বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড)/৩৩
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
| দুই প্রদেশের বৈষম্য সম্পর্কে ডঃ এম. এস. হুদার অভিমত |
পাকিস্তান অবজারভার | ২৮ ডিসেম্বর,১৯৬২ |
PAKISTAN OBSERVER
28 December. 1962
“DISPARITY NOT A DEAD HORSE”
Disparity in per capita income between East and West Pakistan was not a “dead horse". It was very much alive, big and growing and would never die a natural death.
This was stated in Dacca on Thursday by Professor M. N. Huda, Member. Planning Commission, when contacted by our special correspondent on the controversy raised by the Radio talk of Mr. Saeed Hasan. Deputy Chairman. Planning Commission,
When declining to be dragged into unnecessary public controversy on settled issues Professor Huda, however, agreed to answer any specific question on the issues as such on many of which his views had already been expressed several times.
Questioned first as to the status of the statement of Mr. Saeed Hasan, Professor Huda mentioned that this was his (Mr. Hasan's) own statement and not a policy statement on behalf of the Planning Commission.
Disparity has to be killed deliberately:
Professor Huda who is currently touring East Pakistan to review the progress of development work, said in reply to a question that realizing this disparity would never die a natural death, the Government had decided to kill it deliberately. Since this killing could not be done outright, the decision was to inject a slow process of poisoning over a period of time “shortest possible” according to the constitution.
Elaborating, Professor Huda stated that the essence of this process lay in formulating and implementing our future national development plan in such a way as to ensure a much larger share of expenditure in East then in West Pakistan. This was the cure of the matter; and how soon disparity in income would be removed would depend on (a) how much larger the East Pakistan programme would be both in public and private sectors relatively to West Pakistan and (b) how the so-called nondevelopment expenditure of various types incurred by the Government was distributed between East and West Pakistan.
Parity in per capita income is the goal:
Questioned further, Professor Huda identified three possible parties in this connection-parity in rate of growth, parity in total expenditure and parity in per capita income. “Parity in per capita income is our agreed objective, and it is this parity, and either of the other two which is 'co-terminus' with our perspective plan.
Parity in income will have to be attained by deliberately creating disparities in the rate of growth and total expenditure in favor of East Pakistan relatively to West Pakistan-an exact reversal of what had been done in the past'. How big these induced to remain disparity indeed; disparities in other two factors had to be would again depend on how soon we wanted to remove disparity in income.
Past policy in Pakistan had significantly (may be unconsciously) contributed to creating and aggravating disparity in income) a feature which made our disparity different from such disparity in other countries. Present and future policy must consciously and significantly contribute towards removing this disparity in income by creating and inducing wide disparities in the rate of growth and total expenditure in favor of East Pakistan, he added.
Meaning of total expenditure:
Asked to explain his use of the terms 'total expenditure' as against 'total investment Professor Huda emphasized that what mattered was total expenditure in the economy and not development expenditure called investment. All expenditure created and generated income development expenditure did it more, non-development expenditure less.
“Therefore if we want to remove inter-wing disparitics in income, we have to plan all expenditure with that object in view,” he said. It was found that a portion of total expenditure had to be located in a particular wing of the country on grounds other than economic, we should maneuvered the rest of the expenditure in such a way that it not only made its own contributions towards parity, but it is also country-acted any adverse effect on parity of the distribution of non-development expenditure.
“Only when the entire volume of expenditure is kept in view and thus planned. shall we make any progress towards attaining parity.
East wing must have the bigger plan.
Questioned on the efficacy of the maximum feasible development programme for East Pakistan on this task of remaining disparity. Professor IIuda rc-cmphasised that the East Pakistan programme would not only have to be maximum possible in an absolute sense, but what was more important, it would have to be as much larger as possible than the West Pakistan programme. This was the logical consequence of the constitutional obligation and there was no room whatsoever for any debate or opinion on the matter.
Will determine feasibility:
Asked whether such a large development programme as required for East Pakistan was feasible. Professor Huda expressed the view that feasibility was more a function of human volition and determination than of Natural limitations. “If we are determined to implement a programme because it is necessary in National interests, human ingenuity can surely find ways of doing so. Pakistan itself would never have come into existence if it were based on feasibility studies and not on people's determination.
The hollowness on the feasibility argument had been more than proved by the experience of East Pakistan in absorbing development funds during the last two years. If we are a little more determined thus we have been in the past two years' we can Inshah-Allah Surely implement programme in East Pakistan. It is needless to say that all Government policies; will have to be geared to this supreme need, Professor Huda said.
Duplications of some industries are vital:
Asked to comment on the alleged trend of economic separatism' Professor Huda regretted the use of this highly surcharged term to mean an attempt to duplicate; in East Pakistan industries which had been set up in West Pakistan. He thought duplication of certain industries was essential for development, pase including iron and steel; cement; fertilizer; etc. Duplication was also necessary in order to avoid wastage of national resources; in such commodities as textiles; which cannot stand the heavy natural cost of transport from one wing to other. Duplication was also unnecessary; in order to avoid wastage of national resources; in such commodities as textiles; which cannot stand the heavy natural cost of transport from one wing to other. Duplication was unnecessary; he added- and therefore should not be tried-only in cases where transport cost was low in relation to the value of the product. “It is bad to condemn all duplications and worse still to call it separatism;” he added.
A project's economic justification:
On the question whether such duplication (or any new Industry) in East Pakistan could be justified on economic grounds; Professor Huda stated that they surely had their economic justification, if only a dynamic view was taken of the costs and benefits; both material; in place of the present tendency to consider only state cost and benefits what should be considered; he added; was not merely today's money cost and money-return; but what would be the real cost and real return of a particular project in future in the context of the whole complex of a developing economy.
Implifications of geographical fact:
Questioned of the usefulness other wise of the two economy concept; Professor Huda mentioned that this concept was never meant to be the “redrag” that has deliberately been seen in it.
The proponents of the concept sought to suggest that development plans in Pakistan should be so formulated as to adjust to the requirements of the peculiar geography of the country; under which men do not move from one wing to the other in search of employment; and materials can move only at a prohibitive natural cost to the nation. Therefore realistic development plans in Pakistan, should, recognize there facts and formulate and implement activities in the two regions more or less separately and yet as integral parts of the total national economy.
This point of view of theirs has at long last been accepted by the policy-makers. Parity in income as an objective to be attained within the shortest possible time is a clear and unequivocal recognition of the fact of the existence of two economics in Pakistan. One only wishes that this was done when the suggestions were first made. The two economy concept was never meant to be a policy decision of directive by itself.
It was instead a pioneer to the peculiar facts of the national economy and an indication of wherein lay wisdom and realism in formulating over all economic policies in Pakistan.
Original sources of now-accepted ideas:
When Professor Huda's attention was drawn to the belief in certain quarters that the proponents of the two economy concept were not practical he merely requested the policy makers lo dig down the original sources of the now accepted ideas of (a) parity in income as an objective (b) a second Federal Capital in Dacca, (c) discriminating tax holiday and import duty on machinery between East and West Pakistan (and within each region); (d) special credit institutions for East Pakistan and for small and medium industries; and so on. If their other suggestion regarding allocation of foreign exchange: making the second capital big and effective; creating in East Pakistan a 'federal area' of development; locating in East Pakistan the headquarters of some of the national institution; etc., were accepted Pakistan would have been a happier nation with much less problems than they face today.
Unbiased theoretical an analysis necessary:
As to the allegation that University, economic indulge only in theories and live in an Ivory tower; Professor Huda asserted that they are meant to be so. That does not; however; mean that their suggestions for practical policies are not workable. In fact they are capable of making better practical suggestions than the average administrator; because they have the advantage of being able ‘sanctify’ their practical suggestions by their experience of theoretical analysis. Such analysis alone can make policies intrinsically sound and realistic and this is an experience through which the average administrator and policy maker does not pass not is he capable of grasping and understanding theoretical analysis which the ivory tower mean alone can do.
Revilement will not solve problems:
When Professor Huda's attention was drawn to the allegation that the advocates of the two economy concept were “minions of certain foreign power” he said that the statement was entirely unwarranted. It's effect has been seen to be extremely unfortunate. It has given offence to undoubted patriots and coming as it does from so high a quarter; the Government has been placed in an extremely embarrassing position. “It was an irony of fate” he said; that the people who voted to a man for Pakistan and have had an unfair deal all these years are called ante Pakistanis the moment they want to have a fair deal. Such loose talk evades real issues and adds more problems to existing ones what we need to day is to stop abusing East Pakistanis or questioning their patriotism. Instead we should honestly work out the implications of the constitutional obligation and adopt all measures necessary for attaining parity in per capita income within the shortest possible time.”