Round The World

New Delhi, 24 September 2009

Gilgit-Baltistan Occupation

PAKISTAN’S NEW CHALLENGE TO INDIA

By Prof. Bhim Singh

(Chairman, J&K National Panthers Party)

The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, on September 4 last, threw a bombshell in the name of ‘empowerment’ and ‘self rule’ governance order for ‘Gilgit-Baltistan’ region which Pakistan identified since its occupation as ‘Northern Areas’. With the aid and abetment of the Pakistani army, the Gilgit Muslim Scouts abducted Kashmir Governor, Brig. Ghansara Singh on November 16, 1947 from Astore. Indian army could not rescue the Governor and Pakistan Army took over Gilgit. Since then this region has been under the illegal occupation of Pakistan’s military. Pakistan’s interest in the region is obvious as the geo-strategic importance of the territory has never been in doubt. To the north-east lies China, further north is Kazakhstan, to the north-west there is Afghanistan. The controversial Karakoram Highway runs through the region and the Siachen Glacier commands a strategic portion of it. There lies Anglo-American interest too.

Benazir Bhutto as Pakistan’s Prime Minister granted in 1994 a ‘Reform Package’ for the Gilgit region by introducing a so-called ‘24 Member Council’ for the occupied areas without granting any civil, political or economic rights. The Council worked directly under the command of the Pakistani army. The ‘Reform Package’ was described by the then Prime Minister of POK, Sardar Qayyum Khan as a joke.

He stated: “This has caused serious concern in our minds... I would urge Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto to clarify that this decision in no way affects, or is prejudicial to, the UNCIP Resolutions on Kashmir.”  Fifteen years later, another Government of Pakistan led by the same party, PPP, has repeated the same bluff of 1994. Now ‘Self Rule’.

The present move reveals Pakistan’s dangerous conspiracy to annexe strategic areas of Gilgit-Baltistan comprising 32,500 sq. miles of the territory of the erstwhile Dogra state of Jammu and Kashmir as its fifth province. Nearly 5,000 sq. miles of this area were ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963 under the so-called Karachi Agreement signed by Chou-en-Lai and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as the Foreign Ministers of China and Pakistan respectively.

China has since built Karakoram Highway (KKH) which bridges China with Europe via Peshawar (Pakistan). China has also built 16 Air-strips on KKH, mostly used for military purpose. Pakistan has taken up a new project to build 6 Mega Dams in Gilgit-Baltistan with the technical and financial assistance of China. Both these decisions; ceding J&K territory to China and building 6 Mega Dams in the occupied territory of J&K seriously
violate the UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1948 on which Pakistan has been harping for 62 years. Besides, the presence of 5,000 well-equipped Chinese troops as disguised labourers and engineers and the construction of 16 Air-strips on the Highway for Jet Fighters may jeopardize the peace process between India and Pakistan. It may also effect peace prospects in Afghanistan and endanger India’s security. The Anglo-American Bloc has been showing special interest in the region because of China’s presence.

The ‘Self Rule Package’ is an improved form of the 1974 Interim Constitution of the so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’. It appears that Pakistan has decided to establish its locus standi both in POK and the Gilgit region by legitimizing its status from an ‘occupier’ or ‘encroacher’ to a ‘possessor’. This is to counter India’s claim to liberate the entire occupied territory from Pakistan, as declared by its Parliament in a resolution adopted in 1994 during P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Prime Ministership. The ‘Self Rule’ Package provides two Houses of the Legislature --- a Legislative Assembly and a Legislative Council. The Council shall enjoy the legislative powers over all the sixty and odd subjects identified with municipal powers. The Assembly has no legislative competence. The decisions of the Council are not subject to the authority of the Assembly. Interestingly, the Council shall have 15 Members and shall be presided over by the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

The Governor of Gilgit-Baltistan is a sitting Minister in the Federal Government who shall also be the Vice Chairman of the Council. Shockingly, the Prime Minister of Pakistan is also the Chairman of the Legislative Council of the so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’. Half of the members in the Council shall be nominated by the Prime Minister of Pakistan from amongst the citizens of Pakistan. Similar is the case with the Council of Azad Kashmir. There is a sharp contradiction between Interim Constitution of the ‘Azad Kashmir’, 1974 and Self-Rule Package of ‘Gilgit-Baltistan’ 2009. The so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’ is headed by a President who is elected by the Assembly Members and the Prime Minister heads the Government. Both have to be ‘State Subjects’. Pakistan has carefully rather intriguingly changed nomenclatures of these two heads in Gilgit-Baltistan.

The Governor, a sitting Federal Minister of Pakistan (of course, a citizen of Pakistan) shall be appointed by the President of Pakistan and the Chief Minister (not Prime Minister) shall be from amongst the members of the Legislative Assembly of Gilgit-Baltistan. This is a clear manifestation of the future game plan of Pakistan to annex Gilgit-Baltistan as its fifth province. Moreover, the judicial system makes a mockery of the present Self Rule ordinance. There shall be some so-called judicial officers. Without a High Court, there shall be a Chief Judge with five judges of the so-called Appellate Court. Judges, including Members of Legislative Assembly and the Council shall have to take an oath of allegiance to be loyal to Pakistan and follow the Holy Quran. A candidate for the Assembly need not be a state subject in Gilgit.

In fact, the concept of state subject has been done away since 1947. Qualification of a candidate for the Assembly in POK is that he should be a ‘state subject’ within the scope of the law which was promulgated by Maharaja Hari Singh through a Royal decree in 1927. This continues to be a strict law in J&K and in POK as well. This rule has not been followed in Gilgit package, enabling Pakistani citizens to settle in Gilgit. Naturally so, because one-third of the total population in Gilgit-Baltistan has migrated from Punjab and Balochistan in the past six decades of Pakistani military rule.  

The ‘Self Rule’ ordinance does not mention whether a candidate for the Assembly or Council should be a Muslim. This is understandable as there are no non-Muslims in the region. Not a single non-Muslim survived in the region in 1947. They were killed or converted.

The Instrument of Accession that Maharaja Hari Singh signed while acceding to the Dominion of India in 1947 transferred subjects  including Defence, Foreign Affairs, Communication and Currency to the  Dominion of India. In subtle contrast, the Gilgit ‘Self Rule’ Package expressly provides that jurisdiction over Defence, Foreign Affairs, internal security and matters connected with these subjects shall exclusively be enjoyed by Pakistan. This amounts in international law as a stark invasion and violation of the UNCIP resolution.

The package provides for the constitution of a two member Commission to settle boundary-disputes between Pakistan and Gilgit. Both members shall be appointed by the Governor as employees of Pakistan. Vast lands in the region have been illegally encroached by the Pakistan army and the settlers. The Commission may well be used as an instrument to regularize the illegal encroachments, instead.

The Gilgit-ites fear that political stooges shall be recruited to the so-called Assembly and Council who would then be used as a rubber stamp in its so-called election scheduled for November 12 to serve Pak interest.

Not just that. Pakistan has also managed to serve the rebels in POK with a warning that they may also be framed under a similar ‘Package’. Pakistan clearly intends to reconsolidate its full political supremacy over the occupied territory. The Interim Constitution, 1974 of ‘Azad Kashmir’, may well fall as the next causality. They may have to live with a similar doze which Pakistan has granted to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan as Pakistan’s sixth province.

The package deserves serious introspection by New Delhi’s South and North Block dealing with J&K. Pakistan has admitted publicly before the international community and the United Nations that it no longer cares for the dictates or sermons incorporated in the resolutions of the Security Council proposing plebiscite in J&K after withdrawal of Pakistan armies and civilian settlers from the occupied territory. Pakistan has made it clear. ‘No to withdrawal’ and ‘no to UN resolutions’. Fresh Sino-Pak strategy to grab Gilgit-Baltistan may not be quite pleasant for the Anglo-American Bloc. The US interest in the region remains one of establishing bases of the Pentagon for keeping a watch on the expansionist designs of Communist China. British interest in the region is its ‘earth wealth’ which it discovered during its lease period from the Dogra Maharaja in 1935. To cope with the fast changing scenario of POK and Gilgit is a real challenge for the leadership of India and a question mark on the peace prospects in South Asia. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Sunday Reading

New Delhi, 22 September 2009

Of Celebrity Letters

HISTORY GOES FOR A FORTUNE

By Suraj Saraf

Last year after much ado the Central Government succeeded in acquiring a Gandhian manuscript from the world famous art auctioneers Christie’s for 15,000 pounds plus 3,000 pounds as premium.

The Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) President, Dr. Karan Singh, had held it as a great honour for India and presented the yellowed parchment to the Navajivan Trust, which holds the copyright of all written works of the Mahatma. Written in January 1948, just 19 days before his assassination, it was one of the last articles penned by Mahatma Gandhi for his magazine Harijan and dealt with the dwindling circulation of the Urdu edition of the magazine.

Interestingly, it had been put up for sale by a Switzerland-based collector. The draft was brought to the notice of the Prime Minister’s Office, which collaborated with several other agencies, namely the Ministry of Culture, ICCR, Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian High Commission in London to convince the bidding organization to exempt the article from being publicly auctioned. The Government managed to obtain it at the negotiated cost without entering into the bidding fray, as Christie’s had withdrawn the offer a day before the date of the official auction.

On the other side of the Globe, in England a note by the Queen Mother fetched 16,000 pounds at an auction while eight letters written by the Late Princess Diana sold for 20,000 pounds. There are many other instances when notes by celebrities had sold for astronomical sums. For instance, a letter by the renowned scientists Einstein had fetched over $ 400,000 and one by the renowned Dutch impressionist artist Van Gogh had sold for $ 500,000.  Most of all, a letter by Abraham Lincoln sold for $ 3.4 million, said to be the highest price for an American manuscript. So on and so forth.

One sometimes wonders why some people pay so exorbitantly for a letter, note, manuscript et al. Is it the intrinsic importance of the writing? Or is it the high status of the celebrity behind it? Or is it some sentimental expression of the buyer that he/ she pay through their nose for it? Or is there some historical importance of the letter? Or is it the feeling of honour or pride in possessing the letter? Or is some dealer of manuscripts who sees an opportunity to make some easy money?

Indeed, there can be any one or more of these reasons behind the high prices being attached to the letter. For instance, there was a letter written by the most brilliant brain of the 20^th Century – Albert Einstein, as said above, auctioned for $ 404,000.  The letter was written in 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which he had described the Bible as “pretty childish” and scorned at the notion that the Jews could be a “chosen people”. The letter had sold for 15 times the pre-sale estimate. The unidentified buyer was described by the Managing Director of the Auction as having “a passion for theoretical physics and all that it entails.” Among the unsuccessful bidders was the Oxford Evolutionary biologist Richard Dakins, an outspoken atheist.

Several other manuscripts by Einstein had sold for sky high prices. The $404,000 Einstein letter to Gutkind was only a little less than $442,000 paid for the entire collection of 55 love letters between Einstein and his first wife Mileva Maric, at an auction. Interestingly, at that very auction, a paper by Einstein and his best friend Michale Lesso, attempting a calculation that would later be a pivotal piece of his crowning achievement, the “General Theory of Relativity”, went under the hammer for $398,500.  

Apparently, it came as no surprise to a historian at the California Institute of Technology and head of the Einstein papers project, Diana Kormos Buchwald, that the Gutkind letter fetched such a high price. Likewise, Gerald Holton, a historian of science at Harvard and a longtime Einstein expert said the scientist’s marketability had been improved by the last few years of hoopla about the 10^th year of Relativity, which included his selection as Time Magazine’s “Man of the Century” in 2000, and several new publications. Einstein, as pointed out by him in his autobiographical notes, lost his religion at the age of 12, concluding that it was all a lie, and he never looked back.

As for US President, Abraham Lincoln, his letter had sold for $ 3.4 million only a few months ago by the famous art auctioneers Sotheby’s. It was bought by an American collector bidding over the telephone. The record breaking manuscript was “arguably Lincoln’s most personal and powerful statement on God, slavery and emancipation”.

The letter was the highlight of a sale of some 100-odd manuscripts written by other American historical figures. These included documents written by George Washington, a Lincoln autograph penned on the day of his famous Getty-burg address and one from the sixth US President John Quiney Adams, foretelling the Civil War. The letter dated April, 1764, is a response to some 195 boys and girls who put their name on to a document entitled “Children’s petition to the President asking him to free all the little slave children in this country.”

“Please tell these little people,” Lincoln wrote, “I am very glad their young hearts are so full of just and generous sympathy, and that while I have not the power to grant all they ask, I trust they will remember that God has, and that, as it seems, he will to do it.”

A 12-page letter penned by the anguished Dutch Impressionist artist Vincent Van Gough was purchased by someone for $ 500,000 just before it was to go for public sale. The letter was to an art critic written only months before Van Gogh committed suicide. The buyer had get it as Valentine Day present to his wife, who in her college days had been a student of art history whose first love was Van Gogh!

At the end, there is no always good reason for the buyers to own these letters, manuscripts et all. And, the saga of letters by star personalities fetching fortune to their owners shall go on.  ---INFA

 
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance-

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 26 September 2009

Uske Paas Ma Hai

DYNASTY COMES FIRST

By Poonam I Kaushish

“What’s your pedigree?”asked the Party leader . “Excuse me, I’m not a dog but a ticket-aspirant,” replied the guy. “I know but what’s your lineage, I mean is someone in your family a Minister, MP, MLA ?” queried the neta. “No. You’ve got my resume I am an aam aadmi who wants to do something for other aam aadmis via politics.” “Sorry, you don’t make the grade,” pat came the reply. Welcome to the asli world of politics: dynasty rules the roost, and how! Literally and figuratively. No matter that the spoil-sports crib about rajniti going to the dogs!

What’s new? Dynasty is all pervasive, election after election. However, this time round, the Congress has surpassed even its own feudal standards in the forthcoming Maharashtra Assembly polls. By giving the Amrawati MLA ticket to President Pratibha Patil son Rajinder Shekhawat, over-turning popular two-term MLA and State Minister Deshmukh’s renomination and to Union Power and Heavy Industy Minister Shinde and Deshmukh’s daughter and son respectively. Further sullying its hands in the filial feudal pot.

Forget the raised eyebrows, the murmurs of gross favouritism and maintaining Constitutional niceties. Scandalously, the President has over-stepped Constitutional propriety by reportedly ‘pressurising’ Messers Sonia & Co to cede to her request. Thereby trashing popular perception that the President is above petty, partisan and parochial politics. Propriety demands certain sacrifices. Indeed, a sad state of affairs that the First Citizen has been dragged into an avoidable controversy and set a wrong setting a precedent. Leading to sniggers and SMS campaighns : Uske (Shekhawat) Paas Ma Hai! Which encapsulates Congress’s most cherished and favourite truism: Meri Dynasty Mahan.

True, in a democracy there is bar on anyone contesting for elections even if he is the President’s son. Shekawat is correct when he asserts, “Judge me as an individual and not as the son of the President of India." But the fact is that had it not been for a gentle push from Raisina Hill he would be nowhere in the reckoning, having failed to get even a single nomination since 1999.

Arguably, former President VV Giri’s son too was an MP so why not Shekhawat? But do two wrongs make a right. Is it mandatory that a bad precedent should become the norm? Can the future be prisoner of a wrong past? Strictly speaking, Shekhawat has done a great disservice to his mother and the Presidential office of neutrality.

Tragically, given our current moribund Party-system with its dynastic partisan exigencies, holding internal elections and drawing fresh blood borders on utopic fantasies. Which rubbishes Congress’s Yuvraaj Rahul’s brave attempts to usher in a new inclusive and democratic breeze in the tightly oligarchic Grand Dame of Politics. Remember his refreshing confession, “I would not have been here, if I was not from a political family. If you do not have money, a family or friends, you cannot enter politics."

Raising a moot point: Is Rahul a family heirloom to be showcased to air his perestroika views when the situation demands? Only to recede into hibernation when dynastic issues get sticky under the collar. Wherein  sons and daughters and even sons-in-law become an integral part of statecraft – leading to new rules, guidelines and extra-Constitutional centres of power?

Sadly yes. Why blame the Congress alone? All are bitten by the ‘parivaar’ bug. Convinced that ideology-based democracy comes after hereditary feudalism. The BJP is the latest entrant with its spanking new acronym: Bachha Janata Party. See how Maharashtra strongman Gopinath Munde (late Promod Mahajan’s brother-in-law) has wrestled four Party MLA nominations for his beti-bhanja-bhanji and bhai’s damad.

As for the regional parties the less said the better. Today DMK’s patriarch Karunanidhi is worried about which son he should succeed him as Tamil  Nadu  Chief Minister rather than the Dravidian cause. What nags Samajwadi’s Mulayam is how to make son Akhilesh UP’s Chief Minister or at least a Central Minister rather than his commitment to Yadav upward mobility. The only thing that drives MNS’s Raj Thackeray is revenge and one-upmanship over uncle Bal and cousin Udhav than protecting Maharashtrian pride.

The rest make no bones about being family enterprises. Be it Lalu-Rabri’s RJD which stands for Pati, Patni aur Parivar, Deve Gowda’s JD(S), Chautala’s INLD and Farooq Abdullah’s NC should really be known as Pita-Putra Saakar. And Sharad Pawar’s  NCP and Mufti’s PDP as Pita-Putri Saakshi. Underscoring as never before that not only is our political system weak, worse it is dominated by microcosmic monarchies comprising individuals rather than strong political institutions.

What is about dynasty’s that attract people to it? One, given that a majority of our electorate is angootha chaap, people relate to a neta more than the Party. The election of a ‘Party defector’ bears this out. Two, what’s wrong in capitalizing on the family brand and provide a ready field to the santaan to continue the legacy?

Indeed ironic considering that while the world's largest democracy rests on the one-man-one-vote principle, a level-playing field and equal opportunities for all, elections are all about one family and as many tickets as you can wangle norm. Sadly, politics has degenerated to I, me, and myself and is bereft of ideology.

Leading to a situation where most Parties are now subservient to one supreme leader. He or she can therefore wilfully impose their offspring on the Party. All you got to possess is a big and famous name, no prior experience in governance and one can aspire to be the one calling the shots in a party. Constituencies are handed over as a jagir is handed over to the heirs. All refusing to sever the hierarchical ties.

This is today’s shameless political culture. Wherein families, even extended ones, invoke the dynastic Gods. Modern day geneticists could learn a lesson or two from our politicians, who are past masters in this science.  It’s all in the genes, remember. Alas, all this is done at the expense of better and deserving candidates.  Committed Party workers and those who have been good Samaritans have been left out in the cold.  It’s all about bhaichara.  Said a leader, " India is a democracy of dynasties , for dynasties and by dynasties"

What next?  For starters the parties need to realize that "dynasty" is a sword that cuts both ways. The feudal factor is proving to be more of a liability than an asset. Plainly, as the aam janata’s awareness of their rights increases, it would be politically prudent to hoot for democracy over dynasty.

It needs to be remembered that the best political systems are based on holding free,  fair and regular party elections. It is to the credit of Congress’s Rahul Gandhi that he has begun this experiment in the Party’s student and youth orgianisations.  There is no gainsaying that without inner-party democracy, electoral democracy is itself corrupted and corroded.

Logically, if a Party’s focus is the future of the leader’s progeny, how can it efficiently fulfill the mundane tasks of administration when in power, or provide a credible Opposition when out of power? If not stopped now, the day will come when Parliament that houses the aspirations and hopes of a billion plus aam aadmis, will becomes the most coveted Power Corporation exclusively meant and run by highly-pedigreed families?

Needless to say in the long run, short-term hereditary gains would sound the death-knell of the Indian polity.  The time has come to uphold true democracy. Or else continue to wallow in the political cesspool which hails the rising family ---- and my hereditary India. Should we say goodbye to democracy? Choice is yours! —INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 19 September 2009

TNCs Role In Third World

WILL INDIA FOLLOW LATIN AMERICA?

By Shivaji Sarkar

The world’s worst fears have come true. There is no food shortage. Transnational corporations through manipulations and speculative activities are jacking up the prices world-over and affecting food security and safety. This is the finding of two successive reports of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) – Trade and Development and World Investment Report -TNCs, Agricultural Production and Development 2009.

The US had been debating the role of the transnational corporations (TNC) since the 60s.  These are large corporates working across the world and unflinchingly flout sovereign norms of any country. Their argument being that as they work across the globe, transcending national boundaries they cannot be subjected to national laws. This is somewhat still sober. But they have steadily become smarter, bolder and aggressive. They decide the fate of nations controlling and coercing political parties and luring bureaucracy. Surveillance on them suffers. It is the TNCs which decide national policies or change them to suit their profit goals.

The financial shockwave of 2008, submerged equity (stock) and bond markets in many countries, exchange rates of some emerging market currencies and primary commodity market all at the same time. Worse, the financial and agriculture sectors are being subjected to continuous new games being played by them. Many discerning citizens have been warning governments that the growth of the financial sector was fraught with risk.

Now the United Nations confirms it, saying when the financial sector is allowed to grow too much, a country lands in trouble. Many financial institutions have no social utility. The UN wants strong regulations to prevent damage to economies. It wants new capital management techniques.

Developing countries now have become the TNCs favourite destinations. And, they were extremely active in Latin American countries. Many governments were overthrown. It led to legislation of strong anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws in the US to protect their own system. One such company AT&T was forced to split into at least three companies to restrict its malevolent powers.

The TNCs through their votaries have been campaigning that foreign direct investment (FDI) in agriculture would lead to greater productivity and price stability. Even some Indian economists had lobbied for this view through the 90s liberalization process.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, in the preface to WIR writes that greater involvement of TNCs will not automatically lead to greater productivity in agriculture, rural development or the alleviation of poverty and hunger. Clearly, he is giving a grim warning to the world and virtually calls for curbing their powers. He means, though he does not say, that the TNCs are not acting for the benefit of the world population, which would rise to nine billion by 2050.

These corporations have been investing in agriculture through direct and indirect methods and the FDI in agriculture is on the rise, tripling to $ 3 billion annually between 1989 and 2007, when it touched $ 32 billion. This participation in agriculture “can have negative impacts. It can result in job losses, in restrictive business practices or in excessive dependence among farmers on TNCs to supply inputs or buy produce. There are concerns about “land grabbing”, UN reports warn. It is a tendency that has separately been described as building up of corporate zamindars (land lords) in this country.

A devious method of intervention is to skirt the laws. Many countries, including India, do not allow direct investment in all sectors of agriculture by these corporations. They resort to contract farming through agents or exhibit FDI in some other areas such as consumer products. But it has the same deleterious effect, say the UN experts and admit it is a difficult area to contain.

A major cause of concern is the involvement of the TNCs in the production of cash crops. Their participation in staple food crops – whose harvests are vital for feeding developing country populations – is also significant. They control the commodity market and farm practices.  “This implies that there is no simple equation between food security and TNC participation in a host country’s agriculture”, the UN warns. India has seen it in many ways leading to mass suicides by farmers.

In reality, the TNCs and supermarket chains work against the basic food safety concerns. This is an anathema, as they would need to compromise with profit as welfare is clearly not their aim. The national governments need to take a serious note of the UN’s concern and curb pursuit of FDI in agriculture and free financial sector operations.

Countries such as India need to be extremely cautious as the TNCs are now eyeing them because western destinations have become less lucrative. India must be concerned as the FDI inflow has more than doubled in two years. It rose from $ 20336 in 2006 to $ 41554 in 2008. Being a favourable economic destination might sound politically fashionable but opening doors ajar without regulation has its inherent dangers. Leaders across the political spectrum must debate and discuss. Any inflow is not benign they have to understand.

The Union Government has involved the TNCs in agriculture--seed imports, and foreign ownership of seed companies since 1991. The UN is concerned at the lack of guard by New Delhi. A number of seed companies in the name of R&D have entered the country and the UN indirectly indicts India for the plight of farmers raising cash crop like Bt cotton and other seedless crops.

The corporations are more active in food processing sectors and names four of these specifically engaged in it. The TNCs are also active in floriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture and cultivation of vegetables. In many cases they are also involved in food crops. The UN confirms the fears of some experts. The recent commodity price rise is thanks to the TNCs involvement.

The Government must look into the branding of food products by the TNCs and the supermarket chains. Branding increases their profits and raises the prices of commodities. The so-called value addition only adds to the price but also causes problems for the small farmers and small trade, who are being edged out. All this increases the number of people living below the poverty line.

Indeed, eliminating TNCs is not going to be easy but if the Government does not rise to the occasion, it might be disastrous for this “great” nation. Instead of being a new power, India might eclipse like many Latin American nations, which were hyped, exploited and impoverished by the corporations. Time we be on our guard. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)