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
|