Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Philosophy of poverty

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • However, these are minor differences. In substance, all three manifestos have similar positions, demonstration of India’s version of Gresham’s Law — bad policies drive good policies out of circulation. Take the question of subsidising the poor, that’s a good policy. The Congress 2009 states, “This will require that all subsidies reach only the truly needy and poor sections of our society. The Indian National Congress will continue its efforts to create and implement a national consensus on this issue.” Excellent and there will be medical insurance for unorganised sector BPL (below the poverty line), old age pensions for BPL elder citizens, subsidised food-grains for BPL families and health insurance for BPL. And what kind of national consensus has the UPA worked out on identifying BPL in five years? If we haven’t been able to do it in five, what is the guarantee we will be able to do it in another five?

    The consensus implicit in the manifesto is NREGS (self-identification), single-woman headed households, disabled and elderly, urban homeless, released bonded workers or collective (SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities). There is no quarrel with self-identification, single-woman headed households, disabled and elderly. But for the rest, we have no consensus at all. Both BJP 2004 and 2009 mention BPL, but less than Congress. In 2009, we have subsidised food-grains for BPL (with the good idea of food coupons and private outlets thrown in), subsidised pensions and interest rates for aged, bank accounts for BPL women, subsidised bicycles for BPL girls, and subsidised school education for girls from “disadvantaged families”. As with the Congress, we haven’t licked the problem of identifying BPL. BJP 2009 also has a curious figure. But before that, BJP 2004 said, “In the past six years, the number of Indians living below the poverty line has diminished significantly.” Absolutely right and this is NSS data for 1999-2000 to 2004-05, two points when we had large samples. The next large sample data won’t be available till 2011. So we don’t quite know what has happened to poverty since 2004-05.

    ... contd.

    PreviousNext1234
    To say good-bye to the Indian politics of deception in 21st centuryBy: Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana | 14-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward The old fashioned hate generating issues like ‘Lord Rama’s existence’ are also deceptive and superstitious in nature as remained practice to highlight such issues cunningly and by the evil means and designs, to raise the emotions and sentiments against each other for weakening the people in India and at the same time, making them useless to interact and compete with the outer world. The time has come to say good-bye---bye-bye-bye..... to the politics of deception in 21st century to enable people of India to interact and compete with the modern world.The present leadership irrespective of any party in the country is not in postion to cop-up in the modern age with the intellect, they possess, though the presence of exceptions like Dr Manmohan Singh, a modern philosopher King of Plato and men out of youg generation could not be ruled out.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.