Articles by J Jeyaranjan

The "Slater" villages of Tamil Nadu that were first surveyed by the University of Madras economist, Gilbert Slater, and his students in 1916, were resurveyed in the 1930s, 1960s and the 1980s. This paper reports and discusses a 2008 resurvey of Iruvelpattu, one of the five Slater villages in Tamil Nadu. The 2008 study tells the story of persistence of landlord power, continuing dependence of a majority of households on agriculture in spite of the significant diversification of employment that has taken place, and an apparent stagnation in the agricultural economy after the relative success of the green revolution in the 1970s. It also brings out a tightening in the labour market and dalit political mobilisation as well as a shift in agricultural wage rates. However, the level of state intervention in the interests of social security through primary healthcare provision, schools in which teachers are actually present, and the maintenance of a universal public distribution system as well as the operation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, all distinguish Iruvelpattu generally from villages in other parts of the country.

Tamil Nadu's noon-cum-nutritious meal scheme is the country's largest in terms of the number of beneficiaries covered. There is little doubt that enrolment and retention of children, including girl children, in schools have shown significant improvement. Besides, drop-out rates have shown a decline. However, as this paper analyses, there is now a need to seriously re-examine the orginal rationale for the scheme, namely, getting children to school and retaining them. In the two decades of the scheme's existence, the educational profile as well as the nature of problems at the ground level have changed significantly. Much of this is not reflected in the data presented and available with the government. On the other hand, the scheme has not been able to bring all children to school. If the midday meal is to retain its effectiveness and relevance, it may have to be modified in the light to these changes.



J Jeyaranjan for granted the existing system. It is this system that has led to the inefficiencies that people are complaining about. Why should future policy then be based on that structure? Let us look for alternatives and ask the TRAI to place such choices before us. What has been the experience of deregulation, etc, in other countries? We hear about how telephone rates fell in the Philippines. We hear about how common cell phones have become there. What kind of deregulation did they do? What are the adverse effects? What can we learn from such experiences? The debate has to be enriched with information and analyses of experience. We need much more information. The public should not be asked to decide without all the details being available. If some data are not available, let the TRAI say so and then seek acceptable assumptions and suggestions. These are matters where consensus will have to be built. In placing this paper before us, the TRAI has taken the first step towards building such a consensus.

December 21-28, 1985 notably those of the proletariat, he argues, are thereby deflected from the real target, the world system, and are directed instead to false targets and misconceived aims of national liberation which is a mirage. National liberation means nothing, because the 'liberated' post-revolutionary societies still remain integrally parts of the world capitalist system by virtue of their continued trading relations with the rest of the world.