The Instigator
meeranazer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TPF
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Industrialization in India does not benefit the poor

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,698 times Debate No: 13222
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

meeranazer

Pro

India's industrialization has played havoc with its poor. The juggernaut of industrialization leaves the great Indian middle class climbing aboard over the bodies of the struggling masses or staying out of the way.
Today, the sign of destruction looms nowhere larger than in agriculture. India is dying rather than living in her villages.
All natural resources such as land, water, forest, which used to be common property indispensable for people's survival, are being forcibly acquired by the state to be handed over to the TATAs, the Ambanis, POSCO, Coca-Cola, mining giants and others. This is often under the veil of non-transparent deals. The systematic onslaught by liberalization, privatization and globalization is being reinforced by the direct violence of the State to dispossess millions who live traditionally on a natural resource base. These poor populations are now condemned and continuously bulldozed for being poor in the name of some ‘illegality' or ‘encroachment' defined by the expropriators themselves.
Make no mistake, if India do not industrialize, it will never be prosperous. The current form of industrialization which uses the principle of "exploitation for profits" has been there in the nation since independence. And yet, India has remained an overwhelmingly ‘poor' country. Three out of four Indians have a purchasing power of not more than Rs 20 per day. If we have to think of industrialization in democratic India, we cannot simply ignore this majority of our citizenry and their potential. Another nandigram can't be let loose. Industrialization may be helping shake off the caste rigidness but in that place it's filling another system… another social disparity… rich poor divide. The right question to ask, therefore, is not whether to industrialize or not, but industrialize for whom and how? We call for "participatory industrialization".
Participatory industrialization would involve the poor and illiterate, who constitute the skilled and semi-skilled labor force, in their traditional environment. Through a productive full-employment program, they could become a propelling force for the creation and distribution of wealth. Existing livelihoods would not be destroyed in this process without people's consent, and would ensure that they can have not just a habitat but also an alternative livelihood. In the present Indian context this means that industry should come up on vacant and uncultivable land, while productivity of cultivable land should be increased. Decentralized, efficient and participatory management of land, water and tree-cover with human power can achieve this.
The guidelines would be environmental sustainability, equity and justice monitored by wider institutions and agencies, who would work with unit tiers like the present Panchayat Raj, with suitable amendments to draw units on the basis of the eco-system boundaries. The legal first step is to actualize the 73rd Amendment with the help of Article 243 of the Constitution.
This is the route through which the poor, rejected by today's industrialization, would enter the larger economy with dignity as both producers and consumers. The composition of our national output would change as we put the internal market, constituting many local economies and populated by the poor, at center stage. The composition of output produced in this manner at the local level would be much less intensive in its use of natural resources. To reduce the pace of mad urbanization that sucks enormous natural resources for a handful of rich, by dispossessing the poor and forcing migration to cities, is a related task which only this alternative can achieve. The domestic rather than the external market must occupy the centre of economic policy, with the purchasing power rising at a faster rate at the bottom than at the top of income distribution, and the market used by the poor for local exchanges to suit their needs and priorities. There are isolated experiments where local use of skills and resources has successfully withstood corporate competition.
Development is the preferred option, provided the carrying capacity is available. There cannot be a trade-off at the cost of health and livelihoods of the silent majority and those who voice their grievances are christened NAXALITES OR MAOISTS.
India's way is not Europe's; India is not Calcutta and Bombay. India lives in seven hundred thousand villages.
Urbanization in India is slow but sure death for her villages and villagers.
The time is ripe for a new beginning.
JAI HIND!
TPF

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this interesting debate and I look forward to an intellectually-stimulating debate.

My opponent states that India's industrialization does not benefit India's poor. I will argue that industrialization, under the pretext of free-market economics does in fact benefit India's poor.

I will first refute my opponents arguments before stating my own.

Behind my opponents rhetoric, my opponents solution to the industrialization is what my opponent terms "participatory industrialization". Upon closer examination, this system is more akin to collectivization that any free-market system, which is highly efficient. My opponent states that;

"Through a productive full-employment program, they could become a propelling force for the creation and distribution of wealth"

I can only assume that by "fully-employment program" my opponent is arguing that the government put all poor and illiterate to work. Unfortunately, such public works programs do not work in practice. [1]They only serve to increase taxes and are inefficient. I can hardly fathom the cost of the government putting so many people to work.

My opponent then states "The guidelines would be environmental sustainability, equity and justice monitored by wider institutions and agencies, who would work with unit tiers like the present Panchayat Raj, with suitable amendments to draw units on the basis of the eco-system boundaries"

I question what my opponent means by "equality" and "justice". It sounds as if my opponent is advocating further arbitrary bureaucracy.

My opponent than says; "This is the route through which the poor, rejected by today's industrialization, would enter the larger economy with dignity as both producers and consumers. The composition of our national output would change as we put the internal market, constituting many local economies and populated by the poor, at center stage. The composition of output produced in this manner at the local level would be much less intensive in its use of natural resources. To reduce the pace of mad urbanization that sucks enormous natural resources for a handful of rich, by dispossessing the poor and forcing migration to cities, is a related task which only this alternative can achieve. The domestic rather than the external market must occupy the centre of economic policy, with the purchasing power rising at a faster rate at the bottom than at the top of income distribution, and the market used by the poor for local exchanges to suit their needs and priorities."

Judging from this paragraph we can assume the overall goal is to have the government employ all unemployed including illiterates and the poor, and then the government would have them produce locally in order to stop the process of "mad urbanization" and equalize the gap between rich and poor.

Firstly, there is no inherent evil in urbanization. Secondly, what items would these local economies produce exactly? It is not enough to simply put people to work making products for which there is no demand for in the market. There is nothing the government can do through programs that a free-market system cannot.

I will now move on to my arguments;

Firstly, India has seen unparalleled economic progress since economic liberalization in the 1990's. Over 300 million people have escaped extreme poverty [2] and India has seen huge GDP growth, second only to China.

We can now see that India has seen rapid growth under liberal economic policies and industrialization. Further growth can be fostered by continued privatization. My opponent briefly touched upon the agricultural situation, of which subsides and government intervention are part of the problem. [3] Removing government intervention would be a large leap in helping to solve some of the problems facing rural India. Privatization of Education, lower government spending, and reform of labor laws would all assist India in its remaining economic problems.

SOURCES:
[1] http://fee.org...
[2]http://reason.com...
[3]http://web.worldbank.org...
Debate Round No. 1
meeranazer

Pro

meeranazer forfeited this round.
TPF

Con

I hope all is well with my opponent.

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2
meeranazer

Pro

meeranazer forfeited this round.
TPF

Con

I hope all is well with my opponent.

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 3
meeranazer

Pro

meeranazer forfeited this round.
TPF

Con

I hope all is well with my opponent.

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 4
meeranazer

Pro

meeranazer forfeited this round.
TPF

Con

My opponent posted Marxist propaganda then fortified. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by krishna-chaitanya 1 year ago
krishna-chaitanya
It will be better if you use points rather than describing like theory because you are talking about debate.So how can you use theory like that.
Posted by TPF 6 years ago
TPF
I meant con :S
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
meeranazer i think it'd be better if you take your points one by one and expand each point. It just a jumble of many points right now.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
meeranazerTPFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TPF 6 years ago
TPF
meeranazerTPFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07