Growing disparity between the rich and the poor is like cancer which can disrupt the social fabric of India. It is, therefore, vital that these issues be discussed in Parliament on the basis of knowledge and objective analysis
An extremely important report titled, ‘An Economy for the 1%’, was released by Oxfam in January. It is particularly relevant that this report was released in Davos, which is the favourite annual watering hole for the one per cent constituting the richest people of this world. The major finding of the Oxfam report was that the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010, which amounts to a drop of 38 per cent. This change has occurred despite a large increase in the global population of around 400 million people since 2010. What is worrisome is that this decline in the wealth of the poorest half of the population is accompanied by the fact that the wealth of the richest 62 persons in the world has increased by more than half a trillion dollars, to $1.76 trillion. This report also shows how inequity impacts on women disproportionately. Even at the top, the 62 richest consist of 53 men and just nine women.
The UN’s Millennium Development Goals, established at the turn of the century and targeted at reducing poverty and bringing about change in the right direction by 2015, have been met only in part, as a decline in the wealth of the poorest half clearly indicates. In September of 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals all of which are collectively designed to bring about an improvement in the human condition. The very first of these goals articulates the global resolve to end poverty in all forms everywhere. The second targets ending hunger, achieving food security and improving nutrition as well as promotion of sustainable agriculture. These goals have been the outcome of an inclusive and intensive process which in itself has laudable intentions behind it. However, governance systems and institutional mechanisms by which these goals are to be implemented is what requires reforms. In fact, the value systems and the aspirations of most people, fuelled by a desire to consume more and more, are the major drivers of growing inequities across and within nations.
Additionally, capitalism as well as communism represent, to varying extents, systems which have largely failed to deal with the problem of inequitable growth and development. John Kenneth Galbraith, who was not merely a brilliant economist, albeit unconventional and non-conformist in his thinking, displayed remarkable wit when he commented on economic issues. He rightly said, “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” Yet, there are examples of societies which have dealt with the problem of inequality far more effectively than others. The example of Nordic countries comes to mind, where taxation is high, but this is matched by effective implementation of Government programmes. There is, therefore, healthy respect towards and willing acceptance of high levels of taxation, because the public at large feels reassured that their tax money is being spent efficiently, and is resulting in genuine and measurable welfare of the society and through a system which is honest, transparent and sensitive to healthy criticism.
Growing disparities that we see in India are truly a cancer which, if allowed to grow, will lead to disruption of the social fabric and dangerous movements by fringe groups which feel disempowered, alienated and dangerously liable to increasing exploitation by those with vested interests. This trend is evident in some of the most powerful countries in the world, where people are increasingly getting angry and feel excluded from the decision-making process and dispossessed of the power to define their own future.
It is important that issues of such substance are discussed in Parliament on the basis of knowledge and objective analysis. It is sad that parliamentary debate these days has come to the level of street fighting, with words uttered only to score points. Indian economist Raj Krishna was right when he said that Government was knowledge proof. If this reality has to change, it must start at the pinnacle of our democratic institutions. Sadly, even in the US, there is a decline in the input of knowledge in debates that take place in the US Congress giving way to ignorance-driven positions and extremist political posturing. An extremely important institution, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, was disbanded in the year 1995. Prior to that, this particular organisation functioned as the repository of information not only on science and technology issues, but on a whole range of economic, social and environmental subjects, whereby the US Congress benefitted from the knowledge created and accessed. Members of the US Senate and the House of Representatives are served diligently by a group of assistants who carry out invaluable research on subjects that have relevance to public policy. The presence of OTA facilitated the work of these so-called staffers who carried out background research for their elected members of Congress. Is it not possible for India to move in the same direction, so that our Members of Parliament have the benefit of continuous and coherent inputs that will inevitably raise the calibre of debateIJ
It is now widely accepted that the 21st century will be a century of knowledge, and even while specialisation in specific fields is growing, the need to look at problems within a multi-disciplinary framework is becoming much stronger. Ministries and departments of Governments are rarely able to breakout of their silos, which think-tanks and research organisations are able to do far more effectively and efficiently. This is as true of changes or the lack of them in our social structure, as it is in the case of environmental damage. Ajay Vir Jakhar, in a recent conversation informed this writer of the difference in retailing of fertilisers and pesticides between Pakistan and India. As mentioned by him, retailing of these important inputs in Pakistan is carried out by large companies which produce fertilisers and chemicals, and not by the independent retailers as is the case in Punjab in India. Material that is sold, therefore, is often spurious, and advice from retailers is essentially towards overconsumption of these, with disastrous consequences for the environment. Information and knowledge have to be accessed and utilised formulating policies and decisions.
Environmental damage generally harms the poorest of the poor far more than those who are well-off. But in the absence of information and knowledge such hazards will only increase to the detriment of people everywhere. Consequently, wealth and income disparities will be exacerbated by a lack of ecosystem services that the poor depend on overwhelmingly.
While we continue to monitor developments in the marketplace, increases in GDP and the country’s exports as well as investment statistics, the time has come for our policymakers to focus on those measures that give us an assessment of increased wealth and income inequality and quality of the environment that we all depend on. Can one expect Parliament to spend some time focussing on these issues, whereby much of the noise and heat that is witnessed in parliamentary debate can be replaced by light, which Indians in this generation and those yet to come deserve after almost seven decades of India as an independent nationIJ
(The writer is executive vice chairman, TERI)