Need liquor to rally.

The Congress has decided that it is on to a winner in fighting against any amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, passed by the Congress, as a landmine for any new government, just before it was trounced in the general elections last year. It is going to hold rallies against the Prime Minister all over India. The Congress President, Ms Sonia Gandhi said," We will not allow those forces to succeed, who want to destroy the legacy of our freedom. We will fight without fear against such forces." Stirring words, indeed. Freedom for what? To remain a dirt poor country while China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and others race ahead? Her son Mr Rahul Gandhi said that the " pain, suffering and anguish of the entire farming community are closest to my heart." Brings tears to your eyes, what? Problem is that farmers have no idea of what the Act is all about. One Jabar Singh from Mathura, who was at the rally, said," I am not aware of any changes to any law. I came here because my crops have been destroyed." Probably by the recent rains, poor fellow. Farmers are thirsty folk. " We are not promising any money to those going for the rally. But we have provided for two boxes of liquor per bus," said an anonymous Congress leader in Punjab. A sloshed farmer is a happy farmer. What no one seems to have noticed so far is that only those who own land will attend these rallies and, since land prices have rocketed during the Congress regime, all these people are millionaires. The real poor are the landless who own no assets and hence have no leverage at all. Estimates vary between 200-300 million people in rural areas. There are many more living on rent in towns and cities all across India. All these people will benefit from new industries which will provide them with jobs and a higher standard of living. Thus, the Land Acquisition Act protects the rich at the cost of the destitute. So, is there a moral case for protecting the poor? Apparently " we should take care of each other " because " human needs can and should be limited." The statement appears to be extremely arrogant because it is so senseless. Who are you to limit what another's needs or desires might be? While one person needs a house with 27 floors, costing over $1 billion, another may choose to live like a hermit without any modern convenience. Yes, every child must get nutritious food, good healthcare and the best education but caring for each other puts a responsibility on the poor not to have children they cannot afford. According to the author poverty persists because people " restrict their idea of solidarity to narrow notions of identity, whether of race, ethnicity, community or caste." Perhaps he should be sent to Syria to preach to ISIS. These do-gooders do not seem to understand that poor people want cars, air conditioned houses and to fly. For that we need industries and markets. Perhaps they are the real enemies of the poor.