New Vision

  Essential Commodities Act (ECA), 1955 The ECA has been used by the Government to regulate the production, supply and distribution of a whole host of commodities it declares ‘essential in order to make them available to consumers at fair prices. The ECA gives consumers protection against irrational spikes in prices of essential commodities. However, it has acted against the interest of the farmers. This has thwarted the creation of integrated value chains across the country. ECA has its roots in the Defence of India Rules of 1943, when India was ravaged by famine and was facing the effects of World War II. It was scarcity-era legislation. By the mid-1960s, hit by back-to-back droughts, India had to depend upon wheat imports from the US and the country was labelled as a “ship to mouth” economy. However, today, India is the largest exporter of rice in the world and the second-largest producer of both wheat and rice, after China. Due to these factors, the Economic Survey 2020, has recomm

Farmers and Farm Act 2020 As Indians break into 2021 with the fervent hope that it will be different from last year’s devastating pandemic and farmer protest. Many thousands farmers have gathered peacefully at the doorsteps of the nation’s capital, demanding that the government repeal the recently formulated agriculture-related laws and make MSP as law. There is a lot of noise on who is right and who is wrong. But this protest should challenge us to think, not as researchers or academics or even policy wonks, but as consumers of food that farmers grow. The question we need to ask is why does the food that we consume need to be subsidized? Why are farmers, not just the ones camping in the bitter cold at the capital’s borders, but also the voiceless silent majority, demanding price support? Are they unproductive and lazy? The fact is that across the world, even, and especially, in the rich world, agriculture is heavily funded by governments.

  Golwalkar's  Criticism on Individual freedom and  Markets Economy RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar didn’t like freedom. He mocked the “new era of ‘individual freedom’, sanctity of the individual rights’ and ‘equality of opportunity for all’”. No surprise therefore that we hear the voice of Karl Marx in his writings: “the high-sounding concept of ‘individual freedom’ only meant the freedom of those talented few to exploit the rest of the common people and reduce them to abject serfdom. The horrible conditions of the labourers -men, women and even children – working in those factories defied all description. They were now groaning under the heels of the new tyrants in place of the old”. He then claimed that “under the slogan of ‘equality of opportunity’ persons with greater intelligence and wealth monopolised all those new avenues of production of wealth and became the unchallenged financial overlords”. Naturally, RSS and BJP ideologues vigorously oppose capitalism. Golwalkar wrote about

  Decentralisation of Economic Power for the Hindu Viewpoint We, in the light of our own genius, ponder over the problem of how best to bring into practice the basic principle of ensuring the just and proper decentralisation of economic power. Mahatma Gandhi has propounded the theory of trusteeship in the light of his perception of the tradition and life-philosophy of this land. In that concept, the human incentive for production is not crippled. He is urged to produce as much as possible. But he is not to look upon himself as the owner of all that wealth; it essentially belongs to the community. He is only to look upon himself as the trustee of that property in order to ensure its proper utilisation in the service of society. No doubt this approach is in consonance with our ancient Hindu thought. But there is a serious handicap in this.  In the present age, the human mind has been so much confused and twisted out of shape that man is unable to muster his will and capacity for work wh

Revival of Hindu Professionalism Golwalkar strongly opposed modernity and its values. “Bringing all mankind on one equal carnal level, abolishing their personal and common characteristics and aiming to establish society without government is completely contradictory to our tradition,” he said. This indicates that whatever is contradictory to Hindu tradition should not be accepted. He further added that economic inequality is an integral part of Indian culture. For Golwalkar, social equality and justice that aim to bring humanity on an equal platform were condemnable ideals and goals. In my understanding, when society is build on an unequal base, it is obvious that political power and means of production will be the private property of specific classes. To retain its superiority this class constantly and heavily extorts the common people In this type of society poor class of labourers and landless peasants becomes the slaves of the richer class. When Golwalkar says people should retain