Hundred Years From Now, India Will Remain A Land of Mass Poverty - Predicts Indian Author, Siddharath Dube
WE SALUTE MRS. ALBRIGHT
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - The following predictions about India in the 21st Century by an Indian expert should be of interest to the Diaspora Sikhs. It should remind us of our 18 million unfortunate compatriots living in the Punjab homeland, captive since 15 August 1947, in the Indian map when the British Colonials marched out after handing over the instruments of State power to the morally repugnant Brahmin-dominated Indian ruling elite."India will enter the next millennium with the largest mass of deeply impoverished people of any country, some 500 million (yes 500 million) persons. This is an extraordinary human tragedy given the scale, intensity and life-long length of their suffering. But even more tragic is the certainty that even a century later India will still remain the land of mass poverty", writes Siddharath Dube in the Times of India newspaper recently. Some future for the various nations captive in the South Asian Castocracy which like to claim that it is the world’s largest ‘democracy’ and aspires to enter the Nuclear club and wants to sit on a permanent seat in the UN Security Council!
Mr. Dube who is also the author of the excellent 1998 book, published by HarperCollins; Words-like Freedom: Memories of an impoverished Indian Family, has come to the above bleak conclusions for many reasons. The first and foremost reason, he claims, is that even small, incremental gains which could add up to a substantial reduction in the number of poor have just not been there since independence. Second, because there is no probability at all of sweeping redistributed changes – such as far reaching land reforms – that were possible at the time of independence in 1947. He accuses the Nehru & Co., Brahmin coterie of establishing a convenient formula; "promise the impoverished masses a quick end to poverty while continuing with conservative economic policies that ignore the interests of the poor and serve the upper castes."
In the heady first days after independence, he says, Nehru pledged to the naked hungry masses that they would be quickly freed – "because Colonial rule has ended, the princely states and Zamindari system abolished, and a socialist pattern of society was in the making." In the 1970’s Indira Gandhi, his daughter, pledged Gharibi Hatao (remove poverty). Now in the 1990’s the poor have been told that their poverty will soon vanish because of the economic reforms, that have repudiated Nehru era state planning and controls, will usher in prosperity.
Dube berates the lack of commitment of India’s political leaders and elites to the task of reducing poverty. He claims that the promises made only serve to improve the position of the existing elites belonging to the upper castes, particularly in the countryside. By embracing the rural landed the Congress party, he says, prevented the poor from rising materially or in civil or social freedoms. The diversity of castes and many gradations of poverty work against the poor uniting – that is why political parties and elites ignore the poor in India.
As a result of these policies Dube claims the number of the absolutely poor – those unable to afford a minimal diet, let alone the other essentials of survival, living on the equivalent of US fifty cents a day has swelled from 180 million in 1950 to over 350 million today. Scores of millions more in India are just above the poverty line, deeply impoverished with little hope.
In the half century ahead the top tenth are likely to benefit, predicts Dube, but this growth will not transform the lives of the mass of India’s people in contrast to China and East Asia where land reform and sustained investment in health and education has laid the foundation for widely-shared growth. He sadly concludes by saying that the poor are barred from participating in economic growth in India because of a myriad disabilities; illiteracy, gender inequity, social discrimination, political subjugation, the lack of employable skills or economic assets such as cultivable land. The government’s inaction remains unchanged for the past fifty years. Consequently India’s destiny; "is to be the land of hunger, want and suffering of every kind" because India’s poor, he says, will neither participate in the economy’s growth nor will the gains of growth reach them on anything like the scale required to appreciably reduce mass poverty. Some future!
The question that should come to the mind of every Sikh is that why should the vigorous and egalitarian Sikh nation seek a future in such company and such squalor where there is no hope? Why should not we of the Sikh Diaspora take heed and be inspired by what that great lady, the US Secretary of State Mrs. Madeleine Albright, said the other day in Paris, France, and redouble our efforts to help free our 18 million captive compatriots in India, by striving for a sovereign, independent buffer state of KHALISTAN stretching from the Jumna river to the Pakistan border? US Secretary of State Madeliene Albright, a true Jeffersonian, took the position according to the hysterical editorials splashed in the Indian media (Tribune, Chandigrah – March 1, 99) that; "In the next millennium the ethnic groups demanding independence the world over should be allowed to have their own nation-states." We Sikhs agree and salute Mrs. Albright - truly a great American.
Quoted as below from: http://www.tribuneindia.com/99mar01/edit.htmA DANGEROUS IDEA
Was the US Secretary of State, Ms Madeleine Albright, taking the official position when she observed the other day in Paris that the ethnic groups demanding independence the world over should be allowed to have their own nation-states? She was quoted by The Washington Post as saying that the Clinton administration was "looking at how the nation –state functions in a totally different way than people did at the beginning of this century." Perhaps this thinking, coming against the backdrop of the Kosovo crisis, is part of the new brainwave that American experts are often seized with. It is one thing to look ahead at the next millennium in a positive frame of mind sans conflicts and terrorist acts. It also makes sense to promote the interests of ethnic groups in a harmonious manner. But for a top American functionary to speak for secessionism in this manner is nothing short of sowing seeds of unrest the world over. Doesn’t this run counter to the philosophy of globalisation?It is no secret that secessionism often leads to terrorism. What is regrettable here is that despite paying lip-service to the elimination of terrorism, the US administration has not cared to touch upon the reasons for the failure of the efforts to wipe out the scourge. The failure shows double standards of the influential powers like the USA. Washington has not taken any strong initiative in evolving and adopting a clear and comprehensive stance to fight terrorism decisively and effectively. Puffed up with arrogance, it seems totally insensitive to the interests of other sovereign nations.
As it is. India has suffered badly at the hands of terrorists. It is virtually encircled by terrorists’ networks primarily spun from outside its borders. Since the dawn of Independence New Delhi has lost over one lakh lives in terrorism-related violence, including those of a former Prime Minister, a Chief Minister and a retired Chief of Army Staff. This is the price the country has had to pay for fighting foreign-sponsored insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and the NorthEast. We expect the US administration to come clean and desist from the temptation of aiding and abetting terrorist groups out to destroy peace and harmony in various parts of the world. The problems of ethnic groups can, of course, be sorted out within the political framework of different countries. But to advocate their independence will throw up new areas of conflict which today’s economy-oriented global order cannot afford. Interestingly, the opposition to Ms Albright’s dangerous thesis has come from no other person that the former Secretary of State, Mr. Warren Christopher. He has criticized the idea, saying that there would be over 2,000 countries and international chaos if such advice were followed up seriously by the Clinton administration. We hope the American think-tank will realize the implications of this explosive concept and be more understanding and responsive to the sensitivity to today’s sovereign nations. The thesis propounded by Ms Albright for the 21st century is highly dangerous and should, therefore, be challenged and condemned forcefully.