The title is not so self explanatory, So let me shed some light on what is going on in my mind while I decided to write this. Equity is the most talked about word in most socialistic countries, or should I say it is the most talked about concept around the world today. Equity be within a country or around the world, we talk about reducing the gap between the haves and have-nots.
There exist a concept of people "Below Poverty Line" which remains improper as there is no standard and universally acceptable formula to define the term. But within the hearts and minds of a common man, A person who is not able to gratify his/her bare minimum needs as a human should be below poverty line. I hope anyone who would read this would agree. Bare minimum needs would include clean food security, drinking water, basic education, health facilities, guaranteed job to earn his/her living.
There is a thing that comes to my mind very often, and that is a question: If I am provided with free food, free place to live and everything without a cost, will I ever want to work? And what will happen if most of the people realise this and would focus on reaping the benefits of subsidies and everything that is freely available. Best example here would be the beggers on the streets who look strong enough to get any manual work and earn his bread for living, but he is more happy to beg and eat and roam around instead of working as a daily wage laborer and buy food for himself and his family.
I was reading an article in frontline this month about the PDS and Food Security: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120113282709600.htm
The survey says that a person gets enough amount of food that he would get after working for a month under NREGA. So do u think there would be many people who would benefit from both? I Think yes, but may be equal in numbers to the people who would choose to get the free grains and everything and not work because he can anyways sustain his/her life without even working. No? Is that a very wrong premise to ponder upon?
The grossly politicized Food Security Bill, which is not only putting the exchequer under excessive pressure but also making the economy less productive. If people decide to reap the free benefits and not work, it is definitely going to reduce the economic activity.
So, There is a need to understand that subsidies and Social nets like food security, health benefits etc are not replaceable, but there is a need to have a holistic understanding of the poverty and an overall approach towards bringing people above the poverty line so that once they reach a level where they get the bare minimums, they become independent and able to sustain their lives without the Govt crutches. There is a need to develop schemes and spread awareness about social mobility that would widen the thinking and aspirations of the people to move to a better level in social hierarchy. And hence there is a need to link education, food security, livelihood and other schemes together, in order to provide a wholesome impetus to the lives of people who are yet to be brought into mainstream, need support but do not need to be made dependent upon those far above.
There exist a concept of people "Below Poverty Line" which remains improper as there is no standard and universally acceptable formula to define the term. But within the hearts and minds of a common man, A person who is not able to gratify his/her bare minimum needs as a human should be below poverty line. I hope anyone who would read this would agree. Bare minimum needs would include clean food security, drinking water, basic education, health facilities, guaranteed job to earn his/her living.
There is a thing that comes to my mind very often, and that is a question: If I am provided with free food, free place to live and everything without a cost, will I ever want to work? And what will happen if most of the people realise this and would focus on reaping the benefits of subsidies and everything that is freely available. Best example here would be the beggers on the streets who look strong enough to get any manual work and earn his bread for living, but he is more happy to beg and eat and roam around instead of working as a daily wage laborer and buy food for himself and his family.
I was reading an article in frontline this month about the PDS and Food Security: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120113282709600.htm
The survey says that a person gets enough amount of food that he would get after working for a month under NREGA. So do u think there would be many people who would benefit from both? I Think yes, but may be equal in numbers to the people who would choose to get the free grains and everything and not work because he can anyways sustain his/her life without even working. No? Is that a very wrong premise to ponder upon?
The grossly politicized Food Security Bill, which is not only putting the exchequer under excessive pressure but also making the economy less productive. If people decide to reap the free benefits and not work, it is definitely going to reduce the economic activity.
So, There is a need to understand that subsidies and Social nets like food security, health benefits etc are not replaceable, but there is a need to have a holistic understanding of the poverty and an overall approach towards bringing people above the poverty line so that once they reach a level where they get the bare minimums, they become independent and able to sustain their lives without the Govt crutches. There is a need to develop schemes and spread awareness about social mobility that would widen the thinking and aspirations of the people to move to a better level in social hierarchy. And hence there is a need to link education, food security, livelihood and other schemes together, in order to provide a wholesome impetus to the lives of people who are yet to be brought into mainstream, need support but do not need to be made dependent upon those far above.
