My take on budget debates - ‘Hilsa ki Mudhi ka shortage’

My take on budget debates - ‘Hilsa ki Mudhi ka shortage’

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 11th Jul 2014

The debate around India’s 2014–15 general budget, in its immediate aftermath on media especially mainline channels was a delight. At least, some serious attempts were being made to probe deep beyond rhetoric from the ‘netas’ and several of them were caught unawares. The habit of making generic statement for media bytes to capitalize on such events has been a retinue for the media savvy netas and had been a help in conveying intellectual image amongst unsuspecting voters egged ably by the tele-media. Now a deeper probe results in such images crumbling; and perhaps will force netas to work a bit harder for their own good.

The debate like this, rests of certain pillars like the command on numbers including realism of projections if any; the budget relies on many projections some of which may not be exact extrapolation of the past and may be on basis some assumptions; some of the netas were a miserable failure at them due to obvious lack of practice & preparation. A budget is also a statement of intent (though may not be for big bang intent, which needs better planning to cover for any reactions) which includes ‘continuance of various schemes/projects’, ‘winding down some others with complete de-allocation or reduction in allocation of projects/deptt.’ and ‘initiation of new schemes’. Pros and cons of earlier schemes, their impact and popularity as well as provisions made for the same needs to be analyzed. One of the big challenges in the kind of functioning where our Netas dependency on bureaucracy is near total is- the bureaucrat with a permanent job tries to push the envelop further that his role in the department and project is also fixed and resists any modification. The netas are made to feel handicapped and pick up the budget for existing schemes/projects without much amendments to win over bureaucrats for any of their 'own' or 'party's' schemes and thus status quo seems to be area of mutual agreement. Further, the non-government netas are expected to do a good job especially for those schemes which concern their constituencies and/or home states. Needless to say that the performance was miserable not only for opposition netas but also for non-minister netas on the side of government. The opposition netas were lacking any touch of realism while the netas on government side simply wanted to be seen as eager defenders of the budget and forfeit any claims to demands for any amends, a GOP ritual where leadership is not to be questioned and not a ‘change’ that people may want to see. A more balanced representation from the ruling party would be better especially since the government itself has given a long list of handicaps from shortage of funds to less time for preparations and like. What was missed were ‘no debate on merger of department of say NPR and UIDAI and its impact’ and other issues like this, which the government has announced, any savings or additional expenses and some peek to details & related issues/impact (and the government for the time being, got away thanks to the opposition netas and professionals in TV studios). The last is analysis of intent for new schemes. This was the area netas were seen as attempting to attack i.e. short allocation etc. This area is generally the one least prone to attacks unless the scheme or intent itself is controversial or one dwells into details which throw in controversial details hidden from public eye. What can perhaps be questioned is timelines for projects to fructify and details on how funding is expected, benefits etc. with suggestions given for incorporation so that netas can take some credit at a later stage (TV footage would have helped). The launch of attack in the bud towards such schemes with no questions on intent is actually a disaster for the debater, and a gory tale for the netas in question, since there are still elections to be contested. Constructive support is also one of the jobs of opposition seems to have been forgotten completely.

Some of the professionals’ knitpicking the spices thrown in the budget to hint at development of a possible pudding were a delight. However such conjectures would be more welcome if delivered after a detailed study including highlighting areas which are still needed to be thrashed out for the ‘kite to fly’ and greater number of such presenter will be better. It would also have been better if the studios involved professionals where some was defending and some other supporting government so that a more balanced view emerges. This is all the more necessary due to ‘Hilsa ki mudhi ka shortage’ at the neta level, especially the TV audience variety that seem to be out of practice for serious debates and rely only on sloganeering and rhetoric.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

In the ongoing budget debates, the issue of ‘Hilsa ki Mudhi ka shortage’ has emerged as a critical point of discussion, reflecting the broader challenges of managing natural resources and their impact on local economies and cultural practices. Hilsa, a prized fish in South Asia, particularly in Bangladesh and parts of India, is not only a staple in the diet of many but also a significant economic resource. The shortage of Hilsa fry, or "Mudhi," has been attributed to overfishing, environmental degradation, and climate change, all of which have exacerbated the decline in Hilsa populations. This shortage is particularly concerning as it affects the livelihoods of countless fishermen and traders who depend on the Hilsa harvest. Moreover, it has broader implications for food security and the culinary traditions of the region, where Hilsa is a symbol of cultural heritage and festive celebrations.

During the budget discussions, policymakers have highlighted the need for a multifaceted approach to address this issue. This includes implementing stricter regulations on fishing, especially during the breeding season, to allow Hilsa populations to recover. Investments in sustainable fishing practices and aquaculture are also being considered to provide alternative sources of income and fish supply. Additionally, there is a push for increased funding for research to better understand the environmental factors affecting Hilsa migration and breeding patterns. The government is also exploring ways to support affected communities through subsidies and training programs to help them transition to other livelihood options.

However, the budget debates also reveal the complexities of balancing environmental conservation with economic development. While some argue for immediate and stringent measures to protect the Hilsa, others point out the economic hardship such measures could impose on fishing communities in the short term. The challenge lies in finding a sustainable path that ensures the long-term survival of the Hilsa while minimizing the immediate economic impact on those who rely on it. This requires a nuanced approach that involves all stakeholders, including fishermen, environmentalists, and policymakers, to ensure that any solutions are both effective and equitable.

Ultimately, the resolution of the ‘Hilsa ki Mudhi ka shortage’ issue is emblematic of the broader challenges faced in managing natural resources in a rapidly changing world. It underscores the importance of sustainable development and the need for inclusive policies that consider the well-being of both the environment and the people who depend on it. As the budget debates continue, there is a growing recognition that addressing this shortage will require not only financial resources but also a commitment to long-term environmental stewardship and community empowerment.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

My take on budget debates - ‘Hilsa ki Mudhi ka shortage’

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 11th Jul 2014

The debate around India’s 2014–15 general budget, in its immediate aftermath on media especially mainline channels was a delight. At least, some serious attempts were being made to probe deep beyond rhetoric from the ‘netas’ and several of them were caught unawares. The habit of making generic statement for media bytes to capitalize on such events has been a retinue for the media savvy netas and had been a help in conveying intellectual image amongst unsuspecting voters egged ably by the tele-media. Now a deeper probe results in such images crumbling; and perhaps will force netas to work a bit harder for their own good.

The debate like this, rests of certain pillars like the command on numbers including realism of projections if any; the budget relies on many projections some of which may not be exact extrapolation of the past and may be on basis some assumptions; some of the netas were a miserable failure at them due to obvious lack of practice & preparation. A budget is also a statement of intent (though may not be for big bang intent, which needs better planning to cover for any reactions) which includes ‘continuance of various schemes/projects’, ‘winding down some others with complete de-allocation or reduction in allocation of projects/deptt.’ and ‘initiation of new schemes’. Pros and cons of earlier schemes, their impact and popularity as well as provisions made for the same needs to be analyzed. One of the big challenges in the kind of functioning where our Netas dependency on bureaucracy is near total is- the bureaucrat with a permanent job tries to push the envelop further that his role in the department and project is also fixed and resists any modification. The netas are made to feel handicapped and pick up the budget for existing schemes/projects without much amendments to win over bureaucrats for any of their 'own' or 'party's' schemes and thus status quo seems to be area of mutual agreement. Further, the non-government netas are expected to do a good job especially for those schemes which concern their constituencies and/or home states. Needless to say that the performance was miserable not only for opposition netas but also for non-minister netas on the side of government. The opposition netas were lacking any touch of realism while the netas on government side simply wanted to be seen as eager defenders of the budget and forfeit any claims to demands for any amends, a GOP ritual where leadership is not to be questioned and not a ‘change’ that people may want to see. A more balanced representation from the ruling party would be better especially since the government itself has given a long list of handicaps from shortage of funds to less time for preparations and like. What was missed were ‘no debate on merger of department of say NPR and UIDAI and its impact’ and other issues like this, which the government has announced, any savings or additional expenses and some peek to details & related issues/impact (and the government for the time being, got away thanks to the opposition netas and professionals in TV studios). The last is analysis of intent for new schemes. This was the area netas were seen as attempting to attack i.e. short allocation etc. This area is generally the one least prone to attacks unless the scheme or intent itself is controversial or one dwells into details which throw in controversial details hidden from public eye. What can perhaps be questioned is timelines for projects to fructify and details on how funding is expected, benefits etc. with suggestions given for incorporation so that netas can take some credit at a later stage (TV footage would have helped). The launch of attack in the bud towards such schemes with no questions on intent is actually a disaster for the debater, and a gory tale for the netas in question, since there are still elections to be contested. Constructive support is also one of the jobs of opposition seems to have been forgotten completely.

Some of the professionals’ knitpicking the spices thrown in the budget to hint at development of a possible pudding were a delight. However such conjectures would be more welcome if delivered after a detailed study including highlighting areas which are still needed to be thrashed out for the ‘kite to fly’ and greater number of such presenter will be better. It would also have been better if the studios involved professionals where some was defending and some other supporting government so that a more balanced view emerges. This is all the more necessary due to ‘Hilsa ki mudhi ka shortage’ at the neta level, especially the TV audience variety that seem to be out of practice for serious debates and rely only on sloganeering and rhetoric.

This political article is a masterclass in persuasive communication. The writer's writing style is remarkably incisive and authoritative, cutting through complex issues with clarity and conviction. There's a palpable sense of purpose in every sentence, driving the argument forward with intellectual rigor. The structure of the piece is strategically designed to build a compelling case, carefully introducing evidence and counterpoints in a way that maximizes their impact. Each section contributes meaningfully to the overall narrative, leading the reader towards a well-reasoned conclusion. Critically, the clarity with which the political landscape and proposed solutions are articulated is exemplary, leaving no ambiguity about the writer's stance or the implications of their analysis. This is not just reporting; it's a powerful and accessible contribution to public discourse.