Kollidam - a semi-urban village. Kollidam is a semi-urban village lies between Chidambaram and Sirkali. It is situated on the southern bank of river kollidam. It is the northern most border of Nagapattinam district and the Kollidam river separates Cuddalore and Nagapattinam district. The real name of Kollidam village is Anaikaranchattiram. Its proximity to religious places made it a chattiram for pilgrims and traders in the past. The first major settlement of outsiders takes place probably during Vijaynagar period. Kollidam has a railway station since British times. There is an old building near Kollidam railway bridge. It was built in 1926. This building is now in dilapidated condition. In the southern part of Kollidam village lies Thaikkal. Reed plants are grown here and so it is famous for cane works. Shoot of the reed plants is used for making furniture and other handicrafts. The first recorded railway accident in kollidam block occurred in 1907 between Kollidam and Sirkali railway station, probably near Ayangudipallam. A train ran over an old blind lady. During that time, Kollidam station master was Deivasigamani. When the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, Arignar C.M.Annadurai died, lakhs of people travelled by train to attend the funeral. Many people travelled by sitting on the top of the train. Old railway bridge in Kollidam had enclosed iron roof. People travelling on the top collide with the roof and many died. The Postal Index Code of Kollidam(Anaikaranchattiram) is 609102. Presently, Kollidam has three Banks (Indian Bank, ICICI, IOB), four marriage halls, a railway station, a police station and a post office.

environmental issues cartoons

பறப்பியல் சார்ந்த சொற்கள் from facebook

பறப்பியல் சார்ந்த சொற்கள்

aviation = பறப்பியல், வானோடியல்; aviator = வானோடி
aeroplane, விமானம் = வான்பறனை; plane = பறனை; aircraft = வானூர்தி; light aircraft= இலகு வானூர்தி,
civil aircraft = குடிவர் வானூர்தி, military aircraft = படைய வானூர்தி; bush plane = புதர்ப் பறனை; delta wing = முக்கோணச் சிறகை
airbus = வானுந்து; air liner = வானிழுனை; low cost -carrier = இழிவிலை (வான்)காவி, குறைந்த விலை வான்காவி
jet plane = தாரைப் பறனை; jet liner = தாரை இழுனை; business jet = பொதினத் தாரை
helicopter = உலங்கூர்தி, சுரினை; heliports = சுரினைப்புகல்; helipad = சுரினைமணை
blimp = வானேதல் (ஏதல் = கப்பல்); airship = வான் கப்பல்; zeppelin = வளிக்கூடு; balloon = பூதி
parachute = பரக்கூடு
fixed-wing aircraft = நிலைச்சிறகு வானூர்தி; rotorcraft = சுழலூர்தி
unmanned aircraft = ஆளில்லா வானூர்தி
wide-body aircraft = வியனுடல் வானூர்தி
supersonic aircraft = மிகையொலி வானூர்தி, மிகையொலியன்; hypersonic = மீயொலி, மீயொலியன்
passenger aircraft = பயணிகள் வானூர்தி; cargo aircraft= சரக்குப் பறனை

airport = வான்புகல், வான்நிலையம், வானூர்தி நிலையம்; airstrip = வான்பொல்லம்; aerodrome = வான்புலம்; airfield = வான்களம்
STOL - short take-off and landing - = குறு தரையிறக்கமும் மேலெழுதலும்
airbase = வான்(படைத்)தளம்; bomber = குண்டு இற்றி, குண்டுவீசி
terminal = முனையம்; aisle = இடைகழி; gate =கதவம்
lounge = பற்றகம், நீட்டி; lobby = கூடம்
information counter = உள்ளுரும எண்ணகம் ; ticket counter = பயணச்சீட்டு எண்ணகம் (நன்றி அருளியார்!);
hangar = நிழற்கூடம்; apron = வான்தரணம்
flight = பறப்பு; domestic flight = உடமிப்புப் பறப்பு; point to point flights = முனையடிப் பறப்புகள்; direct flights = நேரடிப் பறப்புகள்;
non-stop flights = நிறுத்தாப் பறப்புகள்; transit = துரந்தை
air traffic = வான் துரப்பு
runway = ஓடுபாதை; taxiway = இணைவழி; tankfarm = தாங்கற்பண்ணை; ramp = தொடுபாலம்;
runway edge lighting = ஓடுபாதை விளிம்பு விளக்குகள்; access road = அணுக்க சாலை; boarding walkway = பட்டிகை நடைபாதை; service road = சேவைச் சாலை
shuttle bus = நாழியுந்து
conveyor belt = ஏந்தும் பட்டி
control tower = கட்டுறற் கோபுரம்; towered = கோபுரங் கொண்ட; non-towered= கோபுரமில்லா
business class = பொதின வகுப்பு; economy class = பொருண்மிய வகுப்பு
take off = விட்டெழுகை, விட்டெடுப்பு; departure = புறப்பாடு
landing = நிலைக் குற்றல்; crash landing = மோதி நிலைக்குற்றல்; arrivals = வருகைகள்
board = பட்டி; boarding= பட்டித்தல்; pass port= புகற் கடவு, கடவுச் சீட்டு ; boarding pass = பட்டிகைக் கடவு
visa = நுழைமதி ; deportation = நாடுகடத்தல், புகலகற்றல்
seat belt = இருக்கைப் பட்டி
duty free shop = வரியிலாக் கடை; customs = சுங்கம், ஆயம்; immigration = குடிவழி
airport authorities = வான்புகல் ஆணத்திகள்
travel itenary = பயண இட்டிகை
time line = காலக்கோடு; timetables = நேர அட்டவணைகள்; reservation = இடப்பதிவு
cancellation = குற்றெடுத்தல் / குற்றுதல்
airlines, airways = வான்தட, வான்வழி நிறுவனங்கள்
travels = பயணச் சேவையர்
check in = கவ்வி உள்ளுதல், உள் ஆய்தல்
check out = கவ்வி வெள்ளுதல், வெளி ஆய்தல்
pilot = வலவர் /ன்; co-pilot = துணை வலவர் /ன்; cockpit = வலவனறை; autopilot = தானிவலவன்
crew = கும்பு; galley = கலம்
second officer = இரண்டாம் அதிகாரி
airhost = வானோம்பர், வான் கொளுவர்; airhostess = வானோம்பி, வான் கொளுவர்
flight attendant = பறப்பு அணுக்கர்
flight steward / stewardess = பறப்புச் சேவைப் பொறுப்பாளர்
passenger = செலவர், பயணி; wayfarer= கடவர்; baggage = உடைமை; jet lag = பறப்பு இழுவை/ இழுபாடு

air navigation = வான் நாவாயகைப்பு
aeronautics = வானூர்த்தியல்
avionics = பறப்புமின்னியல்

GPS = கோ.பொ.க (கோளகை பொதிப்புறு கட்டகம்)
radar = கதுவீ (நன்றி அருளியார்!)
turbine = துருவளை; turbojet engine = துருவுத்தாரை இயங்குள் / இயங்குபொறி/ எந்திரம்; jet engine = தாரை இயங்குள்
engine failure = இயங்குள் / இயங்குபொறி / எந்திரப் பழுது
aileron = உருட்டிறக்கை
control console = கட்டுறல் ஆள்பலகை /செறுகை
flap = சிறகை
flight instruments= பறனைக் கருவிகள்
fly-by-wire = மின்-சார் பறப்பு
propeller = நுந்தம்
combustion = கனற்சி (நன்றி மணவையார்!); aerosol = காற்றுத்தூசு
aviation fuel = பறப்பு எரிபொருள்
aviation noise = பறப்பியல் நெறு
visual flight rules = விழியப் பறப்பு விதிகள்
instrument flight rules = கருவிப் பறப்பு விதிகள்
wind cone = காற்கொனை
aerodynamics = காற்றுத் தினவியல்
airport code = வான்புகற் குறியீடு
yoke, joystick = நுகப்பிடி, மகிழ்பிடி

தகவல் வழங்கியவர் -சிவலிங்கம் பிரியா

Foreign Dacoit's Invasion (FDI) in retail......FROM NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

from The New Indian Expresss

By Ram Jethmalani

14th December 2012 11:51 PM

Walmart will be permitted by the UPA government to do in India what it has not been permitted to do in New York. Opposition to Walmart in New York is much like the opposition voiced in India — its history of low wages, poor employee benefits, cannabalising small businesses and endangering existing jobs. The machinations and subversion in obtaining Parliament’s numbers through UPA’S CBI prone allies have been witnessed by the nation.

Despite being heralded by this questionable and highly unethical red carpet, the timing couldn’t have been worse. In November, there were reports that several high level Walmart employees in India were suspended because of a bribery scandal in India, Mexico and China. Easy Day, owned by Bharti Walmart, has been accused of having received illegal investments of $100 million in violation of India’s FDI laws, via its joint venture partner Bharti, into which the Reserve Bank of India is reported to be enquiring.

The day after the dubious unparliamentary approval for FDI in retail, reports appeared that as per the lobbying disclosure reports filed by Walmart with the US Senate, the company has spent close to $25 million (about `125 crore) since 2008 on its various lobbying activities, including on issues related to ‘enhanced market access for investment in India’.

Not a very nice way to make a debut in any country. With this background, naturally, questions are being asked. What was this lobbying money spent for? Was it spent in the US or in India? Who were the Indians who were the lobbyist’s targets? What were the lobbying activities, even if they happened in the US? Does this imply that Indian law-makers were lobbied in the US, and legislate in response to US lobbying? What is the difference between lobbying and bribing?

The mood of the Congress in Parliament regarding FDI in retail resembled the nuclear Bill mood, when it was willing to sacrifice an ally and risk its government for an issue that had least relevance to the development or progress of the country. The conclusions are obvious. A noticeable difference, however, was that Rahul Gandhi did not pipe up that Walmart was essential because impoverished Kalavati should have the taste of a mall.

I now present two conclusive arguments that have made me a sworn opponent of FDI in retail in India. Walmart may be the largest multinational retailer and the biggest private employer in the world, but what frightens me is not its size, but it’s bad reputation and continuous malpractice regarding principles of business probity. There has been heated debate whether FDI in retail is really going to bring prosperity and joy into the life of the aam agriculturalist, informal retailer, hawker, kirana shop owner or local intermediary. Walmart’s business record in Mexico, South Africa, Chile, Thailand and China, provides adequate evidence that it neither improved wages or quality of life of workers or agricultural income. On the contrary, because of their power to start with low prices, they drive out other competitors out of business, most importantly small businesses like kirana shops; then start monopolistic price mechanisms of buying the lowest and selling the highest, replace the existing intermediaries with their own corporate middlemen, and exercise a complete control over the retail market.

Walmart’s corruption to establish itself in Mexico is well-documented in a New York Times report that details heavy bribery by Walmart Mexico, based on evidence provided by an insider lawyer whistleblower, Sergio Cicero. His allegations were confirmed by a preliminary enquiry conducted by a veteran FBI agent, including payment of $16 million in ‘donations’ to local politicians and their organisation. The company’s senior executives defended the company by arguing that ‘that was how the business was done in that country and what they have done was essential for success of their commercial ventures’.

Well, when a retailer trader with Walmart’s antecedents joins hands with the most corrupt government that India has seen, the ensuing synergy will cause a looting explosion on the unfortunate aam aadmi of this country, who will be robbed of his livelihood and his purse. It is for this reason alone that this monster must be prevented from landing in our mist. FDI is plainly ‘Foreign Dacoit’s Invasion’.

In ‘The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008’, Global Financial Integrity (GFI) has estimated that from 1948 to 2008 a total of $213.2 billion has been shifted out of India through illicit outflows. It needs to be ascertained whether this money has at least partly already returned to India. FDI statistics perhaps point to this fact. As per data released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the two topmost sources of the cumulative equity inflows from April 2000 to March 2011 are Mauritius (41.80 per cent) and Singapore (9.17 per cent). Mauritius and Singapore with their small economies cannot be the sources of such huge investments and it is apparent that the investments are routed through these jurisdictions for avoidance of taxes and/or for concealing the identities from the revenue authorities of the ultimate investors, many of whom could actually be Indian residents, who have invested in their own companies, though a process known as round tripping.

Investment in the Indian Stock Market through Participatory Notes (PNs) is another way through which black money holders re-invest in India, as the PNs are held in the name of the FIIs, though the profits go to the investors, through specifically designed contracts. PNs/ODIs can be freely traded and easily transferred without disclosing the identity of the actual beneficiaries.

The above two paragraphs are not my words. They are composed and authorised by the gentleman who has been recently elected as the president of this country in his white paper on black money, from the section ‘Has the money transferred abroad illicitly returned’? For a change the gentleman who had prevented the recovery and repatriation of stolen wealth uttered a great truth and confirmed that money transferred abroad is being illicitly returned under the guise of FDI.

In short, FDI is going to be the biggest money laundering operation, earning wealth with stolen money. It is doubtful whether even small crumbs will be thrown at the grovelling poor of this country.

Ram Jethmalani is an eminent jurist and Rajya Sabha member

The Hindu : Opinion / Open Page : FDI in retail? say a big NO

The Hindu : Opinion / Open Page : FDI in retail? say a big NO

FDI is a debt inflow or liability foreign exchange because the profits or returns it generates will have to be repatriated. Will FDI in retail, single brand, banking or insurance enhance our foreign exchange earning capacity? Do they bring technology to the economy?

There is so much of talk going around in all circles regarding FDI. Politicians, for obvious reasons, speak a language of their own, driven by ulterior motives. Most of the times, they are not even knowledgeable to understand the long term consequences of the populist measures and policies they adopt. It would be in the fitness of things if the whole thing is explained in simple and elementary terms.

FDI is Foreign Direct Investment. Direct Investment is of two types: Domestic Direct Investment (DDI) and Foreign Direct Investment. DDI is done in domestic currency (rupee in India) and FDI brings in foreign exchange.

Now, the question arises why FDI. The need for FDI is justified only in two situations – (1) when DDI is inadequate or (2) when foreign exchange is required. On the DDI front, the position as obtained in our country is fairly sound. Banks are flush with funds; the domestic savings rate is one of the highest in the world; market capitalisation, constantly on the rise, makes available investible funds; and DFIs have huge unutilised funds waiting to be deployed in feasible projects. It is gung-ho all around. Therefore, domestically speaking, there is no shortfall of funds for investment.

As for foreign exchange, it is either an asset or liability, depending upon its repatriability. If it is repatriable (i.e., to be returned or repaid in the form of foreign exchange itself), it is a liability. If not, it is an asset. This way, only three sources of foreign exchange – (1) exports of goods and services, (2) NRO accounts in banks and (3) Foreign Aid — qualify as assets. The rest are liabilities like FCNR & NRE deposits of NRIs; FDIs; FIIs and foreign exchange loans from foreign governments and agencies. For convenience, let’s call one asset foreign exchange and the other liability foreign exchange. Some people choose to call them non-debt and debt inflows respectively.

FDI is a debt inflow or liability foreign exchange. Why? Simple, because the profits or returns it generates will have to be repatriated in foreign exchange. Secondly, all the men, material and merchandise imported in the years to come will have to be paid in foreign exchange. Finally, at the time of winding up/selling off, the proceeds will flow out of the country in foreign exchange. And, it is noteworthy here, all this will end up in the outflow of foreign exchange, many times more than the initial inflow. So, every FDI is a clear-cut case of liability foreign exchange.

All the above is about the supply-side of foreign exchange. Now, let’s examine the demand side. The question is – why is foreign exchange needed at all? Based on long-term benefits to the economy, the demand for it can be classified into consumption and construction. Consumption demand is the demand for foreign exchange to import consumption items like gold, oil, tourism and FMCG — all those areas where funds are just blown. On the contrary, ‘construction’ stands for all those areas which promote exports, substitute imports, strengthen the infrastructure of the country and make it more competitive globally.

So, we have the demand for foreign exchange classified into two and its supply also into two. This can be neatly depicted graphically in a Foreign Exchange Desirability Matrix.

The table makes it amply clear that Asset Foreign Exchange casts no negative impact on the economy, regardless of whether it is used for construction or consumption purposes. However, liability foreign exchange needs to be restricted to ‘construction’ purposes, as the consequences of putting it to consumption needs are grave.

Now, why should we go in for liability foreign exchange, like FDI, at all, if it is not for any export promotion, import substitution or any capacity construction purpose? Well, if we indulge in the luxury of blowing liability foreign exchange on non-developmental consumption items, we’ll end up worsening our foreign exchange debt position (we are already in the doldrums with mounting pressure on our capital account of balance of payments, owing to increasing deficits in our balance of trade account year by year).

In fact, until we have any project/avenue in hand which will, in times to come, yield foreign exchange more than its repayment schedule warrants, the inflow of liability foreign exchange should be outrightly avoided.

The service sector is comprised of marketing (wholesale and retail), banking, insurance, civil aviation, education, tourism, medical & health, telecommunication and software, etc. All these fall either in the construction category like education, medical and health, telecommunication and Software or consumption like marketing, insurance, banking and tourism.

Incidentally, in marketing, there is nothing like technology. It’s all about consumption, where the sole elements are Brand and Supply Chain Management; again nothing basic or infrastructural or technology enhancing. Further, the question arises — will FDI in sectors like retail, single brand, banking or insurance enhance our foreign exchange earning capacity? A big NO. Do they bring technology to the economy? Again, a big NO. Hence, FDI in ‘consumption’ sectors deserves to be outrightly rejected. If it is not, it would simply mean the government is not working in the interest of the economy, but is unscrupulously catering to vested interests.

IMPORTING TECHNOLOGY

They say, had FDI not come in, our automobile, telecommunication, aviation, banking and many other industries would not have reached global standards. I would say that instead of allowing foreign capital to set up shop here, the country should have used foreign exchange to just import technology, if needed; and set up the same industries with domestic capital. No liability foreign exchange; no profits going out of the country; domestic consumers getting the same products; and the fruits of exports being reaped by domestic firms and not foreign — all the way a win-win situation for us.

But, being blind to the undercurrents, we instead allowed foreign firms to set up bases here, milk the domestic market and carry back huge profits. The foreign exchange that flowed in by way of FDI was blown in consumption areas like gold and oil.

In the ensuing debate, lots of comparisons are being made with the U.S., the U.K., China and Japan. The question is: are we at the same level of development to indulge in the luxury of comparing ourselves with them?

With no apparent gain for the economy in the long-run on the table, there cannot be a more foolish act for any country than inviting foreigners to set up shop on its own territory. First, it is a clear signal of allowing them to reap profits here and take them back. Second, it is telling the world, loud and clear, that we, by ourselves, are incompetent and inefficient. If a foreign entity pushes for entry in the economy, it will still make sense. It wants to expand its market and reap profits. But what is the compulsion for a host country to insist that a foreign entity come and set up shop here?

Historically, no economy has ever developed on foreign capital. In the industrial revolutions of various nations, the crucial factors that have been instrumental are (1) indigenous mobilisation of resources, (2) domestic technological development and application (3) strategic management and (4) support from the governments, mostly to ward off external pressures. Cases of foreign investment are few and far between.

Let us keep in mind that foreign exchange is both a boon and bane, to determine which each of its inflow needs to be individually assessed for its costs and benefits, before allowing it.

(Professor Anupam Bhargava, a PhD in Management, is a former AGM of SBI. He is now Adviser and Research Guide at Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur. Email: anupambhargava58@gmail.com)

OPINIONS FROM THE HINDU READERS:

FDI in retail will eventually lead to most national resources being
owned by foreign entities and the locals getting relegated to a
permanent status as low wage employees, a situation that obtains in many
South American countries and elsewhere. Costa Rica is a classic example
where all banana plantations are now owned by American multinationals
and the Costa Rican slaves as a day laborer. The Indian politicians
should stop selling the country for personal profit and for the profit
of the few at the top.

from:  V. Ramaswami

The foreign retail chains will also impose their food culture and life style on us through advertising.Cola,burgers,preserved foods,baby foods will all adorn the supermarket shelves and we will start
consuming them more and more.Cancer,kidney-heart ailments will all increase when we move away from our natural food habits to these preserved and formulated foods!And of course the beneficery will be again the multinational drug industry!The retail chain's slogan would be spend more, when actualy it should be spend less and conserve more! Look at the small retail businesses in countries like US and UK, they are almost nonexistent now. And also the goods that these retail businesses purchase are from around the globe to get competitive prices. Hence the local businesses die very quickly. Ask the US people about WalMart and they will agree that WalMart makes more profit for itself and the Chinese economy because most of its goods are imported from China. Or ask the farmers of UK, where the retail stores import even ginger and garlic from China or bananas from South America or Africa.
 The question of OWNERSHIP. The problem is that companies like carefour, wal-mart etc. will OWN the real estate, the warehouses, the cold storage, the supply vehicles, even the employees. Employees, including store managers, will be simply working at the places without having any OWNERSHIP of anything. They will have salaries just sufficient to make them happy.
Currently our system is excellent because the Kirana store is OWNED by the manager, the vehicles are OWNED by either driver or a delivery services company, the food is OWNED and sold at competitive local prices by the farmer, etc. We dont want a system where everything is OWNED by the multinational and everyone else is a employee.

from:  RVishwanath

TheUPA government has gone in for big bang reforms only to satisfy the rating agencies and the international finance capital. Our economy was saved from crumbling during the recent crisis only because we have restricted FDI in key sectors. The entry of global retailers like Walmart will have a devastating impact on employment. Experience has shown that the MNCs have a greater monopolistic power over both farmers and consumers and they manipulate the prices.

V.V.K. Suresh,
FDI in retail will affect not only small retailers but also wholesalers. Retail giants have two formats — the Easy Day format (retail) and the Cash & Carry format (wholesale). The Cash & Carry format is dangerous for the wholesalers because MNCs bargain and buy stocks in huge quantities and sell them on very narrow margins. They manage to profit from these margins because they have a huge product line. The Cash & Carry store in Punjab attracts a large number of wholesalers from Delhi and adjoining areas. If New Delhi’s market can be disturbed by these giants, we can imagine the situation in the rest of the country.

Farhan Alam,

from Indian Express.. FDI in retail

Indian Express

 By S Gurumurthy

Selling India’s retail wholesale

Finally, FDI in retail has arrived. The collapse of the Rupee by one-fifth in just weeks,dwindling forex inflows and net FII outflows have forced a desperate government to sellIndia’s retail trade wholesale. Corporate and multinational lobbying to induct FDI in retail,branding it as “big ticket reform”, has been intense in the last few years. The lobbies havewon. India has lost. The decision betrays a metropolitan bias; and exposes lack ofunderstanding of India’s agricultural and rural economy. That it will endlessly damage thehuge 1.2 million strong community-run retail business in India is undisputed. But the lessknown truth is that it will destroy food security in rural India. How? Read on.The principal lobby argument for FDI in retail is that the deep pocket and expertise ofWalmarts to establish supply chain will make rural areas and farmers prosperous. It does notneed a seer to say how illiterate those who advocate this view are about rural India. Thereport of the “Working Group of the Planning Commission on Agricultural Marketing,Infrastructure, and Policy Required for Internal and External Trade” for the XI Five Year Plan[2007-12], read along with the 19th Report of the Standing Committee of Parliament onFood, Consumer Affairs, and Public Distribution [2006-07] submitted to Parliament drawsthe true picture of the rural/agricultural India. Compare the farms in India with those in theWest. A total of 58.8 million of small and marginal farming families, that is over 32 crorerural people, live on farming in India. Their farm size is 5 acres or less. In contrast, in Canada,it is 1798 acres; in US, 1089 acres; in Australia, 17975 acres; in France, 274 acres; in UK, 432acres. The US farm size is 250 times larger than the Indian; the Australian farms, 4000 times!Therefore, Farm Gate to Walmart supply chain that works in the US/West cannot beimagined here. Now look at how - and how much of - the Indian farm produce is brought tothe market.The Farm Gate to Walmart theory is founded on the elimination of not only middlemen butalso small farmers by making farming contractual and corporate to reap economics of scale.It ignores global studies and Indian experience that affirm that economics of scale does notoperate in agriculture. Actually smaller farms gives better production. The SMFs in Indiafarm about 34% of the cultivated area, but produce 41% of food grains; their productivity is33% higher. Replace small farms by large ones. Nation’s food production will instantly fall by7%. Not just food. SMFs produce most of the 100.9 million tons of milk. So, unless half therural population is done away with, small farming cannot be dispensed with. The WorkingGroup concluded: “The small and marginal farmers are certainly going to stay for a long time in India - though they are going to face a number of challenges. Therefore what happens tosmall and marginal farmers has implications for the entire economy”. More critical is thatwhat SMFs produce, they consume and share with the farm labour; they have no surplus tosell. See how Walmarts will destroy their food security.A less known, stunning truth about rural India is that more than 60% of India’s foodproduction does not enter commercial stream at all, but gets distributed, consumed withinthe villages. It is retained or stored by farmers for consumption, payment of wages in kind tofarm labour; and for use as seed and feedstock for animals; for sale within the village. Even ifa small part of the 60% un-marketed food production is drawn into the market throughsupply chain which Walmarts will establish, that will mean urban pricing in rural areas. CanSMFs and landless labour afford the market price and buy their food? Never. If that happens,will that what happened Alfanso mango in Konkan and Kerala fish not happen to rural foodalso? The Konkan people see, but don’t eat Alfanso but only export it for high prices andspend that money on urban goods. And the Kerala fishermen fish and export it at high rates,get cash and drink foreign whisky! The FDI in retail undoubtedly puts at risk, t he foodsecurity of SMFs and agriculture labour who who constitute 2/3 of India’s population, as thesupply chain of Walmarts will make Alfanso out of the basic food grains in rural areas.How does the marketable surplus of 40 percent of food produced by Indian farmers crossthe village borders and enter the market? Nine out of ten tons [35%] of the surplus [of 40%]that enters the commercial stream enter the market through traditional Haats, Shandies,Fairs whose number is estimated at 47000. Only the balance of 5% directly enters the 6359traditional wholesale Mandis organised under government supervision. Here begins themodern market economy where the surplus 40% of national production gets traded. This isfrom where the government procures and stocks food for the nation!How do the Haats/Shandies function? Some 3/4th of them are held once a week; 1/5thtwice a week; 1/20th on daily basis; one Haat covers some 14 villages; all put together coveralmost the entire 6.58 lakh Indian villages. Some 2/3rd are held at 16 km from the villages;1/4th at between 6 and 15 km; a tenth at less than 5 km. More than a third of the buyerswalk to the Haat; 1/3 use bicycle; the rest use bullock carts, even motorised vehicles.According to the Working Group, at the Haats, the farmers not just trade, but also exchangesocial and cultural information about neighbourhood areas, settle marriages and disputes,make crop choice and discuss resource allocation. Therefore, the Working Grouprecommended that instead of asking the farmers to come to government for knowing whatthey should do and should not, the government should open its offices at the place wheremillions meet at the Haats. Now, by its retail FDI policy, the UPA government expectsWalmart to go where the Planning Commission Working group had asked the government togo! See how the agricultural India is far removed from even the government. NationalSample Survey data shockingly reveals that 7 out of 10 Indian farmers had not even heard es not even heard - of the Minimum Support Price [MSP] announced by the governmentwith lot of fanfare; 81% of the those who have heard of it do not know - yes do not know -how to use it! This is because the MSP system operates only in Wholesale Mandis, not atHaats. That is why the Working Group wants the government to go to Haats. The StandingCommittee rightly asked the government ‘how will farmers who do not know what MSP is,make use of futures market’. The government, which had no answer, finally banned forwardtrading in foodgrain.QED: Thanks to FDI in retail, twelve million community-run retail shops are in danger; andrural food security at risk. This is UPA government’s gift for 2012 and onwards

FROM QUORA.COM....Direct Cash Transfer... different views...

direct cash transfer




An article in newspaper:
QUOTE:

The direct cash transfers scheme (DCTS), the one truly revolutionary  subsidies reform scheme in UPA-2, is heading for the reefs even before  it has been rolled out. It looks likely to be sacrificed on

the altar of  electoral greed.
The scheme, which will use the Aadhaar Unique ID card to hand over  cash to beneficiaries, is being rushed through by the Prime Minister  when the implementation machinery for handling millions of

subsidy  transfers every month is rudimentary and untested at best.
This is happening because of a unique confluence of reformist hopes and aam aadmi political calculations, with Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi symbolising the two ends of the spectrum. Cheered on

by right-wing  economists, who see the scheme as a way to reduce leakages in subsidies,  leading to their ultimate reduction, and Congress party opportunists,  who see electoral gains by putting money

directly in the hands of the  electorate, the cash transfer scheme is in danger of being hijacked for  short-term ends. It could even end up damaging the long-term goals of  this reform measure.
In the process, the economy may end up being horribly damaged as cash  transfers accelerate the shift of resources from exchequer to voter at a  time when growth is slowing down and the government

is cutting more  productive investment expenditure to make ends meet. The premature  launch of cash transfers may even mark the end of all other reforms that  were supposedly in the pipeline.
The PM backs the scheme because it is supposed to cut down on subsidies by eliminating those not entitled to them, using the Aadhaar identification process. Sonia Gandhi has no such intention – at

least before 2014. Her political objective  is not to eliminate any constituency by identifying leakages. She has  bought into the PM’s dream only to the extent that existing subsidies  can be paid out like

legal bribes to the voter. As Firstpost noted some time ago, “in all areas where the UID is almost done, cash  transfers will mean every family will get money in the range of Rs  3,000-14,000 per annum,

depending on whether they are identified as  below-poverty-line (BPL) cases or people who are better off.”
This is why the scheme is being rushed through with a dangerously  inappropriate deadline of 1 January for 51 districts. It will be  cascaded to 18 states by 1 April 2013, and the whole country by the end

of 2013 or early 2014.
This is an impossible deadline. Even though the PM has announced that  direct cash transfers will happen in 51 districts from 1 January –  which is less than 35 days away – The Times of India reports

that only 20 of these 51 districts are Aadhaar-compliant. The Unique ID  Authority of India (UIDAI) has promised to finish all 51 districts by 1  January, but holding an Aadhaar card is not the same as

making the  scheme successful.
Here’s why.
One, the card merely identifies the recipient as the right  beneficiary. Making payments based on direct cash transfers means having  banking infrastructure in almost every village in every district.

Every  beneficiary has to have a bank account. Bankers are not saying they are  ready as yet.
Two, it’s not just about sending the cash to the right  account. In a social system where might is right, handing over so much  cash to the poor runs its own risks. While the idea is to credit the  accounts of

the women in households, this assumes that the menfolk have  no say over how the money is spent. If people have to trundle several  miles to a bank/ATM branch to collect their cash, the possibility of

their being mugged on the way has to be seen as a possibility. More so  in rural areas where caste thugs abound, and the law and order machinery  is weak.
Three, it is also naïve to believe that crooks will not  figure out how to make money from cash- based transfers. In the NREGA  make-work scheme, a large chunk of the beneficiaries have figured out a

way to collect wages without work, so the assumption that cash transfers  will reach the right people has to be tested against ground realities  during actual implementation. The UPA rush will ensure that

this does  not happen.
Four, the new cash-in-your-account plan will partially  supplant the current system of food procurement and distribution through  ration shops. If all food subsidies are shifted to cash, what will  happen to

the elaborate system of giving farmers minimum support prices,  procuring grain from them through the Food Corporation, and supplying  fair-price shops? Will it just be dismantled?
Five, a shift to cash could mean major shifts in consumption  patterns even for the poor. When I get wheat in physical form, I use it  to cook my meals or sell it in the open market to buy what I want. But

when I get cash instead of wheat, my family might suddenly switch to  more tastier, protein-rich foods like milk, eggs, or even meat. Not to  speak of vegetables, fruits and processed foods. These were

the major  causes of high food inflation in the last few years, but is the  government prepared for this shift?
Six, cash makes sense if the only idea is to efficiently  transfer purchasing power from government coffers to intended  beneficiaries, as Shrayana Bhhattacharya and Lant Pritchett write in The Indian

Express. But what if your idea is to provide adequate nutrition to pregnant  women, and give them money instead? Will mothers buy the right foods to  ensure they receive the right nutrition or will they

just spend it on  food that is cheaper? Would nutritional supplements work better here, or  a mix of food and cash?
Seven, unlike in the past, when Sonia Gandhi‘s  National Advisory Council (NAC) was rooting for all kinds of voter  giveaways, this time around people like Jean Dreze and Harsh Mander are  not

rooting for cash transfers. They seem to have figured out that Sonia  is not thinking as much about the poor as about their votes.
Eight, cash is good, for it makes customers out of poor  supplicants, but the fact remains that in a diverse country like India,  one size may not fit all. Some states have fairly efficient public  distribution

systems while others may be handicapped. Should the UPA be  asking all states to opt for cash transfers when some states may be more  comfortable with the existing system?
Forget all states, one size may not fit even fit all districts within  the same state. When one end of Uttar Pradesh – the western end – is  richer than the other end – the eastern one – the two may need

different  treatment. One state may have a large tribal population, while another  may be fully urbanised. Cash may work better with the latter.
The PM knows the problems, but has decided to make a dash for cash  because he knows that Sonia Gandhi’s political support will come only  during election time.
This is not to say that cash transfers are a bad idea. This writer  certainly is all for cash transfers provided it is done carefully,  researched, and redesigned before a broader rollout. Also, the effort  must

be to specifically eliminate the rich and the middle classes  substantially right in the beginning.
The mistake is in trying to rush with a scheme that has been inadequately tested before such a huge rollout.
As we noted, Manmohan Singh knows the pitfalls. This is why he spelt out the challenges ahead.  “The twin pillars for the success of the system of DCTs (direct cash  transfers) that we have envisioned

are the Aadhaar platform and  financial inclusion. If either of these pillars is weak, it would  endanger the success of the initiative. I would expect the finance  ministry and the Unique Identification

Authority to work in close  coordination to achieve a collective goal,” the PM said while clearing  the new rollout plan.
But this is only about implementing it to get the money to the voter.  The principal flaw in his view is that he does not emphasise  ‘exclusion’ of the undeserving as much as ‘inclusion’. If the scheme  fails

to eliminate non-merit beneficiaries, the government could end up  giving a lot more subsidies to the undeserving.
The problem is simple: the system of subsidies has been tough to  eliminate even when half the money does not reach the beneficiaries. How  is it supposed to cut expenditures if the money reaches all

the  intended beneficiaries, and without eliminating those who can afford to  pay full prices? Which government has the political strength necessary  to stand up to potential voters and tell them they are

not entitled to  subsidies?
As an editorial in Business Standard points out, “if it is politically problematic to control subsidies  today, it may become even harder when cash transfers become a reality.”  It adds: “The question that

must be asked is: when transfers become  easier for governments to pull off, through Aadhaar-linked bank  accounts, what will happen to India’s public finances?”
It is worth recalling that the UPA has not been able to reform  spending in more than eight-and-a-half years at the helm. It is stupid  to expect that it will correct the system when elections are just a

hop-skip-and-jump away.
The reforms are over. Efforts to fix the fiscal deficit are coming to  an end. The cash transfer scheme, given the proposed speed of the  rollout, will end up becoming a political vote-buying exercise

rather  than a real attempt at reform. DCTS is essentially being used as a Rahul Gandhi election funds.
Mahatma Gandhi said that the end cannot justify the means. Cash  transfer is a good means that could end up being used for corrupt  electoral ends. It may well worsen the problem of subsidies and set

the  Indian economy back by another five years.