A year ago just before Independence Day 2011 it was written in these columns: As we approach our sixtyfifth Independence Day there is no gainsaying that an acute sense of despondency has gripped the nation, thanks primarily to the acrobatics of our present-day rulers though it must be acknowledged in all candour that those in the Opposition have fared no better. In the absence of the stalwarts who participated in and/or led the freedom struggle and upheld the picture of a radiant India before, during and in the immediate aftermath of our independence from foreign yoke, the political leadership today has singularly failed to guide us to a better and brighter future. Despite our striking rates of growth that substantially helped in the emergence of a burgeoning middle class in the 20 years since we embarked on economic reforms, the overall projections are nothing but dismal as eloquently brought out in our low rankings in the Human Development Index in successive Human Development Reports of the UN.
If we substitute the word ‘sixtyfifth' with ‘sixtysixth' in the above paragraph it would present an objective picture of the national reality as it obtains today. The sense of despondency, it was explained then, “stems not only from the ground realities of rural India”; but the “essence of this frustration lies in the levels of corruption among those occupying high offices (while others in power, benefiting from the scourge in various ways, look the other way)”. This too is the situation at present. If the civil society movements against corruption that have come up of late, whether led by Anna Hazare and his associates or by Baba Ramdev (who has also laid emphasis on black money, especially that stashed abroad in foreign banks while insisting that the amount be brought back for the sake of national development), are taken into consideration, the sense of outrage and revulsion among the public—as reflected in those movements—has not decreased in the least over the past twelve months; it has in fact grown substantially fuelled by the smugness of those currently in power. And this behaviour on the part of the latter is making it abundantly clear that they are least bothered about the public outcry for a strong and effective Lokpal (ombudsman) through an appropriate enactment in the hope that such a Lokpal would be capable of checking corruption in high places in large measure. Actually their apathy and indifference to this basic and legitimate demand bears ample testimony to their intention to maintain the status quo in this regard without giving teeth to the Lokpal by bringing at least the CBI under its purview; thus what is at work is a plan to deliberately thwart the urges and aspirations of the overwhelming mass of our populace who are the real victims of the ill-effects of mounting corruption.
As a matter of fact the persons running the country at present are blissfully unaware of the popular mood of anger and indignation on this score across our constituent States. Which is why they are acting as if it is business as usual. Such an attitude on the part of the Congress leaders of today leading the ruling combination at the Centre provides a measure of the distance the party has traversed since the days of the freedom struggle which was given a mass dimension by the very same Congress under the dynamic leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. It also offers the contrast between the Congress of the early years of the post-independence era and the political outfit that goes by the same name now. Jawaharlal Nehru, as the first PM of independent India, all along maintained a dialogue with the public at large and was receptive of their yearnings and problems (something his daughter too continued throughout her premiership barring the nineteen months of Emergency). However, in the present-day neoliberal atmosphere—a gift of the new economic policies introduced since 1991 and based on the LPG (liberalisation-privatisation-globalisation) syndrome inherent in the structural adjustment programme that was thrust on the country by the international lending agencies (the World Bank and IMF)—the alienation of those in power from the bulk of the common people in the far-flung areas has reached phenomenal proportions; hence the inability of the powers that be to comprehend what the masses desire.
The ruling elite's strategy of ‘development' in the current context is witnessed in the manner in which they are seeking to tackle the Maoist problem in the tribal heartland, that is, primarily through armed operations (which can result in collateral damage as has already occured in Chhattisgarh's Bijapur district of late although locals allege that the incident there was a deliberate move to kill the tribals in cold blood) without recourse to the political mechanism so essential to combat the scourges of poverty, malnutrition, destitution and deprivation afflicting the poorest of the poor in the country's adivasi areas. That is because the ruling dispensation is only interested in taking over the tribals' mineral-rich land and handing it over to the corporate entities and multinationals to enable them to recklessly exploit our natural resources for satisfying their profit motive to the detriment of national interest. In the process the tribals would be dispossessed of their land and become paupers—but the authorities are least bothered about such an eventuality.
Moreover, for all its stress on economic reforms to arrest and reverse the falling growth rate, the UPA regime is unable or does not wish to understand that growth rates alone cannot ensure allround, balanced, holistic and inclusive progress wherein the watchword is reduction of disparities in the polity. The trajectory of the course pursued through economic reforms over the last twenty years has no doubt won accolades from abroad, that is, the West in particular (and the US leaders are constantly egging on our government to intensify those reforms in the coming days in their own narrow self-interest) but those reforms have completely failed to reduce the disparities; on the contrary the gap between the select group of Indian billionaires and those at the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder subjected to backbreaking poverty is widening with every passing day—in fact it was never as wide as it is today. Therefore what is imperative is to go in for a course correction. If the licence-permit raj of the previous years is to be dismantled as it must, it does not necessarily mean the socialistic pattern of development, unveiled by Nehru at Avadi and carried forward by his daughter in subsequent years, needs to be jettisoned and laissez faire uncritically embraced.
The entire premise of the new economic policies unfolded in 1991 has been based on the ‘trickle-down theory'. Interestingly, our newly-elected President himself, in his acceptance speech the other day, debunked the untenable theory in no uncertain terms by asserting that such theories “do not address the legitimate aspirations of the poor”. This shows the contradictions still prevailing in the higher echelons of the administration as regards the rationale of our economic policies; these can be effectively exploited to guarantee advance towards evolving an alternative paradigm of development centred on the interests of the aam aadmi and not on those of the super rich or upwardly mobile middle classes. It is in this context that one must positively view the opposition to the proposed FDI in multi-brand retail as well as Forward Markets Commission Bill coming from one UPA partner. Both these moves by the government would result in further accentuation of the economic hardships for the common person already groaning under the impact of runaway prices. The opposition to these steps would hopefully help prevent the ruling coalition from adopting such anti-people measures that would certainly boomerang with deadly effect at election time.
Mahatma Gandhi, who was aptly characterised by Jawaharlal Nehru as the greatest revolutionary of the land for having moved millions in the battle for freedom, had always stressed in exploring the effect of any action on the lowliest person before taking that crucial step in his/her interest. Today's Congress activists and leaders need to follow the same principle in order to sift the chaff from the grain at a time when conditions have turned increasingly complex both at home and abroad. However, given the character of the Congress at this point in time the leadership of the organisation cannot be expected to follow the Gandhian dictum whenever the occasion arises.
But, this is precisely where public intervention is essential to reverse the suicidal path being sought to be undertaken by the government. Such intervention alongside the ongoing concerted mass struggle against mind-boggling corruption at high places eating into the vitals of our society and nationhood has the capacity to help us rediscover the basic goals of our freedom struggle, epitomised also in the ‘Quit India' movement (whose seventieth anniversary we are observing this month).
In short, this would break our prevailing sense of despondency and enable us to return to our roots from which our leaders in power have long dissociated themselves in pursuit of selfish gains as opposed to public welfare.
August 13 S.C.