Zones of silence

SOME 22 years ago when the Janata government was collapsing, a few of us, including Romesh Thapar, Rajni Kothari and Mrinal Datta Choudhari, prepared a document, Agenda for India, for the nation to consider an alternative way of governance. The suggestions were never implemented although Indira Gandhi asked for the Agenda’s copy soon after her return to power in 1980.

The Constitution Review Committee has prepared “a casual paper” on similar lines but it is limited in scope. The paper deals with social and economic rights of citizens and poses the perennial question: Has the state fulfilled the constitutional obligation to assure every citizen a life of dignity?

The paper has itself given the answer: “The impurity of the social and political climate and its deadening effect on the creativity of the people present a depressing thought ... Much has been done and achieved but in the area of social justice, performance falls greatly short of expectations.” Why? The commission is silent.

I believe that the crisis of Indian politics today is this: Widening gap between the base of the polity and its structures. Both political and economic processes have brought sections of the peripheral and deprived social strata into the active political community. But they have garnered very little in terms of benefits.

“There is a growing demand for purposive and principled politics, a deep feeling of revulsion against the politics of self-aggrandisement and a mounting anger over the neglect of public interest by political parties and leaders,” the Agenda said. “Limited struggles provide ample evidence of these changes at the grassroots of our polity. Yet, our leaders continue to indulge in the same old game of gaining ascendancy through the politics of manipulation.”

My purpose is not to compare the two documents but to point out the difference between the approaches. The commission believes that “central to the process of development is the realisation of rights.” According to the Agenda, “the one important way the system can deliver the goods is through decentralisation and further democratisation, not centralisation and authoritarianism.”

The commission is quite right when it says: “What needs to be done is to accelerate the pace of socio-economic development.” How and to what end? The pace is too slow. Even the semblance of development seems lost in the laws and rules which the government frames. The state machinery, whatever its declarations, has a selected few in view.

What we should concentrate on is to help the entire nation grow, not a selected group. The criterion has to be how far any political line or thought enables the people to rise above their petty selves and act for the good of all.

I mean no disrespect to the chairman, former Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah, who has himself written the whole paper, or its members, who are eminent people. But they do not go beyond a point because they seem to be reluctant to tread on some toes. They loathe to challenge what is known as the establishment. Only when they decide to do battle with the vested interests can there be any hope for progress. In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, “In a poorly developed country, the capitalist method offers no chance.”

Some of the suggestions made by the commission are, no doubt, laudable. But I am afraid they will accumulate dust in the secretariat like the recommendations by many earlier commissions. The reason why they are not implemented is lack of political will. It is not that the rulers are not aware of the deterioration in all these fields of activity, it is that they are party to it. For political or personal gain, they have reduced the government machinery to an instrument at their command.

And even when political parties reach a consensus to run things smoothly, they violate it for whimsical reasons. A recent example is that of the unanimous resolution by Parliament, passed on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day, not to disturb the business in any house. But the last two sessions were a wash-out because some political parties decided that non-functioning of Parliament would give them mileage. How can the country make progress economically or socially when Parliament comes to be used as part of political stratagem?

The commission indulges in wishful thinking when it says that public servants need to be sensitised. Now they are only pieces of furniture, decorating different offices as deadwood. For most of them, the dividing line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, has ceased to exist. The entire government structure is reeking of corruption. When ministers or their relations are themselves involved, whom do you sensitise? The disappointing aspect of the commission’s paper is the absence of any reference to minorities. Women, Dalits and tribal people have been mentioned and the commission dilates on the treatment meted out to them. But it skips Muslims, Christians or Sikhs. When one of the judgments by the Supreme Court has said that Hinduism is synonymous with Indianness, it becomes all the more necessary for the commission to correct the distortion.

Hinduism, like Islam and Christianity, is a religion. Any doubt about it is removed by a specific column in the application forms or certificates. Voters are listed as Hindus. The census form has a similar column. Indianness encompasses the entire nation, embracing different religious communities in the country. A part- icular religion cannot be equated with the nation. How could the commission let the interpretation in the judgment remain unchallenged? Perhaps the commission should prepare a separate paper on the minorities.

The commission should seriously think of how to stop the rulers from carrying out their politico-religious agenda despite the order by the highest court in the country. The demolition of the Babri masjid is one example. If the will of fundamentalists is to prevail, what happens to our democratic system? It is apparent that some in the society do not seek to change by persuasion or peaceful pressures but by coercion and, indeed, by destruction and extermination.

Personally speaking, I find this attitude wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilised, whether it is adopted in the realm of religion, economic theory or anything else. The commission has to come out more strongly against those who have made a mockery of economic and social rights of citizens.

Earlier Columns