 1994, under so-called Route Dispersal Guidelines (RDG), the pre-merger state-owned monopoly carrier Indian Airlines was ordered to run services on what were then loss-making routes to the North-East, the Islands, J&K and some Tier-II and Tier-III cities. In many cases, these locations were remote, with virtually no other connectivity to the mainland or were considered to be of tourist or strategic importance such as Jaipur, Agra or Bagdogra. These services were cross-subsidized by 12 trunk routes connecting the metros and major cities, a subject of much criticism in the LPG era. Today, many of these routes have vindicated the decision to cross-subsidize them, and have multiple daily flights including by private airlines with no need for subsidy, major airports in the North-East having over 2,000 daily passenger movements. But will the same apply to airports other than these? Of the current 75 operational airports, around 25 even today cater to less than 250 passenger movements (in-coming and out-going together) per day, or roughly 3-4 aircraft movements daily!  And this includes large or prominent locations such as Khajuraho, Allahabad, Gorakhpur, Gwalior, Agra and Kanpur. Fact of the matter is that the

27 .................

demand is limited, other convenient and affordable means of transport are available, and subsidies are either not needed or will make no sense. It is highly doubtful if a credible list of locations could be drawn up that are so remote or so strategically located that they need or can justify the Regional Connectivity Scheme drawn up under the NCAP? Or is this just wishful thinking, or will they be just vanity projects favoured by Chief Ministers or local MPs or other VIPs? Unlike the RDGs of yore, there is unlikely to be sound justification for any significant list of deserving airports or routes. And even if subsidy were to be given, they would be very unlikely to justify themselves a few years down the line. So here is a case of the State going out of its way to subsidize transport services for the better-off, going against the prevailing marketgoverned wisdom, with little justification in terms of objective criteria and fewer rewards even in the long run.

Re-think Indian HSR

Re-think Indian HSR 

According to the feasibility reports prepared by international consultants, HSR in India is expected to cost around Rs.250 crore per km. The roughly 415km Mumbai-Ahmedabad corridor is expected to cost around Rs.86,000 crore, so we can just imagine what the "diamond quadrilateral" project connecting the 4 major metros would cost. More importantly, passenger tariffs are expected to be around Rs.8 per km or Rs.3200 for this short Mumbai-Ahmedabad and services should cover many trains running every hour to be financially viable. With even air fares of under Rs.2000 in this sector, these numbers clearly do not suggest viability. Most probably, therefore, fares will be subsidized under the guise of "initial promotional offers" or "viability gap funding" (VGF). Such over-ambition in favour of some vanity projects designed to show-off advanced projects although only benefiting elite sections  like showing off 5-star hotels, have come crashing in other developing countries too. Argentina embarked on a bold HSR venture in 2006 linking its three largest cities Buenos Aires, Rosario and Cordoba over a 720km line. In 2008, President Kirchner proclaimed that the country would soon be known for "development and modernity."  Fortunately for the country, the project was shelved before it could swallow up much-needed development funds. Argentina has now taken up a revised Chinese-funded project for a major upgrade and renovation of the national rail network, without bullet trains, but with "high-performance" trains with average speeds of around 160 kmph. The project will be far less expensive and will impact the entire rail network instead of only a few segments. India would do well to think along similar lines. India is already experimenting with medium-speed trains running at 200 kmph maximum speeds on existing tracks. However, with current tracks getting saturated with bumper-to-bumper traffic along trunk routes, India could also think of a "quadrilateral" of new parallel tracks along the routes connecting the major metros, which could serve high-tariff premium services which existing tracks would be de-congested and serve the vast majority of passengers. All this comes at a time when emphasis is being placed on making rail passenger services viable and self-supporting, with major restructuring being planned for the Railways including unbundling, privatization, and independent regulators fixing no doubt higher fares. 90% of railway passengers travel on 2nd Class Sleeper or lower classes and deserve good quality services for long distance journeys. There are already huge noises being made that the financial health of the Railways  is suffering due to subsidies for this class of passengers. Clear signals are being sent out that rail fares will be raised, and a beginning has already been made with so-called "surge prices" for some premium trains. Huge popular pressure needs to be mounted to ensure that lowerincome groups, the rural masses and the salaried middle-classes are not burdened by a spiralling rise in prices for rail services in the days to come. In this scenario, non-viable and elite-oriented Bullet trains which will inevitably call for subsidies of one kind or another, clearly do not find a place and should be withdrawn

BULLET TRAINS

CASE STUDY 2: BULLET TRAINS

Another glamour project of the present government is the introduction of Bullet Trains in India. Again, on the face of it, it appears unobjectionable. Bullet Trains are symbols of a country’s development, only developed countries have them and the few developing countries that have them, such as China and Turkey, thus have bragging rights and claims to developed country status. What is wrong if India also has these ultra-modern, prestigious trains and thereby provide the travelling public a world-class travel experience which will also save huge amounts of time for passengers, especially business people, thus giving a boost to productivity and the economy as a whole. However, a closer examination shows that it involves enormous expenditure, will serve only a tiny proportion of rail passengers and, to boot, will have economically non-viable high fares, almost certainly calling for subsidies for a better-off class of passengers. And this will be at the cost of better amenities and services for the overwhelming bulk of ordinary lower-income and middle-class rail passengers, who will continue to be provided slow and poor services on ageing infrastructure and overcrowded railway lines, even while the government never gets tired of bemoaning a lack of funds for improving infrastructure and the subsidies being extended to this class of passengers. Once again, a lopsided developmental model following the neoliberal paradigm is being put forward which benefits a very small section, less than 10%, of those at the top of the pyramid while ignoring the interests of over 90% of the people. Let us examine the Bullet Trains programme more closely, in the light of well-documented international experience. Proposed High Speed Rail Projects in India A favourite idea of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also highlighted in the BJP Manifesto, is to introduce High Speed Rail (HSR) in India, more popularly known as "Bullet Trains" after the original name (dangan resha) of the world’s first HSR service, the Japanese Shinkansen. The longer-term plan of the present government is not just one or two small stretches as has been contemplated off and on over the years, but to build HSR corridors over a vast 6000km long "diamond quadrilateral" going around the country, somewhat like the "golden quadrilateral" of highways initiated by the Vajpayee-led NDA government in the late nineties. This would be a huge and dramatic infrastructure project that would loudly project India’s national pride and announce the country’s march towards the front ranks of advanced economies. In the shorter term, a pilot project in the MumbaiAhmedabad sector has been approved and is at an advanced stage of planning, while a second, longer Delhi-Varanasi corridor linking the national capital to the Prime Minister’s parliamentary constituency is slated to be taken up next, with a possible extension up to Kolkata. Many transportation experts, financial institutions, sections of the financial press and even renowned HSR engineering companies have expressed their scepticism about these projects based on assessments of costs, ridership, possible ticket prices, viability and societal benefits.

19 .................

First we should be clear about the technical definition of Bullet Trains or High Speed Rail (HSR). Although HSR is defined in multiple ways in different countries, the most widely accepted term defines HSR as embracing three specific aspects namely Speed (maximum speed of at least 250 kmph, special track and special operating conditions especially locomotives and carriages designed integrally with infrastructure for complete compatibility, safety and high-quality performance. In India, therefore, HSR would involve completely new tracks and related infrastructure including stations, protective structures on both sides of the new tracks to prevent human or animal intrusions, new locomotives and carriages, and new operational systems. A "diamond quadrilateral" of new HSR track would involve huge quantity of land acquisition, massive investments, and would necessitate high frequency of trains, high ridership and high tariffs for ensuring financial viability. Precisely because these conditions are very difficult to meet, many countries including developed nations have not been able to afford or set up High Speed Rail. If India is adopting HSR because developed countries have it, the international experience itself provides enough evidence as to why HSR is a bad choice for India, and will always be a luxury project serving the rich that India can ill afford. International experience The best-known HSR networks, and most cited as examples for other countries to follow, are the pioneering Japanese shinkansen, the well-established European national and transnational networks, and recently the Chinese HSR which has dramatically expanded to cover almost 20,000km over a decade and a half! Japan’s bullet train service  was introduced in the densely populated industrial and employment corridor between Tokyo and Osaka where more than 45 million people lived. The distance of 515km is today covered in less than 3 hours with just 2 stops and a top speed of 320 kmph. The service runs more than 13 trains per hour with 16 bogies, a higher passenger load and frequency than anywhere else in the world. The Tokyo-Osaka line alone carries around 150 million passengers per year, and is eminently suitable for Japan’s densely populated, high-income industrialized society with most population centres along thin strip Experience in Europe and elsewhere have broadly borne out these basic characteristics of viability, namely medium distances, highdensity business routes, fares competitive with air fares, relatively high spending capacity, and high frequency services. The French TGV (for grand vitesse or high speed) was started in the Paris-Lyon stretch, again one of the most crowded intercity lines in France. The 415 km route is uncomfortably long for road travel and too short for affordable air travel. The route has relatively low running costs due to its reliance mainly on nuclear power, as was the case in Japan till the Fukushima disaster. The French service, like most HSR services worldwide, has been heavily subsidized in one way or another, with passengers especially initially lured by promotional tariffs equivalent to normal trains. Not all countries would or can adopt such a course. The UK’s diesel-electric HSR has remained confined to tiny stretches, since privatization even of the conventional rail network has pushed fares high and passenger load factors to new lows. Spain’s HSR network, slated to be the largest in Europe by 2030, is based on the idea that 90 percent of the country’s population would be living within 50km of an HSR station. The country’s current economic problems, high unemployment and falling incomes are, however, holding the programme back. In South Korea, with both highways and conventional railway lines showing serious congestion in the 1970s, HSR services were launched in 2004 on the busy and densely populated Seoul-Busan corridor between the country’s two largest cities representing over 75 percent of the population and around 70 percent of both freight and passenger traffic. The US started a single route HSR service early, along with the UK, but further progress has stalled since then in a country dominated by road and air travel, and with public investment in infrastructure declining sharply over the past several decades due to neo-liberal policies. Currently, a huge debate is underway on the desirability of HSR services in two high population-density, high-employment corridors of Los Angeles-San Francisco and the Philadelphia-Boston-New YorkWashington DC corridor with several stops and offshoots on the way. If these two economic clusters were countries, they would each rank in the top 10 nations of the world! The California proposal won public approval in 2008 with 52% votes but with serious opposition from conservatives opposed to the large estimated public expenditure of USD 58 billion (Rs.360,000 crores). Of course, all these norms appear to collapse in the case of China which seems to defy most generalized developmental or economic assumptions. China’s first operational line opened in 2003, but poor performance led China to change direction and import technologies from France, Germany and Japan with transfer of technology agreements. At an astonishing pace, by 2011 China had the world’s longest HSR network covering around 8,400km and beating Japan’s record passenger load! But standard seats on the 2,200km route from Beijing to Shenzhen in the dynamic south-eastern coastal export and manufacturing zone cost around US$ 144 (Rs.8,500), close to air fares, and business class seats are about 3 times more! Fares have had to be reduced many times, even to below cost prices, to meet purchasing power of the people. Still, working class migrants going on seasonal visits to their home towns apparently prefer cheaper ordinary trains even if they take much longer. China’s HSR has come at an extremely high cost of approximately US$ 20 billion (Rs.1,14,700 crores) for a 1,000km route. China’s Railways are reported to be struggling with a US$ 318 billion debt (Rs.18,80,134 crores) and an annual loss of around US$ 1.46 billion. No other country, certainly not India, has such deep pockets

SMART CITIES, URBAN MIRAGE

CASE STUDY 1: SMART CITIES, URBAN MIRAGE 

The Government has launched one of Prime Minister Modi’s pet programmes, namely to set up 100 "smart cities," along with plans for upgrading 500 towns and cities (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation or AMRUT), and a pledge to provide housing for all by the 75th anniversary of Indian independence in 2022, a target that requires an improbable 20 million housing units. Taken together, these programmes with an outlay of around Rs.2 lakh crores ($33 billion) including contributions of the States, with eventual expenditure many times that amount if the expected private sector investments are included, constitute perhaps the largest development initiative announced by this Government and highlights how important the programme is for this government and its leadership. The Scheme also underlines the government’s belief in urbanization as "an engine of economic growth," especially of a certain kind. The government’s Concept Note released in November 2014 laid out the goal very clearly: the Note said that "smart cities" are meant to respond to increasing urban migration and to cater to the "neo middle class… [and its] aspiration of better living standards." Clearly, there is no illusion about who is expected to benefit from this Scheme. This new policy not only embodies an urbanization-led development pathway but also a vision of what these new centres of modernization and economic growth would be like. The "smart cities" programme outlines a specific urban model that other cities would aspire to, while requisite infrastructure would be laid in the 500 AMRUT cities as a stepping stone to become smart cities sometime in the future. Let us see what exactly this "smart city" model is and who would benefit from it. Elitist Gated Enclaves We have put the term "smart cities" within quotes is because the term is being used very differently in India compared to generally accepted terminology internationally. In developed countries, smart cities are those which already have good if not advanced infrastructure and which applies information and communication technologies (ICT) on top of this for more efficient use of resources and facilities especially energy, water, transportation, delivery of civic services, improved urban governance with greater interactive engagement of citizens. In this sense, the use of the term "smart city" in India is clearly an over-reach. In the first place, as the government’s Concept Note makes clear, the 100 "smart cities" will not cover entire cities as they stand today, but only small, isolated enclaves within the city or, in a few cases, greenfield or newly built enclaves or "sub-cities" on the outskirts. While lip-service is paid to providing a range of economic activities and employment opportunities to all classes of people, there is a clear emphasis on "investors and professionals," and providing them with "a very high quality of life (comparable with any developed European city)" (emphasis given in the original Concept Note). Of course, 24x7 electricity supply, quality water supply and recycling, clean air, good educational and health care services, entertainment and sports facilities, dependable security, high speed interconnectivity, fast and efficient urban mobility as promised for "smart cities" are not attributes specific to smart cities but should be available in all Indian cities, not only in some select areas supposedly providing

"European-standard" lifestyles. But the Concept Note makes doubly clear that the 100 "smart cities" in India are being set up as special and isolated luxury zones for upper-income groups and the corporate class, what are known as "gated localities," by promising "simple and transparent on-line business and public services that make it easy to establish a business and run it efficiently without any bureaucratic hassles." There is token acceptance that skilled labour too would be required but, other than that, the promised "smart cities" appear to be residential and commercial islands for higher-income professionals and corporates with provision for some essential workers and service providers. It is left unclear if the latter will reside within or outside the "smart cities." Evidence that ‘smart cities" in India are being conceived as rich enclaves is available in the few examples of "smart cities" already initiated even before the Scheme came into being. The first example is the Gujarat International Fin-Tec (GIFT) city, a "smart" greenfield business district located between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar, initiated when PM Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat. GIFT is visualized as a global financial services hub with state-of-the-art communications, infrastructure and transport links to the main city. Wave City near Ghaziabad on the periphery of Delhi is another example, a greenfield up-market residential township being built by a private real estate developer in partnership with IBM. This elitist orientation of "smart cities" is also illuminated by other indications. While high quality education and health services are spoken of, much of these are expected to be in the private sector, including a 50-100 acre "medi city" in each "smart city" for tertiary health care. All services are expected to be provided by private or PPP entities operating on full cost recovery including capital costs, a longtime favourite neo-liberal World Bank prescription. Presumably, the urban poor will look after themselves outside the "smart cities" which have no place for them. Against best practices Whereas the government has been making much of giving States a lead role in the process of selection and project formulation, it is clear that the Centre is the main if not sole arbiter, especially since it controls the funds. Funding itself is curiously structured. Although the "smart cities" as envisaged are necessarily infrastructure heavy, the plan envisages that most infrastructure will be taken up either through private investment or through PPPs, which the State governments and concerned urban local bodies (ULBs) will raise, with the Central Government’s contributions in the form of Viability Gap Support. This despite the PPP models in urban infrastructure having totally failed in India so far, for example in the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), UPA’s predecessor to the AMRUT Scheme. Changing the name from Jawaharlal Nehru to Atal Behari Vajpayee will not change this reality! Besides burdening the ULBs with this onerous responsibility, there is little or no empowerment, capacity building and decentralization of responsibility to ULBs, internationally considered to the cornerstone of modern urban development, and which lies behind the many success stories in China or the smart cities of Barcelona, Singapore, Seoul or Yokohoma. In contrast, in India all "smart cities" Projects will be implemented by special purpose vehicles (SPVs) manned by unelected bureaucrats and consultants, by-passing the elected Urban Local Bodies and directly undermining the 74th Amendment to the Constitution aimed at strengthening democratic and representative urban governance, just as the 73rd Amendment supports Panchayat Raj Institutions. Flawed Concept of Urbanization In fact, the very perspective of the present dispensation on urbanization is deeply flawed. The "smart cities" Concept Note argues that urban centres are "engines of growth," and that if previous governments had realized this, India would have been a developed country by now. The Note repeats the usual correlations between increasing rates of urbanization and GDP growth, and projects that urban areas will contribute 75% of GDP by 2030 as against 60% currently. But is growth really caused by urban growth? There is substantial evidence to indicate that urbanization and rural-urban migration in India result from complex processes involving downturn in returns from agriculture, rural distress, industrialization and job creation in or near urban centres. The present government seems to believe in urbanization as an end in itself, as shown in its earlier aggressive push for a Land Acquisition Bill when it argued that agriculture was in serious decline and farmers would be better-off selling their lands and giving up agriculture altogether, and presumably moving to urban areas. But will there be decent jobs in urban areas, especially in big cities, for all rural migrants? Job creation has stagnated in India even in periods of high GDP growth at the peak of the liberalization wave, and "jobless growth" is a well-recognized phenomenon especially when advanced technologies are involved. If there is rural distress, should that not be addressed directly, instead of condemning farming as a lost cause and advising farmers to move to cities? For all the rapid urbanization in India, projections show that even in 2050, as much as 50% of India’s population will be in rural areas. Will this population have no future? No doubt urbanization is increasing at a fast pace in India. But a large part of the expansion of urban population is taking place in small towns. There are over 6,000 towns including Census Towns in India, in which much of the rural migration has occurred, and the vast majority of which are completely ignored by the "smart cities" and AMRUT Schemes. In India, the real problems in its urban centres are poor infrastructure including garbage and sanitation, sewage, drinking water supply, poor housing and lack of employment opportunities. Even in Delhi, India’s capital, close to half of urban households do not have sewage connections or piped drinking water, only half of domestic and industrial waste waters are treated before discharge into the Yamuna, and around half the population live in slums and unauthorized settlements. The "smart cities" programme ignores all these and instead  chooses to build a few isolated enclaves for upper-income sections in major urban centres as glamour projects for the rich. The 2014 UN Report on World Urbanization Prospects notes that rapid and unplanned urbanization has in fact led to "urban sprawl, high levels of pollution and environmental degradation, together with unsustainable patterns of production and consumption patterns," thus compelling a global agenda to forge a new model of urbanization "that integrates all facets of sustainable development, to promote equity, welfare and shared prosperity in an urbanizing world development."

Flagship Development Programmes

Flagship Development Programmes 

       The major development programmes being pursued by the present government follow the broad development pathway outlined above and closely follow the neo-liberal prescription. The Case Studies in this Booklet would make clear how the development trajectory as represented by these flagship schemes are heavily tilted towards the better-off sections and the so-called "aspirational" middle-classes i.e. those upper-income sections of the middle classes who look forward to somehow achieving living standards and amenities like those in developed countries. Unfortunately, what these sections do not fully appreciate is that the few supposedly "world class" infrastructure or facilities that are created are, in most cases, either not really up to international standards or are doomed to remain islands of prosperity in the midst of grinding poverty, deprivation and lack of access with regard to amenities and public services such as for education, health, transport and energy for cooking, lighting, cooling or heating. Can such isolated examples of infrastructure or facilities really be considered "development," if they are accessible only to a small upper-income segment and leave the rest of the population with little or no access to them? Are the rest of the population supposed to merely stare at these "wonders" from far away, and dream of some day actually being able to enjoy them? Is this really "sab ka saath, sab ka vikas" ("with all and development for all")? The Case Studies also show that huge amounts of public money are being spent on these examples of lopsided "development," while at the same time people of this country are told that there are no funds for expanding or providing quality education, or to provide health care to the masses? In all such cases, the State is rapidly withdrawing from these sectors, citing a shortage of funds, and opening the doors to the private sector including even foreign companies and multi-national corporations. Gradually even education and health are getting beyond the reach of the common man, while even the middle-classes are forced to turn towards private providers of services at ever-higher costs. Neo-liberal economics, as dictated by the advanced countries and by multi-lateral agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF, demands that even though the poor cannot afford even rudimentary

10Development for the Rich

facilities or services, existing subsidies should be withdrawn and the very idea of subsidies, even for subsistence requirements, is wrong. Yet at the very same time, there is no hesitation in extending all kinds of subsidies and support to corporations, industrialists, trading companies and the upper middle classes! It is well known, for example, that huge loans extended to private companies or prominent industrialists are lying unreturned, that massive so-called non-performing assets (NPA) which are in reality loan defaults exist and are mounting, and that such loans have often been secured through unfair means, without adequate collateral or necessary requirements. Similarly, enormous amounts of taxes are outstanding from corporations and prominent businessmen or other rich people. These are, in effect, subsidies to the rich, to the corporate class and to private companies while public expenditure for education, health and food and nutrition security is denied to the poor, lower-income groups and the toiling middle-classes. The Case Studies in this Booklet, on Bullet Trains, Smart Cities, Regional Airports etc clearly bring out how massive public funds are being spent on high-value projects which will mainly benefit upperincome groups especially in urban areas. Such "development" will only worsen the already high degree of inequality that now characterize the Indian economy and society, making it one of the most unequal societies in the world. Is this the model of development that we want for India? Is this really "sab ka vikas" that the present Government promised when it sought the mandate of the people? Is this not, in fact, development for the rich? No doubt some people will criticize the opinions expressed in this Booklet.  Those expected to benefit from such schemes will of course differ, and may not care if other sections do not benefit. But there will also be those who believe that a few show-case projects will make the Indian people proud of their nation’s achievements. And some sections of the aspirational middle-class may hope that even if only elite sections get benefits today, their own turn will come tomorrow, and soon others too will benefit. In reality, everybody knows that "trickle down" economics does not work. All over the world under neoliberalism, the rich get richer, income disparities get wider, and concentration of wealth increases. Same applies to infrastructure or facilities, those created for the rich will remain with and for the rich

11 .................

only, and will not mean that similar or comparable facilities will be available for ordinary people. The Case Studies show that the vision of "Development" being put forward is an elitist model designed to cater to and please upperincome urbanites and supposedly show the world that India is making rapid strides in economic growth, has the ability to spend vast amounts of money, and is catering to a growing upper middle-class whose substantial purchasing power should attract further foreign investment which has now become such a dominant goal of Indian economic policy.

Inequality

Inequality 

It is well known that India’s development over three decades of neo-liberal reform policies has been highly unequal. Reports have brought out that the net worth of India's billionaires has increased dramatically by 12 times in the past 15 years, enough to eliminate absolute poverty twice over in the country. Income inequality is also on the rise. India is ranked fifth in terms of number of billionaires with 70 billionaires, 17 more than in 2013. Interestingly, India has a higher number of these super rich individuals than Germany, Switzerland, France and Japan. The combined wealth of the Indians billionaires comes to a staggering Rs.26 lakh crores ($390 billion)! With further informalization of the labour force, slow growth of employment, severe agrarian crisis and cutbacks in expenditures on social protection and food, fertiliser and energy subsidies, as well as the privatization and commercialization of education and health, inequality across social classes and across the rural-urban divide has increased significantly over the period of neo-liberal policies. Besides income inequality, there are also the other axes of inequality such as gender, caste and rural/urban. In all these dimensions, the degree of inequality in terms of wealth, incomes and access to health and education have all increased substantially. Perhaps the most tragic outcome of neo-liberal policies in India has been rural distress and the worsening rural-urban divide. The deep problems in agriculture relate both to current neo-liberal policies and to the basic structure of agrarian relations in India characterised by continuing concentration of land holdings in fewer hands and increasing landlessness. Against the above background, one would have expected that the government’s development policies would be directed at reversing this trend of increasing social and economic inequality. The new government’s slogan of "sab ka saath, sab ka vikas" (i.e. development for all, with participation of all) may have given rise to expectations that steps to reduce these inequalities would be reduced. On the contrary, the key flagship development programmes of the government reveal its intention to promote greater development for the urban, better-off sections which can only worsen the inequalities noted above between rich and poor, urban and rural, and along social fault lines of caste, gender and region

Impact of Neo-liberal Policies

 Impact of Neo-liberal Policies

Supporters of neo-liberal policies point to the strong GDP growth in India after the 1980s.  The average rate of growth over the entire neo-liberal period has been over 6 percent, even going up to 8% over occasional short periods. This is no doubt impressive during a period when most developed countries have shown lower growth and only China has registered regular high GDP growth of 9-10 percent over an extended period of 30 years.

The issue, however, is not just GDP growth, but the nature and composition of growth, and its implications for different socioeconomic classes. First, it is the service sector that is growing most rapidly. The share of the manufacturing sector in GDP has been stagnating at about 16 percent of GDP, whereas the share of agriculture and allied activities such as forestry and fishing, and mining and quarrying, has declined to around 17 per cent. This has serious implications for job creation. The services sector contributes 58 percent of GDP while its share of employment is only 30 percent or lower. Job creation has been the lowest during the neo-liberal period than in the preceding decades. Moreover, almost all increase in employment has been in informal jobs that not only offer very low wages, but involve long working hours under poor conditions, no welfare benefits, and are completely insecure with poor labour rights. The last two decades have seen huge and continuing distress in the agricultural sector and the rural economy. More than 300,000 farmers have committed suicide between 1997 and 2015. Growth in agriculture and food grain production has been the lowest since independence during the neo-liberal period, with the annual growth rate being just 0.6 per cent between 1995 and 2005. Agriculture and the rural economy have been devastated by the neo-liberal policies that include severely reduced subsidies to agricultural inputs, removal of restrictions on imports of agricultural produce, reduced credit flows,  sharply curtailed government expenditure on rural infrastructure including irrigation, agricultural research and extension services, and weakened food security by imposing a targeted public distribution system, excluding millions of the poor from access to food at affordable costs. Neo-liberal policies have also not made a significant impact on poverty in terms of its depth, severity and wide spread, even though governments have often claimed the contrary. Recent research shows that per capita income decreased between 1994 and 2005 in places located more than 5 km away from urban settlements, such regions accounting for over half the population of India. With the global economic crisis and its impact on the Indian economy, small increases in employment between 2005 and 2015, and continuing sharp cuts in subsidies, the extent of poverty is likely to have gone up in recent years. Food insecurity is a widely prevalent condition in India. There has also been no significant reduction in malnutrition, and the indicators

8Development for the Rich

even show a worsening in some parts of the country especially among socially and economically vulnerable sections. 

Development for the Rich (Kaisa Vikas? Kiska Vikas?)

SECTION-1: 

INTRODUCTION 

The Indian economy grew much faster in the 1980s than between 1950 and 1980. But this was driven by government expenditure through domestic and external borrowing, along with opening up to imports. The result was a severe balance of payments crisis. In 1991 when the crisis reached its peak, the government took massive loans from the IMF and World Bank, even though other options such as taxing upper-income groups and restricting imports were also available. This period was marked by the dominance of international finance capital and the collapse of the Soviet Union as a countervailing force to the Western countries, which led to a serious questioning of self-reliant development as pursued by India and many other developing countries. Major policy changes followed. Under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank as well as the US and other Western powers, successive governments in India embarked on the path of liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG) and adopted the ideology of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism Liberalization involves loosening of government control over the economy in favour of market forces. Government investment is gradually withdrawn, while private capital, and specially foreign capital, are encouraged in all sectors. This implies that the broader social good is no longer the guiding principle, but expansion of the private sector into all parts of the economy including public services is assumed to be for the greater public benefit by definition, even though evidence may show that only some sections actually benefit. Privatization relates not only to government selling public sector units or shares in State-owned enterprises to private companies, thus gradually dismantling the public sector, but also opening up all sectors including education, health, infrastructure and so on to private players, in the belief that running these services as profit-making entities is better than promoting social well-being through government action. Experience the world over shows that this leads to reduced access of the lower-income groups to education, health, energy, transport and other public services and infrastructure. Globalization, the third element of LPG, means opening up the country to all sorts of imports at low taxes and with few government controls as regards items, quantity etc.  Even more importantly, it means removing restrictions on the free movement of capital into and out of India. This is the single most important aspect of LPG reforms, and the one with the most disastrous consequences. It has immediate impact on the government’s ability to forge and implement an independent policy, since foreign investors can always threaten to take their funds out of the country if it adopts policies they do not like. LPG calls for minimal taxes, government regulation and government expenditure.  This has serious consequences for the government’s welfare programmes and investment policies. Since 1991, successive governments in India have cut back social welfare programmes and public investments, much to the detriment of lowerincome groups and sharply widening social and economic inequality. 

Who is a Nationalist?

Who is a Nationalist?

Our discussions raise a fundamental question. Who is a nationalist today? Those who hold dear the values and dreams of the freedom movement? Those who want to see a India that is strong, that is united, that sees unity in diversity? Or those who weaken India by insisting that only a certain kind of culture, only certain kinds of traditions, will be respected in India? Can a person, or persons, or a government claim to be nationalist while at the same time allowing our people's lives to be endangered by handing over control of our national economy to foreign forces? This is the real debate between nationalism and ant-nationalism

Progressive dilution of the national movement's vision of self reliance

Progressive dilution of the national movement's vision of self reliance

The vision of self reliance in the post-independence period was conceived within a capitalist path of development. Even in the initial years we sometimes erred by resorting to imports, resulting  in technological dependence in many areas. By not developing a strong research base that would allow us to develop indigenous technologies, India started lagging behind in areas that were seeing rapid technological changes, particularly in electronics. It must be noted that the current abandonment of economic sovereignty has its roots in problems related to the way self reliance started becoming, progressively, an empty slogan. By the 1980s, as we discuss earlier, global economic pressures were already pushing the country into the trap of a globalisation. Successive governments did not actively resist the entrapment of India into a global economic market that was governed by rich countries, large corporations and capitalist banks. Later our governments became collaborators in the process and are today willing partners of global capital, ready to hand over the levers of our economy to foreign forces.

Here lies the contrast with China.  China instead, protected its huge internal market and forced foreign capital to fully transfer technology to Chinese public sector firms. The electricity and telecom sectors are examples, where India had a lead over China and yet it is China that has become the home of power plant equipment and telecom equipment today.  Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (BHEL) was founded well before China invested in power plant equipment manufacturing. BHEL was capable of producing equipment for installing 4,000 -5,000 MW capacity per year for the power sector of quality comparable to any in the world. At that time, Chinese companies were well behind. Today, there are at least four Chinese companies that have capacity to produce equipment many times more than BHEL and these companies have overtaken all the global firms, who used to lead this field earlier, such as Siemens, General Electric, ABB, etc.

Similar is the case in the  telecommunications sector. C-DOT exchanges were entirely indigenously developed, and were technologically on par with what was being produced elsewhere. Instead of using our own technological capabilities, India opened its market to foreign equipment, essentially reducing ITT and C-DOT to minor players. China instead, used its internal market to force major telecom equipment manufacturers to transfer technology, the same way it had done with the power sector. Today, Huawei is one of the global leaders in telecom equipment and is ahead of most global players. In electronics including mobile phone handsets, China is again the manufacturing hub of the world. China is not just copying others, it is becoming a global leader in hardware and software innovation.

                  In the same period that China developed its technological capability, India opened its market to global capital. It invited foreign capital to not only bring in technology, but also to develop its infrastructure. This dependant economic path led to significant industrial stagnation in manufacturing, with economic growth primarily coming from the service sector. Thus, for example, in spite of the huge local market in telecom, spurred on by the cell phone 'revolution', equipment manufacturing declined. The bulk of the handsets are imported, with only some Indian manufacturers joining the fray. Even here, the major part of the manufacturing is done in China. Even in pharmaceuticals, where Indian generics have created a significant global presence, the bulk of the active therapeutic ingredient are imported from China, with Indian companies doing the formulation and packaging.

China is not only continuing with its Five-Year plans, but also with medium and long term plans, spanning decades. It is planning its infrastructure, its cities, education, science and technology development plan and even a plan for developing innovation. Interestingly, it has recently launched a Made in China 2025 plan. Contrast this with what the current government is doing -- it  has dispensed with the Planning Commission, abandoned all planning and we are left with a toothless Niti Ayog. The rejection of planning for our economy goes hand in hand with handing over the economy to market forces that are governed by foreign rather than national interests. We ask the question again, is this not anti-nationalism at a grand scale?

What the current government does not recognise is that knowledge is key in technology today. Take Apple Inc., which is the biggest company in the world (in terms of market capitalisation) -- its economic might is bigger than all but 19. Yet, it does not own a single factory. It “produces” I-phones and Mac computers. How does it do this? It owns the designs, the software and brand of Apple. With this, it can force a Foxconn in China to manufacture Apple branded products, such as I-phones, and pay them a pittance. A calculation shows that Apple gets about $300 for each I-phone it sells, while Foxconn gets only about $7. This is the nature of the knowledge economy.

This focus on inviting foreign capital without building peoples capabilities is certainly not a 'nationalist' move. Not surprisingly, in spite of the publicity on 'Make in India', industrial sector growth continues to shrink. While 12 million people enter the job market every year, only 7% find jobs in the organised sector. The rest are unemployed, or find only casual employment, living a precarious existence.

The fight against British Colonialism shaped nationalism in independent India

The fight against British Colonialism shaped nationalism in independent India

The national movement was clear that it would not be enough to overthrow British rule in India. Independence would be meaningless if people continued to languish in poverty. Independence meant not only throwing out the colonial rulers but also development for its people. That is why Subhash Chandra Bose, as the Congress President in 1938, asked Nehru to head the National Planning Committee. Planning for development was a core vision of the national movement. Developing the capabilities of its people and removing poverty was integral to this vision of a free India. This is why economic nationalism – making the economy free of foreign capital – was central to the independence movement.

Those who shared the vision of India defined by race and religion proposed by Golwalkar and Savarkar, such as the RSS, did not share this vision of a free India. For them, a sovereign economy was never a of nationalism. When Golwalkar defined the nation, he talked about land, race, religion, culture and language but never about the economy. In this concept of the nation, economic freedom from foreign capital was a non-issue.

After independence, the key challenge for India was to develop its scientific and technological capabilities. It built the Central Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories, the five Indian Institute of Technologies (IIT's), the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) and a host of scientific institutions. It did not just build the public sector, but invested in people. When Damodar Valley Corporation was created, more than 50 engineers were sent to Tennessee Valley Authority. They were the ones who formed the core of the Indian power sector. In steel, again a core set of people were sent to US Steel to learn about the steel industry, who later on went on to lead the Steel Authority of India.

The Information Technology (IT) sector is viewed as an example of the success of economic liberalisation. What is forgotten is the role played by public sector bodies in its explosive growth. The key figures in the IT sector – Naryana Murthy, Nandan Nilekani, Sam Pitroda (who built C-DOT), and a host of others came out of IIT's or similar premiere institutions. Without the experience of building indigenous computers, Indian software skills would never have been built. This, coupled with the Indian skills developed in the public education system, has provided the human power for the development of the IT sector.

After independence there was an agreement that development needed infrastructure and only the Indian state has the capacity to develop infrastructure at a scale that India required for rapid development. This is what was embodied in its successive Five-Year plans. At the time of independence, apart from railways, India had very little infrastructure. The entire installed capacity of electricity generation was less than 1,500 MW and restricted to only metro cities and a few towns. Similarly, the telephone system.  There were only a few heavy industrial plants in the country. After independence, India's industrialisation – from oil exploration, refineries, steel plants, power plant equipment, machine tools, heavy engineering – was powered by the public sector.

The proponents of nationalism based on race and religion -- the RSS and its political front, the Jan Sangh -- were completely against this path. They wanted India to be completely left to the mercy of market forces and wanted free entry of global capital

Fake Nationalism dressed up as 'Make in India'

Make in India

Economic policies being pursued in India since the 1990s, as we have seen earlier. have been designed to hand over control over our economy and the livelihoods of our people to foreign companies and foreign capital.  We can argue that this is the true danger that we face from 'anti-national forces' -- the danger of losing sovereign control over our own destiny.

The current campaign of the government titled 'Make in India' is a clear example of this. The campaign involves inviting global capital to come in and exploit India's cheap labour, while foreign companies are provided tax breaks and subsidised land. They are also free to back profits that they make in India, using our resources and our labour; not very different from the practice of British capital during the colonial period. This is in contrast to how self reliance and development was conceived in the national movement, where developing knowledge was seen as integral to the process of developing the country and its people. This is the difference between 'Made in India' and its indigenisation vision, as opposed to inviting global capital to 'Make in India'. India's policy of self reliance grew out of the belief that if India had to grow, it must invest in its people. Even when global capital was invited, it had to transfer knowledge and technical capability. The difference between 'Made in India' of the post independence years and the current slogan of 'Make in India' lies here.  One involved transfer of knowledge and building upn that knowledge, the other is simply handing over labour, land and the Indian market to foreign capital.

The difference between the vision on development, of the national movement and of those who propose a 'pure Hindu nation' is related to differing notions about nationalism. In the inclusive view

of nationalism that grew out of the anti-colonial, national movement, the nation is its people. In the current exclusionary view of nationalism, it is the land that is the nation; it is the land that is pure: the punya-bhumi and pitri-bhumi. But global capital is free to enter India, plunder its resources, and those who allow this are seen as pro-development and nationalists!

Founders of the National Movement knew who the real enemies were

The early nationalists such as Dadabhai Naroji were clear that it was colonial rule that was bleeding India and enriching Britain. His 'drain' theory, in which he attempted to show the role of colonial rule in creating poverty in India, was one of the earliest in trying to understand the economic costs of colonialism. Indian nationalists knew that British as conquerors were different from the earlier conquerors. Babur understood that once he was ruling India, there was no way he could go back to his beloved Farghana. India absorbed the Mughals, as it absorbed earlier conquerors. They became as much a part of this land as any others. Not so with the British.

The colonial conquerors looted, enslaved, massacred the people of Americas, Africa and Asia on a grand scale, and finally built a system that continually created wealth in the their own countries while impoverishing their colonies. That is why, as we can see from Angus Maddison's classic work in the graphic below, India and China, which till the 18th century, produced about 50% of the world's GDP, came down to less than 10% within the next 200 years.

Source: More than 2,000 years in single graphic

The effect of colonial rule was not limited to the draining of wealth from the colonies or semi colonies. Imperialism was creating a system that lead to the continuous development of productive forces by harnessing science and technology, while bleeding the colonies. Along with the increasing production of goods unleashed by the industrial revolution, it transferred raw materials from the colonies.  It also destroyed the manufacturing industries in the colonies, converting them to captive market for selling of goods from its own factories.

16Understanding Nationalism

It was slave trade from Africa, colonial plunder from India, and other parts of the world that “financed”, or provided the necessary capital for the industrial revolution. As Karl Marx noted  “... capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”  While capital was and is extremely destructive, it also built productive forces on an enormous scale. This is because it harnessed science and technology for the production process. Development today is not just the development of factories and machines but the knowledge that is embedded in the machines.

सामाजिक न्याय

रणबीर
सामाजिक न्याय को परिभाषित करना मुश्किल काम सै। सामाजिक न्याय का मतलब सै अक समाज मैं सारे माणसां नै चाहे वे स्त्री हों या पुरुष हों, इस धर्म के हों या उस धर्म के हों,इस जाति के हों या उस जाति के हों—सबको समान रूप तैं जीने का अर अपना विकास करने का मौका मिलना चाहिये। ऐसा तभी हो सकै सै जब समाज मैं वर्ग-भेद समाप्त हो, मनुष्य द्वारा मनुष्य का शोषण समाप्त हो। शायद 1935 मैं इस शब्द का इस्तेमाल करया गया जब संयुक्त राष्ट्र्र मैं संयुक्त राष्ट्र्र सामाजिक सुरक्षा अधिनियम पास करया गया। बेरोजगारी, बीमारी, शिक्षा, लैंगिक समानता, वृद्धावस्था के लिए बीमा आदि मुद्दे शामिल करे गये थे। 1938 मैं न्यूजीलैंड मैं प्रयोग हुआ तथा वृहद सामाजिक सुरक्षा पद्धति का विकास करया गया। आर्थिक विकास के साथ-साथ मानव विकास अर राष्ट्र्र विकास को भी शामिल किया गया। इसकी अलग-अलग अवधारणाएं आज भी मौजूद सैं। दलितों, स्त्रियों, आदिवासियों, गरीब सवर्णों आदि को विभिन्न प्रकार के आरक्षण देकर उन्हें सामाजिक अन्याय से बचाया जा सकता है। लेकिन क्या या समझ सही सै? क्या वास्तव मैं सामाजिक न्याय की मांग पूरी नहीं हो सकदी जब तक वर्ग, वर्ण, जाति, लिंग, धर्म, सम्प्रदाय इत्यादि के आधार पर करे जाने वाले भेदभाव को समाप्त न किया जाए? सवाल यो भी सै अक के वर्तमान व्यवस्था को कायम रखते हुए लोगों को सामाजिक न्याय उपलब्ध करवाया जा सकै सै? क्या यो जरूरी नहीं अक वर्तमान समाज व्यवस्था को बदलकर बराबरी अर भाईचारे आली इसी न्यायपूर्ण समाज व्यवस्था कायम करी जावै जिसमैं किसी के द्वारा किसी का दमन और उत्पीडऩ न हो? फेर सवाल उठै सै अक के यो सम्भव सै? जै हां तो क्यूकर? अन्याय का विरोध और न्याय की मांग असल मैं वोहे कर सकै सै जो या बात जानै सै अक न्याय के सै? सामाजिक न्याय असल मैं के सै इस बात को सही परिप्रेक्ष्य मैं समझना बहुत जरूरी सै। एक कान्ही यो सवाल देश की सभ्यता और संस्कृति से जुड़ा हुआ है तो दूसरी तरफ किसी देश की अर्थव्यवस्था और संवैधानिक व्यवस्था से भी गहन रूप से जुड़ता है। क्या दलितों को सवर्णों के विरुद्ध, पिछड़ों को अगड़ों के विरुद्ध, स्त्रियों को पुरुषों के विरुद्ध, एक धर्म सम्प्रदाय को दूसरे धर्म सम्प्रदाय के विरुद्ध लोगों को लड़ाकर किसी न्यायपूर्ण समाज व्यवस्था की स्थापना की जा सकती है? नहीं तो वर्तमान को सही-सही विश्लेषित करना बहुत जरूरी हो जाता है। आज का दौर समझना बहुत जरुरी है। वर्तमान में भूमंडलीकरण, उदारीकरण तथा निजीकरण की पूंजीवादी प्रक्रियाओं के चलते हमारे देश पर एक तरफ माओवाद का खतरा मंडरावण लागरया सै तो दूसरी तरफ धर्म अर संस्कृति के नाम पर सामाजिक न्याय की पुरानी व्यवस्थाओं को मजबूत बनाने वाली फासीवादी शक्तियों का प्रभाव बढ़ रहा है। इसके विरुद्ध एक स्वस्थ, प्रगतिशील, धर्मनिरपेक्ष तथा जनतांत्रिक राष्ट्रवाद को अपनाना हमारे लिए जरूरी हो गया है क्योंकि नवसाम्राज्यवादी और नवफासीवादी शक्तियों की मार अंतत: उन्हीं लोगों पर पडऩी है जो सामाजिक अन्याय के शिकार हैं। मगर यही ताकतें धर्म, सम्प्रदाय,  वर्ण, जाति, रंग, लिंग, नस्ल, भाषा अर क्षेत्र के आधार पर लोगां नैं बांटण अर जनता नै एकजुट न होवण देवण मैं कामयाब होरी सैं। इसी हालत मैं सामाजिक न्याय की खातर करे जाने आले संघर्ष का इसा कौन-सा रूप हो सकै सै जो देश नै बाहरी गुलामी तै अर जनता नै भीतरी अन्याय तै बचा सकै? बड़ा अर जटिल सवाल सै। भारत मैं सामाजिक न्याय की बात करण आले बहोत से लोग वर्ग की बात कोन्या करते बल्कि वर्ण की बात करैं सैं। ये वर्ण व्यवस्था नै सामाजिक अन्याय का मूल कारण समझैं सैं। ये ऊंची जातियों के खिलाफ नीची जातियों की राजनीति की बात करें सैं। यह तो विडम्बना ही है कि ऊंची जाति के लोग यह समझते हैं कि उन्हें दलित को नीचा समझने का हक सै। उनकी इस दुर्भावना को दूर करना बहुत जरूरी सै। क्यूकर? फेर मुश्किल जगह सै। मूल सवाल यो सै अक हमनै जातिवाद को दूर करना सै अक जारी रखना सै? जातिवादी राजनीति तै तो यो खत्म होवण तै रहया। इसनै खत्म करण की खातिर जाति के आधार पर नहीं हमनै वर्ग के आधार पर संगठित होना बहोत जरुरी सै। अनेक देशां का अनुभव बतावै सै अक जिब ताहिं गरीब किसान और खेत मजदूर मिलकर संघर्ष नहीं करते तब तक दोनूआं की दशाओं मैं मूलभूत परिवर्तन सम्भव नहीं सै। कुछ लोग न्यों भी कहवैं सैं अक सामाजिक न्याय का नारा सामाजिक अन्याय नै जारी राखण की खातर दिया गया सै। समाज के जै वे लोग जिन-जिन के खिलाफ अन्याय होरया सै वे मिलकै लड़ैं तो सामाजिक न्याय का नारा अन्याय को बनाए रखने का काम नहीं करैगा। हरियाण ज्ञान विज्ञान समिति द्वारा चलाया जा रहया समाज सुधार आन्दोलन नये नवजागरण के विचार से लैस होकर इस काम मैं जुटरया सै। समाज के सब तबकों खासकर आधारभूत तबकों को शामिल करके इस तरफ कदम बढ़ाये जा रहे हैं। आप भी साथ दें। ‘दूसरी दुनिया सम्भव सै’ का विचार आपके सहयोग तै आगै बढ़ सकै सै।