Public concern and private growth By A R Vasavi http://deccanherald.com/Content/Feb182009/editpage20090217119152.asp
The Karnataka Vision document shows concern for the poor but prescribes corporatisation. It is heartening that Karnataka's Planning Board has made the Karnataka: A Vision for Development document (December 2008) available to the public via its website and has solicited reviews and inputs. But, this gesture of democratic planning belies the fact that the actual discussions and decisions as to what kind of 'development' is required for the state, has been made behind closed doors. The fact that the authors of the report are not identified and no consultations have been held with the larger public or with a wider body of scholars and policy makers, indicates this. While the report claims to endorse or build on the human capabilities and freedom approach, and reiterates, the goals flagged by the UNDP, the Millenium Development Goals etc, the sum, substance and underlying orientation is primarily that of enhancing a management oriented approach to corporate development in the state. Seeking to provide a vision for the year 2020, the document is an unusual mix of concern for the disadvantaged and poor while its prescriptions for development seem to be focused on facilitating primarily industrialisation, urbanisation, and corporatisation. Although Karnataka's performance on several human development indicators is poor in comparison with the other southern states, the report does not unpack the reasons for such conditions. For example, the document itself notes the following: only 35 per cent of households all over Karnataka have all the three basic civic facilities of water, electricity and sanitation; the state has a higher proportion of urban poor (32 percent) than the national average; and the proportion of women emerging as workers has doubled over the past decade. Yet, none of the underlying causes for such conditions are explained. The document seconds the DM Nanjundappa Committee report and the persistence of regional disparities in the state and yet no details are available as to why the funds allocated for the development of the north eastern districts (and the formation of an Implementation Committee) have not translated into any significant shifts in the condition of these regions. Linked to this is the glaring absence of any mention of the large scale human and environmental destruction that has been wrought by the mining industry in the Bellary belt. Imitating the infamous Vision 2020 document of Andhra Pradesh, the document prescribes a shifting of the rural agrarian population from the existing 61 per cent of the current total population to that of only 35-40 per cent by the year 2020, thereby privileging an enforced transition from agriculture to urban and service industries. Attendant with this are the other generalised prescriptions for 'integrated water management', 'quality education', 'infrastructure improvement', 'skill training' and the development of a 'knowledge society'. The document expresses concern for the fact that "Karnataka's economic growth is not translating into a commensurate improvement in poverty reduction" (page 11), and yet there is no assessment of the regulatory role of the State, its bureaucracy, and the performance of the range of programmes which could explain the apathetic and deteriorating conditions of the average citizen. The document seems oblivious to the pressing issues of food security and to the functioning of key programmes and policies such as that of the NREGA and the Right to Information. That the Right to Information itself can be seen as a major structural feature that can address the many problems faced in the delivery of social and development programmes seems not to be recognised or respected. What the State Planning Board could have and should undertake is an exercise that can highlight how and why the various programmes and policies for different sectors have failed to be realised. In this the role of the key agencies, the political apparatus, the departments and their functioning need to be scrutinised. While the policies and programmes the document espouses may facilitate the realisation of a vision for a select few, we will have to assess what its impact will be on the larger mass of people. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizens' Action Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/citizens-action-forum?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
