Behind the soft
spoken suave urbane face lies a charlatan named Yogendra Yadav. While many
might be taken in by his appearance, expression and vocabulary, he perhaps is
one of those divisive faces that seek to foster their left liberal anti Hindu
anti-India agenda. The psephologist turned political cum farmer activist is
again in the news for reasons to do with economics that can be vicious if
allowed to implement. He along with other alleged left liberal public
intellectuals made public a position paper of sorts on how India should deal
with the socio-economic crisis caused by the shutdown imposed in the wake of
the pandemic caused by the Chinese virus, COVID-19.
The signatories to
the paper are the usual suspects, some of whom do not even stay in India. They are
the limousine liberals among whom are Abhijit Sen, Jayati Ghosh, Ramchandra
Guha (since dissented on some points), Deepak Nayar, Jean Dreze among many
others. For ten years from 2004-14, they were part of the National Advisory
Council at different points of time and played a major role in the Indian
economic and social policy framework of the era. The economic woes on the eve
of 2014 elections were primarily the outcome of their ill-conceived policies. Many
policies were just not ill-conceived or badly designed but were outright
sinister. This includes the Communal Violence Bill that was eventually
abandoned, the Right to Education, whose unintended consequences are still
being felt today. The Sachar committee report too was their brain child. Deprived
of power in the last six years they have tried to stay relevant through the
print and left centric digital media besides generous support financial and
otherwise from Western think tanks and institutions.
The agenda is modelled
as Mission Jai Hind, a seven point plan to combat what they describe as economic,
health and humanitarian crisis caused by the lockdown induced by the spread of
the Wuhan Flu. A bird’s eye prima facie would not suggest anything sinister in
most of the points. For instance, their
first point is the facilitation of the migrants to return to their native towns
and villages within specified period of time. The migrants are being
facilitated such a return. Yet in time of panic and pandemic, planned returns
are not always possible. An earlier post
had indicated how a planned egress is simply not possible in the current
circumstances. Many want to reach the home early and would not mind cutting
corners. Further, egged by certain sections who want to take pot-shots and
create chaos on the shoulders of the returning labourers, a façade is built on
the labour on the roads. This serves well the TRPs for channels and good
brownie point for the opposition. Moreover, states like Maharashtra are more
than keen to send the migrants back as they face an existential crisis of
sorts. The attitude of some state governments is linked to creating troubles in
states going in for elections soon.
Other measures
suggested include expanding MNREGA for 200 days something demanded by Congress
as well. The government by increasing the outlay has already factored in the
same. The economic relief sought already addressed by the government. The only
new point in the demand for economic relief like interest waiver etc. is the
quantum of fund allocation and increase in time limit for the waivers of
interest etc. Cash compensation through different schemes are already underway.
The testing for coronavirus is already free and treatment at government
hospitals is free. The measures to undertake revival of the economy have begun
though not in the manner the so-called intellectuals would have desired.
Yet beneath all
these measures is Point 7.1. The point look innocuous but beneath it lies the
entire idea sought to propagated by the proposed agenda. The point reads “All
the resources (cash, real estate, property, bonds,etc.) with the citizens or
within the nation must be treated as national resources available during the
crisis”. Implied in the assertion is the demand for nationalisation of all
private property and assets in the guise of the pandemic induced crisis. Every
property thus becomes the government property with no individual rights on the
same. All houses will now be owned by the government with the existing owners
turned into tenants. All firms will be nationalized with the government as the
sole owner. The stock markets will be wound up. All private property like gold
will be confiscated by the government. The individuals or the firms or the
organizations or in other words, the economic agents in the country cannot own
any property or asset or any resource within the borders of the nation. Ironically,
it spares the resources owned by the domestic economic agents outside the
borders of India. It might be perhaps due to many of these intellectuals live
outside India and those who live in India are probably likely to own resources
outside the border. Thus some self-interest inherent in the proposition.
The nationalisation
of private property is alluring. The society loves expropriation of the rich
since it presumably promotes equality. The perception that businesses earn
supernormal profits at the expense of others thus resulting in extremely skewed
allocation of resources. The high Gini coefficient distorts the equality of the
society. Saint Simon’s proposition to each one, unto his need is alluring. But the
society is equally biased towards competition. Competition drives the societal
progress. Nationalization of property resources was the objective of Lenin,
Stalin or Mao. In fact, the results from these experiments are disastrous. India
too followed the nationalization of resources in varying degrees yet the
results were bad to the economy. Rather than restore right to property, the
demand is for the exact opposite and an extreme version at that.
The India psyche
in political language has been to state in preferences towards a ‘Garibi Hatao’.
This was the slogan which propelled Indira Gandhi into power in 1971. In fact
48 years later, in 2019, her grandson Rahul too went with the same slogan
resulting in repeat catastrophe for the party. The reason for the same was
simple. Instead of the stated ‘Garibi Hatao’, the revealed preference or the
policy choices exercised reflected ‘Amiri Hatao’. To conclude, the agenda of
these alleged intellectuals can be summarized by the following story on
socialism. There were two neighbours. One had two cows, the other had none. The
latter complained to the government about the former and demanded two cows for
himself too. The response of the socialists was rather than give two cows, kill
the two cows belonging to the former, so that both neighbours are equal with
zero cows each!
Comments
Post a Comment