Kament
There
is an adage ‘ if you try to please all, will please none'. So whenever budget was
placed by any party in parliament it hardly satisfied all section
of society. Feedback of recent budget is almost same as some are giving it a
pass marks, some are giving even less than pass marks but ruling party have claimed
to have got a distinction and patting on their back saying wah, wah budget.
Why
this budget is different from the past is because in this budget, development
of rural sectors have been specifically taken into consideration through
investment in infrastructure, electrification, water, irrigation, and so on.
The way ruling party have intruded in rural sectors it must have stunned some
of the opposition who have strong base in villages. That is why a prominent
opposition leader said that this government has majority which no government
has had in thirty years. Perhaps he wanted to say that they had also brought same
budget if they would have got same majority in the past.
In
ancient times India was called golden bird. Why was it called golden bird, analysts
have been proving by interpreting their own logics and
reasons behind. Gandhi ji once said India lives in villages. So probably because
of its villages India might have been known golden bird in ancient times.
Does
ruling party really want to develop rural areas or they are making the way for
industrialists to spread their wings. Obviously Investment in irrigation,
water, electrification and in infrastructure will not only increase the
production of crop but also lure the other industries to establish in rural
areas. This is not a bad idea because if a good infrastructure can bring outsourcing
business in India from other developed
countries then why a developed villages can not bring business from urban
areas. But question is who will be more benefitted villagers or industrialists,
will poor will be getting poorer or rich will be getting richer ?
Concept
of smart city, extension of liberal economic policy of the previous government
and now moving towards rural sector, materializing
the concept of Lalu’s smart villages indicate that ruling party have outsmarted
its oppositions who call for social justice and industrialization. As far as
progress of country is concerned ruling party’s agenda is clear they will not
compromise on the issue of development .
if they want to see city smart they also don’t want to see villages lagging
behind.
But
question is why their impartiality deviate on the issue of secularism. Why do they
incline openly to a particular religion and reject others. Is this a part of
game of politics? Is suffering of a portion of population due to this politics good
for health of a country ? There is also very famous saying that in politics
there are no permanent friends or enemies. But It seems that ruling party does
not believe in this they are firm in their agenda just like leftist. Leftist
diminished gradually because it had imported the ideology on the other hand
ruling party surged forward because they owned the issue which is connected
with emotion, sentiments.
When
we talk about patriotism and nationalism quote of Charles de Gaulle comes into
mind he said ‘ Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first,
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.’
End
Comments