Vinod Anand

Section 2: Distributional Effects
IN Part 2 of this Paper we had fully analysed the Growth scenario in the country since 1951. In this Part we look at the Distributional Effects in terms of some of the economic indicators.
In order to assess a country’s performance and its progress towards economic development, we must supplement, if not supplant, the growth-rate of GNP by other more microeconomic measures. It is not enough to measure progress merely in terms of GNP, it is imperative to look at the structural change too. In fact, there are two basic approaches available in this respect: the first is to ‘weigh the growth performance by distributional record’, and the other is ‘to emphasize changing poverty and inequality as the principal indicators of development.’

Let us look at the distributional effects of economic growth on the economy on the basis of behaviour pattern, as shown by certain crucial economic and social indicators that affect a larger section of our society, and through which the benefits of growth are supposed to get distributed amongst the majority of the people without much time-lag. We have not used any specific basis to underline such indicators, but the following economic and social indicators seem to be more important:

Economic Indicators:
Agricultural Production;
Food grain Production;
Industrial Production;
Electricity Generation;
Prices: Wholesale and Consumer;
Imports and Exports; and
Per Capita Availability of Certain Important Articles of Consumption;

Social Indicators:
Population; Birth Rate and Death Rate; Life Expectancy at Birth;
Education; Literacy rate;
Health and Family Welfare; Registered Medical Practitioners and Hospital Beds.

Let first look at the economic indicators:

Agricultural Production:
Agricultural production, in fact, includes both food grains (essentially, rice and wheat), and non-food grains (essentially, oilseeds and sugarcane), the former contributing approximately two-thirds of the total agricultural production. It is seen that agricultural production shows an upward trend through out both in terms of decades and individual years.

Food Grain Production:
As food grain production is a part of agricultural production, it shows the same upward rising trend through out as the agricultural production, both in terms of decades and individual years.
We must remember that agricultural performance is still, to a large extent, controlled by the vagaries of nature, though human effort, supported by State policies, has quite often played a positive role in boosting agricultural production.

Industrial Production:
Industrial production includes basic goods, capital goods, intermediate goods, and consumer goods, both durable and non-durable. Performance in the industrial sector, measured in terms of industrial production, has been far better than agricultural production. The base for industrial growth was laid down in the Second Plan which was based on Mahalanobis Model emphasizing the development of capital goods and basic industries (like iron and steel, heavy engineering, and machine building industries). Although industrial production shows an upward rising trend, both in terms of decades and years, yet there has been sharp deceleration during certain periods, as is indicated by the percentage changes. For example, industrial production fell down to around 53% by the end of the third decade over the previous decade, and to a low of 0.6% in 1991-92 over the previous year. In fact, the period 1965 to 1976 has been termed as a period of ‘deceleration and structural retrogression’. The revival began in the eighties, but, once again, as we have already said, there was a set back in early nineties. It is satisfying to note that beyond 1992-93 industrial production had started showing steady increases because of liberalized policy measures. It is heartening to note that for the first time in the last 10 years, the industrial growth has exceeded 10%. Also, for the first time ever, the manufacturing rate of growth has exceeded 12% in six month (April-September 2006). Manufacturing accounts for about 80% of India’s industrial production, while mining and electricity account for approximately 10% each. The mining and quarrying sector has shown a growth of 3.9%. But in recent months because of the world-wide recession, it has got a big shock. But in time to come it will improve. There is no denying the fact that Industry provides the basic support to the economy.

Electricity Generation:
Power is the most critical sector of the economy. It is one of the major sources of commercial energy. Poor performance in electricity generation and distribution can perhaps decelerate both industrial and agricultural production. Poor and distorted electricity supply to basic- utility areas is even more detrimental. We have only considered electricity generation for utilities alone. As can be seen, electricity generation has continuously been rising. As compared to 1950-51 the rise has been more than 7000%, though there have been shortfalls too during particular years like 1979-80, 1982-83 and 1985-86, and also during the decade of nineties. All this, perhaps, once again, is attributable to the failure of monsoons, especially in the eighties, and to the delay in the commissioning of some units in the hydel sector in later years. We must note that the electricity sector has registered a double-digit growth of 11.3% during September 2006 as compared to September 2005. Compared with April-September 2005, the two sectors grew by 3.1% and 6.6% respectively, during April-September 2006.
We must note two things in this context. First, electricity generation in India is presently below the targeted generation, and falls short of the growing requirement. Second, electricity generation does not necessarily mean that it is available to the users; the distribution network, and the administrative machinery controlling it, also matters. There are serious drawbacks in the whole distribution net work. Even large cities in most the States have regular cut downs, but it is really amazing that areas where the so-called VIPs stay there is no cut-down because of their voting, money and muscle power. This is really shameful for a country like India with rich cultural heritage.

BACK

Will South Asia become the arena for the Third World War?

Sawraj Singh writes from Washington

THERE are some trends which seem to be emerging after the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. The biggest trend is a close alliance between America and India. The Congress party is gaining influence at the expense of the BJP. America and India are mulling an attack on Pakistan as a part of the movement against terrorism. One of the reasons for Obama’s victory was that he wants to withdraw the American forces from Iraq and fight a decisive battle against Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bush was extremely unpopular in Europe, therefore in the event of an attack on Iran, as he advocated as a part of his “Axis of Evil” theory, Europe would not have helped him. However, Obama can expect help from Europe in the event that he starts a major war in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

What can Pakistan do if it is attacked by India with the support of America? It can take two steps: the first, launch a nuclear attack on India. The second, withdraw its forces from the border with Afghanistan, thereby giving a free hand to the Islamic fundamentalists to launch an attack on America. The American intelligence agencies recently released a report stating that a biological or a nuclear attack on America is very likely and the attack can come from Pakistan.

Some people may say that Pakistan’s threat to use a nuclear bomb is an empty threat. However, Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime minister of Pakistan, while releasing his book in London, said that General Musharraf had given orders to launch a nuclear attack on India and only a last minute intervention by him (Prime minister) stopped the attack. In the event of an attack by India and America, not only the Pakistan government can decide to withdraw its forces from the border with Afghanistan, but can actually form a united front with the Islamic fundamentalists.

Another possibility can be that America attacks and destroys the nuclear facilities of Pakistan and then India launches a military attack on the ground.

Ultimately it will depend upon China, if the conflict can escalate into a third world war. If China decides to support Pakistan all the way, then it can give Pakistan nuclear and other heavy weapons which Pakistan will not hesitate to use.

China has other options to inflict a very serious damage to America and to put tremendous pressure on India. China can arm the Taliban in Afghanistan. In such an event, the fate of the American and NATO forces will not be any different than the fate of the Soviet forces. It was the defeat of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. A major defeat for America and NATO in Afghanistan can have disastrous consequences for America and the West. The Chinese support for Prince Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia led to the American defeat in Cambodia and also hastened the American defeat in Vietnam.

China can support the Maoists in Nepal in a big way that cannot only tilt the balance of power in Nepal; but also through the Nepalese Maoists, China can support the Naxalites in India. China can also support the separatist movements in India, particularly in the Northeast. The combined rise of the Islamic fundamentalists, Naxalites, and the separatist movements in the Northeast can bog down India so that it will become very difficult for India to engage in a big war outside its borders.

India should very seriously consider the long term consequences of a big war in South Asia. In the long run, India has more to lose if the area becomes unstable because India is the leading power in the region. India should first exhaust all diplomatic means to work with Pakistan to find an amicable solution to the problem. In any event, India should consult Russia and China before agreeing to join America in launching an attack on Pakistan.

[Sawraj Singh, M.D. FICS Chairman Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK

 
Human Rights “alive and well", in theory only

HUMAN Rights Day is celebrated each year on Dec. 10 to honour the U.N. General Assembly’s adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human rights in 1948. But just as the Geneva Convention has not given enough protection to prisoners of war, this Declaration has done little to stop human rights violations the world over. Democracy itself -- or the freedom it presupposes -- has not been protective enough. This century, there’s an urgent need felt to curb politicisation of human rights and embrace more humanising political ways.

Inter Press Service [IPS] is one such news/ feature agency that has its job cut for that difficult path.

Here is an assessment by Wolfgang Kerler from the UN headquarters in New York

Despite a motley record of government respect for the 60-year-old U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, a new poll of citizens in 25 countries around the world shows strong support for the broad principles of freedom and equality it champions.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is alive and well," Steven Kull, director of the research consortium WorldPublicOpinion.org, told IPS.

Majorities or pluralities in all participating nations agreed that the promotion of human rights in its member states is part of the United Nation's obligation, according to the study released Tuesday. An overall of 78 percent of 47,000 respondents shared this opinion.

Moreover, an overall majority of 65 percent want the United Nations, whose members affirmed the Declaration exactly 60 years ago, to make even greater efforts to promote human rights -- even if that means giving the U.N. the authority to go into countries to investigate human rights violations.

"The UDHR does get support around the world and it is not by any means fading, as younger people are even more responsive," Kull said.

A number of principles were endorsed by majorities in all nations polled, among them freedom of expression, even when it is used to criticise the government; the right to demonstrate peacefully; freedom of the media; and equal treatment for all citizens regardless their religion, gender, race or ethnicity.

"The accusation that [UDHR] is a Western invention being imposed on other countries doesn't hold up to when you actually ask people," Kull said.

"You do not find any evidence that there is a kind of counterweighing ideology in any country, you just find variation in how much they think you should make exceptions [from the principles]," he added.

Kull added that there was also no basis for concluding that the views of majority-Muslim countries differ from the dominant norm because Islam itself was a factor at odds with the principles of the Declaration, as it was sometimes said.

Facing an "unprecedented assault on the very idea of human rights", as Craig Mokhiber from the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights put it, the United Nations is commemorating the Declaration's 60th anniversary -- rather than celebrating it.

"With new notions being put forward that somehow security or counter-terrorism or free markets or borders and boundaries trump human rights, some people are asking whether or not the human rights movement has run its course," Mokhiber added. But the outcome of the study showed that support for these 60-year-old ideas is still robust.

However, the WorldPublicOpinion.org poll also found that people in some nations are willing to limit basic human rights when national security and political stability are threatened.

Majorities in Turkey, Kenya, Nigeria, India and South Korea and a plurality in Thailand would allow the government to torture "terrorists" if it may gain information that saves innocent lives, for example.

By majority or plurality, respondents from Egypt, Iran, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories and Indonesia would voluntarily give their government the right to restrict the media when its coverage might be politically destabilising.

In Egypt, Ukraine and Jordan, majorities say that there are "some religions that should not be allowed" to practice freely in their country, while South Korean people were divided over this.

However, regarding all of the above critical questions, there is still a majority of nations and an overall majority that want their governments to stick to the principles as they are enunciated in the Declaration in all of these cases -- even when confronted with possible political instability or security threats.

Asked about the difficulties in getting unbiased poll results from countries without guaranteed freedom of expression, Kull answered that "there is a number of countries -- like China, Iran, Egypt, for example -- where we have to think about whether people are fully disclosing."

"There clearly is some uncertainty whether some people might be censoring themselves," he added, but stressed that even in authoritarian countries, substantial numbers of people or even majorities felt free to implicitly or explicitly criticise their governments with their answers.

In a few countries, partnering research centres did not feel comfortable enough to ask all of the questions included in the catalogue -- questions about the right to demonstrate peacefully, for example, had not been asked in China.

But there had never been any reports that respondents had gotten into trouble for taking part in a poll, Kull said.

BACK