who's the con man?

the uid attracts the worst kind of casteist prejudices:
For a moment let us imagine the state pays 5,000 rupees as subsidy to an under privileged farmer to buy fertilizer. What is the guarantee that when he has that money he is going to spend it on buying fertilizers? Can he not use that money to buy something else, like a mobile phone maybe watch a film or have a bottle of nice whiskey for a change?
why does the government subsidize the purchase of fertilizer by the farmer?

if the writer had asked himself that question first he wouldn't be raising the kind of doubts that a jailer presented with a convict reform project probably would.

the government wants to support the farmer because agriculture isn't very profitable (except, it doesn't use those exact honest words) and it doesn't want the farmer to get even lower returns (or suffer losses, which is more likely) on account of increased costs. that's the honourable part of the government's intentions.

but even then, if there is a con man, or a party with less honorable intentions, among the two-- the government and the farmer-- it is the government and not the farmer. why? because the government's goal is to keep production going, to get grain from the farms. it manages to squeeze some production out of the farmer even when he suffers losses individually. heads, the government wins and tails, the farmer loses.

so it's the farmer who should be asking all those questions: do these kind of policy makers (in the government) and consumers (like the writer) who question my integrity deserve my respect, leave alone the labour and resources i've invested in my farm?


Jogi said...

In addition to your valid points it is also possible the government is trying to help the capitalist manufacturing the fertilizer. The poor farmer can not buy the fertilizer by himself. If there is no purchase power in the buyers, no industry survives. So your friendly government steps in.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with you that the upper cast elite activisty criticism often takes very regressive and dangerous casteist-classist turns. But I think there are also more valid criticisms of UID or cash transfers(such as adjustability to inflation) which one cannot put on the same line. Putting money in the hands of people is not the same as providing the good not because of the fear of spending, but more importantly because there is no guarantee that local prices will remain when only few control distribution. I personally think that bringing ration shops under democratic control and increasing PDS is the best way to go.

Anonymous said...

It's actually an attempt to maintain status quo. As Jogi pointed out above, it is also a means of wealth transfer from everyone to a few. The one's stuck with the bill are the taxpayers and the rest of the general population, in that order.

The UID will be another instrument for discrimination. Whatever caste discrimination exists will strengthen further and on top of that other forms of discrimination will be added. It is a dream-come-true for corporate leaders as the rest of the population is basically made naked in front of them.

Add to Technorati Favorites