Why Bengali's think themselve superior
Nagasimha Iyengar
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya wrote:
>
>
>
> propaganda. I could find the following CHARITABLE explanations:
>
> d) You had been out of station.
You got that right. However, I did post a reply later which seems to have been
lost on you. Read ahead...
> e) You are a different Nagasimha Iyenger (after all your e-mail addresses
> are different)
I changed jobs. You see, I work in a free-market where I can sell my services
to the highest payer. But I don't expect you to understand this...
> Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
>
>
> Evidences for discrimination against WB deleted...
>
> Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
************************
The response I gave then - from memory...
***********************************
I never denied that WB was discriminated against. All I am saying is:
Discriminating against WB was *inevitable*. By voting to the left of the
centre, the bengalis *asked* for it. Why SHOULD'NT Nehru have discriminated
against a region which was red in colour? He was undertaking a huge social
experiment(however questionable) - spending tens of thousands of crores. Do you
think he or anybody else was nuts to spend that money on Kerala or WB? What
did you want from him? Put HAL, HMT, BHEL... in Calcutta? As it is the PSU's
were a failure. If we had put them in WB, they would have failed in the 60's
itself. Hey wait....
That would have been good. Put the PSU's in kerala and WB. Let them fail in
a short while. Declare socialism as a failure and move towards a free-market.
Heck, what happened in the 90's could have happened in the 60's!! India would
have been an Asian tiger by now!!!
I'm sorry. I retract my statement... Nehru made a mistake by neglecting the
eastern region. Stupid stupid Nehru. Bad boy.
Happy?
Naga
--
Disclaimer: My views only.
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
Nagasimha Iyengar (no_emai...@home.com) wrote:
: Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya wrote:
: >
: >
: > a)Concentration of financial power in Bombay through Govt. promoted
: > financial institutions.
: > b)Freight equalization.
: > c)Concentration of Industry in Western Region through use of licensing.
: > d)Neglect of infrastructure in Eastern region (and Calcutta).
: >
: I really don't think it is a good idea to
: 1. invest
: 2. Promote financial institutions
: 3. Develop infrastructure
: in a place where a bankrupt ideology instills the public to
: burn the drilling machines in the name of "power to the people".
: Naga
: --
: Disclaimer: My views only.
Dear Mr.Nagasimha Iyenger,
On an earlier occassion (on 12 April, 1996) you had written the following:
QUOTE STARTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nagasimha Iyengar (na...@jpmorgan.com) wrote:
: How ridiculous can one get!!
: When will you commies learn that the main reasons why some parts of
India have progressed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: industrially as opposed to some others is:
: - Logistics (ports, railroads...)
: - Educational level of localites
: - Local Government's propensity towards business
: - LOCALITES' ATTITUDES TOWARDS INDUSTRIALISATION AND PRIVATE BUSINESSMEN
: Seems like Jyoti Basu has understood this finally, but you have'nt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE ENDS
~~~~~~~~~~~
The name of the thread was "Highlights of the BJP's Election Manifesto".
You see OF-BJP had posted the BJP Manifesto and I had criticised the
manifesto. At some point of my criticism I had said that coming of BJP to
power would mean continuation of coloni al rule over Eastern India. You
had then come up with your comments. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT I HAD
WRITTEN A DETAILED ARTICLE GIVING ALL THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF MY CLAIM
THAT EASTERN INDIA WAS COLONIALLY EXPLOITED BY THE WESTERN INDIAN
CAPITALIST CLIQUE. A lively discussion ensued and I (and other netters)
had occassion to expound on our views. HOWEVER, THE INTERESTING POINT IS
THAT YOU YOURSELF DID NOT TAKE PART IN THAT DISCUSSION. Therefore, your
current observation is most curious. I have thoug ht over the reasons why
you could essentially repeat the same propaganda after our earlier
discussion which was triggered by your post containing the same
propaganda. I could find the following CHARITABLE explanations:
a)Your server on around April 1996 had packed up.
b)You had been ill during that period.
c)You had me kill-filed earlier.
d) You had been out of station.
e) You are a different Nagasimha Iyenger (after all your e-mail addresses
are different)
Please note that the above are CHARITABLE explanations. Do let us know
which of the above are true? However, in case your response does not
contain an explanation of your absence from the earlier thread, then I
shall be forced to accept an UNCHARITABLE ex planation and henceforth
disregard your posts. For your information I am attaching(after minor
editing) what I wrote in the earlier debate. I have also included some
additional material for the sake of completeness.
---
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
MY EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT EASTERN INDIA WAS SUBJECT OF A
COLONIAL STYLE EXPLOITATION SINCE 1947.
Coming back to the point of economic exploitation of Eastern India by
Central Govt, let me provide you with a thumbnail sketch of how it was done.
1. In 1947, the Eastern Region was the most industrially developed
section. The raw materials for the engineering industry are in the
Eastern Region. This locational advantage was nullified by freight
equalisation policy.
2. After independence six All India financial institutions were set up.
These are IDBI, ICICI, IFCI, UTI, LIC and GIC. The lion's share of
industrial finance in India comes from these bodies. They also wield
tremendous powers in the Board rooms of corporations (remember the
takeover battle that occurred between Escorts and Swaraj Paul- LIC
nominee played a crucial role in this battle). IFCI was headquartered in
Delhi and the rest of them were headquartered in Bombay. Do remember,
that when these were set up, Calcutta and not Bombay was the Industrial
Capital.
3.Have you heard of Industrial Developmnet and Re-organisation Act? Under
it (inter alia) a licence was required for setting up most industries.
This licence was issued by Central Govt. The ostensible purpose of this
act was to have a balanced development of industrial growth all over
India. Now, look around and check for yourself whether you see a balanced
industrial growth all over India. By a judicious applications of the
licensing provisions industrial base has been shifted out of Eastern
India to Western India.
Let me illustrate with the following case study of how these policies were
used to discriminate against West Bengal. The full case study is
reproduced in "The Agony of West Bengal - A Study in Union State
Relations" by Ranajit Roy, 3Edition, New Age Publishers Private Limited,
Calcutta, 1973. I quote only a part.
"Phillips' application for manufacture of Glow Switches in Calcutta was
rejected by Government of India, vide their letter ref.7(7)66-LEEI of
3.6.1967, on the ground that the item can appropriately be manufactured
in the small scale sector. The same item was however subsequently
licensed to Phillips at Maharashtra and the Licensing committee
recommended expansion of manufacture of Glow Switches at Kalwa to 5
million pcs. per annum at a meeting held on 8.2.1971."
This book by Ranajit Roy also details the discrimination against the
Bengalis in great detail.
4. A mention must here be made of the role of Bidhan Roy, the first chief
minister of West Bengal. Often it is mentioned that Bidhan Roy got
Durgapur and Kalyani for West Bengal. It is also mentioned that "commies"
are responsible for undoing all the good work done by Bidhan Roy. Well, in this
connection I would recommend interested netters to read "Bengal Divided"
by Joya Chatterjee. In this book she has described how Bidhan Roy was
foisted upon Bengal Congress by the All India Congress Committee in order
to thwart the rise of Sarat and Subhas Bose. Bidhan Roy's role, with all
the clarity of hindsight, can only be characterised as the role of a
stooge who sold the interest of the Bengalis to the Central Leadership.
Durgapur and Kalyani and Salt Lake were nothing more than show pieces
that he got for camouflaging his sell out.
Who benefited out of the Central Policies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Indian Capitalist Class. The industry in Eastern India was by and
large controlled by British Capital and that in the Western India was by
and large controlled by Indian Capital. The industrial policies after
independence was geared towards meeting the need of this western Indian
Capitalist Class. Essentially the problem was created because power went
from the British to the trding class who modified and formulated policies
to suit their own class interest. In the issue of the Economist [January
21, 1995] you will find a graph which plots India's share of merchandised
exports to World Trade from 1950 onwards. It is a declining curve. A
protected market was created and rent extracted. Let me quote from Milton
and Rose Friedman
"We shall not soon forget the tongue-lashing one of us received
from a prominent, highly successful and extremely literate Indian
entrepreneur-physically the very model of the Marxist caricature of an
obese capitalist-in reaction to remarks that he correctly interpreted as
criticism of India's detailed central planning. He informed us in no
uncertain terms that the government of a country as poor as India simply
had to control imports, domestic production, and the allocation of
investment-and by implication grant him the special privileges in all
these areas that are the source of his own affluence-in order to assure
that social priorities override the selfish demand of individuals."
[Source: "Free to Choose-A Personal Statement" by Milton and Rose Friedman,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1980, pp54]
Recently Biju Mathew has provided a very readable analysis in a post in
alt.indian.progressive. Let me quote fro Biju Mathew's post.
EXCERPT FROM BIJU MATHEW"S POST STARTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <4k6de1$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Borders Macintosh 2 <mac2-b...@aloha.net> wrote:
>In 1947 india became independent and adopted socialism (big government)
>as her economic policy. Socialism is defined as govt.hospitals,
>govt.radio service, govt.television service, govt. bus, govt. banks,
>govt. telephone service, govt. electricity, govt. insurance, govt.
>factories, govt.retail stores, govt.wholesalers, etc. etc. ( Capitalism
>by contrast prefers the above services to be done by the private sector)
>Thus India by the 1970's and 1980's had one of the largest government
>sectors in the whole world and consequently too small a private sector.
>
Fascinating definition of Socialism I must say!! By virtue of this
definition all of Western Europe is also socialist - govt. electricity,
govt. televison and radio, gov. hospitals etc etc...
Such modes of defining an economy "away" simplistically as either socialist
or capitalist lies at the base of some of the unfortunate analysis that
dominates the nets - thanx to extremely simplistic understanding of
how economies operate - pop econmics maybe the word to use. The better
definitions would be ones that ask the more complex questions
of any economy:
1. What is/was objective of the State vis a vis the political economy?
2. What classes or groups of people really constitute the State?
3. Who benefitted fromthe policies of the State?
If we ask any of the above questions of the Indian State and political
economy the answers are quite obvious - What we saw in India was what many
economists would call a version of "state capitalism" where the State
worked "overtime" to shield national capital - the Birlas and the Tatas
etc.. who in 1947 were in no position to take on the world market. The
state invested in infrastructure and so called "welfare" and left a
significant segment of the economy that did not have the same level of
capital intensive investment requirements in the hands of private capital.
Thus the Birlas and the Tatas (and I use Birlas and Tatas as short hand
for desi national capitalists) grabbed quotas in productive sectors and
sat on them and used what they needed. The State thus worked primarily to
shore up national capital. Now that some of the national capital feels
that they can indeed take on the world economy, that they have the muscle
to do so, they have been pressurizing the Indian State to "free" up...
the current trend in eco. liberalization is a product of such pressure
brought upon by Indian capital who have always had significant say
(not complete) in how the Indian economy was shaped.
Biju
EXCERPT FROM BIJU MATHEW'S POST ENDS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IN RESPONSE TO MY POST A DEBATE ENSUED AND I HAD TO FACE A NUMBER OF
COUNTER -ARGUMENTS. MY RESPONSES TO THOSE COUNTER ARGUMENTS WAS AS BELOW:
Counter Argument # 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: But then the rise of Left in Bengal did create a lot of problem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: for the bourgeoise. (Marwaris and all those blood-suckers). How
: could they go there. Still further, I will not want to set up a
: factory in a land, which has institutionalized labor-raj in the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: name of egalitarianism.
My response
~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly the left front came to power in 1977. If you would
like to count the United Front period then the first time communists
occupied position of power in West Bengal was 1969. The institutional
discrimination had by that time done the damage. It is of course
convenient to blame the communists and everybody with a left of center
view point and pretend that all these people are Pol Pot. The fact
remains that blaming the left for the de-industrialisation of Bengal is
putting the cart before the horse. The left attained power much after the
discriminatory policies were in operation for at least two decades.
Secondly, I have some more news for you. Contrary to popular impressions
the left front govt. also looks after the interest of the capitalists in
preference to the interest of the labour. The quantum of provident fund
default in West bengal is very high. Sometime in 1992-1994, the West
Bengal Govt. decided to take some token action as a face saving measure
in the face of striding criticism about the provident fund default. It
arrested couple of industrialists. One of the chambers of Commerce in
Calcutta passed a resolution saying that the industrialists should not be
arrested as it would hamper the industrialisation process. The chamber of
Commerce had nothing to say about the provident fund defaults. So much
for our private sector. The pro-management attitude of the Left Front was
also evident in its handling of the Kanoria Jute Mill case.
Thirdly, I have seen sick industries, I have also read about out of
workers committing suicide, I am yet to see a sick industrialist whose
lifestyle has ever been slightly affected by sickness. Prof.Onkar Goswami
of ISI Delhi has researched sickness. He opined that the scam in sick
industries is bigger than the securities market scam.
Counter Argument # 2 and my response
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This class of arguments typically goes like this-well if Bengalis are
exploited then they deserve it, for they should have looked after their
interests. Also what did the Bengali bureaucrats/politicians/economists do
to prevent that exploitation? This cla ss of arguments is known as blaming
the victim. You just have to ask the victim why he was victimised and not
another person. Voila! You have shifted the blame on the victim. To get
the full flavour of this argument in the current context and my responses
I have reproduced the following responses from the earlier debate.
Following the net convention, the comments of the other netter are
preceded by ":" sign.
: The Central Govt. does not come out of the blue moon.
: There are 40 odd MP's in Lok Sabha. If they cannot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: make there presence felt in LS, what will. Also, a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is known as blaming the victim. The 40 odd MPs as you mentioned
belonged mostly to congress for a long time (till the left front
established their political hold over WB). So,they had to follow the
party dictat. Now, you might argue that they could have resigned if they
felt bad. Firstly I see no rason to assume that they were less bothered
about their own power and privileges than most other people. Secondly,
surely their failure to address the concern of the people was partly
responsible for the greater political hold of Left over WB. [In a similar
scenario, Congress is now getting more seats in WB as people express
their anger at the corruption within left front].
Also to extend your argument, tomorrow if a con-artist cheats you then
you should be prosecuted and not the con-artist:)
: large segment of Indian babus (IAS etc.) were Bengalis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: atleast till 1970's. Why could'nt they lobby in favor
: of Bengal.
Yet another instance of blaming the victim. What makes you think that the
IAS and other Central Govt. Officers do not kow tow to the powers that
be? Do you mean to say that the pervasive corruption in Indian Government
happens inspite of the honesty of the IAS. [This statement is made in a
statistical sense. Of course there are some IAS and other Govt. employees
who are honest.]
Orissa and Bihar also sends large number of entrants into the Class I
govt.servents. Has it developed Orissa and Bihar?
I have given my arguments for concluding that Eastern India was
systematically discriminated against. You have not countered any of the
points.
: In a democratic setup, it is up to the people's reps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: to argue for the devp. of their regions. And WB has
: had a sizeable representation.
Laloo Prasad Yadav recently argued that Hawala tainted persons should not
be barred from holding ministerial position since after all they have been
cleared by the "peoples court". This is very similar to your argument. The
systemic set up led to systematic exploitation of the Eastern Region. To
say that it was upto the elected representatives to prevent that (i.e. the
exploitation) is a normative statement. Obviously that prevention did not
happen. It does not follow that systematic exploitation did not take
place. Can I say that since it is the duty of the elected
representatives of India, not to be corrupt, therefore there is no
corruption among our politicians?
: But, what made them control the setup in Delhi. What is
: the reason that so much of software growth is seen in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Bangalore in the present decade. Surely enuf, the Bengali
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above is a non-sequiter in the present discussion. However, one factor
that played a great role in Bangalore's development is the concentration
of public sector units in Bangalore. When so much money was pumped in the
Bangalore-Hosur region, the infrastructural facilities in these places
improved too. And pray who channelised the public sector factories to
Bangalore? T.T.Krishnamachari (if my memory serves me right, I don't have
references available right now-knowledgeable readers may correct me)-the
same person who introduced freight equalization.
: How does HQ's of these bodies, help industrialisation. As far as
: I can see, all the matters reg. loans, etc. are done at regional
: HQ's. And Calcutaa certainly figures strongly in the operations
: of these orgs. How is it, that Gujarat could develop more even
: when the HQ of these orgs. are in Maharashtra.
The point is that you have to view the locationing of these institutions
in conjunction with other evidences like freight equalization, industrial
licencing etc. These institutions control the lions share of industrial
financing in India. At the time they were set up, Calcutta, not Bombay,
was the Industrial capital of India. Remember in those days telecom
facilities were not as advanced as it is today. Therefore, the financing
center should have stayed close to the industrial center. Instead the
financial power was concentrated in Bombay and other policy instruments
were used to shift Industry out of Eastern region.
About Gujrat developing inspite of HQs being in maharashtra, do notice
that Gujrat is in the Western Region. My arguments was about regional
level exploitation. The policies were tilted in favour of the West and
the South to some extent.
Would you care to comment about the case study that I had quoted in my
original post (Phillips factory location)?
: I agree that this is true. But most of our economist have
: had a strong Bengali presence. In planning commission to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: all levels. Yet, if they could not advocate for Bengal,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: then whom should I blame.
You are coming across as a racist if you are advocating the above as an
argument that the Eastern Region was not discriminated. Let me ask you a
hypothetical question. Would it be all right if tomorrow a Bengali leader
whips up public sentiment on the issue of Central discrimination and ask
for secession from India? Your argument is the kind of stonewaling that
makes me wish that Bengal should have been independent.
: I do agree that devp. should be decentralized and more diverse.
: But then, who have developed Indian policies, in general till
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 1970's or so. Bengalis, Maharashtians, and Tamils. So, why
: should Bengal crib about not getting its due share.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first President of India, Rajendra Prasad was a Bihari. That did not
help in developing Bihar. If all you can marshall by way of argument is
"well you should have looked out and not be exploited", then
a) it is brazen.
b) it is also a left handed admission of the exploitation.
: Once again, why did Bengalis permit that. At the PCCI level,
: they could have kicked out B.C. Roy. Or is it that Jaya is
: politically motivated.
Read Joya Chatterjee's book to understand how Bidhan Roy was catapulted
to power in Bengal Congress. The PCCI was appointed adhoc. You can see
the precursor to the Congress culture of denial of internal democracy.
Your question as to why did the bengalis permitted that, is another
instance of the brazenness. Extending the same argument we can say that
since Sukh Ram was elected to parliament therefore he is not guilty of
the wheeling dealing that went on in the telecomunnication tendering.
: Once again, how does movement of all these headquarters
: constitute a threat to WB's economy. I do not comment on
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concentration of industrial finance in Western Region was an important
step towards development of West at the expense of the East. You see, the
locational advantage was destroyed by freight equalisation, the existing
industry was allowed to be run down by rent seekers, new industries were
diverted by licensing (do keep in mind that licensing was introduced to
"ensure balanced regional development") and financial power was
concentrated in the West to buttress these discriminatory policies.
: As regards licensing, and neglect of infrastructure, these
: have been all India problems. Also, if WB lagged behind
: Maharashtra, why do you not the buy the argument, that one
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: reason for that was that the political and administrative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: reps. failed to do a sufficient advocacy to ensure that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: WB recd. its due share. That can be a good argument too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tell me, as constituent units of India can we legitimately expect fair
treatment or not? You pretend that it was rather a question of raising
issues in Parliament and that would have eliminated the discrimination.
Bofors have been debated in Parliament and still we do not know the
culprits. Structure of power is a complicated matter and not as simple as
you suggest. For a concrete example, look at the setting up of two
railway workshops in Punjab. This was done to ameliorate hurt feelings of
sikh. Now, would you like me to believe that all impartial analysis went
on behind the setting up of these? Take the case of Haldia Petrochemical.
Rajiv gandhi gave the permission with lot of funfare during an election
campaign after dragging the decision for years. Simultaneously the
financial institutions also gave their nod to the project even though
earlier they had maintained that the project was not viable!. How can the
analysis change so suddenly? I have already quoted Milton Friedman on his
experiences with an Indian Businessman on the question of Govt. Control.
The malaise was due to centralisation of power and the remedy lies in
undoing it.
: So. You tangentially do accept that folks from WB did not do
: sufficient amount of lobbying. Afterall, what else is the role
: of an MP in Lok Sabha, besides creating noise. As far as the
: noise generating capacity is concerned, I have seen all kinds
: of MP's excel in it. But when it comes to advocacy of their
: own regions, folks from Orissa, Bihar, E. UP, NE, Assam, and
: WB failed in relative terms. So, I would first put the blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: on my own rep. before raising a finger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have a very simplistic view of the power structure in India. Your
statement that "folks from Orissa ..... failed in relative terms" is a
tautology because the lack of development of these regions is used to
imply that the MPs from these places have never tried. This is simply not
true. Politicians from these regions have spoken out against the neglect
of center. Biju Patnaik of Orissa once warned that if the discrimination
continues then India will be Balkanised. Laloo Yadav of Bihar has spoken
publicly against the manner his state is discriminated against. The Assam
agitation (basically chauvinistic in character) spoke about the
discrimination when they were not shouting about "foreigners". The left
from West Bengal have been talking about the discrimination for years.
Now you say that well if the central govt. did not listen to the
grievances of these states then it means that these state leaders have
been ineffective! This is a tautology. If this continues any further then
this will give rise to secessionism.
: The present structure of India, need not imply that Center
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: is all powerful, and all responsible. It shares a part of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read the Constitution of India. We have concentrated power in the hands
of the center. In the matter of economics and industrial policy, I have
already given enough instances of what this centralisation has done and
for whose benefit.
Counter Argument # 3 and My Response
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This argument was not raised in the earlier debate, but I include it here
for the sake of completeness. This argument is the argument of
"Work-ethics". The argument goes like this- Bengalis lack work ethics.
They don't want to work. They like poetry more than anything else. They
raise their demands and go on strike because they don't want to work.
Others don't lack "work-ethics" and thats why they prosper. I have heard
this argument while working in India. Basically this is the same as
blaming the victim. However, some detailed examination of "Work-ethic" is
called for.
More excerpts from an earlier and different thread.
Let us take the question of Work Ethic first. There are definitional
problems with this term. At a later point I shall discuss the definition
provided by you and its implications and short comings. For the time
being let us take this concept of "Work Ethic" to be a primitive i.e. to
be a concept which is well understood.
Firstly suppose we accept that it is really bad work ethic that is
responsible for the decline of industry in WB. You would recall that I
had referred to discrimination against Eastern India. If the
Institutional structure in India is such that meritocracy prevails then
the bleak Industrial scene in Eastern India must mean that ALL THE people
in Eastern India have been lazy and lacking in Work Ethic. This include
apart from Bengalis-Biharis, Oriyas, Assamese and the numerous ethnic
groups in Eastern India. I find such an assumption far fetched.
Secondly, let us suppose that the states which have greatest industrial
concentration has done well because of great work ethic. I think the
following quotation should expose the hollowness of this argument.
"According to G.M.Khairnar, formerly Bombay's municipal
commissioner, three-quarters of its sweepers work for no more than three
hours a day. Sometimes they do not turn up at all; or they subcontract
their jobs, for which they get 2000 rupees a month, for 10-20 rupees a
day. The law stops them from being sacked. The contractors who run some
of the rubbish collection lorries are also involved in various scams..."
[source:The Economist, January 21 1995 page 23 of India Survey]
Thirdly, let us look at the statistics of sick industries. A study was
conducted by RBI on the causes of sickness. This study was conducted in
the early eighties. The causes for sickness in Industry was as below:
Mismanagement 52%
Faulty Planning 14%
Market Recession 23%
Input Shortage Like
Raw Material and Power 9%
Labour Trouble 2%
[Soure:Professional' Role in Sick Companies by Delep Goswami, Financial
Express March 16, 1988]
These are All India Figuers. I don't have seperate figures for West
Bengal. But it seems reasonable to suppose that they will be similar to
the All India Figure. Notice the share of labour and compare it with the
popular propaganda.
So much for work ethic. Essentially the problem was created because power
went from the British to the trding class who modified and formulated
policies to suit their own class interest. In the issue of the Economist
referred above you will find a graph which plots India's share of
merchandised exports to World Trade from 1950 onwards. It is a declining
curve. A protected market was created and rent extracted.
A few word about the definitional issues of "Work-ethic"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I posted the following:
I have studied management formally ( i.e. did an MBA). I have also taught
management in some MBA program for some time. Throughout this academic
pursuit I have tried to find a definition of the term "Work Ethic/Work
Culture" which will convey something that the term "motivation" does not.
Motivation is an old concept in management. If you find a person who does
not like what he/she is doing then you call that person to be Not
Motivated. How does the term Work Ethic differ in concept? Is it a new
term for the same old concept of motivation? I have not found an answer.
In the Indian context I believe that the popular use of the term started
as partC of the devious propaganda of Bengal not having Industry
because Bengali's don't have work culture. It does not explain how the
same
In response another netter posted the following:
: We I shall try. To me work culture is the notion that to get
: paid, one is expexted to work This is opposed to the typical bengali
: notion that one only works if one is not smart enough to give fa(n)ki.
: Motivation is an extra, a bonus, if you will. I may or may not have
: motivation, but if I am getting paid to do something, I should jolly
: well do it. IfI am also motovated by whatever, so much the better.
In response to the above I posted the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let us discuss your definition of work culture. Suppose you find that you
have a job which gives you a salary, from which you cannot be sacked and
where good performance will not be recognised, then what will you do. The
economic theory says that rationally in this case you will stop exerting
yourself in your job. Theory of Motivation recognises that a salary is
never sufficient to ensure that jobs gets done. There is also the
question of control (to ensure that jobs get done), punishment (as a
deterrent against undesirable behaviour) and reward (to ensure that good
performances is reinforced). Motivation unlike your construct is never a
bonus or an extra. Or the jobs never get done. I have earlier provided
counter example of rent seeking behaviour on the part of Bombay Sweepers.
Let me provide another example. Our ministers and bureaucrats are not
supposed to take bribes. Yet it is widely believed that they do. Should
not they have been content with their salary? By your definition they do
not have work ethic. Economists language will characterise this as rent
seeking behaviour.
Counter Argument #4 and my response:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This argument can be labelled as "Its all Nehru's fault". The argument
goes like this-Nehru was motivated by leftists to impose socialism in
India and did not allow our Industrialists the full play of their
entrpreneurial skills and dampened their innovation and drive.
In actual fact Nehru and Congress Party was hand in gloves with the Indian
Capitalist/trading class. Industrialists even praised the "Russian
experiment" Here's a very revealing history from Sumit Sarkar.["Modern
India-1885-1947" by Sumit Sarkar [Macmillan, India, 1943]]
"Yet war and famine also meant super-profits for some, and as in 1914-18,
a major step forward for the Indian bourgeoisie...... The really
fantanstic increase was not in production but in profits, particularly
speculative gains through profiteering iin fo od, share-market operations
and the black market in general. The Indian bourgeoise was a special kind
of bourgeoise, characterized by 'ravening greed' and a mania for
speculation rather than initiative or efficiency in developing
production......The 'Bombay Plan' of January 1944 drawn up by India's
leading businessman (including J.R.D.Tata, G.D.Birla, P.Thakurdas, Shri
Ram and Kasturbhai Lalbhai) visualized a doubling of per capita national
income in fifteen years through quick development of basic indust ries.
While little more than a statement of objectives and vague on the
questions of distribution and state control, the 'Bombay Plan' was
prepared to accept a 'temporary eclipse' in 'freedom of enterprise' in the
interests of development, and made a numb er of surprisingly warm
references even to the 'Russian experiment'. To quote Kosambi's
contemporary analysis again, the bourgeoise 'needs Nehru's leadership',
just as in the previous periods of mass struggle it has been intelligent
enough to 'to exploit for its own purposes whatever is profitable in the
Mahatma's teachings and to reduce all dangerous enunciations to negative
philosophical points.'
As a class which had never had it so good amidst unprecedented mass
misery, the bourgeoise was naturally averse to any further round of
popular struggle which could have unmanageably radical consequences and
its formidable influence was cast firmly on the side of a negotiated
comproomise settlement after 1945. The events of 1945-47, however,
tragically proved that in the context of India the price of a negotiated
'transfer of power' was an encouragement of divisive forces culminating in
Partiton. A 'blood less' winning of independence would be acompanied by an
unimaginably bloody communal carnage" [pp 406-408]
--
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya