मैं चुप हूँ इसलिए नहीं कि पूछने को पास मेरे कोई सवाल नहीं है सोचता हूँ अगर कहीं जो सवाल कोई मैं पूछ गया तो तुम जवाब कहाँ से लाओगे? मनगढंत उत्तर के सघन वन में कहीं तुम लापता तो न हो जाओगे या किसी बहरूपिये का भेष धरकर मेरे सामने आओगे फिर मेरी नज़रों से खुद को न छुपा पाओगे और निरुत्तर हो जाओगे पर निरुत्तर तुम्हे देखकर शर्मिंदगी मुझे होगी कि जानकर भी ये प्रश्न मैंने क्यों पूछा बेहतर यही होगा कि मैं, मेरे मन के सवाल की स्याही को सूख ही जाने देता हूँ कि सुना है, समय की कोख में कई प्रश्नो के उत्तर स्वतः जन्म लेते हैं
तड़ित चालक: Lightening arrester; its used as a tool which arrest or capture lightening yet doesn’t store it, rather let it pass through itself in to the ground. Now use it in context of the poem, do you find any relevance 🙂
In India, petroleum price has always been used as political weapon by oppositions. The reason is very simple because it is easily understood by the people and it directly affects them. In democracy, no party will always remain in power; hence this tool has been utilized to wedge dissatisfaction against the government, irrespective of political ideologies by the opponents. So either it’s right or left or even those who are having centrist ideology, if they are in opposition, they will vehemently oppose any price rise in petroleum products in domestic market.
In 1973, Vajpayee Ji arriving in Parliament in bullock cart, to show protest against the price rise in Kerosene and Petrol.
Recently the same noise has been reverberated in the news channels. Opposition argues that the oil price has been plummeted in the international market, but the government is not forwarding the benefit to the people and charging excessive custom and excise duties. They say, and rightly so, the price of 1 barrel of oil was approx $ 120 in somewhere around 2013-14 and now in 2017, due to various international dynamics, this is hovering around $50 per barrel. But the price paid by the Indian citizen for one liter of petrol/ diesel has been kept same or rather has been increased despite the steep fall in the oil price in world market.
At very naïve stage, the argument of the opposition seems very plausible and rational. But again the economics come in to play. In economics, what is obvious to the eyes may not be in reality. Let me present you a different narrative, which is based on economics and not on rhetoric.
India is a net importer of petroleum product. A significant amount of foreign exchange is spent purchasing Oil from various countries (contribution Gulf Countries in the significant in this regard).
Sometime economy of a country should be looked as whole and not as individual entity. The methodology to look economy of a country as whole is known as “Macroeconomics”. Government needs money to run various schemes and projects, such as building infrastructure, providing food security to the marginalized community, providing healthcare to those who can’t afford, building power stations to generate electricity, giving grants to educational institutions and students, providing subsidies to the farmers, (now they are also waving the loan off, which in my view is not a prudent choice), purchase of defence equipment etc. Many of these activities run by the government is performed which will not result in revenue, rather it put constraint on the limited resources. Our country performs this task as it is believed to be a welfare state.
So for running welfare scheme and building infrastructure money is needed. Government generates this money through taxation. But as you might know only 1% of the Indian Population pays taxes. Hence government resorts to indirect taxation. Excise duty and custom duties fall under this category of taxation. Even though indirect taxes are considered as regressive taxation system, but since our tax base in narrow (only 1% as mentioned earlier) government has imposes it. But the fact of the matter is that even after imposing indirect taxes each year government experiences Fiscal Deficit. Fiscal Deficit in simplest of words “occurs when the revenue generated is less than expenditure incurred.”
Now in case of India, as we all know tax generated is less and the government has huge responsibility, so every year it resorts to borrowing and other means to meet the expenditure. But borrowing to meet the consumption expenditure is not regarded as good policy and it is even true in our family, isn’t it? We can borrow for purchasing a home or a car but if we borrow to have food and cloth, then certainly our family economy will not be construed in good shape. Same is true for a big family called “India i.e. Bharat”
So what government is doing by taxing high on petroleum product is that it is generating additional revenue which is plugging the gap between revenue generated and expenditure incurred. This can be understood through a pictorial graph that how the current government is doing in terms of improving the Fiscal Deficit of the country over the year in comparison to the previous government.
Fiscal Deficit over the recent years
Apart from improving on the Fiscal Deficit front, high taxation on petroleum products has many additional advantages and some of them are very vital. Since I have already bored you with this lengthy article hence I will keep short in explaining the additional benefits of high taxation on Petroleum Products in detail.
High taxation in petroleum product results in :—-
Judicious Consumption of Petroleum Product
Low burden on government Foreign Exchange
Lower Pollution
Boost to Public transportation
Search for alternative energy which is Eco-Friendly
Inflation Control
If you find any doubt in understanding any of these benefits which I have highlighted, just let me know in comment section, I will try to answer your query.
I hope this will help in develop some understanding related the price mechanism of Petroleum Product and high rate of taxation. Now imagine a situation, if the price will rise in international market and commensurately government will increase the price of petroleum product, the same opposition will started making noise and will term government as anti poor and all for raising the price. So next time someone will give any illogical argument to you, you may say “No Ullu Banawing..No Ullu Banawing..”
Last but not the least “today’s opposition will run tomorrows government and vice versa” 🙂
आज हिंदी दिवस है. 14 सितंबर 1949 को संविधान सभा ने एक मत से यह निर्णय लिया कि हिन्दी ही भारत की राजभाषा होगी और 1953 से ही हिंदी दिवस को मनाने की परंपरा चली आ रही है. आप सब जो हिंदी पढ़, लिख, बोल और सोच सकते हो, सभी को इस अवसर पर बधाई और जो ये सब नहीं कर सकते उनको विशेष बधाई, आप लोग भी हिंदी को पढ़िए और भारत की सबसे ज़्यदा बोली जाने वाली भाषा का लुत्फ़ उठाइये
आज के दिन मैं अपनी एक कविता को आपके समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूँ जो हिंदी को समर्पित है ….मैंने इसे पहले कभी लिखा था, आज पुनः प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूँ. आशा है आपको पसंद आएगी …
मेरे दादा जी कहा करते थे कि शहर और गांव में एक बड़ा अंतर यह है कि शहर में कुत्ते घर के अंदर रहते हैं और गायें घर के बाहर, पर गांव में गायें घर के अंदर होती हैं और कुत्ते घर के बाहर. जब दादा जी गांव छोड़ कर शहर को आये, तो गावों की यह प्रवृति को अपने से दूर नहीं रख पाए. शहर में गावों जैसा बड़ा घर तो नहीं होता, पर फिर भी उन्होंने घर के पीछे के हिस्से में एक गाय को रखने की व्यवस्था कर ही ली. काफी लम्बे समय तक एक गाय हमारे घर पर थी. पर मैंने जब से होश संभाला मैंने किसी गाय को अपने घर में नहीं देखा.
दादा जी ने बताया था कि परिवार बड़ा हुआ तो गाय को रखने की जगह काम हो गयी. परिवार को गाय के ऊपर तवज्जोह देना तो लाजमी ही है. पर वो कहते थे कि जब मैं ऑफिस से वापस आता था तो मेरा पूरा समय उसकी देख भाल में बीत जाता था. जब वो नहीं रही तो एक खालीपन सा लगता था. मैं दादा जी कि भावनाएं शायद समझ नहीं सकता था क्योंकि जब तक लगाव न हो तब तक भावनाओं को समझना नामुनकिन होता है.
मेरे पापा के मित्र हैं अवस्थी जी. हैं बेहद करीबी. हमारा उनके घर आना जाना लगा रहता है और उनका मेरे घर आना. उनका घर शहर के बहरी छोड़ पर है. मैंने अवस्थी जी को इस लेख में इसलिए खींच के लाया कि उनके घर में भी एक गाय है, नाम है उसका लक्ष्मी. वो है सफ़ेद रंग की. मैं जब भी उनके घर जाता हूँ तो उससे, परिवार के एक अज़ीज़ सदस्य की तरह जरूर मिलता हूँ. मुझे भी लगता है कि शायद वो भी मुझे पहचानती है. जब भी मैं उसके गले के नीचे हाथों से सहलाता हूँ तो वो बड़ी खुश लगती है और ऐसा व्यवहार करती है कि मैं उसको सहलाता ही रहूँ. अवस्थी अंकल कह रहे थे लक्ष्मी बहुत दिनों से घर में है और परिवार के एक हिस्से की तरह. भारतीय दर्शन में गायों का बहुत महत्व है. यहाँ भगवान को भी गोपाल (गाय के चरवाहे) की तरह दिखाया गया है.
मैं कुछ दिनों के लिए शहर से बहार गया था. लौटा तो अवस्थी अंकल के घर भी गया. थोड़ा अचंभित हुआ यह देख कर कि आज वहां लक्ष्मी नहीं थी. आंटी ने बताया कि वह अब वह बूढी हो गयी थी तो उसको हमलोगों ने स्वतंत्र कर दिया.
यह सुनकर मुझे धक्का लगा और मैं सोचा कि “जब वह जब बूढी हो गयी तो स्वतंत्र कर दिया” क्या स्वतंत्रता, बूढ़े होने के बाद किसी काम की होती है? मुझे लगा कि शायद वह अब दूध देने में सक्षम नहीं थी तो घर से निकाल दिया गया. सारे सम्बन्ध भी तो आज कल “Give and Take” सिद्धांत पर चलते हैं!!!
तभी अवस्थी अंकल भी आये. वे थोड़े उदास थे. उन्होंने कहा कि हमारा भावनात्मक लगाव हो गया था लक्ष्मी से. हम रोज उसको दिन में खुला छोड़ देते थे, दिन भर घास चर के वो शाम को ठीक 5 बजे आ जाती थी. घर में कोई भी बीमार होता तो न जाने उसके आँखों से आंसुओं की धार अनायाश ही बहने लगती. हमारे लिए भी उसको बाहर छोड़ने का निर्णय कठिन था.
जब हमने तय किया कि आज से उसका घर खुले में होगा और उसकी जिम्मेवारी उसकी खुद की होगी, उस दिन भी वो शाम को ठीक 5 बजे घर आयी और माँ… माँ… कर हमे पुकार रही थी और शायद कह रही थी कि मैं बहार से घास चर के आ गयी हूँ मेरे लिए दरवाजा खोलो. एक पल के लिए लगा कि खोल दूँ पर चुकि परिवार में निर्णय हो चूका था तो मैं चाह कर भी नहीं खोल पा रहा था. वो माँ.. माँ.. कर चिल्लाते हुए वहीँ पड़ी रही और सो गयी. अगले दिन भी वही हुआ. दिन भर कहीं से घूम कर आयी और फिर से शाम को 5 बजे फिर माँ… माँ… कर पुकारने लगी पर हम सभी निष्ठुर और निर्दयी की तरह बर्ताव करते रहे और पीछे का दरवाजा नहीं खोला. 5-6 दिन ऐसे ही चला. फिर शायद हमारे निर्दय होने का एहसास उसे हो चला था तो उसने आना बंद कर दिया.
अब वह घर के सामने एक मैदान में ही रुकने लगी. उसके आँखों के नीचे हमेशा आंसुओं की धार रहती थी, शायद उसके आंसू अब स्थायी हो चले थे. ऐसा लगता था कि उसकी आँसुएँ मुझसे चीख चीख कर पूछ रही हों कि “मेरी गलती तो बता दो, घर से बेघर क्यों कर दिया”? मैं निशब्द, निरुत्तर बना रहा. 2-3 महीने तक हम उसे रोज मैदान में देखते रहे. पर अब वह इस मैदान में भी नहीं दिखती. यह सब कहकर अवस्थी अंकल चुप हो गए.
मैं सब मौन हो कर सुन रहा था. मन विषाद के गर्त में गोते लगा रहा था. भावनाएं उमर रही थी. लक्ष्मी के गले पर जब मैं हाथें सहलाता था वह अनुभव जीवंत हो उठा…क्या कहीं ऐसा तो नहीं कि लक्ष्मी ने मुझे भी पुकारा हो कि शायद मैं वापस उसे उसके घर में वापस ले आऊं…….कहाँ गयी होगी लक्ष्मी …कोई उसे ले तो नहीं गया..और यदि ले भी गया तो किस उद्देस्य से ले गया होगा….
No, I am not talking about the blunders which I, You or We made at the time of our birth, (any way, we did not have any cognitive sense to decide at that moment and most of them is committed in full consciousness :-P) rather the blunders which our politicians and policy makers did before, during and after the birth of India as Nation State. To call it a blunder may also subject to a contentious debate, but still I am not shying away to call it some of the decisions as “Blunder”.
If time will permit me, I will be writing a series of articles on the same topic “Blunders at Birth”, varied in different spheres be it economic, geo-strategic, defence or even cultural. Today I am limiting to only a single aspect of a economic decision, which was taken by the policymakers at the time of independence, which crippled our development and we became underachiever in economic realm.
When we became Independent, we chose “Industry” as a “Prime Moving Force” for development. What does it mean? It means that industry will play a significant role in the development of the nation and government’s focus and heavy investment will be in the Manufacturing or Industrial Sector, which in turn, will eradicate poverty, will make us self reliant, enhance our economic might, would give us the prestige so on and so forth.
Pandit Nehru was a votary of this idea and many termed him visionary for this.
A reality check:
With the hindsight, we, now after seventy years of Independence, can asses that decision, to make Industry as “Prime Moving Force” for economy and to give “over emphasis and significant budgetary allocation at the cost of other sector” (agricultural sector per se) was not a wise decision and rather a debilitating impact on our economy.
Why making “Industrial Sector” as “Prime Moving Force” was not a wise move?
We did not have the infrastructure to support: Industrial Growth is highly depended on the infrastructure of the Nation. Mainly three infrastructures are must to develop a cluster of Industrial Belt and i.e. Electricity, Transport and Communication. Even after 70 years of Independence we don’t have comparable infrastructure with many developed countries and some developing countries, what to speak of at the time of Independence. If infrastructure was not there how one can expect to grow industries.
Insignificant presence of Infrastructure making Industry: Infra making industries are iron and steel, cement, crude oil, refineries industries etc. All these industries was almost absent baring few such as Tata Iron and Steel Company, in Jamshedpur.
No capital to invest: Industry demands huge sum of money for thriving. Our economic condition was in great disarray, because of the severe exploitation and drain on wealth by British. Private capital was not enough; neither the government has enough to spend.
Lack of Technology: Industry needs sophisticated technology which we hardly had any, at the dawn of independence.
No Skilled Manpower: To get employment in technical industry, first human resource needs to be trained, because of the technical nature of the Job. But even today less than 10% of the people in India are technically trained and even those who are trained such as huge chunk of engineers, majority of them are unfit to be called as technical. Imagine the India of 1947!
Market was unavailable: For working of economics one prime criterion is the availability of market. Majority of the people were very poor at that time. Do you expect them to consume the products which were made up in industries?
So I have listed out some of the reasons which suggest that we should not have focused on “Industry” too much during the nascent stage, but rather we should have focused more on agriculture at that time. When we would have become self sufficient in it and could have developed infrastructure, investible surplus capital, market then we could have focused on making industry as the driver of economy.
Many would argue that why Pandit Nehru would have given so much preference to industry. At that time it was a wide belief that if a nation has to grow, industry has to be given preference and adopting agriculture as chief source of economic progress was considered backward looking. Many nations of Europe, erstwhile USSR and US have replicated the model successfully. So he copied the idea from there.
But mere coping is not enough and one should always be aware of the ground realities. Even though it was considered backward looking, China has made agriculture, their prime moving force after 1949 and became a cash surplus nation. When it had sufficient wealth it started focusing on infrastructure, skill development and now we can see how much that idea is successful. From the threads of kites, to smart phones, from colour in Holi to lights in Depawali all belongs to China.
We failed as manufacturer and even till today our Farmers commit suicides in thousands. This means our agriculture policy is also is failed. We neither became and industrial state nor developed a sound agriculture base
Wasn’t it a “Blunder at Birth”?
Hope this post was informative. Don’t forget to let me know about your views…
the ETERNAL tryst 
You must be logged in to post a comment.