Nandigram is an Eye opener and it is the high time to consider cultural repercussions of Special Economic Zones which is catastrophic.
Village in India i.e. BHARAT was called %u201Crepublic%u201D by itself and its structure was self contained. Several travelers, foreign ideologues and rulers were stunned and astonished to see Village structure. Several marauders could not penetrate into Indian society because village was insulated and self contained.
Foreign Rulers with their maneuvers could dethrone Indian rulers but could not destabilize Indian society. History of the World evidences that wherever Islam or Christianity went , in other words wherever foreigners rules, native culture vanishes without even remnants. Even in Britain, %u201CBritons%u201D were driven away by English and became English country. But in India the same did not happen, for the simple and sole reason that India lives in its Villages.
For a villager land is not a simple materialistic, commercial possession. He attaches sentimentally to the house, land, village, community, village deities, priest, tanks, rivulets , air, water and even to the articles of house hold he possesses. Such possessions makes a villager a cultural being. It is his livelihood and life. Because of such attachment he develops a community life. A villager de-possessed of land is de-possessed of every thing in the world and his life becomes barren and void.
RE:whether india lives in urban
by imacool on Jul 19, 2007 11:04 AM Permalink
Are u a retired teacher? How on earth U get time to write such long messages?
RE:whether india lives in urban
by Ravindra Babu on Jul 20, 2007 02:00 PM Permalink
Dear Sundara reddy, Village as a self contained econmomic entity was true, maybe, 100 years back. Today, due to population explosion, it cannot sustain on its own. You can see that villages that are near a bigger city and integrated with city economy have less poverty compared to remote villages which are cut-off from rest of the country.
The main problem with us now is we still have 70% population dependent on aggreculture. This was fine when our population was only 30 crores. At 120 crores, the ageculture land per person becomes so less that most of the farmers become very poor since they depend on a very small piece of land. The total amount of land and the output from it doesnot change weather 70% or 20% of population is working on it. Infact, if only 10% of population works on agreculture they can use more scientific methods and produce more output than 70% people depending on same amount of land. The main thing that we need to do not is to move most of the people dependent on agreculture to alternate employment with decent income. This is possilble only when be build more industries, SEZs, new cities.. etc. Unfortunatly, the so called protectors of the poor stop all these developments and keep farmers as "poor farmer" for ever.
RE:whether india lives in urban
by Ravindra Babu on Jul 20, 2007 02:15 PM Permalink
Sorry for the typo.. I have written "The main thing that we need to do not is to move .." should have been "The main thing that we need to do now is to move .."
