There are two broad explanations about the UPA’s spectacular victory in the 2009 General Elections. The first one is a negative one: that the electorate in India has rejected the communal political platform. But then this assertion is not borne out by facts. Varun Gandhi and Narendra Modi are the two diabolic communal faces of the BJP. But their electoral fortunes have been rather dissimilar in this election. Varun, who became an instant hit with saffron bandwagon after his venomous utterances against the Muslims, has won the Pilibhit seat in Uttar Pradesh, with a huge margin. To that extent, he has got the endorsement of the majority of voters in his constituency. But the same cannot be said of Narendra Modi, who can be legitimately called the role model for Varun Gandhi. Modi had scripted huge electoral successes in the aftermath of 2001 Gujrat riots riding on the hard Hindutva campaign. But this time he has failed to carry the people of Gujarat on a communal platform in a decisive manner. So it is difficult to say that the Indian electorate has either endorsed or rejected the communal politics. If there was an endorsement, then the BJP would not faced the relatively dismal performance in Uttar Pradesh as also Gujrat. And if the electorate rejected this brand of politics, then Varun Gandhi should have got a severe drubbing. But just the opposite has happened.
The second explanation is a positive assertion: that the election outcome this time is a vote for development. Many credit the UPA government with inclusive development process and pro-poor policies like the NREGA and the loan waiver scheme that won it the support of a large section of rural population. Well, these two schemes certainly helped the poor, but they were in the form of subsidy; there were hardly any measures by the UPA government which ensured that the 9 per cent growth was actually inclusive.
The government records, of course, tell us that there has been considerable poverty reduction during the period the country has been on a growth path, but the absolute number of people without the basic amenities is still large. That suggests that the rising inequality has not allowed the benefit of growth to change the quality of life for the poor.
Consider some basic facts: while India experienced spectacular economic growth, the benefit of that growth was hardly reflected in the improvement of the health facilities of the needy. The 2006 National Family Health Survey (NFHS 3) showed an immunization coverage of only 44 per cent – an improvement of just 2 per cent compared to the 1998 NFHS 2 data. Similarly, 46 per cent of children under three were underweight in 2006, again a fall of only 1 per cent over eight years. It was small wonder that India’s position in global Human Development Index (HDI) did not improve during the high growth phase.
As a matter of fact, the high growth was mostly registered in industries and services sector, where as agricultural growth remained sluggish. This had serious implications for the poor as 55 per cent of the total workforce in India is still engaged in agriculture.
The NREGA that the government launched in February 2006 had enormous potential in ensuring that funds reached the rural landless unemployed and the necessary rural infrastructure is built in the bargain, but its success has been only patchy. It has delivered results only where the social audit campaigns initiated by Jean Dreze, Aruna Roy and other social activists are strong. Elsewhere it has got lost in the proverbial bottomless pit of corruption, callousness and unaccountability.
Just see what Rahul Gandhi said while on a whirlwind election tour of West Bengal two weeks ago: “There are four lakh NREG cardholders in Purulia, but I have heard only 950 people have got 100 days of employment.” The Congress leader might have said this to score a brownie point with the Left rivals during election time, but what is true of Purulia is also true of most parts of India.
Education is supposed to be the key for social mobility of the poor. Rapid growth in quality primary and basic education as well as higher education is considered critical in providing access to a better life for the poor But Manmohan singh government could not provide for the right to decent education for all. The Right to education Bill was not passed in 2007 citing financial constraints! That showed the clear priority that the government had in mind when spearheading the economy with a spectacular growth rate.
So to say that the 2009 mandate for the Congress-led UPA is a mandate for development is a travesty of truth. Subsidising the poor is not the same as making them active participants in and real beneficiaries of the development process.
Sangharsh India 