IT HAPPENS ONLY IN INDIA,
GREAT JOB MR. PARMAR
it is good to eat as many as vegetables and fruits (totally vegetarian), but my aurvedic doctor asked me to stop eating every...
EVEN AS the agitation in the United States, called Fifty Years is Enough, against World Bank (WB) activities continues, it has crossed into India. Here, the movement, started in May 1992, has emerged from the Narmada agitation, and is called the Campaign Against the World Bank and Destructive International Aid (CAWBADIA}.
The campaign is expected to intensify in late August following a meeting in
Delhi of CAWBADIA'S participating organisations. Its focus is on Bretton Woods Institutions which, "in their new colonisation programme, in league with MNCS, are bent upon making
our government defunct, our parliamentary process irrelevant and the freedom of the
people meaningless". Its sights are set on projects, policies and structural adjustment programmes that "cause environmental havoc and economic disasters".
A preparatory meeting was held in January a Barwani in Madhya Pradesh.
J John of the Delhi Forum, a CAWBADIA member, says that the programme will disseminate information highlighting the negative impacts of Bank-aided projects.
In a meeting on July 19-21 in Dhulikhel, Nepal, attended by participants from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the resolution stressed: "We, the participants in this South Asia forum, demand from our governments, international financial institutions and bilateral donors that aid should not be linked to conditionalities. We also demand that the outstanding external debt be written off."
Another significant move has been the publication of a document by the Delhi-based Public Interest Research Group (PJRG), whose Kanwaljit Singh is among the leaders of CAWBADIA. This document, The World Bank and India, published in July this year, sets down international aid's "adverse effects" on India and the functional holes within the WB.
Within CAWBADIA itself, there are differences on what the WB'S role should be: one section feels that it should be more democratic, transparent and accountable; the other, that it should be dismantled.