Democratic Rights Movement in India - Papers

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN INDIA

Orientation, Problems and Challenges

Democratic Rights Movementin India

Orientation, Problems and Challenges

Arvind Memorial Trust

Papers Presented in theThird Arvind Memorial Seminar

Price: Rs. 80.00

First Edition: January, 2014

Published by: Arvind Memorial Trust69 A-1, Baba ka Purwa, Paper Mill Road, Nishatgunj,

Lucknow–226006

Cover Design: Rambabu

Typesetting: Computer Division, Rahul Foundation

Printed by: Chaman Enterprises, Daryagunj, New Delhi-110002

Democratic Rights Movement in India : Orientation, Problems andChallenges

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

We present this important publication in the series of collection ofpapers on vital questions of Indian society and peoples liberationmovement. This is a compilation of papers presented in the ThirdArvind Memorial Seminar held in Lucknow from 22–24 July2011 on the topic ‘Democratic Rights Movement in India:Orientation, Problems and Challenges.’

The question of democratic rights has acquired immenseimportance and relevance today. The chariot of development ismoving ahead in the country, trampling ordinary people in its way.The ruling system makes no delay in crushing every voice raisedfrom the hell of darkness in the foothills of the summits ofprosperity. A glance at the statistics of displacement anddispossession gives an impression as if these were facts andfigures of a civil war like condition. Even the remainingdemocratic space in the social-political life is getting shrunk.

The government’s terrorist war against the people isunderway in several regions in the name of war against terror. InChhattisgarh, forest land spanning hundreds of square kilometershas been handed over to the army in the name of training.Binayak Sen was granted bail by the Supreme Court afterwidespread protest in the country and abroad, but severalprisoners continue to languish in jail on similar charges.

Conspiracies are hatched to crush even people’s resistancemovements by terming them as terrorists. In recent times, therehave been several brutal incidents of repression in many industrialareas in the vicinity of Delhi and other parts of the countryincluding Gorakhpur in UP, Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh,Uttarakhand etc. The AFSPA continues to be operational in theNorth-East and Jammu & Kashmir despite widespread massprotest. There are dozens of draconian laws ranging from thecolonial era Sedition Act to the Chhattisgarh Special PublicSecurity Act which have been constantly questioned.

Democratic Rights Movement in India 5

The policies of economic fundamentalism have prepared afertile ground for religious-racial-casteist fundamentalism. Eventhe remaining democratic space in the society has rapidly shrunkin the last two decades and it has mostly impacted the weakersections. Numerous religious and caste-based genocides havebeen witnessed in the last two and half decades. The newmisanthropic culture of capital has reinvigorated and reshaped thecaste and gender based despotic and oppressive tendenciesprevalent in the social fabric.

Perhaps it is opportune moment for the democratic rightsmovement to think deeply about widening its social base andstrengthening itself. It is the time for introspection and discourse.A fundamental question is about the need to transform thedemocratic rights movement into a movement with a broad socialbase? Secondly, isn’t there a need that all the democratic rightsorganisations throughout the country raise their voices unitedly atleast on some burning issues? Thirdly, the question of thedemocratic rights is not confined to the repressive attitude of thestate machinery and the draconian laws. Issues such as thepolitics of religious fundamentalism, the alienation of the religiousminorities, the oppression of Dalits and women are also linked tothe question of democratic rights and civil liberties.

The papers presented in the seminar contain thoughtprovoking and well-researched material on various pertinentquestions related to the democratic rights movement in thecountry. Many more important issues were raised during theintense and fruitful debates and discussions continuing frommoring till late night in the three days of the seminar. A consensusemerged on this point that the process of thinking and discussionsshould continue on these questions to build a strong and broad-based movements for democratic rights. We believe that thiscollection will contribute in this direction. The Hindi version of thiscollection is also being published alongside this English version.

We welcome the opinions, suggestins and reactions ofreaders on this volume and we will eagerly wait for these.

— Board of Trustees25.1.2014 Arvind Memorial Trust

CONTENTS

Publisher's Note 5

Some Points to Ponder for the Organisers and Activistsof the Democratic Rights Movement – Katyayani 9

In Search of A Realistic Approach Towards the HumanRights Movement in India – Dipankar Chakrabarti 29

How Democratic is the Indian Constitution andIndian Democracy? – Anand Singh 51

Democratic Rights Movement and theWorking Class – Prasen Singh 64

Government’s War Against Terrorism or Againstthe People – Rajkumar/Munish 71

Socio-Cultural Tasks of the Democratic RightsMovement – Jai Pushp 83

Right to Health is A Fundamental DemocraticRight – Dr. Amritpal 90

Reflections on Democratic Movement of Nepal:A Historical Perspective – Dr. Mahesh Maskey 102

Vicissitudes of Minority Rights in Sri Lankaand Lessons for Democratic Activism inSouth Asia – Kalinga Tudor Silva 110

Hunger, Displacement and the Shrinking Space ofDemocracy – Sheikh Ansar 122

Indian Democracy - Story of Civil LibertiesMovements – Jaya Vindhyala 136

Displacement, Dispossesion and the Question ofDemocratic Rights – Sourav Banerjee 144

SOME POINTS TO PONDER FOR THEORGANISERS AND ACTIVISTS OF THEDEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Katyayani

Looking from a quantitative perspective, an observer can expresssatisfaction that there are more than two dozen organisationsthroughout the country which raise their voice over the civilliberties and democratic rights related issues. It is also true that asubstantial number of reports and articles get published andpetitions are filed in the High Courts and Supreme Courtregarding the incidents of the police repression and theoppression of the political prisoners , the role of Hindutva forcesand the government machinery in the communal riots andgenocide, caste and gender atrocities, bonded labour, child labour,incidents related to the laborers not getting their lawful rights andmore than half century old semi-fascist kind of indirect militaryrule over the people of Kashmir and North Eastern India.However, going beyond numbers, when we examine the balancesheet as to what extent the democratic rights movement in thelast 30-35 years has impacted the fabric of state, society andculture, to what extent it has made the masses aware and activefor securing their democratic rights by uplifting their democraticconsciousness and to what extent it has taken the form of a massmovement by preparing its broad social base, we feel a bitdisappointed.

Common people of a particular area or a particularprofession get to know about the existence of the democraticrights movement when a team of democratic rights activists

The author is a noted Hindi poet and social activist.Contact: [email protected]

Some Points to Ponder for Organisers and Activists 9

10 Democratic Rights Movement in India

approach them for some investigation. People view theseintellectuals as gentlemen or ladies coming from the capital citiesor metropolitan centres who raise voice in support of their rightsor who protest against the draconian laws and state repressionand oppression. The educated and to some extent awakenedmiddle class people view the democratic rights movement as amovement of enlightened persons who publish reports, filepetitions, send investigation teams, run signature campaigns andsubmit memoranda. The section of middle-class influenced bystate sponsored jingoism and the Hindutva ideology view thedemocratic right movement as the second line of defense of theso called “left-wing” terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist terrorismor the so called “anti-national” separatists of Jammu-Kashmirand North Eastern India.

Besides, there are those democratic right organisationswhich, in a sectarian manner, function as frontal organisations ofsome leftist organisation. For them, the issue of democratic rightsremains confined to the protest against the repressive actions ofstate against few political organisations. It is indeed a sectariantrend that the scope of democratic right movements is oftenconfined to the campaigns against the repression of politicalmovements, campaign to free prisoners and protest against theslapping of various draconian laws. Such activities areundoubtedly very important, but the task of democratic rightsmovement cannot be reduced to them only. The issue here is notjust of the political right of struggle and resistance; rather it is thatof the democratic and civil rights of the masses. Unless all theissues concerning the civil and democratic rights of the massesare made the ground of agitation and propaganda and until peopleare awakened and mobilised on these issues, the reputation andstructure of the democratic right movement will continue to bethat of a movement of urban intellectuals who undertake onlysuch activities as touring, issuing reports, submitting memoranda,running signature campaigns and filing petitions.

What could be the root of the problem? Perhaps the questionof democratic right is not viewed by placing it in the socio-economic and political structural framework; or in other words itis often not conceptualised properly or it is viewed from an ad-

hoc, narrow utilitarian and pragmatic outlook.The civil rights movement of 1960s in USA, France and some

other western European countries had reached its zenith amidstthe mixed wave of the movements of blacks against the racialdiscrimination, feminist movement of middle class women againstmale chauvinism, students’ movement, anti-war movement, tradeunion movement and protest music movement. It was an era ofwidespread disillusionment in the west due to transformation ofeconomic crisis into political crisis and the shrinking of thebourgeois democratic space. At the same time it was also the eraof rising tide of fierce national liberation wars in the countries ofAsia, Africa and Latin America which was also deeplyinfluencing the people in the western countries. It is a quitedifferent story as to how the western government machineriesco-opted these revolts later on and how they lost the momentum.But it is a fact of history that civil rights movement in the west ofthat era was an exciting mass movement in the true sense of theterm. In China, during the revolution, Civil Rights League,under the leadership of Madam Soong Ching-Ling (wife of SunYat-sen) had developed substantial support-base among theurban population. At that time the circumstances over there weresuch that the tyrant and autocratic character of the Kuomintanggovernment had been exposed and the task at hand was toconvince the masses that they could win the democratic rightsonly under a people’s democratic governance system. The illusionof bourgeois democracy was non-existent there.

In India, the background of the civil and democratic rightsmovement was entirely different. In the 1970s, particularly theexperience of the emergency era helped to enhance the strengthand momentum of the democratic rights movement as an inevitablenecessity. Subsequently, during the later decades, the civil rightsmovement engaged itself in the ritualistic activities such asinvestigation reports, memoranda, petition against the repressivestate machinery and the repression of political opposition. Whatwas born with pragmatism got stuck in the whirlwind of routinism,tokenism and ritualism. Therefore it is our clear and firm belief thattoday the democratic rights movement needs to be conceptualisedafresh on the basis of the analysis of the structure of Indian state,



social fabric and the neo-liberal economic policies. We wish tobriefly put forward our view point in this regard.

(1) The democratic and civil rights movement will have to be

taken to the masses (the main section of which obviously consistsof the toiling population in urban and rural areas) by extending itbeyond the limited sphere of urban intellectuals and the routineactivities of ‘memorandum-plea-petition’. It will have to betransformed into a broad mass movement. It is indeed the toilingmasses who have to face the violation and abridgement of thedemocratic rights more than the educated well to do people. Thereach of the constitutional remedies is confined to the enlightenedelites (At times its crumbs reach the common people through thepublic interest petition of some NGO or some individual). Thelimited civil liberties and democratic rights which the constitutionprovides to a common man get entangled in the cobwebs ofcourts and even if a portion of it trickles down from there, it getslost in the pockets of and files of the officials and clerks ofgovernment offices and the inspectors and constables of policestations. Hence, it becomes the quintessential task of thedemocratic right movement to educate, mobilise and organise themasses on the issue of civil liberties and democratic rights throughall possible means. A prolonged phase of propaganda andagitation on these issues needs to be carried out.

(2) It is only by educating the common people about thefunctioning and structure of the state that they can be informedabout why is it that the civil liberties and democratic rightsdeclared loudly in the constitution bear no meaning to them! Onlya small section of even the educated population today is aware ofthe fact that the constituent assembly which passed theconstitution — the guiding basic treatise of the Indiandemocracy— was not elected on the basis of universal adultfranchise. So, the foundation itself lacked in democracy. Througha comparative analysis any one can figure out that, to a largeextent, the constitution is nothing but a modified and enhancedversion of the colonial era’s Government of India Act 1935. Infact Nehru promised in November 1946 that after independence,a second constituent assembly would be elected on the basis of

universal adult franchise. Should we not ask as to what happenedto that promise? It also needs to be noted that whatever civilliberties and democratic rights the constitution provides, can beabridged (through amendment) using the provisions present in theconstitution itself. A fact of even greater importance is that inmost of the cases the constitutional rights are renderedineffective by the legal system whose core structure remains thesame as that in the colonial era. And even if something isachieved from the legal system, the corrupt and incompetentbureaucratic system and tyrant and autocratic police system eat itout without leaving any trace. The poor in India have to bribe theofficials and clerks at every step even for basic amenities; thepolice loots them on the street like thugs and pickpockets andbeats them like goons. In the prisons, the prisoners languish likeanimals. Death in police custody and fake encounters on thestreet are the order of the day. Under-trials spend their lifetime inprisons. There are 30 million cases pending before the courts. Oflate the extent of corruption in the lower judiciary has matched tothat in the police and now the malaise of corruption has infectedeven the top echelons of it. The leaders of electoral parties aremostly either themselves brokers, goons and debauched criminalsor play the vote-bank politics by using such elements and fill theircoffers with black money. All these issues are connected with thedemocratic rights of the people. All of them are systemic innature. They are related to the huge oppressive structure of thestate machinery which renders the constitutional promises of thefundamental civil and democratic rights into almost a lollypop ofhollow words. Under these circumstances, doesn’t it become anurgent fundamental task of the democratic rights movement toeducate the masses about the tyrant and autocratic nature of thestate power, its structure and modus operandi and give them aconcrete program to organise them on the issues of democraticrights? In our view, it is the task of a democratic movementhaving broad mass base to raise the demand of the election of anew constituent assembly on the basis of universal adult franchiseand a real democratic constitution; it must raise the demands ofreconstitution of the colonial legal system, police administration,jail manual and the bureaucracy and ensure austere, frugal,



transparent and accountable life style of the politicians andbureaucrats by reconstituting the extravagant and corruptparliamentary and government machinery. And the question is notjust of changing the colonial structure of the legal system. Thereis a long history of despotic draconian laws which have beenframed one after another at both the centre and state level sinceindependence. There are many such laws which are still inexistence; the most notorious among them being the ChhattisgarhSpecial Public Security Act. The masses will have to bemobilised on the demand of repealing all such draconian laws.These are the fundamental issues connected with the democraticrights of the masses at large which can be used as launching padfor transforming the democratic right movement into a broadmass movement.

(3) Somebody can raise a question that this way the programof democratic rights movement would become the program of arevolution and its scope would be too broad and excessivelypolitical. Our answer would be that the question of democraticrights in itself is a political one which is often narrowed down.Secondly, some people may hold the opinion that since the Indian(or for that matter any other) bourgeois system can neither do itscomplete structural overhauling nor can it give the people theirdemocratic rights, hence to raise this demand would turn theprogram of the democratic rights movement into one of theradical social revolution. But the majority of the populationranging from common man to the intellectual community are notyet radicalised and revolutionised to this extent. They would beprepared to be mobilised on all the above demands but would notagree that without transforming the existing socio-economicstructure in revolutionary manner, the people cannot win the realdemocratic rights. This section of population would participate inthe democratic rights movement in the hope of achievingdemocracy and civil liberties from the existing system and it hasevery right to do so. If the existing system would not be able togive them the real democratic right, its real character would standexposed before this section of population as well and this fight fordemocracy and freedom would automatically become part of theradical program of revolution. To summarise, the manifesto of a

democratic rights movement is not a declaration of a radicalsocial revolution. It does not impose the goal of revolution on theparticipant populace from above. Its scope is confined to thestruggle for the demands of democratic rights and civil libertieswhich were promised by the philosophers of the enlightenmentera and the classical theoreticians of democracy with the sloganof ‘liberty-equality-fraternity’ and which are accepted by theconstitutions of all the bourgeois democracies at least on paper(or at least they do not deny them). While fighting for these rights,organised people’s power even manages to gain some democraticspace and civil liberties by exerting pressure on the state andthereby recognises the strength of its organised power. Peopleorganise their struggle of the fundamental rights on even higherplane on the basis of whatever democratic space and the advancedemocratic consciousness they achieve through their organisedstruggles. At the same time, if in the process they begin to see andunderstand the limitations of this system through their experienceand begin to breach the barriers of the system it would be theexperience based decision of the sovereign power of the people.But if a democratic rights organisation makes a-priori declarationthat since the bourgeois democracy cannot give the people thereal democracy, hence the struggle for democratic rights can onlymean the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of thesystem, it would be tantamount to sectarianism and vanguardismwhich imposes upon people something which is much ahead oftheir consciousness and which ignores the possibilities of learningthrough the struggle within the confines of the bourgeois legalsystem. Such sectarian vanguardist tendencies would shrink thescope of the united front of the democratic rights movement andwould prove to be immensely harmful.

(4) It is extremely important to organise resistance againstthe repression of political movements and the movement to releasepolitical prisoners and no one can deny its significance. Those whodo not have faith in this system and who wage an armed struggleagainst it (be it with the broad based people’s participation or inform of “left wing” terrorist deviation), cannot be consideredmurderers, criminals or anti-social. They too have the right to getconstitutional remedy and legal remedy. They cannot be killed in a



fake encounter; they cannot be tried by slapping false charges andthey cannot be tortured in a torture chamber. Even the SupremeCourt has clearly stated that no case of terrorism or sedition canbe slapped on those who in principle believe in armed revolution,who talk about it, who keep the literature of a banned organisation,who support such an organisation or even those who are itsmembers. Only if someone is directly involved in a terrorist activityor an armed struggle against the state, a case can be made. Evenin such a situation it must be remembered that those who wagedirect armed struggle against the state owing to their politicalideology or commitments are not criminals. We have to admit thiseven if we disagree with their political thoughts and modusoperandi. In such a situation, instead of making them accusedunder some criminal section, they must be conferred the status ofprisoners of war and the relevant provisions of the concernedinternational convention must be followed. Insofar as the coloniallaw of sedition (section 124 A of IPC) is concerned, its blatantlyanti-democratic nature has been a matter of discussion in recenttimes. We can agree on nothing less than repeal of this provision.While talking about the democratic rights of those who wagearmed resistance against the state, we also wish to clarify ourstand that if the innocent common people become victim of an actof terror and if a party struggling against the state uses the killingof a captured or kidnapped government functionary as a strategyof resistance (killing someone in a war like situation is anothermatter), any democratic rights movement will vehemently opposeit in no uncertain terms. Though, from the perspective of thedemocratic rights movement, the main and essential aspectremains that the government’s war against terror is in effect aterrorist war of the government against the people.

Sufficient facts have been published revealing the truth that inChhattisgarh, the main issue is not that of crushing the Maoistresistance but that of forcible dispossession of the local tribalpopulation and crushing their resistance with the aim of givingfree hand to the trans-national giants and Indian capitalist sharksto plunder the precious and immeasurable mineral wealth. It wasunder such circumstances that the Maoist resistance grew. Theviews of the Supreme Court on the issue of arming a small section

of the local population in the form of Salwa Judum and as SPOsand Koya Commandos against the larger common population, bythe government, has confirmed the reality of a war being wagedby the government against the people . The facts regarding thefunding by some leading corporate houses to Salwa Judum havecome to light earlier as well. Now the government is laying theground for the next round of bloody struggle. Raman Singhgovernment has recently allotted a 750 square kilometers areanear the Narayanpur district headquarter in the Mad region toarmy where one battalion each from Assam and Bihar regimentswould be trained in counter insurgency and jungle warfare. It isobvious that after Kashmir and North-East, the army is preparingfor a brutal war against the exploited and oppressed population ofthe poorest region of the country. It would not be surprising if incourse of time the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act isclamped in Bastar as well. But the army can wage an undeclaredwar even without it which would be tantamount to a war againstthe entire local tribal population and not just against the Maoist.Be it Chhattisgarh or Lalgarh, the government’s war againstpeople in the guise of war against terror and the state repressionhave been a burning question for quite some time now. Its stretchand intensity is set to increase in future. Our main purpose, here,is to underline the fact that if the democratic rights movement isnot transformed into a broad mass movement through intense andorganised, sustained and prolonged activities of propaganda andagitation, if no attempt is made to expand its social base by takingit out of the cocoon of the enlightened intellectuals, it would not bepossible to bring to the notice of the common people, the incidentsof state repression and state terrorism taking place in one oranother part of the country, and to galvanise mass resistance onthese issues. Some portions of the reports of the democraticrights organisations might be published here and there but themajority of the populace would continue to comprehend the issuein the same manner as presented by the government and themainstream media. Another related point we wish to put forwardis that, while it is certainly the basic and important duty of thedemocratic rights organisation to protest against the repression ofthe political movements, to raise the question of democratic rights



of the political opponents of the government and the politicalprisoners and to protest against false cases, fake encounters,custodial torture and draconian laws, the scope of their activities,however, cannot be narrowed down to these issues only. Alongwith the resistance of all kinds of repression and oppression of thepeople, groups and organisations fighting for the rights of thepeople both from within and outside the purview of this system,the democratic rights movement will have to give the fight forcivil liberties and democratic rights of masses a central place ontheir agenda. Only then it would be able to acquire the form of abroad mass movement. So far, the democratic rights movement inour country has been unable to do so and not surprisingly it hasbeen reduced to a passive kind of movement of the ‘politicallyaware urban intellectuals’ whose task is confined to sendinginvestigation teams, preparing reports, filing petitions, issuingstatements, submitting memoranda and holding ritualistic dharnaand demonstrations.

(5) There is another related aspect which needs to bepondered. It might be a bitter truth but it cannot be rejectedoutrightly. The other day I was talking to a labour activist. He wasof the opinion that, while the issues of arrest and repression andoppression of the intellectual supporters and sympathisers havingbetter social status and the people of the middle class backgroundwho are active in the political movements are raised vociferously,when it comes to the arrest and repression and oppression of theactivists and supporters belonging to lower class background andthe repression and oppression of the common masses, it is notmade an issue with the same vigour. In much the same way whenthere is a talk of democratic rights in the context of displacementand dispossession, the demands of better compensation for theowner farmers are raised emphatically while the voice of sharecroppers, landed labourers and other rural proletariat who aredeprived of employment is pushed to sideline. Undoubtedly themainstream media and merchants of the electoral politics do playthe main role in this but we will have to objectively examinewhether some kind of class bias has emerged in the democraticrights movement owing to its confinement to passive radicalism?

(6) During the last two decades, there has been a continuous

decay and disintegration in even the remaining power andeffectiveness of the democratic rights movement. Its cause canbe traced in the “historical betrayal of the well-to-do Indianmiddle class”. The core base of the democratic rights movementhas historically been confined to the radical democratic section ofthe urban middle class (which includes university professors,advocates, media personnel and few freelance professionals). Alarge section of this urban middle class has become a partner ingetting the fruits of the rapid capitalist development in the lastcouple of decades, its status has gone up and its living standardhas improved, its distance from the populace which constitutes77% of the population which lives on Rs 20 a day has increasedand it has now become part of a minority privileged consumerclass. Its own democratic rights are, to a large extent, protectedwithin the existing socio-political structure and it no longer hasmuch sympathy with the movements against price rise, foremployment and education and health etc. or on the issue ofworking hours etc. These well-off intellectuals are from thesection of the Indian middle class which has turned into a defectorby breaking away from the old historical continuity of fightingalong with the masses for freedom and rights. At the most theirparticipation and interest is confined to the NGO brand reformistactivities and their stand is passive-radical and ritualistic even onthe issue of civil liberties and democratic rights. For many, thedemocratic rights movement is either a business or a stale routinework inspired from moral pulls. Among the intellectuals who livethe well-to-do middle class lifestyle, only a small section is activein the democratic rights movement with a genuine concern andcommitment. Under such a situation, it is obvious that in order totransform the democratic rights movement into a militant massmovement, we have no other option but to repose our faith in thenew generation of radical intellectuals coming from the lowermiddle class which, like the toiling masses, has been pushed tocorner of uncertainty and insecurity in the current era of neo-liberalism and which is condemned to live a life much similar totheirs. The issue of civil liberties and democratic rights is as mucha burning and living issue for them as it is for the rural and urbanmasses. When the process of the organisation of the democratic



rights movement on a broad mass base will pick up, the organicintellectual elements will come forward even from the toilingmasses and will play the leading role.

(7) The capitalist democracy evolved in theory and practicealong with the origin and development of industrial capitalism.The boundaries of the bourgeois democracy shrank along withthe increasing dominance of the finance capitalism (during the20th century – the century of imperialism) and totalitarianautocratic rule surfaced in various forms. Fascism appeared asthe most reactionary representative political trend of the financecapital and today fascist elements and tendencies are present invarious forms throughout the world. Of even greater importanceis the fact that in the current era of globalisation (which is beingtermed as the era of the decisive victory of the finance capital),the dividing line between the capitalist democracy and the fascist-semi fascist autocratic rule is often found to be completelyblurred. Even the former Indian president R. Venkatraman hadonce admitted that an authoritarian regime would be required toimplement the neo-liberal economic policies in unhinderedmanner. The point is abundantly clear. In the era of neo-liberalismwhich prevails since last two decades, even the little remainingspace of democracy has been rapidly shrinking; the governmenthas been increasingly pulling its hand from its socialresponsibilities and the all round grip of the market forces insocial life has deprived the common people of even the basicnecessities of life. The outcomes of the neo-liberalism which arecoming to light in the form of large scale retrenchment ofworkers, increasing unemployment, rendering the labour lawsirrelevant, pushing the amenities such as education and health outof reach of the common people by privatizing them and displacingthem from their land and settlement without providing them anyalternative livelihood etc., are bound to result into socialexplosions sooner or later. The state machinery will have tocompulsorily adopt naked despotic and repressive forms in orderto deal with them. In response to this process, the democraticrights movement will have to be organised on a wider massplatform and all sections of people who are getting dispossessedand who are fed up will have to be organised in the form of a

shared and broad mass movement.(8) The question of the democratic rights is connected not

with the state machinery alone. It is closely related to the socialfabric as well. Let us have a look at this issue in the context ofIndian society. We live in a post-colonial agrarian society wherethe capitalist relations, institutions and values have not come toexistence by undergoing a historical process of renaissance-enlightenment-revolution. In the two hundred years of colonialrule and even during the subsequent period of half a century, thecapitalist development has taken place at a gradual and slowpace. Consequently, democracy and rationality hardly exists inthe socio-cultural values-belief-institutions-relations. The pre-capitalist despotic autocracy exists in the entire fabric of thesociety side by side with the modern capitalist “barbarism”.Various forms of repression, inequality and humiliatingsegregation exists not only in the state-citizen interface but also inthe relationships among the citizens. The lofty claims of theconstitution and law do not prevent the ‘Khap’, ‘Gotra’ and castePanchayats to kill those who dare to do inter caste, inter-‘gotra’and inter-religious marriages. The number of various forms ofoppression of women – ranging from domestic violence to thehumiliation on the street, has been on the upswing along with theso called development. Notwithstanding the legal ban, theincidents of female foeticide and child marriage are quitecommon. Same is the case with the barbaric incidents of Dalitoppression. Religious and caste based superstitions andprejudices have also played an important role in providing a socialbase to communal fascism along with the undemocratic socialforces. The curious bond which has come to be formed betweenthe new evils of the capitalist society and the pre-capitalist oldevils is a big obstacle in the path of forging broad mass unityagainst the despotic repressive state machinery. Without waginga broad and militant socio-cultural campaign against the barbariccasteist and male chauvinistic values and institutions and religioussuperstitions and prejudices, any talk of civil liberties anddemocratic rights bears no meaning. The democratic rightsmovement will also have to target the socio-cultural despotismapart from state despotism. Without a process of breaking the



cultural-social-ideological hegemony, the masses cannot beconvinced about the rationale of the resistance against staterepression. From this perspective, it can be stated that thedemocratic rights movement should not be reduced to only adefensive kind of rights protection movement; rather it should beorganised as a broad militant social movement. Along withwaging a sustained campaign against the undemocratic characterof the constitution, legal system and the entire state machinery,the democratic rights organisations will have to boldly raise theirvoice against the undemocratic character of the socio-culturalstructure. Unless the people’s consciousness is aroused againstthe numerous undemocratic social values and institutions, theycannot be prepared even for the struggle against the state power.

(9) If the rulers admit that India is a democratic republic, it istheir utmost duty to provide the people the basic necessities oflife. It is a burning question as to why is it that a country wheremillionaires and billionaires are increasing at the fastest rate in theworld, where about 100 million urban upper middle classpopulation is living at the same level as that of the upper middleclass of Europe and America, is placed at the lowest pedestalinsofar as the human development index is concerned; why is itthat half of its population is suffering from malnutrition; 18 crorepopulation is homeless and three fourth of the population isdeprived of even the basic health care facility? Even if we do notgo in detailed analysis, mere look at some common facts issufficient to prove that the neo-liberal policies on which all theelectoral parties have consensus are barbaric, anti-peoplepolicies. When price rise, unemployment, displacement,dispossession, starvation, farmers’ suicide etc. put pressure onthe boundaries of the system, some promises for ritualisticreforms are made, the process of enactment of laws begins; butthese few so called welfare works are totally inadequate, thereare many loopholes in these laws ( government’s “poverty line”should better be called as “starvation line”) and even these limitedreforms cannot be fully implemented without bringing aboutfundamental change in the bureaucratic machinery. Variouseconomists and political analysts have written a lot on this topic. Itis not possible, in this essay, to delve into the intricacies. In short it

can be stated that the neo-liberal policies are depriving peopleeven the basic necessities of life even while erecting minarets ofluxury and building islands of prosperity amid the ocean ofextreme misery of masses and are shrinking even the remainingdemocratic space in the political and social life. Every citizen ofthe country should get nutritious food, comfortable residence,health care, equal education and right to livelihood as afundamental constitutional right. Clearly a nationwide movementon these issues cannot be organised at the drop of a hat. To makepeople realise about their basic democratic rights, itself, is aprolonged task of propaganda and education. It is indeed aprolonged task to convince people in the light of logic and factsthat in view of the level of development of the productive forcesand the produced social resources, it is easily possible for theIndian government to be able to do this. It is indeed a prolongedtask to make people realise that a united population can get manyimportant democratic rights by putting organised pressure on thegovernment. But if a task requires prolonged efforts, it does notmean that it is impossible. Even a long journey has to be started bytaking a small step. In today’s time, only the democratic rightsmovement can be that umbrella under which different classes ofpeople can fight for their basic democratic rights. Undoubtedly itwould not be possible only through general propaganda and theactivities of educating people. The democratic rights activists willhave to organise people at the grass root level on the issues of themismanagement of public health facilities, corruption in the publicdistribution system, wages of the MNREGA labourers,uprootment of people, forcible displacement and dispossession,pitiable condition of the government schools and police atrocitiesetc., and then the local struggles will have to be given a widerperspective through a sustained propaganda. It is our belief thatthe democratic rights movement will have to weave the fabric ofa new politics through people’s power at the grassroot level on thebasic issues of day to day life. We will have to adopt severalforms of mass movements such as mass ‘satyagrah’, encirclingand occupying premises, civil disobedience movement, notaxation, boycott of the electoral leaders while making the basicdemocratic rights of nutritious food, housing, health, education etc



into issues and taking up the issues of police repression,displacements, forcible dispossession etc. In this process newerpublic platform and institution can come into existence like LokPanchyat, public councils, public monitoring committees etc.which could give expression to the collective initiative anddecision making power of the people and also the leadership ofthe movement can thus be brought into the scrutiny of the people.In this way the democratic rights movement can be transformedinto a nationwide movement of developing the democraticinstitutions from below. The real democratic institutions do notemerge from constitutions and law books; rather they are basedon the initiative of the broad masses and originate and evolve inthe process of people’s movements.

(10) While emphasizing on the need for making thedemocratic rights movement effective against the communalfascism and particularly religious fundamentalism of Hindutvavariety also, we would stress upon the fact that without people’smobilisation and mass initiative, such forces cannot be effectivelydealt with. The legal battle against such forces on the issues ofAyodhya episode and the Gujarat genocide is undoubtedly animportant front but there are clear limitations of this legal front.The effective battle against the Hindutvaites cannot be fought justby organizing some ritualistic events such as candle lightprocession, some cultural programs of ‘Nirgun’ and ‘sufi’ singersetc. It is not possible here to go into the detailed analysis, butseveral analysts have derived these conclusions : (1) The religiousfundamentalist stream has been existing in the Indian politicallandscape for a long time and will continue to exist even aftergetting defeated in elections, (2) The ruling classes would wish tokeep it alive in a controlled manner in order to digress the massmovements and for breaking the mass unity just like a chainedwild dog, (3) In the post-colonial, agrarian Indian society havingundemocratic urban middle class, the expansion of the social baseof the religious fundamentalism was already conducive; now theeconomic fundamentalism which is being imposed in the name ofneo-liberalism is strengthening the religious fundamentalism in aspontaneous manner. Such forces are benefitting from theshrinking democratic space. The political forces which organise

the movements of poor and workers could not give them a widerpolitical structural perspective and hence they failed to mobilisethem even against communalism. It is not within the scope of thispaper to present their critique. The failure of the socio-culturalmovement and the unfinished project of the bourgeois democracyin India has also been one of the reasons which helps theHindutva forces to expand their social base. Confining ourselveswithin the framework of the democratic rights movement, wewish to assert that an intense action of bold propaganda againstthe communal fascism needs to be carried out among the masses.Our first hand experience reveals that while fighting against therepressive machinery of administration and owners, when theworkers see the real character and face of the Hindutvaiteleaders, their voice against them automatically gathers pitch andthen it becomes easier to expose the politics of religiousfundamentalism. Secondly, religious fundamentalism can beeffectively tackled if sustained militant social campaigns areorganised against communalism and social prejudices along withorganizing the toiling masses on the issues of basic democraticrights. A handful of secular intellectuals cannot effectively dealwith the Hindutva ideology merely through intellectual, culturaland legal actions. A substantial social base of the communalelements has been among the petty-owners of urban and ruralareas, people of lower middle class having low level of conscious-ness, labour elites, frustrated middle class youth and the lumpenproletariat which can be broken only in the process of integratingthem with the wider masses.

(11) Another big question is that of brutal military repressionand oppression by central government against the peripheralnationalities. Due to jingoistic propaganda by the government andthe mainstream media, it has been deeply entrenched into thepsyche of a large section of the educated population that all theforces which are active in Jammu and Kashmir and the NorthEastern states are separatist in nature. But there are nodiscussions on the history of North-East during colonial era. Whenand how was the Macmohan Line drawn, how old is the demandof independence of Nagas, How they were betrayed by thegovernment of independent India, how Manipur was treacherously



merged into India, when did the territory of Arunachal Pradeshbecame part of India, how Sikkim was merged into India withoutany referendum, what is the history of the revolts of Mizo andother ethnic nationalities and their internal contradictions; all theseare neither found in the text books of history and political sciencenor in print and electronic media. The Armed Forces (SpecialPowers) Act which is perhaps the most draconian laws in India isoperational in the North-Eastern states right since 1958. So longas this law is in force, there is no meaning of civil rights in theNorth-East and essentially a military rule like situation prevails overthere. During the last decade, owing to the civil rights movementsand the fast by Irom Sharmila, some reports of the barbaricatrocities of the army has managed to reach common people inIndia; otherwise earlier they had no information about the realsituation. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is in operationin Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. The reports of army’satrocities on the civilians are no more a secret. Very few peopleare aware that there was a contract according to which the finaldecision on the merger of Jammu & Kashmir with India was to betaken on the basis of a plebiscite. The merger which took place in1947 was provisional. There was an agreement to give autonomyto Kashmir on all the affairs except foreign affairs, defence andmoney circulation and it was given special status as per article 370of the constitution. The acts of central government, beginning withbreaking the promise of holding plebiscite and then dismissing theelected government of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 to the policies tillthe 1980s, helped to increase the alienation of the people ofKashmir. It resulted into a massive people’s uprising followed byan armed struggle. After 1990, ever since the Armed Forces(Special Powers) Act has been in operation, a situation akin tomilitary rule prevails over there. More than 60,000 people havebeen killed at the hands of armed forces and 7000 are missing.Earlier, the organisations demanding self determination andindependence were having a secular reputation, but the alienationcreated due to the military repression and reaction has providedopportunity to the religious fundamentalists and pro-Pakistanseparatist groups to deepen their roots in the last two decades. Itis not possible to go into the details of the situation in Jammu &

Kashmir and North-East, nor is it our purpose here. Here we wishto raise two issues. The first one is the immediate demand to notonly withdraw the barbaric despotic law like Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act from Jammu & Kashmir and North Easternstates but to repeal all such draconian laws which give power tothe army and para-military forces to crush the civil liberties anddemocratic rights of ordinary citizens. The democratic rightsmovement needs to give special emphasis to this issue; the peopleneed to be informed about the ground realities of North-East andJammu-Kashmir. The second issue is of long term importance anda bit complex and challenging as well. A democratic rightsmovement cannot hesitate to boldly face the jingoistic propagandacarried out by the rulers and particularly the right wingfundamentalists and advocate the right of self determination of thevarious nationalities emphatically. If a state power keeps the peopleof a particular region under its command using force, a genuinedemocratic rights movement will certainly oppose this. It is ourresponsibility to inform people about the history and current realityof North-East and Jammu-Kashmir. If we raise the issue ofdemocratic rights of the people of these regions, then in the shortrun we may have to face the wrath of the jingoistic prejudices, butif we raise the issues of the basic rights of the broad masses andmake them issues of mass movements in a sustained manner, it ispossible to convince people to listen and to free themselves of alljingoistic prejudices and to take the side of truth.

(12) It would certainly be an arduous and prolonged processto expand the scope of the program of the democratic rightsmovement and to include all the rights of masses and to develop itas a broad, militant mass movement. Along with this process, wewill have to accomplish some other immediate tasks. As westated in the beginning, there are dozens of small and bigdemocratic rights organisations. They have been raising theirvoices against the state repression and oppression, draconianlaws and the activities of religious fundamentalists in a sustainedmanner. These scattered voices, if raised together, at least on theagreed issues of a common minimum agreement, are bound tohave profound impact. In the current era of the neo-liberalism, therepressive character of the state is increasingly getting more and



more brutal. Under these circumstances, as an immediate task, itis extremely important that all the democratic rights organisationsraise their voice in unison on the issues of repression of massmovements, sedition law, AFSPA, Chhattisgarh Special PublicSecurity Act and other draconian laws, large scale displacementand dispossession etc. There may be some principled differencesbetween the democratic rights organisations, the scope of theiractivities might vary and there may be some local democraticrights forums for the local issues, but there must be a countrywideunited front on the basis of a common minimum program. It is notonly extremely important but possible as well.

Concluding remarks:

Several points are sought to be covered in this paper and henceperhaps some undue elaboration has also crept in. I apologise forthis.

To sum up, I have tried to emphasise on three central issues:Firstly, The democratic rights movement will have to be

organised as a mass movement with a broad social base insteadof a movement of intellectuals with democratic consciousness.The basic democratic rights of the masses will have to be broughton the agenda of this struggle.

Secondly, Apart from resisting state repression, carrying outthe mass awareness campaigns against the social institutions-values-beliefs which impinge upon the democratic rights of thepeople should also be one of the tasks of democratic rightsmovement. So, the character of the democratic rights movementmust be a broad and militant social movement.

Thirdly, It is an urgent task today to begin the process ofuniting the scattered forces of the democratic rights movement atthe national level in order to build an effective resistance to theincreasingly repressive attitude of state. While the process of thefirst two tasks would be prolonged one, the task of forging aunited front of all the democratic rights organisation in the countrybased on a common minimum program should be taken upwithout any delay.

(Translated from Hindi: Anand Singh)

IN SEARCH OF A REALISTIC APPROACHTOWARDS THE HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

IN INDIA

Dipankar Chakrabarti

I.In this age of globalisation, the very framework in which we liveis undergoing great upheavals. While the nation-state remains thefundamental constituent element of the international community,its role is changing in the face of the expansion of the globalmarket. Market, clearly dominated and controlled by theimperialists world-over, is assuming aggressive control over moreand more aspects of our lives. Frameworks of human rights - castlargely in terms of the individual’s relationship to the state - arefacing an unprecedented challenge.

According to the direct or indirect proponents of globalisation,economic development, in other words, market, should precedeover every thing else in this present world. But what is this‘economic development’? Whose development? Whoseeconomy? Does it ensure people’s basic welfare and rights? Thegrim reality is that the global economy is not at present working infavour of the poor countries or of the poor people; rather the richcountries and persons are becoming richer and the poor poorer.There is a lot of debate about the extent to which economicgrowth leads to the realisation of economic rights (such as an

A Realistic Approach Towards the Human Rights Movement 29

The author was among the founding members of Association forProtection of Democratic Rights (APDR) and one of the mostrespected and active democratic rights activists. He was also thefounder-editor of the Bengali Left journal ‘Aneek’. He left us on27 January 2013.


adequate standard of living), but what is undeniable is that in thepursuit of economic growth, people who are defending their land,livelihood and resources have been facing violent repression bythe state. Economic growth often comes at the expense of otherrights, with governments justifying, tacitly supporting, or evenengineering human rights violations in the name of developmentand economic competitiveness

In this context it should again and again be emphasised thatquality and security of life cannot be measured solely in terms ofthe market or economic development, economic growth or percapita income. Genuine sustainable development is a moreholistic process, embracing the place of individuals in civil society,their personal security and their capacity to determine and realisetheir potential. As United Nations Development Programmepolicies state: “The concept of human development is muchbroader than the conventional theories of economicdevelopment... It analyses all issues in society - whethereconomic growth, trade, employment, political freedom orcultural values - from the perspective of the people. It thusfocuses on enlarging human choices....” Or as made clear inthe Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly in 1986: “the human person is the centralsubject of development.”

In this way, the process of development brings together thefull range of human rights — civil, cultural, economic, political andsocial — into one indivisible and interdependent whole. Freedomfrom fear and freedom from want are the two sides of the samecoin. That is why in the preamble to the International Covenantof Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, one of thecornerstones of international human rights law, it has been clearlyand unambiguously accepted that “the ideal of free humanbeings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only beachieved if conditions are created whereby everyone mayenjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as hiscivil and political rights.” Even though the historical evolutionof international human rights law saw the artificial and misleadingseparation of civil and political rights on the one hand, andeconomic, social and cultural rights on the other, into separate

covenants with separate characters, in 1993, at the WorldConference of the governments of the different countries onHuman Rights in Vienna, clearly declared that : “All humanrights are universal and indivisible, interdependent andinterrelated. The international community must treat humanrights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the samefooting and with the same emphasis.”

At the very outset it should be remembered that the conceptof Human Rights is not an abstract idea, independent of class-division, but basically dependant on the specific stage of thesocial development of any country. There cannot be anyunchangeable and ‘pure’ concept of Human Rights, independentof a specific society, universally applicable to all countries of allages. The experience of the development of human society hasshown that the social and economic progress achieved throughthe continuous development of productive forces helps todevelop the concept of human rights, which again plays a role indeveloping human cosciousness. A primary consciousnessregarding human rights can be traced even in the early stages ofhuman society, but in the absence of appropriate social base, itcould not develop, not to speak of its realisation. Therevolutionisation of social productive forces in Europe undercapitalism through industrial revolution created that social basisthrough the challenge thrown at the old feudal monarchial andreligious authority, and gradually thereby shaping the concept that‘human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’.Democratic ideas began to take shape against the national andinternational autocracy, which again helped the concretedevelopment of the concept of human rights. Since thengradually, through ups and downs and in the context of differentsocial realities and times, it has been almost universallyestablished that the concept of human rights is not static orunchangeable and independent of social reality, but ratherdynamic and always developing. And in this context it must beemphasised that though the aspiration for equality and dignity ofall human beings reflecting the essence of human rights, wereinherent in the culture and civilisation of the different stages ofhuman society, they have, in the final analysis, developed and



brought to reality through class-differentiation and class-struggle.We, in West Bengal, generally try to explain this class-nature

of human rights in a class-divided society with the help of twostories. One is a story involving Bertrand Russel, the reknownedBritish pacifist philosopher, taken from his ‘Portraits fromMemory’. Once, during the first world war, Russel, the pacifist,was trying to build up public opinion against Britain’s participationin the war by publicly speaking in a park in London. Somechauvinistic war-hysteric persons started to physically assaulthim. One of his students present in the meeting, ran to the nearestpolice station so as to request them to save him. The office-in-charge was then picking his teeth in a leisurely manner, putting hisfeet on the table. He asked: `Who is this chaff Russel?’’ Whentold that he was a world-famous philosopher of CambridgeUniversity, he remarked : ‘’So what! One who opposes warshould certainly be assaulted!’’ The youngman exclaimed in anexasperated voice : ‘‘Do you know that he comes of a Lordfamily?’’ The police officer jumped up, brought his feet to theground, gave a salute and angrily said, ‘‘ Why didn’t you say itearlier?’’, and then ran to the park to save ‘the Lord’, Prof.Russel.

And the second story is actually a famous realistic Bengalistory : ‘Democracy and Gopal Kahar’. A rich and influentiallandowner, belonging to the ruling party, lodged a false complainto the police against a landless poor peasant in order to evict himfrom his land. The obliging police duly brought him to the policestation and tortured him mercilessly, accusing him to be adangerous element jeopardising democracy. The innocent andpuzzled farmer again and again declared in the name God that hedid not even know the identity of that Babu, democracy. But thetorture continued and ultimately he lost one leg for no fault of his.The fate of the two characters - Russel and Gopal Kahar – wasactually pre-determined on the basis of their class-identities. Andactually this is the real picture of democratic rights in a class-divided bourgeoise society: the whole super-structure of thesystem is based on the property-relations, where there remainsthe fundamental and inviolable discrimination between the havesand the have-nots. Without this realisation we cannot actually

understand the basic class-nature of human rights in a class-society.

The historical trajectory of democratic transformation ofEuropean autocracies has hinged upon the successful assertion ofthree important components of human freedom : (i) freedom ofexpression; (ii) freedom from arbitrary imprisonment; (iii)freedom from custodial violence. The legitimisation of thesefreedoms as the inalienable civil and political rights of the citizensagainst the state constitute historical landmarks in the evolution ofliberal democracies, initially in Europe, and subsequently in otherparts of the advanced countries. In this process of evolution of theconcept of human rights special mention should be made of therole played by the Magna Carta (1215), Petition of Rights(1627), and the Bill of Rights (1688) in England; theDeclaration of the Rights of Man and Citisens (1791) ofFrance adopted after the French Revolution; and especially of theBill of Rights (1787) of the USA. These civil and political rightsconstitute the sources of the first generation of the modernconcept of human rights. The Russian revolution under theBolshevik slogan of “bread, land, and all power to the Soviets”inspired the Soviet Bill of Rights with its conscious primacy ofeconomic and social rights over civil and political rights, ultimatelyleading to the most comprehensive and fundamental acceptanceof the human rights as contained in the constitution of SovietUnion adopted in 1937. These, along with the post-war era’sconcern for the right of self-determination of the colonial world,and against racial and/or gender discrimination, have paved thepath of the unanimous adoption of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights (UDHR in short) by the United Nations in itsGeneral Assembly session on December 10, 1948, signed by ourcountry India amongst others.

II.We shall now try to sketch the evolution of Civil RightsMovement in India in the background of this brief introduction.

Quite obviously in India the civil rights movement beganduring the colonial period in close association with the nationalliberation movement. Though the movement did not acquire any



organisational form before 1936, its genesis can be traced fromeven the early nineteenth century, when the embryo of the civillibertian consciousness was manifested through the demand forthe freedom of expression and also for the freedom of press,equality before law and protection against racial discriminationetc. And the ground for an organised effort for developing thecivil liberties movement was gradually being prepared bydifferent significant events like the adoption of the Declaration ofRights in a special session of the Congress(1918), thespontaneous agitation against the Rowlatt Act (1919), the historicmeeting at Calcutta addressed by Rabindranath Tagore amongstothers to protest against police firing in Hijli Jail on the politicalprisoners (1931) leading to the efforts for the formation of aCitisens’ Committee for championing the cause of the release ofthe political prisoners and safeguarding individual freedom etc.The 30’s of the 20th century was a significant period in the historyof India’s freedom movement. Mass movements against theimperialist rule were gradually spreading and assuming organisedform. The All India Trade Union Congress, the Students’Federation, All India Kisan Sabha, Progressive Writers’Association etc were founded at this time. All India Trade UnionCongress was gathering strength on the basis of the much-cherished unity of the different factions. All these actuallyprepared the foundation and the background for an organisationin India for developing the civil rights movement.

Ultimately on 24 August,1936 All India Civil LibertiesUnion (ICLU in short) was founded in Bombay with JawharlalNehru as the main initiator. Rabindranath Tagore was elected asthe president, Sarojini Naidu as the working president, andK.B.Menon as the general secretary and a 21-member executivecommittee which included Jawharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad,Sarat Chandra Bose, Rajendra Prasad, BallavBhai Patel,Jayprakash Narayan etc as members. The inherent spirit of theICLU was precisely reflected in the closing sentence of Nehru’saddress at the inaugural session : “The idea of civil liberties is tohave the right to oppose the government.” That in a capitaliststate the civil liberties movement must, in essence, be an anti-state movement in spirit was realised even then, and it obviously

had, and still now has, a serious and far-reaching impact on thecivil rights movement in our country.

ICLU was quite active in the political arena of our country tillthe mass-explosion of the Quit India movement in 1942. It builtup the tradition of citizens’ investigations in cases of politicalimprisonment and harassment, police brutalities, government bansand autocratic restrictions etc and publishing reports on them, andalso of lodging protests and placing demands before thegovernment. That the activities of the movement becameconsiderably effective was proved by the fact that the Congressministries formed in many provinces after the 1937 elections weredirected by the Congress Working Committee to show respect tocivil liberties of the people. But one of the inherent weaknessesof the movement on a national scale was that the cases ofrevolutionary freedom-fighters following the path of armedstruggle were not given proper importance. And it should be notedthat even today, almost 75 years after the organised beginning ofthe civil liberties movement in our country, not only the Congress,but rather all the ruling parties, be they of ‘left’ or right variety, arevirtually denying the civil rights of those political activists, whofollow the path of armed struggle to fulfill their dream of leadingthe Indian people to liberation ‘enjoying freedom from want andhunger’ as postulated in the UDHR. Still the played acommendable role in developing civil libertine cosciousnessamong a significant section of the people in a colonial set-up.

III.There must be some basic distinction in the civil rights movementin any country between its colonial and post-colonial phases. Butat the very outset it must not be forgotten that in spite of a post-2nd world war revolutionary upsurge all over India against theimperialist domination, India’s freedom was achieved basicallythrough a compromise with the imperialists, thereby handing overthe power into the hands of the bougeoise in alliance with thefeudal elements. Consequently human and civil rights of thecommon labouring people were not at all guaranteed, nor werethese expected to be ensured. The constitution of India, framedafter the adoption of the UDHR, of which India was a signatory,



no doubt, has ensured the inclusion of some fundamental rightslike right to life, expression, press, association, mobility etc. Buteven in this ‘rights-giving’ constitution, provisions have beenincluded to take away all the fundamental rights on one or otherexcuses.

Although during the independent struggle Pandit Nehru,supposed to be the champion of and the main spirit behind thedemocratic and civil rights movement in the pre-independenceperiod, and also the first prime-minister of independent India, hadrepeatedly assured that there will be no ‘black law’ inindependent India infringing upon people’s fundamental freedomfrom arbitrary imprisonment, rarely was there any prolongedperiod in our country in the post-independent period when a‘black law’ in some form or other, e.g PD Act, DIR, PVA,MISA,COFEPOSA, ESMA, TADA, POTA, UAPA etc, (like thedifferent names of the mythical character SreeKrishna of thehindus!) was not in operation. Recurrent use of the draconianand colonial ‘Disturbed Areas Act’ and the Armed Forces SpecialPowers Act, etc in some areas of the country has turned thepromise of non-prevalence of black laws into a sheer mockery.Innumerable instances can be cited in this respect.

And again rights to work and shelter have not been includedin the constitution in spite of the demand repeatedly raised by thepeople as well as by the civil rights oganisations. Consequentlythe unbridled persecution as well as exploitation of the commonlabouring people continued, and has since been continuing.Naturally the people fought and have been fighting during thewhole of the post-independent period for service and other meansof livelihood, land for cultivation and housing, for better wagesand living conditions, exercising their constitutional democraticrights to fight for the demands. But the state takes recourse topersecution and torture, imprisonment and police brutalities likelathi-charge and firing, unashamedly suppressing all the basicdemocratic and legal norms and grossly violating all thefundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. This process isgoing on and on, whatever may be the colour of the governmenteither at the centre or in the states –green, saffron or red.

The civil and democratic movements began to develop in

post-colonial India just side by side with the process of transfer ofpolitical power from the British imperialists to the Indian rulingclasses, in the main dependant upon them. The first organisationthat came up was in 1947, the Madras Civil Liberties Union(bearing the same name as the erstwhile Madras branch ofICLU). In the meantime a Bombay Civil Liberties Conferencewas held on January 1 & 2 January,1949. The same year MCLUorganised an All India Civil Liberties Conference in Madras onJuly 16 & 17. Significantly even then, just after India’sindependence, apprehension was expressed in the conferencethat the limited-liberties enjoyed under the British rule would be‘the first casualty’ even in independent India. In 1948 theCommunist party of India was banned and an all-out severerepression on the members and sympathisers of the party wasunfolded. A Civil Liberties Committee was formed in WestBengal in the same year. Eminent scientists, lawyers andacademic intellectuals like Dr.Meghnad Saha, Sarat ChandraBose, N.C.Chatterjee, Khitish Chattopadhyay etc joined thismovement against the Government’s onslaught on the civil anddemocratic rights of the political workers and persons.

In this context a particular characteristics of the initial phaseof the Indian civil liberties movement in the post-independentperiod should be emphasised. At that time the members and thesupporters of the Communist Party of India (undivided) mainlyorganised and took the main role in the people’s civil rightsmovements at different junctures of time. This really created acouple of problems. First, the movement used to become activeonly when the communists were under state-repression andpersecution. But when this state-repression remained in low web,the movement practically evaporated. This lack of continuity was,no doubt, detrimental to the building up of a strong and organisedmovement. Secondly, and most importantly, since thecommunists’ main commitment and devotion were to their party-programmes, it was virtually impossible to frame policies anddevelop and organise the civil liberties movement independentlyon a broader basis beyond the boundary set forth by the party, sothat the interests of the broad section of the masses in general beserved.



A resurgence of the civil liberties movement began only inthe 70’s of the last century on a new and more or less independentplane. With the formation of APDR (Association for Protectionof Democratic Rights) in West Bengal in 1972 began the presentand undoubtedly the new and higher phase of the movement. Thusbegan a new chapter in the process of evolution and developmentof human rights movement in India, when the movement acquiredmore or less an independent theoretical and organisationalfoundation leading to continuous existence and activities. In Andhratoo, Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberty Committee (APCLC) wasformed in 1974. Gradually this movement, no doubt, began to bea permanent feature of the Indian Society, spreading to Delhi,Maharastra, Assam, Punjab, Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, Tamilnaduetc. APDR was formed in West Bengal at a time when the mostheinious attack came there on democratic rights; when the stateterrorism appeared in the most barbarous form through mass-killings, jail-killings, fake encounters and atrocious and continuousattacks on the mass-movements of the labouring people.Naturally the main demands at that time were end of all thoseinhuman, illegal and undemocratic acts of the state, release of allpolitical prisoners and the repeal of the black acts like MISA etc.International support came from the international civil rightsorganisations like Amnesty International etc. The movement gottremendous support from the people. But in June,1975 the mostdraconian internal emergency was imposed in India, taking awayby a stroke of pen, that too in an illegal and questionable method,all the basic civil rights of a citizen enshrined in the Constitution ofIndia. Taking the opportunity, the Government of West Bengalbanned APDR and arrested some leading activists including thepresent writer, most of whom had to languish in jail without anymeaningful trial for the whole emergency-period, i.e.about 21months. During this infamous emergency period an all India CivilRights Organisation (People’s Union for Civil liberties &Democratic Rights , or PUCL&DR in short) gradually took shapein 1976,with Jayprakash Narain as its moral spirit. In the 1977Parliament elections the repressive government was defeated, andPUCL&DR played a significant role in mobilizing the peopleagainst the ruling clique. After the withdrawl of emergency there

developed a high tide of mass-movement demanding the releaseof all political prisoners, which had to be included in the election-manifesto of the Left-front in West Bengal. Consequently thenewly elected Left-front Government had to release the politicalprisoners, and the ban-order on APDR had to be withdrawn.Subsequently a number of civil rights organisations have beenformed one after another in India regionally or on a national basisin almost all the states. A few years back an All India Co-ordinationCommittee, comprising of almost all the regional Civil Rightsorganisations has been formed. At present this movement has, nodoubt, emerged as a permanent feature of the Indian Society.

Though a democratic atmosphere prevailed after thewithdrawl of the emergency and the installation of the newGovernment in New Delhi, it was apprehended by the civil rightsworkers that state-terrorism, police-atrocities as well as attackson mass-movements and human rights would continue in someform or other. Experience of the next four decades confirmedthese apprehensions. All the anti-people acts of the statecontinued although in a smaller scale. And APDR played its roleas before. But it was at the same time felt that public opinion aswell as movemens, as far as possible, should be built up not onlyfor the political and civil rights, but also for the general economicand social rights of the people. With this contention the UDHRwas accepted as the basic aims and objectives of APDR.Consequently the human and civil rights of even the non-politicalpeople began to be included under the purview of APDR. Atpresent APDR has been fighting, as far as possible, not onlyagainst state-terrorism, violation of political and human rights andpolice-atrocities, but also against indiscriminate non-stateterrorism, and in favour of the people’s right for livelihood,education, medical facilities, and against globalisation,environmental pollution, communalism and fundamentalism etc.As a result APDR has been able to penetrate among differentsections of the people. About a decade earlier a Human RightsCommission has been formed by the Government of WestBengal. Since its inception APDR has been aware of itslimitations and constraints, but still the Commission is beingutilised as far possible.



It will not perhaps be irrelevant to mention here that, so faras the attitude of the state towards the human rights movement,especially in West Bengal, is concerned, time and again, it hasgone through significant shifts and changes, reflected throughthe attitudes of the state-personnel, especially the police andthose in administration. Initially they looked at the civil rightsworkers with contempt, always eager to neglect, giving virtuallyno importance. Then it was felt that they have some popularsupport, and consequently they had to be accepted with somegrudge; and in private state-personnel began to fear them a bit.But even when they have to aceept the human rights workers, atthe same time they try to denigrate them as far as possible.Initially they tried to generally allege that APDR protects thecriminals and anti-socials in the name of protection of humanrights. And the just-overthrown ‘leftist/Marxist’ government ofWest Bengal has even viewed APDR since the 90’s of the lastcentury virtually as a terrorist organisation, closely linked with theMaoists. This trend has been observed in almost all the states ofIndia, be they led by the centrists like Congress, Hindufundamentalists like BJP, regional parties like DMK, AIDMK,BSP, or self-declared Marxists like CPI(M). But time and againthe ill motives and activities of the Governments, both at theCentre and in the states in violation of human rights, and even thelaws of our country, have been exposed publicly. And on thisspecific issue of what should be the viewpoint of the civil rightsorganisations to any government or a political party, a cleardifference of opinion emerged. When the Janata Party came topower after the fall of the Congress Government at the centre,the national leaders of PUCL&DR refused criticise or condemnthe Government even after the killing of the workers in Kanpurand the mine-workers in Dalli-Rajhara. Consequently the DelhiUnit of the organisation came out of the organisation and built upa separate one : People’s Union for Democratic Rights(PUDR).In fact, in the context of more and more criminalisation andcorruption of the political parties and brutalisation of state-terrorevn on democratic rights, the civil liberties organisations likeAPDR, PUDR etc have emerged as significant social forces inmany states, which both the Central and state Governments have

to reckon with again and again. That no doubt signals, to someextent, the maturity of the civil rights movement.

IV.But that does not mean that a correct and clear orientation, in theproper sense of the term, has already been achieved. As we’vealready noted, though many of the existing civil rightsorganisations have begun to take note of the evil consequence ofglobalisation, running amock in our country since the beginning ofthe 90’s of the last century, it must, no doubt, be admitted that notyet a significant and comprehensive programme has beenformulated which can fully and properly address the onslaught ofglobalisation and its consequences. In order to achieve that goal,we must try first to redefine the very concept of human right itselfin the context of the grim reality, particularly, the globalisation. Forthe very definition of the concept undoubtedly depends on theclass-character and class-interests of the human rights theorists.Just as there is the possibility of existence of darkness under alamp, similarly there remains the danger of confusion, consciouslyor unconsciously, behind the formulation of this definition. So longwe, the human rights theorists as well as the activists of the thirdworld countries like India, in the main, have been following theconcept in a narrower sense as set forth by the Western theoristsof the advanced capitalist countries.

In the conventional analysis, the Western theorists equatehuman rights, in a general sense, only with the civil and politicalrights, thereby basically almost negating economic, social andcultural rights of the people of the third world, and also the right todevelop independently them ourselves and their nations. This willnaturally be conducive to the maintenance of the economicdomination of the imperialists on the third world. The UDHR of1948 itself shows overwhelming concern for political and civilrights and gives meagre attention to economic, social and culturalrights. Though the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the United Nations in1966, largely through the insistence of the third world countries,seeks to rectify the imbalance, human rights continue to beequated with only political and civil rights. On the other hand,



they want to interpret human rights only in an individualistic sense,showing no concern for the sense of collectivity, or of thecollective interests of the people, or the country itself. Its aim is toimpose their own reality-induced mentality on the third-worldpeople facing a completely different reality and background. Theaspiration for the freedom and development of the individual selfof the post-renaissance advanced capitalist countries, basicallyliberated from the domination of feudalism and the church of themiddle ages, has almost no similarity with the fundamentalaspiration of the people of the third world, still gasping under thebondage of imperialism(direct or indirect), feudalism andreligious fundamentalism. The spirit of the InternationalCovenants of 1966 and the Declaration of Development ofthird-world countries of 1986, adopted by the United Nations inspite of the stiff resistance by the advanced countries, has rightlyled to the Tehran Declaration of 1986 : “The Civil and PoliticalRights cannot be fully realised without fully realising theeconomic, social and cultural rights.”

In order to secure the most basic of all human rights – theright to life, along with the fulfillment of the ideal enshrined in thePreamble to the UDHR (of ‘enjoying freedom from fear andwant’), conditions must be created to achieve and secure humanrights to food, to clothing, to shelter, to education, to health, toemployment etc., which are fundamental to the very survival ofthe vast majority of the human race in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica. Life and liberty, food and freedom, must go hand inhand if we want to develop an integrated and real vision ofhuman rights for these people. That too not revolving around theindividual, but around a notion of the rights of the collectivity, thecommunity, the nation. It is obvious that this vision is simplycontrary, almost inimical, to the goal of achieving mainly the civiland political rights of only the individuals, following the dictate ofthe Western proponents of human rights. This follows from thecolonial experience of the third-world countries. Subjected toalien and exploitative colonial domination for centuries, fightingfor freedom for whole generations of these people came to meanfighting for the freedom of not merely the individual, but for theirwhole people. This explains why freedom as well as the basic

economic, social and cultural rights to these people become acomposite collective ideal, interwined with the quest of the wholecommunities for human dignity and social justice, ‘free ofhunger and want’. And this should be primary understanding forredefining and developing a basic concept of human rightsrelevant to the peoples of the third world, far away from theconcept as understood and propagated so long by the Westerntheorists of human rights, and almost imitated by us, the humanrights activists of countries like India, shamelessly, thoughperhaps unconsciously.

V.Once we accept that for the people of the third world, the right tolive is the most important and decisive human right to realise andsecure, it also becomes evident that even in this 21st century, themost disastrous obstacle to the realisation of that right is thecolonialism or domination of the imperialists of different hues andcolours, and their aggression and exploitation, control anddomination over the third world. This again basically encouragesand perpetuates racial discrimination, fundamentalism andcommunalism as well as almost all the backward norms andpractices of the pre-capitalist society, whichever become helpfulto the continuation of that domination. It grotesquely tramples uponnational independence and sovereignty of the third-world countries,controls and captures their natural resources and wealth, rawmaterials and produced goods, thereby depriving them of theirlegitimate incomes. During the post-2nd world war period, most ofthe 150 major localised wars took place in the third world, with thedirect or indirect backing of imperialist countries, and obviouslythe people of these countries became the cannon-fodders of thosewars. In the last 100 years, at least 6 million (i.e.60 lakhs) peoplehave been killed by imperialists, directly or indirectly.

Economically too, due to the exploitation and manipulation ofimperialism and their stooges, the living conditions in thesecountries for most of the people are becoming more and moreprecarious. This process has actually been evident for the lastfew centuries with the emergence of capitalism, and especially itshighest phase, imperialism. It has been tremendously accentuated



in the last few decades with the emergence of the economics ofGlobalisation, based on neo-liberal economic doctrine. Perhaps itwould be better to take the help of Lewis Carroll’s famousallegory ‘Through the Looking Glass’ to understand thephenomenon of Globalisation.

In that allegory, Alice and the Queen were running hand inhand in the Red Queen’s Garden, and the Queen was running sofast that it was very difficult for Alice to keep pace with her. Butstill the Queen kept crying ‘Faster! Faster!’ The most curious partof the thing to Alice was that the trees and the other things roundthem never changed their places at all; however fast they went,they never seemed to pass anything . An astonished Aliceexclaimed : ‘’ Well, in our country, you’d generally get tosomewhere else - if you ran for a long time as we’ve beendoing.’’ But the Queen retorted : ‘’A slow sort of country! Now,here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in thesame place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run atleast twice as fast as that! ‘’ . . .

Think of the Red Queen’s Garden as capitalism. Therelentless search for markets and profits brings about faster andfaster changes in production and space, industry and commerce,occupation and locale, with profound effects on the organisationof classes and states. It is through this ferocious process ofextension and change that capitalism preserves itself, remainscapitalistic, and perpetuates basically the same system. Thisparadox, or rather this dialectic, can only properly be grasped ifwe understand that the “bourgeoisie cannot exist withoutconstantly revolutionising the instruments of production, andthereby relations of production, and with them the wholerelations of society” (Karl Marx).This was not an understandingmerely appropriate to what happened to the world in the first halfof the 19th century: it is no less appropriate to understanding whathas happened over the second half of the 20th and also in the firstdecade of the present century, and to what is taking place in theworld today in the context of globalisation. Now think of Alice,frantically running alongside the Red Queen, as the peoples andthe countries of the third world. You will begin to grasp the realsignificance of globalisation to this people. They must run on and

on to keep pace in the face of deprivity and poverty, brought aboutby the fierce plunder of the imperialists for more and more profit,but still basically unable to satisfy their basic needs of life – forfood and shelter, for health and education and culture.

And from the point of view of imperialism, historicallyspeaking, its most severe crisis burst out towards the end of the1920’s, ultimately resulting in the 2nd world war. After a briefrespite consequent to the huge reconstruction possiblities of thedevastations of the war, the crisis again came to the fore in the1970’s through the oil crisis. Since then the capitalist world hasbeen continuously ridden with crises after crises, leading to thenext most severe major crisis in 2008, which has not yet beenovercome. The ferocity of this continuous period of crises forcedthe imperialists to give more acute attention to the third world forplundering more fiercely its natural resources – land, minerals,water, and even air. Globalisation process is nothing but theprogrammatic manifestation of this more acute phase ofimperialist plunder based on the hydra-headed doctrine of neo-liberalism. Indian ruling classes began to traverse this path ofglobalisation since 1991.

The advocates of ‘globalisation’ described it as the panaceafor all economic woes, and that the only path to prosperity is toadhere to free-market principles. The nations of the third world, inparticular, are being urged to deregulate and open up theireconomies to free trade and foreign investment, to ensure theirspeedy transition to the status of developed economies. But it hasalready been proved that globalisation has brought, in its wake,great inequities, mass impoverishment and despair; that it hasfractured society more acutely along the existing fault lines of class,gender and community, while almost irreversibly widening the gapbetween the rich and the poor, both in terms of individuals andnations; that it has caused the flow of currencies acrossinternational borders, which has been responsible for financial andeconomic crises in many countries and regions; that it has enricheda small minority of persons and corporations within nations andwithin the international system, marginalizing and violating the basichuman rights of millions of workers, peasants and farmers andindigenous communities. Though globalisation has been portrayed



as turning the whole world into one global village, leading tounprecedented enjoyment of human rights for every one togetherwith the spread of the highly cherished values of democracy,freedom and justice, in reality it turned the world into a globalmarket for goods and services, dominated and steered by thepowerful gigantic transnational corporations and governed by therule of profit, thereby trampling upon the basic human rights of thepeople in the world, particularly in the third world countries. Thegovernments of these third world countries are abiding by theglobalisation agreements, violating the basic human rights of thepeople. These globalisation agreements and policies had its adverseeffects on the right to work, the right to food , the right to health,the right to education and the right to development. Globalisationresulted in the violation of the fundamental right to work. In theirdrive for profits , companies, in particular TNCs, have beenrestructuring their operations on a global scale. The result has beenmassive unemployment . In 1995 , the ILO announced that one-third of the world’s willing to work population was eitherunemployed or underemployed. In India, only 8% of the labor forceis in the formal economy while 90% work in the informal economywith no legal protection or security, and are subject to ruthlessexploitation The state of workers in developing countries afterglobalisation is a race to the bottom, and the bottom means slave-like conditions. Consequently, the calorie intake of the poordeclined. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Agreement ofthe World Trade Organisation prevents countries from producinglow cost generic drugs, robbing the poor patients of their rights tohealth. Globalisation polices by introducing the market mechanisminto the provision of health care obviously makes services lessavailable to the poor . The privatisation of health and hospitalservices also makes the poor suffer as services become moreoriented towards those who can pay . The lives of at least 1 to 2million children on average are lost every year. The right toeducation has also been adversely affected by the privatisationpolicies and the turning of education into a profit- generatingenterprises in the developing countries . Due to the reducedgovernmental expenditure on education the quality of public freeeducation has been suffering.

The Consequences of violations of human rights isrevealed by the widening gap between the rich and the poor, bothon the global and on the local levels, as reflected in InternationalStatistics (http://www.global issues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats): (1) Half the world –nearly three billion people– live on less than two dollars a day; (2) The wealthiest nation onearth has the widest gap between rich and poor of anyindustrialised nation; (3) The top fifth of the world’s people in therichest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and68% of foreign direct investment –while the bottom fifth , barelymore than 1%; (4) In 1960, the 20 % of the worlds people in therichest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20%; in1997 , 74 times as much; and in 2015 it is estimated to be just 100times ; (5) A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealthas the world’s poorest 2.5 billon people ; (6) The combined wealthof the world’s 200 richest people hit $ 1 trillion in 1999; thecombined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 leastdeveloped countries is $ 146 billion; and (7) as globalisationmatures, the rate of the rich peoples’ and countries’ becomingricher and richer competes and becomes directly proportional tothe poor peoples’ and poor countries’ rate of becoming poorer andpoorer. It is simply unnecessary to fill up hundreds of pages withrelevant statistics to prove how globalisation has been affectinghuman lives most disastrously in the countries of the third world.We are much more interested to the irrevocable fact thatemerges from these figures that capitalism has already beenproved to be detrimental to the interests of the labouring people;and that globalisation is even more so, simply inimical to therealisation of basic human rights of the vast majority of peoples ofthe third world. This leads to the basic tasks of the human rightsmovement in the countries like India to raise the people’s level ofconsciousness so that they come forward to thwart this inhumanprocess of globalisation.

VI.The aspiration for achieving the civil and political rights which hasprimarily motivated the movement so long definitely remains, butsince, even according to the UN-sponsored Tehran Declaration,



as we noted earlier, without fully achieving economic, social andcultural rights, the above rights cannot be really achieved,henceforth the main emphasis should be given on these basicrights, i.e. economic, social and cultural rights. Consequently thehuman rights movement should now build up a direct bridge withthe people’s movements that have been going on, and will surelyarise more and more in near-future, defending the basic interestsof the labouring people, though not directly connected with theconventional human rights demands. The implementation ofglobalisation policies led to the emergence of many suchmovements, like Narmada Bachao Movement of lakhs of evictedpeople, anti-Posco movement of the indegeneous people ofOrissa, the farmers’ movement in Noida, Uttar Pradesh etc, forsafeguarding the living conditions of the down-trodden people.We, in West Bengal, have already acquired some experiences insuch type of movements. Our organisation APDR has activelysupported the Singur and Nandigram movements of the peasantsagainst eviction by the state at the dictate of multi-nationals andbig capital, and also the Lalgarh movement of the adibasisagainst state-terror and deprivation sponsored by theGovernment, by building up public opinion and extendingnecessary help and co-operation. Its noteworthy that SEZprojects, a direct outcome of the globalisation policies, are beingopposed by the people everywhere in India, and we are proud tobe a part of the Nandigram movement, which in India for the firsttime won victory in their fight against such a SEZ project.. We, the human rights activists of India, must frame up a neworientation and programme of action so as to serve such people’smovements, which are sure to be organised in large numbers andwith broader perspectives in near future.

VIII.In this context it is necessary to bring into discussion once morethe question of the relation between political movements andhuman rights movements in a country like ours. It should be madeclear at the very outset that there cannot be any Chinese wallbetween the two, so long as a particular political movementseeking to uphold the economic and political interests of the poor,

not in words but in reality, and is not under the domination of anyparticular political party or group. Otherwise there will arise thequestion of dual loyalty. But that does not mean that a politicalworker cannot participate in the human rights movement.Obviously he must be allowed to do so, so long he is conscious ofthe limits and constraints of the human rights movement, and isready to work in that situation. Please note in this connection thatI can declare without hesitation that in the present circumstancesof our country, a human rights organisation cannot and should not‘‘limit itself only to filing writ petitions, organising signaturecampaigns, publishing reports by sending fact-finding teams andholding symbolic protest demonstrations’’. We in West Bengal didmore than that, remaining within the framework of democraticmethods and norms, when the movement in question is not led anddominated by a particular political party or group, but under thecollective leadership of numerous democratic organisations andpersons of different political view-points during the mass-struggles in Singur and Nandigram, and at present in the contextof a renewed movement for Release of all Political Prisoners inWest Bengal. And we shall not hesitate to repeat the same.

But if we accept the leadership of one particular politicalorganisation, there will always remain the danger of abandonmentof human rights ideals to serve the interest of that poltical force.There are ample examples before us. We have already noted thecaser of PUCL, which played such a vital role in mobilising publicopinion against the Indira autocracy during the emergency periodof 1975-77, refused to condemn police atrocities under the JanataParty rule in 1978 against the struggling workers of Swadeshi Millin Kanpur, or mining workers in Dalli-Rajhara in Madhya Pradesh(now in Chhattisgarh), so as not to ‘disturb the new (Janata)Government’. They repeated the same in 1959, when theyrefused to condemn the CPI(M)-controlled Left FrontGovernment of West Bengal in 1959 for their inhuman atrocity onthe poor refugees in Marichjhapi.

And just now in West Bengal we have been passing through asimilar experience. A section of the civil liberties activists, whowere most vocal and active in demanding the unconditionalrelease of all political prisoners, just one month before the



assumption of power by TMC and Congress block defeating theLeft Front, is now virtually opposing the movement that isbrewing up there against the new Government for refusing torelease them unconditionally and imposing insaulting conditions onthe political prisoners. I am happy to state that the vast majority ofcivil liberties activists are eager to depend not on theGovernment’s ‘good will’, but on the people’s movements.

Hence, our lesson is to join the political movement for theachievement of the basic economic and social rights of the peoplekeeping aloft the flag of human rights, not sacrtificing it, to thepedastal of any other force.

I want to sum up my deliberations with the earnest andsincere hope that a new orientation as well as programme ofaction suitable for a third world country like ours to achieve andsecure the basic economic, social and cultural rights paving theway for the achievment, too, of the civil and political rights ofthree people.

.

HOW DEMOCRATIC IS THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

AND INDIAN DEMOCRACY?

Anand Singh

In the discourses on the failures of Indian democracy insafeguarding the democratic rights of citizens, one oftenencounters the argument that there is no lacuna in the Indianconstitution, rather the fault lies with those who implement it.Following quotation of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar – the chairmanof the drafting committee of the constituent assembly – is oftenquoted in support of this argument:

“…howsoever good a constitution is made, it can turn out tobe bad if those who follow it are bad.

Howsoever bad a constitution may be, it can turn out to begood if those who implement it prove to be good”.1

Those who follow this line of argument hold the generationwhich implements the constitution as solely responsible for themany failures of Indian democracy and treat the constitution assacred and beyond any inquiry. But they forget that thegeneration which implements the constitution is actually theproduct of a socio-economic and political structure in whoseformation the constitution plays a significant role.

Even the former president K.R. Narayanan once mentionedin a speech that it was not the constitution which has failed us butwe who have failed the constitution. Mr. Narayanan said this inthe backdrop of the formation of a commission to review theworking of the constitution by the then government of National

How Democratic is the Indian Constitution and Democracy? 51

The author is associated with theNaujawan Bharat Sabha and WallMagazine ‘Aagaz’ (Noida). Contact: [email protected]


Democratic Alliance (NDA). Undoubtedly, NDA government’sdecision was motivated by the communal politics of BJP. It wasindeed an undemocratic step to confer the responsibility of doingthe review of the working of the constitution to few constitutionalexperts and intellectuals and not to a body elected by people.There is no question of supporting such an undemocratic stepunder any circumstance. However, to treat the constitution as asacred scripture and shield it from any inquiry is also anundemocratic approach. A democratic approach calls for an opendebate not only about the decay in the various institutions ofIndian democracy in the last six decades but also about howdemocratic the process of the making the constitution was and towhat extent the Indian democracy guarantees the rights ofcitizens.

For a constitution to express the aspirations of people, it isextremely important that the process of the making of theconstitution is carried out by a constituent assembly elected on thebasis of universal adult franchise. In India, the Congress partyhad been demanding for one and half decade prior toindependence that a constituent assembly on the basis ofuniversal adult franchise be convened to make Indianconstitution. In the Lucknow and Faizpur sessions of Congress in1936, Jawahar Lal Nehru even advocated to make this demandas the central slogan of the Congress. But, the constituentassembly which ultimately made the constitution was not electeddirectly by people on the basis of universal adult franchise butindirectly as per the British Cabinet Mission’s plan by themembers of the provincial assemblies who were themselveselected by merely 11.5 percent of the population of the country.The elections for these provincial assemblies were held under theGovernment of India Act 1935 through extremely limitedelectorates determined on the basis of property and education.Furthermore there was a provision of separate electorates on thegrounds of religion and caste. There were 296 members in theconstituent assembly out of which 96 were nominated by the‘rajas’ and ‘nawabs’ of the feudal princely states. In the Meerutsession of Congress in 1946, Nehru had promised to the people ofIndia that a new constituent assembly would be convened after

independence on the basis of universal adult franchise. But aftergetting the independence this promised was forgotten.

The constituent assembly was totally boycotted by MuslimLeague due to which it essentially became a single party body.Whatever differences emerged in it were because of thecontradiction between the left-wing and the right-wing of theCongress. The drafting committee which was bestowed with thetask of framing the constitution started its functioning fromOctober 27, 1946. Two bureaucrats of Indian Civil Services – SirB. N. Rau and S.N.Mukherji had already prepared a draft ofthe Constitution. This fact was acknowledged even byAmbedkar in his speech as the chairman of the DraftingCommittee on November 25, 1947. The task of the draftingcommittee was to examine the already prepared draft and tosuggest the amendments if needed. This fact was acknowledgedby Satyanarayan Sinha, a member of the Constituent Assembly.The meetings of the committee commenced on October 1947 andlasted till February 13, 1948 in which not all members used to bepresent on regular basis but the quorum used to be fulfilled. Someamendments were recommended in these meetings which wereincorporated in the original draft. On November 26, 1949 the finaldraft of the constitution was passed by the constituent assemblyand the constitution came into being on January 26, 1950.

After discussing about the process of making of theconstitution, let us turn our attention to the substantive content ofthe constitution. Out of 395 articles of the original constitution,250 were borrowed from the colonial ‘Government of India Act1935’ either in Toto or with some minor modifications. It is to benoted that it was the same act which Nehru had termed as the‘charter of slavery’. On the main skeleton made out of thearticles of this act, some provisions borrowed from theconstitutions and the political traditions of countries ranging fromBritain, USA, Ireland to Canada and Australia weresuperimposed and after giving a populist finishing touch over it, agigantic constitution consisting of 90000 words came into being.Often people take pride in the fact that the Indian constitution isthe biggest constitution in the world. But there is no directcorrelation between the size of the constitution and its ability to



safeguard the rights of the citizens. The truth is that the scope ofthe provisions in the Indian constitution is so wide that the statedoes not even need to violate the constitution in order to encroachupon the rights of the citizens. The blatantly undemocratic stepssuch as the emergency of 1975, the situation of virtual militaryrule in Jammu and Kashmir and North Eastern states, the waragainst the people of the tribal dominated citizens of central Indiain the name of fight against Maoists, numerous draconian lawsetc. are all well within the ambit of the constitution. In thisrespect, the Indian constitution has a semblance of thejurisprudence of the notorious German Reich.

An attempt to create a fusion of the preamble of theAmerican constitution and the ideals of enlightenment era isdiscernible in the wordings of the preamble of the constitution.The provisions related to fundamental rights, judicial review andthe independence of judiciary are inspired from the AmericanConstitution. The concept of the Directive Principles of StatePolicy is borrowed from the Irish Constitution. The centralisedfederal structure is taken from the constitution of Canada. Theconcept of concurrent list is inspired from the AustralianConstitution. The parliamentary form and the separation betweenlegislature, executive and judiciary have been borrowed fromBritish tradition.

Indian Constitution begins with the following words:WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to

constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULARDEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;and to promote among them allFRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the

unity and integrity of the Nation;IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth

day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT ANDGIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

The American constitution also begins with the similar words– “We the people of United States….” Actually both the

American constitution and Indian constitution begin with a fraud.There was no representation of the black slaves in thePhiladelphia convention which made the American constitution.Likewise, since Indian constituent assembly was not elected onthe basis of universal adult franchise, it did not represent thepeople of India in the true sense of the term.

At the time when the constitution came into being, India wasan extremely backward agrarian country shattered by twocenturies of colonial slavery. In such a society, people’s capabilitiesof collective initiative and collective decision making could not havebeen developed without implementing land reforms inrevolutionary manner and without this it was impossible to escapefrom the pressure and interference of imperialism. Even thoughthe bourgeois state became sovereign (although not totally), lookingfrom the perspective of the people’s sovereignty, the ‘sovereign’term in the preamble appears to be hollow. In the current era ofglobalisation this word is increasingly losing its meaning.

“Socialism” and “secularism”, these terms were not presentin the original constitution; rather they were inserted through the42nd amendment of the Constitution. The purpose of force fittingthese terms into the preamble during the emergency era was toconceal the fascist and blatantly anti-people acts of the IndiraGandhi government at that time with the populist jargons and it hadleast bearing with the lofty ideals of socialism and secularism. Inthe era of privatisation, liberalisation and globalisation, when thestate is washing off its hands from its responsibility of fulfilling eventhe basic needs of the citizens, the presence of “socialism” in theconstitution is a sort of tragic farce. As regards “secularism”, inIndian democracy secularism has evolved not in the classicalbourgeois democratic sense of complete separation of religiousinstitutions and rituals from the political arena and confining thereligious beliefs to the realm of personal life which was a productof European renaissance and enlightenment era, but as “SarvaDharm Sambhav”(equal respect to all religions). In this backdrop,it is not at all surprising that along with the passage of time theinterference of religion into politics has increased and thecommunal and religious fundamentalist forces are flourishingthroughout the country.



The enthusiastic supporters of Indian democracy who glorifyit by terming it as the biggest democratic republic cite the “freeand fair” elections held on the basis of universal adult franchise asan evidence of their claim. The term “political justice” in thepreamble bears the same meaning. In this context, it is natural toask whether the criterion for judging the freeness and fairness ofelections is merely to successfully conduct the elections inpresence of heavy police machinery and para-military forces.Doesn’t the clout of money power and muscle power in theelectoral process raise a question mark over its independence,impartiality and the democratic nature? According to a report, inthe Loksabha elections held in 2009, on an average the big partiesspent Rs 30 crore per candidate and smaller parties spent Rs 9crore per candidate.2 Although none of the political parties couldget the absolute majority in the 15th Loksabha, there is one groupwhich has got the absolute majority and it is that of crorepatis(people having declared assets worth more than Rs 10 million). Inthe 545 member Loksabha, number of crorepatis exceeds 300.Besides, 150 members are having criminal antecedents.3

Condition of the state legislative assemblies is even worse. Undersuch a situation, it is clear that the representation of people in thegovernment is increasingly on the wane. Hence the commonpeople of India are deprived of their right to be elected and andeven their right to elect is mainly and essentially formal. Besides,they have no right to recall their representatives due to which thepeople find themselves helpless before an authoritarian andunaccountable government.

One of the ideals proclaimed in the preamble is “economicjustice”. But the constitution does not guarantee to the citizensthe important rights such as right to work, right to minimumwages, right to humane condition of work, right to get equal wagefor equal work, right to get nutritional food, right to get socialsecurity etc. Although there is a passing reference to some ofthese rights in the fourth part of the constitution in form ofdirective principles of state policies but these principles are notjusticiable. At the time of framing of the constitution, it wasargued that the state, at that point of time, did not have therequisite resources to guarantee these rights to the citizens. Six

decades after coming into being of the constitution, it is pertinentto ask: why is it that at a time when the Indian economy isgrowing by leaps and bound, the state is going back on itspromises instead of fulfilling them? In the era the neo-liberalpolicies, the words like “economic justice” are conveniently laid torest in the thick volume of the constitution.

In order to achieve the ideal of social justice and equality,some fundamental rights have been conferred to the citizens inthe part three of the constitution towards ending thediscrimination based upon caste, race, religion, sex etc. But sixdecades after the constitution was adopted, we are witnessing theincreasing structural oppression based on gender and caste. Thefrequent incidents of dalit atrocity, domestic violence, femalefoeticide, rape, honour killing appear to make mockery of thefundamental rights contained in the constitution.

As has been discussed above, the constitution does not evenguarantee to the citizens the basic rights necessary for living ahuman life. Whatever fundamental rights are mentioned in thepart three of the constitution are extremely narrow in scope. Evenfor the extremely limited fundamental rights conferred throughthe constitution, the provisions for numerous conditions andrestrictions are present in the constitution itself which can beeasily used by the state to encroach upon the rights of the citizenswithout violating the constitution.

Take for instance Article 19 of the Constitution which confersupon some fundamental rights to the citizens, viz. freedom ofspeech and expression (article 19(1)(a)), freedom to assembleand hold meeting anywhere in the country(article 19(1)(b)),freedom of forming associations (article 19(1)(c)), freedom ofresiding and settling in any part of India(article 19(1)(d)) andfreedom of choosing a vocation(article 19(1)(e)). Article 19 alsocontains the provision that all these freedoms are subject toreasonable restrictions. The bases of these reasonablerestrictions can be national security, public order, morality anddecency etc. It is this provision of reasonable restrictions whichhas been blatantly misused by the state in the last six decades tocurb the citizens’ fundamental rights of freedom of press,freedom of assembly and holding meeting and of travelling and



forming a union. Apart from the reasonable restrictions, theprovisions of imposing restrictions on the fundamental rights arepresent in the part eighteen of the constitution in the form ofemergency provisions. In the event of the proclamation ofnational emergency, all fundamental rights, except for the rightsof life and personal liberty as contained in the article 20 and article21, can be suspended through a presidential order. Since even thefundamental right of constitutional remedy as per article 32 canbe suspended, the rights provided under articles 20 and article 21also become essentially ineffective. So far, national emergencyhas been declared four times - thrice for external reasons andonce for internal reason. The emergency which was effectivefrom June 1975 to March 1977 is notorious for widespreadviolation of the fundamental rights of the citizens when a virtualdictatorship prevailed through constitutional means.

Another provision which makes a mockery of the citizens’fundamental rights is present in article 22 of the constitutionwhich authorises the state to make laws related to preventivedetention. This provision of the constitution has been grosslyexploited by the parliament and the state legislatures in the last sixdecades to make numerous draconian laws which have beenused by the state not only to violate the civil liberties but also tocrush the people’s movements. The ink of the originalConstitution had not even dried up when the Preventive DetentionAct 1950 was passed which remained in force till 1969.Subsequently, Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) wasbrought in 1971 which became the symbol of the nakeddictatorship of the state during emergency. In 1980 NationalSecurity Act was brought which remains in force till date. In 1985Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) was broughtwhich was grossly misused in the name of fighting terrorism. In2002, the then NDA government, in an unprecedented manner,hurriedly passed a new anti-terror law, first as an ordinance andthen by passing Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) byconvening a joint session of the parliament. As expected, it toowas misused. In 2004, in order to showcase its progressive image,the UPA government repealed POTA, but cleverly inserted itsdraconian provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act. Besides, there are several such draconian laws in differentstates, e.g. MCOCA in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh SpecialSecurity Act in Chhattisgarh.

In a recent PUCL’s seminar in Delhi on the topic of staterepression, the civil liberties and democratic rights activists fromdifferent parts of the country shared their experiences as to howthe state machinery is using the draconian laws as a weapon tocrush the people’s movement. In different parts of the country,the draconian laws are being used against the peasant and labourleaders and media activists and intellectuals sympathetic to thepeople’s movements. Special reference was made in this seminarto the Sedition Act (section 124 A of Indian Penal Code) underwhich several intellectuals and activists are being tried includingBinyak Sen. It is to be noted that this section has been inexistence since the colonial times and even Gandhi and Tilakwere tried under this section.

Besides, the situation of a virtual military rule which prevailsin the north-eastern states and Jammu & Kashmir has beenapproved by another draconian act called Armed Forces SpecialPowers Act. In the north eastern states, this draconian law is inforce since 1958 and in Jammu & Kashmir since 1990. It hasbeen grossly misused to abridge the fundamental rights of thepeople of these peripheral nationalities. It is to be noted that thevirtual military rule in these regions is well within the ambit of theConstitution. In case of Jammu & Kashmir, betraying the promiseof holding a referendum, the Indian state cleverly merged it withinIndia using the constitutional weapon of article 370 against thewill of its people.

The dark shadow of the colonial past hovers not only aroundthe constitution and statutes but across the entire edifice ofgovernance and administration. Last year, flaunting a radicalgesture, ex-environment minister Jairam Ramesh threw off thetraditional gown in the convocation program of an institute byterming it as a barbaric colonial relic. Perhaps Mr. Minister forgotthat the barbaric colonial relic is present not only in the form oftraditional gown but it is embedded in the structure of thegovernance and administration of the central and stategovernments at all levels from the ministries and secretariat to the



district and Tehsil. All the major laws governing the Indianadministration were enacted during the colonial era in order togovern a colonial regime. They were adopted either ditto or withsome minor adjustments after independence. For instance, IndianPenal Code was made in 1860, Indian Evidence Act was enactedin 1872, Civil Procedure Code in 1908 and the Transfer ofProperties Act in 1882. Besides, overly centralised, non-transparent and hierarchical administrative structure, its modus-operandi, the designations of bureaucrats and their distance frompeople all are reminiscent of the colonial past. Two top All IndiaServices - IAS and IPS (which find mention even in theConstitution) - are also a ‘gift’ of colonialism. The ICS, thepredecessor of IAS, was considered as the ‘steel frame’ of theBritish Raj as the entire colonial rule rested on it. Even afterindependence, the IAS has been more effective in maintaining thecontinuity of the tyrant rule of the rulers. So far as theresponsibilities related to public welfare and development areconcerned, it has proved to be anti-people and utterlyincompetent. The shadow of colonial past can be clearly felt inthe attitude of the bureaucrats and their behaviour with thepeople. The Y K Alag Committee, formed in 2001 to examine thecondition of civil services, had correctly pointed out in its reportthat the members of civil services exhibit ruler mindset.

India is a signatory to The Universal Declaration of HumanRights and the International Covenant of Human Rights. Butironically, the incidents of the violation of the human rights by thedifferent organs of central and state governments are verycommon in India. Indian police force is notorious for illegalcustody, custodial deaths and rapes, fake encounters etc. JusticeA.N. Mulla of the Allahabad High Court had made a pertinentremark in a verdict that “there is not a single lawless group in thewhole country whose record of crime is anywhere near therecord of that organised unit which is known as the Indian PoliceForce”. According to a report, 1,184 people were killed in thepolice custody in India between 2001 and 2009.4 According to areport of a RTI activist, every second police encounter is fakeone.5 The National Human Rights Commission formed to stop theviolation of human rights has proved to be utterly ineffective.

While the reputation of the legislature and executive had beentarnished in the people’s psyche long ago, that of the judiciary wasrelatively better till a few decades ago. The judiciary wasconsidered to be the last ray of hope in so far as the democraticrights of the citizens are concerned. But even this last ray of hopeis losing sheen with the passage of time. The judicial process isgetting costlier, longer and tiresome with each passing day. Theconstitutional remedy had already gone out of reach of thecommon people, the process of the legal remedies which arewithin their reach are increasingly getting so complex andtiresome that to go through this process is itself a punishment.More than 30 million cases are pending in the different courts inthe country. According to an estimate, if the Indian courts willcontinue to deliver justice with the current rate, it would takemore than 320 years to clear the backlog of cases.6 Around 70percent of the prisoners in Indian prisons are under-trials which initself is a living testimony of the violation of citizens’ right by thestate. Indian judiciary has proved to be utterly incapable to securethe rights of labourers by implementing labour laws. There is somuch delay in the process of getting justice through the labourcourts and industrial tribunals that most of poor and workers donot even think of approaching them. In the current era ofglobalisation, the higher judiciary has taken largely anti-labourstand.

As per a nationwide survey conducted by the Centre forMedia Studies, 77 percent of the participants held the opinion thatthe Indian judicial system was corrupt. The scope of corruption isno more confined to the lower judiciary alone. Former ChiefJustice of India S.P. Bharucha said in the year 2002 that amongthe judges of higher judiciary, 20 percent are corrupt. Much waterhas flown in the Ganges since then. Now the virus of corruptionhas infected even the office of chief justice of the SupremeCourt. Under such a circumstance a big question mark is raisedon the capacity of the judiciary to safeguard the democratic rightsof the citizens.

It’s not that no thought has been given to make the Indiansystem of governance and administration people oriented byfreeing it from the burden of colonial past. So far, numerous



commissions have been formed including the Commission toReview the Functioning of the Constitution, AdministrativeReforms Commission, Police Commission, Law Commission etc.It is another thing that numerous recommendations of suchcommissions and committees are eating the dust of the fileswhich themselves are are in use since the colonial era. Theburden of the colonial past has become so heavy that it is nolonger possible to get rid of it through commissions andcommittees. Nor is there any willingness among the ruling elite inthis direction. The people are left with no other choice but tolaunch movements for safeguarding their democratic rights. Thedemocratic rights movement needs to internalise this reality andset its agenda accordingly.

The democratic rights activists will have to educate the broadmasses about the meaning and significance of the democraticrights through mass movements. They will have to be united,mobilised and organised around the issues of the democraticrights. Nationwide mass movements need to be carried outagainst all the colonial and draconian laws and the anti-peopleacts of the governments and administrations. It is to be recalledthat even during the freedom struggle, the nationwide massmovements began with the large scale mobilisation of peopleagainst Rowllet Act which was the ancestor of all the draconianlaws in the true sense of the term. Alternatives of the existingcentralised, non-transparent and anti-people institutions will alsohave to be explored during the mass movements only. Seriousattention needs to be paid to the multi-tier electoral system on thebasis of small constituencies and also to the right to recall theelected members. Sincere thought needs to be spared to evolvenumerous forms of people’s committees and people’s councils Inorder to tighten the hold on the bureaucracy by increasing thedirect participation and involvement of the masses. Clearly, inorder to prepare the mass base for such a large scaletransformation in the constitutional, legal and administrativesystem, the democratic rights movement will have to put thedemand of calling a new constituent assembly on the basis ofuniversal adult franchise into its agenda.

References

1 Ambedkar’s speech before the constituent assembly on 25 November 1947

2 Amit Bhaduri’s article in EPW, November 20103 National Election Watch (http://ionalelectionwatch.org)4 Report of Asian Centre of Human Rights (http://

hrweb.org/countries/india.htm)5 Two Circles (http://www.achrweb.org/countries/

india.htm)6 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-03-06/ india/

28143242_1_high-court-judges-literacy-rate-backlog




DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND THEWORKING CLASS

Prasen Singh

We would like to briefly put forward some points as to whatshould be the general stand of the working class in a backwardcapitalist countries like India in the current era of imperialism withrespect to the fight for democracy or the democratic rights evenwhile preparing for a fresh struggle towards the goal of socialism.

In the era of the national liberation struggles, the workingclass was participating in the general political mass movementsagainst the colonial rule alongside its fight against the foreigncapitalists as well as the native capitalists in the factories. Thelabourers in the villages were waging a democratic fight forfreedom from bonded and forced labour and they naturallyformed a common front with the peasants against the feudallandlords.

The colonial rule ended in 1947 and a constitution ofbourgeois democratic republic came into being in 1950. But theproject of bourgeois democracy was not only incomplete butskewed as well. Not only did the feudal remnants linger for a longtime, capitalism to a large extent maintained the old medievalvalues and institutions with some minor adjustments. Theskeleton of the constitution was erected from a colonial act of1935 and even the structure of law and order, police force andbureaucracy was essentially the same as earlier. The nationalmovement was a people’s movement but not a people’srevolution because even though its bourgeois leadership had

The author is a social activist and associated with Shaheed BhagatSingh Vichar Manch, Allahabad. Contact: [email protected]

managed to acquire power by creating the pressure of massmovements, it hampered the mass initiative on all occasions andbetrayed the mass aspirations at each decisive point.Consequently, the national movement, though it became the causeof the transfer of power in the form of a partial, gradual andpassive political revolution, the lack of democratic values andinstitutions in the social life and the democratic consciousness inthe people remained a grave problem. The project of bourgeoisdemocracy was incomplete and distorted in the sense that it hadneither made a decisive rupture from the imperialist world nor didit bring about the capitalist land relations in a revolutionarymanner. It was incomplete and distorted also in the sense thatthere was a lack of democratic consciousness in the society aswell and the nature of bureaucracy, police, general laws andlabour laws was democratic only nominally and formally.Although the bourgeoisie of America and Europe which carriedout bourgeois democratic revolutions had also made thedemocratic ideals of the bourgeois philosophers of enlightenmentera narrow and formal by distorting them in the interest of capital,but the Indian rulers did the same thing in hundred times morebrazen and fraudulent manner. Some democratic institutions andaspirations have surely emerged as a natural culmination of thegradual development of capitalism in the last six decades, but itsopposite move has been the sustained repression of thedemocratic rights and aspirations by the ruling classes and theirsenior global partners. The expansion of industry has led to theemergence of democratic institutions and aspirations, but the allround grip of the unproductive and parasitic financial system hasstrengthened the foundation of totalitarianism and tyrannicaldespotism. The second move has been more dominant in the lasttwo decades of neo-liberalism. It is in this context that we arepondering over the fight for the democratic rights of the workingclass or over the role of the working class in the fight for thedemocratic rights.

It is true that seen from the viewpoint of the production-relations, the capitalist production-relation has established itshegemony in the Indian society today and particularly in the lasttwenty years the contradiction between labour and capital has

Democratic Rights Movement and the Working Class 65


increasingly sharpened. On the economic plane, all the clashes ofthe working class are with the capitalist plunder and the capitalistrule, though it does not fight for uprooting the capitalist rule but forits immediate interest and to protect itself from the all-roundonslaught of capital. Looking from the viewpoint of politicalsuperstructure we find that the working class needs to fight for itsdemocratic rights on daily basis and at every step.

This fight for the democratic rights has become extremelyimportant today for the working class also because in the era ofreversal and scattering of the labour movement, it has lost eventhe rights which it won after the prolonged struggles. In the era ofthe neo-liberal policies, 93 percent of workers belong tocontractual, daily wage, casual and piece-rate category. Thetraditional unions have stopped fighting for the interest of suchworkers and owing to their dispersal, the bargaining capacity ofthe informal workers has gone down considerably. There is aneed, in the new circumstances, to devise ways and means toorganise this working population afresh and new forms ofstruggles are needed to proceed further.

Undoubtedly the workers will have to fight against the rule ofcapital and capitalist economic relations, but if they fail to fight fortheir democratic rights, they would not be able to wage politicaland economic struggle against capitalism as well. In the Russiancommunist movement, during 1894-1902, the “economists” hadtaken a stand that after the establishment of capitalism in Russia,the working class need not engage in the political struggle – i.e.the struggle for democracy. When the first World War was goingon, some “economists” and “semi-anarchists” had maintainedthat in the stage of monopoly capitalism, there was no need tostruggle for democracy (It was this viewpoint which was adoptedby Pyatakov and Bukharin when they were opposing the rightof self determination of the nations). Lenin had given a reply tosuch people and some general formulations of this reply are ofgreat importance even for us in today’s conditions.

Lenin had written: “ Democracy is converted to a mirage bycapitalism in general and imperialism in particular, thoughcapitalism also inculcates democratic aspirations, createsdemocratic institutions and sharpens the contradiction between

imperialism which defies democracy and the people aspiring fordemocracy. The rule of capitalism and imperialism can beoverthrown not by extremely “ideal” democratic changes but onlyby an economic revolution. But a working class which is noteducated in the struggle for democracy cannot be expected toaccomplish an economic revolution…”

Further clarifying his point he writes: “The Marxist solution tothe problem of democracy is that a working class which wages itsclass struggle must use all the democratic institutions andaspirations against the bourgeoisie in order to overthrow thelatter’s rule and ensure its victory. Such a use is not an easy thingto do. To the “economists” and Tolstoyists etc. it appears as anunacceptable concession to the “bourgeois” and opportunisticthoughts in the same manner the advocacy of national self-determination in the “era of finance capital” is considered by P.Keyevsky as unacceptable concession to the bourgeois class.Marxism teaches us that “to fight against opportunism” by givingup the use of the democratic institutions created and distorted bybourgeois class is akin to completely surrendering toopportunism!” ( Lenin: ‘ reply to P. Keyevsky ( U. Pyatakov).‘Against dogmatism and sectarianism in the labourmovement’ collection, Moscow ,1986, Hindi Ed., page 81-82)

In a post-colonial agrarian and backward capitalist societylike India where the project of capitalist democracy has remainedincomplete and distorted from the beginning, it becomes all themore important for the Indian working class to fight for itsdemocratic rights, to pressurise the bourgeois class to fulfill itspromises of democracy, constitutional declarations and legalprovisions and to struggle for expanding the shrinking (andcontinuously shrinking) space of bourgeois democracy. It is ofutmost importance because even in the past, the economist andtrade-unionist leadership either kept the workers busy in only theeconomic struggles or even if they raised some democraticdemands they were of such nature (like the working hours,overtime, leave etc.) that there was nothing in common betweenthem and the demands of other classes of people. It is importantalso because mere use of the bourgeois democratic institutionsand ‘space’ has been rejected outrightly and being termed as



rightwing by the semi-anarchist proletarian revolutionarystreams. It is important also because in the era of liberlisationand privatisation, even the remaining bourgeois democratic spacehas been rapidly shrinking. The rights, which were won by theworkers through struggle and for which there are several laws onpaper till this day, have been rendered meaningless in practice.

When the working class demands eight hours working day,weekly holiday, minimum wages sufficient for fulfilling the basicneeds of family ( such as nutritious food, comfortable housing,clothing, education and health), safety at workplace and theadequate compensation in case of accident, these demands arenot those of ending the wage system or the exploitation of labour.These demands are within the scope of the bourgeois democracy– these are such demands which are promised by the bourgeoisdemocracy. These are the demands of the civil liberties anddemocratic right of the working class. When the worker raisesthe demand of implementing the labour laws and their expansionand the democratisation of the labour departments and labourcourts, even these are the struggles within the confines ofbourgeois democracy during which the worker gets organisedand learns to fight against state power on its demands.

When the working class goes a step further and demands thedeclaration of the right to work as fundamental right, when itraises the demand of compulsory provision by the state of thebasic amenities like nutritious food for the entire population,comfortable housing, health care and uniform education, eventhese demands are well within the scope of bourgeois democracy.These demands are not those of ending the capitalist exploitationand inequality. Even the bourgeois democracy admits in principlethat the responsibility of fulfilling the basic needs of the citizensrests with the government. These demands are bourgeoisdemocratic demands of advance level in the sense that as soon asthe working class raises these demands, the disgusted smallpeasants, general middle class population and even other sectionsof the populace come forward to stand beside it. A ground is thusprepared for a widespread mass movement and a broad strategicjoint forum. Even though these demands pertain to the democraticrights but the struggle which is waged on these demands is of

higher plane because even the advance bourgeois democracycannot fulfill them (at best it can give some partial concessions).Hence, when a widespread movement on these demandsadvances, the people see the limits of capitalist democracy ontheir own. The collective initiative and collective creativeness ofthe people gets unleashed during such mass movements; newerforms of democratic institutions are born and even the socialvalues and beliefs get democratised in radical manner.

Looking at the hell like darkness which prevails at the foothillsbelow the summits of prosperity in Indian life, it is clear that theforms of movements such as people’s satyagrah and civildisobedience movement on the issues such as food security,housing, health care, education and universal right for livelihoodcan be re-popularised among the masses. The manner in whichthe neo-liberal policies are making the lives of ordinary peopledifficult and the ever yawning gap between rich and poor whichdazzles our eyes, is clearly paving a new ground for socialexplosion. The time is ripe for giving the democratic rightsmovement the form of a widespread mass movement and theworking class needs to be given the leading role in organizing thisfight for democracy afresh.

Once the working class gets educated in the struggle of thedemocratic rights till this point, it would be ready on its own tofight for the more advance democratic demands such as calling anew constituent assembly, establishing an inexpensive,transparent and accountable system of people’s representation,transforming the colonial legal, police and bureaucratic systemand bringing every level of bureaucracy under scope of publicsupervision and it would also take other class of people along withit. At that point, it would be prepared to form a militant frontagainst the religious fundamentalists and by freeing itself from theinfluence of jingoistic propaganda it would even extend vocalsupport to the right to self determination of the nationalities.

It is not a schematic thinking but a practical plan of actionwhich is the need of the hour for the working class as well as ofthe democratic rights movement. Reiterating the Lenin’s thoughtit can be said that a working class which is not educated in thefight for democracy cannot accomplish the task of transforming



the capitalist production relations and the political system in arevolutionary manner. In other words, in order to make thedemocratic rights movement as a widespread mass movement,there is a need to make the demands of the democratic rights ofthe working class of the cities and villages as an issue and it isimportant for the working class to arouse, mobilise and organiseitself for waging a struggle on these demands.


GOVERNMENT’S WAR AGAINST TERRORISM ORAGAINST THE PEOPLE

Rajkumar, Munish

1.In a recent verdict on July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, whiledeclaring the Salwa Judum movement run by the Chhattisgarhgovernment as unconstitutional, held that Salwa Judum was a wardeclared against people. The apex court also held that what hasbeen described as development by the prime-minister and thegovernment is in fact rape of the people. ( Tehlka, June 16 2011)

While holding the recruitment of S.P.O. (Special PoliceOfficer) along with Salwa Judum as unconstutional, the apexcourt has asked the Chhattisgarh government to reply and whilecriticizing the central government for providing help, it has orderedto disband Salwa Judum with immediate effect. Raising a questionmark over the neo-liberal policies of the government, the apexcourt in its judgment pronounced that the real cause behind thegrowth of the Maoist terrorism is the socio-economic policiesbeing implemented by the government which are causing extremeinequality in the society. Further, the verdict mentions that the waragainst Maoism being declared by the moral, constitutional andlegal regime, is actually a war being carried out against thefeelings and soul of the people. (The Hindu, July 6, 2011)

The point to note here is that several democratic rights activistsand organisations had clearly mentioned in their reports evenbefore this verdict as to how in the name of combating Maoism, asection of the population of Bastar district has been armed underSalwa Judum and by pitting them against the broad population, a

Government’s War Against Terrorism or Against the People 71

The authors are associated with the Jagrook Nagrik Manch, Gurgaon.Contact: [email protected]; [email protected]


civil war like situation has been created (Tehelka June 16, 2011).According to a report published in the Mainstream magazine onthe current situation, the state sponsored anti-Maoist Salwa Judummovement has so far caused the death of more than 1500 innocentpeople in the 700 villages since 2005, thousands of tribal womenhave been raped, numerous incidents of arson and destruction ofthe standing crops in the several farms have taken place.(Mainstream, 17-23 June 2011). Thus, the tribal population of theentire area has been divided into two camps and a civil war likesituation prevails over there.

The truth about Salwa Judum which had been denied byChidambaram and Digvijay Singh has come out in public after theSupreme Court’s verdict and it is now clear that at the behest ofdomestic and foreign companies, the government is uprooting thetribals of Chhattisgarh from their land and it is trying to dividethem to create a civil war like situation in order to occupy theimmeasurable wealth of the region and to set up industries there.

According to a report of Times of India, in the period between2001 and 2010, the Chhattisgarh government has signed 102memoranda of Understandings (MoUs) with the the native andforeign industrialists in which around Rs 1 lac 65 thousand crorehas been invested. All these MoUs are mainly with the miningrelated companies (Times of India, June 7 2010,lite.epaper.timesofindia.com). After the signing of MoU with TataEssar in 2005, the manner in which the government, in its pursuitof implementing the MoUs, has been waging a campaign to uprootthe tribals of Chhattisgarh from their land in the name of fightingMaoism has now been thoroughly exposed before the world.

The question here is not just of questioning the economicpolicies of Chhattisgarh alone. What is happening in Chhattisgarhis the logical culmination of the neo-liberal policies. Besides theseovert anti-people actions, a look at the neo-liberal socio-economicand political policies which have been implemented in the last 20years would reveal that the manner in which land and othercommodities are being sold to the top corporates on pittance in thename of development, the manner in which they are being givenconcessions by making the labour laws more and more flexibleand the manner in which the scope of all the services being

received by workers have been continuously shrinking, has madeadverse impact on the lives of people to no less extent than a warby government. It is like a covert war which has been going onperpetually.

The Supreme court has stated in its verdict that the modernneo-liberal policies have led to the rise of the culture of greed anddesperation in some people who are engaged in the rivalry ofearning windfall profits at any cost (Tehlka June 16 2011). Duringthe implementation of these policies, the character ofbureaucracy has also become more despotic and repressive.

A look at the government policies related to socialdevelopment and social security would clarify the issue further. The Supreme court recently ordered the central government todistribute the foodgrains which is being rotting for want of properstorage facilities, to the poor (The Hindu, New Delhi, May 15,2011). But the government expressed its disagreement over thedistribution of foodgrains to the poor( NDTV, September 6, 2010).Even while thousands of children die of hunger, malnutrition andlack of food every day (www.guardian.co.uk, October 4,2009) ,lacs of farmers commit suicide because of poverty and destitution( The Hindu, May 13, 2010) , millions of tones of foodgrain rots inthe warehouses. In the aftermath of the Supreme court’s verdict,despite the popular mood throughout the country, the governmentturned deaf ear after expressing its disagreement over making thefoodgrain available to the needy. Six decades after independence,while the huge malls, highways and railway tracks have beenconstructed and are underway in the name of development,proper arrangement for the storage of foodgrains still eludesdespite the fact that 30 percent of the total foodgrain is destroyedfor want of warehouses to store it ( The Hindu, New Delhi, June13, 2011). It is a pity that the governments which give awayconcessions to the capitalists in the order of crores in the name ofdevelopment and which spend hundreds of crores of rupees in thearmed actions against people have not been able to constructwarehouses to store foodgrains in the last six decades.

Not just this, the policies adopted by the successivegovernments in the last 60 years and particularly in the last 20years under the aegis of neoliberal socio-economic and political



policies which have been responsible for the displacement andeviction of a huge population from its land and sources oflivelihood, are nothing less than a civil war waged by thegovernment against the people. According to a small news itempublished in the corner in Hindustan Times on October 31, 2009and an article on November 13, 2009, a government appointedcommittee on state agrarian relations and unfinished task of landreforms had termed the industrialisation drive in the iron-ore richregions of Chhattisgarh – Bastar, Dantewada and Bijapur as the‘biggest incident of land grabbing of the indigenous people afterColumbus’.

Besides the big incidents, the state repression of people in theday to day social life has also become more pronounced. Apartfrom the open direct violence of the entire state machinery, itsstructural violence in the day to day life has been intensified andwell organised. This topic in itself requires a separate write upand hence we will not go into the details of this discussion.

2.Let’s return to the discussion of the overt armed repression ofpeople by the government. After the apparent failure of SalwaJudum, SPO and Koya Commandos to fulfill their objectives inChhattisgarh, the government commenced an intensive campaignin areas stretching from Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand upto Orissa in 2009 with a code name OperationGreen Hunt. Under this military campaign, the governmentbuildings including schools were converted into the militarycantonments. Around two lacs police force from CRPF, CobraBattalion and BSF armed with the state of art weapons andtraining was deployed under Operation Green Hunt in order tocrush the people’s movements. Under the counter insurgency,the kind of atrocities committed against the people in the name ofMaoists in Operation Green Hunt has been hardly covered in thereports and newspapers. The ground reality can be assessed byhaving a look at the statements and reports of some democraticrights organisations (www.antiimperialista.org, 13 May 2011).

The government has been continuously denying thesecharges, but now the truth has come out in the open; after the

Supreme Court verdict, it is evident that the outline of this entiremilitary action has been prepared under the pressure of thecontracts signed with indigenous and foreign companies forevicting the tribals from the mines and land having immeasurableresources and for displacing them. Around Rs 6.6 Lac crore hasso far been invested in the Naxal affected areas by the indigenousand foreign firms ( Outlook, 26 November 2009); an estimatedbauxite deposit worth of 2.7 billion dollar is present in Orissa alone( Outlook, Novermber 9, 2009). Also 7.4 billion ton of iron oredeposit is available in the Raoghat hills ( Mainstream, 17-23 June2011). All the firms eye on this natural resource.

Owing to the neo-liberal policies of the government, manytribal communities in the tribal belt of Chhattisgarh and adjoiningregion are mercilessly being evicted from their land without anysocial security and rehabilitation in order to grab the naturalwealth. The government is brutally crushing all kinds of people’smovements against this entire process of dispossession. Thetribals who are fighting for their survival against the pressure ofthe government’s economic policies have got the support of theMaoist political stream and the Maoists are extending theirassistance in the struggle of the tribals. One can have adifference of opinion with the Maoist political stream with regardto the general orientation and strategy of the Indian revolution;one can even have disagreement with many of their activities; butconsidering the ground reality of the entire region where thegovernment is repressing all kinds of people’s movements oftribals for their demands by branding them as Maoist, it is indeedan overt war which is being waged against the tribal populationand not against the Maoist political stream.

Now that the scope of this war against people has expanded,whoever opposes the eviction of the tribals is being declared asMaoist. In 2005, the Chhattisgarh government enactedChhattisgarh Special people’s security Act 2005 under which anyindividual can be arrested anywhere on the ground of beingsympathetic to the Maoists. It was under this act that Dr. BinayakSen and Piyush Guha along with another person were arrested in2007 and in 2010, the district court had awarded life sentence tothe three on the charges of sedition and later in April 2011 in a



petition filed against this sentence in the Supreme Court, justiceH.S. Bedi and Justice C.K. Prasad freed Dr. Binayak Sen fromthe charges of sedition. The Supreme Court stated in the verdictthat we are a citizen of a democracy and any individual can besympathetic to any ideology. If Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiographyis found at anyone’s place, it does not prove that he is a Gandhian.It is in no way a violation of constitution or sedition to carry thebooks related to any ideology or even being sympathetic to abanned organisation or even being a member of such organisationprovided the person is not directly involved in a terrorist activity orin a war against the state (Frontline, April 15, 2011). The capitalistdemocracy has been thoroughly exposed before the world and ithas been publicly discredited.

Here we are mainly discussing about Chhattisgarh in aspecific context, but similar campaigns are being waged inregions spanning from Jangal Mahal in Bengal to Orissa,Jharkhand and some areas of Bihar. Under a similar anti-peopleact, Azad, a central committee member of the CPI (Maoist) waskilled in a fake encounter in 2010 along with a journalist namedHemchandra Pandey. According to another report, PCPAmembers from West Bengal Lal Mohan Tudu, Umakant Mahtoand Sidhu Soren were killed by CRPF in a fake encounter andpeople’s democratic rights were curtailed by imposing section 144(www.antiimperialista.org, 13 May 2011).

In all these incidents the peoples’ movements are beingrepressed and the activists and democratic organisations who areleading the people are being targeted. In these areas, even thosewho are arrested merely on the basis of suspicion are not providedany of the rights which political prisoners are entitled to; even nowthousands of innocent poor tribals, peasants, workers and socialactivists are languishing in jail for years on false charges withoutany hearing (The Hindu, March 5, 2011, Economic Times, March12, 2011). Even though bail has been granted to Binayak Sen andPiyush Guha, several left intellectuals, writers and journalists suchas Seema Azad, Prasant Rahi, Sudhir Dhawale etc. are in jail oncharges of sedition and terrorism. Veteran leaders such as NaraanSanyal and Kobad Gandhi may be Maoist leaders, but there is noproof of them being involved in any terrorist act. They should be

released without any delay even according to the benchmark ofdemocratic rights approved by the Supreme Court.

All this reveals that the colonial laws which are being usedagainst people by branding them as Maoist or traitors, havebecome despotic instrument to suppress every demand raised forjustice and to throttle every voice raised against the oppression ofpeople. Numerous public interest litigations are pending for yearsin the judiciary which works under the constitutional laws. Thesituation of the judiciary resembles that of Bhishma ofMahabharat which finds itself helpless despite being fully awareof the anti-people nature of capitalism.

3.The failure of operation Green Hunt earlier and now the banningof Salwa Judum by the Supreme Court is not of grave concern forthe capitalists and the government because as per the MoUssigned between the capitalists and governments, the governmentaction to implement the scheme of grabbing the land and evictingthe people has already begun. The truth behind such actions isexposed by a report of a 15 member committee (committee forstate agrarian relations and incomplete land reforms related acts)of union rural development minister headed by C P Joshi whichmentions that the private firms had provided financial assistanceto the government for Salwa Judum and it was startedimmediately after the agreement between the government andthe Tata to set up a plant in Bastar. According to a report inFrontline, it was Tata which first extended financial assistance tothe government for Salwa Judum ( Frontline 27 February- 12March 2010).

According to a report by Aman Sethi about the currentsituation in Chhattisgarh which was published in The Hindu, thearmy has begun the ground inspection for acquiring land for thetraining of counter insurgency and jungle warfare in Chhattisgarh.According to a report in Mainstream, the iron ore mines in theRaoghat area are merely 25 kilometer away from Narayanpur(Mad area) where the Chhattisgarh government has approvedthe acquisition of 750 square kilometer land to the army ( TheHindu, January 10, 2011). Under this entire project, army training



camp is being set up in Raigarh in Chhattisgarh which is situatedat the Orissa border in the north-west area and the other trainingcamp is being set up in the south-west area in Narayanpur atMaharashtra border. Also a small army headquarter is also beingset up in Narayanpur. ( Mainstream, 17-23 June, 2011).

But the government, by invoking the reference of training, istrying to befool people with this naïve and crude logic. There areseveral areas in the country having shooting ranges which wereset up during the second world war, the army already has severalvast deserted forests, desert and plateau area for war exercise,yet why is it that the army chose the tribal area of Raigad (Madregion) which is the storehouse of enormous mineral wealth dueto which the contracts have been signed between the governmentand native and foreign firms as discussed earlier? What could bethe reason behind the government’s decision to allocate vaststretch of land to the army for the purpose of coutner-insurgencytraining in the area where it has been waging a destructive warand eviction campaign against the entire tribal population in thename of Maoism?

In order to begin the mining operation in Raoghat, thegovernment is spreading the propaganda that if mining is notstarted here, the iron-ore supply to the Bhilai Steel Plant would bestopped and the plant would need to be shut down which couldjeopardise the future of thousands of workers. But strangely, thepoint to note here is that if the iron-ore supply is not being metfrom the existing mines then why is it that the government isexporting the ores from Bailadila mines to the Japanese, Chineseand Korean companies?

According to Mainstream, the government is selling not onlythe mines of Raoghat at the behest of the big companies like Tata,Essar, Jindal and Nikko but it is also preparing the plan for sellingSAIL and B.S.P. to the private companies. (Mainstream, 17-23June 2011). In this context it would not be wrong to say that thequestion here is not that of decline in the ore in the B.S.P but it isthat of the contract which the government has signed with thenative and foreign firms for whose accomplishment the armycamps are being set up as part of a plan of armed campaign inRaoghat. In order to acquire mines and land in the region, it is

necessary to uproot the local population and the government ispreparing itself in advance for repressing all the people’smovements which could arise in its opposition and it wants toprepare itself fully for an armed war against people. Consideringthe manner in which the industrialists are eyeing on the naturalresources of the entire region and the manner in which it isinvolved in systematically uprooting people, the government couldanytime impose AFSPA in this region as well following theprecedent of the North-East and Jammu & Kashmir.

4.When we look back into history, we find that there is no novelty inthe acts of repression and oppression which are being carried outby the Indian state today in the central parts of India. Evenearlier, governments have been tackling the people’s movementswith the power of gun and sticks in India, the so called biggestdemocracy of the world and the beginning was in fact made at thetime of independence itself. Immediately after gettingindependence, the Nehru government had brutally crushed thepeasant struggle in Telengana by sending army. In 1958, ArmedForces (Special Protection) Act 1958 ( AFSPA) was enactedespecially for the North Eastern states of Assam and Manipurand it was amended in 1972 when an announcement was made toinclude all the seven states of North-Eastern India viz. Asam,Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram andNagaland within the ambit of this law. Later in 1990, it wasimposed in Jammu & Kashmir as well through an amendment.

If this was not enough, after the Naxalbari peasant uprising in1966-67, a historic cycle of repression was carried out for tenyears and nearly ten thousands of youth were murdered in fakeencounters. The movement which began from Naxalbari was, infact, one among several forms of social discontent whichsurfaced on the political-social horizon owing to the environmentof general disillusionment and despair among people as a result ofthe faulty economic policies of the congress government afterindependence. The magnificent rail strike of 1974 was in thesame continuum and it too had to face the wrath of the state. Whoon earth can forget the fascist crimes of the horrific and dark



years of emergency when the entire Indian state had turned into apolice state. Besides, there is a long list of the state sponsoredgenocides such as Belachhi, Beladila, Pantnagar, Narayanpur,Sherpur, Swadeshi Cotton Mill, Dala Churk, Muzaffarnagar etc.

These sporadic and scattered struggles of people, afterpassing through various twists and turns and milestones, havebegun to acquire new shape after the commencement of thedisastrous neo-liberal policies since 1990-91 and what ishappening in Bastar is just an indication of this. Thetransformation of the ongoing battle at socio-economic front intoa military war is very well a consequence of the natural internalmotion which proves the fact that politics is a concentratedexpression of economic policies and war is an extension ofpolitics.

A close look at the history of Kashmir and North-East wouldreveal that people over there have been fighting for theirlegitimate demands right since independence and the issue wasthat of the right of self-determination and that of oppression ofnationalities and these struggles were mainly confined to theperipheries of the country. But what is happening in Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand and other states is different in the sense that the centreof the struggle has now shifted to the heart of the country wherethe state has waged a war against the entire tribal population inorder to benefit few native and foreign corporates.

Finally we wish to discuss the challenges and tasks whichconfront the democratic rights activists today. It is our clearopinion that the tyranny of state machinery and a totalitarian statecan be countered only by arousing and mobilizing the broadmasses. The herculean responsibility which rests with thedemocratic rights activists is to make people aware of theirdemocratic rights through various means and to teach them howto fight and struggle to achieve them. They must teach the peoplethat the question is not only that of Abujhmad or Dandkarnya buttoday it is that of the policies of liberlisation-privatisation-globalisation which have resulted into a situation wherein a majorportion of the toiling people is being destroyed and pauperised andpeople are living a hellish life. It is the policies of the samegovernment which, acting as a managing committee of the

capitalists, is hell bent on uprooting the lacs of tribals at any costfor the plunder of the immeasurable social wealth ofChhattisgarh, which are also responsible for uprooting millions ofsmall farmers every year and are forcing the millions of toilingpeople to live hellish life by making the already inadequate labourlaws totally ineffective. It is these neo-liberal policies which arecreating the glittering paradise amidst the darkness of hell. Thedirect violence of the state power needs to be looked as anextension of the structural violence which is carried out in asustained basis. The military repression will have to be looked asan extension of politics and the politics as a concentratedexpression of economic policies.

The democratic rights movement has made an importantcontribution in revealing the truth behind Salwa Judum, OperationGreen Hunt and the upcoming armed repression campaigns. Thetasks at the legal front and at the media propaganda front areindeed important; but they are not sufficient. The public opinionneeds to be created at the national level against the draconianlaws. The preparations of the armed repression in Chhattisgarhwill have to be brought at the centre-stage of the nation-widediscourse and resistance. The development policies of thegovernment (rather, the destruction policies for people) and thefraudulent rehabilitation policies also will have to be taken out ofthe local confines and sincere thinking is required for makingthem as an agenda of broad mass movement. To effectivelycounter the increasingly repressive character of the statemachinery, there is no better way than arousing the masses. It isour humble thought that we are faced with the tough challenge ofbuilding the democratic rights movement in India afresh on thisfoundation.

ReferencesTehelka, 16 June 2011The Hindu, 6 July 2011, p. 1 & 13Mainstream, 17-23 June 2010The Hindu, New Delhi, 15 May 2011NDTV, 6 September 2010



The Hindu, 13 May 2010The Hindu, 13 June 2011Hindustan Times, 31 October 2009Hindustan Times, 13 November 2009Outlook, 26 October 2009Frontline, 15 April 2011The Times of India, 30 January 2011The Hindu, 5 March 2011Frontline, 27 February-12 March 2011Committee on State Agrarian Relations and Unfinished Task of

Land. Reformslite.epaper.timesofindia.comwww.guardian.co.uk, 4 October 2009www.antiimperialista.org, 13 May 2011


SOCIO-CULTURAL TASKS OF THE DEMOCRATICRIGHTS MOVEMENT

Jai Pushp

Carrying out struggle against the repression of the democraticrights by the state remains an important and immediate task of thedemocratic rights movement. As the spontaneous motion of neo-liberal economic policies makes the state more and moreautocratic, repressive and totalitarian, the onslaughts on the civilliberties and the democratic rights of the people through variousdraconian laws are getting more intense and aggressive. Therepression of the democratic rights by the state machinery andraising voice against is indeed our shared concern. However,there is another fundamental aspect towards which I wish todraw the attention of the democratic rights activists, intellectualsand esteemed citizens who have gathered here to deliberate uponthe problems and challenges before the democratic rightsmovement in India.

In reality, it is not only the state which represses andencroaches upon the democratic rights in a democratic societybut also the pre-capitalist values, beliefs and institutions which arerooted in irrationality, inequality, superstitions-, prejudices and themedieval practices. These structures which remain outside thedirect control of the political structure and which exist from anearlier era not only build the support base of undemocraticcharacter of the state but they themselves encroach upon thedemocratic rights of the citizens. In the broader context of the

Socio-Cultural Tasks of the Democratic Rights Movement 83

The author is a social activist. Contact: [email protected]


democratic rights, we will have to examine the relationship notonly between the state and the citizen but also between thecitizens themselves as also the one that exists between the socialinstitutions and an individual.

It is clear that in a class society, all the citizens do not haveuniform democratic rights. The scope of the democratic right ofevery individual expands or shrinks depending upon his status inthe social hierarchy. Even if the state confers uniform rights to allthe citizens through legislation, the social stereotypes and customsact as a material force to encroach upon the rights of the people.The social values-customs-institutions not only curtail the rights ofthe ordinary citizens directly or indirectly in a spontaneousmanner, they also control and direct their social activity andparticipation through numerous hidden hands. The hegemony ofthe irrational superstitions, prejudices, norms and institutions in theday to day social life of the broader populace prepares themindset of accepting the autocracy and despotism of the state orthat of not opposing it.

Another aspect of the same phenomenon is that the socialstructures infected with the medieval age inertia act as the socialprops of the state, they spontaneously maintain a symbioticrelationship with the state and they also manufacture the consentfor the structural violence inbuilt in the day-to-day behavior of thestate. In such a situation, organising mass resistance in the eventof the autocratic repressive activities of the state becomes evenmore challenging. The state easily manages to use the tyrannyand oppression prevalent in the social life in its interest and thepeople who are habitual of living with the undemocratic valuesand institutions in a way accept even the undemocratic andrepressive behavior of the state with the relative ease.

So, owing to the absence of democratic consciousness and asense of modernity in the social milieu, an ordinary citizen fails torealize the lack of democratic space even in the political milieuand thus he fails to put up an organised resistance against theautocratic and despotic behavior of the state.

The current era is marked by increasing shrinkage of thedemocratic space all over the world, but the problems of the post-colonial agrarian societies like India are much deeper and

widespread. There are many such institutions and customs in thesocial fabric of our country even today which subject a substantialpopulation to repression, injustice, oppression and insult in allwalks of life. For numerous citizens of India, the ideals offreedom, equality and fraternity bear no meaning in the day to daylife due to their social status and background. The ‘Khap’Panchayats carry out cold blooded murder of the rights of twoadults to spend life together. Women have to face insult anddiscrimination many times in a single day from home to theworkplace. Along with the growth of literacy, the incidents ofdomestic violence, dowry related oppression, female infanticideand the recent phenomenon of sex change have also increased.Despite the constitutional and legal prohibition, caste-basedoppression and discrimination is rampant in the day-to-day life ofmasses. Many among us might possibly think that these issues arenot related to the democratic rights movement. But we need todeeply realize that such an inequality and the customs andinstitutions based upon it erect a wall of segregation whichprecludes the democratic rights movement to become a broadbased mass movement. Under such a situation it becomesimportant for all of us concerned about the democratic rightsmovements in India to develop the correct understanding of therole of undemocratic tendencies and institutions in the Indiansociety in the context of democratic rights movement and todeliberate upon the long-term strategy of dealing with thischallenge.

Before we proceed, let us examine the causes for theprevalence of the undemocratic values and medieval institutionsand customs in the Indian society even till this day. Comparingagainst the western societies we find that there has been utterlack of a complete historical process of renaissance andenlightenment in India. For sure, some voices of resistance andrationality did emerge from time to time which could disseminaterationality and a sense of modernity in Indian society if theirsubsequent editions could develop. In ‘Nirgun Bhakti’ movement,we could discern the voices in different forms against the caste-based discrimination. Today it is difficult to guess what shape thesuccessor movement of the ‘Nirgun Bhakti’ movement could



have adopted had India not been colonised, but there was a strongpossibility that such a social reform movement arriving as it wasthrough an internal spontaneous motion, could disseminaterationality, sense of modernity and the democratic values bybreaking the medieval era stagnation in some novel forms if notexactly like that in the west.

Although it is applicable to all post-colonial agrarian societies,in case of Indian society this socio-cultural deprivation is muchdeeper and widespread. The 200 year long colonial slavery andeconomic plunder has impeded the healthy internal developmentof the Indian society and consequently the growth of socialconsciousness as well. After independence, even thoughcapitalism developed in a gradual manner from the top, themedieval feudal values and customs remained intact in the socialfabric. The Indian constitution itself was not made in ademocratic manner and as a result this constitution was at best amodified and enhanced version of the Government of India Act1935. About 80 percent laws were made by the British regime inorder to enslave the Indian people. The Indian ruling class evennow uses the colonial laws such as Sedition Act and LandAcquisition Act to attack the civil and democratic rights of thepeople. The CrPC, IPC, Jail Manual, Police Manual all have theirroots in the colonial era legislations. It goes without saying thatinstead of making a radical rupture from the heritage of colonialpolitical and intellectual structure, the native rulers who took thereins of country after independence found them suitable to theirinterest.

This aspect of continuity is not just confined to the politics andgovernance and administration, rather to a large extent thereexists a continuity of colonial and medieval era values in the sociallife throughout the country even after independence when lookedin totality. Some attempts for social-reform are discernible duringthe national independence movement after the completecolonisation and some militant social movement were indeedorganised against the religious superstitions, caste-baseddiscrimination and the pathetic condition of women. However,this stream was very feeble to begin with and often past wasinvoked to inspire the people against the colonial regime during

the national liberation movement, instead of developing modernityand militant materialistic world outlook, religious symbols wereresorted to and the religious values were idealised.

The political streams talking about revolutionary changeprevailed in the backdrop both before and after independence buteven they did not lay adequate emphasis on the importance ofsocial and cultural reform movement and it would not be anexaggeration to say that they were unsuccessful in organisingsuch a movement. As a consequence of the abovecircumstances, the ground for democratic values, materialisticconsciousness and rationality remained weak in Indian societyduring and after the national movement.

After 1947, the capitalist development which took place inIndia with a gradual and slow pace in-fact adopted the pre-capitalist, medieval, autocratic and despotic social institutions andvalues with some modification rather than stamping them out.Newer forms of the caste-based and gender-based segregationand oppression and irrationality emerged apart from the old formsof the tyranny of the medieval era. The feeble streams of radicaldemocratic consciousness and radical social reforms whichexisted during the national movement also started disintegratingand decomposing after the independence. Even though theindependent dynamics of the capitalist development did, to someextent, produce a sense of modernity, it has failed to make adecisive blow to the old social institutions, particularly themedieval Indian classical form of cast-based and gender-basedoppressions.

The autocratic and semi-fascist tendencies prevail in everyjoint of the social fabric of India till this day. The degeneration ofthe bourgeois politics has on the one hand given rise to the newforms of destructive ghosts of the caste, religion and languagebased sectarianism and on the other hand the onslaught of theconsumerist culture has spread and propagated the orthodoxy andirrationality among the people. In a society where ordinary peoplelive their day to day life under highly undemocratic and irrationalsocial values, not only does the social base of the repressive statemachinery gets strengthened but even the fascist tendencies getconducive environment for flourishing in the form of religious



fundamentalism. The religious fundamentalist fascism representsthe most reactionary political stream of the finance capital and theundemocratic institutions and medieval values and beliefsprevalent in the backward societies act as their social base.

It is clear that the democratic rights movement, today, willhave to carry out an intense analysis of the social content andsocial structure. In the post-colonial and agrarian societies likeIndia, one aspect of the democratic rights movement will be thatof radical social movements. It is a backlog of history which willhave to be completed within the scope of the democratic rightsmovement itself. If it has to wage a struggle against thedespotism and tyranny of the state, it will also have to open a frontagainst the social and cultural despotism and tyranny.

The undemocratic social institutions act as a social prop ofthe tyranny of the state and they themselves encroach upon thedemocratic rights of the people. Without freeing themselves fromthe shackles of the despotic social values and customs, theordinary people cannot carry out organised resistance against thestate repression. An intensive and prolonged campaign needs tobe waged against the social institutions and values which help toestablish the socio-cultural and ideological hegemony of the state.It is important, today, to extend the democratic rights movementto the people by taking it out of the intellectual circle. Instead ofbeing confined to the activities of petition-plea-prayer on someincidents or issues, it must be a broad based people’s movementagainst the violation of the democratic rights at every step in theday-to-day life of masses. It should not only be a politicalmovement but a broad based socio-cultural movement as well.

The democratic rights movement will have to make a long-term plan and strategy for awakening and educating people apartfrom extremely important tasks such as raising voice against therepressive acts of state and the draconian laws. It will have to goto the grass-root level and uplift the ideological and cultural levelof the people and at the same time it will also have to boldlyorganise the masses at the basic level against the varied forms ofundemocratic social institutions and social oppression. It calls fora protracted and multidimensional socio-cultural and politicalwork of agitation and propaganda. Without building a broad based

mass movement against the undemocratic tendencies prevalent inthe social life, the battle of the democratic rights of the massesagainst the state cannot be taken to its logical conclusion.




RIGHT TO HEALTH IS A FUNDAMENTALDEMOCRATIC RIGHT

Health should find a prime place. No one has the right tocommodify it.

Dr. Amritpal

We have gathered here to discuss the issue of democratic rightsmovements. Democratic rights or Human rights, the basic humanrights to life, liberty, freedom of thought and speech and others ,as we know, came to the frame of human life and thinking withthe age of Enlightenment. The constitution of almost every statesince then recognises the democratic rights of its citizens, at leaston paper if not in practice. The Constitution of India is noexception; state of India also recognises democratic rights of itscitizens, though mostly on paper, not in practice like all otherbourgeois states. Different dimensions of this issue have been orwill be discussed in this seminar, in my presentation I will focus onthe right to health as the democratic right of people.

Right to the Health was first formally recognised as basichuman rights in the declaration of UN in late 1940’s. If oneexamines the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of theUnited Nations, one can see that there are two kinds of rights thatare discussed. Although any right can be stated in either negativeor positive terms, it still makes some sense to refer to these twotypes of rights as negative and positive.

The negative rights basically have to do with the right to beleft alone by the government. The idea here is that so long as I amnot infringing on the rights of others, what I do or say is not the

The author is a medical practitioner and runs the Shaheed BhagatSingh Clinic in Ludhiana. Contact: [email protected]

government’s business. The negative rights are put in place toprotect individuals from the unwarranted intrusion of thegovernment.

Positive rights, on the other hand, have to do with what thegovernment is expected to provide to the citizens under itsjurisdiction. The right to at least an elementary education isperhaps the most universally agreed upon positive right, similarlya right to health, to a clean environment and to all the physicalnecessities for a tolerable life is the fundamental positive right ofthe people and the people are in full capacity and fully justified indemanding this right of theirs’ from the state. So there should beno confusion regarding the status of right to health as fundamentalright.

Indian constitution on the Right to healthPart IV of the Indian constitution through articles 36-51 of theIndian constitution covers the directive principles for the state.Article 37 declares that the directive principles are the primebasis of the governance and during law making & planning, theseprinciples must be followed by the state, it will be the obligation ofthe government.

Article 47, “Duty of the State to raise the level ofnutrition and the standard of living and to improve publichealth - The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutritionand the standard of living of its people and the improvement ofpublic health as among its primary duties and, in particular, theState shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption,except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugswhich are injurious to health”1

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states theFundamental right of life, guarantees to the individual her/hislife or personal liberty except by a procedure established by law.

Later on different occasions, Indian judiciary has clearlystated that:

“It is now a settled law that right to health is integral to right tolife. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide healthfacilities.”2

“The State and its machineries (in the instant case, the

Right to Health is A Fundamental Democratic Right 91


Municipal Corporation) are bound to assure hygienic conditions ofliving and therefore, health.”3

Many more examples can be given to assert that the right tohealth is firmly recognised by the Indian constitution and it’s theobligations of government to provide the healthcare to its people.But, from the directive principles, there don’t arise any legal rightsfrom these directive principles, so non-compliance with thesedirective principles give no option of availing any legal remedyand nor they provide the legislature any powers. More than this,no law can be overruled if it does not show compliance to thedirective principles.

India’s Public Health ScenarioIndia was the member of Alma Ata declaration which envisionedthe global goal of ‘Health for All’ in 1978. But leave apart someprogress towards these inflated and pompous declarations;conditions have even worsened. There remains nothing much tosay about the scandalous public health care situation of India ifwe look at the different healthcare indices of India.

Infant Mortality rate (per 1000 live births) – 54Under 5 Mortality rate (per 1000 live births) - 72Adult Mortality rate (per 1000 live births) – 215Maternal Mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) - 450(Source – World Health Statistics, 2009)And much more is there to say, prevalence of Tuberculosis is

312.2 in India which is less than 10 in developed countries, 15million Indians are blind of which most could have been seeingthis world like us if timely care could have given, there are stillmore than one lakh cases of Leprosy in India, 58% of under 2years age children receive incomplete vaccination 24% of whomdon’t receive no vaccination at all.

No. of Physicians (per 10,000 population) – 6No. of Nursing and Midwifery staff (per 10,000 population) – 13No. of hospital beds (per 10,000 population) – 7No. of Dentistry personnel (per 10,000 population) – 1(Source – World Health Statistics, 2009)According to CEHAT (Centre for Enquiry into Health and

Allied themes) only 38% PHCs have critical staff, 80% have no

obstetric care kit, only 34% of them offer delivery services, 80%have no child specialist and 70% have no obstetrician. In anothersurvey, it has come out that 31% PHCs have no bed, only 20%have telephone and worse, only 12% ‘enjoy’ regularmaintenance.

Even assuming these figures as such, these are one of theworst in the world including poorest countries of the world andsub-Saharan countries, still these are only tip of the iceberg.

But what is more glaring is that these figures are justnational averages, these do not show the complete picture.There is vast gap between low income population and highincome population, rural-urban areas and further divide within theurban areas where on one side are the avenues, model towns,urban estates whereas on the other side are slums, ghettos. Stillfurther there are gaps between different communities, castes,tribes, states. If we take into consideration these differences thenemerges the real motion picture. The IMR among the poorest20% population is 20 times higher than the richest 20%population, similar differences exist in other health indices.Similarly in case of healthcare infrastructure, 75% of it isconcentrated in urban areas. 80% doctors and 75% hospitals arein urban areas and hospitals with advanced facilities are only inurban areas, ratio of hospital beds to population is 15 times lowerin rural areas than urban areas, and despite this government’shealth expenditure is seven times lower in rural than urban areas.One more thing, having an eye on these data one can feel that atleast in urban areas everything is green, but it’s not the case. Inurban areas, only few areas are green with lush green healthpalaces (hospitals), majority of population there too lives inhorrible conditions of healthcare which does not need any data,though if one is interested can collect.

All this is happening when India is facing another gruesomereality. According to National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, BMI(Body Mass Index) of 37% males and 39% females is less than18.5. Further, 50% ST, 60% SC & >40% people in state of Orissahave BMI equal or less than 18.5. According to WHO criteria, if40% or more population of country or community is equal or lessthan 18.5 is equivalent to a chronic famine.



Health Expenditure in IndiaLooking at the above figures, one can easily assume that thegovernment of such country will set its topmost agenda asimprovement of healthcare services and improving public healthas a whole. But this is not the case with Indian state, like all otherstates promoting neo-liberalism, its bulwarks are busy inincreasing the profits of capitalists and ‘nurturing’ of top 10-15%of the population.

Total expenditure on the healthcare in India is only 5%of the GDP, of which 75% comes from the pockets of peopledirectly making it one of the highest proportions of private healthspending found anywhere in the world. Centre and state govts’combined share is only 20% of total expenses. Now if we keepthis figure in front of another horrendous fact that 77% of India’spopulation lives on either on Rs. 20/day or less, then one canrealise what is happening with the lives of the majority ¾ of thepopulation. In the recent Union budget, health sector found only ameager amount of 26,760 crores out of total budgetary estimateof 89.90 lakh crore rupees making it only 0.29% of total budget.In the same budget, tax exemptions of worth 5.12 lakh crore weregiven directly or indirectly to the capitalists whose profits passedabove 8 lakh crores in year 2010. It is not a isolated year, rather itis trend now, of decreased share for health sector by centre andstate govts, 1.3% in 1990, 0.9% in 1999 and 0.8% in 2005.

The conditions are further worsening because of dominanceof private sector in healthcare and rising medicine prices.At the time of independence, private sector accounted for 5-10%of total patient care, but it has already touched 80% in year 2010.70% hospitals are owned by private players and it accounts for82% of OPD visits. Even for population of BPL, the privatesector accounts for 40% hospital days. Private sector’s successis less attributable to its own efficiency but more to the failure ofgovernment

According to WHO World Medicine Situation Report of2004, India has the largest number of people, an estimate of639 million i.e. nearly two-third of population who arewithout regular access to essential medicines. This is

because of poor availability in public sector and poor affordabilityin private sector. And according to 55th round of NSS, two-thirdof outpatients’ expenses is towards medicines. In yet anotherstudy, it came out that in developing countries like India, 80-90%expenditure by people for getting healthcare goes towardsprocuring medicines. So it simply means that whether a personcan or can’t avail health facility, purely depends upon the fact thatwhether he can or can’t purchase medicines. If we see thefigures of income and poverty in India, then it is easy to see howmuch big proportion of the population is practically not in positionof having any health care facility, that such a larger portion ofpeople are denied their basic human right.

Because of the just mentioned fact, I think we need to discussthe issue of pharmaceutics in little more detail to know howsystematically the govts and profit-hungry companies are denyingthe people their rights.

Medicines, another Arena of Profit-huntingMadnessAt the time of independence, India was completely dependent onimports for medicines. First public sector Medicine Company wasdeveloped in Pimpri in 1954 with the help of WHO & UNICEF.Later with the help of Soviets, larger public sector units wereestablished under Indian Drug and Pharmaceutical Company(IDPL) in Rishikesh, Hyderabad and Chennai. Plant at Rishikeshwas biggest at that time in Asia. In 1970, Indian Patent Act wasimplemented which stressed that any chemical entity used asmedicine was not allowed to be patented. In 1978, Drug Policywas announced stressing the priority to public sector productionand compelling the MNCs to produce medicines in bulk. Thisresulted in lowering of prices of Medicines in 1980’s as comparedto 70’s. In 1979, by Drug Price Control Order, Govt. put 378medicines under price control measure.

MNCs opposed these measures vehemently. Domesticcapitalism also proliferated much and it started rolling out itswings to reap the rich profits from the manufacture of drugs.Neo-liberal policies of 1991 were almost victory for them. The



small gains of 70-80’s were diluted systematically in favor ofnational and international capital. By the time of declaration ofDrug policy of 2002, public sector companies were almost sealed.IDPL remain closed since 1996 and the other one named HAL(Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.) is in dire condition. Number of drugsunder price control was slashed down to 74 in 1995 from 378 in1979 which was further reduced to only 30 in 2002. With theseanti-people and pro-capital measures, the field of medicineproduction has been left open for corporate grab on poor peoples’pocket which was further enhanced by the signing of TRIPSagreement which led to total control of medicine production inhands of few monopolies. This resulted in dramatic rise in pricesof medicines. The portion of world population not having regularaccess to medicines was less than half of total in 1975 which hasgone up to more than two-third now. India is also no exception tothis worldwide phenomenon.

Corporate monopoly has not only affected the prices ofmedicines but has also made the field of research profit orientedinstead of human need oriented. The research has shifted itsattention from ‘essential drugs’ to ‘lifestyle drugs’ which targetillusory ailments of riches; instead of ‘orphan drugs’, the newmantra of corporates is ‘Blockbuster drugs’ like Paxil andNeurotin. Less than 10% of $56 billion spent globally on medicalresearch is aimed at the health problems of 90% of the worldpopulation. Some drugs developed earlier for diseases of tropicalareas of world have started to disappear because they are seldomor never needed by those who have the capacity to pay.

Attitude of Medical Profession towards PeopleCapitalism has not only turned upside down the policies of govtsand given rise to blood sucking leeches in form of MNCs, it hasmade deep inroads in the medical education and attitude ofmedical professionals especially doctors. Now a day, talk ofethics can earn you a tag of eccentric, psycho and many more likethese. Instead of ideas of ensuring equity and justice during theprovision of heath services, now fashioned words are marketisedhealthcare, medical tourism, evidence-based medicine etc. Much

more is happening that can make a sensitive person feel ashamedlike tariff wars in doctors e.g. in Association of MedicalConsultants in Maharashtra leave apart the commonly known‘cut practice’ in medical profession.

Above it is the net of pharma companies which can break any‘taboo’ of medical professionals to maximise their sales. Giftsranging from the pen, diaries, mobile sets, laptops, costly dinnersto luxury cars & holiday packs for families are there to take careof ‘needs’ of doctors. So doctors are dancing to tune ofcompanies. Diseases which are mostly due to lifestyle like obesityare now subjected to ‘obesity surgeries’ and more & more humanintellect is being drained to refine these surgeries to ‘perfection’.Psychiatry has now become a chemotherapy based medicalbranch and common behavioral variations have been labeled‘illnesses’ amenable only to drugs.

Poor people are getting their loved ones discharged fromhospitals, both government and private, as LAMA (Left againstmedical Advice) because they are not able to bear the expensestowards the treatment. But what is more shameful, is that poorpeople are asked to sign or give thumb-prints for their willingnessand consent in taking their patients to home for which they are notat all willing, after all who wants to lose his or her dear ones. Butcapitalism has made this possible, poor people are now signing theconsents for deaths of their own fathers, mothers, brothers,sisters, children, wives and husbands. This is the height ofinsensitivity and violation of human rights. And corporate housesare reaping profits and doctors are purchasing Audis, Mercedes,building villas. Result is popular dissatisfaction and anger towardsmedical professionals leading to attacks on doctors andransacking of hospitals. Doctors instead of looking in there ownhouse, are staging & celebrating ‘major victories’ like ‘Violenceagainst doctors’ bill of Maharashtra.

But yet there is another dimension to this commoditisation ofhealth services, a large section of health workers is also beingthrown before the bloody crabs of market. This section includesmainly paramedics like nursing staff & technicians and lessqualified doctors who can be thrown out of the hospitals at anytime and are made to work on meager amounts.



‘Right to Health’ as centre of mass DemocraticMovements

With this plagued condition of ‘Right to health’ it is clear thatthere is gross violation of vast majority of peoples’ basic right tolive. So if any movement for democratic rights with broad massbase and support is being envisioned, then the fight for ‘Right tohealth’ with mass education & involvement can play and will playa central role in building such a movement.

Right to health has a special character which connects itdirectly to many other basic democratic human rights. Right tohealth immediately brings into fore the right to food as right tohealth is meaningless without adequate balanced food. It bringsinto the arena the ‘right for proper housing’ and ‘right for healthy& humane conditions at workplace’. It also connects to the ‘Rightto minimum basic education’.

For making people to participate in fight for health as a Rightand in more broad movements for democratic rights, there needsto be the recognition of peoples’ potential which may beunderdeveloped at present but can become an invincible force inreckoning if they are properly educated about their rights. Thisneeds a closely knit network of interaction between intellectuals,democratic rights activists & organisations and masses. There isneed of building mechanisms to ignite the public consciousnessand involve & mobilise the masses.

They need to learn why their governments spend so much onmilitary hardware and so little on human needs. They need toknow why the leaders they elect systematically roll back sociallyprogressive policies, and why they deregulate the practices ofgiant corporations at the people’s expense. They need toquestion why the newspapers proclaim economic prosperity,when daily wages buy less and less. People should let know thatthere is no scarcity of resources. A recent study4 by Gupta et alhas shown that providing free essential medicines to all citizens ofIndia will cost central and state govts nearly Rs.30,000 crore,which will be there if the central government increases the shareof health allocation in union budget from 0.29% to nearly 0.7%i.e. raising health sector allocation in absolute amounts from Rs.

26,760 crore of present allocation to Rs. 56,760 crore. So peopleshould be educated that it is not matter of availability of resourcesbut what is missing is the political will of the country’s ruling class:that relatively small, elite minority who control most of theresources and decision-making power.

Here are some suggestions in form of demands that can beraised and taken to the people to fight for as part of struggle for‘Right to Health’. These are unfinished thoughts that can befurther refined or modified.

1. State should make arrangements for provision of freeprimary healthcare services to every citizen immediately. Theservices should not only be free but also easily available and nearthe doorsteps of the people.

In the long run, the state should build a healthcare system thatwill be able to give comprehensive healthcare services free ofcost to the people. The state should also fix a timeframe for doingthis.

2. State should immediate act to fulfill the requirements ofmedical personnel and equipments & infrastructure, and also stopprivatisation of healthcare services. Existing private healthcareshould be nationalized and future entry of private players inhealthcare should be banned constitutionally.

3. State should take the production and distribution ofmedicines and other healthcare related equipments, instrumentsunder its own control, every form of profit-making and privateproduction should be ousted from pharmaceutics.

4. As the Alma Ata declaration made clear (of which Indiais a part), people not only have the right to health, but have theright to participate in the planning and implementation of thehealth care system. This is an important aspect of the larger rightto participate meaningfully in all the decision making patterns. It iseven more important when there is striking inequalities in terms ofeconomic & social parameters and rural-urban divide.

5. Bureaucracy of healthcare department and doctorsshould be made directly answerable to people and brought underdirect control of the people. This control should include periodic



evaluation of their work towards the concerned section of peopleby the people themselves and even suspend or terminate theirservices by popular vote of the area concerned.

6. Medical research, similar to the planning andimplementation of healthcare should be brought under public eye.People should know where and for what research the money isgoing, is it being spent taking into account the particular populationgroup or not?

7. Medical education should be brought exclusively undergovt control and should be designed, enhanced depending uponthe needs of population.

8. Right to Health is meaningless if the people don’t getenough of balanced diet, proper housing, and minimum basiceducation, proper and humane conditions at workplace. The stateshould make sure to provide these basic amenities to all citizens.

9. State should make special provisions for looking after ofthe health of children and of persons in old age so that childrencan grow up as healthy adults and elderly can lead their life withhuman dignity.

10. Right to Health along with other rights like Right to food,Right to Education, Right to proper housing and healthy &humane conditions at workplace should be made a fundamentalright of all citizens of India instead of just a directive principle byan Amendment in the constitution. Constitution should provideprovision for the citizens to sue the state and its machinery &concerned persons including the head of state in the court of Lawand have criminal proceeding started if neglect & violation ofthese rights is done.

Conclusion: Health is not for sale!In summary, it can be stressed that if health is ever to be ahuman right, it must cease to be a commercial product,bought and sold in the market-place. Medical research anddevelopment should be guided not by the profit motive, but bywhat ails or endangers the largest number of people. It isunethical for pharmaceutical companies to reap huge profits

through legalised price-fixing of life-saving drugs. In last analysis,to assure health as a human right, the whole market system withits byproduct of increased poverty and ill-health needs to bereexamined and eventually replaced with a better one, so thatwell-being of the people and the planet becomes a top priority.

References:1 . Part IV, Constitution of India adopted on 26th November

19492 . State of Punjab and Others v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 1997

SC 12253 . In Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR 1997

Ori 374 . Narendra Gupta (2010-11): “What It Costs to Provide

Medicines to All Sick Persons in India”, MFC Bulletin,August-January, Issue 342-43.



REFLECTIONS ON DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OFNEPAL: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Dr. Mahesh Maskey

Nepal is now a Federal Democratic Republic, and it is time wereflect at the genesis as well as the class character of ademocratic movement that ultimately culminated into thisrepublic. We have little doubt that Nepali society is in a bourgeois–democratic phase of a long revolution, but how will it changes itsbourgeois character to a proletarian one is not clear. It appearsthat twists and turns of bourgeois democracy creates severaloverlapping sub-stages which demand conscious proletariandemocratic practices, initiatives and interventions, expanding thebourgeois space to run its own course in Nepal.

Such speculation immediately pose formidable challengewhen we keep in mind the backward productive forces andsocio-economic relations, numerically small size of industrialproletariat, a large mass of petty bourgeoisie, an economy whichhas not yet effectively transformed its feudal social relations andwhich is bordered on either side by two giant country of fastgrowing economy under the shadows of globalisation.

I thank the organisers of this conference not only to invite mehere to share my thoughts with you, but also for providing anopportunity to reflect upon this process, and make some boldconjectures about the future of Nepal’s democratic movement.The republic of Nepal is younger to that of India by more than 60years, and while we in Nepal are engaged in drafting a pro-peopleconstitution ensuring democratic rights shaped by the fierce

The author is one of the leading democratic rights activists of Nepaland a renowned public health expert. Contact: [email protected]

struggles soaked in blood and sweat of Nepali toiling masses, theissues that are debated in this room are very much relevant toNepal’s own destiny in a futuristic sense. Having fought againstMonarchy, it is not unlikely that a new dominant class would try todistort the letter and spirit of the new constitution and exercise itshegemony to ensure its class interest no matter what is written inthe constitution. It could be that the laboring masses feelbetrayed by the very constitution they had endorsed and come toregard it as a piece of paper which has no relevance to effectchange and ensure protection in their daily life. But then, it canalso be stated with certain degree of certainty that Nepal willagain witness a movement where the upcoming working classwill wrest these rights from the clutches of the dominant classes,reclaiming the constitution and reinvigorating with rights that canaddress the challenge of contemporary time. As in other aspectsof social life, in constitution too, class struggle is wagedunceasingly. As was stated by one of the participants in the firstday of this seminar, the ultimate question would be whosehegemony will prevail: of haves or have-nots?

Historical background:In Nepal, the democratic movement has primarily been political,and the struggle of democratic rights had been mainly fought bythe political parties. The civil society emerged as a force toreckon with only from 1990, and more strongly since 2006. Atsame time Nepal’s democratic movement is also intimatelyassociated with movement for its national identity. The firstconcrete expression of democratic movement of Nepal can betraced back to the prelude of the revolution of 1950-51. Althoughunsuccessful in bringing a radical rupture from the Rana Regime,the revolution initiated a process that brought to an end of theRana rule. It established and consolidated Shah Rule in its place,but it also heralded the beginning of the bourgeois-democraticrevolution in Nepal. The nascent bourgeoisie of Nepal, who triedto lead the popular revolt against Ranas in alliance with Shahkings, compromised and withdrew the movement when a promiseof constitutional assembly election and new constitution wasmade to its leaders. In 1960 they abandoned the struggle for a

Reflections on Democratic Movement of Nepal 103


constituent assembly in favour of the constitution given by thethen monarch, won an election with overwhelming majority underthat constitution, but were soon stripped of state power byenforcement of a clause of that same constitution.

This stance of the Nepali bourgeoisie can be viewed as alocal manifestation of a worldwide phenomenon in predominantlyfeudal states surviving under the grip of transnational capital. Thecharacter and attitude of the bourgeoisie was also changing undersuch influences; over time they developed a character that gainedmore by compromising with feudal and imperialist elements thanby standing against them. They found a comfortable perch underthe protective wing of a bourgeois monarchist party which whileproclaiming “democratic socialist” principles, in practicepreferred to forge alliances with monarchist forces rather thanwith the left, viewing itself and the monarchy as Siamese twinswith a single body and intertwined heads even though themonarchy kept on pushing them out of political power andwhenever possible out of the state political apparatus all together.It would take another 46 years for this class to make a transitionfrom bourgeoisie monarchist to half-hearted bourgeoisierepublicans.

As the bourgeoisie recoiled from its historic tasks,responsibility to complete the democratic revolution and hold aconstituent assembly election fell to the fledgling revolutionaryleft, representing predominantly rural proletarian class. Realizingthat they could not step outside or past the bourgeois-democraticboundaries of the Nepali revolution as it was currentlyconstituted, the revolutionary left made every effort to extendthose boundaries. Alliances made with the peasantry, expressedin rural class struggle, have been the main means to expand thoseboundaries and to pressure the bourgeoisie.

In this context, the People’s Movement of 1990, or theJanandolan-I, and more recently the People’s movement of2006, or Janandolan-II, stands as an important turning point inNepali history. The first one successfully ousted “partylesspanchayat democracy”, established a multiparty parliamentarysystem, and replaced absolute monarchy with constitutionalmonarchy. The second replaced the monarchy itself with

democratic republic.From a long-term perspective, the greatest importance of

Janandolan-I and the period that followed may lie in the fact thatseveral long-held political hypotheses were put to the test and gotrefuted. The first to be refuted was the hypothesis of the viabilityof constitutional monarchy itself. For decades this theoreticalconcept had been presented by the national and internationalpowers as a political panacea for many of the socio-economic illsof Nepal’s semi-feudal society. When put to the test however,actual constitutional monarchy proved neither to be prepared torespect constitutional restrictions, nor to be ready to make a breakfrom the feudal base that had sustained it over centuries. Failingto better the condition of the masses, the bourgeois-monarchistpolitical position weakened considerably. In this context, twostrong tendencies emerged which played a dominant role inpreparing the groundwork for the 2006 movement, or Janandolan-2 – another landmark of great historical importance.

Revolutionary and Reformist LeftThe first of these tendencies was the radicalisation of therevolutionary left. Immediately after Janandolan-1 therevolutionary left stream organised itself into the NepalCommunist Party (CPN) (Unity Centre) with the objective ofaccomplishing the new democratic revolution. At the same time,the reformist left current concentrated itself in the NepalCommunist Party (United Marxist-Leninist or UML), organisedaround the slogan of “people’s multiparty democracy”. This lattercurrent which drew its inspiration mainly from Euro-communism,kept vacillating between social democracy, and a revised form ofnew democracy. The reformist left was keen to beat thebourgeois-monarchist forces at their own game. In order tooccupy the political space created by the shrinking of bourgeoisinfluence, it made peace with the palace and the Indian rulingclass, and immersed itself in capturing state power throughelections. The CPN (UML) hypothesis that people’s power canbe won and executed through elections without uprooting thefeudal structures and socio-economic relations was also refutedby the events of the post-1990 period. The negligible



achievements even during occasional periods of possession ofpartial state power made this clear. Even clearer was the extentto which their reformist philosophy led to their co-optation withinthe system.

The revolutionary left was faced with the challenge ofreconciling with multiparty democracy which they jointly foughtfor in 1990, and continuing the revolution through to the end. Theyalso adopted two tactics: participating in parliament to expose itsreactionary class nature, and underground preparation for massagitation, general strikes and peasant revolts. However, as thecrisis in the bourgeois camp deepened, the revolutionary leftdivided over the nature of people’s war and appropriate timing forits launching, the question of united front, the importance of massmovement, integration of urban and rural class struggle, andintegration of people’s war with popular uprising. That streamwhich opted to begin people’s war immediately renamed itself asNepal Communist Party (Maoist), while the other streamcontinued as CPN (Unity Centre).

What began almost as a repetition of the Peruvian Maoist’sPeople’s War developed its own character as the Nepali Maoistsachieved victories in battle, learned to minimise losses andpreserve themselves with flexibility and tenacity, and to changecourse as and when needed. These changes were influenced bythe intense debate that continued between the two streams of therevolutionary left within the general context of grasping the realityand course of events around them.

Democratic republicThe second tendency that emerged to take advantage of thepolitical chaos and dissatisfaction of the people was the extremeright’s attempt to re-establish absolute monarchy. The gruesomepalace massacre of 2001 was followed by the royal takeover thatbegan in 2002 and culminated on February 1, 2005. This periodsaw a succession of ruthless events designed to intimidate theNepali people into accepting the rule of absolute monarchy. Thisoppression was answered by staunch resistance by people fromall walks of life. Civil society activism forced political parties tostand up to the challenge posed by monarchist forces. Political

initiatives successfully brought the CPN (Maoist) and seven othermajor political parties to the negotiating table, resulting in a 12-point agreement that created a supportive environment for non-violent popular uprising. The slogan of constituent assemblybegan to capture the popular imagination as a peaceful means tosettle the issues underlying the decade-long violent conflictbetween the state and the CPN (Maoist). In this chargedenvironment, the slogan of end of monarchy and establishment ofdemocratic republic emerged as the embodiment of theaspirations of the peasantry, proletariat and all conscious citizensbent on breaking the fetters of the old feudal state.

It must be noted in the present context that both the slogansand agenda of constituent assembly and democratic republicwere articulated and argued by the revolutionary left. Half acentury ago the bourgeois forces agreed to halt the 1950revolution when an offer of constituent assembly was made at thenegotiating table. The question of a constituent assemblyremained a demand of bourgeois monarchists for a decade, butwas abandoned when they accepted a constitution given by theMonarch. The left continued with it as its own agenda. But later,the reformist left also dropped it. From that time forward it wasthe revolutionary left with a wide section of masses who carriedon with the slogan and agenda of a democratic republic and aconstituent assembly – for which they rightfully deserve thecredit.

The recent course of events in Nepal not only revived theagenda of constituent assembly, it also forced the agenda ofdemocratic republic upon the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Hesitantlyand cautiously they began making the transition from bourgeois-monarchist to bourgeois-republican, weaning themselves awayfrom the theory of the monarchy and the bourgeoisie as Siamesetwins and dropping the agenda of constitutional monarchy. Thistransition was in part made possible by the sharpeningcontradiction and power contestation between these two forces,pushing the bourgeoisie toward collaboration with the left. Nepalihistory has more than once demonstrated that when thebourgeoisie and the left collaborate, as in 1990 and 2006, they canwin key battles against monarchist forces. The tremendous



efforts of transnational powers to prevent the bourgeois-leftalliances that created the peace process , restoration of civilgovernment, and the election of constituent assembly based onuniversal suffrage, raises a question about their motives.

The second major adaptation in their attitude was thetransition from insistence on a majority rule system to reluctantconsideration of inclusive and proportionate democratic rule. Formore than two centuries, the ethnic, linguistic and regionaldiversity of Nepal has been deliberately suppressed by thecentralised feudal state. The struggle for identity and equal rightsalong these lines, together with the struggles of women, dalits andmarginalised communities is carving out a new system of politicalrule. Federalism, autonomy, right to self-determination,proportional representation, and inclusive democracy are but afew of the concepts now shaping the consciousness of the Nepalipeople. The left, as always, is more open and sensitive to thesenewer concepts. The bourgeoisie, in keeping with its owncharacter, is taking them cautiously and hesitantly, even thoughthey are familiar bourgeois-democratic concepts established bytheir own predecessors in other parts of the globe. Although theNepali bourgeoisie has collaborated with the left againstmonarchical rule, by its very nature it is reluctant to complete thedemocratic revolution. It rather opts not to sweep away allremnants of the past. It is not unlikely that the Nepali bourgeoisiemay betray its own self – the cause of liberty as it is becomingmore evident that the bourgeoisie cling desperately to theremnants of the pasts, transforming its character once againtowards retrogression.

Now that Nepal is a democratic republic the question loomslarge as to what kind of democratic republic it will be. Bourgeoisieare making every effort to preserve its capitalistic characterembedded in the matrix of globalisation. The revolutionary left, onthe other hand, is bent on to give it a transitional character tousher in the phase of socialist revolution. The reformist leftvacillate between the two courses as it continues to make its owntransition to “social democracy”.

It cannot be ruled out, however, that in the process of pre-and post-constituent assembly polarisation and realignments,

some bourgeois-democratic forces would opt to stand against theforces of globalisation and militarisation, upholding the values ofsocial justice and democracy as the revolutionary republicans do.Likewise from within the ranks of the reformist left many haverefused to adopt social democratic revisionism, opting instead towork more closely with the masses. Such possibilities have thepotential of building new alliances which can only be speculatednow.

Just one month left for Nepali political parties to come outwith a consensus draft of Constituent assembly. It is an uphill taskas the same national and international alliances who tried topreserve monarchical force are also trying to prevent itscompletion. Two issues are paramount: first is about modalities ofthe integration of two armed forces. Second is consensus onseveral points in the draft constitution. The draft need to bediscussed by the people of Nepal and then finally ratified by theCA. Nepali people are hoping that if not a completely consensusdraft the constituent assembly would at least be able to bring out adraft which will show to the people what points they agreed andwhat they could not with their own different suggestions. Feedback from the people and popular pressure generated fromnational debate may help bring consensus in the political rank, andNepal may yet one more time cross the hurdle with consensustowards the cherished goal of ensuring democracy rights,particularly to the have-nots. However, just as the issues debatedin this seminar imply, we are aware that the journey is going to bea long one with its turns and twists and ups and downs before wereach that goal.



VICISSITUDES OF MINORITY RIGHTS INSRI LANKA AND LESSONS FOR

DEMOCRATIC ACTIVISM IN SOUTH ASIA

Kalinga Tudor Silva

BackgroundAlex de Tocqueville mentioned in “Democracy in America”(1835) that the tendency for the emergence of a “tyranny of themajority” is an inherent danger in democratic forms ofgovernment. This leads to a situation where minorities areoverlooked, discriminated against or even ruthlessly oppressed bya dominant majority in whatever way majority and minoritystatuses are determined. It can be racist, ethnic, religious,demographic, political or nationalist in character. Empoweringminorities and addressing minority rights through legislative andother means is a key challenge faced by all South Asian states.Unresolved minority grievances have often led to social andpolitical resistance in the form of democratic struggles as well asviolent armed struggles against the state in various countries inSouth Asia. In this context the minority rights movements mustbe seen as an important forum within the larger democraticmovement in South Asia.

Sri Lanka presents a classic example of the formation of atyranny of the majority within the state in ways that seriouslyviolate minority rights and the resulting development of minorityrights movements in opposition to the majoritarian state towards

The author is Professor in the Department of Sociology, University ofPeradeniya, Sri Lanka and associated with the International Centre forEthnic Studies. Contact: [email protected]

the end of colonial era and in the subsequent post-independenceera. While there has been strong resistance against themajoritarian state within the political system throughout the pastseveral decades, in the end the majoritarian state has prevailedover minority campaigns including a two and half decades ofarmed struggle for the liberation of the Tamils, pointing to aserious need for reflection about the minority rights within abroader democratic rights framework in South Asia.

Who are the minorities in Sri Lanka?Sri Lanka society is essentially multi-ethnic and multi-religious incharacter. According to the last island-wide Census in 1981, thepopulation of Sri Lanka consisted of 6 different ethnic groupsleaving aside the smallest of groups such as the Veddas,reportedly nearing extinction1.

Table IPopulation of Sri Lanka by Ethnicity, 1981Ethnic Group Number PercentSinhalese 10,979,561 74.0Sri Lanka Tamil 1,886,872 12.7Indian Tamil 818,656 5.5Sri Lanka Moore 1,046,926 7.0Burgher 39,374 03Malay 46,963 0.3Other 28,398 0.2Total 14,846,750 100.0Source: Census of Population and Housing, 1981:

General ReportThus the 1981 Census classified the Sri Lankan population

into six different ethnic groups with the majority ethnic group, theSinhalese, comprising 74 percent of the population followed by SriLanka Tamils (12.7%), Sri Lanka Moors (7.0%), Indian Tamils(5.5%), Malays and the Burghers (0.3%). Since 1963 Europeans

1 The results of 2001 census are not considered in this paper as itexcluded a number of census blocks in Northern and Eastern Provincesin Sri Lanka with a preponderance of minority ethnic groups.

Vicissitudes of Minority Rights in Sri Lanka 111


and Veddas were included among the ‘others’ as their numbershad become increasingly smaller due to emigration in the case ofthe Europeans and possibly due to increased identification withthe larger ethnic groups in the case of the Veddas. In determiningthe ethnicity of people, the census enumerators were guided bythe self-identification of the people themselves. This proceduremay have encouraged marginal groups such as Veddas tounderreport their separate identity and identify themselves withnationally or regionally significant larger ethnic groups. Thecensus report also noted that following the granting of citizenshiprights many Indian Tamils declared themselves as Sri LankaTamils giving rise to some confusion about the relativesignificance of Sri Lanka Tamils and Indian Tamils as historicallyevolved and socially significant ethnic categories. In the case ofindividuals having mixed parentage, they were identified as of thesame ethnic group as one’s father further restricting reportedethnic diversity in the country.

With the possible exception of Burghers and Malays, themembers of different ethnic groups in Sri Lanka are hard toidentify by physical appearances. The differences betweenethnic groups are manifested in differences in names ofindividuals, language spoken, religious practices, dress in whichthey appear in public and some minor variations in diet. While theSinhalese are largely Sinhala speaking, Tamils and Muslims weretypically Tamil speaking and Burghers are English speaking. It isimportant to stress that each of these differences is culturallytransmitted and socially determined.

In terms of religious diversity, the Sri Lanka populationconsists of Buddhists (69.3%), Hindus (15.5%), Islamists (7.5%),Roman Catholics (6.9%) and other Christians (0.7%). The bulkof Sinhalese (over 90%) are Buddhists, Sri Lanka and IndianTamils (over 80%) Hindus, Muslims and Malays (over 95%)Islamists and Burghers Christians. This has resulted in ethno-religious formations that can turn to both native language andreligion in asserting their separate identities. It is important topoint out however that a significant numbers of Tamils (over10%) and Sinhalese (over 6%) are Catholic or Anglican byreligion. Thus one can talk of both ethnic and religious minorities

in Sri Lanka. Sinhala and Tamil societies are further subdividedinto castes which are hierarchically ordered with the highestcaste in each ethnic group, comprising the bulk of the populationin each ethnic group, with the result that lower castes within eachethnic group constituting caste minorities with limited politicalpower and limited electoral influence (Silva, Sivapragasam &Thanges 2009). There are also important class differences insociety, with an English-speaking elite in control of the economy,bureaucracy and professions, a lower middle class, peasants andworkers who comprise the bulk of population, ethnic polarisationoften serving to divide up each class along ethnic and religiouslines. Gender differences add another dimension to thecomplexities in social stratification and minority formations.Gradual Establishment of a Tyranny of the Majority in Sri LankanPolitySince 19th century the British colonial regime in Sri Lankaintroduced a system of ‘communal representation’ in thelegislature with 6 ‘unofficial members’ made up of 3 nomineesrepresenting Europeans and another 3 representing Sinhalese,Tamils and Burghers respectively. Elected representation on alimited franchise was introduced in 1912 but communalrepresentation continued with each ethnic community electing itsown representative. With the establishment of universalfranchise and self-rule under the Donomore Constitution in 1931,the minorities gradually became anxious about their rights within aSinhala dominated polity (Uyangoda 2003). Various ethnic andcaste communities demanded separate constituencies in order toprotect their rights during constitutional reforms in 1931 and 1948.Communal representation, however, was abandoned in favour ofterritorial representation due to possible development of politicalcompetition along communal lines to the neglect of commonissues and nation building as such. After listening to many groupsthat demanded representation along communal lines, theDonoughmore Commission noted,

In surveying the situation in Ceylon, we have comeunhesitatingly to the conclusion that communal representationis, as it were, a canker on the body politic, eating deeper anddeeper into the vital energies of the people, breeding self-



interest, suspicion and preventing the development of a nationalor corporate spirit (Donoughmore Commission 1945: 39).

The Soulbury Commission which granted politicalindependence to Sri Lanka in 1948 continued the principle ofterritorial representation but having listened to many minoritygrievances during its deliberations it introduced some safeguardsfor ethnic, religious and caste minorities in the form of a non-elected Upper House and multi-member constituencies inelectoral divisions where social diversity justified it.

The establishment of a tyranny of majority in Sri Lankanpolity was a gradual development with a resulting removal ofwhatever safeguards that had been initiated for the protection ofminority rights. The design of a new flag for independent SriLanka led to a heated debate between Sinhala and minoritypoliticians as the first design submitted to the legislature showinga lion displaying a sword appeared to be a purely Sinhala flag withno symbolic representation of minorities. Two small stripes one inorange and the other in green was later added to the national flagto represent the ethnic minorities, in a compromise solution notaccepted as significant enough by some minority parties andleftists. The leading political parties contesting the GeneralElection of 1948 were mostly multiethnic in composition. Forinstance, the United National Party and each of the leftist partiesinvolved a coalition of Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim politicians. TheAll Ceylon Tamil Congress established in the 1940s supported theUNP in the first national election. The newly elected UNPregime, however, quickly introduced citizenship legislation thatdisenfranchised the Indian Tamil plantation community,foreshadowing many attacks on minority rights in years to come.In 1949 one section of ACTU broke away from the party andformed the Federal Party which campaigned for a Federalconstitution as a remedy for the minority problem in the country.The more Sinhala nationalist Mahajana Eksath Peramuna cameto power unseating the pro-western UNP in 1956 and the newregime immediately introduced official language policies thatsought to elevate Sinhala language to the status of the officiallanguage making it difficult for the Tamil speaking population to

have equal access to the services of and employmentopportunities in the state. This, in turn, prompted Tamil oppositionto the official language policy leading to Sinhala-Tamil ethnic riotsin 1958.

The new constitution prepared by a leftist minister in thegovernment in 1972 made Buddhism the foremost religion of thecountry, confirmed official language policy adopted earlier, didaway with the minority protection clause in the Soulburyconstitution and finally abolished the second chamber removingmany of the protections for minorities in the previous constitution.In 1977 parliamentary election, the demand for political autonomyfor Tamils gathered momentum with newly formed Tamil UnitedLiberation Front (TULF) employing the election as a referendumfor self rule among the Tamil constituencies in Northern andEastern Sri Lanka, following the Vadukkoddai resolution of May14, 1976 (Nithyanandan 2007). After the landslide victory of theUNP in 1977 in the Sinhala predominant areas and the emergenceof TULF as the second largest party in the parliament with alandslide victory in Tamil speaking areas, the Second RepublicanConstitution was passed in 1978 established an executivepresidency with wide powers further centralizing state power inthe hands of the president. The TULF withdrew from thisconstitution making process early claiming that the newconstitution would further marginalise the ethnic minorities due tocentralisation of power in an elected executive president. AsTULF MPs refused to take a new oath under the newconstitution which they say as discriminatory, they lost theirparliamentary presence further adding to minority grievances.

Even though Tamil nationalism became the ideologicalweapon of the Tamil minority in particular in response to thegrowing tendency for a tyranny of the majority in Sri Lanka therewere some dissenting voices particularly from the Marxistintellectuals in the Tamil community. For instance, V.Karalasingham attacked the Federal Party and the ACTU for theirfailure to defend the minority rights (Uyangoda 2003). He claimedthat “the fundamental flow in the political strategy of the FederalParty is their conception that the fight for the rights of the tamilspeaking people is the responsibility solely of the Tamil-speaking



people themselves and that it is only Tamils who can wage thisfight and that they must do so as Tamils” (Quoted in Uynagoda :312). He described this as “politics of primitive tribalism” which inturn fueled similar communalist feelings among the Sinhalesemajority community, further endangering the Tamil minority in theprocess. He argued that the democratic struggles of the Tamilmasses must be essentially linked up with similar struggles amongthe Sinhalese and other communities in order to bring about aradical change in society. Karalasingham’s message has a greatdeal of relevance for understanding the plight of the Tamil minorityin the aftermath of the war that ended in May 2009.

It is in this context that various Tamil militant groups sprangup in the North demanding secession from the Sinhala state. Theyresorted to armed violence as the means of fighting the Sinhalastate. Their recruitment drive was vastly facilitated by the 1983July ethnic pogrom where Tamils in the south were brutallyattacked by Sinhala mobs who directly or indirectly receivedsupport from the security forces as well as some sections of theruling party who saw this as a justified retaliation on the part ofthe Sinhala masses against Tamil separatists. After a period ofbrutal warfare among the various militant groups the LiberationTigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) with greater access to militaryhardware, funds and diasporic support emerged as the sole voiceof the Tamils with TULF more or less eliminated and TamilNational Army (TNA) a pro LTTE Tamil front established as ademocratic face of the Tamil liberation struggle. The LTTE hadcloser links with the Catholic Church in the Tamil areas than withthe Hindu establishments per se given the conservative andapolitical nature of the Hindu establishments. Depending on thecircumstances the LTTE presented itself as a liberator of Tamilspeaking people in Sri Lanka, including Sri Lanka Tamils, IndianTamils and Muslims, and the architect of Tamil homeland (eelam)specifically referring to Tamils living in Northern and EasternProvinces. Even though the LTTE had a Muslim youth followinginitially, its relations with Muslims gradually turned antagonisticand violent with sporadic attacks on Muslim villages and mosquesas well as ethnic cleancing of Muslims by the LTTE in theNorthern Province in 1990. While the role of the army and the

Special Task Force (STF) in creating a rift between the LTTEand the Muslims as well as the refusal of the Muslims to be partof a proposed Tamil ethnic homeland where Muslims will becomea minority within a minority cannot be ruled out, this is a clearinstance where those representing one ethnic minority turnedagainst another ethnic minority with whom it has had manycultural and ties (McGilvray 1997).

Politics and the Role of Civil SocietyA number of civil society organisations in Sri Lanka, among themthe International Centre for Ethnic Studies formed in 1982, SocialScientists Association formed in 1977, University Teachers forHuman Rights formed in Jaffna University established in 1988 ,Centre for Policy Analysis formed in 1989 and the NationalPeace Council formed in 1994, the Centre for Society andReligion set up in the early 1970s and the Movement forInterracial Justice and Equality formed in 1978 tried to bring aboutpeace among parties to the conflict and introduce devolution ofpower as a remedy for the ethnic problem in the country(Goodhand & Lewer 1999). They identified Sri Lanka as anessentially multicultural society where people co-existedpeacefully and interacted with each other socially, culturally andpolitically for centuries in spite of dynastic warfare which brokeout from time to time. They firmly supported the Indo-LankaAccord of 1987 and the resulting constitutional including theintroduction of the 13th amendment to the constitution and theestablishment of Provincial Councils as a means to provide adegree of regional autonomy for the benefit of minorities (ICES1996). It also proposed a possible merger of the Northern andEastern Provinces following a referendum in the affected areasin order to create a predominantly Tamil speaking political unitwhere minority rights could be ensured. This solution, of course,was not acceptable to the LTTE and some of the extreme Sinhalanationalist forces in the South as it did not satisfy their ideas aboutan exclusive ethnic homeland more or less limited to themselves.Civil society actors paid dearly for the liberal views and dissentthey expressed vis-à-vis militant nationalists as evident from theassassination of Rajani Tiranagama from UTHR in 1994 and



Nelam Tiruchelvam from ICES in 1999, assassinations of theseTamil intellectuals being widely attributed to the LTTE.

The emergence of the Rajapaksa regime into power witheffect from 2005 was in many ways a climax in the rise of thetyranny of the majority. He put together an alliance of militantSinhala nationalists, including Jatika Hela Urumaya, JanathaVimukthi Peramuna on the one hand, and moderate Sinhala groupsincluding leftist parties. He took advantage of the global campaignfor the war against terror and the increased disenchantment withthe LTTE among the population at large, including some sectionsof the Tamil speaking population. He built the military using Sinhalanationalism as a rallying point and overpowered and totallyeliminated the LTTE leadership also using a breakaway groupfrom the LTTE (Karuna faction) as a useful complement to hismilitary campaign. As a political leader from the South, Rajapaksawas deeply sensitive to the needs of the Sinhala South, but therewere times when he stated that the Tamil minority have somelegitimate grievances. Nevertheless partly under the influence ofSinhala nationalist groups and military leaders who were close tohim, he has increasingly identified the LTTE as a merely terroristproblem that need to be dealt with militarily. He has initiated somepolitical processes such as the All Party RepresentativeCommittee (APRC) in order to bring about a political solution tominority grievances, but he has not followed up the outcome ofthis process including completing the activities initiated under the13th amendment. Following the military victory over the LTTEcelebration of this victory has taken precedence over addressingserious minority grievances that led to the rise of the LTTE in thefirst place. He has also taken a distinctly anti-NGO stance,characterizing and labeling them as agents of western capitalistforces and castigating the criticisms made by civil societyorganisations against the non-democratic turn of politicaldevelopments including suppression of independent media,interference in judiciary and increased militarisation of society.While the Rajapaksa regime is under increased internationalpressure from the UN, Tamil diaspora and bilateral playersincluding India to recognise and respect minority rights, so far theregime has only resorted to window dressing and tactical moves

rather than addressing the real problems of rights violations.In order to secure an element of support from minority groups

the Rajapaksa regime has resorted to a form of clientalisticpolitics whereby Sri Lanka Tamil, Indian Tamil and Muslimpoliticians have been accepted into the ruling regime by offeringthem ministerial posts and other rewards, just as much as he hasattracted sections of the political opposition in UNP, JVP andminority parties including Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, CeylonWorkers Congress and the Upcountry Peoples Front. While hemay be expecting to address minority grievances through thisapproach, he has had limited success so far in appeasing andattracting TNA through this method. He has also shown somecommitment to multiculturalism through patronizing variousreligions and learning to speak Tamil himself. However, asidefrom these symbolic gestures, the actual problems of minoritieswith regard to official language policy of the state, access to statecontrolled land resources, access to state employment, heavymilitary presence in predominantly Tamil areas in the North andEast and the need for increased devolution of power from thecentre have not been addressed or even identified as problems.As a recent Minority Rights Group report noted.

What appears to be missing from the state agenda is: anacknowledgement of legitimate minority grievances that led to theconflict; the promotion and protection of minority rights andfreedoms; a serious and credible effort towards justice,accountability and reconciliation; and a genuine attempt topresent a political solution that would satisfy the minorities(MRGI 2011: 7)

Concluding RemarksRecent political developments in Sri Lanka clearly illustrate thatthe minority groups in majoritarian states in South Asia cannot wintheir rights if they work in isolation from one another. One of themain mistakes made by the LTTE was to avoid linkages withoppressed groups in Sinhala society itself including casteminorities and oppressed class formations. It appears that theLTTE relied too much on ethnic purity and ethnic identity alone tothe neglect of other dimensions of oppression including social



class, gender, caste and regional disparities. It tried to essentialiseethnic identity and sought liberation along ethnic and nationalistlines alone. It does reveal the limitations of ethno-nationalism asan ideology of liberation of minority groups. As Tamil leftistintellectual Karalasingham predicted five decades ago, in manyways the LTTE has left the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka far morevulnerable and far more exposed to the rights violations of amajoritarian state than they were at the beginning of their politicalcampaign and armed struggle.

The analysis of minority politics within a majoritarian state inSri Lanka also highlights the need to place the minority rightsmovement within a larger democratic movement. Wherefundamental rights of the people are violated with impunity, andviolence is frequently resorted to in politics, the minority rightsthemselves are often in danger of violation. Development of ademocratic political culture where issues are openly discussedand differences are negotiated through public debate and policyanalysis, minorities may be in a better position to air theirgrievances and bring them to mainstream politics. Where otherrights are not ensured satisfactorily protecting minority rights maybe difficult to achieve.

As regards, the role of civil society in addressing minorityrights, the Sri Lankan evidence clearly shows that civil societyagencies can do very little to address the onslaught of the state inan anti-democratic social and political setting, if there is no massmovement for promotion of democratic rights within the societyat large. The NGOs have often caught in the middle of theconfrontation between two rival nationalisms, one Sinhala andone Tamil, with NGOs not having successfully mobilised massesaround their campaigns (Goodhand & Lewer 1999). Often NGOsare seen as implants from outside with no grass root foundationsin a large enough constituency of its own. This, in turn, point tothe need to reorient civil society organisations as massmovements opposed to dictatorial trends, political corruption andrights violations affecting disadvantaged population groups ingeneral. Better coordination among civil society organisationswithin and outside national boundaries will be a prerequisite formaking them nucleus of mass movements.

Finally the rising tide of ethno-nationalisms andfundamentalisms must be seen as a major threat to democraticactivism and rights movements in South Asia. While theseideological formations over exaggerate anxieties and threats toone’s own group, they are totally insensitive to and oftensupportive of rights violations of those identified as ethnic orreligious enemies. Often their demonisation is extended todemocratic activism on the part of civil society itself underminingand marginalizing democratic activism around minority rights,human rights, women rights etc. often attributing it to westerninfluence and external pressures. Under these circumstances,ethno-nationalisms and fundamentalisms, particularly where theyhave captured the imagination of the state or anti-state actors,serve to justify and drive violence, discriminatory policies andserious violations of minority rights.

Referencesde Tocqueville, Alex, 2000 Democracy in America. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Goodhand, J. & Lewer, N., 1999 Sri Lanka: NGOs and peace building

in complex political emergencies. Third World Quarterly 20 (1): 69-87.Government of UK, 1945, Ceylon: report of the Commission on

Constitutional Reform. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office.International Centre for Ethnic Studies, 1996 Sri Lanka: the

devolution debate. Colombo: ICES.McGilvray, Dennis, 1997 Tamils and Muslims in the shadow of war:

schism or continuity? South Asia 20: 239-253.Minority Rights Group International, 2011 No war, no peace: the

denial of minority rights and justice in Sri Lanka. London: MRG.Nithyanandan, V., 2007 The economics of Tamil nationalism. In R.

Cheran ed. Writing Tamil nationalism. Colombo: ICES, pp. 250-303.Silva, K.T., Sivaprgasam, P.P. & Thanges, P. , 2009 Casteless or

caste-blind? Dynamics of concealed caste discrimination, socialexclusion and protest in Sri Lanka. Colombo & Chennai: Kumaran Press.

Uyangoda, J., 2003 Question of Sri Lanka’s minority rights. In A.Mohsin et. al. ed. Minority Protection in South Asia. Colombo: ICES,pp. 246-371.



The author is the vice-president of the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha

HUNGER, DISPLACEMENT AND THE SHRINKINGSPACE OF DEMOCRACY

Sheikh Ansar

In the era of neo-liberalism, the shrinking of space of thebourgeois democracy, continual infringement of the democraticrights of masses and erosion of the democratic values from thesocial fabric has been a global phenomenon. One of the reasonsfor this is the fact that an authoritarian and repressive regime isnecessary for implementing the policies of liberalisation-privatisation and to deal with the possible social explosionsresulting from it. The second reason is that at present owing to theabsence of an organised resistance, capitalist regimes are actingwith more and more impunity and in authoritarian and arbitrarymanner.

Democracy does not come alive from the text of theconstitution. It is an outcome of socio-economic changes andpeople’s struggle. When we talk of the shrinking space ofdemocracy in India, we must remember that the space ofconstitutionally granted democratic rights is already narrow here.In a country where more than a quarter of population suffersfrom hunger and malnutrition, where about two lakhs peasantscommit suicide in a span of ten years, where the working peopledo not even get the minimum wages and social security which isprescribed under the law, where even after 63 years ofindependence the government has not been able to giveguarantee to even the basic needs to the common citizens such asfood, shelter, clothing, housing, health and education (on the

contrary, in the era of liberalisation-privatisation even theremaining infrastructure of the already existing public facilitieshas been paralysed), the fundamental right to life or fundamentalrights against exploitation mentioned in the constitution bear nomeaning to the common people. The directive principles of thestate policy mentioned in the constitution did not haveconstitutional-legal binding from the beginning, they were merelyan expression of the constitutional morality and the Indian statenever took policy guidance from them. And now in the era of neo-liberalism the sheer presence of the directive principles seem toexpose the hypocrisy of the Indian democracy. When we talk ofthe constitutional guarantee of the fundamental rights, we mustnot forget that the reach of the constitutional remedy mentioned inthe constitution is limited to only a handful of educated uppermiddle class people. The majority of the population has to contendwith the legal remedies which are implemented by the legalinstitutions whose structure and the character of the civil andcriminal laws are mainly and essentially colonial even today.Insofar as the labour laws and the basic rights of the workers areconcerned, the lengthy legal process and the modus-operandi ofthe labour tribunals has always remained a serious problem forthe workers. Now, in the era of neo-liberalism if we consider thestatistics in the last 20 years, it will be evident that the labour lawshave no significance and the courts are found along the side of theowners with the neo-liberal market based logic in most of thecases. This bitter truth holds good even for the supreme court.Recently in the ‘Harjindar Singh vs Punjab State WarehousingCorporation’ case, the two judges: justice Singhvi and justiceGanguly of a two member bench of the Supreme Court itselfexpressed their displeasure on the violation of the pro-labourphilosophy of the constitution by the courts and the anti-labourverdicts given by the several bigger benches and even by fivemember constitutional bench of the Supreme Court itself. In thewords of jutice Singhvi, “(From the recent verdicts) an impressionis being created that the constitutional courts no longer have anysympathy with the apathetic conditions of industrial workers andunorganised workers.” After this comment, there is hardly anyneed to say anything more about the naked reality of the shrinking

Hunger, Displacement and Shrinking Space of Democracy 123


of the constitutional democratic rights of the industrial workers inthe era of neo-liberalism.

Considering the limits of this essay, instead of a detailedanalysis, on the above topic we only wish to assert in a gist that ina post-colonial agrarian society like India (i) since there was noradical rupture from imperialism (ii) since the capitalist landreforms were not implemented in a radical manner; rather thereactionary “Prussian path” of gradual transformation wasadopted, the space of capitalist democracy had to be narrow fromthe beginning itself. Even in the western society, the capitalistdemocracy is in essence an all-round hegemony of the bourgeoisclass, but (owing to a historical process of renaissance-enlightenment-capitalist democratic revolution) the democraticvalues and a sense of citizenship prevail in the social fabric ofthose societies. At the same time, owing to extremely developedproductive forces, the condition of the majority of exploited andoppressed toiling masses is not such that they suffer from hungeror semi-hunger or die for want of medicines. The tragedy ofdisplacement for the industrial development unfolds even in thosecountries, but the displaced people are not left to wander and arenot left on footpaths to die of heat waves and cold. Undoubtedly,in the era of neo-liberalism the condition of the displaced,homeless and immigrant workers is increasingly getting worsenedeven in America but it is nothing in comparison with the hell likepitiable condition of hunger and semi-hunger of the bottom of thepopulation and the displaced people.

Howsoever beautiful words are used in the “Holy Book” ofthe constitution discussing the lofty democratic values, the formof democracy has been extremely narrow in the day-to-day life ofcommon people owing to the prevalence of undemocratic valuesin the socio-cultural fabric of the Indian society and as aconsequence of the colonial legal machinery and despotic colonialbureaucracy and police machinery and an electoral system basedon ritualistic franchise and money-power and muscle power.Another important aspect is that the provisions of lawful violationof the constitutional democratic rights are present in theconstitution itself. The Emergency was imposed not by stallingthe constitution but in accordance with it. Dozens of draconian

laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, MISA,NSA, TADA, POTA, Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Actetc. have been enacted and implemented as per the Constitutionitself. It is also noteworthy that the state power establishes therule of violence not only with the draconian laws but the invisibleprocess of the structural violence carried out by it goes onperpetually which mostly victimises the weaker sections ofsociety, the dalits and tribals, the lower strata of the religiousminorities and the women.

In the backward societies where the level of development ofthe productive forces is low, the logic of surplus appropriationfrom its auto-centric motion continues to push the lower strata ofthe wage labourers and the poor population which remains at themargins of the mainstream of the capitalist development into thewhirlwind of hunger and malnutrition. It is also a sort of structuralviolence. The capital, from its auto-centric motion uproots anddispossesses small owner farmers, tribals and the village-poorfrom their inhabitant and land and puts them in the queue of thewage-slaves. Even this constant process of migration is a form ofdisplacement and it is yet another form of the continuouslyunfolding structural violence of the capitalist system. Secondly,there is a displacement which happens openly. For the purpose ofconstructing big dams, highways and industrial projects and forplundering the mineral wealth of the forests and hills, the processof forcible eviction of their population and handing down a paltrysum in the name of wiping out the tears goes on since last 60years. Every time the promises of rehabilitation are made, but noteven 10 percent of the promises are delivered and whatever getsdelivered is utterly inadequate for living. Even this constitutesstructural violence inherent in the process of capitalistdevelopment which renders the constitutional presence of theeven the fundamental right to live into merely a formal right.

Owing to ineffectiveness of constitution and the colonial lawand order and bureaucratic machinery and due to the role oflegislature as a “showoff” and “talking shop” and role ofgovernment as the managing committee of the capitalists, whenmasses are left with no alternative to democratically protestagainst the above process of structural violence, a section of it



chooses the path of terrorism for resistance in the situation of thelack of alternative and pessimism. The state once again takesresort to open violence in the name of crushing such resistanceand it wages an undeclared war against the people by performinga danse macabre of brutal repression. Under such a situation itbecomes easier for the state to tag the brand of terrorism even tothe mass movements for democratic rights, the labourmovements and civil society organisations and to establish atotalitarian system by crushing every kind of civilian resistance.

In such a situation, it becomes easier to appropriate surplus,to plunder the mineral wealth and to uproot the people for theindustrial projects. Today, the Manmohan Singh andChidambaram’s government is moving in this very direction andthey have consensus on this issue with the chief ministers of allthe states, be it Raman Singh or Budhdev Bhattacharya or NitishKumar and Mayawati or anyone else. The question is not onlythat of ‘Operation Green Hunt’ or ‘Salwa Judum’ or the currentcampaign of crushing Maoism/Naxalism. The fundamental issueis that there is a consensus between the central and stategovernments on the neo-liberal policies which have resulted in asituation in which even the remaining social-securities of toilingmasses of villages and cities have been snatched away in the lasttwo decades, the labour laws have been rendered meaningless,the structure of the public services are getting destroyed andbeing handed over to the market forces, the process ofdisplacement has been intensified, brutalised and freed from allrestraints in order to makes SEZs and in order to exploit theminerals and handing-over the hills and forests to Jindal-Mittal-Birla-Tata-Posco etc. its native population is being uprooted in thesame manner as the Spanish and other Europeans had uprootedthe native population of America. As a consequence of thisprocess, neo-liberlism has caused an unprecedentedintensification of the process of structural violence of the stateand the shrinking of the horizon of capitalist democracy in theform of displacement, hunger, semi-hunger, deaths due to lack ofmedication and malnutrition and due to diseases caused byexhaustive work in bad conditions. Only some representativefacts and figures are enough to clarify the picture.

According to the government’s definition of ‘poverty’ inIndia, in villages, poor person is the one who gets less than 2400calorie a day. It is noteworthy that between 1993–1994 and2004–2005 the percentage of such population in villages hasincreased from 74.5 percent to 87 percent. Similarly, in the urbanpopulation, the percentage of the people living on less than 2100calorie has increased from 57 percent to 64.5 percent. (UtsaPatnaik: ‘Neo-liberalism and rural poverty in India’, EPW, 28 July,2007). According to a UNICEF report (‘The state of world’schildren 2009’), the rate of malnutrition among children in India ishighest in the world and it is even more than the sub-saharancountries. The children of rural areas in India are doublyunderweight than the children of urban areas. According to aUnited Nations report, the death-rate of children of less than 5years of age in India is three times that of China, 6 times that ofSrilanka and it is even more than Bangladesh and Nepal. Half ofthe Indian children suffer from malnutrition and are underweight.60 percent children and 74 percent infant suffer from anaemia.Around 9 thousand children die per day due to hunger,malnutrition and diseases caused by malnutrition. More than 50percent cases of the death of children of less than 5 years old arecaused by malnutrition. More than 5 crore children of less than 5years old suffer from chronic malnutrition. According to a UnitedNations report 63 percent children often sleep hungry. 23 percentchildren are weak and sick from their birth and 60 out of 1000infants die within a year.

The flip side of the economy making a leap with the rate of 8-9 percent annually is that according to the Untied Nations HumanDevelopment Index of 2007, India slipped from 124th to 127th

position. According to International Food Policy Research agency,India’s position was 94th in 118 countries of the world whilePakistan’s was 88th and China’s 47th. According to the GlobalHunger Index prepared by International Food Policy ResearchAgency and California University, India’s position was 66th in 88countries of the world. Leaving aside the African countries andBangladesh, highest number of hungry people live in India.

According to a report of the Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations, 855 million people suffer from



hunger, malnutrition and lack of nutrition in the world. 350 millionsuch population lives in India. According to another report of theUnited Nations, per capita food availability in India was 580 gramin 1991 which got reduced to 445 gram in 2007. It needs to benoted that in this duration the prosperous and rich section of thesociety has substantially increased their expenditure on food andbeverages. That means in this duration the reduction in the poor’sfood intake has been more than average reduction mentionedabove. As per the same report, during the two decades ofliberalisation, there has been substantial reduction in the per capitacalorie consumption of the poor in India.

In the developed countries, people spend 10 to 20 percent oftheir income on food while people in India on an average spend 55percent of their income on food. But the Indian citizens havinglow-income spend 70 percent of their income on food and eventhen they neither get the two square meals a day nor nutritionaldiet. On an average, an individual requires 50 gram of pulses aday, but in India the bottom 30 percent population gets only 13gram pulses a day. A family of five persons eat 200 kg lesser foodtoday than what it used to eat fifty years ago on an average. Thisis an average of the entire population, that means amongst thepoor the food consumption has reduced to even greater extent.According to National Sample Survey, average consumption inrural India is only Rs. 19 a day and in urban India it is Rs. 30. 10percent of the population in the villages manages to live on Rs. 9 aday. According to the report of the National Commission ForEnterprises in the Unorganised Sector, about 840 million people (77 percent of population) were living on Rs. 20 a day in 2004–2005. Among them 22 percent people were living on an income ofRs. 11.6 a day, 19 percent people on Rs. 11.6 to Rs. 15 a day and36 percent people were living on the income between Rs. 15 andRs. 20 a day.

Now even Manmohan Singh is conceding the reality of foodcrisis. The root cause of this crisis and the hunger generated by ithas been the neo-liberal economic policies. Currently the SEZswhich are being constructed for handing over land to thecapitalists on meagre sum ( 63 SEZs are notified, 171 areapproved, 162 are approved in principle and 222 are under

consideration) have so far taken over 1 percent of land suitablefor agriculture. We are not including the huge expansion of manyindustrial areas, multi-lane highways and residential projects here.Most of these development works are for the luxuries of thehighly prosperous elite section and is not socially useful. For themoment we are setting aside the discussion of the peopleuprooted by the and are talking about the reduction on agriculturalland.

A huge section of the remaining land is being used by the bigKulaks and the agro-based multi-national companies (throughcontract farming) for producing tomato and malta etc. For theglobal market of the processed food, they are doing organicfarming and are producing the bio-fuels like Jatrofa. Thistendency is fast gathering pace. The food-grain which isproduced does not reach to the poor at affordable prices due tocontinuous breakdown of the public distribution system andcorruption. Owing to the policies of open market, the prices ofessential consumer goods are skyrocketing since last many yearsdue to hoarding and the absence of any mechanism of price-control.

The neo-liberal era has not only made the workers’employment security and social security of every kind as totallyineffective and ritualistic, it has also caused huge fall in the realwages. Despite the huge increase in the labour-productivity in thelast 20 years, huge reduction in the regular employment and theshare of wage in the production-expenditure has been witnessed.According to a study, in 1990–1991 the share of wage in theproduction expenditure of the 100 big industries in India was 11percent which got reduced to only 5.56 percent by 2000–2001.This era of neo-liberalism has not only brought the tragedy ofhunger and all round dispossession to the poor toiling population,even the small and marginal owner farmers are not left untouchedby its flog. In the two decades of neo-liberalism, around two lakhfarmers have committed suicide due to losses in agricultural,pressure of loan and lack of alternative employment.

The severity and barbarity of this danse macabre of hungeris more clearly visible against the backdrop of the rich-poor divideand it becomes evident that the common people’s difficulties in



even living a life have made their democratic rights so ritualisticand narrow that India’s capitalist democracy does not remainanything but an oligocracy of elites and this oligocracy is ready togo to any extent of despotic totalitarianism in order to safeguardthe interests of handful of people. According to an article(Economic Times, July 9, 2007) written by Chetan Ahya, themanaging director of Morgan Stanley, between 2003 and 2007,more than one billion dollar of wealth was created in India whoselarge section went to a meagre section of the population.According to another study, the top 10 percent of the populationhas come to own 85 percent of the total wealth while the bottomsixty percent owns only two percent. The income of 0.01 percentof people in the country has exceeded more than two hundredtimes of the average income of the country. The differencebetween the income of the top three percent and the bottom 40percent has today become 60 times. The top ten billionaires of thecountry earn Rs. 20 million per minute. In the list of billionaires ofthe world released by Forbes magazine, there were 9 Indians in2004 and by 2007 this number increased to 40. During 2006-2007,within a span of one year the wealth of Indian billionaires wasincreased from 106 billion dollar to 170 billion dollar. According toeconomist Amit Bhaduri ( ‘Filhaal’, August-Sptember 2008), 60percent increase in the wealth of the billionaires was madepossible because the central and state governments handed overland on large scale to the corporate in the name of “publicpurpose” for mining, industrialisation and ‘Special EconomicZone’. This reality is, in fact, at the heart of all the activities ofMaoism, ‘Salwa Judum’, and ‘Operation Green Hunt’ inChhattisgarh.

Samrendra Das and Felix Padel, in their soon to be publishedbook ‘Out of this Earth: East India Adivasis and the AlluminiumCartel’ have mentioned that in the price of Bauxite present inOrissa itself was about 2.27 billion dollar which has now becomeabout 4 billion dollar. And this tale is not that of Orissa only.Minerals such as Uranium, Limestone, Dolomite, Iron, Bauxite,Coal, Tin, Granite, Marble, Copper, Diamond, Gold, Quartzite,Corundam, Beril, Alexandrite, Silica, Florite and Garnet worthbillions of dollar, in fact immeasurable, lie buried in Chhattisgarh,

Jharkhand and Orissa. That is the reason why Manmoham-Chidambaram are desperate to hand over the hills-forests and theland of the region to the domestic and foreign companies such asMittal, Jindal, Tata, Posco, Essar, Rio Tinto, B.H.P Billiton andVedanta. Hundreds of memorandums have already been signed(90 among them are from Jharkhand itself). The state has madeall the preparations to uproot the lakhs of tribals from theirsettlements and land at any cost. The real aim of whatever ishappening today in the name of the military action againstMaoism is to forcibly uproot the tribals.

A fifteen member committee of the Ministry of RuralDevelopment ( ‘Committee on State Agrarian relations andUnfinished Task of Land Reforms’) itself has termed theindustrialisation campaign in the iron-ore rich districts ofChhattisgarh—Bastar, Dantewada and Bijapur—as “the biggestincident of land-grab from the natives after Columbus “.According to the committee, “So far 350,000 tribals have beenuprooted for setting up steel and electricity plants with the totalinvestment of Rs. 20,000 crore. This large-scale campaign ofland-grab was akin to a declared war. The script of this play waswritten by Tata and Essar.” It has become evident today that thefinanciers of ‘Salwa Judum’ were the corporates like Tata andEssar Group more than the local contractors and capitalists.

It is noteworthy in this context that today’s union homeminister P. Chidambaram was at one time the non-executivedirector of Vedanta company, a company to which the Niyamgirihill of Orissa is being sold to for bauxite mining and in the processforcibly uprooting the tribals of the region. The lakhs of peoplewho are getting uprooted are today fighting the battle of life anddeath. Manmohan Singh has already said that the biggest obstacleto land-acquisition is the resistance of tribals and it is havingadverse impact on the foreign direct investment. That is thereason why Indian government is now planning to do the samething in the adjacent regions of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa,West Bengal and Maharashtra which was done by the Spanish inLatin America against the its native population. In this situation ofthe lack of alternative, the tribals are taking up arms and aresupporting the politics of Maoism.



Surely anyone who favours the politics of mass-movementfor labour rights and democratic rights cannot support ‘Maoism’or any kind of terrorist politics. But we believe that even thisstrategy of terrorism has been fuelled by the state terrorism, it isthe constantly unfolding structural violence of the state which hasgiven rise to this and now a war is being waged against the entirepopulation under its cover so that large-scale displacement couldbe accomplished. At the same time to crush every mass-movement rising against the calamity of neo-liberalism bybranding them as “Maoist-terrorist”.

It is important to look at some more facts in order to have abroad understanding of the question of displacement. It has beensaid earlier that even the migration of the poor population fromvillage to cities after getting dispossessed by the flog of capital isalso displacement only. These displaced workers, deprived of thesocial security of all kinds, toil hard in the factories liked daily-wage-slaves. The 180 million population which according to theNational Sample Survey lives in the slums and 180 millionpopulation which sleep on the footpaths are actually the cursedpopulation of the migrant and displaced workers. In the durationof the 2001 census alone, 1 crore 44 lakh people moved towardsthe cities or the more prosperous parts of the country as migrantworkers.

Arundhati Roy, in one of her articles (‘The greater commongood’) has given reference to a study by the Indian Institute ofPublic Administration. On the basis of the study of 54 large dams,it has been told that the average displaced population per dam is44,182. But the number of 54 is very less in comparison to thetotal 3300 big dams in the country. Even if we consider thepopulation getting displaced by every big dams to be 10000 (which is obviously very low), the total population getting displacedby the big dams comes out to be 3 crore and 30 lakhs. Now let ustalk about those who have been displaced in the last half centurybecause of big projects.

N.C. Saxena, ex-secretary of Planning Commission, in one ofhis speeches said that the number of people getting displaced byall the development projects including the dams would not be lessthan 5 crore. This population is around three times that of

Australia’s total population, three times the refugee populationduring partition of India, ten times that of Palestinian refugeepopulation and fifty times the number of Kosovo refugees. It is acontinuously unfolding calamity like a war. It is perhaps needlessto mention that the government’s rehabilitation schemes are onlyfor the name sake and their failure rate is sixty to seventypercent. Seventy percent of whatever paltry sum they get goesthrough the drain of corruption. It is to be remembered that everyyear thousands of people get displaced due to natural calamitiesor communal and caste-based tensions and riots. The attitude ofthe governments and bureaucracy towards them is merciless tothe similar extent.

To sum up, it can be said that the limits of the Indiandemocratic republic have been narrow right from the beginningdue to its colonial past and its link with the imperialist world as apost-colonial society and because of being a backward capitalistagrarian society. Now in the era of globalisation and neo-liberalism, the naked brutal lust of capital for extracting super-profit is making the Indian state more and more despotic,arbitrary, totalitarian and repressive. The logic of surplusappropriation inherent in the capitalist socio-economic structure iscontinuously giving rise to hunger, displacement and myriad formsof structural violence. Owing to some other social reasons, thisstructural violence which was already prevalent in India, hastaken the form of a calamity like a continuously unfolding warduring the last two decades of the neo-liberal policies. When thepopulation which is affected most by it is trying to resist, the statehas begun to take resort to the methodology of direct fascistrepression. The resistance to the structural violence is giving riseto the campaign of barbaric, open state violence by the para-military forces and the state is prepared even to use army ifrequired. An atmosphere of the reign of terror is being created ina systematic manner by making the draconian laws one afteranother, by streamlining the intelligence machinery, by brutallycrushing even the small scale local mass-movements and bycarrying out propaganda war and psychological war throughmedia.

One of the ways of resisting such a situation is to rebuild the



mass-movements of workers, to prepare new strategy and tacticsaccording to the new conditions and to prepare for a radical tradeunion uprising. The traditional trade-union movement has beendegenerated and disintegrated. The NGO brand reformism alsodoes a patch-up work and creates a safety-valve. The conditionof the lack of alternative and pessimism is giving rise to thepolitics of terrorist resistance which only takes the project of theemancipation of masses towards a dead-end. The staterepression promotes the politics of terrorism only and targets theentire population under its cover.

Only alternative left now is a new project of radical politics ofanti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. But it is not sufficient to statethis in general terms. The democratic and civil rights movementalso need to be built on a new footing alongwith the the classmovement of the toiling masses. The democratic rightsmovement and civil liberties movement need to be taken out ofthe narrow confines of submitting memorandum, organisingseminars, preparing reports, carrying out signature campaign andorganising symbolic protest-demonstration and it needs to betransformed into a broad mass-movement. The question ofdemocratic rights and civil liberties is not only that of enlightenedintellectuals and jurists. We will have to convince those people fortaking up active role whose democratic rights are being infringedon daily basis by the state-machinery and the powerful people ofthe society. The civil rights movement is not just a movement forthe release of prisoners and to raise voices against the policerepression and for political rights. If the structural violencecommitted by the state on sustained basis (which could be seen inmyriad forms such as hunger, malnutrition, displacement, lack ofbasic needs such as housing, health and education) attacks on ourfundamental right to live, it becomes the task of the democraticrights movement itself to organise widespread mass struggleagainst it. It can be possible only if the masses are aware abouttheir democratic rights and are ready to fight for it. For this thedemocratic rights movement also needs to become a widespreadpeople’s education movement and a campaign of massawakening.

The civil rights movement needs to be taken out of the

confines of the limited acts of the intellectual ‘pressure-groups’and it needs to be transformed into a militant mass-movementhaving broad mass-platform and a broad united front of all classesof masses. If a concrete initiative is taken in this direction bygiving up sectarianism, dogmatism and convenient selfish habit ofritualistic actions and if it is moved forward, it is very well possibleone day that a country-wide civil satyagrah and civil disobediencemovement could be organised on any kind of democratic rightsissue such as on the question of rehabilitation of the displacedpopulation, on the question of work to every person and fullnutritious food to every citizen, free universal health-care andfree and uniform education, housing for all, or on the question ofthe democratisation of judiciary, labour department and policemachinery.

It could look like a utopia or a big dream today, but it is notimpossible. Things look difficult or impossible as long as abeginning is not made. And a beginning is normally made througha dream only. We need to have faith on the masses and chose thepath of mobilising the broad population.




The author is the President of PUCL, Andhra Pradesh.Contact: [email protected]

INDIAN DEMOCRACY - STORY OF CIVILLIBERTIES MOVEMENTS

Jaya Vindhyala

A democratic society is one where the government and thecitizens come together to create an open society where there ismaximum and effective public participation. Citizens must evincean active interest in the formation of policies and their executionand thus exercise their democratic rights as importantstakeholders in the government process.

The starting point of all contemporary civil society initiativesis the assumption that the state cannot be held solely responsiblefor governance, development and growth of the nation. Peoplecan effectively participate and contribute only when they areempowered with knowledge of their rights and avenues ofredress. The first step in this direction is to secure basic humanrights within the framework of the constitution, through legislationand a transparent political process.

Civil society movements have largely articulated and agitatedfor rights safeguarded by the constitution and its constantimpingement by the state and as instrumentalities. The citizenrymust be conscious and vigilant if human rights are to be ‘realised’and the state is to be prevented from encroaching on fundamentalrights.

Social movements are an effort to change institutions andpractices. They are usually for the purpose of furthering the rightsof one or more groups within a system, either through reform or

more radical changes. Social movements labor to alterfundamentally existing social relationships and institutionalstructures. Given this broad definition of social movements, itmust be kept in mind that the trajectory of democracy andfreedom in India is largely different from that of the Westernliberal democracies.

A number of social movements have marked Indian historyfrom the 1800s onwards. Such strugglers are generally inopposition to the governments of the time, although some reformswere carried out under ruling administration. For example, Britishcolonial government enacted some changes for the cause ofsocial equality after efforts were initiated by individuals like RajaRama Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and DayanandSaraswati. Generally these changes had positive impacts ongroups that have historically been marginalised in India. Women,for example, were primary beneficiaries of new laws that endedthe practice of sati, and allowed widows to remarry.

The movements for independence, led by the Indian NationalCongress (INC), engaged in a larger struggle for democracy,which was inclusive of greater human rights and civil liberties. Inthat capacity, the INC contested several repressive laws contraryto civil rights such as the Arms Act 1878. However, the INC alsosupported some very draconian laws during that time and wastherefore not a wholly democratizing influence.

The INC’s primary interest was in gaining independencefrom British rule, and it’s struggled to balance its support forhuman rights with the need to establish stability as a precursor toachieving that independence. Therefore, it was not an adequateadvocate for civil liberties and there still remained space for amore far-reaching civil and social movement.

The Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) was established in1934 and this marked the beginning of a distinct civil rightsmovement. It’s main activities were ‘gathering information aboutviolation of civil liberties, particularly regarding the conditions ofprisoners and people in detention, police brutality, proscriptions onliterature and restrictions on the press’.

Along with the ICLU, the Bombay Civil Liberties Union, theMadras Civil Liberties Union and the Punjab Civil Liberties Union

Indian Democracy - Story of Civil Liberties Movements 137


further marked the birth of viable social movements for rights inIndia. In 1937, the INC and its provincial governments came intopower. Many of these provincial governments were heldresponsible for human rights violations. Tension grew betweenthe INC and the ICLU when the ICLU declared that, withindependence, the need for a civil liberties organisation wasredundant. This ultimately led to the collapse of the ICLU.

The congress government led by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehruguaranteed the citizens of Independent India certain inalienable,fundamental rights through the Constitution of India. Theconstitution of India is one of the longest, most sweeping and mostrights-based Constitution in the world. It was heavily influencedby the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, which waswritten shortly before, and also drew on a range of existing rights-based Constitutions. Consequently, it encapsulates andguaranteed the fundamental principles of human rights.

Evidence of India’s historical struggle against the BritishColonial powers that so consistently abuse the rights of the peoplecan also be found in the document. The constitution providesprotection against such infractions, and includes other principlesthat informed the battle for independence in particular, socialreforms against practices like sati, child marriage, anduntouchability. The constitution also directs the state to setpolicies for the welfare and relief of the people, therebyencompassing ideas of economic and social rights in addition tocivil liberties.

The leadership of Mahatma Gandhi saw the capitalisation ofthe ‘constructive spirit’ within the society. After independence, allvoluntary initiatives that were hitherto mobilizing people againstoppressive rule of the British now placed reliance on theindependent government to realise dreams. The policies of thegovernment clearly widened the gaps and lead to theappropriation of privileges by the upper castes and the wealthy.The ‘casteist, feudal and communal characteristics of the Indianpolity, coupled with a colonial bureaucracy, weighted against anddampened the spirit of freedom, rights and affirmative actionenshrined in the Constitution.

The government’s commitment to civil liberties was further

challenged by internal instability. The left-wing Naxalitemovement of the 1960s was formed in response to the ongoingrepressions and abuses of the central government. This causedthe State to even further suppress dissent and exert politicalcontrol-sometimes violently- over citizens. However, it also drewattention to the contradictions between the Constitution and Statepractices, precipitating the growth of new social and civil rightsmovements.

In response to massive movement by students and youthagainst corrupt and undemocratic practices by the party in power,in 1975, the government of Indira Gandhi imposed a nationwidestate of emergency to suppress opposition. Mrs. Gandhi unilateralaction ultimately served to spurt a resurgence of civil libertiesmovements in India.

The Emergency gave rise to gross violations of human rights,preventive detention laws being used extensively. More than onelakh people were arrested and detained for political reasons, oftenunder false charges. This included political opposition leaders,trade union leaders and social activists. The government alsoimposed censorship on newspapers, media outlets andprohibitions on public gatherings. The Constitution of India and allits protections were entirely suspended for 19 months.

It was during this period that the human rights movementdeveloped a wide organisational base and became more visible.The agenda of the civil liberties movement included arbitrarydetention, custodial violence, prisons, and the misuse of thejudicial process. Several organisations were formed during thisperiod like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).

The major activities taken by these groups included fact-finding mission and investigations, public interest litigation, citizenawareness programs, campaigns and production of Supportiveliterature for independent movements and organisations. Theyhave also served to relieve, support and lobby for those whoserights have been breached in times of crisis; for example, duringthe 1984 Sikh riots, the Bhopal gas disaster, the Bhagalpur riots in1989, and more recently, those displaced by the Sardar SarovarProject and victims of the Godhra riots.

The auspicious increase in the number of human rights NGOs



in India after the Emergency of 1975-77 was a result of thehuman rights abuses perpetrated by the government and itsagents during this time. This included the emergence andmobilisation of groups and institutions-new social movements-ledby these NGOs. These movements have succeeded in creatingan impact among a cross section of people of India.

NGOs at the forefront of civil society movements in Indiahave had notable success in areas like electoral reform.Beginning in 2000, coalitions of NGOs have filed suits against theGovernment of India in the interest of citizens’ rights toinformation about candidates standing for office at every level.Specifically, they pressed for the release of information aboutcriminal convictions, or pending criminal cases, financial statusincluding campaign, financing, and educational qualifications.Despite the opposition of all the political parties- ruling andotherwise- and their attempts to legislatively derail such adevelopment, the persistence, unity, and popular support of theNGOs resulted in repeated court rulings in their favor.Consequently, their efforts have led to freer, fairer elections inIndia today by way of a more informed electorate.

The initiatives by social society groups led to bringrevolutionary enactments like Right to Information, Right toEducation etc. At presently we are witnessing all round efforts tocontain corrupt practices in the government. Such moves certainleading strengthening of democracy and its institutions.

The economic policies adopted by Dr. Manmohan Singhleading to social and economic unrest in the country. While thesehave been widening gap between the rich and poor, large numberof poor are losing their occupations, high rate of increase inunemployment, key sectors like education and health going awayfrom the reach of common people with corporate houses arecoming to the center stage of policy making. They are gainingcontrol over natural resources displacing large number ofindigenous people.

This scenario is leading to new type of social tensions. For thefirst time in the independent India, the Left Front lost its power inWest Bengal when the poor and marginalised sections of thepopulation started asserting their rights on their piece of lands.

Both the state and central governments have been showingimpatient towards people’s movements asserting their right toland, right to food and right to work. These tendencies arerecalling days of Emergency period. The arrest of human rightsand health activist like Dr. Binayak Sen under sedition lawsshows how the State is impatient against anyone who dares toraise issues of oppression.

Since the 1980s, the human rights movements hasstrengthened and diversified its range of activities. Themovement had widened its focus areas from civil and politicalrights to economic, social and cultural rights, environment,development and women’s rights among others. While such abroadening of focus has strengthened the movement, it has alsoincreased the conflict between NGOs and the IndianGovernment.

With the human rights movements in India has beensuccessful in mitigating some serious forms of oppression, andhas kept alive the spirit of democracy in India, it is not without itslimitations.

Social and human rights movements in India are voluntary innature. Most of the organisations that represent such movementsare without all-encompassing rights foundations and are based onindividual or collective enthusiasms for special interests. Whilesuch groups may be able to affect small changes, naturally theyare limited. There are many human rights groups advocatingnumerous social causes, but most with narrow focuses havefailed to affect any significant changes in society.

The expansion of NGOs across India should not in and ofitself be equated to a strong human rights movement. It isunfortunate to note that NGO sector has become politicised, andis large enough in India so that political factions are beginning tofight one another by proxy through NGOs. Such organisations areoften aligned with political parties, and conduct their businessaccording to agenda of those parties. This may in turn, greatlydiminish the influence and ability of NGOs to provide legitimatecriticisms of the government, thereby leaving a vacuum for theleadership of true social movements.

Perhaps the matter of greatest concern is the ‘gravy train’



trend that has accompanied the explosion of NGOs. Manyobservers have criticised the inefficacy and sometimescorruption, associated with NGOs and the funding they obtain—often from government or international agencies like the UN.Often NGOs have proven too small or too inefficient to affectsignificant changes per the amount of money they are given.

Institutional Erosion in a Democracy— Pushkar Raj*

Vibrant democracies are known for their institutional strengths. Itis incumbent on the government of the day to ensure respect forthese institutions as well as to make sure that they functionsmoothly. If it does not do so, the government fails in its trust thatpeople have reposed in it. Institutions are important in a society asthey protect basic rights of people. For example they might beengaged in important work of ensuring that there are no extrajudicial killings; public money is spent properly for people’swelfare or; those who are guilty of misuse of public offices areheld accountable for their misdeeds.

In recent days some of our important institutions have comeunder scanner due to acts of omissions and commissions of thepresent government in relation to them. The National HumanRights’ Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General and theCentral Vigilance Commissioner have attracted attention fordifferent reasons which have left their image a little tarnished.While the CVC had to resign on the Supreme Court’s order, it hasshaken people’s confidence in the present government thatpersisted in appointing him. Similarly one of government’sminister’s disputing Comptroller and Auditor General’s findingson financial loss to exchequer on 2G spectrum allocations is anattempt to denigrate a constitutional body that has a reasonablygood demonstrable track record of autonomy and impartiality.

The said minister’s act is an unwelcome attempt to mixgovernance with petty politics and worthy of censure. The

National General Secretary, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

National Human Rights Commission chairman’s office too hascome under criticism from media and civil society groups fornegative reasons. Even though one does not de-construct thosereasons, it is a matter of discomfort that such an eventuality arisesleaving the office of NHRC chairman somewhat less shining in itsstature.

In all these mentioned instances the government of the day isresponsible in one way or the other. One must bear in mind thatthis institutional undermining was one of the cause and fall out ofbreakdown of democracy in the country during 1975-77. It isimportant that the civil groups in country ensure that the presentgovernment respects the statutory bodies in letter and spirit, sothat an undeclared spectacle of the emergency period is avoided.It is a matter of satisfaction that efforts of civil society have bornefruit in form of CVC’s appointment being quashed andinvestigations being launched in 2G spectrums allocation process.

However there are many more battles that are waiting to befought and won. Each such victory will strengthen our democracyleading to empowerment of our people.



The author is a social activist and journalist.Contact: [email protected]

DISPLACEMENT, DISPOSSESION AND THEQUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

Sourav Banerjee

With the increasing urbanisation, rapid economic development,increasing infrastructure requirements, prolonged armed conflictand ethnic or communal violence etc., each year, millions ofpeople in India are forcibly relocated and resettled away fromtheir homes, lands and livelihoods. The Loss of livelihood anddisplacement has become a recurring feature for the people ofIndia in order to make way for large-scale developmentprojects such as dams, reservoirs, power plants, roads,plantations, urban renewal, and oil, gas, and miningprojects. Hundreds of villages have been acquired by the Indiangovernment for Greater Good and “development” purposes, as aresult of which, millions of people become displaced from theirhomes. Experts estimate that over 250 million people worldwidehave been displaced in the name of development over the pasttwenty years while in India alone, development projects havedisplaced more than 60 million people in the past 60 years. Addingto its woes, the regional armed conflict too has a greatcontribution towards the number of displaced and dispossessed.Based on known numbers of IDPs(internally displaced person)living in camps and registered there, a conservative estimate ofthe total number of people displaced due to conflict and violencewould be at least 650,000. However, the real number, includingpeople dispersed in India’s cities and others living in displacementoutside camps, is likely to be significantly higher. The fear oflosing land under unfair terms or the menace of displacement thus

become a subject of urgent debate of the time. The concern isbecause often, the internally displaced suffer extremedeprivation, human rights violation, threatening their verypossibility of survival, and are often exposed to considerabledanger, both during flight and while in displacement. Accordingly,the death toll among internally displaced persons has oftenreached extreme proportions, particularly among physicallyweaker section of the population, such as children, the elderly orpregnant women. Displacement can be physical, economic, orboth. Physical displacement refers to the actual relocation ofindividuals, families or communities from one place to anotherwhile economic displacement occurs when people lose access tovital natural resources that they need to sustain their livelihoodssuch as forests, grazing lands, and fresh water.

At present there exists no internationally agreed upondefinition as to who is a displaced person. United Nations currentworking definition given by the Guiding Principles in Internaldisplacement (1998) holds them to be:

“Persons or groups of persons who have been forced toflee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence asa result of, or in order to avoid, in particular, the effects ofarmed conflict, situations of generalised violence, violationsof human rights or natural or human made disasters, andwho have not crossed an internationally recognised StateBorder.”

Development is one of the primary causes of forced migrationin India today. This forced relocation is known as development-induced displacement and resettlement, or DIDR.Development-induced displacement can be defined as the forcingof communities and individuals out of their homes, often alsotheir homelands, for the purposes of economic developmentthough at the international level, it is viewed as a violation ofhuman rights. Figures on the number of people forcibly uprootedfrom their homes and communities are incomplete and are carefulapproximations at best. They do, however, give us a clear indicatorof the magnitude of the problem. The vast majority of DIDR isinvoluntary, with government authorities, security forces, orprivate militias forcing people from their homes and lands. Since

Displacement, Dispossesion and Democratic Rights 145


1990, the government of India’s liberalisation policy boosted byincreasing inflow of foreign investment for major infrastructuralprojects by the World Bank and other international financialinstitutions, has consciously invested in infrastructure developmentthat has exacerbated internal displacement. Livelihoods, lifestylesand identities have been threatened by these policies. In the last63 years, India has invested in industrial projects, dams, roads,mines, power plants and new cities which have been made possibleonly through massive acquisition of land and subsequentdisplacement of people. At least 60 million people in India havebeen displaced by dams, mines, thermal power plants, corridorprojects, field firing ranges, express highways, airports, nationalparks, sanctuaries, industrial townships, SEZs and even poultryfarms. For reasons of location of these development projects, avast majority of internally displaced persons are adivasis, dalitsand other economically marginalised communities. Roughly one inevery ten Indian tribals is a displaced person. Tribals constitute 8%of the country’s population and more than 40% of the displacedpopulation.

Now let us look at some Major instances of displacements:

Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) built along the Narmada River:30 big dams, 300 medium and 3,000 small dams are built on thissingle river. Over 300,000 people have been displaced by theNarmada Project. According to the Commissioner for ScheduledCastes and Tribes, 60 per cent of the displaced people areadivasis. Environmental groups have pointed out the immenseecological damage through the inundation of forests, which areprime habitats of rare species. In total, over 32,000 hectares ofland have been submerged by the SSP, 13,000 of which is forestland, and 11,000 hectares of agricultural land. The Tehri dam, one of the highest dams in the world harnessingthe waters of two important Himalayan rivers – Bhagirathi andBhilangana, has completely submerged Tehri town and 23villages, while 72 other villages had been partially submerged.Nearly 5,200 hectares of land has also been lost to the reservoir.About 85,000 persons have been displaced by the dam.

Tribals living in Jharkhand are under constant threat of theirdisplacement from their ancestral habitat. 65,40,000 Jharkhandipeople have displaced due to mining, irrigation projects, heavyindustries and animal sanctuaries Polavaram Multipurpose project built on the Godavari River isexpected to submerge of at least 276 villages and displace170,000 people out of which 259 villages are in Andhra Pradesh,10 in Chhattisgarh and 7 in Orissa. Majority of the displaced aretribals, living along the Godavari and adjacent. On the border of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, in theSingrauli region, over 200,000 people have been displaced ondifferent occasions. First by the Rihand dam, then by a series ofthermal power plants of the National Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC), followed by mining projects of the Central CoalfieldsLimited (CCL). Singrauli has illuminated the lives of many in theurban centres, but has seen its natives groping in endlessdarkness, grappling to overcome the trauma of displacement. In Karnataka’s Nagarhole National Park about 5,000 tribalfamilies, including aboriginal tribes— were thrown out of theforests, which they tended for centuries. Presently, the tribalsliving on the fringes of the forests are grappling with the marketeconomy they have been forcibly exposed to. Many of tribalswork for meagre wages as coolies at nearby coffee plantations.They have sold their children as domestic workers for the urbanrich over the past decade. 237 among 500 Special Economic Zones in 19 states(occupying 86,107 hectares) have been approved by the CentralGovernment. 63 of these SEZs have already been notified. 23SEZs are operational, 18 are in Information Technology (IT)sector. 1,50,000 hectares (the area of National Capital Region)will be total number of land to be acquired, which would displace1,14,000 farming household (each household on an averagecomprising five members) and an additional 82,000 farm workerfamilies who are dependent upon these farms for their livelihoods.At least 10 lakh people who primarily depend upon agriculture fortheir survival will face eviction. SEZ approved by the State Government of Orissa signed adeal with South Korean company, POSCO, one of the world’s



biggest steel makers for setting up of 12 million tonnes per annumintegrated steel plant at Ersamma block in the coastalJagatsinghpur district which will displace 22,000 people from4000 acres of land,around 15 villages and ruin their betelleaffarming.In addition to the farmers who will be displaced,thousands of fisherman and the villagers in the port area will alsolose their livelihood.

In Maharashtra Reliance had set up a large SEZ composedof 35000 acres, where it has plans to build an upper and middleclass ‘New Mumbai’ on top of rice fields.This SEZ will displace45 villages and 2,50000 people.Similarly in Karnapura valley inthe state of Jharkhand The National Thermal PowerCorporotation(NTPC)has set its sight on developing huge open pitcoal mines that would eventually displace 186 villages and 250000people out of 3lakh people who now live in the valley.

And there are million other incidents like ‘Nandigram’,Singur, Jaitpur or ‘Common Wealth Games’ which poses equal ormore danger to the poor people of India.

Apart from development, there are political causes such assecessionist movements, identity based autonomy movements,caste disputes and religious fundamentalism etc., whichgenerates millions of IDPs in India each year. In other words it iscalled conflict induced displacements. Since independence, Indiahas continued to experience outbreaks of armed conflict,fratricidal conflict and religious and caste based massacres whichhave also displaced several thousand people. Currently, morethan 650,000 persons are estimated displaced by these conflicts.If seen critically the reason lies behind this kind of forceddisplacement is nothing but the anti-people policies of the statewhich essentially creates enemies and eventually leads to conflictor war.

It is very difficult to estimate the total number of conflict-induced IDPs in India as there is no central government agencyresponsible for monitoring the numbers of people displaced andreturning. In addition, there is no UN agency that has an overalloverview of the situation, and NGOs and civil societyorganisations have generally focused on specific displacementsituations in India rather than on the overall situation.

Apart from these two major reasons, there are displacementsdue to natural disaster, which is called ‘EnvironmentalDisplacement’. Millions of people are displaced oweing to thisreason each year in India. The Climate Institute definesenvironmental refugees as “people fleeing from environmentalcrises, whether natural or anthropogenic events, and whether shortor long term.” Reasons for displacement include land degradation,drought, deforestation, natural disasters, and other environmentalchanges that interact destructively with poverty and populationpressure. There are currently between 25-30 million environmentalrefugees worldwide, and their numbers are expected to swell to 200million by mid-century, largely as a result of climate change. Forinstance, the Indian Ocean tsunami, which hit southern India inDecember 2004, devastated the Andaman and Nicobar Islands anda 2,260 km stretch of the mainland coastline in Andhra Pradesh,Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. According to the World Bankan estimated 2.7 million people were affected by the disaster andsome 650,000 were displaced. Indian-controlled Kashmir was alsobadly affected by the South Asia earthquake in October 2005,which rendered thousands of people homeless.Over 3 million peoplewere displaced by the Kosi flood in the state of Bihar in 2008. Themost tragic part for the environmentally displaced person is unliketraditional refugees, environmental refugees are not recognised bythe Geneva Convention or the United Nations High Commission onRefugees (UNHCR), and therefore do not have the same legalstanding in the international community thus more prone to miseryand injustice.

Last but not the least, even the capital too has it’s significantrole in displacing people from their land and livelihoods. As per thecurrent pace of globalisation millions of workers are migratingfrom their home land in search of jobs. Though this cannot bedirectly considered as a forced displacement but metamorphosisof rural farmers into a wage laborer is indeed a displacement;physically, economically and culturally.

So now, let us look at the grave impact of displacement anddispossession on the displaced and society as well.

The impact of a project is rarely limited to people within theidentified project area. The construction of a dam or a mine, for



example, typically does not displace only those people andcommunities located on lands used for the project. People livingdownstream from a dam may suffer the loss of fisheries neededto sustain themselves. An entire community may suffer healthimpacts due to pollution from a mine. Both circumstancescommonly force people to move, and both are examples ofdevelopment-induced displacement.

Following are the evident out-come of displacements:New poverty and loss of community resources:The people who bear the brunt of the personal, social, and

environmental costs of projects involving DIDR rarely share in thebenefits. On the contrary, DIDR commonly leads to theimpoverishment of those who are forced to move, creating newpoverty in project-affected areas. A multi-year study ofdevelopment-induced displacement concluded thatimpoverishment and disempowerment “have been the rule ratherthan the exception with respect to resettled people around theworld.”One of the world’s foremost experts on DIDR identifieseight impoverishment risks posed by DIDR. These are:landlessness; homelessness; joblessness; significant deteriorationin incomes and livelihoods; food insecurity, undernourishment andhunger; serious declines in health, Increases in morbidity, stressand psychological trauma; a spiral of downward mobility leadingto economic marginalisation often accompanied by social andcultural marginalisation; and profound social disintegration. Peopledisplaced by development are known to be at increased risk ofsuffering life-threatening diseases, epidemics, and loss of physicaland mental health, yet they commonly have less access to hospitalsand health clinics. Families often lose access to educationalfacilities as well, resulting in lost or delayed educationalopportunities for children. Existing patterns of leadership, socialorganisation, and subsistence are dismantled. Kinship ties andother informal networks that provide mutual support are dispersedor unraveled precisely when the need for them is the greatest.

Disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable:It is the poorest and most vulnerable members of a community

who typically bear the heaviest costs of DIDR. Women, children,

the elderly, and indigenous groups are particularly vulnerable toimpoverishment and disempowerment when forcibly displaced. Forthose indigenous peoples who value land as the core of their identityand way of life, the impacts of DIDR are particularly devastating.Documented effects included hunger, debt-bondage, and culturaldisintegration.The forced displacement of indigenous peopleviolates Principle 9 of the UN’s Guiding Principles on InternalDisplacement, which stipulates that: “States are under a particularobligation to protect against the displacement of indigenous peoples,minorities, peasants, pastoralists, and other groups with a specialdependency on and attachment to the land.”Despite formalprotection afforded by the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, tribal groups and ethnic minorities have beendisproportionately affected by DIDR. India, the country thought tohave the largest number of people affected by DIDR in the world,serves well as an example: it is estimated that 40 percent of all thepeople displaced by development projects during the first 40 yearsof India’s independence were tribal people.

And on top of that there are Human rights violations:“The international community is beginning to recognise

misguided ‘development projects’ which displace millions ofpeople and destroy their livelihoods for what they really are:violations of human rights.” DIDR frequently comes hand-in-hand with coercion, threats or violence and egregious corruption.IFIs and governments alike routinely fail to uphold theirobligations to fairly compensate, resettle, and restore people’slivelihoods. Far too often, people attempting to claim their rightsrisk intimidation, degrading treatment or punishment, arbitraryarrest or detainment, violence and even torture from private orstate security forces. Following relocation, people often

face the risk of communal violence in resettlement areaswhere tensions between members of existing communities andnew settlers are common.

Loss of traditional environmental knowledge:The Convention on Biological Diversity—a legally binding

international treaty established by the United Nations and ratifiedby 190 states and the European Union—recognises thatconservation of our planet’s biodiversity and ecosystems is only



possible if we conserve rapidly-disappearing traditionalknowledge about how to care for and sustainably use our naturalresources and ecosystems. When indigenous and farmingcommunities are forced to uproot and vacate their traditionallands to make way for development projects, their entire way oflife is lost—along with their practices for sustainable use ofnatural resources and ecosystems.

Climate change:DIDR is inextricably linked to climate change through a

vicious cycle. Large, carbon-intensive energy-sector projectssuch as oil extraction, coal mining, and bio-fuel plantationsforcibly displace millions of people every year. These projectsthen generate greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to globalwarming, with impacts that include desertification and rising sealevels. Impacts of climate change are disproportionately severefor impoverished countries or regions with insufficient resourcesto effectively mitigate longer droughts, increased flooding, and theloss of agricultural land and crops —all of which can triggerfurther forced migration.rvices, including health care.

Some facts on the state’s role. 1. Almost 80% of the agricultural population in India owns

only about 17% of the total agriculture land, making them near-landless workers. Far more families and communities depend ona piece of land (for work, grazing) than those who own it outright.However, compensation is being discussed only for those whohold titles to land. No compensation has been planned for thosewho do not.

2. In states like Gujarat a large part of the land being divertedto SEZs is in the category of common or gowcher land (referredto wrongly as’wasteland’).Since these lands are ‘common lands’with no individual titles, they are transferred without evenconsulting the local communities and panchayats.

3. Temple or Panchami land in Tamil Nadu and Waqf boardlands in Andhra Pradesh are other examples of Public lands thathave been expropriated and privatised for SEZs.

4. The most outrageous acquisitions are taking place inAndhra Pradesh which has the highest number of SEZ approvals,in the form of acquiring assigned lands (allotted to Dalits andScheduled Tribes) for SEZs. This has been seen clearly in places

like Polepally, Kakinada, Chittoor and Anantapur where SEZs areproposed.

Destruction of Agro-based and rural economies-1.The bulk of land being acquired for SEZs is fertile,

agricultural land, especially in case of the multi-product zones.Agriculture Scientists have estimated that close to 1.14 lakhfarming households (each household on an average comprisingfive members) and an additional 82,000 farm worker families whoare dependent upon these farms for their livelihoods, will bedisplaced.

2. The total loss of income to the farming and the farmworker families, then, is an astounding Rs.212-crore a year.These were the estimates in 2006 after the initial SEZ approvalswhich are now multiplied three-fold.

Creation of exploitative employment opportunities andworking conditions resulting from nullification of labour protectionlaws -

A. The SEZ policy of the government transfers all thepowers of the state Labor Commissioner to the DevelopmentCommissioners of the SEZs.

B. The power in the hands of the development Commissionerto declare SEZs as “public utility services” under the IndustrialDisputes Act would mean that in SEZ areas workers will have norights to strike or even to form unions and organise collectively tobargain for better wages or working conditions.

• exposure to collateral risks in attempting to meet essentialneeds.

A number of indigenous movements that have grown havepointed out repeated instances of the State’s complicity in denyingrights to communities facing eviction.lve tribal villagers werekilled by police on January 2, 2006 during a protest against thedevelopment of the Kalinga Nagar steel complex in Orissa. Theindigenous tribals were refusing to hand over their land to theTATAs in Kalinganagar and were demanding a halt toconstruction by steel developers on their traditional land. A 13-year-old boy and three women were among those killed.

2.On 14th March 2007, on the orders of the CPI(M) led LeftFront government in West Bengal, in Nandigram over 4,000heavily armed police stormed the Nandigram area with the aim of



stamping out protests against the West Bengal government’splans to expropriate 10,000 acres of land for a Special EconomicZone (SEZ) to be developed by the Indonesian-based SalimGroup. The police shot dead at least 14 villagers and wounded 70more.

3.In December 2000 the tribals protesting against UAIL’sbauxite mining and alumina factory at Maikanch, in Kashipur,Orissa were indiscriminately fired and three tribals killed bypolice.

ConclusionIn the light of the preceding discussion, we can see there arevarious causes of internal displacement in India. But the seriousfallout’s of the development process, have to be seen from thepoint of view of displacement. The postcolonial Indian state hasfailed miserably to resolve the issues raised by the InternalDisplacement and virtually abdicated its responsibility towardsthe victims of the same. If the present situation continues withoutany effective intervention, India is likely to experience moreinternal displacement of population, particularly the marginalisedgroups in near future. Why should the poor be compelled to paythe price for the creation of the ‘global’ city? Can we notenvisage a state that caters to the needs of all its citizens? And forthat we need “development” that benefits all. Projects thatimpose displacement must be designed to improve affectedpeople’s standard of living and restore their livelihoods. Toachieve this, the following key reforms are needed:

1) Demand new rules governing DIDR andaccountability systems that protect rights.

We need to continue targeted advocacy efforts aimed atcreating rights-respecting, responsible policies on displacementand resettlement that promote the principles of avoidingdisplacement, accountability for decision-making and projectoutcomes, participation by all segments of affected populations inall phases of project design and implementation, andtransparency. We also need to ensure that these policies areaccompanied by strong systems and mechanisms forenforcement. Development policy-makers and IFIs should be

held accountable for their role in funding projects that forciblydisplace people and must uphold their obligation to restore thelivelihoods of projectaffected people and communities, improvetheir standards of living, and support their visions and priorities forlocal development.

2) Include the risks and financial responsibilitiesrelated to displacement and resettlement up front inproject costs.

Development policy-makers and IFIs should recognise thefull impacts and costs of DIDR, including the fact that forceddisplacement creates the very poverty that developmentpurportedly seeks to eliminate and disproportionately impacts themost vulnerable members of affected communities. One way toeffectively mandate this would be to require that all resettlementand rehabilitation work be fully carried out and financed beforethe project that will cause the anticipated displacement can bebuilt. In addition, the project framework should be structured toensure that there is an ongoing revenue stream from the project tothe people who are threatened with displacement.

3) Promote a development model that does not undulydisplace.

A development model based upon excessive and brutaldisplacement is profoundly unsustainable, and is resisted by thepeople and communities it threatens and affects. However, theconverse can also be true: often projects that are better for peopleare also better for the planet. This becomes clear if we honorexisting resources and assets that have been undervalued inprevailing development models, including cultivation and grazinglands, forests, ecosystem services, waterways, community, andtraditional knowledge on how to cultivate the earth’s resources ina sustainable manner. We need to work toward a world in whichhuman connection to land, vibrant communities, healthyecosystems, and democratic decision-making are not bulldozed as‘obstacles’ to development, but rather are defended as thefoundation for human health, justice, and sustainability.

4) Reform in policy.The only legislation pertaining to land acquisition currently in

place is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“The Act”) which,



though amended several times retains its colonial flavor bygranting an unfettered powers to the Government. It is time thelegislators test it against the needs of the society of a democraticIndia of today.

The following are a few major issues that need to beaddressed:

1) Required changes in the legislation:- Too wide a definition of “Public Purpose”- Arbitrary and only monetary compensation- No provision for compulsory Social Impact Assessment- Non-recognition of indigenous rights.

2) Need for participation by the people affected in theprocess,

Above all, the most important thing we have to do is toredefine ‘development’. While aspiring for “development”, it isimportant to understand what constitutes “development” itself.For a society to ensure true development and a sustainablegrowth it becomes important to address wealth distribution withinthe society. If this be so, it is essential that the laws of ademocratic country ensure that, for the growth of a few, thedisplaced persons are not made worse-off. To conclude, there is astrong need to put legal thought and thorough investigation intoissues regarding removing the imbalance from the system. Andhere lies the need of a well organised democratic rightsmovement which compells the state to rethink on its policies ondiaplacement and resettlement. This is certainly a huge challengeto the civil society, mass organisations, intellectuals and justiceloving people to educate and aware the evicted as well as thebroader mass on their basic constitutional rights and also thetrauma of displacement and dispossession, to erect such massmovement and unitedly oppose any such move to be made by thestate in future.

Documents

Democratic Rights Movement in India - Papers