We seem to be living in
times when governments are in a hurry to carry out programmes of one kind of
the other, to the extent of caring ever less about what might amorphously be
termed social. The social in an electoral-representative democracy like India
takes the shape of ‘electorate’ during elections. The mandate the respective
government gains, subsequently carve what becomes everyday or even the future,
depending upon the impact of issue at hand. In an overtly and covertly centrist
system, the respective central governments off late have taken the ‘social’ for
a ride. They, for practical ease read ‘electorate’ as that large and
complicated body of ‘social’. Playing the cards through ordinances and urgency
clauses, especially in questions like land legislations and natural resources, they
compel one to interrogate what such urgencies imply.
[Cartoon Source: www.polyp.org.uk]
Governments have been in happy
wedlock with Land Acquisition Act of 1894, brought in place by the colonial
government, primarily for better resource extractions from a population which
they perceived as subjugated. The post colonial structures of power, evidently
did not quite find such a provision detrimental to the programme of nation building;
in fact the act gave legitimation to millions of evictions and migrations. The
90s phase brought in sea changes in the existing developmentalist regime and
pegged ever more resources and populations to whims and fancies of markets. The
economic reform phase, was about the guarantees the state provided to private
capital, at the cost of farmer suicides, and resource transfers.
The more right wing
establishments, predecessors of the present one, that came in through communal
polarizations, and disillusionment with existing systems with nothing else to
choose from, brought with them fancy names like ‘swadeshi’. This had nothing to
do with the politically charged and socially emancipatory mode espoused by
Gandhi. In fact this was precisely the opposite- the more they used swadeshi
and saskritic names, the more happened by way of disinvestments and throwing
away of commons at market friendly rates in stock trade.
In the larger situation post
2000, states became more of facilitators and promoters, much like a remote
controlled corporate CEO. The already dwindling public responsibility has now
been completely shed off and it is here that we can place current land
legislations. The critiques on the present proposal often take the act of 2013
as a benchmark. But the 2013 one too was no angel, though there were some
apologies in terms of consultations that have to be done with local governments
or more elaborate reading of ‘affected parties’. Then there were clauses like
‘Fairness’ and ‘Compensation’, in fact violent terminologies that calculate
compensation in monetary terms. What is the momentary rupee-value in terms of
the individual concerned? The current ordinance does not even leave space for
such apologies. The minister who read the budget has comprehensively declared
that the consent clauses will be removed for many more sectors. Accordingly
sections will be amended (Section 10(A) of the Act for instance) to expand
sectors where assessment and consent will not be required.
From here onwards government or private
individuals/companies will no longer need mandatory 80% consent for land
acquisition in certain sectors. Not only consent, the Social Impact Assessment
(SIA) too could be done away with. It does not stop here…may be one could even
throw away Environmental Impact Assessments! Why not? Otherwise how can these governments
fulfill the faiths and oaths of allegiance to private capital? Yes, it adds
that people need not worry because they will still make available rehabilitation
and resettlement packages…no need for social impact assessments or environment
impact assessments.
The new plan goes on to explain that the
earlier system had a problematic clause with respect to how many people will be
impacted. Thus not only the owner, but also those who are dependent on the land
needed to be compensated. The government thinks that this is too elaborate and
wide a reading of ‘social’ vis-à-vis impact. So the new ordinance ensures that
only land owners will be compensated. Throw the rest out- after all we are
facilitators not providers. And thus the system proves that the idea of
democracy could be strategically deployed to define social as per need.
There are many other issues like the
much hyped about liquidation of planning commission (Yojana Ayog) as a radical
gesture of new age. What many do not realize is that all those welfarist
assumptions of planning had already gone out in the drain after 90s. Only a
shell called planning commission was in place by 2000s. NITI Ayog is nothing
too new on that count and carries on more loyally what the defunct commission
has been on with since 90s. But yes, the name was changed. So less planning and
provision for people, and more enabling conditions for profit. Don’t ask what
kind of profit, whose profit, or growth of who…we will be told that it will all
trickle down for the millions of us to lick from.
Then problematic arrangements like
aadhaar that goes hand in glove with entities with no people’s mandate like
certain companies. Such programmes that never secured statutory approval, still
goes on. They promise ‘security’ to people who will be increasingly depraved of
land and resources! Now the momentary electorate or the more real social body
has to stand up and believe in the patriarch called government (of the day). It
probably helps to keep the following facts in mind: the Supreme courts interim
order in September 2013 that no public services can be denied to public due to the
lack of such unparliamentarily impositions- that in 2014 March the court restrained
the central government and the Unique Identification Authority of India from
sharing data with third parties, without the permission of the card-holders. According
to the court the third parties could be government or private!---Don’t worry
about Nandan Nilekani or any such names…believe in these names as the norm of
the day suggests.
Basically there has been not much of a
break in the continuum of actions post 2000 whereby governments by way of their
actions have become increasingly at liberty to define the idea of social. With
no scope for public referendums in view, even in matters of gross human rights
concern, after elections anything goes. The period has also brought in new
challenges to the idea of democracy. Democracy is not an easy process. It has
to be a rooted and takes effect after successful overthrow of antisocial
provisions of feudalism or religious fundamentalisms, especially with respect
to determining the everyday of public. The new phase may be bringing in
governments who are facilitators of comprador orders that ensures that things
get done fast and furious for the very few at the expense of millions. They
have to also invest a lot to make public believe otherwise once they cast their
vote. Remember the motorbike add- “Fill it, shut it, forget it”. Add with this
some pre-democratic ingredients like patriarchic values, hero worship, fatwas
on food, and religious intrusions into civil life, we get a pastiche of present
power structure, ever less social, ever less civil, ever less democratic.
