Commentary/E M S Namboodiripad

Nehru's globalisation supported anti-imperialists, but today's policies strengthen imperialists

This week I will reflect on the philosophy behind the central and Kerala budgets presented respectively.

The Budget is widely believed to be a statement of accounts showing revenue receipts, expenditure and debts. This perception is not wrong, but behind this accounts there is a philosophy.

The Budgets presented during Jawaharlal Nehru's time reflected the policies his government pursued. The subsequent budgets, too, mirrored government philosophies. In 1991, when P V Narasimha Rao came to power, there was a total change in the economic perspective. This found reflection in Manmohan Singh's Budget.

Now we have arrived at the Deve Gowda government's Budget. In one way, it is a continuation of the Rao philosophy -- but it has its differences too.

There are three basic factors that guided Finance Minister P Chidambaram -- globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation. Most politicians give one the feeling that India had absolutely no links with the outside world till Rao and Manmohan Singh came along.

In reality, the linking with outside world, this globalisation, was started in Nehru's time. Nehru's global perspective was one which was in conflict against global imperialism. He envisaged joining hands with anti-imperialist forces like Russia, China and other Latin American orders as per the dictates of the International Monetary Fund and such financial institutions.

But the globalisation that Narasimha Rao introduced and Deve Gowda continues is different -- it is capital-oriented. While Nehru's globalisation strived to strengthen the anti-imperialistic forces, the liberalisation today supports the imperialists.

Nehru's philosophy was to bring a substantial section of the economy under the public sector. The nationalisation of the imperial banks, opening core industries and agricultural activities under the public sector were part of this endeavour. The policy we follow now surrenders everything to the private sector, especially the foreign companies.

Now let us discuss the Kerala budget. It does not differ much from Chidambaram's budget. This is because the state budget can be evolved only on the basis of the central policies. However, there are some noteworthy differences in it.

It reflects the overwhelming demand by political parties and trade unions for a change in the economic system. The budget has made a bold attempt to translate the government's vision to devolve funds and powers to the three-tier panchayats. Earlier, the plans for the panchayats were decided at the state and central levels. Now the panchayats can conceive and implement there own plans -- 35 per cent of the plan funds have been set apart for local bodies. This will certainly enable the people's representatives to achieve the necessary ability and skill for implementing developmental work.

Until now what development work meant were construction of schools and colleges, roads and the like. Kerala is backward, both in industry and agriculture. The people have to depend on other states for meeting their requirements for essential commodities such as a rice and vegetables. This should change with the new budget.

The state budget, I feel, is a step in the right direction for achieving self-sufficiency in all areas.

Tell us what you think of this column