Showing posts with label UPA government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UPA government. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

A Bridge on the Palk Straits

Will the government take Ram Setu to ASI and show its hand?

Is the government’s policy on Ram Setu about to be put to test? There is a good chance it will be after the Supreme Court asks the UPA government to consider holding an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) investigation to ascertain whether Ram Setu is indeed an “ancient monument”. A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan asked the government to explore “the possibility of carrying out the project through any other channels (alignments).”

The UPA government’s policy of vacillating in the extreme on Ram Setu (not knowing whether it would lead to appeasement or alienation) has led to the Court to demand more consistency on issues such as Ram Setu, even while acknowledging that it is nearly impossible to lay down guidelines of any kind in a democracy.

Not surprisingly, the court’s order has been welcomed by all those who are opposed to the dismantling of Ram Setu. Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, a petitioner in the case, said the government could not ignore the directive in light of the recent Madras High Court order. The next hearing is on July 22. In the interregnum, the Bench said the Centre could consider both these aspects, just as the High Court directed on June 19 of last year. Appearing for the Centre, senior advocate Fali S. Nariman agreed with the court’s current stand.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

That tall claim left, right and centre

The UPA government would like all of us to actually believe it did much for rural India, but Rajan Prakash disputes that tall claim left, right and centre

Sharma’s point is supported by the statistics of NSSO. It states that the average monthly income of an average farmer family is Rs.2,115. The average family comprises five members and two cattle. The UPA government lent a deaf ear to the pains and ordeals of farmers in Vidarbha and Bundelkhand for four years, but when the media made a hue and cry about the issue, the government reluctantly started paying attention. Hastily, a tour by the Prime Minister was arranged. People thought that happy days were in the offing. However, they soon had a reality check. The government announced a package of piffling Rs.37.5 billion that only included waiver of loan in six districts and restructuring of loans in the rest. In reality, government only waived the interest on the loan and not the principle. The government then patted its own back by claiming that farmers can take fresh loans easily now without the liability to pay the last one. In short, the government did not attack the cause. It just waived off the medicine fee.

The interest on the loan amount in the six districts is to the tune of Rs.7.12 billion. It is important that people get their loan amount on time. That is precisely why the RBI has directed the subsidiary banks to earmark 40% of the loan amount for the primary sector, of which 18% has to be left exclusively for agriculture. But statistics tell a different story. In the last five years, banks have only disbursed 11-12% in loans to this sector. Instead of pulling them up for not meeting the target, the government has shamefully ensured that the interests of the banks are served. Whether the farmer wins or loses, the bank always wins. Farmers have to return the loan within the agriculture year. However, in the case of calamity or loss of crop, it becomes practically impossible for the farmers to pay the loan back. They do have the provision to take crop-insurance. However, because of limited awareness about the program and red-tapism, most of the needy farmers fail to do so. And so the interest keeps on increasing. The same happened in Vidarbha.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

“The Prime Minister has been stoically silent till now”

In the absence of any specific contectual factors of the UPA-I, the present government seems to be taking a completely neo-liberal approach. by nilotpal basu

The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, by no count, can be called garrulous. And, these days he has gone even quieter. To say the least, this is surprising. Prime Minister in our country, as most of our constitutional experts contend – is ‘more equal’ than all his Cabinet colleagues who all enjoy equal powers in a system of collective responsibility. Therefore, the almost deafeningly stoic silence that the Prime Minister appears to be maintaining since the beginning of the second avatar of the UPA government is strange.

This is all the more so, since today he is in his own words - ‘free and liberated’. The ‘enslaving’ presence of the Left is no longer around to disrupt his ‘peace of mind’ and derail the process of neo-liberal globalization which has characterized his policy preference! Then why is he not articulating the direction of the government with a firmness that the people and his circumstances expected him to show.

In fact, the anniversary of the UPA-II government which was to be highlighted by a free flowing media conference of the Prime Minister raised a lot of anticipation. But subsequently, as even most of the mainstream media, who never tires in showering accolades on him, has generally come to conclude that it was largely a ‘non-event’. In a way, the performance of the Prime Minister in the event was symptomatic of his government’s performance – lacklustre.

What is it that has changed? The first UPA government – even critics admit had been more ‘vibrant’. With the Left parties around, the tenure marked intense policy debates. And, obviously, the performance of the government in the end did win support of the people to the point of resulting in reelection. There can be, and very legitimately at that, a debate on the reasons for such an outcome of the elections. But, nevertheless, what is undisputable is that it succeeded in sustaining some popular support. Therefore, one is inclined to go into the specific factors which distinguishes the UPA-II from its earlier predecessor, to find out the present state of affairs. The present government has also, during the last election, campaigned on the main electoral platform of ensuring the wellbeing of the aam aadmi. But where the circumstances are different-sharply brings out two specific points of departure. Unlike the first UPA, the second is not guided by a Common Minimum Programme (CMP) – not to speak of the clear mandate against the life and livelihood of the aam aadmi being threatened by the paradigm which was contained in the ‘shining India’ approach – and reflected in the CMP. The second issue pertains to the absence of the Left which relentlessly articulated the need to implement the pro-people provisions of the CMP. The Left also raised opposition to the attempts by the government to effect liberalization of the financial sector and opening up of sectors which involved employment generation like retail to FDI.


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)