राजद्रोह, देशद्रोह, विदेशी हाथ, विदेशी एनजीओ और देशी धंधा: एक राजनेता का बयान

भूमिका: सरकार के यह पसंदीदा हथियार हैं I जिसे चाहो गिरफ्तार करो, जिसे चाहो सज़ा दो I कम से कम निचली अदालतें तो इन ‘आपराधों’ के मामले में पुलिस और सरकार के तर्कों को ही सही मानती हैं I इस देश में पुलिस चोरी, डकैती, हत्या, लूट, बलात्कार, व भ्रष्टाचार के मामलों में जितनी ढिलाई से काम लेती है, राजद्रोह, राष्ट्रद्रोह आदि के मामलों में उतनी ही तत्परता दिखती है I तो स्थिति ये बनती है जनाब कि आप चोरी करो, डाके डालो, बलात्कार करो, हत्या भी कर दो तो एक बार बच जाओगे, लेकिन इस देश की देशप्रेमी सरकार और पुलिस आपको राजद्रोह, देशद्रोह करने पर बिलकूल नहीं छोड़ेंगे I

Union Budget 2012: Aam aadmi vs. the market!

Part of this article has been published in today's DNA, Jaipur

While presenting the annual budget 2012-13, initially Pranab da managed to make the market supporters a bit unhappy- some saying ‘uneventful’, some ‘disappointing’, and ‘another opportunity lost’(all on one biz channel, I watched). This was a sign to me that perhaps the budget was people friendly to some extent, and soon the market wala would start terming it as ‘populist’ budget. It’s interesting to note that if the budget (and any government policy) is pro-people then it’s termed as populist with a negative connotation. In spite of reduction in subsidy, Pranab da did come out with some so called populist measures, at least in the announcements made in the budget speech. For example, fully implementation of the food security bill during the coming year, with improved PDS and increased allocations to schemes like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Rashtriya Krsihi Vikas Yojna (RKVY). Allocations to Tribal Sub-Plan and Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan also increased.  There is also an increase in the allocation made to Integrated Child Development Scheme.

However, it seems the prices of petrol and diesel will continue to rise as the budget proposes a massive cut on petroleum subsidy. This with an increase in service tax from 10% to 12% is going to keep inflation high, as services contribute more than 50% of the economy. So, here come the contradictions thrown upon us by the Finance Minister. The increase in food subsidy is merely Rs. 2177 crore, from current year’s revised estimates to Rs. 75000 crore for the coming year. Now how can the government implement the food security bill with this meager increase is not understandable. Similarly, the increase in NRHM is less than Rs. 2,000 crore and increase in Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY) is merely Rs. 1,400 crore.  About 20% increase in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is also not much, considering the implementation of Right to Education Act.  The estimated spending on MGNREGA during the current year 2011-12 has been revised to Rs. 31,000 against the budget allocation of Rs. 40,000 crore. The declined spending on MGNREGA does not seem to be any cause of concern for the union government as it has allocated only Rs. 33,000 crore for 2012-13 to MGNREGA, Rs. 7,000 crore less than last year’s budget estimates. The increase in Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) and Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan (SC-SP) was highlighted by the Finance Minister in the budget speech, yet the total allocation to these two sub-plans, meant for development of two most deprived sections of Indian society, is still well below the norms. Total allocation to TSP is only 3.33% of central plan expenditure while total allocation to SC-SP is merely 5.70%, which should be 8% in case of TSP and 15% in case of SC-SP. This is important for the state of Rajasthan also, as the state has 12% of tribal and 17% of dalit population.

If we look at budget from the perspective of the state of Rajasthan, there has not been any specific programme or allocations to the state. However, some of the announcements will have some direct or indirect impacts on the state. Exempting solar plant and equipments from customs should boost the solar power generation in the state, for which the state has immense potential. Exemption of silver jewelry from excise duty should help the state’s jewelry work. Slash on customs duty on machinery for mine surveying and prospecting from 10% to 7.5% should help the states mining sector. 

The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC), passing through Rajasthan, also gets a mention in the Finance Minister’s budget speech. DMIC is being developed on either side of the Dedicated Rail Freight Corridor, for which land has been acquired in the state. Finance Minister mentioned an earlier approval of Rs. 18,500 crore for DMIC over next five year as well as a Japnese assistance of US $ 4.5 billion for the project. Though announced and approved earlier (and only mentioned in this budget), this project is of immense importance for the state. Hopefully it will generate employment in industries developed in the corridor. This, however, will also have its social costs like displacement and land acquisition and the environmental issues.  

Most of the population in the state, however, depends on agriculture. Increase in farm loan target should help the Rajasthan farmers as well, if implemented properly. However, slash in petroleum subsidy means that we are going to see hike in diesel and petrol prices, which will ultimately hurt the farmers as well. Increased outlay for RKVY and National Food Security Mission, though not very substantial, is important, as both the programmes are being implemented in Rajasthan as well. But the state is also implementing schemes like Golden Rays, under RKVY, which is promoting Monsanto seeds among the tribal farmers of southern Rajasthan at the cost of their own traditional seeds. Studies suggest that such moves are not in favour of farmers in long run. Creation of a government owned Irrigation and Water Resource Finance Company to help micro-irrigation scheme and waste water and sanitation schemes as well as contract farming would be an interesting move to watch on as the state does need small irrigation and waste water management schemes considering the scarcity of water in Rajasthan. However, is the promotion of contract farming desired in the state?

Over all it seems like a balancing act for the finance minister given the political compulsions his government is facing. He has tried hard to please the market walas and at the same time has also made some so called populist announcements which, over the year, have become only solace for the aam aadmi (and aurat), as we have accepted that our overall policy direction has to remain market and industry friendly. By afternoon, as I kept watching that TV programme, the mood in the TV studio was not that pessimistic. The FM’s intention to check the subsidy and keep it below 2% of GDP, not changing the corporate tax rates, increase the upper limit for 20% income tax from 8 lakh to 10 lakh per annum has been received well. Hope the so called populist measures for aam aadmi and aurat taken in the budget work in their favour in the state as well all over the country. 

Rajasthan in Rail Budget 2012

My comment on rail budget 2012, published in today's Daily News, Jaipur 

jsy ctV esa jktLFkku

uslkj vgen

jsy ea=h th us viuk jsy ctV is'k djrs gq, ?kks"k.kkvksa dk vEckj yxk fn;kA 75 ,Dlizsl] 21 iSlsatj] 9 Mh-,e-;w-] 8 ,e-bZ-,e-;w xkfM+;k¡ vkxkeh foÙkh; o"kZ 2012&13 esa vkjaHk djus ds vykok dbZ xkfM+;ksa ds xarO; rFkk pyus ds fnu c<+kus ls ysdj 'kkjhjhd :Ik ls v{ke O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s fo'ks"k fMCck yxkus] 19000 fdeh- jsy ykbZu dk vk/kqfudhdj.k] 750 fdeh- ubZ ykbu fcNkus] ,d xzhujsy vkSj 200 xzhu LVs'ku] lHkh ekuo jfgr jsyos ØkWflax ij jsydehZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr] 2500 fMCcksa easa iznw"k.k jfgr VkW;ysV~l yxkus tSlh dbZ vkd"kZd ?kks"k.kkvksas ds ckn ea=h egksn; us jsy fdjk;s esa ^ekeqyh* o`f) ¼0-02 iSls izfr fdeh- U;wure o`f) dk vFkZ gS 1000 fdeh- dh ;k=k ij 20 :i;s dh o`f)½ dk izLrko Hkh j[kk] ftlus gekjs rFkkdfFkr esuLVªhe fefM;k dh ckaNsa f[kyk nhaA 60100 djksM+ :i;s ds ;kstuk [kpZ ds bl ctV esa ,d yk[k ubZ HkrhZ;ksa dk y{; Hkh j[kk x;k gSA

bu ?kks"k.kkvksa esa jktLFkku ds fy;s Hkh dbZ ?kks"k.kk,a gSaA jsyea=h us tgka fiNys lIrkg gh jkT; ls rhu ubZ xkM+h;ksa dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh] ogha ctV esa 15 ubZ ,Dlizsl xkfM+;ksa dh ?kks"k.kk dh xbZA lkFk gh 5 iSlsatj rFkk Mh- ,e;w xkfM+;k¡ Hkh jkT; dks nh xbZ gSaA blds vykok 10 xkfM+;ksa dh nwjh c<+kbZ ¼,DlVsaM½ dh xbZ gSA tks/kiqj&caXyksj ,Dlizsl rFkk eqEcbZ&t;iqj xjhcjFk dks Øe’k% dks;EcVqj rFkk fnYyh rd c<+k;k x;k gS rFkk ft+;kjr ,Dlizsl vc lIrkg esa nks fnu pysxhA lkFk gh vkxkeh foÙkh; o"kZ esa ftu 84 LVs’kuksa dks vkn’kZ LVs’ku cuk;k tkuk gS] muesa t;iqj Hkh 'kkfey gSA jkT; ls xwtjus okyh fnYyh&vgenkckn jkt/kkuh Hkh vc 6 fnuksa ds ctk; lIrkg ds lHkh fnu pyk djsxhA cgq izfrf{kr fnYyh&t;iqj] vtesj&tks/kiqj rhozxfr jsyos ds fy;s vHkh vkSj izfr{kk djuh gksxhA jsyos bl o"kZ bldk v/;;u djsxkA

ijUrq bu ?kks"k.kkvksa dk vke vkneh ,oa vke efgyk ds fy;s dksbZ eryc rHkh gS tc jsyos bUgsa iwjh djsA fiNys o"kZ ds jsy ctV esa Hkh rc dh jsyea=h eerk cuthZ us jkT; esa 14 ubZ jsy xkfM+;ksa dh ?kks"k.kk dh FkhA buesa ls 8 xkfM+;ka vc rd ugha py ikbZ gSaA bu xkfM+;ksa esa t;iqj&fnYyh McyMsdj] t;iqj&vkxjk 'krkCnh rFkk vtesj&fut+keqíhi ¼fnYyh½ tSlh xkfM+;ka 'kkfey gSaA oSls jsyos ds vuqlkj bu rhuksa ds vykok 5 xkfM+;ka f’k?kz 'kq: dh tk;saxhA bu ikap xkM+h;ksa esa ckUnzk&tEew] eqEcbZ&p.Mhx<+ ok;k Qqysjk&fjaxl] mn;iqj&ckUnzk] Hkkxyiqj&vtesj] gkoM+k&tSlyesj 'kkfey gSa] ftUgsa f’k?kz vkjaHk fd;k tk ldrk gSA

gkykafd jsyea=h bu foÙkh; o"kZ esa 725 fdeh- ds u;s ykbZusa orZeku o"kZ 2011&12 iwjh gksus dh lwpuk Hkh nh] ftuesa jktLFkku dh nks ykbZusa mn;iqj&eokb] rFkk nkSlk MhMokuk Hkh 'kkfey gSaA lkFk gh jsyos vkxkeh foÙkh; o"kZ esa 700 fdeh- dh 45 ubZ ykbusa fcNk;sxk] ftlesa 2 ykbusa ¼nkSlk&MhMokuk ^ikVZ* rFkk NksVkmn;iqj&vyhjktiqj½ jkT; esa izLrkfor gSaA lkFk gh 85 ubZ ykbusa ;kstuk vk;ksx dh Lohd`fr ds fy;s Hksth xbZ gSa] ftuesa ls ikap jktLFkku ls lacaf/kr gSaA

blds vykok Jhxaxkuxj&guqekux<+] mu 19 ykbuksa esa 'kkfey gSa ftudk xst ifjorZu fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk vkxkeh foÙkh; o"kZ 2012&13 esa 17 ykbuksa dk xst ifjorZu izLrkfor gSa] ftuesa nks ¼guqekux<+&Jhxaxkuxj rFkk lhdj&yqgk:½ jktLFkku esa izLrkfor gSa rFkk ekoyh&cM+h lknM+h ds ,oa fgEeruxj&[ksnczEgk&vkcqjksM xst ifjorZu dk izLrko ;kstuk vk;ksx dks Lohd`fr gsrq Hkstk x;k gSA jsyos jktLFkku ljdkj ds lg;ksx ls jryke&MwWxjiwj ok;k ckalokMk ifj;kstuk ykxq dj jgh gSA

dqy feykdj tgka jsyea=h us jsyos esa lqj{kk ij fo’ks"k /;ku fn;s tkus ¼^tku gS rks tgku gS*½ dh ?kks"k.kk djrs gq, jsyos lwj{kk izkf/kdj.k cukus dh ?kks"k.kk dh rFkk jsyos nq?kZVukvksa ,oa muesa gks jgh e`R;q dks 'kwU; ij ykus dh ckr dghA ijUrq ge ekuo jfgr jsyos ØkWflax ij jsy dehZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr dh ckr dbZ o"kksZa ds ctV esa lqu pqds gSaA bl egÙkokdka{kh ctV dh cM+h&cM+h ?kks"k.kkvksa dks okLro esa iwjk djus ds iz;kl fd;k tkuk vko’;d gSA ,d rjQ tgka foi{k bls ,d det+ksj ctV crk;k gS] ftlesa lqj{kk ds mik; ugha crk;s x;s gSa] ogha jsy HkkM+s esa o`f) dk fojks/k jsyea=h dh ikVhZ r`.kewy dkaxzsl ds Hkhrj ls gh gksuk 'kq: gks x;k gSA ,sls esa jsyea=h dh ?kks"k.kk,a fdruh iwjh gksaxh ;g dguk eqf’dy gh gSA

Row over Rushdie and Indian Democracy: Some questions

The row over Salman Rushdie’s visit and later his conversation with Ms. Barkha Dutt through video conferencing at Jaipur Literature Festival, neither of which could take place, has raised some interesting (to me) questions in my mind. Presenting some of these here:

Rushdie has every right to visit India (or JLF, sponsored by Rio Tinto and Tata Steel – how liberal they are?)

What liberty are we talking about? In this country a journalist is arrested just for possessing some documents from internet and remains in jail for years. Army/paramilitary can kill anybody by law (AFSPA) in Manipur and Kashmir. 

Free sppech? Prashant Bhushan spoke in favour of plebiscite in Kashmir and got beaten up in his office in the Supreme Court. 

You believe in free speech? Go and speak against mining and displacement in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Orissa. 

The governments seem to accept any demands made by any Muslim group now (till the UP elections are over). Why don’t the idiots come together and demand a judicial inquiry into the Batla House ‘encounter’?

The row over Rushdie has given a golden opportunity to Ashok Gehlot whose police killed 12 innocent meow Muslims in Gopalgarh last year. Has not he also got a chance to wash his sins in so called Maha Kumbh of JLF?

Do you know a book written on Birlas titled ‘Mystery of Birla House’ is not available and another book written on the god of Indian middle classes named Dhirubhai Ambani, titled ‘The Polyester Prince’ is  banned in India? I did not know. Would media like to highlight the ban on these books written about the greatest corporate houses/families of India?

Counting Poorly; and Identifying…??

In a recent affidavit to the Supreme Court the Planning Commission has revised the poverty line to estimate the number of poor in India. According to the affidavit now if one is consuming worth Rs. 25 in rural areas and Rs. 32 in urban areas, on 2011 prices, he/she should not be counted as poor. This has been revised from the 2004-05 poverty line of per-capita per day consumption of Rs. 15 in rural areas and Rs. 20 in urban areas. This extremely low and outrageous poverty line has rightly been criticized by the many quarters in media. The estimate of poverty made by the Suresh Tendulkar Committee based on the earlier poverty line was 37% ( 42% in rural areas and 26% in urban areas) for the year 2004-05 (see page 17 of the report). The Planning Commission in its earlier affidavit, submitted to the Supreme Court, had actually informed the court about the 2004-05 poverty line, on which, the apex court had expressed its shock. The revised poverty line has also been a shock to the country. The Planning Commission seems to be confused about the whole thing, the Congress party trying to downplay the affidavit and Congress allies in UPA are distancing themselves from the government on the issue.

The government patting its back for achieving 7 to 9 % of economic growth for last so many years is not ready to revise its poverty line norms which is outrageously low and outdated. The economists like Utsa Patnaik have been pointing it out for quite some time now that the nutrition level which can be achieved by consuming the equivalent of the poverty line defined by the Planning Commission is much less than the required nutrition level of 2400 calories per day, as recommended by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). (The flaws in the India's poverty line have been found by others too, calling it rather starvation line). But since it was not a legal case in the Supreme Court, it never caught the media attention those days, as it seems to be doing now. Now, thanks to the case filed by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and others, and the many orders given by the Supreme Court (like appointing the Food Security Commissioners), the issue of poverty line and defining poverty in India has got some public attention.

Killing two birds with one stone

The government, by underreporting poverty by putting the poverty line itself so low, wants to serve two purposes. One, it wants to show that the economic policies adopted by the government has been a success as they have helped reduce level of poverty in the country. You ask any question about poverty and low human development index in the country to any political party and you are slapped with the impressive growth figures. From Modi in Gujrat (poverty in vibrant Gujrat is 32% - 39% in rural areas and 20% in urban areas-, according to the same Rs. 15 and Rs. 20 poverty line) to Nitish in Bihar to (just voted out of power) Buddhadeb Bhattacharya in West Bengal all happily showing their growth records or doing everything in their power to achieve the economic growth. You ask a simple question that how this growth will be translated into betterment for people and you are branded as an anti development, anti growth and even anti nation. The friendly media which these governments have in form of national to local news channels and newspapers just love to sing the growth story.

Second purpose which the government is trying to serve by underreporting the poverty is that of shirking its responsibilities towards the people in general and poor people in particular. The lower number of poor families which are known as BPL (Below Poverty Line) families means the government has to provide fewer houses under Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), less subsidized food to BPL families under Public Distribution System and so on. That means the government can save on development expenditure and spend less on subsidy so that it can give more tax benefits and forgive more and more taxes to be levied on rich and the corporate world. In order to do this the very process of identifying the poor families is designed to exclude poor families rather than to include them.

Identifying the Poor: An Exercise of Exclusion

To make this a bit clearer, it would be useful to note that counting the poor or estimating the number of poor people and identifying them are two different exercises. Number and percentage of poor people is estimated by the Planning Commission, based on the National Sample Survey Organisation’s (NSSO’s) annual and quinquennial surveys on people’s consumption (NSSO also collects data on various other socio-economic indicators), applying the poverty line, of which it has informed to court. The process of identifying the poor families (known as BPL survey), on the other hand, is done by the state governments based on the directives of the Planning Commission. There have been three BPL survey so far in years 1992, 1997 and 2002. The government admits that there have been many anomalies in the BPL survey 2002 and there were problems of exclusion (of actual BPL families) and inclusion (of above poverty line or APL families), still it did not go for the BPL survey due in 2007, and for the last one decade the governments have been using the BPL list prepared in 2002. It also becomes difficult exercise for the state government because the Planning Commission puts a cap on the number of families which can be included in the BPL list. So if the state governments, even using the methodology given by the Planning Commission itself, find that there are more BPL families in their states than what is being suggested by the Planning Commission, they cannot do anything about it. This is exactly what happened in 2002. Since there has been many instances of exclusion of deserving families from the 2002 BPL list, and also the next BPL survey due in 2007 was not conducted, the state governments in some cases have come out with the Sate BPL lists (e.g. in Rajasthan), which has added to the confusion in the villages and the panchayat offices.

This year the government is conducting Socio-Economic and Caste Census-2011, which will serve dual purpose of identifying the BPL families as well as making a caste profile of the country’s population (since the caste based census could not be done along with the general census conducted last year). The process of this BPL survey was to be based on the recommendations of the NC Saxena committee, who recommended that regardless of the poverty ratio calculated by the Planning Commission, at least 50% of the total households should be included in the BPL list. The Planning Commission, however, has ignored this recommendation and has instructed the state governments that the number of BPL families will be according to the 2004-05 estimate of poverty in the state, which is based on its Rs. 15 and Rs. 20 per day consumption criteria.

The socio-economic and caste census 2011, for which pilots have already been conducted, is going to be based on three steps: 1. Some households are to be automatically excluded, 2. Some households are to be compulsorily included, and 3. Rest households will be ranked based on 7 deprivation criteria and a cut off mark will be decided to suit the poverty ratio decided by the Planning Commission. Recently, Jairam Ramesh, the newly appointed Minister of Rural Areas and Employment, hinted that the cap put on the BPL list may be revisited. He is also understood to have written a letter to the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission. But it is unlikely that he would be able to convince the Planning Commission. The Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment has been in favour of keeping the cap at least to 50%, as recommended by the NAC member, NC Saxena. But the Planning Commission thinks otherwise.

The criteria of self exclusion being used in the socio-economic and caste census 2011 are extremely excluding and are likely to exclude many deserving poor families. For example anyone owning a two wheeler will be automatically out of the list. If you have a fridge you will be out of the BPL list automatically. Many poor people have a two wheeler (a moped or a second hand scooter/bike) for the very work they do like selling milk or vegetables. If a family in an urban slum (this year, for the first time, the exercise to identify poor is undertaken in urban areas as well) has somehow managed to buy a second hand fridge will be automatically out of the list. A poor farmer somehow possessing a Kisan Credit Card with credit limit of Rs. 50,000 is also going to be automatically excluded.

The families who are neither compulsorily included nor automatically excluded will be ranked according to 7 point deprivation criteria. The deprivation criteria also have serious problems. For example one of the deprivation criteria is a household having one room kacha house. The three room pucca house owner families have been excluded automatically, but what about families having two room houses or one room pucca houses. They are likely to not get a chance to be ranked under the deprivation criteria ranking and loose a chance to be identified as poor.

The whole process, therefore, is an exercise to exclude maximum number of poor families and bar them from being listed as BPL families. So that government can cut down and minimize its expenditure on development and can divert its resources towards the corporate sector people to give them subsidy for starting their industries and setting up SEZ, so that even higher economic growth can be achieved. If the intention was to provide necessary services to the poor, the government would have not gone into BPL vs. APL categorization. Studies have suggested that the schemes which are universal in nature perform better than those which are aimed at targeting the BPL families.