This talk explores the deep social transformations that have
made the dominance of the BJP possible. It will take a longer view of the
trajectory of Indian democracy and explore the profound changes in social and
economic identities underway, that have prepared a propitious ground for the
rise of the BJP.
The Speaker:
Internationally renowned scholar and political scientist Prof
Pratap Bhanu Mehta taught at Harvard, at New York University and at JNU. He was
the Vice Chancellor of the Asoka University till recently and served as the
President of the premier think tank, Centre for Policy Research. Educated at
Oxford and a Ph.D. from Princeton University, Prof Mehta is a columnist at
Indian Express, a leading public intellectual and a bold and thoughtful voice
for reason and justice. Among many honours and prizes to his credit, he is
recipient of the Infosys Prize, the Adisheshiah Prize and the Amartya Sen Prize.
About the Democracy Dialogues series :
The idea behind this series - which we would like to call
'Democracy Dialogues' - is basically to initiate as well as join in the
on-going conversation around this theme in academic as well as activist circles.
We feel that the very idea of democracy which has taken deep
roots across the world, has come under scanner for various reasons. At the same
time we have been witness to the ascendance of right-wing forces and fascistic
demagogues via the same democratic route. There is this apparently anomalous
situation in which the spread and deepening of democracy have often led to
generating mass support for these reactionary and fascistic forces.
Coming to India, there have been valid concerns about the
rise of authoritarian streak among Indians and how it has helped strengthen
BJP's hard right turn. The strong support for democracy here is accompanied by
increasing fascination towards majoritarian-authoritarian politics. In fact, we
would like to state that a vigorous electoral democracy here has become a
vehicle for hindutva-ite counterrevolution.
Inaugural Lecture of ‘Democracy
Dialogues’ Series ( Webinar)
Organised by New Socialist Initiative, 12 th
July 2020
Prof Suhas Palshikar, Chief Editor, Studies in Indian Politics and Co-director, Lokniti at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, delivered the inaugural lecture in the ‘Democracy Dialogues’ Series initiated by New Socialist Initiative.
In this
lecture he attempted to trace the roots of the current moment of India’s
democracy in the overall global journey of democracy, the extra-ordinarily
ambitious and yet problematic foundational moment of Indian democracy and the
many diversions India’s democracy has taken over time. He argued that
unimaginative handling of the extra-ordinary ambition and Statist understanding
of the ‘power-democracy’ dialectic formed the basis for easy distortions of
democratic practice and that while populism and majoritarianism are the current
challenges, they are by no means only special to the present and therefore,
even as critique and course-correction of present political crisis is urgently
required, a more long-term view of the trajectory of Indian democracy is necessary.
Here follows a detailed summary of his
presentation prepared by Dr Sanjay Kumar
In
his talk Prof Suhas Palshikar located the current state of democracy in India
in a comprehensive framework which encompassed both the general characteristics
of democracy, as well as the specific history and character of democracy in
India. This provided a deeper understanding of the reasons for the current
state of democracy in the country.
There is a tendency to see democracy as a
linear progression. In reality, we see ups and downs, and there is no guarantee
that if once established, democracy will continue. Democracy requires
continuous willed action from its practitioners. This is so because the idea
and practice of democracy have internal tension. There are three nodes of this
tension. (i) Who are the demos, i.e. the people? This may appear
straightforward, but in practice, the constitution of demos also involves
exclusions. We saw how migrant workers were simply excluded from the ‘demos’ of
the cities in the recent pandemic. People at the margins, and minorities can
suffer threat of exclusion by the workings of the democracy itself. (ii) What
do the demos do? While initiative and action by the people is one pole of this
tension, the other is the demand of obedience, at least in some form, by all
governments. This is the tension between active and passive citizenship. (iii)
The third internal tension comes from the ordering principle. This can be seen
in the rights of citizens versus ‘law and order’ demands of the state.
In the theory of democracy it is widely
recognised that the Indian democracy has passed through a different path than
the north Atlantic region. There the idea of a free individual came first
through struggles against feudalism. And then, the people got constituted from
individuals. In India this ordering appears reversed. Here, the people were
first constituted as a nation during the freedom struggle. Another point of
difference between the experience of democracy in India from elsewhere is how
it has tried to deal with social diversity. The phrase ‘unity in diversity’ in
the context of Indian experience is actually misleading. Retaining diversity
while uniting is closer to reality. This means that in order to be an India you
do not have to give up any other identity. This should be compared with
experiences in Europe and the US. In the former the process of formation of the
people resulted in a nuclear homogeneity. In the later, waves of migration and
assimilation led to a pluralising homogeneity, as given by the ‘melting pot’
image.
The assertion of democracy in Indian freedom
struggle and constitution was a challenge and an ambition. This is what
Ambedkar says in his final address to the drafting committee. The architecture
for a new India was created in the constitution, but the challenge was to bring
it into reality. Unfortunately, the establishment of formal democracy was
accompanied by a schizophrenia about democracy. There was more focus on
creating state as a major apparatus under a set of assumptions which at best be
called naïve. Masses were effectively demobilised. The result was a docile
democracy. Our democracy became leadership centric, in which people were
expected to follow cue from the leader. Hence, the first phase of
post-independence democracy had hidden within it a number of problems. First
was the twin problem of violence. There was a failure to understand and
appropriately respond to private organised violence. On the other side was the
use of violence by the state. With time, state actually became more and more
violent. The second problem was the failure to integrate the most marginalised;
the SCs, the STs and minorities. The third problem continuing from that period
is our failure to make institutions which are both democratic and efficient.
Hence, our institutional structure often fails the promise of democracy as well
as effective governance.
It is best to come to the current state of
Indian democracy through four decadal challenges to democracy. We are still
living in the shadow of these challenges. These are 1. the Emergency in 1975,
2. pogrom of Sikhs in 1984, 3. demolition of Babri mosque, and 4. organised
violence against Muslims in Gujarat 2002. The perpetrators of the Emergency
were punished in 1977 elections. However, nothing was learnt from that
experience institutionally. That is, our institutions did not develop any
inherent opposition to unconstitutional authoritarianism and centralisation of
state authority. For the other three decadal challenges, the perpetrators were
not even punished. Hence there is no disincentive for doing such crimes.
If we go back to the politics 1980s and 1990s
to understand where we are today, it was both a period expansion of democracy,
while also its narrowing down. Yogendra Yadav, Christopher Jaffrelot and Sajay
Kumar have described the former as a democratic upsurge. Excluded groups like
minorities, women, STs and Dalits started voting in large numbers. Politics
became more competitive, and there was a change in the social basis of
political elites. A political consensus emerged for affirmative action for
socially marginalised. However, there was also a narrowing down of the agenda
of politics and rigging of political menu. When more and more marginalised
sections begin participating in democracy, the democratic politics got
depoliticised. It is in this period that the media starts setting the agenda,
so that even politicians begin to talk the agenda set by it.
A consensus among dominant political players
emerged on the three Ms, namely Mandal, Masjid and Market. The Mandal question
disappears in 1993-94, as all players accept affirmative action. On the
so-called masjid-mandir controversy there is no contrarian position in Indian
politics. The Supreme Court has only given legal sanction to a political
consensus. Regarding Market, all parties, including the Left in West Bengal
accede to its demands.
The two longstanding challenges continued to be
ignored. First is the challenge of creating a strong individual with a set of
rights. The second is a commitment to India’s diversity. Failures on these two
issues have made it only easy for current rulers.
Eight structural features characterise the contemporary state of politics in
India. 1. unprecedented centralisation and personalisation of state authority.
In the light of what is happening today, what Indira Gandhi did appears
amateurish. 2. decay of federal politics, 3. unprecedented abdication of its
role by the judiciary. ADM Jabalpur at least had to make an attempt to justify
its abdication. Not even a justification is given for the current abdication.
4. beginning of the politicisaiton of armed forces, 5 misuse of investigative
agencies, 6 complete subordination of the entire bureaucracy, 7 Irrelevance of
political parties, and 8. closure of all popular resistances.
Given these structural elements, the current
moment is nor a routine diversion. It should be seen as a moment of hijack of
democracy. We also need to appreciate two processes, which give strength to
these structural elements. These two processes are (a) populism and (b)
majoritarianism.
Indira Gandhi was also called populist,
populist leaders were always there. The three elements of populism are (a) an
idea of people as an anti something, which can be anti elite, or anti-minority,
(b) a moralistic idea of politics; seeing it as a war between good and bad, so
that your adversary is not just a competitor but a bad element who needs to be
eliminated, and (c) disregard of institutions.
Survey of popular political opinions by Lokniti
and Azim Premji University throw some interesting and disturbing results. There
is an attraction for populism, but this attraction is not overwhelming. In fact
populism is not so much attractive to people, as it is to politicians.
Majoritarianism is always an issue in elections,
because elections are one way to legitimise a majority. Majoritarianism reduces
democracy to electoral politics. Popular opinion data regarding majoritarianism
is worrying. When it is asked if the will of the majority community should be
accepted, then one person in three agreed in 2000. By 2015 this proportion had
increased to one in two. Hence, the majority of Indians probably agree that the
demands put in the name of majority community are automatically legitimate. At
the current moment majoritarianism justified through three arguments. First is
the argument of the hurt sentiment of the majority community. Second is
branding of dissent or difference as anti-national, and the third puts nation
above democracy.
Hence we see that only BJP is not anti-democratic.
Preference for anti-democracy is spread out in the political class, and has
widespread popular acceptance. An interesting recent book by Levitsky and
Ziblatt is titled ‘How Democracies Die?’ Democracies are eroded from within. We
are witnessing this process in India.
Given our current situation, future scenarios
can only be bad or worse. The two big questions about immediate future are
these.
1. Will there be a victory of a higher ideology
of exclusion, i.e. will India become a Hindu majoritarian society. This perhaps
will not happen for another decade. So, we probably have some time.
2. Will there be a complete taming of politics
of resistance? We are staring at this prospect today. Spaces for a simple
politics of resistance are drying out fast.
Prof Palshikar’s presentation was followed by a lively question answer session.
Some of the issues discussed in the Q&A session were related to the role of
social and cultural factors in democracy, reasons for the failure of popular
mobilisation after Emergency, global spread of majoritarian politics and its
relationship to neo-liberal political economy, privatisation of development,
consociational democracy, and vernacularisation of Hindutva.
( Democracy Dialogues Series )
The idea behind beginning this
series is basically to initiate as well as join the ongoing conversation which
is going on around this theme in academic as well as activist circles. One sees that the very idea of
democracy which has taken deep roots across the world, has come under scanner
for various reasons. We have been witness to the ascent of rightwing forces,
demogogues via the same democratic route and also the anamolous sounding
situation that deepening and spread of democracy among hitherto marginalised
sections – has not led to commensurate percolation of liberal democratic values.
Coming to India, there have been valid concerns about rise of
authoritarian streak among Indians and how it has helped strengthen BJP’s hard
right turn. The strong support for democracy here is accompanied by increasing
fascination towards majoritarian, authoritarian politics here. In fact, we
would like to state that a vigorous electoral democracy here has become a
vehicle for religious counterrevolution.
भीमा कोरेगाँव मामले तथा अन्य सभी मामलों
में विचाराधीन लेखकों-मानवाधिकारकर्मियों को रिहा करो !
(न्यू सोशलिस्ट इनिशिएटिव, जन संस्कृति मंच, दलित लेखक
संघ, प्रगतिशील
लेखक संघ, जनवादी लेखक
संघ, जन नाट्य मंच, इप्टा, प्रतिरोध का
सिनेमा और संगवारी की ओर से जारी साझाबयान
)
‘...कब डरता है दुश्मन
कवि से ?
जब कवि के गीत अस्त्र बन जाते हैं
वह कै़द कर लेता है कवि को ।
फाँसी पर चढ़ाता है
फाँसी के तख़्ते के एक ओर होती है सरकार
दूसरी ओर अमरता
कवि जीता है अपने गीतों में
और गीत जीता है जनता के हृदयों में।’
(वरवर राव, बेंजामिन मोलेस की याद में, 1985)
देश और दुनिया भर
में उठी आवाज़ों के बाद अन्ततः 80 वर्षीय कवि वरवर राव को मुंबई के जे जे अस्पताल में शिफ्ट कर दिया गया है।
राज्य की असंवेदनशीलता और निर्दयता का इससे बड़ा सबूत क्या होगा कि जिस काम को क़ैदियों
के अधिकारों का सम्मान करते हुए राज्य द्वारा खुद ही अंजाम दिया जाना था, उसके लिए लोगों, समूहों को आवाज़ उठानी पड़ी।
विगत 60 साल से अधिक वक़्त से रचनाशील रहे वरवर राव तेलुगू के
मशहूर कवियों में शुमार किए जाते हैं। उनके 15 कविता संग्रह प्रकाशित हो चुके हैं, जिनमें से अनेक का तमाम भारतीय भाषाओं में अनुवाद भी
हो चुका है। साहित्यिक आलोचना पर लिखी उनकी छह किताबों के अलावा उनके रचनासंसार
में और भी बहुत कुछ है।
मालूम हो कि उनके
गिरते स्वास्थ्य को देखते हुए उन्हें जमानत पर रिहा करने तथा बेहतर चिकित्सा
सुविधा उपलब्ध कराने की माँग को लेकर अग्रणी अकादमिशियनों - प्रोफेसर रोमिला थापर, प्रोफेसर प्रभात पटनायक आदि
ने महाराष्ट्र सरकार तथा एनआईए को अपील भेजी थी। उसका लब्बोलुआब यही था कि विगत 22 माह से वे विचाराधीन क़ैदी की तरह जेल में बन्द हैं, और इस अन्तराल में बिल्कुल स्वेच्छा से उन्होंने जाँच
प्रक्रिया में पूरा सहयोग दिया है, ऐसी हालत में जब उनका स्वास्थ्य गिर रहा है तो उन्हें कारावास में बन्दी बनाए
रखने के पीछे ‘कोई क़ानूनी वजह’ नहीं दिखती (‘there is no
reason in law or conscience’)।
प्रश्न उठना
स्वाभाविक है कि दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा जनतंत्र होने का दावा करनेवाले मुल्क में क्या
किसी विचाराधीन क़ैदी को इस तरह जानबूझ कर चिकित्सा सुविधाओं से महरूम किया जा सकता
है और क्या यह एक क़िस्म का ‘एनकाउंटर’ नहीं होगा - जैसा सिलसिला राज्य की संस्थाएँ खुल्लमखुल्ला चलाती
हैं ?
विडम्बना ही है कि
भीमा कोरेगाँव मामले में बन्द ग्यारह लोग - जिनमें से अधिकतर 60 साल के अधिक उम्र के हैं और किसी न किसी
स्वास्थ्य समस्या से जूझ रहे हैं - उन सभी के साथ यही सिलसिला जारी है।
पिछले माह ख़बर आयी थी कि जानेमाने मानवाधिकार कार्यकर्ता गौतम नवलखा को अचानक
अस्पताल में भरती करना पड़ा था। प्रख्यात समाजवैज्ञानिक, अम्बेडकर वांग्मय के
विद्वान् और तीस से अधिक किताबों के लेखक प्रोफेसर आनंद तेलतुम्बड़े - जो पहले से साँस की बीमारी का इलाज करवा रहे थे - उन्हें जहाँ अस्थायी तौर पर रखा गया था, वहाँ तैनात एनआईए-कर्मी खुद कोरोना पॉजिटिव निकला
था। किस तरह क़ैदियों से भरे बैरक और बुनियादी स्वच्छता की कमी से जेल में तरह तरह
की बीमारियाँ फैलने का ख़तरा बढ़ जाता है, इस पर रौशनी डालते हुएकोयल, जो सेवानिवृत्त प्रोफेसर शोमा सेन की बेटी है, ने भी अपनी माँ के हवाले से ऐसी ही बातें साझा कीं
थी: ‘‘आख़िरी बार जब मैंने अपनी माँ से बात की, उसने मुझे बताया कि न तो उन्हें मास्क, न ही कोई अन्य
सुरक्षात्मक उपकरण दिया जा रहा है। वह तीस अन्य लोगों के साथ एक ही सेल में रहती
है और वे सभी किसी तरह टेढ़े-मेढ़े सो पाते हैं।’’
तलोजा जेल में बन्द
भीमा कोरेगाँव मामले के नौ कैदी या भायकुला जेल में बन्द दो महिला कैदियों के
बहाने - जो देश के अग्रणी विद्वानों, वकीलों, मानवाधिकार कार्यकर्ताओं में शुमार किए जाते हैं - अन्दाज़ा लगाया जा सकता है कि कितना कुछ अन्याय हमारे
इर्दगिर्द पसरा होता है और हम पहचान भी नहीं पाते।
उधर असम से ख़बर आयी
है कि विगत आठ माह से जेल में बन्द कृषक श्रमिक संग्राम समिति के जुझारू नेता अखिल
गोगोई और उनके दो अनन्य सहयोगी बिट्टू सोनोवाल और धरज्या कोंवर, तीनों टेस्ट में
कोविड पोजिटिव पाए गए हैं।
गोरखपुर के जनप्रिय
डॉक्टर कफ़ील खान जो विगत पाँच महीने से अधिक वक्त़ से मथुरा जेल में बन्द हैं तथा
जिन पर सीएए विरोधी आन्दोलन में भाषण देने के मामले में गंभीर धाराएँ लगा दी गयी
हैं, उनके नाम से एक विडियो भी जारी हुआ है जिसमें वे
बताते हैं कि जेल के अन्दर हालात कितने ख़राब हैं और कोविड संक्रमण के चलते अनिवार्य
ठहराए गए तमाम निर्देशों को कैसे धता बताया जा रहा है।
तय बात है कि जहाँ तक स्वास्थ्य के लिए ख़तरों का सवाल है, हम किसी को अलग करके नहीं देख सकते हैं।
हर कोई जिसे वहाँ
रखा गया है - भले ही वह विचाराधीन कैदी हो या दोषसिद्ध व्यक्ति - उसकी स्वास्थ्य की कोई भी समस्या आती है, तो उसका इन्तज़ाम करना जेल प्रशासन का प्रथम कर्तव्य
बन जाता है। कोविड 19 के भयानक संक्रामक
वायरस से संक्रमण का ख़तरा जब मौजूद हो और अगर इनमें से किसी की तबीयत ज्यादा ख़राब
हो जाती है तो यह स्थिति उस व्यक्ति के लिए अतिरिक्त सज़ा साबित हो सकती है।
यह सवाल उठना लाज़िमी
है कि जेलों में क्षमता से अधिक संख्या में बन्द क़ैदी, स्वास्थ्य सेवाओं की पहले से लचर व्यवस्था और कोविड
संक्रमण का बढ़ता ख़तरा, इस स्थिति को देखते हुए सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा मार्च
माह में दिए गए आदेश पर गंभीरता से अमल क्यों नहीं शुरू हो सका है? याद रहे कि जब कोविड महामारी फैलने लगी थी और इस
बीमारी के बेहद संक्रामक होने की बात स्थापित हो चुकी थी, तब आला अदालत ने हस्तक्षेप करके आदेश दिया था कि इस
महामारी के दौरान जेलों में बन्द क़ैदियों को पैरोल पर रिहा किया जाए ताकि जेलों के
अन्दर संक्रमण फैलने से रोका जा सके। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इस बात को स्पष्ट किया
था कि ऐसे कैदियों को पैरोल दी जा सकती है जिन्हें सात साल तक की सज़ा हुई है, या वे
ऐसे मामलों में बन्द हैं जहाँ अधिकतम सज़ा सात साल हो।
ऐसा प्रतीत हो रहा
है कि सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के इस आदेश को कागज़ी बाघ में तब्दील कर दिया गया है। दिल्ली
की जेल में एक सज़ायाफ़्ता क़ैदी की कोविड से मौत हो चुकी है। क्या सरकारें अपनी
शीतनिद्रा से जगेंगी और सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय की रौशनी में जेलों के अन्दर
बढ़ती भीड़ की गंभीर समस्या को सम्बोधित करने के लिए क़दम उठाएँगी?
कवि वरवर राव के बद
से बदतर होते स्वास्थ्य के चलते एक बार नए सिरे से लोगों का ध्यान जेल के अन्दर
विकट होती जा रही स्थिति और कोविड 19 के चलते उत्पन्न स्वास्थ्य के लिए ख़तरे की तरफ गया है और मानवाधिकारों के
बढ़ते हनन की तरफ गया है। हमें इस ख़तरे से चेत जाने की ज़रूरत है।
कोविड 19 के बहाने हर तरह के
विरोध के दमन का जो सिलसिला सरकार ने तेज़ किया है, उसी का प्रतिबिम्बन पुलिस की इस कार्रवाई में भी दिखता है कि वह जमानत का
आदेश मिलने के बावजूद क़ैदियों को रिहा नहीं करती और तीन चार दिन के अन्तराल में
कुछ नयी ख़तरनाक धाराएँ लगा कर उन्हें जेल में ही बन्द रखती है। फिलवक्त़ मानस
कोंवर, जो कृषक मुक्ति संग्राम समिति की छात्रा शाखा के अध्यक्ष हैं, का मामला सुर्खियों में है - उन्हें एनआईए अदालत ने
जमानत दी है मगर जेल अधिकारियों ने बहाना बना कर रिहा नहीं किया है।
हमें नहीं भूलना चाहिए कि जिन ख़तरनाक धाराओं में भीमा कोरेगाँव, उत्तर पूर्वी दिल्ली दंगे, कृषक मुक्ति संग्राम समिति आदि मामले में कार्रवाई की
गयी है और लोगों को जेल में ठूँसा गया है, उन ख़तरनाक क़ानूनों का हश्र यही होता है कि 99 फ़ीसदी मामलों में लोग बेदाग छूट जाते हैं।
तो फिर, क्या इन्हें
लागू करने का मक़सद महज प्रक्रिया को सज़ा में रूपांतरित करना है?
देश भर में सक्रिय हम
सामाजिक-राजनीतिक और सांस्कृतिक संगठन यह माँग करते हैं कि
1. वरवर राव को तत्काल बिना शर्त रिहा किया जाए।
2. ‘बेल नियम है और जेल अपवाद’ - इस समझ के साथ,
भिन्न-भिन्न मामलों में बिना अपराध साबित हुए जेल की सज़ा काट रहे बुद्धिजीवियों,
लेखकों और मानवाधिकार-कर्मियों को जमानत दी जाए।
Today, India has emerged as a new
epicentre for the novel corona virus in the Asia Pacific region.With 1,58,333
confirmed cases of Covid 19 and deaths of total of 4,531 people after
contracting the virus, it has already crossed China’s Covid-19 numbers.
#
New Socialist Initiative (NSI) feels
that the grim news of steadily rising infections and fatalities reveal before
everyone a worrying pattern but the government either seems to be oblivious of
the situation or has decided to shut its eyes. It is becoming increasingly
clear that the Union government has used incomplete national-level data to
justify arbitrary policy decisions, defend its record and underplay the extent
of Covid-19 crisis.
#
Absence of transparency vis-a-vis
data collection of Covid infection levels could be said to be the tip of the
iceberg of what has gone wrong with India’s ‘war against Covid 19’.
The
Prime Minister’s announcement of a 21-day countrywide lock down came with a
mere four-hour notice. It was done without engaging in any collective
decision-making process with states to honour and enhance the spirit of
“cooperative federalism” between the Centre and the States.
According to NSI this whole act did a
tremendous harm to the principle of federalism which is a fundamental feature
of our Constitution. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution defines “India, that
is Bharat, is a Union of States”and control of infectious diseases is a
concurrent subject in the Constitution.
#
Members of national task force
constituted to advise the central government on its pandemic response have gone
on record underlining that ‘scientific inputs’ were never sought from them by
the Indian government and lock down failed to achieve its purpose because
government failed to take crucial parallel measures, such as developing India’s
testing capacity and medical infrastructure.
#
Opacity and violation of set
constitutional procedures and consequent centralisation of the decision making
processes has become a hallmark of the present government’s anti Covid
strategy. It was geared towards making arrangements or institutionalising
processes which could serve the ruling dispensation later as well.
The formation of a new ‘PM Cares’
fund to combat the pandemic – which would be managed by a trust of four – which
cannot be audited by CAG, has been a major example of utilising the pandemic to
further partisan interests.It was constituted despite the statutory existence
of the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) since independence which
is transparent, accountable and audited by the CAG .
#
This brazenness has not been limited
to pushing a private fund as work of public charity.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the custodians of power have
tried to use the present situation of medical emergency – when political
activities have largely come to a standstill when physical distancing norms
have been put in place, and the citizenry are restricted to their homes – to
serve as the pretext for the imposition of a de facto political emergency.
Independent critical voices in the
media are being chased, retaliatory revengeful action against students/youth
active in the historic anti CAA movement has been unleashed, leaders of
peasants and workers have been arrested under draconian laws,
#
The historic Factories Act of 1948, a
product of long years of struggles of the working people, which mandates that
“No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more
than forty-eight hours in any week” is being effectively annulled.
The organised and systematic infringement of hard earned rights of
workers, under the talk of exceptional circumstances calling for exceptional
solutions, is being executed to fulfill long term demands of the Corporates and
the Moneybags
#
The defining image of the callousness
and indifference of the present regime towards sufferings of the people is the
migrant labour on the move back home on foot or on own cycle/rickshaw/auto or
on Shramik Special trains which have become another death trap for many of
them.
Many of them are still walking back
home brutalised by the police at various places on the way, sprayed with
disinfectant supposedly to sanitise them, facing tremendous travails and
tribulations. Till the last report came in so far, over 130 migrants killed in
accidents en route to their home states.
The consistent denial of direct
transfer of money to every such needy person’s account, to alleviate the pain
arising out of sudden lock down, despite advice by the The likes of Abhishek
Banerjee, India born Nobel Prize Winner in Economics ( 2019), is just a reflection
of the tremendous disdain for the exploited, oppressed and the marginalised in
their world view.
#
A similar fraud was played upon
people when PM Modi announced a ’20 lakh crore package’ to address the twin
challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic and the lock down-induced economic
disruption and crisis. The so called package was basically a monetary venture –
where monies were being handed over to Corporates, Industrialists , with focus
on reviving the economy not a fiscal measure – which could have been given to
poor / needy people and it comprised of packages already announced.
This has also been a period
where government has facilitated handing over of many public sector enterprises
to private sector.
#
The pandemic has badly exposed the
limitations of India’s health system and its highly privatised nature.
It stands exposed not only because of
reports about acute shortage of critical care equipments, or paucity of proper
protective gears for doctors and health workers but also increasing shortage of
hospital space also.
The highly restricted access to
healthcare during lockdown – where focus remained on Covid 19 – has led to many
avoidable deaths due to other causes.
It is increasingly clear how policies
of austerity – cuts in public expenditure on health, education etc are thus
having a very negative impact on people’s health.
NSI demands that the government
revisits its policies of putting profit over people, increase allocations for
it from a meager less than 1 per cent to at least 5 per cent of GDP and move
towards ensuring people’s right to health.
#
The most unsavoury aspect of India’s
‘War Against Covid 19’ is the manner in which India has managed to turn even a
global, devastating public health emergency into an opportunity to vilify
Muslims. It amounted to weaponising prejudice against Muslims in an effort to build
a majoritarian Hindu votebank that shuns older Indian ideas of secularism and
tolerance.
This Islamophobia inspired by Covid
19 was met with silence at the top among the country’s executive.
As of now this direct targeting might
have stopped but it cannot be said with confidence that this would end the
continuous stigmatisation of its biggest religious minority?
#
New Socialist Initiative appeals to
the broad masses of people to always remain vigilant about the designs of the
Hindutva Supremacists.
It is high time that people come
together on a common minimum programme and resist such blatant attempts at
destroying of democratic institutions and processes, restrictions on
fundamental rights and freedom and increasing criminalisation of any critique
as sedition and anti-national.
We should always bear in mind that if
a pandemic which affects the whole of humanity can be given a communal colour,
then we cannot belittle the Right’s ability to turn any crisis into an
opportunity to further its exclusivist, hate-filled and anti-human agenda.
New Socialist Initiative is a collective committed to the belief that humanity can create a society free of economic deprivation, gender, caste, national and racial oppressions, and ecological degradation. It will be a society of associated humans which will ensure that 'the free development of each (will be) the condition for the free development of all'. This requires a social system run collectively for the welfare of all, as against capitalism that is run by the rich and the powerful for their private profit. While we uphold the legacy of socialist revolutions of the last century, we also believe that it is necessary to learn from their limitations and mistakes to successfully challenge new forms of political and ideological domination evolved by capitalism.
