Policy for Progress

Speeches of our leaders are just words dressed up to hide the incompetence of the government to address today’s economic crisis in the very difficult times we live in. They are irrelevant to the tough conditions we live in; it is a big show of hollow commitments and pretence of effective governance. When energy crisis, fuel price rise, unemployment figures, arrested industrial growth and failed welfare schemes are unaddressed, they are making trivial speeches. Our national leaders have failed us. The Nuclear Liability bill has not been passed; the instability in coal industry has come because in changing coal policies; the Land policy is left to the states to frame; FDI has been left midway; lack of uniformity in sales tax for goods and services hampers speed of production processes; an investment a policy for insurance is not dealt with properly; welfare schemes which do not work;and mining policy is most ineffective.  

Those states which are far from New Delhi (which have received very little attention from the central government) are doing very well; these states have learnt to help themselves and not depend on the central government for aid/ instructions/approvals. State government leaders have commitment to their people and make effective policies for themselves for making progress possible. In some states, programmes like MGREGA are working out well; in some it has failed. Even if some schemes are national (applying to all states) the actual implementation is up to the state governments. So the success of each programme depends on how well it is implemented by dedicated state governments officers and its elected elite.This is because political will is the main driving force in the success of policies.If central government just gives funds and allows states to use it as per the needs of its people, some progress is possible.

People are having same problems everywhere like poverty, lack of educational institutions, lack of infrastructures, lack of industries, lack of agricultural technology, lack of livelihoods etc. This list is too big to write. If central government, which has much better resources (funds), takes the important matters in its hands we can do better. More over the central government is more updated, in access to modern technology (computerisation) and highly educated knowledgeable elite as staff and has the power to make more effective implementation of policies.

 The main aim of all governments is to alleviate poverty. A criterion to declare “who is poor” is often controversial. National census gives its own statistics. If educational qualifications are low, then that indicates poverty; but highly educated can be poor too. Ownership of land could be used as criterion, but then poor farmers cannot be helped by welfare schemes. If central government makes allocation of funds to individual states, what criterion should be used for different states? Is it population, is it poverty line, or is it development of industries? How to determine which state will get how much? The correct line of action would be to make room for better ways to use resources.

Federal expenditure should be made for better implementation of technology transfers  rather than welfare schemes. Technology up gradation will remove poverty by making to people accept new ways to perform agriculture.Such technology schemes will end after a given period of time where as welfare schemes will make the people depend on the government completely and will not end. People will become more and more dependent on government.Irrigation innovations could be invested upon rather than poverty reduction schemes. There are other schemes which would result in effective resource utilisation and make people independent of government subsidies. Long term stable policies would give good environment for development of industries. For example, mining policy would have to give exploration rights and give incentives to explore; exploration industry is different from mine’s operation industry. Before coal/fuel is over, we will have to switch over to other sources of energy; economy needs to be given direction to develop, if not given, it would exhaust resource instantly and we would land in a crisis (coming out of which would be costlier than planning for change now). Thus stability could be brought by long term futuristic policies. Supporting only private industries and PPP(Private Public Partnership) would result in complete exploitation of people and a quick exhaustion of natural resources. We have to examine the real needs of the people and address them by making effective policy decisions. However different people’s attitudes are, if correct policies are implemented successfully, progress will result.