In India most of politicians are
indulged in vote bank politics. they have almost sacrificed nation
interest, they do not give much value to security concerns, they have ignored
pain of common men and they have willfully shut their eyes and ears on
all cries against corruption, price rise and matters related to
national security..
MPs (Members of Parliament) are resorting to
vote bank politics not only outside the Parliament but also inside the
Parliament to mobilize majority in parliament for survival of their
government.
Self interests of person and party
have forced political leaders of this great country to forget and ignore common
men and interest of Indians. Their thinking is fragmented; they seldom treat
all Indians as Indians. They treats Indians in terms of Hindu or Muslim or
Christian or Marathi or Gujrati or Bihari or Bengali and so on .They have
divided the society in backward and forward, dalit and non -dalit etc . Terms
of division are many compared to pre-independence era when terms
of division was only black and non-black.
It is none other than Politicians, who have divided the Nation in various microscopic pieces. They talk of secularism and national unity and integrity but in fact most of elected representatives and most of political parties are communal minded , mean minded, selfish and corrupt.
Bitter truth is that most of political parties are behind Muslim Votes .Some section of media and society blame BJP or Congress Party of being supporter of this or that community , but leaders of all these parties invariably calculate winnability of their candidate in a constituency based on caste and community and never based on the merit and performance potential of the candidate. Media men also propagate news based on their arithmetic, permutation and combination of various caste people affiliated with various parties.
Persons and parties who think in terms of their vote bank can preach only for common men but cannot act for entire country in one go. They cannot dream of taking any step against Muslim hooligans and goonda elements in fear of repercussion and subsequent erosion in vote bank. Similarly they do not tough voters of dalit community.
Even police department officials, administrative officers and departmental heads in all government or private offices have to face adverse effects if at all they take any action against erring members of dalit community. Such biased politics by politicians have badly affected the work culture in all offices and widened the gap between Muslim and Non-Muslim members, dalit and non-dalit members. And I can say without any doubt that India cannot prosper until leaders of our country come out of this vote bank politics.
It is painful to see that they frame their policies based on dirty
politics and this is why economy of the country has also been passing through worst
days. Even best performer in a office think it wise to keep aloof from dirty
politics prevalent in the country in fear of punitive action and think it
wise to remain silent spectator of all evils going on the system.
Political economics can never be impartial and hence leaders have to think in term of economic politics only. Preaching sermons on secularism is one thing and acting honestly in terms of secularism is entirely different. Preaching principles of democracy has become a fashion for leaders but acting in undemocratic way has become habit of most of politicians and most of parties.
‘We are too much involved in vote bank politics
Published in newspaper THE HINDU
Minister for Energy Shobha Karandlaje expressed her anguish over playing “vote-bank politics” on issues concerning national security. She said she is pained to see that politicians chose to ignore national security and appease sections of society rather than working with secular frame of mind.
Ms. Karandlaje was speaking on the last day of Darshan, a three-day personality development programme for graduate and postgraduate students on Wednesday. The programme was organised by the Ramakrishna Math on the occasion of 150 birth centenary celebrations of Swami Vivekananda.
Taking a critical view of politicians’ work, Ms. Karandlaje said the ruling party at the Centre was not in a position to take decision on the presence of infiltrators from Pakistan and Bangladesh in our cities as pointed out by the intelligence agencies. “We are forced to sit quiet fearing repercussions of the action and overlook the security threat. We are a lot concerned about finishing our term (without a hassle),” she said.
Ms. Karandlaje said lack of basic healthcare facilities, and caste oppression were among the reasons why people associated with Maoists and terrorist groups and revolted against the State. “But I am pained to say that we are too much involved in vote bank politics,” she said.
Ms. Karandlaje asked youngsters to come forward and raise their voice against injustice and deprivation. She also asked women to join hands in nation-building.
Swami Jitakamanandaji spoke on the relevance of the teachings of Swami Vivekananda in the contemporary world. Swami Anupamanandaji, Raghottama Rao from Manas Centre for Training and Academy, and professor from School of Social Work Rameela Shekar spoke.
'Pretending to act for poor is last refuge of scoundrels' Written by: Shubham Ghosh
While India continues to see economic reforms through the lens of politics, debate continues whether economic reforms like allowing FDI are at all bad for the poor of this country. OneIndia News spoke toDr Christopher Lingle, an independent economist who had predicted the East Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s.
Dr Lingle is a Visiting Professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala, Adjunct Scholar at the Centre for Independent Studies (Sydney), Research Scholar at the Centre forCivil Society (New Delhi) and Member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Globalisation Institute (Brussels). His research interests are in the areas of Political Economy and International Economics with a focus on emerging market economies and public policy reform in Europe, East Asia, Latin America and Southern Africa. He is the author of the book The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century. He is based in Guatemala City.
Here is what he told OneIndia.
OneIndia: What is your take on the current political chaos in India over the government's crucial decisions of opening the economy and efforts towards deregulating fuel prices? It seems the political class in India is unable to understand that a closed and subsidised economy can not sustain in the long run. Is too much politicisation holding the country back?
Dr Lingle: Political chaos in modern India is the inevitable outcome of a long, misguided history of extensive state intervention into economic affairs. In turn, this lead to ever-increasing politicisation of daily life.
As it is, India's politicians and intellectuals suffer from a mental trap that induces them to enthusiastically embrace government control over markets. This hostility to the market economy comes from a historical tradition that, wrongly, equates colonialism with capitalism.
This misguided equation meant that opposition to colonialism necessitated opposition to capitalism. This mental trap impedes reform and reduces the possibility for the truly poor to gain access to economic opportunities that would arise from higher economic growth.
OneIndia: India, unlike China or many other African countries, has strong institutions like a competent judiciary, a viable political democracy, a strong bureaucracy inherited from the British rulers and these factors place India at an advantageous position to realise the good effects of economic liberalisation. What's your take on this?
Dr Lingle: India's institutional advantages over rivals like China tend to make me optimistic about India's economic prospects, especially when I am not there. Upon returning to India and reading the local papers, I am being reminded of the incompetence and rampant corruption which make me pessimistic. (By contrast, my pessimism about China's long-term prospects when I am outside of China is replaced by optimism when I see physical improvements upon visiting there!)
And so it seems that inept or lazy politicians and the bureaucrats are squandering these precious institutional advantages.
OneIndia: Will FDI in retail really harm the poor and the humble sections in the country? Political parties are extremely vocal over this point and one of them even pulled out of the government, leaving it as a working minority. They feel the entry of super-chains will eventually see the local shops being closed down. India has already seen liberalisation being carried out in 1991 but did that affect the poor sections? Instead, the general feeling is that lots of people have found themselves employed in some capacity or the other, which would not have been possible in a closed economy.
Dr Lingle: There is no evidence that the "poor" as a class will be harmed by FDI in retail sales. It turns out that slum clearances and the "war" against people trying to earn livelihoods in the informal sector do much more harm to the interests of the poor.
As for small traders, they have much more to fear from arbitrary closures by public officials than from competition from global retail chains.
In fact, lower prices available in hyper-markets will allow more small traders to access cheaper goods that can be sold at lower prices to everyone. While some small traders may be disadvantaged, most will continue to have a comparative advantage in being close to many consumers, especially in the Metros.
OneIndia: Even when the political parties are speaking about the poor being deprived, wasn't it the failure of the Indian state itself that it failed to address their issues all these years? How much progress has the poor sections witness during the days of 'socialist days' in India? If we do not provide them basic opportunities in education, health and other development at the primary level, then there is no point in shouting that these people will be deprived in a liberalised economy. If Indian engineers can compete with the world today, then why not farmers and labourers, provided they have the training? By speaking in favour of protecting the poor against globalisation, is the Indian state actually exposing its failure in protecting their cause? Your views on this.
Dr Lingle: Pretending to act in the name of the poor is the last refuge of scoundrels! Rajiv Gandhi pointed out that for every rupee allocated in government budgets on behalf of the poor, only about 10% reaches them.
Perhaps the most egregious public-sector waste is in the name of educating the poor. It turns out that private providers of education serve the poor much better. As such, the government should turn to a voucher system to allow private education compete with public schools.
In all events, formal education is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for economic success. People are not poor because they are uneducated. They are poor because they do not have jobs. There are not enough jobs being created because there is not enough new investment in capital that would allow incomes to rise. And the fault lies with successive governments that have been unwilling to undertake economic reform that would encourage more investment.
OneIndia: There is a view in India that a nation's infrastructure-building activity should be concentrated in the hand of the government and not private players. But if FDI in retail isallowed, then foreign forces are expected to boost the local facilities including infrastructure. Often, we see poor communication and transportation impede economic activities in rural and semi-rural areas of India. If foreign players help in improving roads, cold storage facilities anddistribution networks of a remote member of the economy, then it is always welcome. Isn't it?
Dr Lingle: Many of China's initial big projects in physical infrastructure development involved private actors. For example, private developers provided motorways in Guangzhou under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) scheme. However, there is a tragic likelihood that the mental trap about markets and privately-owned, foreign capital continues to retard India's economic performance.
OneIndia: Will the landless and marginal farmers be affected by FDI in retail? Should FDI be allowed in various sectors gradually or at one go?
Dr Lingle: Whether or not FDI in retail occurs is not the biggest problem for landless, marginal farmers. As it is, their interests might be best addressed if they were granted title on unused or under-utilised land presently owned by the State. They can also benefit from having improved physical infrastructure, something that the State has failed to provide.
OneIndia: The days of the closed economy encouraged corruption in India. Today, several state-run projects breed corruption. Even liberalisation has seen some serious scams surfacing. Are these post-liberalisation scams a jerking impact seen in the first generation of the post-opening days or corruption has been permanently institutionalised in India, thanks to the old-day statist economy?
Dr Lingle: Corruption seems to have become embedded in the political DNA of India. It is like a cancer that will only spread once it is established. The only way to reduce corruption is to reduce bureaucratic interferences and legislative giveaways that provide opportunities for graft, theft and waste.
It is a matter of incentives, not individuals. Even honest people will be corrupted by incentives that provide them with payoffs by cheating the system and when there is limited likelihood of either being caught or being punished.
OneIndia: Do you think that the situation in India would have been different had it chosen a market economy in the days just after Independence? There is a Leftist orientation in Indian politico-intellectual mind and a distrust of foreign capital. As you said, we tend to equate colonialism with capitalism. This is clearly a lack of vision until our back touched the wall in 1991. We had the institutions to reap benefits of liberalisation of both economy and mind. Your thoughts.
Dr Lingle: Given the global climate at the time of Independence, it is unlikely that India's leaders would have chosen a Liberal path. But the problem arising from State involvements in the economy have been compounded over time, creating an entrenched sense of entitlement for certain groups, including the civil service.
It is tragic that India's democratic institutions create incentives to keep people poor so that they must depend on political parties to provide them with handouts. As such, vote banks depend upon continued poverty.
OneIndia: Countries like Mexico and Chile have led the way in economic deregulation but in states like the USA, the government is taking up more social responsibilities. Do you think it is an interesting global economic trend and India should learn from the Latin American countries?
Dr Lingle: India's leaders should heed the mistakes of Latin American countries whereby populist-democracy lead to utter destruction of their economies. India's should also look to the successes of Brazil and Chile from liberalisation and reforms that have moved their economies onto higher growth trajectories.
OneIndia: Will the GAAR (General Anti-Avoidance Rules) rule be helpful in evading corrupt practices as far as liberalisation in India is concerned? There is an uproar that the GAAR is not being adopted by the govt for it feels that it will lower confidence of the investors. What's your take on this?
Dr Lingle: The only way to reduce corruption is to reduce the politicisation of the economy and to end social or other privileges. More opportunities for bureaucrats or politicians to get in the way of what citizens wish to do breeds more corruption. Fewer opportunities will lead to less corruption.
http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2012/reduced-state-interference-will-curb-corruption-lingle-1076218.html
Raghu Rajan unplugged: Good economics makes good politics
by Venky Vembu Sep 27, 2012
The intersection of politics and economics is a barren, uninhabited land. Ivory-tower economists, entrenched in their certitude and the efficacy of their textbook theories, typically make recommendations that don’t adequately factor in the real world in which they must pass muster.
On the other hand, the political class, which believes only in catering to the lowest common denominator of bust-the-bank populism, typically cares not one whit for the dire economic consequences of their actions.
Worse, a certain anti-intellectual arrogance is discernible in the comments of elected leaders like Mamata Banerjee, who claim, on the strength of the fact that they have been elected to power, that unelected leaders—and she meant Prime Minister Manmohan Singh—had no moral authority to frame economic policy on, for instance, FDI in retail or even hike diesel prices to bring runaway subsidies under control.
“My job as a chief economic adviser is to tell the government very clearly what I think economics says”. Reuters
When it comes to reckless populism, of course, there is plenty of blame to go around—from the Congress to the BJP to itinerant parties like the Trinamool Congress, all of whose leaders hide behind the façade of defending the aam aadmi from the vagaries of the marketplace.
In that enterprise, or so goes their thoughtless argument, it’s okay to build mountains of subsidies and debt. In reasoning thus, they appear blissfully unaware of the economic consequences of their actions.
In a flurry of media interviews on Wednesday, Raghuram Rajan, the chief economic adviser in the Finance Ministry, stepped into the no man’s land of the political economy, and spoke up in defence of doing the right things in the economic space—for all the right reasons in the political domain.
“My job as a chief economic adviser,” he told Business Standard, “is to tell the government very clearly what I think economics says. And when it is at odds substantially with politics, my job is to emphasise economics. The decision will ultimately have some political elements to it.”
More specifically, Rajan framed the discourse over the recent hike in diesel prices against the backdrop of the political economy to call the bluff of those, like Mamata Banerjee and others, who argue that the hike hurts the interests of the aam aadmi.
Rajan told Livemint: “For people who say don’t raise diesel prices because you are hurting the common man, you have to respond that you don’t want to hurt the common man, but if we don’t get our budget deficit in order and keep borrowing from outside, we could hurt the common man even more by a full-fledged financial crisis.”
The primary responsibility for having run up sky-high debt and subsidies, of course, lies with the Congress, but to the extent that today, at a time when the UPA government has bestirred itself from its slumber and begun to make feeble efforts to address that mounting crisis, the entire Opposition is intent on blocking it means that the blame must be more widely shared.
What none of the parties are willing to concede is that, as former BJP minister Arun Shourie observed the other day, good economics makes for good politics. If parties offer good governance, which rests on good economics, there’s a fair bet that all but the most partisan opposition voters will be enthused – and extend political support.
But Rajan’s capacity to continue to speak truth to power, in the way that he says his job responsibility requires him to do, will be on test before long. As Firstpost had observed earlier, for all the articulation of support from Congress leaders, including Sonia Gandhi, for the recent policy measures aimed at cutting subsidies and stimulating economic growth, sections of the party are already beginning to get anxious about the saleability of these policies to the voters, come election time.
And they can’t wait to get back to the big-spending social welfare projects that they believe will return them to power. There is evidently no willingness to acknowledge that it was precisely such big-ticket public spending on ill-conceived projects that ran up the subsidies in the first place.
As economist Bibek Debroy too points out, “If I am to look at this recent flurry of reforms, do I detect recognition that public expenditure was wrong? I am sorry to state, I don’t. Instead, the suggestion seems to be that we need high growth so that more public expenditure becomes possible… That’s the reason I am not convinced the government is going to use this crisis as an opportunity, as it did in 1991.”
Raghu Rajan may well speak up then as now and decry unsound economic policies , but when the ruling dispensation remains unconvinced that good economics makes for good politics too, and equates yet more unabashed spending as the way to buy popular appeal on the cheap, the limits of his persuasive powers as economic adviser will be severely tested.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/raghu-rajan-unplugged-good-economics-makes-good-politics-470529.html
No comments:
Post a Comment