Poverty is not an original state

Most wealthy people believe that poor people today have it 'easy' because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return. This is an infuriatingly obtuse view of those who have not known or have long forgotten what poverty truly means. 'Easy' is a word not easily spoken among the poor. Things are hard, the times are hard, the work is hard, the way is hard. 'Easy' is for the willfully callous and the haughtily blind.

Poverty is not an original state, nor are the poor the victims of their own faults and weaknesses. Poverty is self-sustaining. Poverty creates a picture of aimlessness, uncertainty and hopelessness. Once a person is caught in its trap, it is hard to escape the cycle of poverty. It destroys self-confidence and the capacity to organize collective action and response. 

Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon. Advising poor people to working harder is an useless advice because people are rarely compensated for hard work. They are compensated for skills and smart working. A poor person can't think or plan his old age years. Poverty restricts forward thinking and planning. The daily struggles of the poor constantly humiliate them. There is no possibility of poor people enjoying rights. In poverty there can be no control over one’s life chances or even everyday life.

Development fail to address poverty or to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but widens and deepens this division and ultimately creates poverty, as natural resources and human beings alike are increasingly harnessed to the pursuit of consumption and profit. The rich are great beneficiaries of poverty. It is very cheap to be rich in India. In a poor nation, the social elite can pass through life without facing any competition. The less democratic a nation, the safer it is for the rich.

The attitude we have is running away from the needy and not drawing near to them. Corruption directly brings underdevelopment and spawns poverty. In India poor people vote, and the elected become rich. It’s a government of the rich, for the poor to sustain the poverty. This sounds cynical, but hard facts vindicate the statement.

The global economy on a wildly unequal trajectory is absurd and unsustainable. For getting everyone above poverty line (> $5 per day) would take 100 years, require $1m GDP per person and per capita income about $100,000. As a result, ending poverty under the current model is slow, inefficient and runs into planetary problems. Already the present global economy is in ecological overshoot. A radical shift in distribution to favor the poorest is the only way to reconcile the twin challenges of halting catastrophic climatic change and ending poverty.

The wealth of the super rich in the world can eradicate global poverty TEN times!

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. 

In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of - Confucius

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, 

it cannot save the few who are rich - J F Kennedy

Development and poverty

POVERTY

• Poverty is present everywhere. Manifestation of poverty is a challenge.
• Poverty and development are two sides to a coin. Where there is poverty, there may not be development.
• Poverty is not only a lack of money to take care of basic necessity of life it creates a picture of aimlessness, uncertainty and hopelessness in the mind of the poor. 
• An unhealthy or poor population produces less and may be forced into practices damaging the environment. It is the poor people who suffer most acutely from lack of development. 
• The poor are anxious about the future in regard to the national political life, degradation of the environment, the high rise of inequality among people coupled with mass unemployment.
• The high level of selfishness in the society with people looking only to their needs and fearful of others. Corruption is endemic. Crime rate is high and the future of generation yet unborn is clouded with uncertainty.

DEVELOPMENT

• Development is often socio-economic, political, science and technology biased. 
• The concept of development is a complex one. Its difficulty is not only in terms of definition or description but also in terms of measurement. 
• Lack of infrastructure, deep seated corruption, various forms of conflict, bad governance and poor healthcare facilities cannot promote a healthy population committed to work for progress and development.
• GDP as the measurement does not say anything about the distribution of total income of its country. It does not capture the totality of the development situation of the country.
• The people are both the means and the end of economic development.
• Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. 
• They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
• Development cannot be merely economic development or GDP as important as that may be. 
• Development must include the conditions of reality that allow people to take their destiny into their own hands, individually and collectively involving economic, social, political, psychological, environmental, cultural, religious and international dimensions. 
• Development is the ability and capability of the people to procure sufficient natural resources to meet the basic needs of all in a self-reliant manner.
• The situation of the bottom forty percent of society is often bypassed by development and government.
• Human welfare is the ultimate end of development not economic indices.
• The welfare of the human person in its totality is the good health of a person and his skills cultivated through educational programmes as his endeavours add to the wealth of his nation.
• Development strategy should be people centred and community participation must be evident. Any project that people/community cannot identify with will collapse. 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

• World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) defines sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’
• WCED posits that the present generation has been reckless and wasteful both in its exploitation and use of natural resources by pursuing a series of socio-economic and industrial policies which endangers global environmental security. It condemned the inequalities with and among nations and called for a restructuring of contemporary economic relations to guarantee an equitable distribution of national and international wealth.
• The International Economic System (IES) is primarily profit orientated. Consequently, everything could be sacrificed on the altar of profit to the detriment of development of peoples and individuals, the often stated corporative responsibility of multinationals.
• Can accountability and transparency be found in their political intercourse?
• Poor countries are without development and citizens may not be able to compete with others because of lack of necessary capital, the technical-know-how and expertise. Symbiotically, without development poverty may not be eradicated. The solution to the dilemmatic situation is to confront the reality of poverty and challenges of development simultaneously, nationally and internationally.

There is no humiliation more abusive than hunger ... Pranab Mukherjee

Any kind of development that don't benefit bottom 40% of people, environmentally sustainable and generate mass employment is not a development at all. The trickle down theory, the standing rationale for our economic reforms, doesn't not address the aspirations of the poor people and eliminate poverty is unacceptable nonsense. Health, drinking water, sanitation, education, skill development and empowerment with adequate capital are essential for poverty eradication and meaningful development of poor people especially in rural India. Govt spending meager 2.27% on healthcare and 3.70% on education in the current budget against a minimum of 5-6% indicates empathy deficit towards the poor people of India. Even these meager allocations are towards high end spending rather than improving PHCs and schools. Hyped disruptive economic reforms Demonetisation & GST continuum have impacted poor most with loss of livelihoods and incomes and driven towards desperation and our rulers thought fit to turn a Nelson's eye.

What is Gujarat model of development by Modi?

The word ‘development’ as a buzzword is in vogue for almost 60 years and its actual meaning is still elusive, since it depends on where and by whom it is used. President Truman merely wanted to include in his 1949 Inaugural Address as a fourth point that would sound ‘a bit original’. So from the very beginning, no one not even the US President really knew what ‘development’ was all about. Development fail to address poverty or to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but in fact it both widens and deepens this division and ultimately creates poverty, as natural resources and human beings alike are increasingly harnessed to the pursuit of consumption and profit.  'Development' has been widely used as a hard drug, addiction to which may stimulate the blissful feelings that typify artificial paradises. Development is not a buzzword but a toxic word.

• The Gujarat assembly elections have put under intense scrutiny Narendra Modi’s Gujarat model of development which is touted as worthy of replication throughout the country. Audit reports of the CAG provide ample evidence of it being inefficient, corrupt and not beneficial to the common people. 
• The standard indicators of development comprise a range of indices, and not necessarily the level of private investment in an economy. A combination of economic growth and redistributive justice ensues from the overall development of a state or a nation. Narendra Modi’s Gujarat model of development and its skewed impact on indicators that constitute holistic and comprehensive development doesn't include the quality of human life and is not a “development” at all. It appears that this model of development has been vulgarised to mean something quite different.
• Gujarat’s transformation under the then chief minister Modi for over a decade between 2001 and 2014, is based on perception rather than facts. The development is based on economic statistics rather than the parameters that reflect well being of lower classes. The harsh truth is that his claims of success as Gujarat CM were overly exaggerated.
• In his maiden speech in the Lok Sabha in June 2014, Modi said that the Gujarat model could not be universalized, and that India being a vast country, there was a need for many different models.
• Today, Gujarat stands nowhere with reference to common man. It is only haven for large investors with quid pro quo benefits to Modi & BJP.
• While demonetisation was aimed at disarming cash rich opposition for winning UP elections, GST and tax terrorism is aimed at promoting large & MNC businesses while dealing a deadly blow to informal sector which doesn't contribute to coffers and both failed to achieve any of its stated objectives and loaded the nation with unintended consequences. Yet he successfully convinces people that he is working for welfare of poorest people with his rhetoric and hammering selective truths while pursuing his own agenda.
• Gujarat elections will teach him that he can't fool all the people all the times.

In Modi's  Gujarat profit was privatized but loss was socialized, shamelessly

The rise of Narendra Modi ,... Vinod Jose

Modi suffers from worst possible type of corruption; an insatiable desire for personal glory at any cost; an extremely deep moral and spiritual corruption. Modi belongs to the line of autocratic ideologues rather than the western tradition of revolutionary neo liberalism, or marxist rationalism. He also represents the worst aspect of democracy: a demagogue who caters to an irrational populace’s cravings for self-identity and release from self-responsibility. He might not have taken any bribes in recent years but there is no way he could have risen to his position without having made massive and horrendous economic & moral compromises ... as described by Jayant Bhandari.

Vikas gando thayo chhe (Gujarat development gone berserk)

Man telling his curious friends that he is "looking for vikas"

Viral social media campaign on poor infrastructure has the party worried ahead of polls

The much vaunted ‘Gujarat model of development’, once the poster-child of economists, has “gone crazy”, according to the top trending hashtag on social media. With State elections barely two months away, the ruling BJP is worried.

Over the past two weeks, witty posts, satirical memes, and audio-visual capsules — all with the Gujarati hashtag, ‘vikas gando thayo chhe’ (‘Development has gone crazy’) — have gone viral on Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp. Mostly shared by youngsters, it has turned into a trending social media campaign that has put the ruling BJP on the defensive.

The campaign began spontaneously after the monsoon rains that left potholes in roads across the State, including in cities such as Ahmedabad, and the government’s claims about smart cities and world class infrastructure took a beating. Soon, people started sharing photographs or video clips of caved-in roads, decrepit State transport buses, roadside garbage dumps, flooded streets, and figures of swine flu-related deaths, all tagged with the catchy ‘vikas’ punch line.

Sensing an opportunity, the Congress party’s social media teams latched on to the campaign. As the phenomenon became a talking point across age groups, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani responded by blaming the Congress. “Those who are saying ‘vikas gando thayo chhe’ have themselves gone crazy,” he said. Recently, party president Amit Shah felt compelled to ask the State’s youth not to “fall prey to anti-BJP social media campaigns.”

However, many BJP leaders admit that they are unable to counter the forceful social media posts on fuel price hikes, high GST rates, and job losses.

“This campaign is a huge success. Even BJP supporters are forwarding these posts,” said Saral Patel, a Congress social media volunteer.

Though the Congress social media team has taken credit, the phrase “Vikas gando thayo chhe” is attributed to 20-year-old Sagar Savalia, a civil engineering student and member of the Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti which leads the Patidar quota agitation.

“On August 23, I received some photographs of a dilapidated State transport bus. I forwarded them with the line, ‘Stay Away! Vikas has gone crazy in Gujarat’, and it went viral,” Mr. Savalia told The Hindu.

Modi & co will not learn lessons on their own. They must be dumped into garbage. Otherwise they will destroy the nation beyond recognition with their funny adventures. They don't know how to rule a nation democratically. The present 5.7% GDP growth if corrected with low oil regime benefit and fudging economic data with new parameters, the real GDP growth will be less than 2% and massive job losses indicates economic collapse of nation!

Development is not a buzzword but a toxic word

Despite its widespread usage, the meaning of the term ‘development’ remains vague, tending to refer to a set of beliefs and assumptions about the nature of social progress rather than to anything more precise. Development fail to address poverty or to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but in fact it both widens and deepens this division and ultimately creates poverty, as natural resources and human beings alike are increasingly harnessed to the pursuit of consumption and profit. The survival of the planet will depend upon abandoning the deep-rooted belief that economic growth can deliver social justice, rational use of environment, and human well-being.

• The word ‘development’ as a buzzword is in vogue for almost 60 years and its actual meaning is still elusive, since it depends on where and by whom it is used.
• Everyone uses it as she or he likes, to convey the idea that tomorrow things will be better. 'Development' has been widely used as a hard drug, addiction to which may stimulate the blissful feelings that typify artificial paradises.
• President Truman merely wanted to include in his 1949 Inaugural Address as a fourth point that would sound ‘a bit original’. So from the very beginning, no one not even the US President really knew what ‘development’ was all about. This did not, however, prevent the word from gaining wide acceptance.
• There was an unquestioned assumption that “development”, whatever it was, could lead to improvement in the situation of 'poor people’. And no one cared to define it properly.
• Any measure (foreign investment, lowering or raising of trade barriers, well-digging, literacy campaigns, etc) was justified ‘in the name of development’, making even the most contradictory policies look as if they were geared to ‘improving the lives of poor people’. This trick has been highly instrumental in preventing any possible critique of ‘development’, since it was equated almost with life itself.
• During the cold war period (1947-1991), the great powers disagreed on almost all issues except one: ‘development’, the magic word that reconciled opposite sides. Its necessity and desirability were not debatable, and the two ideological adversaries vied with each other in promoting it across what was then known as the Third World. ‘Development’ was mainly used as an excuse for enticing ‘developing countries’ to side with one camp or the other.
• This political game turned to the advantage of the ruling ‘elites’ who were influential in international arenas, rather than grassroots populations.
• To reconcile the requirements to be met in order to protect the environment from pollution, deforestation, the greenhouse effect, and climatic change and to ensure the pursuit of economic growth that was still considered a condition for general happiness has resulted in the coining of the catchy phrase ‘sustainable development’, which immediately achieved star status.
• It is impossible to bring together a real concern for environment and the promotion of ‘development’. ‘Sustainable development’ is nothing but an oxymoron, a rhetorical figure that joins together two opposites such as ‘capitalism with a human face’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’. Hence the battle to define what ‘sustainable development’ is really about.
• The ‘new era of economic growth’ was certainly not in favour of those who considered environmental sustainability a top priority. Despite increasing concerns for the environment protection, but the popularity enjoyed by the idea of ‘sustainable development’ is overwhelming. Increasing number of people feel that something has to be done to lessen the impact of human activity on the biosphere due to the mounting environmental crises. And yet, ‘development’ whether sustainable or not remains high on the agenda, and no one seems about to forsake it.
• Irrespective of ideologies, no politician would dare to run on an election platform that ignores economic growth or ‘development’, which is supposed to reduce unemployment and create new jobs and well-being for all. Small investors and ordinary people expect an increase in profits or wages. ‘Development’ has become a modern shibboleth, for anyone who wishes to improve his or her standard of living.

The undeniable success of ‘development’, linked to its undeniable failures in improving the condition of the poor, therefore needs to be called into question. Those who are ready to recognise that ‘development’ has not really kept its promises are also loath to discard the notion altogether. Failures, they would say are from erroneous interpretation or ill-considered implementation. After all, God himself may not answer all our prayers or grant all our requests, but his righteousness remains beyond doubt. In a nutshell, ‘development’ could be defined as: the essence of is the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in order to increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by means of market exchange, to effective demand. 

• A country is the more ‘developed’ the more limited the number of free things that are available: to spend an afternoon on the beach, to go fishing, or enjoy cross-country skiing is nowadays impossible unless one is prepared to pay for it.
• In a ‘developed’ country, human beings are also turned into ‘resources’ and are expected to know how to sell themselves to potential employers. Prostitution may be officially condemned, but it has become the common lot: everyone is for sale.
• Poverty is proof of the ‘good health’ of the capitalist system. It is the spur that stimulates new efforts and new forms of accumulation. Economic growth – widely hailed as a prerequisite to prosperity – takes place only at the expense of either the environment or human beings. 
• World segregation is such that those who enjoy a so-called ‘high standard of living’ hardly come into contact with the poor and may thus cherish the illusion that their privileged circumstances may sooner or later spread to humankind as a whole. But climatic change, the greenhouse effect, and nuclear clouds cannot be contained and affect everyone, rich and poor alike, perhaps in the not-too-distant future. This is the real meaning and the real danger of globalisation. 

It is clear that ‘development’ is not a buzzword but a toxic word. It has been used time and again to promote a system that is neither viable, nor sustainable, nor fit to live in. The benefits that it still confers on a tiny minority are not enough to justify its continuing acceptance, in view of the lethal dangers that it entails. This is being progressively admitted. Given the amount of information that have been gathered on the manifold man-made hazards that impinge on our daily lives, why is it that we do not believe in what we know to be certain? The answer, probably, lies in the fact that our belief in ‘development’ is still too strong to be undermined by the scientific certainty. A change could be conceivable if we recall the Amerindian wisdom that teaches us that ‘we hold the earth in trust for our children’. It is high time to debunk the ‘development’ buzzword. To do so means that we must define it relying on actual social practices, rather than wishful thinking. We must be aware of its inclusion in a corpus of beliefs that are difficult to shatter, expose its mischievous uses, and denounce its consequences. The most important thing is that there is life after ‘development’ – certainly a different one, but there is no evidence to suggest that we would lose on such a deal.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us 

face to face with another problem - Martin Luther King Jr

Development as a buzzword - Gilbert Rist

In India there would be no speech by politicians or officials or anybody without reference to the buzzword 'development' which in fact justifies, promotes and expand their activities and vested interests in multiplying their profits albeit unjustly, undemocratically and often unlawfully. Every rich and 'street smart person' tries to jump into the bandwagon of  'development' gang and corners some share of the booty. Those who can't in the name of ethics & morals, will get lost in this siren world to lead ignominious life. Excepting escaping from extreme poverty by masses, there is no justification for destruction of ecological assets and deterioration of social life in the name of 'development' and 'capitalism'. China's development if loaded with the factors of ecological destruction and erosion of human values, it would be negative. Finite world doesn't have enough resources to support ever increasing population without erosion and degradation. 

Democracy and its Perils

• Democracy is a political system which combines the elements of fairness, legitimacy and effectiveness. It is the least worst system. 
• Democracy is imperfect and, when misapplied or incorrectly interpreted, can be saddled with flaws and weaknesses. 
• Democracy is the most expensive & inefficient form of governance.
• A democracy is not a democracy unless it has independent and strong institutions that help facilitate good governance and right thinking citizens demanding accountability and transparency.
• Proper democracy is far more than a perpetual ballot process. It must include deliberation, mature independent institutions and checks and balances. It may include educated citizens, strong civil society and strong laws.
• Freedom is an essential part of democracy. Freedom is essential for both the ruled and the ruler.
• Unfettered freedom brings with it its own hazards that would undermine the institutions that help sustain democracy.
• The victim of democracy is the politics itself. Politics in a democratic set up tends to be looked upon with contempt by the people. It is much maligned and abused field in all the democracies.
• Politicians once elected to power become the custodians and abusers of power.
• Bad politics leads to corruption. As the people responsible for corruption are ‘enabled’ to loot the exchequer either by the loopholes in the laws or indifferent ‘people’ who form the very basis of democracy.
• Corruption has reached gargantuan proportions, because of the indifferent attitude of the people and enabling environment provided by democracy for the corrupt to practice their art. 
• Democracy aides both the individual and the ‘corrupt’ authority. Democracy with weak institutions gives them free hand to run the government, they tend to err, and err with impunity.
• Criminalization of politics is the biggest peril of democracy. With it comes misuse of position and authority. It inevitably leads to corruption.
• Corruption directly brings underdevelopment and spawns poverty. In India poverty is the major benefactor for the politicians. As long as poverty is sustained, they can amass wealth – always unaccounted.
• Democracy promotes capitalism which in turn results in uneven wealth distribution. Rich becomes much richer while poor remain poorer.
• Risk of capitalism is usually socialized while profits gets privatized.
• Democracy in itself is not a threat, but any weak link within it is bound to weaken the whole structure.
• Democracy has become synonymous with elections and is reduced to the process of elections.
• In democracy poor people vote, and the elected become rich at the cost of the poor. It’s a government of the rich, for the poor to sustain the poverty. This sounds cynical, but hard facts vindicate the statement. If 70% of India’s population still earns less than Rs 50 per day, even after 70 years of independence, should we compliment ourselves or introspect?
• Development has suffered more in democracy than in other forms of governments. Though it is fashionable to say that democracy is better than despotism despite lack of development, does it do justice to the vast millions who go to sleep hungry?
• Within democracy, we need a change of mindset both of the people and politicians in their attitude towards development. We are witnessing the loot of our resources by the powerful few who are covertly supported by the government machinery. Every penny that’s put to improve the lot of this country is unaccounted for. The crux is lack of accountability.
• Education of the masses and strong institutions is a solution to most problems in India.
• Institutions which are not pestered and interfered by the ruling classes perform better. The fear that these institutions if given complete autonomy would grow as a threat is unfounded. The Supreme Court of India and Election commission of India are governed by bureaucrats, not by the elected politicians. These institutions function well within the scope of our constitution.
• Our military has gained reputation for being fair to its people and the constitution. Where there is no interference by the politics, the institutions serve well. For a democracy to thrive and bring development to the masses, we need independent institutions to act as check and balances on the government.
• We need universities which are not at the mercy of government; we need public service commissions not interfered in their functioning by the government; we need a strong Lokpal to punish the corrupt; strong local governments to bring development at the bottom; independent CBI and a police force which is pro-people; the list goes on.
• These changes are not difficult to bring on. It is the will which is missing, lest it affects the power of few to amass the wealth. Perils of democracy are the result of loopholes within it. To plug them, we need to fight. Of course, non-violently.
• A blanket endorsement of it as a convenient panacea will do more harm than good.
• There are very few nations on this Earth, which openly reject the notion of democracy. Most countries espouse it, or at least offer it lip service.
• Myth #1: The people can do no wrong.  The legitimacy of majority rule with no reservations or caveats raises the issue of sub-units within the voters viz territorial, cultural, ethnic or religious. What happens if the people change their minds? Democracy cannot be just if it is not just over time. Does a coalition automatically legitimize the action of individuals or groups or nations without regard to higher principles of morality or ethics? The doctrine of popular infallibility can be kept as a useful reference point but must not be abused or overextended.
• Myth # 2: Direct  democracy is always better than representative democracy. Given the volatility of public opinion, the complexity of social psychology and the possibility of inter generational conflicts, the representative democracy is often superior to direct democracy, with the representatives acting as buffer. Mistakes can then be attributed to representatives and not to the people. The conventional assumption is that the will of the people should always trump that of the elites. The principal arguments against leaving too many decisions to the direct appreciation of the masses can be summarized as follows: (1) Uninformed or insufficiently informed electorate (2) Influence of money and media (3) People changing their mind (4) Contradictory Referenda (5) Deleterious effect on public policy.
• Myth #3: Democracy trumps all other social goals. The backlash against Dumb Democracy is the realization that democratization, although a valid goal, is not the only desirable one that a Society can legitimately aspire to. The following compete for priority with democracy. (1) Peace (2) Justice (3) Liberty & Freedom (4) Security (5) Good governance (6) Escape from extreme poverty (7) Public Vs Private goods (8) Good health (9) Traditional values (10) Climate change and sustainable development. 
• Myth #4: Democratic countries will never go to war against each other. There is a frequent assumption that once a country becomes democratic it will renounce violence, avoid going to war especially against other democracies, and try to resolve outstanding problems by peaceful means. Experience shows that the relationship between democracy and war is actually very complex and far from straightforward. 
• Myth #5: National democracy automatically leads to global democracy. Will a world composed of democratic nation-states automatically mean that it will also be democratic? This question is as complex and there are no simple answers. The UN Security Council, with coercive powers, is composed of five permanent members with veto powers who appointed themselves to that position. The other non-permanent members are elected by the UN General Assembly, but do not have veto power. The elected President of United States has real authority over the whole world by virtue of the overwhelming military power, which it has used in Iraq and threatens to do so elsewhere. There is a serious democratic deficit where 2% of the world’s voting population manages to have a determining influence on the entire world.
• There is no formula of global democracy and every formula suffer from inefficiencies and conflict of goals. The attempted simple transition from national to global democracy without a lot of preparation and adaptation is therefore destined to fail unless treated with a more sophisticated analysis.
• Other than democracy, there are no other known political alternatives which will work in the long run.  There is no permanent security in tyrants and the checks and balances of democracy make it the only sustainable political system, which can claim both long-term efficiency and legitimacy. Democracy must prevail because of mounting global interdependence requiring team responses and collective decision-making. A leader has to motivate his troops and keep their confidence. No single individual holds absolute power anymore, and everyone has to report to some group or a parliament, all leaders are accountable to some committee of peers, which makes democracy sustainable, indispensable and inevitable. 
• The modalities of this accountability have to be modulated and perfected.
• The construction of a democratic state must be gradual and well planned. It can rarely be imposed by non-democratic means. Democracy by force of arms is self-defeating. 

 In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great 
difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; 
and in the next place oblige it to control itself ... James Madison

The Perils of Dumb Democracy


Ambedkar described constitution as a fundamental document stated that the purpose of a constitution is not merely to create the organs of the state but to limit their authority because if no limitation was imposed upon the authority of the organs, there will be complete tyranny and complete oppression. The legislature may be free to frame any law; the executive may be free to take any decision, and the Supreme Court may be free to give any interpretation of the law. It would result in utter chaos. Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic. Demonetisation has negated the fundamental and constitutional rights of Indians. By forcing every Indian, and not just the black marketers and counterfeiters, to stand in queues to withdraw hard earned money, our elected government has insulted all. Citizens have been temporarily deprived of property by a single fiat, even though the constitution says this can only be done with the authority of law. Countless have died, been rendered jobless, hungry and homeless. Is this a democratic act? RBI has been reduced to cipher. Fiscal policy has become political and the finance ministry redundant. The parliament and the cabinet have been turned into a mere formality. Judiciary appears seriously weakened. It is not easy for the victims of police and investigative agencies to get any relief against wrongful detentions and prosecutions. But it is the concerted attack on institution after institution by the Modi government that raises serious concerns. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship. India has moved away from constitutional democracy to populist democracy. Ambedkar is losing. Modi is winning.

Jobless growth of India's GDP

• Today, India is facing a peculiar situation of 'jobless growth' and 'growthless jobs' as well, mainly due to defective economic policies and gross fiscal mismanagement.
• During the past three years, public sector, government’s headcount remained stagnant. State-run banks registered a job growth of just 0.5%. Private corporations have no better figures.
• Every year, 10-12 million young Indians join the labour force, 5 million people leave agriculture to join the non-agriculture sectors. In contrast job creation is few lakhs only during the past three years which are mostly replacement recruitment.
• India's GDP growth and new jobs creation in India have not been growing at the same rate. The creation of more and better jobs and livelihoods is imperative for policymakers. Focusing only on GDP growth is a wrong approach.
• About 550 jobs are disappearing everyday, an alarmist declaration of loss of one million jobs during past five years.
• The lack of lending by the banks may very well be one contributing factor. 
• Rise in unemployment is due to agriculture and SMEs, which contributes most employment in India, are the worst affected. The organised sector contributes only 1% of jobs.
• Big multinationals in India are highly capital-intensive, while the SMEs are four times more labour intensive than the large firms. But they are one of the least productive sectors and their real wages are very low. 
• India needs to protect sectors like farming, unorganized retail, micro and small enterprises. These sectors need support from the government not regulation. 
• The agricultural sector in India does absorb more than half the workforce, but a lot of it is disguised unemployment. 
• The view of Indian villages as the economic backbone of India is flawed and will never lead to the kind of mass employment that is desired in India. At best it minimizes agriculture labour migration to urban areas.
• Urbanization creates lots of jobs in developing economies.
• 92% of enterprises that created jobs were from the informal sector, and the biggest stumbling block for these was lack of formal credit. 
• India needs to free up its labour laws which are archaic, restrictive, and convoluted which incentivizes firms to stay small and remain in the informal sector. Firms, which can achieve economies of scale, are the need of the hour to create jobs for the masses in India.
• India needs to focus on primary and secondary education and skills development. A skilled worker has a better chance at finding higher paying employment.
• At present, the business environment is the toughest for small to medium enterprises. Improvement of 'ease of doing business' to firms of all sizes, to be set up and facilitate its smooth running. 
• Focus on infrastructure and tourism, on sustainable basis, will help creation of jobs at the unorganized level. 

My View:

Modi administration, in the name of reforms is actually destroying 'informal sector' which are mostly operated by less educated people employing semi skilled people. Modi's failed demonetization and hurriedly rolled out mangled GST have destroyed informal sector, agriculture, construction and tiny industries, while achieving nothing. Winning elections is all about hammering of selective narratives rather than sound public policies. Aside improving 'ease of doing business', promoting manufacturing, preserving agriculture at profitable levels, encouraging small businesses & industries, services, infrastructure, tourism are the keys for providing employment to masses. Banks must be financially healthy and support informal sector so that our economy grows and provide employment to our aspiring youth. Trophy projects, white  elephants and icons are not the indicators of development. It is all round life style improvement of poorest people, which is called 'development'.

Development

• Development is an emergent property of the economic and social system.
• Development is simply defined as ”good change”. Good change lies on a continuum and development is a process not a definite goal post.
• Development is not the sum of well-being of people in the economy. Development is not enrichment of of upper classes or GDP growth or growth rate or lesser inflation or combination of above but is the enhancement of living standards of lower classes on sustainable basis. 
• Early theories and strategies of development were more focused on achieving economic growth as compared to latter theories and strategies that emphasize social, political, ecological and other dimensions of development.
• Traditional welfare economics had focused on incomes as the main measure of well-being but poverty involved a wider range of deprivations in health, education and living standards which were not captured by income alone. 
• The challenge of development is to improve the quality of life, higher incomes, better education, higher standards of health and nutrition, less poverty, a cleaner environment, more equality of opportunity, greater individual freedom, and a richer culture life.
• The purpose of development is to create an environment in which all people can expand their capabilities and opportunities that can be enlarged for both present and future generations. The essentials to the enlargement are healthy life, education, and decent standard of living.
• Development is more than improvements in people’s well-being. It also describes the capacity of the system to provide the circumstances for that continued well-being. 
• Poor countries suffered from orientation to the past, strong kin relationships, superstition, and fatalism.
• Developed countries managed to move through industrial revolutions, research and exploitation of technology that resulted in an increase in the productive capacities of their societies and creating the conditions of modernity. 
• Developed countries was characterized by innovation, motivation, entrepreneurship, weaker kin relationships and not enslaved by tradition. 
• But economic growth need not necessarily require the displacement or abandonment of the traditional patterns of living and norms.
• Development is a system-wide manifestation of the way that people, firms, technologies and institutions interact with each other within the economic, social and political system. 
• Development is a characteristic of the system and sustained improvements in individual well-being.
• Development is defined as the process of economic and social transformation that is based on complex cultural and environmental factors and their interactions.
• Development must be judged by its impact on people, not only by changes in their income but more generally in terms of their choices, capabilities and freedoms; and we should be concerned about the distribution of these improvements, not just the simple average for a society.
• Development carries a connotation of lasting change. Development is not only the improvements in the well-being of citizens but also the capacity of economic, political and social systems to provide the circumstances for that well-being on a sustainable, long-term basis.

My View:

The present model of reforms & development in India during the past 25 years have resulted in expansion of government's revenues and spending thus offering stability of economy. Per-capita income grew a lot, the pertinent truth is that rich became ultra richer and poor remained poorer. Aberrations are increased corruption, tax evasion, black money, destruction of ecological assets and erosion of value systems. Reckless borrowing had reduced our nation's ratings to near junk status. Unbridled corruption had almost destroyed our banking system. Attempting to develop with export orientation or rapid industrialization without enhancing purchasing power of large number of poor people would be futile. China's economic growth is mainly due to its exploitation of labour for prolonged periods, destruction of ecology and patronizing by western countries which may not suit India with its democratic values and labour rights. Neglecting our agrarian economy will be short sighted approach. Even after 25 years of reforms, agriculture sector still not liberated with MSP dictating the produce pricing. Dilution of labour rights will only enable ruthless capitalists exploiting them. What we need is a development model suitable for country's all round development steadily & surely, especially focusing on lower classes advancement.