Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), headed by its founder YS Jagan, openly
challenged Telugu Desam Party (TDP) to either initiate a no-confidence
motion against Modi government or support the same moved by the former.
An unexpected ‘padyatra’, undertaken by YS Jagan, has led to a serious churn-
ing among the top echelons of the TDP.
YS Jagan, unlike the last time, has come out with a set of alternative policy
measures aimed to address the grievances of various sections of the Andhra
society. This sent the TDP Polit Bureau into a huddle to analyse the impact
of measures that Jagan plans to pitch in the forthcoming elections. This, in
turn, coerced the TDP supremo into redrawing the battle lines with the BJP.
The change of course started with a statement by TDP supremo over the
alleged non-cooperation by the Centre for its ambitious rural housing pro-
gram. On the other hand, there is strong resentment among the public over
the pace of development of the new capital city, Amaravathi. Despite his 30
sorties to Delhi in a special flight with a jumbo delegation, Chandrababu
Naidu was not able to get any required financial support from Narendra Modi.
Over the last four years, the special status promised by the Andhra Pradesh
State Reorganisation Act, 2014 became a bone of contention between people
of residual Andhra Pradesh and the central government. Left parties orga-
nized a sustained campaign against both TDP and BJP over their collusive
politics.
To make matters worse, after Union finance minister Arun Jaitley firmly
rejected the demand for a special status two years ago, and instead desired to
extend additional grants under Special Assistance Scheme, there was hue and
cry within the state’s political set up. A considerable section of the TDP also
upped the ante against Jaitley’s announcement.
In 2004, it was Naidu who had motivated the then prime minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee to advance general elections by a few months post the Naxal at-
tempt on his life. Naidu had hoped for a sympathy vote not only for himself
but the BJP as well. The nation, back then, also saw the gap between “Bharat”
and “India” widening, though “Shining India” became a catchy slogan for the
BJP.
The sustained mobilisation of people against the BJP and TDP’s neo-liberal
policies in Andhra Pradesh set the mood for a change among the voters,
which was encashed by the late YS Rajasekhar Reddy. A grand alliance of
Opposition parties, including the Congress and the Left, was formed. This
alliance solidified the double anti-incumbency against the BJP and the TDP,
ousting them from power for almost a decade.
While the memories of double anti-incumbency still linger in the mind of the
TDP, BJP seems to have forgotten the same under the totalitarian ways of
Narendra Modi. If the current situation is left unaddressed, it is obvious that
repeating the 2014 heroics would be a herculean task for the TDP. Coming
under pressure from wider political conjuncture, the TDP got its ministers
to resign and walk out of the NDA. This was followed by a decision to move
a no-trust motion against the Modi government; a change in tactics with
which the TDP plans to fight next elections. The dismal performance of the
BJP in its backyards such as Gorakhpur and Phulpur might make the TDP
believe that breaking away from the NDA was a timely call.
Whether the people of Andhra Pradesh once again trust Chandrababu Naidu,
who mortgaged the Telugu pride at the feet of Modi over the last four years,
is something yet to be seen.
Non-Congress, Non – BJP Regimes Bailed Out Farmers the Best
Veeraiah Konduri
The recent hike in minimum support price (MSP) for selected crops gave
another occasion for ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to flaunt its so called
pro-farmer orientation. For any serious political observer, it is clear that behind
this decision lies a huge public relations exercise. Before calling CCEA meeting,
the Prime Minister engaged directly with the farming community over
teleconferences wherein he apparently spoke to carefully selected good farmers
who were assembled before teleconference sets. From each state, it was told,
the feed back on NDA2’s agrarian policies is good and farmers are able to
invest farm surpluses into several activities aimed at augmenting the farm
infrastructure. After two weeks, in a meeting in Delhit Prime Minister
announced four pronged strategy to enhance farmers’ income. Then came the
announcement of MSP which was ailed as historic. This makes the whole
government claims a big sham. Had the situation is so good for farmers as it
was projected and presented through animated teleconference, then there is no
need for government to come under pressure for its mishandling of the agrarian
sector. Nothing is apt for government attitude except describing at as jumla.
The CCEA finally took up the matter, only after kisan, agricultural workers
and organizations representing industrial workers gave an ultimatum and called
for Delhi protest on September 5, 2018, and announced MSP. In real time, the
twitter handle of Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed the CCEA decision
as historic and also applauded itself by stating that the BJP government
implemented its electoral promise of ensuring farmers a return of cost + 50%
. While addressing a press conference, Union Home Minister told the nation
the said decision will impose about 15000 crores burden on the exchequer.
Economists and farmers association’s reaction is not uniform. Most of the
activists criticized government for not honoring their demand of calculating
the agricultural costs in C2 formula basis. The pink papers extrapolated the
cost of increase in MSP over the economy at large and RBI also reacted
indicating its stand that such decision would reduce the possibility of interest
rate reduction.
The media euphoria on MSP rise brings forth certain important issues for
consideration. The first one, whether this is the ever historic raise of MSP on
year on year basis. The second one is if ensuring cost +50 % returns on farm
produce leads to impose a burden of mere Rs. 15000 crores on the exchequer,
what made the BJP to wait for four years to do so? Is our economy under
Modi’s regime so fragile to take a burden of mere Rs. 15000 crores ? Thirdly,
if this is what it terms as implementing the electoral promise, then, what would
be the status of its submission to the Supreme Court wherein it stated that
such costs formula would lead to inflation and hence not advisable. Finally
under which dispensations the farmers benefited the most? Firstly it is not a
historic step as termed by establishment. From the data culled out from RBI
website, if we confine our analysis to paddy, the key farm produce, both in
terms of acreage and food security, it is clearly established that the rise of MSP
is not at all historic. If we go by the figures, at least in the last near three
decades, the year on year growth of MSP for paddy more in seven years at
least. The increase varied between 28.4% to 12.2 where as this year’s increase
over the last year is 12.9. On the top of that the table below clearly establishes
the fact that the farming community benefited the most only under non-BJP,
non-Congress regimes.
The data presented on RBI website indicating the year on year increase in MSP
for paddy since 1989 to 2018, for three decades. Looking at the relevant year
wise data and contextualization drives the point home clearly. The table divides
the last three decades basing on regimes that were in power during that time
and the average growth is arrived by calculating the figures officially available
in RBI website. This makes it clear that the highest increase in MSP for paddy,
selected crop, was during the National Front government, 13.2. The average
growth rate under Congress government headed by late PV Narasimharam
stands below that of National Front Government’s. The figures suggests, the
worst ever average growth in increase of MSP for paddy was under NDA 1
regime between 1999-2004 and as it is evident, the NDA 2 under Modi’s
regime is following the same path. Again UPA 1 government could give it a
leg up upto nearly 11 % and by UPA 2 tenure, it came down to 8 %. This
analysis drives one key point home. Having non-Congress and non-BJP parties
in power at the center is reaping time for farmers.
Thus the hype over the historic hike in MSP is unfound and only aimed at
diverting the public attention. BJP and Prime Minister needs to clarify why it
took four years if the burden is merely Rs 15000 crores to bail out farmers
and stopping them from committing suicides. This itself makes it clear that
the so called MPS estimates is nothing but jugadoo figures just to bail out
BJP in next round of assembly elections of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Chattigarh by presenting its pro-farmer face, where as the fact is otherwise.
The forth coming elections in these states is life and death battle for BJP not
only for the reason that its stakes are higher than any other party but also for
the fact that its results are going to play a role in the next general elections
where Modi’s minimum governance puts up for test. That is why though the
CACP submitted its report way back in March this year, the government wanted
to wait till now to declare the MSP, so that its positive impacts can be
remembered just before elections in Chattisgarh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
Period Govt Average Growth in MSP to addy
1989-1991 National Front 13.2
1991-1996 Congress 12
1996-1999 United Front 6.9
1999-2004 NDA 1 5
2004-2009 UPA 1 10.92
2009-2014 UPA2 8.08
2014-2018 NDA2 6.02
The lateral entry process is not something new. During the United Progres-
sive Alliance 1 period, the same was attempted, but the government buckled
under the pressure of sane voices, including that of the Left. One may recol-
lect that the then Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission intended to
rope in experienced hands from private sectors to head the policy divisions
under its command. This would have opened flood gates for the private sec-
tors, making it easy to hijack the Planning Commission by seeding it with
their personnel. Earlier, though in a different manner, NDA under Vajpayee
attempted this. Vajpayee appointed several commissions headed by the big
names from private sectors to suggest policy priorities to the government.
One such committee, on reforms in higher education, was headed by Kumar
Mangalam Birla in early 2000s. This committee chalked out the road map
for overhauling the higher education sector and opening up for foreign enti-
ties. Though it was criticized, the Vajpayee government stood by the process
by declaring that the said commissions are only advisory in nature, and the
government is bounded to follow their recommendations.
Lateral entry means that any person can enter and exit the administrative
services at the will of the functioning government. The said person doesn’t
need to undergo the rigorous recruitment process conducted by respective
branches of administration. That is why it is called lateral entry, as opposed
to prior entry. This process will obviously give undue privilege to those
chosen by the government to serve their interests. This uncharted path of
administrative reforms has its own pitfalls, the biggest one being that it leads
to discrimination between those who were selected only for the purpose of
administration through a process, and those who would be selected, if the
process turns out to be a reality, at the whim of current day’s dispensation,
destroying right to equality and constitutional privileges. This could become
the bone of contention in the coming days, if someone the IAS association,
or for that matter, any person choses to file a petition in the Supreme Court.
Here, one faces the key question about the conduct rules and definitions of
certain notions, such as corruption and violation of law. For those in private
sectors, from where the Modi Government is intending to rope in adminis-
trators, everything that ensures profit and viability of the said firm they be-
long to, is legal. But the ethics in the government service are different. An-
other important aspect that comes into play is accountability. For a govern-
ment servant, accountability for the deeds committed during the course of
them heading the given department, rests on their shoulders until the day of
their retirement. That is why several IAS, IPS, and IRS officers are forced to
attend legal proceedings even after two three decades of their moving out of
the positions that led to a certrain situation. How this accountability would
be established for a person who has been roped in through lateral entry, and
what types of contracts would be signed by them with the government, are all
matters of concern for public ethics and removal of corruption.
Finally, latest news headlines indicate that the PMO shortlisted the recruit-
ment mechanism which includes, apart from background check by Intelli-
gence Bureau, a consideration for the said person’s approach and behavior
on social media. This is one step of the seven step filtering process that
would be used for selecting a candidate under later entry process. According
to this, “The right candidate for key institutions are checked for what they
said or did on their Facebook/Twitter accounts, and the comments they make
about the (BJP) government,” apart from getting feedback from their peers,
and this is termed as perceptional audit. The most unethical step of this fil-
tering, according to media reports, is “candidates are assessed on their past
association, professional, personal and ideological affiliations with previ-
ous government or with organizations seen as anti-government in any way.”
It further says the Prime Minister Narendra Modi takes final call on all ap-
pointments, thereby undermining the established practice of Cabinet Com-
mittee on Appointments.
This kind of filtering process, which may not have anything to do with the so
called aims of the policy, reminds one of McCarthyism. This will also have
an element of uncertainty in democracies, like ours, where the governments
are elected through public mandate, and hence keep changing. This lateral
entry is another way of restricting the new government’s Personnel Policy by
imposing a set of people belonging, or affiliated to the ruling dispensation.
One may not necessarily be bothered by the integrity check, but this percep-
tional audit is devoid of any scientific logic, and serves no purpose, apart
from implanting trolls in the highest policy making positions. This percep-
tional audit may also provide the trolls with leverage to help the government
eliminate administrators they consider to be anti-BJP, anti-Modi, pro-Left,
Secular, or even Nehruvians. Those who served the State honestly, and com-
pleted their duties, would always have rubbed several people on wrong sides.
The fate of these responsible and honest personnel would be severely af-
fected, when it comes to the question of elevation/selection to the top notch
positions in bureaucracy. That is why the fear of new McCarthyism is not
unfounded, or why it is not a speculative adventure.
Politics is ironical. The same party that toppled the V. P. Singh govern-
ment based on the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, the same party
whose patrons refuse to underscore the caste divisions and bats for the idea
of Akhand Bharat, is now claiming to be the savior of social justice. The
social engineering of BJP has a connotation different from the one being
discussed by social scientists. BJP’s social engineering is aimed at trans-
forming the subaltern castes into tools of upper caste Hindus, as had become
apparent from role played by various social groups post Godhra riots in
Gujarat.
The phrase social engineering usually refers to a grand coalition of the sub-
altern castes – OBC, Dalit, Muslim and Adivasi against the socio political
domination of upper caste dominated political parties. But BJP succeeded in
giving it a different connotation, by subtly creating a wedge between these
castes in order to sustain its regressive social polarization. The decision to
sub-categorise the single block of Other Backward Castes is seen by analysts
as one being consolidated by BJP’s age old experiences from Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. The idea of sub-categorisation has a
chequered history, starting when Mr L. R. Naik, a member of the Mandal
Commission, proposed to divide the OBCs into intermediate backward classes
and depressed backward classes, in his dissent note.
With this, a few issues come up for discussion; first, whether the said move
of is the brain child of BJP/ Modi government, second, whether the govern-
ment is beoing influenced by the necessities of political exigencies, third,
whether the BJP government, headed by Narendra Modi, has any holistic
approach towards the issues, and lastly, how it is going to impact the states
where categorization is already underway and the reservation quota is pro-
portionately distributed.
The modus operandi of the BJP administration is evident even in the process
of appointment of the said commission. On August 23, 2017, top guns in the
Modi administration, Amit Shah and Arun Jaitley had talked about the ensu-
ing Commission for sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes. Amit
Shah, well before the Parliament took up constitutional status of the Na-
tional Commission for Backward Classes, said in a statement that the vari-
ous BJP state governments’ attempts of sub-categorising the OBC had proved
beneficial, and the Modi government was inclined to scale up the task to the
national level. The Finance minister, while briefing the Cabinet decisions to
the press, not only mentioned that the cabinet will soon set up a commission
to examine sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes in the central list
of reserved categories, but also made it clear, well before the proposal was
brought before the Cabinet in September, that “The proposed commission
would submit its report within 12 weeks from the day of chairman is ap-
pointed.”
Let’s consider the facts first. The National Commission for Backward Classes
proposed a holistic approach in its communication to the Ministry of Social
Justice on 2nd March, 2015. The NCBC, in response to a mandate served to
it with reference to No. 1025/14/2011-BC-II, of 2014, passed a resolution
in its meeting on 18th February, 2015, conceding the idea of sub-
categorisation of centrally listed OBCs into three umbrella categories. Thus,
like many other so called initiatives of this Government, the idea and process
for sub-categorisation was also already in the pipe line under the previous
government.
The second question is whether the Modi government had done its home-
work before belling the cat. The NCBC, in its recommendation to the Gov-
ernment two years back, clearly stated the questions for consideration. It
asked the Union government to examine, “(i) a policy decision of the Gov-
ernment to go ahead, with this nationwide exercise of Sub-Categorisation
within the OBCs; (ii) an in-principle approval of the Government for the
methodology, the number of sub-categories and other issues related thereto
as indicated in the report, (iii) Agree to provide necessary funding for under-
taking this nationwide project with the help of an expert body like ICSSR.”
The NCBC felt that these important measures are necessarily important for
delivery of social justice. That is why the NCBC warned the government to
ensure ICSSSR guidance while reclassifying the OBCs into three new cat-
egories. In Commission’s words, “After the first phase is over, for identify-
ing the respective castes/communities/sub-caste/synonyms, and to put them
into their deserved category… it is again proposed to utilize the services of
an expert body like ICSSR, who would be requested to undertake a country
wide exercise and prepare state-wise list of OBCs as per the indicators and
methodology proposed above in the respective categories.” It also recom-
mended provisioning of special funds for country wide exercise, constitu-
tion of ICSSSR expert group by drawing renowned academics from each
state belongs to OBCs. The verbatim of the government decision clearly
short circuits the nationwide exercise by the expert group under guidance of
ICSSR for a better and rational outcome. Instead of undertaking a nation-
wide special study oriented exercise to meet the occasion, the BJP govern-
ment cut short the whole exercise to the level of standard government en-
quiry committee mode.
Lastly, whether the NCBC’s suggestions are factored or not in the final re-
port is something that is going to affect the states where a certain kind of
categorization is already under implication, particularly in south India. Simi-
larly, the Mandal recommendations consolidated the dominant caste phe-
nomenon, which helped regional satraps. The final recommendations with
any grouping and regrouping of existing categories will cause a tectonic
shift in ground level social and political mobilizations, which in turn will
become a politically fertile ground for the expansion of the BJP into the
states where they are not in power. This makes clear that the BJP government’s
moves are based on electoral exigencies, rather than compulsions of equi-
table social justice. Thus, the grandly worded exercise of the BJP govern-
ment is bound to end up mismanaging the show, similar to what happened
with demonetization. Let the nation be ready to grasp the consequences of
this well visualized, but short circuited act of political expediency.
According to media reports, the said commission got three extensions, and is
finally in the stage of compiling reports. Unlike Mandal commission, which
toured the country at large and gave an opportunity to a vast section of people,
both individuals and social groups, to petition, Rohini commission’s func-
tioning is more or less confined to the Delhi’s Vigyan Bhavan annexe, where
the commission’s office is situated. Thus, it would have its limitations in
terms of independent assessment of economic and social advancement of
various castes that would eventually be termed as the most backward castes,
and is hence bound to lead to claims and counter claims. Once the report is
out, which is expected to happen soon, the national political arithmetic is
bound to undergo tremendous change. We need to see whether the opposi-
tion parties are ready to swallow this decision, without protests.
GST One Year On : Monumental Reform or Monumental Mistake ?
Veeraiah Konduri
The 28th Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council is meeting on Staurday, July
21st 2018 at Delhi. In this month, despite government’s celebration of one
year of GST, there is nothing to showcase to the nation except the increased
number of firms and economic activities that were brought into the purview
of GST. Addressing the people through his Twitter handle, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi said GST is “a vibrant example” of cooperative federalism. “I
congratulate the people of India on the special occasion of GST completing
one year. A vibrant example of cooperative federalism and a ‘Team India’ spirit,
GST has brought a positive change in the Indian economy. #GSTForNewIndia,”
he said o a tweet. In his tweet, finance minister Arun Jaitely stated, “”The
biggest success of GST has been that the GST Council has proved to be an
extremely effective & powerful decision making federal institution. The Finance
Ministers of the States have created history in the matter of federal governance.”
The finance minister also termed it as monumental reform. But the story
appears otherwise raises a question whether it is a monumental mistake?
Working Capital Blocked
In independent India, successive governments kept on updating their tax policies
on constant basis. But till now, under no governmental measure, the working
capital of the entrepreneurs got blocked. It happened under GST regime for
the first time. According to estimates, since GST rolled out, 5.30 lakh crore
of working capital is collected under Inter State GST (IGST) category. More
than 50 % of it lying with the kitty of central government finance ministry.
The government don’t know whom to repay it and if so when. Because of this
high rate of IGST on each and every transaction that comes under its purview,
5.30 lakh crore working capital got blocked which would have been used for
enhancing the production capacities further. Of this amount, nearly 2.25 lakh
crores was disbursed to the states on monthly basis which becomes handy for
the many states which are in financial doldrums.
Unless this issue is addressed on an urgent basis, the working capital gradually
transforms into unproductive capital and central ledger will be fed with this
ever increasing inflow, which in turn, will have an impact not only on the
private consumption but also on the public finance. If the government’s think
tanks are claiming the reduction of fiscal deficit for the time being, it is going
to misled the nation and financial planners. If what government says on the
front of fiscal deficit is correct, it should reflect in the interest rates fixed by
Reserve Bank of India, which is not happening. Thus, the sorting out IGST
and blockage of working capital detrimental to the manufacturing growth is
one key aspect that could have been the focus of GST council. From the data
presented below, it is proved that the it is the working capital of micro, small
and medium firms that is getting blocked under GST system. These firms
could not pullout
Can we Call this Widening of Tax Base?
The second important issue lies in procedural reforms. The Economic Survey
2017-18 stated that under GST the tax base got widened from 6.4 million
assesses to 9.9 million assessees 6.4 million migrated from existing tax
administrative systems into GST network and on the top of them 3.5 million
new assesees enrolled under new system. This led the Finance Minister Arun
Jaitely in his 2018-19 budget speech that because of GST, as promised to the
nation, the tax base got widened. Here the question is whether the growth in
number of assessees reflected in growth of tax income under the new
dispensation ? The figures presented below proves the fact otherwise.
A Glimpse of GST returns, turnover, and tax liability, by firm size (July-
December 2017)
Firm size (Annual Turnover) % share in
Filed Returns
Turnover Tax Liability
Below threshold (< Rs. 2 million) 32.2 0.4 0.9
Composition group (Rs. 2-10 million) 36
2.4 4.4
proceeds accruing to the governments, it will definitely be proved that these
many tax returns are not necessary. On the top of that, they are forced to pay
considerable incomes to GST Suvidha Kendra’s. Thus, the good and simple
tax became an instrument of unforeseen burden on the tax payers. Not only
that. There is a flurry of changes in GST design which makes the filing a
Himalayan task for rural entrepreneurs. Unless the compliance made easy, it is
not going to help the tax payers nor the nation. To make it easy, the returns
should be redesigned in to a palm size return with the basic details and one
consolidated return for each quarter so that the assessing authorities can analyze
for any evasion. Without taking up these key amendments, talking about
simplifying tax returns is not going to happens. And soon it will be termed as
monumental mistake.
Small and micro enterprises (Rs. 10-50 million) 22 6.8
10.5
Medium enterprises (Rs. 50 million-1 billion) 9.2 24.1
29.8
Large firms (> Rs. 1 billion) 0.6 66.2 54.4
Total 100 100 100
From the above table one thing clear. Out of 9.9 million assesees, almost 32
% (almost one third) which are roped into the GST network are below the
threshold when it comes to turnover of their business. The GST Act allows
significant list of exempted items and also decided a threshold exemption for
businesses with an annul turnover up to Rs. 2 million. The table above clearly
suggests that of 9.9 million tax payers, 32 percent are exempted by Act from
paying any tax as they are below the threshold levels in terms of their turnover.
That means, whatever the growth in tax base, is because of enrollment of these
small and self employment based entrepreneurs who got registered under GST
network out of fear.
The table above further testifies that 68.2 % who files their returns under GST
are able to contribute about five percent of total tax revenues and less than
five percent in terms of turn over only. Still, they are forced to file their returns
thrice in a month and spend few days and few thousands from their business
activities, which otherwise could have been put to productive use. We need to
study further by categorizing the widened tax base in terms of firm size to
come to an understand whether the so called One Nation One Tax slogan
yielded any better results for the nation in terms of tax proceeds.
A fact, truth, event, incident for some becomes a non fact, untruth, and non
occurred incident for others. How is this possible? Are there several truths,
are we confining ourselves to the shades of truth? Are we satisfying ourselves
with shades of truth? These questions brings us to the dialectics of truth in the
age of digital deceit. To unravel what is happening at the moment in India, we
need to pose few questions for want of answers. The principle among them is
whether, the concept of a fact in the historically constant?; Secondly, to what
extent is the current concept of a fact is acceptable?; and finally why are some
kinds of facts more susceptible to deliberate undermining or disruption than
others, and if so what kind and how?
The answer to the first question is obviously negative. The emergence of modern
science forms the basis for the developing current notions of fact. There is a
long journey for truth to become fact in any society. Scholars argued that a
“fact” or “a matter of fact” evolved from a 17th-century notion meaning
something alleged that requires evidence to be proven to a later equilibration
of “fact” with “truth”— not exactly the same things. The crux lies in the process
how the truth or fact is constructed or framed. For secular individuals, truth
lies in the given rule of law of land. For people of religiosity, truth is historically
constant and already ingrained in the religious texts. Beyond those texts, nothing
is truth for them. That is why when we closely look at what is viraling in
social media is not the truth but one of framed truths as it instigates emotive
instinct rather than developing logical instinct. The secular truths, i.e. objective
truths failed to gain currency in social media as they deals primarily with
social facts rather than the framed ones. It took a long time for the idea of a
fact as a part of integrated reality that makes propositions about reality true or
false to emerge. For the second question, to what extent, the fact is shared
widely, the answer is it depends whether it is objective truth or framed truth.
Let us consider the last question before winding up this discussion. Why are
some kinds of facts are more susceptible to deliberate undermining or disruption
than others and if so how they does it ? Before taking up this question, we
should agree and understand that there is a philosophy even behind the framing
of untruth. It this framing of untruth, the indecipherable and unsubstantiated
by facts beyond doubt, into truth accelerated with the technological
advancements and innovations which ended up for now as an industry lying at
the heart of digital deceit or fake news. Manufacturing alternative evidence or
argument is key behind the framing of untruth into truth. If people believe a
“fact” as true it is because of some provable evidence. If one can bringsforth
they can be convinced it is not a fact if contrary evidence overweighs the
original. Truth, on the other hand, needs to be based on testimony: If it is
established or believed that a witness speaks the truth, then the witness’s
statement is both a fact in itself as the law understands it—but of a slightly
different sort from what is really true in the sense that no evidence can change
it—and may contain other facts subsumed under a testimonial truth. The legal
concept of “reasonable doubt” parries these meanings of “fact” because it
uses both empirical evidence and testimony to establish the “facts” relevant to
given cases. The digital deceit does not entail any scope for such cross check
on empirical evidence and coerces us to believe as it is uttered.
Not only that. Though the post cabinet press release states that this abhiyan is
a component of several ongoing schemes, it ended up in recommending the
replacement of price support scheme and price deficiency payment scheme in
the districts where Private Procurement Stockiest Scheme is rolled out. This
is what the government had to say about this. “ It has been decided that for
oilseeds, states have the option to roll out Private Procurement Stockist Scheme
(PPSS) on pilot basis in selected district/APMC(s) of district involving the
participation of private stockiest. The pilot district/selected APMC(s) of district
will cover one or more crop of oilseeds for which MSP is notified. Since this
is akin to PSS, in that in involves physical procurement of the notified
commodity, it shall substitute PSS/PDPS in the pilot districts.” Thus in the
districts where PPSS is rolled out, the farmers are going to be left to the
indiscriminate exploitation by market forces aimed at profit maximization.
Modi government is good at playing with numbers. The cabinet meeting decided
to give additional government guarantee of Rs. 16550 crores, and budget
provision for procurement operations has also been increased by Rs. 15053
crores for PM-AASHA. It also took the UPA II government to the task when it
states, “During financial years 2010-14 total procurement was Rs. 3500 crore
only whereas during financial years 2014-18, it has risen 10 times and reached
to Rs. 34,000 crore.” That means, the amount spent by NDA government for
procurement is increased by 10 fold over the UPA II government. If that is the
fact, it should have translated on the ground into a 10 fold increase of minimum
support prices in real terms. I collated the data from annual reports of
Department of Food and Pubic Distribution for the years from 2011-12 to
2017-18 for following selected crops. The calculations worked out are given
below. For the years between 2011-2014 (UPA II rule) r in MSP for common
grade paddy is worked out to be Rs. 230 where as for four years under NDA II
regime, the same is worked out to be Rs 240. Or As the table given below
vindicates, except in the case of wheat, for no other crop the increased MSP
under four years under NDA II regime is more than that of MSP increased for
last three years under UPA II regime.
Table 1
Commodity UPANDA Gap
Paddy common 230 240 10
Paddy Grade A 235 245 10
Wheat 115 335 220
Maize 330 115 -215
Ragi 450 400 -50
Jowar-Hybrid 520 200 -320
Jowar-Maldandi 520 175 -345
Bajra 330 115 -215
Barley 120 310 190
Similarly, the second table given below clearly establishes the fact that the so
called MSP is lost in transition and not benefiting the farmers at all thus leaving
them indebted permanently. The table below presents the data from very
government reports placed on the table of Parliament for successive years.
Take 2011 for example. The acquisition cost per quintile of rice stands out at
Rs. 1862 where as the sum of minimum support price accruing to the farmer
and distribution cost accruing to the families below poverty line stands out
only at Rs. 1340.71. That means, the incremental cost or incidental cost ( the
difference between acquisition cost and total) is going to the middle men
(particularly mill owners and agents who forms part of capitalist landlords)
who are playing key role in procurement and also transportation. When we
consider for 2011-12, almost 48 % of MSP and 40 % of Total cost is being
pocketed by this class. When we worked out the same for the year 2017-18
under Modi regime, this stands out at 77 % and 32 % respectively. Thus, both
the NDA and UPA governments are bailing out the capitalist farmers at large
at the cost of both exchequer as well as agriculture as a sector. This lies at the
heart of capitalist farmers’ support to the new agrarian policies as part of the
reform package. That is the key reason for the small farmers are unable to
come out of the deep rooted indebtedness while thousands of crores are dolled
out in the name of benefiting the farmers. Unless this duplicity is exposed,
neither we can guarantee the remunerative prices for farmers nor liberate them
from the burden of indebtedness nor the agrarian distress.
Accounting Year Rice Common Grade
Wheat
MSP Dist Cost
Total Acq Cost MSP
Dist Cost Total Acq Cost
2011-12 1080260.74 1340.74 1862 1285
240.39 1525.39 1355
2012-13 1250 287.28
1537.28 2018 1350
269.81 1619.81 1483
2013-14 1310389.97 1699.97 2226 1400 350.8
1750.8 1558
2014-15 1360 497.42 1857.42 2446
1450 386.85 1836.85 1664
2015-16 1410503.24 1913.24 2622 1525
354.16 1879.16 1773
2016-17 1470432.59 1902.59 26721625 362.23
1987.23 1835
2017-18 1550537.53 2087.53 2757 1735 441.44
2176.44 1955