AbstractsEconomics

Among the progressive countries of the world, India is the most poverty-stricken. And yet India is a country rich in natural resources, capable of supplying all the necessary raw materials for various kinds of manufacture. Neither is she lacking in manpower nor in potential supply of capital. What, then, is the cause for her economic backwardness? First and foremost is the excessive dependence of India on agriculture; nearly 73 per cent. of the population being dependent on the soil. In spite of the development of joint stock enterprises in the country, large-scale industries are comparatively few and they maintain barely ten per cent. of the people. Social and religious traditions and prejudices have also contributed their share to the prevailing poverty among the masses. From time immemorial it has been the privilege of the few well-to-do aristocratic families to enjoy all the comforts and luxuries of life and to hold the masses in perpetual poverty. The religious injunction that the material comforts of life keep one away from God and that the less one has in this life the more he will have in the after-life, has constrained the people to be content with the satisfaction of a few wants. In addition to all these, the tropical climate of the country makes possible the minimum need for clothing and shelter, and so contributes to a disinclination for work. Finally, the one-sided economic development sponsored by the British Government whereby India has become a raw material exporting and manufactured-goods importing country is another vital reason for economic poverty. In recent years efforts have been made for the abolition of poverty. Especially have energies been directed to improving agricultural methods and practices: canals have been constructed, various kinds of agricultural financing agencies have been started, experimental farms have been established in different rural centres, and so on. But so long as the excessive dependence of the population on the soil is not reduced, much relief cannot be obtained. Similarly, those who are interested in large-scale production have done a good deal toward ameliorating the condition of the labourers and in exploring the possibilities of new enterprises. Another group of people, apprehending the evils of large-scale production, have emphasised the importance of cottage industries and have directed their energies toward reviving them. However meritorious and well intentioned these schemes may be, they all lack a co-ordinated approach. None of these efforts singly can bring the much-needed relief to the country. All have to be viewed in their different perspectives, but with a common objective. Unless there is a co-ordinated approach to the problem of poverty, these different schemes may counteract one another. For example, to improve the condition of the cottage producer it may be desirable to lessen or even to abolish the duty on imported yarn, which, in turn, might prove harmful to large-scale cotton production. Furthermore, economic reconstruction plans, in order to…