આઝાદી પછી હિન્દુસ્તાનના છછ દાયકા સુધી કૃષિ ક્ષેત્ર અને ખેડૂતોની સમસ્યાનું સમાધાન કોઇ શોધી શકયા નથી ત્યારે ગુજરાતે આ બધી જ સમસ્યાનું સમાધાન લાવી આપ્યું છે. ર૧મી સદીમાં જમીન અને પાણી, આબોહવા અને પર્યાવરણની સ્થિતિ જોતાં ચીલાચાલુ ખેતી કે પશુપાલન પોષણક્ષમ બનવાના નથી એ હકીકત આધુનિક ખેતી માટે કિસાન શક્તિ-શ્રીમંત, સંપન્ન, પ્રયોગશીલ ખેડૂતો ઉપરાંત નાના-સિમાંત ખેડૂતો અને યુવા કિસાનોનું સશક્તિકરણ કરવાના વિશેષ પ્રયાસો હાથ ધર્યા છે, ગરીબ કિસાન પરિવારો પણ ખેતીમાં અને પશુપાલનમાં પગભર થયા.રાષ્ટ્રનો કૃષિ વિકાસ દર માંડ ૪ ટકાએ પહોંચ્યો છે ત્યારે ગુજરાતે ૧૦ ટકાનો કૃષિ વિકાસ દર હાંસલ કર્યો છે. રાજ્યના જુદા જુદા વિસ્તારોની ભૌગોલિક પરિસ્થિતિને ધ્યાનમાં રાખી કૃષિ, બાગાયત, ડેરી, પશુપાલન ક્ષેત્રે પરિણામલક્ષી કામગીરી હાથ ધરાઇ છે. હવે ભારતના તમામ કૃષિ નિષ્ણાંતો અને અર્થશાસ્ત્રીઓ ગુજરાતના પ્રયોગની પ્રસંશા કરતા અન્ય રાજ્યોને પણ પ્રેરિત કરવા લાગ્યા છે. ગુજરાતના કિસાનોએ ઉમંગભેર ચેતના જગાવી છે.તે બતાવે છે કે ગુજરાતના કિસાનો કૃષિ ક્ષેત્રે પરંપરાગત કૃષિ છોડીને પ્રગતિશીલ બની વૈજ્ઞાનિક ખેતીવાડી અને પશુપાલન અપનાવી સમૃદ્ધિના માર્ગે આગળ વધતા જ રહ્યા છે.
‘‘એક જમાનામાં ઉત્તમ ગણાતી ખેતીની એવી દુર્દશા કે ખેતી એટલે નબળા વર્ગનું કાર્ય બની ગયું પરંતુ ગુજરાતે ગ્રામ સમાજમાં ખેતી માટે એવી સામાજિક ક્રાંતિની ચેતના જગાવી કે આજે ગ્રામ યુવાશક્તિ કૃષિક્ષેત્રે પ્રશિક્ષણ મેળવવા સતત ઉત્સુક છે અને ખેતીને પ્રાથમિકતા આપે છે.’’
છેલ્લા પાંચ વર્ષમાં કૃષિ ઉત્પાદન રૂ. ૯૦૦૦ કરોડથી વધીને રૂ. ૪૮૦૦૦ કરોડ થયું છે એ કૃષિની સિદ્ધિ છે. કૃષિ વૈજ્ઞાનિકોના માર્ગદર્શનને કારણે આદિવાસી ખેડૂતો શાકભાજીની ખેતી કરી આર્થિક ઉપાર્જન મેળવે છે. વલસાડ જિલ્લો કારેલા, દુધી ક્ષેત્રે અગ્રેસર છે. ગ્રીડીંગ વેલ્યુએડિશન થકી ખેડૂતોને વધારે ફાયદો થયો છે.
ખેતી સાથે પશુપાલન પુરક વ્યવસાયે પણ ખેડૂતોને આર્થિક ક્ષેત્રે સદ્ધરતા બક્ષી છે. દક્ષિણ ગુજરાતના સાતેય જિલ્લામાં ખેતી-પશુપાલન ક્ષેત્રે અગ્રેસર છે આગામી
ગુજરાતમા છેલ્લાં એક દાયકામા જે વિકાસ થયો છે તેનાથી ઇઝરાયેલ ખુબ પ્રભાવિત છે. ખેતી અને ડેરી ઉદ્યોગ સિવાય સ્ટુડન્ટ એક્સ્ચેન્જ પ્રોગ્રામ અને સાંસ્કૃતિક અદાન પ્રદાન વિષય પર પણ ઇઝરાયેલ ગંભીરતા પૂર્વક વિચારી રહ્યં છે. ગુજરાતની જેમ જ ઇઝરાયેલમા પણ ડાયમન્ડ ઇન્ડસ્ટ્રીઝ મોટા પાયે વિક્સી છે. જેનાથી યહૂદીઓ અને ગુજરાતીઓ વારંવાર મળતા હોવાથી એક બીજાના ગાઢ પરિચયમા આવ્યા છે.
આગામી ૨૦૧૧ સુધીમાં ગુજરાતનો તમામ ક્ષેત્રે વિકાસ થાય અને પ્રત્યેક નાગરિક એ માટે કટિબધ્ધ થાય એટલું જ નહીં પોતાનું નાનુ મોટુ યોગદાન આપવા સંકલ્પબધ્ધ થાય ત્યારે જ ગુજરાત ખરા અર્થમાં ર્સ્વિણમ ગુજરાત બની રહેશે.
Monday, December 27, 2010
INFOMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR THE COMMEN PEOPLE
Common People is the main toiling part of the population who determines the group character and preserves its customs from one generation to the next. The common people do not include or consider the privileged strata of the population , as well as ruling classes, even if the latter do not formally have privileges. The people generally do not include the government. In Marxism, the people are considered to be the creator of history. By using the word "people", Marx did not gloss over the class differences, but united certain elements, capable of completing the revolution This paper attempts to define the common people of India in terms of levels of consumption and examines their socio-economic profile in different periods of time since the early 1990s with a view to assessing how the economic growth process has impacted on their lives. The findings should worry everyone. Despite high growth, more than three-fourths of Indians are poor and
vulnerable with a level of consumption not more than twice the official poverty line. This proportion of the population which can be categorized as the “common
people” is much higher among certain social groups, especially for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. There is also evidence to suggest that inequality is
widening between the common people and the better-off sections of society. The main findings of this paper shows
Economic growth taken as the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) is highly desirable in this context as it will establish the pre-eminence of the country in the world economy, provide a large market of goods and services, increase investment and technology development from all over the world and allow improvement in income and employment to the people, even though all sections of the the population are not evenly benefited not all regions are benefited evenly in the economy. It could also, with proper policies and facilities ,a substantial and rapid improvement in the living condi- tions, and promotion on the livelihood of the masses whom we consider the common people.
Economic growth alone, however, cannot ensure such an objective unless supplemented by other policies and complimentary measures targeted directly at promoting the welfare of the masses. The trickle-down effect of growth would be often too meager and too distant. Market forces almost invariably promote those who have market power and economic growth powered by them often bypasses the poor and the vulnerable who are the overwhelming majority o our people. Ultimately, the success and failure of all our programmes and polices including those for promoting economic growth, will have to be reckoned in terms of how they have fulfilled this basic objective of improving the welfare of the common people.
(1) to identify the group of people who can be considered the common people – who they are, what their profile is in terms of social groups, what level of consumption and employment they have, and what their endowments are in terms of education, housing, health, etc. In this paper an attempt has been made to define the so-called “common people” – or the “AAM ADAMI”in popular parlance – in terms o levels o consumption and examine their socio-economic profile in the different periods of time since the early 1990s with a view to assessing how the economic growth process has impacted on their lives. In this paper we present and discuss, after dealing with data and methodology, the main findings on the magnitudes and changes in the condition of the poor and vulnerable, whom we call the common people, as well as its links with social groups and their educational attainments. The household characteristics and consumption pattern of the households in different poverty status groups along with some concluding remarks are also included. While our analysis covers the three time points
(2) the time period is 1993-94, 1999-2000,and
2004-2005The years between 1993-94 and 2004-05 were the period of a high rate of economic growth in India. (3) The Indian economy entered a trajectory of high economic growth from 1980 onwards, compared with the previous nearly three decades. The period 1950-80 disparagingly reffered to as the years of “Hindu” rate of growth had an average rate of growth of 3.56 per cent or the entire period. The growth rate decreased from 3.91 in the 1950s to 3.70 percent in the 1960s and 3.08 per cent between 1970 and 1980. Although the so-called “Hindu” rate of growth from 1950 to 1980 was three times what we would like to call the “Colonial” rate of growth of the previous 30 years, the fact remains that during the first 30 years after India’s independence, the improvement in the per capita income was hardly between 1 and 1.95 per cent due to an increasing population growth that resulted from a decline in mortality. That is to say progress made on two fronts
– aggregate economic growth
- and reduction in mortality
As the growth rate picked up from 1980 onwards, there was a marked acceleration in the growth of per capita income contributed by the double blessing of increasing the growth rate and reducing the population growth. The aggregate economic growth rate accelerated
Further in the more recent period.1 While the growth performance in recent years has been spectacular, it is equally important to assess whether it has fully reflected in thje welfare the common people so as to allow us to evaluate the success of our growth performance in terms of the basic objective of improving the welfare of the vast masses of the people. This objective was explicitly set out in the policy of inclusive growth or increasing the welfare of the common people, of the United Progressive Alliance government, in contrast with the campaign about a “Shining India”, in 2004.
METHODOLOGY –
In order to evaluate the success OF our growth PERFORMANCE in terms of welfare of characteristics captured by the per capita consumption expenditure of our people, there are the datas worked on the sets available from the surveys of National Sample Survey organisations (NSSO) on employment-unemployment and consumption expenditure. The classification of each sample household as accordingly belonging to the “extremely poor”, “poor”, “marginal”, “vulnerable”, “middle income” and “high income” groups i the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) o their households was below or above a specied multiple o the poverty line (PL).
Though there is considerable criticism about the determination o the poverty line in India, which systematically underestimates poverty and related deprivation, we have chosen not to engage in that debate here to avoid being defected rom the main thrust o our study. Our aim here is to construct a simple taxonomy and
identiy groups o people with signicant dier- ences in average level o consumption. The crite- ria or our classication, whether in the rural or urban areas, are given in Table 2.
The ocial estimates o poverty are computed by the Planning Commission rom the quinquennial consumer expenditure survey (CES). However, the analysis in this paper is based on consumption expenditure data as reported in the employment-unemployment survey (EUS) schedules to enable us to relate consumption expenditure status o the people to their work and activity status. In the case o theEUS, data on consumption are collected by using an abridged block in which some major items and item groups only are listed as against
CES in which consumption o each individual
item is separately collected. Thus, the average
consumption expenditure as computed rom
EUS schedule is expected to be lower than that
obtained romCE S schedule. The poverty lines,
determined on the basis oCE S thereore had to
be adjusted to make them conorm to the level o consumption expenditure as given by theEUS. This was done by estimating theMP CE rom the distribution o persons byM P C E classes based onEUS corresponding to the head count ratios obtained romCE S. The dierence between the two estimates is insignicant. For example, the ocial poverty line or 2004-05 is Rs 356.3 or rural areas and Rs 538.6 or urban areas. The poverty lines as applicable to data sets available rom theEUS, as per our calculation, turn out to be Rs 346.2 or rural areas and Rs 514.0 or urban areas.
vulnerable with a level of consumption not more than twice the official poverty line. This proportion of the population which can be categorized as the “common
people” is much higher among certain social groups, especially for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. There is also evidence to suggest that inequality is
widening between the common people and the better-off sections of society. The main findings of this paper shows
Economic growth taken as the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) is highly desirable in this context as it will establish the pre-eminence of the country in the world economy, provide a large market of goods and services, increase investment and technology development from all over the world and allow improvement in income and employment to the people, even though all sections of the the population are not evenly benefited not all regions are benefited evenly in the economy. It could also, with proper policies and facilities ,a substantial and rapid improvement in the living condi- tions, and promotion on the livelihood of the masses whom we consider the common people.
Economic growth alone, however, cannot ensure such an objective unless supplemented by other policies and complimentary measures targeted directly at promoting the welfare of the masses. The trickle-down effect of growth would be often too meager and too distant. Market forces almost invariably promote those who have market power and economic growth powered by them often bypasses the poor and the vulnerable who are the overwhelming majority o our people. Ultimately, the success and failure of all our programmes and polices including those for promoting economic growth, will have to be reckoned in terms of how they have fulfilled this basic objective of improving the welfare of the common people.
(1) to identify the group of people who can be considered the common people – who they are, what their profile is in terms of social groups, what level of consumption and employment they have, and what their endowments are in terms of education, housing, health, etc. In this paper an attempt has been made to define the so-called “common people” – or the “AAM ADAMI”in popular parlance – in terms o levels o consumption and examine their socio-economic profile in the different periods of time since the early 1990s with a view to assessing how the economic growth process has impacted on their lives. In this paper we present and discuss, after dealing with data and methodology, the main findings on the magnitudes and changes in the condition of the poor and vulnerable, whom we call the common people, as well as its links with social groups and their educational attainments. The household characteristics and consumption pattern of the households in different poverty status groups along with some concluding remarks are also included. While our analysis covers the three time points
(2) the time period is 1993-94, 1999-2000,and
2004-2005The years between 1993-94 and 2004-05 were the period of a high rate of economic growth in India. (3) The Indian economy entered a trajectory of high economic growth from 1980 onwards, compared with the previous nearly three decades. The period 1950-80 disparagingly reffered to as the years of “Hindu” rate of growth had an average rate of growth of 3.56 per cent or the entire period. The growth rate decreased from 3.91 in the 1950s to 3.70 percent in the 1960s and 3.08 per cent between 1970 and 1980. Although the so-called “Hindu” rate of growth from 1950 to 1980 was three times what we would like to call the “Colonial” rate of growth of the previous 30 years, the fact remains that during the first 30 years after India’s independence, the improvement in the per capita income was hardly between 1 and 1.95 per cent due to an increasing population growth that resulted from a decline in mortality. That is to say progress made on two fronts
– aggregate economic growth
- and reduction in mortality
As the growth rate picked up from 1980 onwards, there was a marked acceleration in the growth of per capita income contributed by the double blessing of increasing the growth rate and reducing the population growth. The aggregate economic growth rate accelerated
Further in the more recent period.1 While the growth performance in recent years has been spectacular, it is equally important to assess whether it has fully reflected in thje welfare the common people so as to allow us to evaluate the success of our growth performance in terms of the basic objective of improving the welfare of the vast masses of the people. This objective was explicitly set out in the policy of inclusive growth or increasing the welfare of the common people, of the United Progressive Alliance government, in contrast with the campaign about a “Shining India”, in 2004.
METHODOLOGY –
In order to evaluate the success OF our growth PERFORMANCE in terms of welfare of characteristics captured by the per capita consumption expenditure of our people, there are the datas worked on the sets available from the surveys of National Sample Survey organisations (NSSO) on employment-unemployment and consumption expenditure. The classification of each sample household as accordingly belonging to the “extremely poor”, “poor”, “marginal”, “vulnerable”, “middle income” and “high income” groups i the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) o their households was below or above a specied multiple o the poverty line (PL).
Though there is considerable criticism about the determination o the poverty line in India, which systematically underestimates poverty and related deprivation, we have chosen not to engage in that debate here to avoid being defected rom the main thrust o our study. Our aim here is to construct a simple taxonomy and
identiy groups o people with signicant dier- ences in average level o consumption. The crite- ria or our classication, whether in the rural or urban areas, are given in Table 2.
The ocial estimates o poverty are computed by the Planning Commission rom the quinquennial consumer expenditure survey (CES). However, the analysis in this paper is based on consumption expenditure data as reported in the employment-unemployment survey (EUS) schedules to enable us to relate consumption expenditure status o the people to their work and activity status. In the case o theEUS, data on consumption are collected by using an abridged block in which some major items and item groups only are listed as against
CES in which consumption o each individual
item is separately collected. Thus, the average
consumption expenditure as computed rom
EUS schedule is expected to be lower than that
obtained romCE S schedule. The poverty lines,
determined on the basis oCE S thereore had to
be adjusted to make them conorm to the level o consumption expenditure as given by theEUS. This was done by estimating theMP CE rom the distribution o persons byM P C E classes based onEUS corresponding to the head count ratios obtained romCE S. The dierence between the two estimates is insignicant. For example, the ocial poverty line or 2004-05 is Rs 356.3 or rural areas and Rs 538.6 or urban areas. The poverty lines as applicable to data sets available rom theEUS, as per our calculation, turn out to be Rs 346.2 or rural areas and Rs 514.0 or urban areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
