The central government in India has an established system/mechanism to generate a debate on bringing about the administrative & financial changes to somewhat match requirements of the day. Also, there exists a network of institutions (governmental or private) which keep on flagging the issues from time to time to induce focus on the administrative & financial impediments, requiring reformatory measures. After independence, Government of India appointed three Administrative Reforms Commissions with the objective of reforming the system. Whether the recommendations of these Commissions made any impact or not is a debatable matter but even the critics can not deny that the recommendations implemented by the government have had positive effect in reducing, at least, the procedural delays to some extent in some of the areas of central government’s functioning. As regards the financial sector, Apart from the permanent government bodies like the RBI and SEBI, the Rangarajan Committee, the Disinvestment Commission and a couple of such other bodies drew central government’s attention to serious financial issues (regulatory as well structural) which helped in tiding over the crisis such as low foreign exchange reserves, bailing out of the economic meltdown and the unbearable drain of sick PSUs.
In case of States in the country, there neither exist a worthwhile system on the central pattern nor have there been serious attempts to focus on the administrative or the financial maladies, in most of the States. The common man in India is directly bearing the brunt because the State governments run the show (whether it is maintenance of law & order, granting permits/licenses/certificates or the implementation of developmental schemes). Due to this situation, the State governments need to focus attention on the issue of ‘Reforms’ (administrative as well as financial). In this backdrop, following are some of the suggestions:-
I. Enforcement of Accountability to ensure implementation of Govt./Directives/Programmes/Policies:- Activating the Monitoring Cell, Having a Precise & To the Point Reporting System in place (Weekly for critical matters and Monthly for all others) on the specially designed ‘Single Page’ Proformas enabling the State government at the highest level to have a ‘Bird’s Eye’ view at a glance about the flow of ‘Activities’ in each of the Departments;
II. Augmentation of Financial Resources (Revenue):-
Strict Tax Compliance:- The current level of Revenue on account of Sales/Excise Tax can be increased by at least 80% (could be even 100%) by eliminating leakages through strict supervision/IT application/simplifying collection mode/prohibitive penality imposition;
Levying Green Cess:- Imposition of a nominal ‘Green Cess’ on the Industrial Units in the State would not cause any pinch while the total annual collection could be substantial;
Complying with the provisions of FRBM Act:- Containing the State Financial Deficit within the limits prescribed under the Central Financial Responsibility & Budget Management Act would get enhanced central grants;
Power Sector Reforms:- Complying with the Central Govt. directions regarding Power sector reforms would enable the State Govt. get additional financial grants;
Small sized Projects under Central Sector Schemes:- There is tremendous scope to seek funding under Central Sector Schemes being controlled by various central Ministries by posing small sized project proposals;
Food Processing Industries:- The criticality of this activity is not only from the point of view of improving the value addition & preventing wastages but it will also enable the State Govts. in realizing hundreds of crores by way of taxes/cess;
Herbal based Industries:- Development of herbal based industries would not only enable exploitation of the tremendous potential lying dormant in the State but will get substantial revenue to the exchequer;
Reducing Unproductive Expenditure:- Economic Reforms/Public Sector Reforms/Administrative Reforms/Rationalisation measures would result in saving of hundreds of crores to the State exchequer.
III. Reforms:- In order to bring about ‘Good Governance’, the issues are flagged three major categories as under:
• Improvement of Work Culture;
• Decentralisation & Delegation of Powers/Responsibilities;
• Merit-based appointments/promotions;
• Incentives for Performance and Disincentives for Non-Performance;
• Objectivity in enforcement of Laws, Rules & Regulations;
• Effective Mechanism for Redressal of Public Grievances to inspire People's confidence;
• Effectiveness & Judiciousness in the working of the Police to restore People' Faith in the System;
• Greater Transparency & Openness in the governmental working;
• Mechanism for easy Public accessibility to Governmental Functionaries through rigorous field touring and regular reporting system by the officers at all levels.
IV. Development through Perspective Planning:- Having a Perspective for each of the Departments to prepare a Long-term Plan from which should emerge the Short-term Plans, as well as the requisite Straregies /Policies /Programmes /Projects /Schemes. The main issues are flagged as under:-
Strengthening Education System (Better Infrastructure, Vocation oriented curricula);
Strengthening Health Infrastructure;
Drinking Water and Irrigation;
Roads, Rails and Aviation Infrastructure;
Improvement of Infrastructure relating to Civic Amenities;
Infrastructural improvement to facilitate tapping of Renewable Energy Sources based on Solar and Wind for local energy requirements;
Improvement of infrastructure to facilitate reduction of crop losses in Agro-Horticulture sector.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Vital Facts about India
• 7th largest area (329 mh) which is 2.5% of world geographical area;
• 2nd largest human population (1 bn);
• 16% of world's population (500 mn);
• 18% of world's domestic cattle population
• 1.8% of world's forest area;
• 22.6% of the area legally classified as Forests- of which 1.56% is Very Dense, 10.32% is Moderately Dense, 8.96% is Open Forests, 1.62% is Scrub Forests and 0.14% is Mangrove Forests;
• 51% of the legally classified area is under Reserved Forests (RFs), 31% is under Protected Forests (PFs) and 18% is under Unclassed Forests (UFs);
• 8% of world' bio-diversity- one of the 12 mega bio-diversity countries of the world;
• Having 2 global terrestrial bio-diversity hot spots- the North-East and the Western Ghats;
• Having 16 Forest types and 251 Forest sub-types, based on climatic and edaphic conditions;
• Teak, Sal, Dipterocarpus and the Conifers are the Principal Commercial species;
• Natural Habitats are Palearctic Trans-Himalayan in the North, Indo-Malayan in the North East, Indo-Ethiopian in the West, Oriental in Peninsular India and the Coastal & Island Eco-systems;
• 10 Bio-diversity rich Zoogeographic zones;
• 80,000 species of Animals;
• 45,000 species of Plants, of which 15,000 have medicinal value;
• 3,200 Wild Relatives of Agricultural Crops;
• 131 Wild Relatives of Domesticated Animals;
• 5,150 Endemic Plant species;
• 1,837 Endemic Animal species;
• 33 species facing extinction threat;
• 14 major basins draining numerous rivers;
• Rivers emanating from mountains are snow-fed, while the rivers emanating from central & southern parts are rain-fed;
• Annual rainfall varies from 37 cm. (in Rajasthan) to 1500 cm. (in Meghalaya-Cheerapunji);
• 3 distinct seasons- summer, winter and monsoon;
• 2nd largest human population (1 bn);
• 16% of world's population (500 mn);
• 18% of world's domestic cattle population
• 1.8% of world's forest area;
• 22.6% of the area legally classified as Forests- of which 1.56% is Very Dense, 10.32% is Moderately Dense, 8.96% is Open Forests, 1.62% is Scrub Forests and 0.14% is Mangrove Forests;
• 51% of the legally classified area is under Reserved Forests (RFs), 31% is under Protected Forests (PFs) and 18% is under Unclassed Forests (UFs);
• 8% of world' bio-diversity- one of the 12 mega bio-diversity countries of the world;
• Having 2 global terrestrial bio-diversity hot spots- the North-East and the Western Ghats;
• Having 16 Forest types and 251 Forest sub-types, based on climatic and edaphic conditions;
• Teak, Sal, Dipterocarpus and the Conifers are the Principal Commercial species;
• Natural Habitats are Palearctic Trans-Himalayan in the North, Indo-Malayan in the North East, Indo-Ethiopian in the West, Oriental in Peninsular India and the Coastal & Island Eco-systems;
• 10 Bio-diversity rich Zoogeographic zones;
• 80,000 species of Animals;
• 45,000 species of Plants, of which 15,000 have medicinal value;
• 3,200 Wild Relatives of Agricultural Crops;
• 131 Wild Relatives of Domesticated Animals;
• 5,150 Endemic Plant species;
• 1,837 Endemic Animal species;
• 33 species facing extinction threat;
• 14 major basins draining numerous rivers;
• Rivers emanating from mountains are snow-fed, while the rivers emanating from central & southern parts are rain-fed;
• Annual rainfall varies from 37 cm. (in Rajasthan) to 1500 cm. (in Meghalaya-Cheerapunji);
• 3 distinct seasons- summer, winter and monsoon;
Evolution of Forestry Administration & Management in India
Trees and Forests always figured prominently during all periods (Ancient, Medieval and Modern) of the Indian History. Forestry remained a significant factor in the socio-economic, cultural and religious fields in the country. Owing to lesser population and larger extent of forests during the ‘Ancient’ and the ‘Medieval’ periods (till 18th century), the management of forests was left to nature and the interest of the then Rulers/Feudal Lords remained limited to hunting or recreational pursuits. The local inhabitants in and around the forests, however, could meet their needs for fuel, fodder and timber with prior permission of these Rulers/Feudal Lords. There was hardly any scientific & planned intervention to manage the forests.
In early 19th century, the British East India Company, having realized the criticality of the situation arising out of the uncontrolled extraction of the dwindling stocks of Teakwood, considered it necessary to evolve some mechanism to control & regulate the valuable forestry resources in areas under their control. Based on the principle of ‘Conservancy’, the post of ‘Conservator of Forests’ was created in 1806 AD and a Police Officer by the name of Watson was appointed to this post to control & regulate the forests (mostly Teak) of Malabar in Southern India. This arrangement was discontinued in the year 1823 because of the pressure from ‘Contractor’s Lobby’. This institution was revived in the year 1847 when the Commissioner of the then Bombay Presidency (Dr.Gibson) was appointed as Conservator of Forests to control & regulate the forests. It was replicated in the then Madras Presidency in the year 1856 and the Commissioner of (Dr.Cleghson) was appointed as Conservator of Forests for his commissionerate jurisdiction. These were only ad hoc measures which had limited effect.
The real foundations of scientific management & administration of Forestry in India were laid in the year 1864 when Dr.Dietrich Brandis, a renowned German Forester, was appointed as the Inspector General of Forests to aid and advise the then Colonial Government on all forestry matters. The Imperial Forest Service was created in 1867 to have properly trained professionals at the top level who could help not only in carrying out day to day management but who could also write the technical management plans (Working Plans) for the forests after carrying out detailed surveys. From 1867 to 1920 the recruitment to Imperial Forest Service was restricted to Britishers & Europeans only and no Indians were permitted to join this Service. It was only during the period 1921-1931 that the Indians were permitted to join the renamed Indian Forest Service, limiting their intake to 40% only. Unfortunately, the recruitment to this Service was stopped in 1932, on the pretext of economic depression. The present Indian Forest Service was revived by the Government of India in the year 1967.
Two lower level services (Provincial Forest Service and the Forest Rangers) were also created to complete the administrative hierarchy. The subordinate level recruitments were left completely to the discretion of the officers controlling various units. In early twentieth century only the system of proper recruitment to the subordinate levels was put in place. In this way the organizational structure which emerged in 1920 comprised the Inspector General of Forests at the Government of India level and the Chief Conservators, Conservators, Deputy Conservators, Assistant Conservators, Forest Rangers, Foresters and Forest Guards in the Provinces. Provincial autonomy was granted and Forestry subject was given under the control of respective provinces, leaving the Inspector General of Forests as in charge of the forests falling in the areas under the direct control of Government of India (termed as the Union Territories) with merely advisory role as far as the Provinces were concerned. This system continues to be the same today except that the post of Inspector General has been redesignated as Director General and in States new posts of Principal Chief Conservators & Additional Principal Chief Conservators have also been created to bring about uniformity amongst the three All India Services (IAS, IPS and IFS).
The survey, demarcation and the mapping of forests was undertaken in 1850 in a few selected areas and steadily covered almost all the major forests by 1914. Concurrently the task of preparing Working Plans for these forests was also completed. Owing to the diversity amongst them, each of the Provinces in India has its own specific history of forest management but the three stages are clearly discernible—the era of hunting reserves, the era of exploitation by East India Company and the era of scientific management aiming at sustainable yield & regeneration of forests. In 1884 Schilich, the then Inspector General of Forests, centralized the task of preparation of Working Plans under Government of India. During the period 1914-1947 the scientific forestry management received serious set back because of unbearable demand on the forestry resource on account of, primarily, the two World Wars. Even after independence, forestry did not get due priority in the governance agenda of most of the Provincial Governments with the result that scientific management could not cope with the insatiable demand of the increasing population.
The first Indian Forest Act was enacted in 1865 which was revised in 1878. This law enabled the local governments to frame rules to protect forests under their respective control. A comprehensive Indian Forest Act was enacted in 1927, consolidating all Laws relating to forests and forest produce. This very Act continues to be the major legal tool in the hands of the foresters today to control & regulate the forests. The most notable development in regard to development of legal mechanism occurred in 1980 when the Central Government enacted the Forest Conservation Act 1980, forbidding transfer of land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of Government of India (currently Central Empowered Committee under the over all control of Supreme Court). The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2005 grants recognition of forest rights & occupation in forest land of those forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for at least three generations but their rights could not be recorded.
The outline of a policy for forest conservancy were laid down in the 1855 Memorandum of Lord Dalhousie, the then Governor General of India, which is termed as the Charter of Indian Forestry. The first Indian Forest Policy, however, was formally formulated in 1894. The main focus of this policy was on preservation & conservation, subject to fulfillment of revenue targets and the local demand of the agriculturists which had the primacy. A revised Forest Policy was formulated after independence in 1952, the main features of which were: having one third of the total geographical area of the country under forests (60% in hills and 20% in plains); promoting balanced and complementary land use; checking soil erosion and protecting catchments of major rivers; increasing supplies of grazing, small wood for agricultural implements and firewood; sustain supply of timber/other forest produce for defence, communication and industry and; maximization of revenue. A revised Forest Policy has been formulated in 1988 (currently applicable), the main features of which are: reiterated two points of 1952 policy i.e. the target of bringing one third of area under forestry and to check soil erosion/ protect catchments of major rivers; maintenance of environmental stability & ecological balance through preservation of forests; involvement of people in forestry, and; making economic considerations subservient to ecological considerations.
In early 19th century, the British East India Company, having realized the criticality of the situation arising out of the uncontrolled extraction of the dwindling stocks of Teakwood, considered it necessary to evolve some mechanism to control & regulate the valuable forestry resources in areas under their control. Based on the principle of ‘Conservancy’, the post of ‘Conservator of Forests’ was created in 1806 AD and a Police Officer by the name of Watson was appointed to this post to control & regulate the forests (mostly Teak) of Malabar in Southern India. This arrangement was discontinued in the year 1823 because of the pressure from ‘Contractor’s Lobby’. This institution was revived in the year 1847 when the Commissioner of the then Bombay Presidency (Dr.Gibson) was appointed as Conservator of Forests to control & regulate the forests. It was replicated in the then Madras Presidency in the year 1856 and the Commissioner of (Dr.Cleghson) was appointed as Conservator of Forests for his commissionerate jurisdiction. These were only ad hoc measures which had limited effect.
The real foundations of scientific management & administration of Forestry in India were laid in the year 1864 when Dr.Dietrich Brandis, a renowned German Forester, was appointed as the Inspector General of Forests to aid and advise the then Colonial Government on all forestry matters. The Imperial Forest Service was created in 1867 to have properly trained professionals at the top level who could help not only in carrying out day to day management but who could also write the technical management plans (Working Plans) for the forests after carrying out detailed surveys. From 1867 to 1920 the recruitment to Imperial Forest Service was restricted to Britishers & Europeans only and no Indians were permitted to join this Service. It was only during the period 1921-1931 that the Indians were permitted to join the renamed Indian Forest Service, limiting their intake to 40% only. Unfortunately, the recruitment to this Service was stopped in 1932, on the pretext of economic depression. The present Indian Forest Service was revived by the Government of India in the year 1967.
Two lower level services (Provincial Forest Service and the Forest Rangers) were also created to complete the administrative hierarchy. The subordinate level recruitments were left completely to the discretion of the officers controlling various units. In early twentieth century only the system of proper recruitment to the subordinate levels was put in place. In this way the organizational structure which emerged in 1920 comprised the Inspector General of Forests at the Government of India level and the Chief Conservators, Conservators, Deputy Conservators, Assistant Conservators, Forest Rangers, Foresters and Forest Guards in the Provinces. Provincial autonomy was granted and Forestry subject was given under the control of respective provinces, leaving the Inspector General of Forests as in charge of the forests falling in the areas under the direct control of Government of India (termed as the Union Territories) with merely advisory role as far as the Provinces were concerned. This system continues to be the same today except that the post of Inspector General has been redesignated as Director General and in States new posts of Principal Chief Conservators & Additional Principal Chief Conservators have also been created to bring about uniformity amongst the three All India Services (IAS, IPS and IFS).
The survey, demarcation and the mapping of forests was undertaken in 1850 in a few selected areas and steadily covered almost all the major forests by 1914. Concurrently the task of preparing Working Plans for these forests was also completed. Owing to the diversity amongst them, each of the Provinces in India has its own specific history of forest management but the three stages are clearly discernible—the era of hunting reserves, the era of exploitation by East India Company and the era of scientific management aiming at sustainable yield & regeneration of forests. In 1884 Schilich, the then Inspector General of Forests, centralized the task of preparation of Working Plans under Government of India. During the period 1914-1947 the scientific forestry management received serious set back because of unbearable demand on the forestry resource on account of, primarily, the two World Wars. Even after independence, forestry did not get due priority in the governance agenda of most of the Provincial Governments with the result that scientific management could not cope with the insatiable demand of the increasing population.
The first Indian Forest Act was enacted in 1865 which was revised in 1878. This law enabled the local governments to frame rules to protect forests under their respective control. A comprehensive Indian Forest Act was enacted in 1927, consolidating all Laws relating to forests and forest produce. This very Act continues to be the major legal tool in the hands of the foresters today to control & regulate the forests. The most notable development in regard to development of legal mechanism occurred in 1980 when the Central Government enacted the Forest Conservation Act 1980, forbidding transfer of land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of Government of India (currently Central Empowered Committee under the over all control of Supreme Court). The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2005 grants recognition of forest rights & occupation in forest land of those forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for at least three generations but their rights could not be recorded.
The outline of a policy for forest conservancy were laid down in the 1855 Memorandum of Lord Dalhousie, the then Governor General of India, which is termed as the Charter of Indian Forestry. The first Indian Forest Policy, however, was formally formulated in 1894. The main focus of this policy was on preservation & conservation, subject to fulfillment of revenue targets and the local demand of the agriculturists which had the primacy. A revised Forest Policy was formulated after independence in 1952, the main features of which were: having one third of the total geographical area of the country under forests (60% in hills and 20% in plains); promoting balanced and complementary land use; checking soil erosion and protecting catchments of major rivers; increasing supplies of grazing, small wood for agricultural implements and firewood; sustain supply of timber/other forest produce for defence, communication and industry and; maximization of revenue. A revised Forest Policy has been formulated in 1988 (currently applicable), the main features of which are: reiterated two points of 1952 policy i.e. the target of bringing one third of area under forestry and to check soil erosion/ protect catchments of major rivers; maintenance of environmental stability & ecological balance through preservation of forests; involvement of people in forestry, and; making economic considerations subservient to ecological considerations.
Monday, January 11, 2010
UPA Government’s Faulty Policies & Administration have resulted in Price Rise
The Constitution of India assigns predominant powers to the Central Government in both the policies & administration matters concerning price control. Vital levers of Fiscal as well as Monetary control are with the Central Government. It is primarily the Central Budget which impacts the prices of essential commodities. Formulation & administration of Import & Export Policies is in the hands of Central Government and it is a well known fact that one of the vital tools of price control, especially the food items, is proper management of ‘Import/Export Mechanism’. Railways are under the sole control of the Central Government and so are the Ports. Management of both these entities (inland transportation from production-centers to the demand-centers by the former and import-handling by the latter) has direct bearing on the price, because of not only cost factor but also because of demand-supply gap which depends upon the availability of stocks at the demand center at any point in time. Since UPA has been in power at the central level for the past six years, and therefore, the sole accountability for price rise rests on their shoulders only.
Let us have a look at the per kilogram prices of poor man’s basic food items; wheat flour more than Rs.20, rice more than Rs.30, sugar more than Rs.45, pulses ranging from Rs.70 to Rs.100(Arhar), Haldi Rs.180, Masalas ranging from Rs.60 (Lal Mirchi) to Rs.250 (Bari Ilayachi) and oils Rs.50-60 (ordinary), Rs.80 and above (refined). Sugar prices have doubled over a period of less than a month. An excellent analysis of UPA Government’s inept handling of sugar management both at policy level and at administrative level has been brought out in the article titled ‘Time to quit Mr.Pawar’ (The Economic Times –Chandigarh- dated 10 January, 2010) by Nidhi Singh. A couple of startling facts- under estimation of demand, inability on the part of Railways to timely ferry the stocks to desired destinations, inability of central government to prevail upon the Uttar Pradesh Government in getting the imported stocks processed and failure in timely imports or their price goof ups etc.- stated in this article fully expose the UPA Government.
The plea of UPA government that State governments have primary responsibility in the price control of essential commodities is bereft of any rationale in view of the fact that the quota control of food items vests with the central government. Since supply to the States depends upon the release of quota thus in the often occurring eventuality of demand being higher than the supplies, the prices are bound to rise. Whereas the States can’t be absolved of their responsibility to strictly implement the Hoarding and Black Marketing Act, but the impact due to shorter supplies vis-à-vis demand can in no case get neutralized by any degree of strictness under the Act against the local traders. UPA government has not taken any steps in taking appropriate policy initiatives or establishing an effective regulatory mechanism to ensure the price stability of food items, especially the ones which directly affect the life of poor families.
The Fair Price shops meant to help the poorer people in getting food items at reasonable price are often starved of supplies due to central government’s failure to ensure timely dispatch of ration supplies to the States. Situation gets further complicated when the prices suddenly spurt higher in the general market and the customers at the Fair Price swell quite higher, tempting the shop owner/manager to indulge in exploitation of the customers.
Central government had created a Warehousing Corporation (WCI) with the objective of proper storage of food stocks for maintaining consistent supplies to the market according to the demand in order to maintain price stability. Unfortunately the warehouses are not so well managed and the losses of stocks over a period of time have had a telling effect on the health of the Corporation resulting in defeating the very purpose of creating this entity. Equally pathetic is the state of affairs in the Food Corporation-Godowns (FCI). Thus a vital buffer/cushion for bridging the gap between demand & supply has got weakened for which central government shoulders complete responsibility.
There is a system of multiple-point control in the central government on issues connected with price stability; Department of Agriculture looks after crop production and the MIS(Market Intervention Scheme); Department of Food controls the FCI & the WCI and the release of subsidies to various agencies; Department of Commerce regulates the imports & exports; Department of Food Processing Industries promotes the food processing industries. Most of the time the internal squabbles amongst various departments take precedence over the public needs for expediency & quick decision making which substantially adds to the suffering of the people, especially the poorer ones. The attention of the central government remains limited to the coordination at macro level and the micro issues remain totally neglected.
India is a vast country having varied agro-climatic zones (tropical to alpine) to facilitate production of different food crops in accordance with the demand in the country. Central government operates a number of schemes to provide incentives in the form of subsidies and Minimum Support Price (MSP) to encourage the production of certain food crops keeping in view the demand-supply situation. Unfortunately, UPA government has not operated this tool prudently to ensure achievement of the objective of having this tool and consequently prices of food items have sky rocketed. Pulses (the poor man’s main protein source) and the Oils (an essential item of an Indian household-food) have to be imported while there is tremendous potential to grow both the pulses and the oilseeds to meet the total demand. Not enough has been done by the UPA government to use the levers at its command to do the needful in this vital area.
Can the UPA government still shirk its responsibility for failure to control the prices of food items, especially?
Let us have a look at the per kilogram prices of poor man’s basic food items; wheat flour more than Rs.20, rice more than Rs.30, sugar more than Rs.45, pulses ranging from Rs.70 to Rs.100(Arhar), Haldi Rs.180, Masalas ranging from Rs.60 (Lal Mirchi) to Rs.250 (Bari Ilayachi) and oils Rs.50-60 (ordinary), Rs.80 and above (refined). Sugar prices have doubled over a period of less than a month. An excellent analysis of UPA Government’s inept handling of sugar management both at policy level and at administrative level has been brought out in the article titled ‘Time to quit Mr.Pawar’ (The Economic Times –Chandigarh- dated 10 January, 2010) by Nidhi Singh. A couple of startling facts- under estimation of demand, inability on the part of Railways to timely ferry the stocks to desired destinations, inability of central government to prevail upon the Uttar Pradesh Government in getting the imported stocks processed and failure in timely imports or their price goof ups etc.- stated in this article fully expose the UPA Government.
The plea of UPA government that State governments have primary responsibility in the price control of essential commodities is bereft of any rationale in view of the fact that the quota control of food items vests with the central government. Since supply to the States depends upon the release of quota thus in the often occurring eventuality of demand being higher than the supplies, the prices are bound to rise. Whereas the States can’t be absolved of their responsibility to strictly implement the Hoarding and Black Marketing Act, but the impact due to shorter supplies vis-à-vis demand can in no case get neutralized by any degree of strictness under the Act against the local traders. UPA government has not taken any steps in taking appropriate policy initiatives or establishing an effective regulatory mechanism to ensure the price stability of food items, especially the ones which directly affect the life of poor families.
The Fair Price shops meant to help the poorer people in getting food items at reasonable price are often starved of supplies due to central government’s failure to ensure timely dispatch of ration supplies to the States. Situation gets further complicated when the prices suddenly spurt higher in the general market and the customers at the Fair Price swell quite higher, tempting the shop owner/manager to indulge in exploitation of the customers.
Central government had created a Warehousing Corporation (WCI) with the objective of proper storage of food stocks for maintaining consistent supplies to the market according to the demand in order to maintain price stability. Unfortunately the warehouses are not so well managed and the losses of stocks over a period of time have had a telling effect on the health of the Corporation resulting in defeating the very purpose of creating this entity. Equally pathetic is the state of affairs in the Food Corporation-Godowns (FCI). Thus a vital buffer/cushion for bridging the gap between demand & supply has got weakened for which central government shoulders complete responsibility.
There is a system of multiple-point control in the central government on issues connected with price stability; Department of Agriculture looks after crop production and the MIS(Market Intervention Scheme); Department of Food controls the FCI & the WCI and the release of subsidies to various agencies; Department of Commerce regulates the imports & exports; Department of Food Processing Industries promotes the food processing industries. Most of the time the internal squabbles amongst various departments take precedence over the public needs for expediency & quick decision making which substantially adds to the suffering of the people, especially the poorer ones. The attention of the central government remains limited to the coordination at macro level and the micro issues remain totally neglected.
India is a vast country having varied agro-climatic zones (tropical to alpine) to facilitate production of different food crops in accordance with the demand in the country. Central government operates a number of schemes to provide incentives in the form of subsidies and Minimum Support Price (MSP) to encourage the production of certain food crops keeping in view the demand-supply situation. Unfortunately, UPA government has not operated this tool prudently to ensure achievement of the objective of having this tool and consequently prices of food items have sky rocketed. Pulses (the poor man’s main protein source) and the Oils (an essential item of an Indian household-food) have to be imported while there is tremendous potential to grow both the pulses and the oilseeds to meet the total demand. Not enough has been done by the UPA government to use the levers at its command to do the needful in this vital area.
Can the UPA government still shirk its responsibility for failure to control the prices of food items, especially?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)