Skip to main content

SELF-RELIANT INDIA: PROS AND CONS


Self-reliance or to depend on oneself as an idea can become self-contradictory, if we do not shelve into the pros and cons of it, before eulogising it as a matter of policy. No doubt, self-reliance is one of the many factors that determine the status, dignity and respect of a nation among the family of nations-states in the world. A nation that is not self-reliant cannot partake in international relations as an equal partner. Under such situations an unequal trade deal can be imposed on a nation that by circumstances cannot afford to resist it due to lack of self sufficiency.
The proponents of self-reliance should also remember that this idea has not fallen on the Earth all on a sudden in the year 2020. India during its plan period generally and during the Fifth Five Year plan period particularly emphasized on self-reliance as a prime policy to ensure self respect to India. Under such an initiative. large scale industries were established to cure India of its industrial backwardness. An impressive number of higher educational institutions were established to provide training and research facilities to develop its human resources.
As a matter of fact, no nation can avoid self-reliance as a policy to assure development to its people and to attain respect among the fraternity of nations in the world.
Now, when we look at the other side of the coin, we will be forced take notice of many factors that can stand against our self-reliance drive. If all the nations on the earth declare the policy of self-reliance, then a situation arises where no nation requires the cooperation of other nations in the matter of survival. Such a situation is an impossible one, because the material resources on the surface of the earth are not distributed equally. When one nation is blessed with agriculture, other one is blessed with metals, and a third one is blessed with minerals. This unequal distribution of resources warrants nations to engage in a give and take relation to attain prosperity.
Yet again, the world that is today divided into 190 or so nation states cannot avoid cooperation and coexistence as policies to avoid conflict among themselves. A nation that is fully reliant on herself need not believe in the principle of mutual coexistence, because her existence has nothing to do with the existence of other nations. A world where nations close their doors towards others cannot be imagined, especially when we are in the era of technology and information. The development in technology and information in any corner of the world reaches every other nook and corner of the world to ensure development to the whole world. 

Now, we have amply proved that the policy of every nation should be a balancing act between self-reliance and mutual coexistence. The ideal situation warrants that every nation should assess the properties of natural and human resources in it. It also requires every nation to develop its own resources in required amounts. It is necessary for every nation to engage in a give and take relation to exchange each other's area of specialisation.
In India, if anything like a self-reliance chanting is heard occasionally, it should be considered as a program to hide the wrongdoings of governments. Currently, many namesake industries in India hugely depend on foreign imports for their production. The governments that derived their power from feudal elements surviving in the form of land-owning, money lending and business classes categorically failed to address the problems of industrialization and unemployment ever since the so-called opening of the economy in 1991. The focus, it seemed, was to cater to the needs of a miniscule social section that resorted to foreign migration and import business. When a government derives its legitimacy and sustainability from elements that opposed to self-reliance, how can it afford to convert its words into deeds?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EXODUS: FROM PARTITION TO PANDEMIC

Anyone who takes an impartial view of historical events cannot ever question the genuinity of suffering inflicted by the mass exodus during the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. Records variously mention about 10 to 12 million people as affected by the gruesome man-made tragedy in the recent history which was, however, unavoidable. Both India and Pakistan, in one way or another, washed their hands off the responsibility of the human tragedy, because there was a third player who could be held responsible for the cold-blooded acts of murder committed during the partition in 1947. After seven decades of this gruesome  man-made  tragedy. we are witnessing a mass exodus of the scale that cannot have a parallel in the recent history, save the exodus during partition. But, if we feign ignorance about it, or a section of media underplays it as irrelevant, or a section of the political  establishment bypasses it as a political conspiracy, it cannot stand to the tes...
Post a Comment
Read more

1984 SIKH GENOCIDE: RELlGIOUS BIGOTRY OR ECONOMIC FALLOUT?

" It is painful to recollect the events that followed the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984. The Sikh genocide of 1984, as it is called, however, is a subject of controversy, especially due to  the different dimensions in the conflict. The media and the contemporary literature widely referred to it as a shocking upsurge of religious bigotry because we are habituated to look at the events through a narrow and faulty vision which has been gifted to us by those intellectuals with long-dead colonial mindset. In this regard the book "What after Modi Sarkar?" comes up with new bold revealations. The author points out at the economic imbalance in the aflected areas, especially in upmarket areas of various cities, where the Sikh community maintained a willfully sustained economic imperialism. The corresponding deprivation felt by the rest of the communities powered the event in 1984. In fact, it was an event waiting to happen and the assassination of Indira Gan...
Post a Comment
Read more