C'da,

That was one of the best spins I have heard all year. Inspite of the
fact that you do acknowledge that there could be negative effects of
bondhos, you seem to say that such numbers don't matter much since
(if)

(a) its a loss to to State exchequer (as they don't produce anyway)
(b) to the Center (well - thats a good thing, since thats one more
strike against the Center ie. more bondhos the merrier, as its the
Center that hurts in the end).

(just because we don't want to render unto Caesar, it surely doesn't
mean we would need to throttle ourselves first - a fast track to
self-destruction?) :)

The State Govt. inept as you may think it is, does provide some
essential services to the common man.
Whether its releasing funds for retired teachers or releasing
fertilizers or seeds for the farmer, or pensions, or salaries (a lot
of which does go to to the lower strata) are all affected.

The theory that bondhos will affect the receipts to the Center is also
flawed. The Center (right or wrong) receives a percentage of revenues
from the State. So, if the State's receipts are reduced, yes the
Center would also see a reduction, but the State will now have to
contend with a smaller portion too.

Then there is another crucial factor: When receipts to the Center are
reduced, it tells the Center some particular industry (Tea/plywood) is
not doing that great, investments to such industries from the Center
could be reduced.

Cost of bondhos is obviously in loss of productivity. We all know the
effects of that.

There are some hidden costs too: like discouraging private investment
is a state plauged by bondhos every second day. That could lead to
lower employment rates in that sector.

The fact is bondhos affect the state/people all around. Rs. 41 crores
per day may have been pulled from some hat (if thats what you want to
believe).

Rest assured, the costs must be substantial. Prohibitive enough for
the people and intellectuals to recognize them. Prohibitive enough for
intellectuals to discourage bondhs and suggest other ways for people
to express grievances in ways OTHER than bandhs. And prohibitive
enough for intellectuals NOT to encourage bondhos on one pretext or
another.

--Ram




On 9/6/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am an economically challenged person. Don't understand the meaning
> of the numbers being cited. It does not matter about the magnitudes,
> the quantities, and the accuracy of the stats. But what in essence
> does it mean, when someone cites X-crores being lost in Y number of
> Bondhos and thus Assam is set beck by Z number of years?
> 
>        ** Does it mean that the 'sorkar' lost revenue? If so, which
>        sorkar, Assam or Central?
> 
>        ** Does it mean that amount of money has evaporated or does it mean
>        that exchange of goods and services estimated to be worth that much
>        did not take place?
> 
>        ** Does it mean productivity amounting to that much did not take place?
> 
>        ** Does it mean the numbers are a combination of some or all of the
>        above?
> 
> The reasons for my asking are these:
> 
>        I think ( I am not sure obviously), the numbers do not tell us much.
>        They would mean something substantial only when PRODUCTIVITY of goods
>        and services produced is impacted substantially, and when salary
>        and profits are impacted.
> 
>        What is the worth of goods produced in Assam? Not much to begin with.
> 
>        Assam gets peanuts for its oil, paid as royalty for crude. The rest
>        goes to the Center, doesn't it?  The employees get paid anyway.
> 
>        The govt. and the lrgest employer does not produce anything--or
>        almost nothing, anyway. So any value assigned to it would be a fiction.
> 
>        Commerece, exchange of goods in trade may suffer, consumption
>        level may drop on those days of the Bondhos, but will be compensated
>        by increases on the non-Bondho days. Again the employees will get paid
>        anyway.
> 
> 
> Not to suggest here that the Bondhos don't have negative impacts on
> society. They obviously do.
> 
> But those numbers? I think they are mostly an attempt to look
> 'scientific', meaning very little.
> 
> 
> So where am I wrong :-)?
> 
> 
> cm
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>

_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org

Reply via email to