Red flag, so no economic progress

But, we cannot do this because parties like the CPI(M) (Communist Party of India-Marxist) have a vested interest in keeping poverty alive. How else to explain West Bengal’s hideous poverty despite three decades of Marxist rule?

Sitaram Yechury, the CPM’s resident intellectual, wrote an article last week in which he explained the Marxist opposition to economic liberalisation. His first problem is that ‘‘unbridled liberalisation has led to glaring economic inequalities’’. Were they not there before? And, is it not true that there are fewer Indians living below the poverty line (26%) than ever before?

Comrade Yechury believes that economic reforms are ‘‘solely preoccupied with raising corporate profits’’ and not with the welfare of the people. This is almost too stupid a charge to answer but I am going to answer it. What liberalisers like your humble columnist want is for the state to stay away from ‘‘corporate profits’’ and concentrate on its duties to the poor. Instead of running huge public sector companies at huge losses it should spend its resources on building schools, hospitals, roads, low-cost housing, sanitation and all the other things poor Indians are forced to live without.

India’s poverty is scandalous because it is so unnecessary. A country as rich in resources of every kind should be among the richest in the world and if we are not it is because we have followed bad economic policies. The kind Comrade Yechury would have us return to.

He laments ‘‘reduction of government expenditure’’ without admitting that the hated liberalisers are only asking that government learn to spend taxpayers’ money better. If the comrades were sincere in their concern for the poor they would have suggested that the National Advisory Council examine the plethora of poverty alleviation schemes that already exist and see whether they have worked at all. Instead, we have more expensive, grandiose schemes that will go the way of the others because nobody has bothered to understand what went wrong with the ones that went before.

It has been said before in this column and I say it again this week the Marxists have a long history of opposing anything that benefits India. Sonia Gandhi needs to beware of finding herself in the same category. Instead of being so cozy with the comrades she would be doing herself and India a huge favour if she spent more time trying to understand why her handpicked Prime Minister and Finance Minister gave up Marxism for the market.

It is a harsh, uncompassionate place the free market and there is no question that state intervention is required to ensure the welfare of the weakest and the poorest. Now, more than ever this intervention is required. Why is it not happening? Why does the Government of India spend only 2% of its budget on education when little Bangladesh spends 18%? Why does India have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world and the lowest school enrollment? Could it be because state intervention in India has traditionally been of the wrong kind?

Write to tavleensingh@expressindia.com