The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism

by Javed Jamil

12.

  Challenges Challenged

  There is little doubt that economic fundamentalism has estab­lished its deep roots in the present world. Its march towards its destination has till now been extraordinarily rapid and without facing any formidable resistance. The plan of its growth has been so meticulously designed and so subtly executed that the oppon­ents have not even been able to fully realize what actually is transpiring and why. It however does not mean that the economic fundamentalists do not at all face challenges. Several prob­lems -- big or small, temporary or permanent, confront them; and they have to find ways to manage them in a way so that they either remain unscathed or the damage is minimised. These problems are multifold.

  First, they do not want to be viewed by the masses as exploiters, oppressors and killers. They wish to be respected and remembered as saviours, not the tormentors of mankind. Moreover, they want to distract the attention of the common people from the real issues. They are therefore often in search of such issues as look or can be made to look humanitarian and at the same time their solution has some inherent advantages for the market or at least has no destructive effect on it. More often than not, these are the problems of industries but they project and propagate these as if they are the maladies of the whole world. And if the two combine, that is, a problem of the industry happens to be a problem of the world as well, it helps the fundamentalists to redouble their efforts. It can be easily seen that no campaign being assiduously projected at the global level as a major issue on the pretension of humanitarian grounds is without a commercial motive. Let us briefly discuss some of them.

  The most notable campaign, in terms of its extensiveness as well as intensity in the post-War era that has, in one form or the other, become a part of the national policy of almost all the govern­ments functioning in any region of the world, has been the population control programme. It has been pursued in varying intensities not only by the countries that have been under the influence of the West but also by several hard-core socialist countries including China, non-aligned countries like India, Egypt and Cuba and the Islamic countries like Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. That the programme is not without substance is also evident from the fact that it had its inception when capital­ism and socialism were at each other’s throat. If the communist countries have also adopted and aggressively pursued it, it could not essentially have been anti-people. Yet, if during the last few decades the implementation of the programme has received extraordinary thrust, it is because the big business has developed several interests in its pursuance. It may be true that the population is growing at a rate considered fast by the experts. It may also be true that such rapid growth of population escalates several prob­lems. If the infectious diseases cause mortality and morbidity at alarming rates, the mothers still die during deliveries, a size­able percentage of infants do not remain alive to celebrate their first birthday and out of the rest many more die in their paediatric age owing to lack of nutritious food and unavailability of good medical care and cities are becoming overcrowded, the popula­tion growth may be a significant contributory factor. But there are other factors related with the issues that are conveniently forgotten. Disinformation is generously used to further the birth control programme. For example, the impression has been usually disseminated that a steep rise in population would create shortage of food. The studies by the organisations monitor­ing food production have been categorical in proving that the rise in food production in the last half century has been great­er than the rise in population. If the people still starve it is because the food is not allowed to reach them. It can be said with confidence that if the distri­bution of food becomes equitable, no human being on the earth will remain hungry. The earth allows birth of only as many humans as it can sustain. The economic fundamentalists know this. This is why some economists have gone to the extent in their argument that increase in food production must not be allowed to occur because if the food production rises the population will naturally expand to consume it. It can theefore be the reason why the food is not allowed to reach all the corners of the earth; if it reaches all humans it would save many a lives from starvation. This would obviously cause an increase in population. Once there are no more deaths owing to starvation, the drive for population control will receive further setback. Why exactly the economic fundamentalists seek to keep population under control is ex­plained below.

  Another point that has entirely been missed is that the total bio-mass of the earth remains the same. If the human population grows the population of animals would decrease; and if the human population is reduced by natural or artificial means the animal population would increase. The question arises: should we reduce the number of human beings and increase the population of beasts? If the human population has always continued to increase, it is because Nature wants to replace the less developed creatures with the better developed. Should we endeavour to interfere with this natural phenomenon? Similarly, in order to popularise family welfare programmes, the advertisements suggest that early marriage is detrimental to the health of the girl. This again may be disput­able; if Nature has made her physically capable to reproduce, the probability of damage to her body would be minimal, provided of course she takes adequate diet and receives appro­priate medical care, which is essential as well for the older mothers. Conversely, it has been very well documented by the gynaecologists that the chances of congenital abnormalities in children and certain kinds of malignancies (cancers) of women rise with increase in the age of the mothers. The best period for procreation is below thirty. Family welfare programmes are definitely worth following as far as their objective is to save the mothers and children from diseases and death; proper spacing is essential; avoidance of pregnancies in mothers who are ill or when their other children are not healthy and if the income of the family is too meagre to sustain a large family is also under­standable. But is the programme really aimed at alleviating the problems of the common people? Unfortunately not. There is much more to what meets the eyes. Behind the “mercifulness” for the poor are several undeclared motives.

  One, by fixing the blame of every problem of the world on the population growth, the economic fundamentalists are able to divert the attention of the people from their own sinister games that are in truth responsible for the sweeping poverty. When less than five per cent have more than ninety per cent of the country’s income (and wealth) in India for example, how a growth of less than two percent per annum is going to aggravate the prob­lems? Despite the high rate of population growth, the country has become self-reliant in food production and is now in a position to export it. Yet the poverty haunts about half of the nation. Even if the population growth becomes zero, with the continuous flow of wealth from the poor to the rich and from the richer to the richest, would the situation show any signs of improvement even in decades? The situation warrants harsh measures and requires that the holders of the ninety per cent of the wealth of the country are made, either through force or through change in policies, to share the benefits of their wealth with the rest of the country­men. It is not the explosion of “population bomb” but that of the bomb of myth that frightens the economic fundamentalists; lest the people should know the truth, it is better to keep them engaged in debates on the adverse effects of population growth.

  Two, the big industries know that a big family uses a big por­tion of its income in purchasing food items. Rest is utilised in purchasing clothes that too are usually of cheap variety produced by small industries. Little money is left with it to buy costly consumer goods manufactured by the big industry. It tends to assist agricultural growth (and that of small scale industry) at the cost of industrial growth. It is essential therefore that the size of the family remains small so that it can save enough money to bestow on the big industries.

  Three, the popularisation of contraceptive devices through promo­tion of small family norms is a great boon for the industrialists. Through these programmes, men and women are
informed and conditioned with the use of methods for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. This awareness helps the commercial sex. If women had not become fearless on this account, promiscuity could never have become common. Furthermore, through the marketing of various contraceptive devices, the industries earn billions.

  Fourth, encouraging men and women to marry as late as possible again immensely benefits the market including sex market. The young working women in big numbers means opportunities for dating, which helps food, fashion, hotel and many other industries. Sex market too thrives. For the sustenance of the flesh-trade, demand and supply are essential; and if the people start marrying as soon as they attain puberty, the market would take a nosedive. It is hardly surprising therefore that, to achieve success in population control, encouragement to promiscu­ity has been advanced by the Western experts as a method to discourage people from early marriage. It is also for the same reason that the so-called champions of human rights do never raise their voice against the killing