Food security bill, I hear every one talking about it. I'm no economist I have no understanding to comment or judge whether it will do good for the country. All I have to say is even if one percentage of hunger will be satiated lets go for it. I'm glad at least we now acknowledge the largest number of people sleep empty stomach in this country. This article is not about the food security bill.
I just intend to use food security bill as a example to show how the likes of facebook have made each one of us capable of initiating propaganda. Whenever there is something happening in the country/world, these set of quotes/misquotes keep floating around forming opinion. Thank fully as a nation we do not have a habit of acting on our opinions but if any such thing could happen, then we are definitely doomed. The trend seems to be to take some current topic and get on the top and shout about it, irrespective of whether one understands what one is shouting.
Consider this status message
"Food Security Bill or .......?
Bharat Barbadi Bill ..... ?
Out of 125 Cr , Indian population 67 % means 80 cr people will Be covered
Expenditure will be 1 lac 25 thousand cr , (Rs1,25,000,000,000,00)
Means around 10 thousand Cr per month
Means Rs 125/- per month per person
Means Rs 4/- per day per person
72 thousand Cr.
Rs (72,000,000,000,00) extra for transport , storage, Distribution
72 thousand cr extra for Admin, implimentation
72+72=144. Lac Cr Rs. (1,44,000,000,000,00)
(120% of scheme , comes Rs 5/-per day per person)
For doing charity of Rs 4 /- spending Rs 5/-
1.25 +1.44 = Means 2.69 lac crore Rs (2,69,000,000,000,00) (26900 Millions Rs)
Results ..
Fiscal deficit will increase
To cover that new taxes will be Imposed , dearness index will go UP
Since food will be almost free labor problem will increase
Agriculture ,
Trade and Industries will come to end
So think ..
Is this a Food security Yojana or Bharat Ki Barbadi Yojana ?
This calculation r based on information available to leading economist on micro level."
An unsuspecting naive person can definitely fall prey to such a well crafted dubious analysis. The fact is that no economist has gone and said this, infact a few of them are saying it would be better if we make it a universal scheme (1, 2, 3 ...) The sad bit is that any body can cook up any crap and say as suggested by a leading analyst/ economist. I wouldn't be surprised if a few opinions are formed by this. If the above seems a rational propaganda what I present below is an emotional propaganda.
Again talking random things, the irony is that while the origin is unknown thousands of people participate in propagating it. We have all heard the saying, "Half knowledge is dangerous" now with facebook and other social media we see it in practice. Before the advent of social media the dynamics were slightly different. When one didn't know something, one wouldn't be ashamed of admitting it and when one didn't know something one wouldn't be obliged to have an opinion about it, not just an opinion but one is obliged to behave like an authority over the topic. But today one is supposed to have an opinion about everything in the world and getting an opinion is the easiest thing, get on a social networking site and pick up one, there are millions floating around anyway.There has been no conclusive study that I have come across which shows how social media actually effects opinions but I propose the half informed experts surely are making their bit of damage.