Sastri
This workshop has sustained by interest because it has not only touched matters in my mind, but it has touched one or more of the matters which have been bothering me. I have to talk about one of the matters raised by the chairperson. He has spoken as an economist.
But in my own humble way I would like to ask why do we need 10% growth? Why do we need even 4% growth? If the incremental income is going to only those who do not need it, is it necessary to have any growth in GDP at all?
This is the kind of question all economists should ask. But the one answer that I can think an economist will give is: if you don’t have growth there will be depression. The engines of the economy will come to a grinding halt.
Is there another way that we can organise our economy? That is the question for this group. John has raised this point, in his own way that is the "side scaling" not being part of the national grid. Shiv has raised this question, can we think of alternatives? Sagar has raised the question – can we think of moving away from the state. But we all know what is meant by that. We are part of the integrated system - the hermetically sealed system. Therefore if you don't have even 4 % of growth then the business cycle is disrupted. Industry comes to a standstill. Prices come down. Can we move away from the idea that the economy has to be viewed as a hermetically sealed system? That is the question that economists don't address. It is time that groups like ours must address this question.
So what it is we have been saying - there seems to be a convergence around one point - the state is abdicating its responsibilities, not because you and I have asked for it but for various other reasons. It is only an administrative state. It is not a sovereign state. Even before we have asked for it, it is scaling down its own operations. It is true that the number of employees in the central government is increasing and the wages for them are also increasing in a ungoverned way. But its own interest in running the economy has been scaled down. Can we think of an alternative way of doing things - a parallel way of looking at things, which Sagar spoke of, the scaling up of some of our activities, these micro experiences? It is not about fighting against the state, because anyway the state has scaled its operations down. So the scaling up of the operations by us, by civil society is implicit in the whole thing. In a way it is de-legitimising the state's own de-legitimisation of itself.
The other question is making science and technology policy people friendly. There is a distinction between free people and freed people. In this country we are freed people, we are not yet free people and therefore this question has been raised. Who will make science and technology policy people friendly? If someone tries to make science and technology policy people friendly, will it remain people friendly? It is the people who must make it people friendly. They must take things into their own hands, there is no other way. And this will happen by building peoples' power. Not by mimicking state; by moving away from the state in the best sense of the term. We are advocating re-organising the economy, restructuring the economy in such a way that what happens here doesn't necessarily adversely affect the areas adjacent to this area. I think we need a lot of rethinking on that and science and technology must be thought through in an altogether different way. We cannot ask someone to make it people friendly, the people must make science and technology people friendly.
Now Dr Sanghvi raised this question of scaling up. How do we do it? We ourselves are helpless in scaling up the NPM. .JFM is not exactly part of the State. It is away from the State. It is only through bodies that are not fully State owned, only through para state owned bodies that we can scale up the process. Supposing government tried to scale up the JFM, it will be far away from the people. Therefore we should encourage more and more para- state owned bodies to scale up civil society experiences. The ultimate aim is to regulate the state, but that will be a little away in the point of time.
How will we synchronize the efforts? It appears that gender sensitivity has increased not because of the women's movement only (with apologies to our friends here). The gender movement is a small movement comprising after thousand women. Though a small movement, it has touched on something which has been felt by males nearly universally. And therefore it has triggered a rethinking on part of most men folk. I am not saying all men folk. I am not saying that the women's position has remarkably changed. But definitely there has been a rethinking on the part of the men folk. There is a near universal feeling that justice is not been done to women.
So let us not think that a movement has achieved this. A confluence of circumstances has led to this heightened gender sensitivity. This is something that I commend for further thinking by my colleagues in the women's movement.
A confluence of circumstances has led to some good results, and we should seize the opportunity which is afforded by the confluence of circumstances and press on to see that the State does its regulatory work in a better manner.
The de -legitimisation of the State also happens and is more visible today. So we should not think in terms of growth for the sake of growth. We should think in terms of side scaling. We should think in terms of organising the country in a different way altogether. These are several ideas, this workshop has contributed.
A lot more work has to be done on this and we have started off a good process.
This workshop has sustained by interest because it has not only touched matters in my mind, but it has touched one or more of the matters which have been bothering me. I have to talk about one of the matters raised by the chairperson. He has spoken as an economist.
But in my own humble way I would like to ask why do we need 10% growth? Why do we need even 4% growth? If the incremental income is going to only those who do not need it, is it necessary to have any growth in GDP at all?
This is the kind of question all economists should ask. But the one answer that I can think an economist will give is: if you don’t have growth there will be depression. The engines of the economy will come to a grinding halt.
Is there another way that we can organise our economy? That is the question for this group. John has raised this point, in his own way that is the "side scaling" not being part of the national grid. Shiv has raised this question, can we think of alternatives? Sagar has raised the question – can we think of moving away from the state. But we all know what is meant by that. We are part of the integrated system - the hermetically sealed system. Therefore if you don't have even 4 % of growth then the business cycle is disrupted. Industry comes to a standstill. Prices come down. Can we move away from the idea that the economy has to be viewed as a hermetically sealed system? That is the question that economists don't address. It is time that groups like ours must address this question.
So what it is we have been saying - there seems to be a convergence around one point - the state is abdicating its responsibilities, not because you and I have asked for it but for various other reasons. It is only an administrative state. It is not a sovereign state. Even before we have asked for it, it is scaling down its own operations. It is true that the number of employees in the central government is increasing and the wages for them are also increasing in a ungoverned way. But its own interest in running the economy has been scaled down. Can we think of an alternative way of doing things - a parallel way of looking at things, which Sagar spoke of, the scaling up of some of our activities, these micro experiences? It is not about fighting against the state, because anyway the state has scaled its operations down. So the scaling up of the operations by us, by civil society is implicit in the whole thing. In a way it is de-legitimising the state's own de-legitimisation of itself.
The other question is making science and technology policy people friendly. There is a distinction between free people and freed people. In this country we are freed people, we are not yet free people and therefore this question has been raised. Who will make science and technology policy people friendly? If someone tries to make science and technology policy people friendly, will it remain people friendly? It is the people who must make it people friendly. They must take things into their own hands, there is no other way. And this will happen by building peoples' power. Not by mimicking state; by moving away from the state in the best sense of the term. We are advocating re-organising the economy, restructuring the economy in such a way that what happens here doesn't necessarily adversely affect the areas adjacent to this area. I think we need a lot of rethinking on that and science and technology must be thought through in an altogether different way. We cannot ask someone to make it people friendly, the people must make science and technology people friendly.
Now Dr Sanghvi raised this question of scaling up. How do we do it? We ourselves are helpless in scaling up the NPM. .JFM is not exactly part of the State. It is away from the State. It is only through bodies that are not fully State owned, only through para state owned bodies that we can scale up the process. Supposing government tried to scale up the JFM, it will be far away from the people. Therefore we should encourage more and more para- state owned bodies to scale up civil society experiences. The ultimate aim is to regulate the state, but that will be a little away in the point of time.
How will we synchronize the efforts? It appears that gender sensitivity has increased not because of the women's movement only (with apologies to our friends here). The gender movement is a small movement comprising after thousand women. Though a small movement, it has touched on something which has been felt by males nearly universally. And therefore it has triggered a rethinking on part of most men folk. I am not saying all men folk. I am not saying that the women's position has remarkably changed. But definitely there has been a rethinking on the part of the men folk. There is a near universal feeling that justice is not been done to women.
So let us not think that a movement has achieved this. A confluence of circumstances has led to this heightened gender sensitivity. This is something that I commend for further thinking by my colleagues in the women's movement.
A confluence of circumstances has led to some good results, and we should seize the opportunity which is afforded by the confluence of circumstances and press on to see that the State does its regulatory work in a better manner.
The de -legitimisation of the State also happens and is more visible today. So we should not think in terms of growth for the sake of growth. We should think in terms of side scaling. We should think in terms of organising the country in a different way altogether. These are several ideas, this workshop has contributed.
A lot more work has to be done on this and we have started off a good process.
| <<< PREVIOUS | NEXT >>> |