THE elections to Assemblies are almost over. Reports and discussions in the media, including on the small screen, give the impression that no major issues of public concern have been covered by the political parties. It seems the anti-insurgency issues are prominent, but these are not the sort of issues that economists might consider important.
Caste factors were also highlighted in the discussions, and it was noted that every party sought to widen its base by fielding candidates from several castes. Minorities appear to be getting places in the lists of candidates of different parties. All this is okay, but should not political parties highlight what is happening to the economies of these States? Should they not lift the discussions to a higher level by projecting connected programmes and plans in these States for the next five years?
Let us now look at the rankings of poverty in 1999-2000. Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were at the top. Gujarat had slipped down, and Uttar Pradesh continued to be in the lowest of rankings, at No. 12. Orissa, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Assam ranked lower, in that order.
What do the rankings convey? Clearly, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, UP and, now, Assam are problem States from the point of view of high poverty levels. Uttar Pradesh's ranking has been moving down, if we take 1977-78 as the reference point. Between 1993-94 and 1999-2000, Uttar Pradesh had a low ranking.
Should not this point, which is so important for economic well-being, have been highlighted by the media and political parties?
After all, poverty alleviation is a responsibility of the State governments, given the pressures they can exercise on the Union Government. After all, there is no reason to believe that the Centre is biased in the matter of measures, direct and indirect, to reduce the pressure of poverty in the different States.
After all, poverty alleviation is a responsibility of the State governments, given the pressures they can exercise on the Union Government. After all, there is no reason to believe that the Centre is biased in the matter of measures, direct and indirect, to reduce the pressure of poverty in the different States.
What is most distressing is that none of the political parties seem concerned about the deteriorating performance in UP with respect to poverty alleviation. What is power meant for? Should not the level of discussion among different parties be lifted to a higher level to encompass issues such as the State governments improving the lot of those below of the poverty line? What are the National Sample Survey results meant for?
There is some consistency between the relative worsening of UP's ranking in alleviating poverty and the sliding agricultural output and growth rate.
Also, UP's efforts in containing the rate of growth of population has not been satisfactory. It continues to have one of the highest population growth rates in India.
Clearly, per-capita-wise, UP's economy is not improving. The media, including the small screen, has a great responsibility in educating those in political power and forcing political leaders to focus on what really matters to the common man.
Clearly, per-capita-wise, UP's economy is not improving. The media, including the small screen, has a great responsibility in educating those in political power and forcing political leaders to focus on what really matters to the common man.
