Home

Ssc  SOCIAL STUDY CIRCLE   di

                                                           (ESTD 1982) 

                                 dalitindia

www.dalitindia.com                                           ssc@dalitindia.com

***********************************************************************

 

 

October 13, 2002

 

A View from the Weaker Sections

Social infrastructure and planning

 

Amidst an impressive galaxy of top intellectuals and giant professionals, actively engaged in the progress of national planning, Let us think by a rank of outsider. How does planning appear to the weaker sections? What do they think of the planners? What do they look forward to? What recommendations do they have to make? Today, no one in the country can remain unconcerned with national planning - Five Year Plans and Annual Plans.

Who are the weaker sections? This is a question that is repeatedly being raised by many. This question appears to arise out of the national dilemma of identifying them. In fact, a suggestion for introducing an economic criterion was made in the Approach to the Seventh Five Year Plan 1985-90, brought out by the Planning Commission and approved by the National Development Council and the Government.

This caused a lot of controversy and the Government has willy-nilly promised in the Parliament to drop the same. Hence, this may be dropped for the present. These academic exercises and controversies apart, the weaker sections are all those classes and groups who are today in search of an identity, security, and basic amenities of life. They are the powerless and resource less people and, therefore, victims of oppression and exploitation.

One may take different views about planning. One may blindly praise it. Another may condemn it outright. A third view could be make a reasonable and honest attempt to view it objectively.

As the weaker sections see it, our society is oppressive, exploitative, unfair and often criminally unjust. It is a feudal society, hopelessly divided into small water-tight compartments. This is more so ion the rural areas in many parts of the country where the writ of the Government apparently does not reach and the wishes of the feudal lords are the last word and the rule of the day.

We call ourselves a developing nation. For the members of the weaker sections 'developing' is another name for exploitation. The majority of the people in our society are illiterates and suffering from malnutrition, hunger and medical help. They lack the basic amenities like food, clothing, and safe drinking water. Members of the weaker sections feel that they are being kept under control, that they are being silenced through ingenious means of threat and religious explanations, that they are being cheated, suppressed and kept away from having share in the resources of the country and from planning for their own future. Sooner or later they will wake up to realise that their problems have become acute and sufferings unbearable, and that the contrast between them and the 'elite' has grown so wide choose a peaceful or a violent alternative would depend on what the planners decide today.

Like many other countries, we too claim that we are a free and democratic country where power is drawn from and sovereignty rests with the people. But after about forty years of the 'democratic' experiment, poor people are still not able to vote and the gap between the rich and the poor has been becoming wider and wider. Promises and forecasts are made year after year and at the beginning of every Five Year Plan and before every election, but the day of deliverance has kept on shifting like a mirage and going further and further away with the passage of time limits are being repeated with marginal changes. Where is the flaw? It is not that we have achieved nothing. The Nation has developed. It had taken significant steps in many areas. It can claim to be a industrial giant with the second largest manpower, a large body of trained scientific and technical personnel, largest professional standing army, and a lot of rich national resources. But at the same time, the gap between the rich and the poor has also been widening.

The conflict between the rich and the poor, especially in rural areas is getting sharper. The weakest of the weak like the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are often violently suppressed. The numbers of atrocities committed against them are increasing. The police take little notice of these incidents and often refuse to record them, both out of prejudice and out of a desire to keep the umber of recorded offences.

The reasons for all this are not far to seek. Basically, our society has been unjust and unfair towards the poor. It has shown a great tolerance and indifference to the sufferings and miserable conditions of the poor and the weak. It has shown a cruel sense of intolerance against the rights and liberties of the weaker sections. There are many numbers of examples. It suffices to say that the Indian society and intellectuals have a tradition of Egalivan. Political power, planning, administration, the law and order machinery and academic institutions - are all being controlled by few, in spite of a democratic framework and eight general elections during the last 40 years of our experience as a politically free, independent Nation. Our philosophers and intellectuals have been traditionally suffering from the problem of split personality. They have been generally practising double standards throughout their life. The most important effect of this is that while they can do wonderful works - reasoning, assessment, analysis and theorising - when it comes to drawing up conclusions and, most important of all, putting forward remedial suggestions and implementing them, they withdrew themselves into their shells - they suddenly stop short, and become irrational and conservative. Their prejudices and reactionary attitudes, it appears, suddenly surface. Though with considerable efforts on their part, they manage not to show them off or spell them out openly, one can still feel it in their intellectual pursuits to their logical ends. This is our biggest intellectual dilemma today, standing in the way of any social breakthrough. This is likely the doctors who and are willing to examine but prepared to diagnose, or who can diagnose all right but are not willing to treat the sickness. No one in power, including those responsible for planning, appears to be free from these. These naturally affect the effectiveness of our politicians, bureaucrats and other important people.

Under these circumstances how can one expect that the lot of the poor will improve? This is something, which could never happen revolutionary changes, in the administration, in the political scene and in the economic front. We can have an administration and economic system that truly reflects the stratification of society. They reflect the national tradition to sustain the relative pre-eminent positions and privileges of a few, and keeping them as islands of prosperity, with relative superiority in areas of influence and control. The thinking and actions of the entire Civil Services are basically feudal in character. They waste much of their time, skills and energy instead of utilising them for the welfare of the people. They frequently and constantly indulge in inter-service rivalries, politicking and consolidating their respective positions and gains. Thus the administration is not committed. Co-operation and team spirit appear to be lacking everywhere. Basically it is the world of a minority elite whose basic aim is to sustain themselves and preserve their own interests and elitist values. Anything that do not fit into this and serve the elitist interest is either run down or rejected. In such a framework it is hard to believe that any development can take place for the weaker sections.

In a democratic form of government subject to pulls and pressures, powerful pressure groups of large land-owning classes, business communities, industrial houses and big money groups constantly exercise their influence over the government, political executives, the bureaucracy, the party in power or likely to be in power at a future date, or has the potential to challenge and checkmate the party in power. The weaker sections remaining weak, poor, suffering from illiteracy, and every other conceivable drawback will on the government administration and executive machinery or the party in power. Even their own leaders fail them very often - since they are very susceptible to pressures and influences of both the vested interests and the government. The weaker sections suffer from a double disadvantage - growing pressure from vested interests and the lack of resources and bargaining power for themselves.

 

Some enlightened and progressive individuals and sections have been showing their concern for the plight of the weaker sections. But here again the attitude often remains feudal and paternalistic. Also, these progressive, national bourgeoisie are, and could be only very few in number. And, these few individuals here and there themselves cannot escape the pressures from the vested interests and are handicapped at the same time, by lack of pressure from the weaker sections.

 

 

*******************************