Oh, I absolutely hate him. Every time I read an article by Sainath, it leaves in me a sense of anger, frustration and desperation. Anger at the blatant lies that he exposes. Frustrated about how the system is busy projecting a halo around itself while deep down every thing is rotten and festered. And desperation at me being just a mere witness, bawling a lot, yet doing nothing!
I have, for the past few years, always felt proud when the numbers on agriculture production were quoted. From 2006 our agricultural production has been on the rise, and for the last couple of years, we have been setting new highs in total cereal production. In spite of everything they say bad about agriculture, at least something is going well, I thought. The pulse village initiative and the efforts to bringing Green Revolution to East India are showing some results. And with the increase in production, we at least have the food we need to feed our people. We should be much better off than the pre-reforms era, when we had neither food nor a way to distribute whatever was available, I kept thinking until this guy comes along with his numbers.
With his uncanny ability to read between the lines and uncover hidden truths in the flashy statistics projected by the government, Sainath has once again come up with a beautiful article. He shows us how those records set by us in crop production are decreasingly getting translated to food at the hands of poor. Would you believe that at an average, a person living in the pre-Green Revolution era(1956 - '60) had access to more food grains than someone who is living today(2006 - '10)!!! No mate, its not the population growth that should be blamed here. Our food production has grown at a faster rate than population growth, meaning, per capita net availability of foodgrains should have increased, irrespective of the population growth. But we are witnessing a reverse trend.
What is more disturbing is that this trend of declining net availability was not always the case. Till a certain period in Indian history, we saw an increase in the net availability. The Success of Green Revolution had made India a food excess state. And the increase in food production was indeed impacting the net food grain availability in a positive way. More food was now reaching our people and its rate was increasing. But then, come a particular land mark in Indian history, there is a sudden reversal! And ever since, quantity of food that reaches the people declined steadily; sorry fact is that it continues even today. No points in guessing the historic land mark; it is the economic reforms of 1991.
We have all been made to believe that pre 91 era was a period where the policy aimed at 'distributing poverty'; where the burden of the poor was borne by the rich. And post '91 represents a period when the government allows the rich to get more rich, but a part of that richness will be utilized in up lifting the poor. 'Let the rich get richer, but the poor also should get better' was the thinking. Everyone knew that it was a folly. But even the most pessimistic would have thought that with increase in production and wealth, at least some of it would 'trickle down' to the poor. What better way than quoting the great journalist himself to show how wrong we were.
"If production is rising, which it is; if the upper classes are eating a lot better, which they are; and if per capita availability keeps declining, which it does- that implies three things at least. that foodgrain is not getting to those who need it. That the gap between those eating more and those eating less is worsening. And that food prices and incomes of the poor are less and less in sync" - What a statement, sir! Ladies and Gentlemen, The king of Indian journalism- Take a bow
The situation is to get a lot more worse. With the new policies on PDS, more poor will be kicked out out of the PDS.(It is a relief that the planning commission, after much 'research' found out that 2200 paise a day was sufficient to live king size. People who got kicked out are actually rich! They just don't realize it. Its more of a physiological issue, you know). A universal PDS with a structured exclusion criteria is the need of the hour. Example of states like Andhra and Tamil Nadu stand testimony to this fact. But Indian think-tank decided that we are already spending too much on subsidies and so a universal PDS is not economically feasible. It is another matter that the cost for Universal PDS will be only a fraction of the concessions enjoyed by the corporate sector!! In a system where the policies are under corporate control, what else to expect?
The government has started to realize the importance of agricultural sector. You cannot ignore the helplessness of the corporate sector here. If government want to project India as a 'destination-next' state, Indian economy must grow at a steady pace. If agriculture is neglected, then for GDP to grow by 7-8 percent, both manufacturing and services sector will have to sweat their heart out. At the same time, if there is even a 4 percent growth in agriculture, some 10 percent growth by manufacturing and services would ensure the targeted 7-8 percent overall growth. Hence government helping agriculture is a bitter pill that the corporate sector is forced to swallow. But is it too late?
In the last decade ('91 -'01) close to 7.5 million people quit farming. This decade, the figures will be more disastrous for sure. Government has neither done enough to make farming profitable nor implemented any policies to attract youth to take up agriculture. It is important to increase the productivity and profitability of small farm agriculture. Attracting and retaining youth in farming is the greatest challenge faced by the sector and even in the present budget there is no provisions for the same. With the poor getting more poor, and government policies are only accelerating that trend. This is the grim picture of rural India that Sainath presents before us.
A journalist becomes successful when he is able to convey through his words, the very raw emotions that he felt while writing them. The frustration and anger that I felt reading the article would have been first felt by Sainath when he wrote it. I am sure that millions out there felt the same way as I did. Even though it makes him one of the best journalist I have had the honor of following, I hate him still!!!
I have, for the past few years, always felt proud when the numbers on agriculture production were quoted. From 2006 our agricultural production has been on the rise, and for the last couple of years, we have been setting new highs in total cereal production. In spite of everything they say bad about agriculture, at least something is going well, I thought. The pulse village initiative and the efforts to bringing Green Revolution to East India are showing some results. And with the increase in production, we at least have the food we need to feed our people. We should be much better off than the pre-reforms era, when we had neither food nor a way to distribute whatever was available, I kept thinking until this guy comes along with his numbers.
With his uncanny ability to read between the lines and uncover hidden truths in the flashy statistics projected by the government, Sainath has once again come up with a beautiful article. He shows us how those records set by us in crop production are decreasingly getting translated to food at the hands of poor. Would you believe that at an average, a person living in the pre-Green Revolution era(1956 - '60) had access to more food grains than someone who is living today(2006 - '10)!!! No mate, its not the population growth that should be blamed here. Our food production has grown at a faster rate than population growth, meaning, per capita net availability of foodgrains should have increased, irrespective of the population growth. But we are witnessing a reverse trend.
What is more disturbing is that this trend of declining net availability was not always the case. Till a certain period in Indian history, we saw an increase in the net availability. The Success of Green Revolution had made India a food excess state. And the increase in food production was indeed impacting the net food grain availability in a positive way. More food was now reaching our people and its rate was increasing. But then, come a particular land mark in Indian history, there is a sudden reversal! And ever since, quantity of food that reaches the people declined steadily; sorry fact is that it continues even today. No points in guessing the historic land mark; it is the economic reforms of 1991.
We have all been made to believe that pre 91 era was a period where the policy aimed at 'distributing poverty'; where the burden of the poor was borne by the rich. And post '91 represents a period when the government allows the rich to get more rich, but a part of that richness will be utilized in up lifting the poor. 'Let the rich get richer, but the poor also should get better' was the thinking. Everyone knew that it was a folly. But even the most pessimistic would have thought that with increase in production and wealth, at least some of it would 'trickle down' to the poor. What better way than quoting the great journalist himself to show how wrong we were.
"If production is rising, which it is; if the upper classes are eating a lot better, which they are; and if per capita availability keeps declining, which it does- that implies three things at least. that foodgrain is not getting to those who need it. That the gap between those eating more and those eating less is worsening. And that food prices and incomes of the poor are less and less in sync" - What a statement, sir! Ladies and Gentlemen, The king of Indian journalism- Take a bow
The situation is to get a lot more worse. With the new policies on PDS, more poor will be kicked out out of the PDS.(It is a relief that the planning commission, after much 'research' found out that 2200 paise a day was sufficient to live king size. People who got kicked out are actually rich! They just don't realize it. Its more of a physiological issue, you know). A universal PDS with a structured exclusion criteria is the need of the hour. Example of states like Andhra and Tamil Nadu stand testimony to this fact. But Indian think-tank decided that we are already spending too much on subsidies and so a universal PDS is not economically feasible. It is another matter that the cost for Universal PDS will be only a fraction of the concessions enjoyed by the corporate sector!! In a system where the policies are under corporate control, what else to expect?
The government has started to realize the importance of agricultural sector. You cannot ignore the helplessness of the corporate sector here. If government want to project India as a 'destination-next' state, Indian economy must grow at a steady pace. If agriculture is neglected, then for GDP to grow by 7-8 percent, both manufacturing and services sector will have to sweat their heart out. At the same time, if there is even a 4 percent growth in agriculture, some 10 percent growth by manufacturing and services would ensure the targeted 7-8 percent overall growth. Hence government helping agriculture is a bitter pill that the corporate sector is forced to swallow. But is it too late?
In the last decade ('91 -'01) close to 7.5 million people quit farming. This decade, the figures will be more disastrous for sure. Government has neither done enough to make farming profitable nor implemented any policies to attract youth to take up agriculture. It is important to increase the productivity and profitability of small farm agriculture. Attracting and retaining youth in farming is the greatest challenge faced by the sector and even in the present budget there is no provisions for the same. With the poor getting more poor, and government policies are only accelerating that trend. This is the grim picture of rural India that Sainath presents before us.
A journalist becomes successful when he is able to convey through his words, the very raw emotions that he felt while writing them. The frustration and anger that I felt reading the article would have been first felt by Sainath when he wrote it. I am sure that millions out there felt the same way as I did. Even though it makes him one of the best journalist I have had the honor of following, I hate him still!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment