A file photo of Maoists in Chhattisgarh. Photo: Noah Seelam/AFP
To talk internal security, let’s talk manifestos.
It may seem strange to bring up the issue of election
manifestos during public displays of wholesale self-preservation in
politics and wholesale panic about the economy. But the general election
looms, and so must manifestos and the resultant exercise for
prospective voters and observers to sift likely intention from likely
fiction.
Let’s look at the two major national political parties
with recent histories of leading broad coalitions in government and
opposition, with several coalition partners practising political
blackmail, social and religious hatred, and displaying contempt for
rural and poor Indians. What to make of their 2009 manifestos in
retrospect?
Should the food security law and the push to legislate a
Bill for updated land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement norms
be seen as the Congress delivering on its claim that “economic growth
and social justice are two sides of the same coin and must always go
hand-in-hand”. While to my mind an updated land acquisition Act could
contribute directly to lessening of conflict in India’s rural and urban
hinterlands, that partial delivery lies damaged on account of this
marquee claim: “We will maintain the path of high growth with fiscal
prudence and low inflation.”
Or should its claims of “inclusion” be dismissed because
it hadn’t deemed worth elaborating widespread agrarian crises, the
Maoist rebellion—touted as the “greatest internal security threat” by
the Congress’s twice-nominated premier in 2006—or any aspect of
fractured, quite seething northeastern India?
Should the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) be lauded for
raising these issues? And more so, for raising national interest above
its own and staying with the incumbent coalition on food security and
providing security for the project-affected? After all, its 2009
manifesto did claim: “The BJP will bring about amendments to existing
laws to rectify anomalies pertaining to land acquisition. Farmers will
be compensated at market rates for any land acquired for infrastructure
purposes. The BJP will not allow the conversion of fertile farmland for
industrial/commercial projects or Special Economic Zones (SEZs).”
(Indeed, it had justifiably called to question the
Congress’s disastrous policy in promoting SEZs, and insisted that
“acquisition of land for industrial use will be addressed after a
careful scrutiny of the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s report and
factoring in the need to protect the farm sector and enhance food
production”.)
Or will the BJP manifesto, far more comprehensive and
detailed than that of the Congress, be seen as a partial lie because
BJP-led state governments in Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh
practised—actually, continue to practise in Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh—people’s security by its demolition? And while praising the
suggestion for better inter-state coordination and real-time
intelligence-sharing, and better training of forces to combat Maoist
rebels, surely the suggestion that the “Chhattisgarh Model will be used
for counter-Maoist operations” must be condemned for both the grossest
human rights violation, conflict, and hardening of positions this
so-called model has caused.
As ever, manifestos are a mixed bag and, realistically, they will continue to be so.
But what is of concern is the current atmosphere that
might lead to more suspect manifestos. It was disheartening, for
example, to see a Union minister this past week term the Supreme Court’s
judgement to disqualify convicted legislators or similar such running
for state and parliamentary elections as “erroneous”. This happened
during a parliamentary debate and, in effect, it was a bid to retain the
eligibility of convicts to be legislators.
Elsewhere, outside politics, a respected
economist-columnist termed the land acquisition Bill Luddite, and
instead offered a broad spectrum application of Joseph Schumpeter’s
theory of “creative destruction” to recover from India’s economic
stall. While it is tempting to argue that the learned gentleman is
lamentably disconnected from realities in India outside
climate-controlled environs that many such keyboard and television
warriors inhabit, it may instead be worthwhile to discuss creative
construction.
That’s what manifestos can actually do, should these be
approached as constructive blueprints of a country’s future instead of
as merest lip service.
And so, here are some suggestions to get a discussion rolling.
Take northeast India seriously: or that map could be
irrevocably altered. It is foolish to pursue a “Look East Policy” while
concurrently pursuing an “Overlook Northeast Policy”.
While talking internal security, talk peace with Maoists.
Reel in pro-talks groups; let anti-talks factions hang with the wind.
Dividends from peace and governance will bring stabilized populations,
economies and resources—both human and “natural”.
Deepen the gains of the Forest Rights Act and swear by doing right with fair land acquisition legislation.
More after your outrage.