A Ministerial Declaration was finalised in the Fourth Ministerial Conference of World Trade Organisation (WTO), which was held at Doha in Qatar from 9th to 14th November 2001. Every member country government of WTO, particularly India, have expressed satisfaction at the outcome of the conference and claimed significant gains by protecting their interests. Mr. Murasoli Maran, the leader of the Indian delegation to the Doha conference and Minister of Commerce and Industry has claimed that we have won gold medals and even platinum at Doha. While replying to a question in Rajya Sabha on 21st November 2001, he declared, “India’s key concerns in agriculture had been adequately safeguarded in the declaration and will not in any way harm us. On the contrary we have substantial gains”. After Doha meeting, US trade representative Robert Zoellick, declared in a deceitful manner, it “removed the stain of Seattle”. European Union (EU) claimed victory and its commissioner for trade, Pascal Lamy, stated “We have satisfactorily negotiated a package.” Franz Fisher, US Farm commissioner declared, “We have the new round that Europe has been pushing for so hard. It is good news not only for Europe but for all the members of the WTO.” Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, said “This is a huge success for the international community.” Cairns group (major agricultural-products exporting countries) called it “unequivocal triumph against EU”. Indian big business and industrial organisations such as CII and FICCI have expressed satisfaction and happily stated, “The interests of industry have been protected”.

When every member country is claiming victory, how is it possible? The interests of USA, EU, Japan and India are not one and the same. The interests of developing countries such as India are quite contrary to imperialist countries. Even before Doha Ministerial meeting, the proposals submitted by India to the Doha draft followed the line dictated by imperialist countries. Vajpayee government abjectly surrendered to imperialist countries at the cost of the interests of the people of India. We can see this very clearly in the final declaration of Doha. Eminent economist Prof. PR Brahmananda, while commenting on the final draft stated, “The main declaration was substantially on the lines of the memorandum that the WTO has circulated... Actually it seems India’s view points have not been accepted.” Not only that, it contains a larger agenda than the Uruguay Round.

All the issues which are of much interest to and insisted on by the developing countries such as India, have been sidetracked and only included in the agenda. The issues pertaining to implementation and review of agreement on agriculture, which have to be finalised in this conference, were ultimately postponed for more than three years. In the meanwhile, the status quo with distortions and imbalances will continue. The new issues, which were opposed by India and other developing countries until the finalisation of the implementation and agriculture related matters, were included in the final declaration, which is what the developed countries are insisting on since the Singapore Ministerial conference held in 1996. Whatever the position India and other developing countries have taken, in the final analysis, the imperialist countries dictated the terms of the agenda and the developing countries meekly followed.

Even the most conservative champions of globalization and WTO, the daily news paper, Economic Times, commented on 16th November 2001, “Launch of a new round is an achievement for influential members like US, EU and Japan, who are set to gain by trade liberalisation... India is a loser on key issues... The reality is that no immediate concessions have been handed over to India or other developing countries”. Another conservative daily Business Standard gave the heading for its editorial on 15th November 2001, “Disaster at Doha” and commented on it “What India had itself laid down as criteria for success, that Doha was not a success.” And even the mouthpiece of MNCs, London based Financial Times commented on 16th November 2001, “The only real loser in Doha was India... It achieved no obvious gains.”

Shri S.P. Shukla, the former Secretary to the Department of Finance and who has participated in the GATT negotiations, in an article, “The Doha debacle”, wrote “The Doha declaration is a clear gain for the developed capitalist world. It has catered to the needs of global capital crisis”. (Frontline, 7th Dec. 2001). “It is the defeat and collective suicide of developing countries...” Nigerian delegation commented that the text generally, accommodates in total the interests of developed countries, while disregarding the concerns of the developing and least developed countries”. (Dipak Basu, Statesman, 11th February, 2001) Prof. Biswajit Dhar, commented on Doha Declaration, “At the end of two years, our neck will be on the chopping block.” Developing countries, particularly India, have got only mere promises and assurances and nothing more than that at Doha.

Keeping in view the background, we can briefly discuss and review the Doha Declaration.

No Basic Change

Though Indian government claims substantial changes and significant gains in Doha Declaration but really there are no such changes. If we go through the draft and final declarations, we cannot find any basic change between the two. Actually, there are two final declarations. The main declaration deals with objectives, time tables for current negotiations and negotiations or possible negotiations and the decisions on their implementation. The other deals with intellectual property rights and public health. The final declaration contains the final agenda for the next round of negotiations. The agenda for the next round of negotiations was called as “Work programme” and stated this as “broad and balanced”. It is true, the work programme is very broad and bigger than the agenda of Uruguay Round and it is also true it is more unbalanced instead of balanced towards developing countries than the previous round of negotiations. No where in the declaration it was mentioned as “New Agenda” for “New Round” but actually, there are twenty distinct issues in the declaration, which are meant for a new round of negotiations. We can broadly divide these issues into six categories in the agenda: (1) immediate implementation and for negotiation, (2) negotiations should start immediately, (3) negotiations after the Fifth Ministerial Conference after getting the work report, (4) negotiations should start after the Fifth Ministerial Conference after getting the work report and can decide the modalities for negotiations, (5) review and take appropriate decisions, (6) take note of work under way – such are the issues. We can state briefly the position in the draft and the position taken by the Indian government on them and that finally agreed to in the declaration.

Abject Surrender

The position taken by Vajpayee Government on the draft declaration clearly shows its hypocrisy of “hard bargaining” and Maran’s “tough fight”. Indian government not only subjugated at Doha but even before that. The proposals submitted by the Indian Government clearly proves this. It did not directly oppose on any major issues and in the final analysis, it surreptitiously supported it. In its proposals, it used words in a slavish manner such as “We do not understand”; “We are studying”; “Needs clarification”; “Reserve our comments”; “We are confused”;   “I have to think carefully before offering specific comments”; and paid “special tribute” to the authors and hailed the draft as a “working document”. Whatever Mr. Maran has spoken at Doha conference, that is due to the pressure of the people in the country and to deceive and divert them from the path of struggle, that too only for public consumption. He meekly accepted the proposals to the agenda for negotiations dictated by imperialist countries, particularly US imperialism.

It was decided at the time of signing of the agreement in 1994 itself that negotiations for further progressive liberalisation and to take care of problems, issues and concerns arising from the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) should start on 1st January, 2000. But even in Doha meeting, negotiations on implementation issues and review of agriculture has not only been postponed for another two years, but only included in the agenda for negotiations. There is no concrete commitment by what time and to what extent the phasing out of export subsidies and reducing domestic support will be done. The terms are very vague and these matters can only be finalised on the basis of consensus reached through negotiations. Only accepting for negotiations is itself not a “Significant gain”. Muchkund Dubey, the chief negotiator of the Indian delegation to GATT Agreement, wrote about agriculture on the outcome of Doha “They have agreed to reduce only “trade distorting” and not all domestic subsidies. Thus developing countries’ proposal that no exceptions should be allowed for developed countries under the “Green Box” and “Blue Box” subsidies was totally ignored” (Hindu, 24th December, 2001)

Commenting on the results of Doha negotiations, Business Standard on 21st October, 2001 in its editorial stated, “Speculation was ripe prior to the recent WTO Ministerial Meet at Doha that agricultural issues would dominate the deliberations. Nothing of the sort actually happened. In fact, these aspects have gone largely unnoticed even in post Doha debate on the outcome of the crucial global meet... No doubt, several legitimate concerns of the developing countries, notably India, in this field have failed to find place in the final text of the Doha declaration... Also not included in the text is a categorical assurance on dismantling the green and blue boxes that have widely been misused for disguising agricultural subsidies”.

On Singapore issues – investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation  Vajpayee government accepted for negotiations after Fifth Ministerial Conference, i.e., 2003 but only condition laid down to take-up these issues for negotiations is through “explicit consensus”. Mr. Maran claimed this as a “significant gain” and gave an elaborate explanation. Consensus provision is already there and there is no basic difference between “consensus” and “explicit consensus”. But Maran’s interpretation treating “consensus” as a bomb and “explicit consensus” as a nuclear bomb is a hoax only to satisfy his whims and fancies. Regarding investment and competition policy, optional provision to further continue the work study and report to the Fifth Ministerial conference is already there in the draft itself. Study work also needs much more time on such serious issues. Postponing negotiations is not at all a “significant gain” and thereby shortens the duration of time to finalise the negotiations with in two years i.e., 2003 and 2004. To finalise Tokyo Round of negotiations took seven years and Uruguay round of negotiations took eight years. Keeping in view this back ground, this is not at all a gain. Moreover, this time, the duration period to complete and finalise negotiations in the agenda has been curtailed only to two and three years. These issues are diabolical towards developing countries. These countries will not prescribe for foreign investors conditions such as export obligations, export–import balancing, progressive indigenisation of manufacturing process etc. as they should be left totally free to pursue the objective of maximisation of private profits and the governments will have no right to lay down policies to promote self reliant economic development. The policy of procurement of the governments also have been included in the negotiations, which has nothing to do with international trade and it  directly interferes in the internal affairs, there by curtails sovereignty of nation states. The general principle is non-interference, leaving the global capital to choose its time, place and activity. The principle of transparency and non-discrimination is possibly a commitment, the principle of deregulation of third world economies, aimed at curtailing the regulatory authority of the developing countries.

Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health excluded the medicines pertaining to endemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS and epidemic diseases such as TB and Malaria etc. from the purview of TRIPS agreement, during the time of emergency. This is also not a “significant gain”. Developed countries have already agreed to exclude medicines for endemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS and it only extended to epidemic diseases such as TB and malaria etc., that too confined during the time of emergency. The concerned country can issue compulsory licence to produce medicines and import of medicines, pertaining to the above diseases. India is demanding to exclude the patents pertaining to agriculture and pharmaceuticals from the purview of TRIPS agreement and it was not accepted. So, this is also not a significant gain. Moreover, even this is only a political declaration and no changes were made in the TRIPS agreement. Even the top brass from leading pharma companies in the country, including Cipla and Ranbaxy expressed their disappointment. They said, “In fact status quo has been maintained and nothing has changed before and after Doha declaration.”

India opposed inclusion of environmental issues in the negotiations from the very beginning because it is a neo-protectionist non - tariff barrier to hinder our agricultural exports. Alas! Ultimately not only it was accepted for negotiations but also Maran assured us that we have lost nothing by including environment in the agenda for negotiation. Muchkund Dubey, explained the dangers involved in accepting this for negotiations, wrote, “By far the most sweeping concession made by developing countries on the environment issue was to agree to the formulation, under the WTO rules, no country should be prevented from taking measures for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health or the environment at the levels it considers appropriate. With the adoption of this formulation, a flood gate of protectionist measures on environmental grounds has been opened” (Hindu, 24th December, 2001)

On textiles and clothes, Maran took the position to lift all the quantitative restrictions or at least to reduce the quota of 49%, which is still there, imposed by USA and EU but they have not accepted. Maran now explains that he used this as a bargaining chip. This is nothing but deceiving the people.

On core labour standards, the declaration recognises work under way in the International Labour Organisation and will take up this issue for negotiation at any time because it was clearly stated in it, “The conduct, conclusion and entry into force of the outcome of the negotiations shall be treated as part of a single undertaking”. The issues which were not clearly stated for negotiation, which have not been included in the agenda also clearly stated “Those elements of the work programme which do not involve negotiations are also accorded a high priority. They shall be pursued under the overall supervision of the General Council, which shall report on the progress, to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference.”

Many new distinct issues have been included in the Doha round, which are more precarious than the previous round but Maran assures us, “We should not bother about the terms “New round”, since there are new issues. Doha programme encompassing new issues would not harm the country in any way.” He advocated after coming from Doha the lesson he learned from there and stated, “If there was one important lesson from Doha, it was to push up economic reforms with accelerated pace”. It means, that the root cause of the crisis is, implementation of reforms slowly but not the WTO. He is carrying the interests of MNCs and imperialist countries and not the interests of the Indian people.

There was a clear mandate for the commencement and finalisation of negotiations in the declaration. The negotiations shall commence not later than 31st January 2002 and be concluded not later than 1st January 2005. i.e., within three years.

India succumbed to the pressures of imperialist countries and prostrated before them, isolated from the developing countries. So, on 12th November, Kenya announced at a meeting of the African group, that India had decided to join the EU and US bandwagon. India accepted the final declaration, including all the new issues, which further worsens the imbalances and deteriorates the situation in every sector of the economy, particularly agriculture. SP Shukla commented on the outcome of Doha, “What has happened at Doha is the beginning of the final assault of global capital on the economic sovereignty of the nation states, particularly of the third world.”

Developed Countries have not implemented

Imperialist countries never bothered to implement the provisions of WTO Agreement, particularly Agreement on Agriculture. Instead of decreasing subsidies and even Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) has been increased in all the developed countries. “Available information shows that the AMS of the developed countries was raised to 55% in 1999 from 52% in 1986. Assuming that they met their obligation, the 20% cut would mean an AMS of 42% much higher than the 10% the developed countries are entitled to maintain.” (Editorial, Business Line, 11th August, 2001)

Keeping in view the Uruguay round negotiations, the developed countries increased the subsidies to agricultural sector in a planned way and consciously, even before the finalisation of Uruguay round negotiations. During 1982-’87 the subsidy to agricultural sector in the value of the produce in the USA was 26.17%, in Japan 72.50% and in EU 37%. In absolute figures it was $37 Billion, $32 Billion, and $82 Billion respectively. By 1998 the subsidy in America increased to $97.3 Billion. The total subsidies given by OECD countries amounted to $ 308 Billion during 1986-88 and by 1999 it reached to $361 Billion. The commodities that received most attention were those in which the US also has substantial interests in the international markets. For instance, in corn, a commodity in which the share of the US in world trade exceeds 50%, the subsidies went up from $ 32 million in 1995 to more than $1.5  Billion in 1998. Wheat subsidies have gone up from less than $ 5 million to $ 500 million during the same period.” (Biswajit Dhar, Economic Times, 11-2-2001) Direct payments to farmers by the U.S. government has gone up to an average of $20 Billion a year in the last three years as compared to an average of $9 Billion, that was being spent in the early 90’s. On an average, in 1990, a US farmer was given $27,000, a Japanese farmer $15,000 and in EU $12,000 as subsidy. In 1997, the developed countries paid $30,000 per farmer on an average. And in USA per farmer payment rose to $30,665. The subsidy given by the USA to its agricultural sector exceeds the total value of agricultural produce in India.

Statistics supplied by the Ministry of Agriculture in India show that subsidies given to farmers increased in different countries between 1986-’88 to 1999 and it increased from $11,000 to $17,000 in EU, from $15,000 to $26,000 in Japan, from $17,000 to $21,000 in USA and $11 to only $66 in India. Eminent agro-economist Prof. Ashok Gulati, stated that total subsidies given to agriculture is 72.5% in Japan, 61% in South  Korea, 54 to 44% in EU, 28 to 80% in USA and only 2% in India. Even as per the data compiled by the WTO secretariat, “The actual use of subsidies in terms of both budgetary outlays and volume has increased for some particular items in major subsidising countries between 1995 and 1998.” (11th May, 2000)

After Doha meeting, even Pascal Lamy, EU Commissioner for Trade, publicly announced during his recent visit to India, that “The EU would continue to maintain most of its domestic subsidies.” According to World Bank-2000, World Development Indicators, “instead of reducing tariffs, developed countries have increased standard deviation of tariff rates. On an average it increased on all products from 7% to 11.6% and on primary goods from 10.9% to 24.7% between 1995 and 1999 and in USA 7.7% to 9.3%., in Japan 10.5% to 11.5%  between 1998 and 1999 respectively but in India it decreased from 14.0% to 12.7%; 22.6% to 21.7% between 1997 and 1999 respectively.

Though the developed countries have agreed to phase  out and reduce subsidies in the Declaration  but in practice these countries are openly violating and increasing subsidies. For instance, ‘’The US Congress passing a legislation that will increase federal subsidies to farmers by more than $70 Billion over the next decade... (Editorial, Business Standard, 20th December, 2001). Commenting on this development, it stated, ‘’ The repercussions of this move are unlikely to remain confined to the US. Large subsidies to farmers in the US, one of the largest and probably the most significant players in the global commodities market, are bound to distort the international market. That will amount to encouraging increased production for exports despite a  depressed market, thus deepening the recession.”

It was agreed to  negotiate to reduce the tariffs but USA is increasing tariffs such as on steel. “The International  Trade commission has proposed a range of higher duties up to 40% and  some of its members have even recommended quotas or a combination of quotas and tariffs to bail out steel makers.” (Business Line, 13th December, 2001). Mr. Pascal Lamy, the EU Trade Commissioner, commenting on this  said, “The proposed new curbs would virtually close the US market to the rest of the world.” Japan has described the panel’s decision as a “defacto ban on imports.” (ibid)

Developed countries are also curbing the exports of developing countries through anti-dumping duties and this trend was termed as ”avalanche” by WTO itself. According to WTO, “The number of anti-dumping initiations has been increased from 93 to 134 between January to June 2000 and January to June 2001. Out of 134 initiatives, 88 were initiated by developed countries and among these, 39 were initiated by USA alone and the figure is only 9 in the first half of 2000. Where as the anti dumping initiatives were declined from 88 to 46 in developing countries during the same period.”

Recent OECD report itself admits that the developed countries have not implemented WTO agreements, particularly in agriculture. It says, “The developed countries didn’t fulfil their commitments made in the Uruguay round on agricultural policies.”

Results are contrary to objectives

High ideals were proclaimed in the Doha Declaration and WTO has been declared as a panacea for all the problems and ills facing the human society. It was proclaimed, “International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty... The multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO has contributed significantly to economic growth, development and employment”. It’s aims were declared that, “In the light of global economic slowdown... the system plays it’s full part in promoting recovery, growth and development... developing countries’ needs and interests at the heart of the work programme... to ensure that developing countries and especially the least developed among them secure a share in the growth of world trade”. Are these claims and aims are really true? Whether they have been materialised? Not at all. Moreover, the experience of the past, particularly last seven years clearly proves, is quite contrary to the proclaimed objectives of the declaration.

Instead of “significant economic growth and development”, now the world economy is facing severe recession. According to OECD report, global economy seems to be in recession for the first time in twenty years. The growth of US economy was 1.1% in 2000 and it will decelerate to 0.7% in 2001. EU and Japan also facing more or less the same situation. In USA the interest rates were cut eleven times in a single year i.e., 2001 and the rate of interest was lowest in 40 years. Economic growth in world output was the lowest in eight years and rate of growth in world trade was the weakest since 1982. Even in India the rate of growth has been decelerated. Overall growth rate of industrial production declined from 6.1% to 2.6%, in manufacturing from 6.4% to 2.8%, in infrastructure from 6.8% to 2% and in exports from 6.7% to -1.7% between 2000 and 2001. The rate of growth of industrial production is the lowest in the last ten years.

In world trade also, the rate of growth has declined. Total world trade decelerated from 7.8% to 5.4% between 1990-’95 to ’95-2000. Between 1995 and 1999 exports of the developing countries increased only by $57 billion, where as world exports increased $592 billion. According to statistics released by WTO Secretariat, world trade declined from 12.5% to 1% between the first half of 2000 and 2001.

Inspite of all efforts by imperialist countries through IMF and World Bank, Mexico, Brazil, East Asian countries and now Argentina, faced serious economic crises, one after other and its repercussion on world economy is on a large scale. It is very significant to note that all these countries belonged to third world, which seriously followed the liberalization, privatisation and globalization policies dictated by imperialist countries. All this happened under the regime of WTO and it will further worsen the situation in the third world countries.

Trade in export of agricultural products declined very sharply in the recent past. Export of agricultural products declined in the world from 6.8% to -0.6% between 1995 and 2000 and their unit value also decreased from 2.1% to -4.6% during the same period respectively. Though the Declaration says, “The developing countries needs and interests are at the heart of the “work programme” but the practice and experience are quite contrary. The share of exports from developing countries, which constitutes ¾th of the WTO membership, continue to remain around 30% of the world trade in agriculture. This is less than, what it was 25-30 years ago. The share of total agricultural exports from developing countries into Western Europe has declined from 28.5% in 1994 to 28% in 1998 and to Japan has also fallen from 14.5% to 11.5% during the same period “(India’s proposals on WTO, AoA, 15-1-2000). According to Food and Agricultural Organisation, agricultural exports increased 3% from developed countries but only 0.63% from developing countries between 1990 and 1997 and imports were increased from 2% and 4% during the same period respectively.

The drain from the developing countries to the developed countries has increased. WTO has become the main instrument of this unbridled exploitation. According to the World Development Report 2000-2001, “High income countries’ agriculture tariffs and other distortions, such as subsidies, have been estimated to cause annual welfare losses of 19.8 billion dollars for developing countries, equivalent to about 40% of the official development assistance given to developing countries in 1998”. “Developing countries loose about 60 billion dollars a year in potential exports because their farmers cannot compete with heavily subsidised goods produced in industrial countries.” (Far Eastern Economic Review 2nd December, 1999)

Prof. Jagdeesh Bhaghavati and T.N. Srinivasan have said that because of patents a massive rent transfer takes place from developing to developed countries, to the extent of $8.3 billion of which $5.3 billion goes to the USA alone. According to World Development Report 2002, “TRIPS can impose significant costs on poor countries (p. 4). It has been estimated that the US stands to gain $5.7 billion in net transfer from TRIPS... In contrast, developing countries are expected to experience net outward transfers amounting to $430 million for India, $434 million for Korea, $481 million for Mexico and $170 million for Brazil”. (Ibid. p. 146)

Unemployment, poverty and inequalities have increased and aggravated the economic crisis in the world, particularly in developing countries. Unemployment in OECD countries reached alarming proportions, particularly in youth to the staggering figure of 11.8% in 1999. After 11th September 2001 incidents in USA, it accentuated the unemployment in that country. The statistics provided by the government in India show that even the rural unemployment reached 6.3%, and in urban  areas, the problem is more serious. Working days per head, and real wages also declined. The real income of the people, particularly the real wages of agricultural labourers, declined 0.41% in two years i.e., 1998-’99 to ’99-2000. The growth rate of consumption of the people also declined from 7.2% to 4.2% according to the Economic Survey 2001.

Poverty has also increased worldwide. According  to the World Bank, one who earns less than one dollar per day is treated as poor.  In India, there are 44.2% of people  who  earns less than one dollar per day and those earning less than $2 per day is 86.2%. Human Development Report 2001 says “Around 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day and $2.8 billion on less than $2 per  day. Such  deprivations are not limited to developing countries. In OECD countries more than 130 million people  are income-poor, 34 million are unemployed and adult functional illiteracy rates average 15%... In 16 sub-Saharan countries per capita  incomes were also lower in 1999 than in 1975. (p.13)

Human Development Report 2000 discussed the ill effects and dangers of globalization under WTO regime. According to the report, “Poverty is no longer a phenomenon of just the South. It has become a Northern phenomenon as well... Income inequality, in and across nations, is on the rise... Economic growth has stagnated in many developing  countries.  The  average  annual growth of income  per capita  in 1990-’98 was negative in 50 countries, only one of them OECD country..... Many least developed countries are being marginalised from the expanding opportunities of globalization.  As world exports more than double, the  share of least developed countries declined from 0.6%  in 1980 to 0.5% in 1990, 0.4% in 1998".

Such are the bitter experiences faced by developing countries by implementing WTO agreement.

Crisis in Agriculture

Indian agriculture is facing unprecedented and severest crisis, ever seen in the past fifty years. The prices of all agricultural produce declined very sharply. Why such a situation has emerged ? Because, as per the provisions of AoA and WTO, Indian market should be opened and inter-linked to the international market. Developed countries are not implementing WTO agreement, at the same time, these very countries are pressurising in every way the developing countries, to implement the WTO. Developed countries are giving huge subsidies in various ways to agriculture, violating the provisions of WTO. So, these countries are able to sell their agricultural products at cheaper rates and dump them into the markets of developing countries. While pressurising the developing countries to open their markets by lifting quantitative restrictions and reducing tariffs on imports the imperialist countries are maintaining protectionist measures in so many ways, such as non-tariff barriers and quota systems.

Vajpayee government lifted quantitative restrictions on 1429 items of import, which consists mainly of agricultural products, two years ahead of scheduled time, reduced tariffs substantially and further opened the market to MNCs.

Prices of agricultural products have crashed in the international market. The prices of wheat declined 46.5%, maize (Argentina) 50%, rice (Thailand) 50%, cotton 50%, Soya oil 85.1%, groundnut oil 20.5%, sugar 20%, and for jute 24.6% between 1995 and 2000 (Usha Patnaik). We can compare this situation with the great economic crisis of 1930’s.  So, developing countries such as India are importing not only agricultural products but also crisis as well.

Moreover, centre and state governments are slashing even the meagre subsidies which are giving to agriculture, under the dictates of World Bank and increasing the prices of inputs like power, fertilisers, pesticides and water cess etc. We are facing a paradoxical situation particularly in agricultural sector. While the rate of growth in agriculture declined since the past three years and fell even below the rate of growth of population, the prices of agricultural produce are declining, food grain stocks have piled up to a staggering level of 6.5 crore tonnes but the lot of the people has worsened and even starvation deaths and deaths due to eating of inedibles, suicide deaths of farmers, etc. are taking pace on a large scale not only in backward regions and during the time of crop failures either due to drought, pests or diseases but also in developed states like Punjab and Haryana.

Besides the above, productivity and production in India is very low compared to developed countries. The investment from both public and private sectors in agriculture has declined steeply. The plan allocations and capital formation in agriculture have declined. Infrastructure, extension services, particularly, the efforts of scientific and technological development are lacking.

Hence, India is not in a position to compete in the international market with the developed countries. Our exports of agricultural products have dwindled and imports are on the rise. Though Indian government is ready to supply to the exporters at the cost of Rs. 4200 per tonne of wheat, Rs. 5650 for rice and Rs. 6000 for boiled rice per tonne but export targets were not reached and even a single bag of rice was not exported from A.P. since past two years.

The purchasing power of the people has decreased and the internal market is not expanding. Even the Planning Commission admitted, “The food consumption of the poor in India has gone down in the last ten years”. With all these cumulative reasons, crisis in agriculture is aggravating. It is also extending to the ancillary industries of agriculture and finally to the whole economy. For instance, cotton prices in the international market fell to the level of 1970. Import of cotton increased and cotton prices in the domestic market also declined. It affected not only cotton farmers but also its ancillary industries like Ginning Mills, Spinning Mills and Textile Mills also. According to Indian Cotton Mills Federation, 54 cotton and textile mills were closed and 27,510 workers also lost their jobs between March 2000 and August 2001. Till August 2001, a total of 403 mills were closed and out of these 277 were spinning mills and 126 were composite mills. This crisis will extend to other sectors of the economy.

The crisis not only ruins our agriculture but also is endangering our food security, as well as livelihood security. Food security was defined by Food and Agricultural Organisation as. “ The physical and economic access for all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life”.

Government is advocating to grow export oriented crops at the cost of food crops. This will lead to collapse of our food security and thereby endanger our livelihood and will increase dependence on MNCs for our food requirements, which is most dangerous to the people and our country.

Most Unequal

The ruling classes and their apologist intellectuals are hailing the WTO as the most progressive and say that it provides equal opportunities to all member countries in the international trade. Is this claim is true? Not at all. It is the most unequal multilateral international trade treaty in the annals of world history.

(A) AGGREGATE MEASURE OF SUPPORT (AMS)

In the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), subsidies of all types given to agricultural sector were not included. We can divide them broadly in to four types of subsidies, which are given to this sector. (1) Aggregate Measure of Support (2) Green Box (3) Blue Box (4) Export Subsidies.

Regarding domestic support (AMS), developed countries should reduce 20% in six years (1995-2000) and the developing countries should reduce 13% in ten years (1995-’04). For the reduction of AMS, 1986-’88 was taken as the base period. These countries were permitted to give 5% and 10% of the value of the agricultural produce, respectively.

Statistics submitted by Ministry of Commerce at the time of Uruguay round negotiations clearly reveals that India is not giving any subsidy but the farmers themselves are giving subsidy to government. India was giving a negative AMS of Rs. 19,860 crores per annum in 1986-’88 and that too without excluding low income or poor farmers. In 88-’89 the farmers were given a negative subsidy of 75% of their value of produce and it increased to 87% in 1996-’97. Mr. Sharad Joshi, former chairman of the Task Force on Agriculture, said that the farmers were giving Rs. 1,30,000 crores as negative subsidy per annum in 1994 and the government also accepted this to be true. But due to the crash of prices for agricultural products in the international market, certain changes are there in the calculation of AMS. At present, the government statistics shows about 2% of AMS is given to agricultural sector. But the state and centre governments are reducing it and are committed to scrapping even that meagre subsidy under different structural or Economic Reconstruction project agreements dictated by World Bank and IMF.

While submitting proposals on this provision to WTO on 15th January 2001, Indian government commented, “ AoA provisions are iniquitous and discriminatory. AoA also institutionalises this disparity by allowing the high subsidising countries to maintain 80% of their level AMS.”

(B) GREEN BOX AND BLUE BOX SUBSIDIES

Imperialist countries very cleverly, consciously and in a planned way excluded certain subsidies given to the agricultural sector i.e. Green Box and Blue Box subsidies, saying subsidies will not distort trade in any manner, which is not at all a fact. Payments made directly to farmers are decoupled payments, which are not related to production levels or prices. Environmental protections, structural adjustment assistance and regional developmental programmes are called green box payments. Payments directly linked to acerage or annual limit production by imposing production quotas or requiring farmers to set aside part of their land are called blue box payments.

Under WTO regime, subsidies under green box were increased steeply in developed countries. In USA, green box subsidies were increased from $26 billion to $46 billion between 1986 to 1995. According to WTO Secretariat, the share of direct payments under green box measures is estimated to have increased from 23% in 1995 to 43% in 1998. Direct income support to farmers in EU increased from 8.3% to 51.3% from 1993 to 1998. In EU cereal producers are getting 126% on cereals and 129% on bovine meat of the net income. According to Dr. V.K. Kurien the subsidy on milk in the USA is 47%, Canada 50%, Japan 82%, Australia 23%. For milk powder, U.S.A. and E.U. countries are giving a subsidy of 55%.

(C)     EXPORT SUBSIDIES

It was stipulated in the agreement (AoA) that export subsidies should be reduced to 36% in terms of value and 21% in terms of quantity in developed countries and 24% and 14% in developing countries. The basic period for calculating reduction in export subsidies is 1986-’90. If any country is not giving any export subsidy in the base period that country is not permitted to give any export subsidy and this is the most glaring unequal provision. During the base period India was not giving any export subsidy. So, “USA and Canada raised trade related objections in WTO. Dispute Settlement Body, about the country massively subsidising its wheat exports and objected to state agencies trading in wheat”. (Hindu 29th March 2001)

Instead of reducing export subsidies, the developed countries steeply increased them. As papers published by WTO reveal, export subsidies in EU is on 20 items and USA is giving on 13 items of agricultural products. In addition to AMS, green box and blue box subsidies, the developed countries are giving 63% of the value of agricultural products as export subsidy. Developed countries provide 90% of the total export subsidies in the world. Moreover, there is no bar to carry over the unused export subsidy to the next year. AoA provisions are most iniquitous and discriminatory.

(D) TARIFFS

According to AoA, tariffs should be reduced on an average 36%, and the minimum cut per product should be 15% in developed countries and 24% and 10% in developing countries respectively. There is no provision for maximum tariff on each specific product but only the stipulated provision is on an average and minimum reduction of tariffs. This is a very iniquitous provision.

Utilising this lacuna, imperialist countries are imposing heavy tariffs on certain agricultural products, in which developing countries, such as India cannot compete in the international market. For instance - Japan is imposing a tariff of 1000% on import of rice, whereas in India the tariff is only 70%, tariff  on sugar is 244% in USA, 200% in EU and in India it is only 60%, on milk powder and milk products 244% in USA and in India it is only 60%, on wheat in  developed countries it is 214% but in India it is only 50%.

The average tariffs in OECD countries in 1995 were 214% for wheat, 197% for barley, 154% for maize. A joint UNCTAD/WTO study on the post Uruguay round, tariff environment for exports from developing countries (1997) reports that Quad countries (USA, EU, Japan) maintain an extremely large variation of tariff rates. Their tariff peaks reach 350% and above in extreme cases for some products of interest to developing countries. One fifth of the peak tariffs of the USA, a Quarter of those of EU, about 30% of those of Japan and about one seventh of those of Canada exceed 30%. The study further reports that the most important areas with the highest tariff rates include the major agricultural staple foods, cereals, meat, sugar, milk, butter, cheese as well as tobacco products and cotton. In EU, for instance, the out of quota tariff for banana is 180%, in Japan these tariffs range between 460 to 600% for dried beans, peas and lentils and in the U.S. groundnuts in shell attract a tariff of 164%... Recently Japan has levied a tariff of about 1000% on rice”. (India's proposals on WTO)

Even the World Bank, one of the main instruments of globalization and exploitation of MNCs of imperialist countries has itself admitted in the World Development Report 2000-2001, “The tariff that high income countries impose on agricultural goods from developing countries, especially such staples as meat, sugar and diary products, are almost five times those on manufacturers. The EU Tariffs on meat products peak at 826%. These barriers are huge obstacles for developing countries striving to break into export markets.”

“...Tariffs facing developing countries to high income countries are on average, four times those facing industrial country exports to the same market.”

High income countries tariffs are not only higher for manufacturers from developing countries, they also escalate with the level of processing. For example, in Japan and EU fully processed food products face tariffs twice as high as those on products in the first stage processing. In Canada the ratio is even higher with tariffs on fully processed food products 12 times those on products in the first stage. The escalation can discourage industrialisation efforts of developing countries”.

In India, Vajpayee government reduced tariffs substantially and due to this, we have lost about 2% points of GDP in central revenues.

(E) QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS

Agreements in WTO did not provide for lifting of all the quantitative restrictions on all products equally in all countries. There is discrimination between manufactured goods and agricultural ancillary products particularly labour intensive industries' products like textiles, plastics and leather etc. Vajpayee government has removed all the quantitative restrictions on imports, two years in advance but there are still quantitative restrictions of 49% on imports of textiles and clothes to USA and EU from India. In Doha, USA and EU have bluntly rejected the demand of India to lift or at least reduce these quantitative restrictions, before the end of 2004. “Even after quotas are going to be dismantled, there will be tariffs in labour intensive industries like textiles, plastics and leather and these peaks range from 35% to 50% in the US and Europe”. (OECD Report). “Quantitative restrictions are imposing on 54 products in USA and on 87 products in EU even today... Besides, these quota restrictions, these countries are taking special measures to curb imports from developing countries on one pretext or the other. EU is taking steps to such safeguards on 539 products, USA on 189 products and Japan on 121 products”. (WTO papers)

(F) NON-TARIFF BARRIERS

The provision regarding non-tariff barriers is vague and it gives large scope to violate the very purpose of the provision itself. Utilising this lacuna, the developed countries are imposing non-tariff barriers and these are increasing, particularly on agricultural products. Non tariff barriers are basically  affecting our  exports of agricultural and pharmaceutical products. “From spices to meat to rice, fresh fruits, tobacco, coir, coffee and even herbal medicines, Indian items are denied entry into other countries under various pretexts or non-tariff barriers", according to a preliminary report on “Non-Tariff Barriers faced by India” prepared by the Commerce Ministry.  According to a recent report prepared by Department of Commerce in India “Indian exporters tend to suffer more than other exporters on account of non-tariff barriers (NTB) particularly exports to the US face greater NTB. 25% of India’s exports in value terms are subjected to safeguard requirements against the global average of 22% and 19% are faced with labelling restrictions against 16% from other countries. Other than usual suspects - labour, environment and sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures - Indian exporters regularly come up against novel forms of trade restrictions in global markets. The indirect NTB include measures like health and safety and technical regulations, customs valuation procedures and marks of origin restrictions. Even anti-dumping duties, counterveiling duties, regional subsidisation, subsidisation of public enterprises, tied aid etc. come under this category.

Among the products to be hardest hit by the NTB are textiles, nuts, fruits and vegetables, iron and steel, machinery, pharmaceuticals, wood and marine products. USA, EU and Japan account for a majority NTB and among these, the U.S. accounts for the maximum number. According to UNCTAD estimate, 44% of India’s exports in 1999 worth around $35 billion, faced NTB in the USA.

These NTB are hindering the exports, particularly of agricultural products from developing countries such as India to developed countries.

(G) SANITARY AND PHYTO-SANITARY MEASURES (S&PS)

Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures are one of the main NTB to curb imports from developing countries. In the name of S&PS, the developed countries are imposing stringent measures to curb imports from developing countries effectively. The SPS were decided by developed countries unilaterally but the developing countries have no appropriate mechanism to decide the standards. Due to weakness of developing countries, developed countries are prohibiting the import of agricultural products from developing countries even on very flimsy grounds while they feel it adversely affects their interests. “Our agricultural products such as fruits and prawns were rejected by them. Even the frocks manufactured in India are rejected by America on flimsy grounds that these were fire-prone” “(Prof. K.R. Choudhary) Coir product exporters also face NTB like alleged child labour or environmental pollution in E.U.

According to FICCI’s report, “The cost of barriers due to such standards (S&PS) were likely to be higher than tariffs” The World Bank says, “Pulling down barriers can boost income worldwide by $2800 billion and half of that will go to developing countries.”

(H) ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

Imperialist countries, particularly USA and EU, are imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of agricultural products and U.S.A. is the biggest practitioner of anti-dumping measures. According to the report of WTO in 1997, the total number of measures taken under anti-dumping were 880, and out of these 302 were taken by US alone, 137 by EU and 91 by Canada. These accounted for over 60% of the total anti-dumping actions. USA imposed anti-dumping levies on imports of textiles and steel products from India. According to Confederation of Indian industry (1999), Indian exporters were faced anti-dumping investigations on steel by USA and EU, cotton typed bed linen, unbleached cotton fabrics, polythene packs and bags, synthetic fibre ropes and potassium permanganate by EU.

(I) NON-TRADE ISSUES

Certain non-trade issues were also included in GATT Agreement and even in the agenda of Doha round. Subjects like patents, trade marks, copyrights, geographical indications, data base, and layout designs of integrated circuits were included. None of these are trade issues but were also included in the Trips agreement. Seeds, plants as well as other subjects such as animals, genes and life forms were also included in the agreement. Investment, competition policy, e -commerce, procurement of the government, core labour standards and environmental issues are also included in the Doha round negotiations, which are essentially, non-trade issues. Environment was included in the agenda for the first time for negotiations. Government procurement, which was always outside the purview of any multilateral trade discipline was also included for negotiations. These were nothing but neo - protectionist measures on imports, partiicularly agricultural products from developing countries.

(J) TRADE RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (TRIPS)

Knowledge accumulated from various generations of human history either becomes the personal property of any person or persons; neither of any organisation nor organisations. It belongs to the human society as a whole and it should not become a trade issue. But now, the developed countries are making traditional knowledge also a trade issue. One agreement in the WTO deals with this matter i.e. the agreement of TRIPS. Developed countries and MNCs are monopolising the patents, thereby dominating, dictating and fleecing the developing countries in the name of royalties. It has been estimated that nearly 48% of the 4000 odd plant patents granted by USPTO in the recent past, pertains to traditional knowledge from developing countries, such as India. Total number of patents granted world wide in 1995 is about 7,10,000  and it has been estimated out of these, 97% belongs to industrial countries and among the technological and product patents 90% are held by MNCs. MNCs have got patents on our traditional knowledge, which people are utilising since generations, such as neem, Basmati rice, Turmeric, Black pepper, Tamarind and Darjeeling tea etc. by deceitfully making some changes.

Rice Tech, the MNC of USA, got patent on Basmati, Basmati 867, RT 1117 and RT 1121 on 20 claims. Indian government challenged only on 3 claims. Rice Tech company withdraw 4 of its claims, including these three and the Dispute Settlement body struck down 11 of its claims and the company still holds patent on 5 claims but simply changing the word Basmati into i.e. Bas 867, RT 1117 and RT 1121. The tragedy is, Indian government has not challenged this, under geographical Indications provision so far, which is already there and even this has not been included in the agenda, for immediate negotiation in Doha Declaration. Items of traditional knowledge such as Basmati Rice, Darjeeling and Assam Tea, Arunachal archads, Alphanso Mangoes, Kolhapur chappals, Kanchipuram silks and khadi etc. are stated in the Doha Declaration only, and regarding these it was mentioned that, “We note the extension of the protection of geographical indications” but the products of imperialist countries such as wines (Champagne of France) and spirits (Scotch whisky of Italy) have been included for negotiations. Such is the equality maintaining in WTO and imperialist countries are plundering the traditional knowledge of developing countries in the name of patents. Justice VR Krishna Iyer said “patent legislation if changed by TRIPS trap may be unconstitutional, unpatriotic and progress in reverse gear”.

(K) COMPULSORY IMPORT OF FOODGRAINS

There is another inequitious and precarious provision, which deals with compulsory import of food grains, irrespective of concerned country’s requirements. According to this provision, “Every country should invariably import 5% of food grains. For example in India, present consumption is presumed 20 crore tonnes of food grains, as per this provision, India will invariably import one crore tonnes of food grains. This clause is most unjust and harmful to populous countries like India.

In WTO there are altogether 29 agreements and inequity provisions are there in every agreement. WTO institutionalises these imbalances and inequities. WTO is the most visible symbol of the process of globalization, marketisation, which accentuates the inequalities and poverty in the world. Eminent agro economist Prof. MS Swaminathan says, “India’s agriculture is at cross roads... WTO agreement is inherently unequal among nations.”      (Frontline, 16th February 2001)

Ruling Classes prostrated before the Imperialists

Though the harmful effects of WTO are clearly visible, the ruling classes, without paying any heed to the people’s agitation and dissent, are subserving the interests of imperialist countries. Going against the will of the Indian people and ignoring their protests, Narasimha Rao government made India a member of WTO. NDA government led by BJP, which came to power chanting “Swadeshi mantra, has surpassed all the previous governments in opening the flood gates of the economy for the MNCs. They lifted quantitative restrictions on imports and are pushing the small and medium manufacturers and peasantry into deep crisis.

The PV Narasimha Rao Govt. clandestinely signed the WTO Agreement even without informing Parliament, and also without seeking the opinions of State governments. This itself was an undemocratic act. Agriculture is in the States list, but neither before approving the Agreement nor even 7 years after the WTO came into force did a single State Legislature take it up for detailed discussion. More than 80% of the legislators have rural background or came from cultivator families but they too are not asking for a serious discussion in the Assemblies. This shows the real nature of the ruling class parties. What more proof is required to show their betrayal of farmers?

The Vajpayee Government lifted the quantitative restrictions on imports two years ahead, submitting itself to please American imperialists. Instead of increasing the import duties as permitted by the WTO the present Govt. substantially scraped import duties on the agricultural products and it proved itself to be more loyal than a loyalist. The Govt. paid no attention to the price fall in respect of milk, dairy products, fruits, sugar, tea, edible oils and even food grains on account of dumping of foreign goods. When the pressure and agitation was severe the Govt. increased import duties very slightly, that too in five phases. The import duties increased on the fifth occasion are still less than what is permitted by the WTO. The import duties are very low compared to those imposed by the imperialist countries. While the imperialist countries are increasing the subsidies in different forms, the Vajpayee Govt. is busily engaged in scrapping the subsidies. While the agricultural sector is facing severe crisis and without taking any other measures to protect it.

Unite to fight

Seven years of WTO and eleven years of New Economic Policies have worsened the conditions of the people of the country. The economic crisis, which they had claimed would be overcome has been further aggravated. The whole country and different sectors of the economy have been progressively opened up for the exploitation by imperialist sharks. The imperialist strangle  hold over the economy has tightened further.

Prostrating Indian ruling classes serving as the loyalists of the imperialist are prepared to sacrifice Indian agriculture to the dictates of the WTO. Not a single country of the third world, which implemented this agreement, improved its lot. In all these countries it intensified the agricultural crisis.

Almost all, even including BJP, TDP, Congress and other ruling class parties are of the view that WTO is causing damage to the Indian economy, particularly agriculture. The centre and some state Governments recently appointed expert committees, to look into the impact of WTO on agriculture and suggest remedies to overcome the ill-effects. A majority of these critics are of the view that even within the purview of the WTO, certain measures can be taken to protect agriculture and changes can be made. They are of the view that the govt. should publish a white paper on the WTO agreement and its consequences and that countries like India should be allowed to establish livelihood box. The purpose and aim of these are to deceive the people. Advising the farmers to grow more, improve quality and compete internationally, these are whipping the farmers to run in the international trade race while putting shackles on both the upper and lower limbs. Contrary to its proclaimed aims, Vajpayee government betrayed the Indian people at Doha.

The strategy of development through exports drives the country into crisis. The domestic market should be depended upon for the country’s development instead of foreign market. The Government should pursue the development strategy of expanding of the domestic market by implementing land reforms and living wage to agricultural labour and other toiling people and providing employment to increase the people’s purchasing power.

To implement this development strategy there is no other way except to come out of the WTO, which is the root cause of the present crisis. As long as India remains within WTO, it intensifies the crisis in the agrarian sector and this crisis, in turn, spreads to all other sectors of the economy. Has not the country survived till 1995 when the agriculture was not within the purview of GATT?

Exports will not increase but imports will flood the domestic market and the prices of all agricultural  products will further decline under WTO regime. This will further intensify the crisis of all the sectors of Indian economy particularly agriculture, its ancillary industries, small and medium scale industries. It is also a heavy blow to the domestic business and commerce. Ultimately, it will lead to the collapse of the Indian economy.

The Govt. is acting against the interests of farmers and agricultural labourers. In the 2001-’02 year’s budget no measures to protect agriculture were proposed. More over the farm sector was attacked. The irrigation sector received negligible allocation. They have not taken even minimum measures to prevent the suicides of farmers and handloom and textile workers in some parts of the country. The Govt. did not procure all the food grains even at the minimum support price. The Govt. has no policies with it to increase the people’s purchasing power and to expand the market. The Public Distribution System and the procurement System, which are useful to the people to some extent, are on the verge of extinction. The Govt. is ready to privatise power irrigation projects, public sector undertakings and service sectors. The Govt. is ready to amend the labour laws at the price of the workers’ rights and patent laws.

NDA government is shamelessly intensifying its communal conspiracies to disrupt the unity of the people and prepare the ground for fascist repression of their struggles. The government institutions are being packed by the Hindutva advocates, education and syllabi are being saffronized, minorities are being attacked and communal discord and division is being deepened. Along with it, central and state governments are intensifying repression on the mass movements. To suppress and repress the mass movements, different states are bringing old TADA in new forms. In the name of fighting terrorism, cross boarder terrorism, the central government re-promulgated POTO, a more draconian law than TADA. War hysteria against Pakistan and Hindu communalism against minorities, particularly Muslims is being hyped to divert the attention of the people from the movements and particularly keeping in view of coming elections in some states.

Really WTO is an instrument in the hands of imperialist countries to wage an economic war on the people of the world countries in general and on developing countries in particular. Prof. Arun Kumar Singh rightly pointed out. “WTO has become the worst nightmare for the developing countries, so much so that it rightly deserves to be named as World Terrorist Organization”.  (WTO and Developing Countries).

The People’s Commission on GATT has explained the damages of WTO. “The direct and inevitable effect of the new GATT/WTO dispensation would be to adversely effect the right to livelihood, the rights of farmers, the right to health and cheap medicine and entail a loss of economic sovereignty and a threat to federalism”.

Prof. KR Choudhary correctly said, “India should quit WTO to save the economic autonomy and sovereignty of our country and our people from slavery of imperialist powers”. Dominance and hegemony of the imperialists particularly US imperialists will be strengthened and finally it leads India, to become a neo-colony, Before our eyes, our beloved motherland is going into the clutches of imperialists and they are trying to strengthen their grip over India. Can we allow this situation to further deteriorate any longer? Are we not able to prevent this impending danger? The time has not only come but it is high time and the bounden duty of all the patriotic people of our mother land, irrespective of their caste, creed, nationality and political affiliation, to come forward and unite under the slogan of “Quit WTO”, “Save peasants”, “Save agriculture”. “Save people” and “Save India”. Fight for Peoples’ Democracy, genuine independence and sovereignty of our great motherland. Otherwise, history will not excuse us.

Already people are on the move. They are agitating, struggling and fighting in different ways. There were massive demonstrations abroad against the WTO and the ones at Seattle, Prague, Washington and in Geneva are strikingly impressive. In the country also, AP, Punjab, Karnataka, Maharashtra, MP, Orissa, Haryana, UP witnessed agitations. The struggle against WTO is not a struggle for a mere protection of agricultural sector and it is not a struggle confined to the farmers and agricultural labourers only. This is the struggle of all sections of the people. It is not a mere economic struggle. This is an integral part of the struggle against imperialism.

We have to choose to follow either the course of Jayachandra and Mirjafar, the ‘great’ traitors in the recent history of our country, or as successors of the great martyrs and the heroic path traversed by  Sirajudaula, Laxmibai of Jhansi, Alluri Seetha Rama Raju, Komaram Bhim, Birsa Munda, Bhagat Singh and thousands upon thousands, who have valiantly fought and laid down their invaluable lives for the cause of our beloved mother land. There is no other way. As Karl Marx rightly pointed out, “The people are the motive force and real masters of the world history”. Our country’s destiny is in our hands.