top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Fadnavis writes off Rs 48,000 crore

Mumbai: In a clear indication that the Maharashtra government is leaving no stone unturned to keep the state’s agrarian base happy, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has unleashed yet another massive populist measure. Hot on the heels of relaxing the eligibility criteria to ensure a blanket farm loan waiver, the Chief Minister announced a sweeping Rs 48,000 crore waiver on the pending electricity bills of farmers across the state. Addressing a ‘Krutadnyata Sohala’ (gratitude ceremony)...

Fadnavis writes off Rs 48,000 crore

Mumbai: In a clear indication that the Maharashtra government is leaving no stone unturned to keep the state’s agrarian base happy, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has unleashed yet another massive populist measure. Hot on the heels of relaxing the eligibility criteria to ensure a blanket farm loan waiver, the Chief Minister announced a sweeping Rs 48,000 crore waiver on the pending electricity bills of farmers across the state. Addressing a ‘Krutadnyata Sohala’ (gratitude ceremony) organized by the BJP Kisan Morcha at Mumbai’s Yashwantrao Chavan Pratishthan on Wednesday, Fadnavis declared that farmers using agricultural pumps of up to 7.5 horsepower will see their historical electricity dues completely wiped out. The announcement was met with the traditional sounding of the Tutari and thunderous applause from hundreds of farmers who had gathered from every corner of the state. The Chief Minister framed the mega-sop as a necessary step to “wipe the farmers’ slate clean,” enabling them to write a new chapter of prosperity. Calculated Pitch The timing and scale of the announcement underscore a government that is boldly embracing populist economics to solidify its political footprint in rural Maharashtra. While Fadnavis maintained that these decisions were taken purely in the interest of the farmers—pointing out that the original loan waiver was announced when no elections were in sight—the political undertones were unmistakable. Taking a sharp dig at the opposition, the Chief Minister accused rival parties of running “political shops” in the name of farmer agitations without understanding the government’s genuine intent. Asserting his grassroots connection, Fadnavis proudly claimed, “I do not make decisions sitting in my house. I am a farmer myself, a man of the soil.” He openly defended the government’s recent move to strip away the stringent conditions attached to the blanket farm loan waiver, signaling that his administration will not hesitate to clear bureaucratic hurdles if it means putting money directly into the hands of the rural voter. Balancing Sops Even as he rained freebies, the Chief Minister attempted to balance the populist optics with a dose of economic pragmatism. He acknowledged that handing out repeated loan waivers is a symptom of deep-rooted agrarian distress, not a permanent cure. Pointing to the Rs 95,000 crore in aid currently being pumped into the agricultural sector by the state and central governments, Fadnavis outlined his administration’s shift toward an investment-driven agricultural model. He championed the success of schemes like ‘Jalyukt Shivar’ and ‘Magel Tyala Shettale’ (farm ponds on demand), claiming these initiatives have already empowered farmers to harvest multiple crops a year. Addressing the core issue of farming costs, he noted that the government already subsidises power to the tune of Rs 25,000 crore annually. By coupling this with a push for solar pumps and solar agricultural feeders, he promised that 100 percent of the state’s farmers would receive uninterrupted daytime electricity by the end of the year. Infra Dream Looking beyond immediate financial relief, the Chief Minister laid out a grandiose vision to permanently drought-proof Maharashtra’s most vulnerable regions. A staggering Rs 6 lakh crore infrastructure pipeline is being planned to ensure the next generation never witnesses a drought. Fadnavis detailed ambitious river-linking projects, including the Wainganga-Nalganga link, to divert excess floodwaters to parched regions. The state plans to construct 24 new dams and raise the height of 16 existing ones to ensure not a single district in Vidarbha faces water scarcity. Furthermore, massive engineering feats are on the drawing board to divert 200 TMC of floodwater from Western Maharashtra to Marathwada, and lift 275 TMC of wasted water from the Ulhas basin to quench the thirst of North Maharashtra and Marathwada. By marrying immediate, massive debt relief with long-term infrastructure promises, the Fadnavis administration is aggressively cementing its pro-farmer narrative. As the Yashwantrao Chavan auditorium echoed with whistles and cheers, it became highly evident that the government’s strategy of pairing mega populist waivers with big-ticket rural dreams is striking a powerful chord with the state’s agrarian voters.

The Natural Beauty of “I Don’t Know”

In an age of instant opinions and algorithmic certainty, intellectual honesty begins by admitting what we do not know.

AI generated image
AI generated image

William Beebe (1877–1962), an American naturalist and explorer, while emphasizing intellectual honesty and scientific temper wrote:


“These words should be ready for instant use … — ‘I don’t know.’”


Going beyond Anglo-references and coming back to our homegrown geniuses, so did Bengal-based chemist, entrepreneur, and literary genius Rajshekhar Basu (awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1956). In his 1951 essay, Mr Scientific Mechanical Brain (as his elder brother Shahi Shekhar used to call him), described “scientific temper” as:


“The attempt to determine truth in all matters with the same care and freedom from prejudice that a scientist exercises during research.”


And that, as per Beebe, starts by acknowledging, prima facie, what we do not have answers to, and the benefits of this mindset far outweigh its drawbacks, if any. After all, a solution to a problem starts by acknowledging that there is a problem. Lucky for us, our Constitution (Article 51A) also calls for its expansion. Scientific temper in India, according to our founding traditions, is the method of categorically applying a scientific and logical thought process to our everyday lives. It’s a mind-state! But have we been able to uphold our founding traditions? I doubt so!


“Know-It-All” Fallacy

Our reluctance towards scientific temper partially spans what I call the “know-it-all fallacy space”. We somehow have a strange inclination to blindly believe general acts of vague referencing without cross-checking. A glimpse into history shows that most established superstitions began in exactly this way.


If a ‘WhatsApp uncle’ (a professor at WhatsApp University) suggests a medicine and I blindly take it, neither of us truly knows whether I might suffer an allergic reaction or long-term side effects. According to pre-COVID data (2020), the rate of self-prescribed medication in India was already significantly high at 19 percent, and unsurprisingly, it rose to over 25 percent post-COVID. Among these, around 75 percent involve drugs like Vitamin C and azithromycin.


The second tendency involves people who do not rely on hearsay and instead turn to ChatGPT or Google. After all, why would we listen to random people when we have the internet? But the problem lies elsewhere.


When we search for something, we do so using only a handful of keywords based on our limited understanding. Worse still, search algorithms often present a few highlighted lines from selected websites, which many people accept as unquestionable truth. Even those who dig deeper often skim abstracts and results from academic articles without understanding the limitations of those studies.


We fail to realize that a scientific paper addresses only specific questions or experiments—it does not provide universal truths. Its conclusions depend on methodology, experimental conditions, and sometimes even bias. In scientific terms, these issues are called insufficient sample size and biased outcomes. Moreover, economic factors influence which search results appear first. Our exploration is rarely objective. So, absorbing and disseminating such ambiguity is at the heart of this problem.


This phenomenon reminds me of Postman’s famous experiment. Neil Postman, best known for his cultural criticism of technology’s expanding authority, used to casually offer colleagues fabricated “scientific findings” to observe whether they would challenge them. He noted that most would accept the claims without hesitation, provided they carried the faint scent of expertise or aligned with the ambient logic of modern life. From this, Postman argues that our basic habits of belief have not changed since the Middle Ages: then, people deferred to the authority of religion, and now they defer to the authority of technology. This continuity, he suggests, is what allows a culture—in which technological authority has eroded the very frameworks that once helped us distinguish the plausible from the merely persuasive—to degrade.


Ultimately, what emerges is this: our surrender to tech-referencing, or even our desire to momentarily establish ourselves within social circles - our know-it-all micro-ego - sways us from objectivity. We fear being perceived as ignorant. As a result, we give answers even when unsure or make generalizations without sufficient evidence. In doing so, we risk wasting time or even causing harm, both to ourselves and to others.


Imagine you asking me a question I have no answer to and I begin my answer by saying, “I don’t know.”


Building Trust

Firstly, even if you don’t get the answer you wanted, you will sense honesty. You will know that when I do know something, I will provide accurate information. This builds trust - a rare commodity in our society today. During my fourteen years in Europe, I have repeatedly seen how this openness helps strengthen social trust, both in personal and professional circles.


Secondly, saying “I don’t know” frees the responder from the burden of appearing intelligent. It removes the pressure of an imaginary standard of knowledge. From there begins the true journey of learning. The mind opens up - free to explore, question, and discover.


Moreover, when both the questioner and the responder acknowledge uncertainty, they ascend to a level playing field. The false guru-shishya bubble vanishes. This shared space of curiosity can even build friendship. In an increasingly alienated world, what could be more beautiful than two people searching for answers together?


So, let us say “I don’t know.” This “know-it-all” problem has far broader social consequences across our country. We are forgetting how to question. Those who seek to control us, regardless of ideology, fear questioning minds the most. Our ability to ask questions is our greatest strength.


The phrase “I don’t know” is the very foundation of curiosity and inquiry.


(The writer is a Lead Process Engineer with GE HealthCare in France and a columnist with four books to his credit. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page