I was talking with Sharmila today about the new found passion of our government for SEZs and the public protests against them by local residents in various parts of our country. And the discussion got me really confused. She claims she’s got research papers (she’s working for a not-for-profit organization now) that show how SEZs in particular and most such large schemes in general often end up harming the local people.I disagreed and felt that development is not a zero-sum game and in the long run, everybody gets pulled up. The problem is that in the short-term a lot of people actually suffer – take for instance the Nandigram issue where a lot of people have been farming the land for generations but don’t have papers to prove the land is theirs. Most such people will not get adequately compensated. They’ll also need to be re-skilled in new jobs; not the easiest of things for people who’re mostly illiterate and lack any soft skills. So what does one do? Do we let them continue with what is undoubtedly subsistence farming and living or should the government encourage industry and try to manage the collateral hurt caused to a lot of the local population?
So many questions. Such limited knowledge. Maybe we should just have a television debate with Mahesh Bhat and Ashok Singhal.
2 comments:
Kumar, It is a really complex issue! I have read enough social scientists scoffing at the theory that open economy means more wealth and that at some point this will percolate to the most needy.They point out that in reality it does not happen.In case of SEZ for example:The mechanism for rehabilitation is full of holes:Money meant for rehab ends up in somebody elses pockets.Even when the money exists it does not get to the needy.The victims themselves being illiterate are made to suffer with red tape that they know nothing about.There are other issues- the suicide of farmers in Vidharba and A.P.The farmer who only knows to till his land faces a huge wall of desperation when his crop fails.And when the state pleads helplessness, the farmer only sees the inevitable staring him in his face.They will agree that 'India is indeed shining'but what they mean is the hot sun that they swelter under, without food or shelter...
But then does that mean they continue with their subsistence farming and living? It's somewhat like anthropologists opposing development of tribal areas saying it will mean the tribals losing their way of life. But there is a lot pain in the current way of life. Shouldn't that change for the better? Vexing . . .
Post a Comment