Whose welfare?
Whose welfare?
June 25, 2012 09:48 AM
By Deepak Parvatiyar
Look at the three major developments last week:
• The economy on the verge of stagflation, i.e. simultaneous high inflation and low growth at a time when major international rating agencies have downgraded our economy.
Look at the three major developments last week:
• The economy on the verge of stagflation, i.e. simultaneous high inflation and low growth at a time when major international rating agencies have downgraded our economy.
Similarly, “Secular” is another term that is not explained in the Constitution and can be “used as an instrument of unrestrained communalism or bigotry or even anti-religionism, as distinguished from ‘equal respect for all religions’”
• Bihar chief minister and Janata Dal (United) leader Nitish Kumar’s assertion that his Gujarat counterpart and prominent BJP leader Narendra Modi is not “secular”. (Though, this is not the first time the Nitish has raised hackles with Modi in spite of the fact that Janata Dal (United) and the BJP are coalition partners in the National Democratic Alliance).
• The BJP supporting the candidature of PA Sangma for the President’s post.
These events lead to three questions:
1) Are we still a “Socialist Republic” as provided by our Constitution?
2) Are we really a “Secular” state, as envisaged by our Constitution?
3) Where is our politics leading us to?
1) Are we still a “Socialist Republic” as provided by our Constitution?
2) Are we really a “Secular” state, as envisaged by our Constitution?
3) Where is our politics leading us to?
The first question sounds quite complicated. It is largely because the term ‘Socialist’ is very vague and is not explained in the Constitution. (‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ were inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976). It remains a matter of controversy whether the object of ‘socialism’ under the Constitution simply means ‘freedom from exploitation’ or State Socialism or even Marxism. (The Philosophy of Constitution, by Durga Das Basu, Prentice Hall, 1992, pg. 29.).
True that our experiment with socialism failed miserably but what is worrisome is that, even after two decades of liberalization, there is an ever growing chasm between the rich and the poor. Statistics reveal that still three out of every four citizens live on less than $2 a day (i.e. an estimated 850 million people!). Obviously, we have drifted from our goal of social and economic equality, as the widening of social inequality suggest. A free market does not preclude an economy from providing various social welfare programs, as in the case of the social market economy. A handful of government schemes such as NREGA testify this. So why can’t the government extend such schemes and unemployment benefits to the urban areas. Instead, we find our governments passing on all its ills to the common man. Consider the fringe benefit tax! Consider the service tax! (Imagine a government taxing its citizen for providing the service that it was actually supposed to provide to its citizens), etc. etc!
Similarly, “Secular” is another term that is not explained in the Constitution and can be “used as an instrument of unrestrained communalism or bigotry or even anti-religionism, as distinguished from ‘equal respect for all religions’” (The Philosophy of Constitution, by Durga Das Basu, Prentice Hall, 1992, pg. 29.).
Therefore, it is not easy to find who is more secular – Nitish, Sonia or Modi?
Consider BJP leader Balbir Punj stating that "Modi is as secular as anyone can be.” Can we challenge Punj’s statement in a court of law? Your guess is mine as well. On the other hand, if Nitish claims himself to be more secular than Modi then why is he a part of the BJP-led NDA? On second thoughts, Nitish may not be flawed. Perhaps he sees Modi as his biggest rival in the NDA as prime ministerial candidate in the 2014 general elections! Given the ambiguity that surrounds the term, “secularism” is a perfect ground for the JD(U) leader to raise hackles with the BJP strongman! In fact, we all know that already much politics has been played over the ‘S’ word in the post Babri India.
Consider BJP leader Balbir Punj stating that "Modi is as secular as anyone can be.” Can we challenge Punj’s statement in a court of law? Your guess is mine as well. On the other hand, if Nitish claims himself to be more secular than Modi then why is he a part of the BJP-led NDA? On second thoughts, Nitish may not be flawed. Perhaps he sees Modi as his biggest rival in the NDA as prime ministerial candidate in the 2014 general elections! Given the ambiguity that surrounds the term, “secularism” is a perfect ground for the JD(U) leader to raise hackles with the BJP strongman! In fact, we all know that already much politics has been played over the ‘S’ word in the post Babri India.
Yet, if you thought secularism or Hindutva evoked extreme reactions in the political circuit, then the recent Sangma episode proves you wrong. As he aspires to be the President of the country, the BJP supports this NCP strongman. (The BJP had supported him in 1996 too for the Lok Sabha Speaker’s post). This is just one part of the Sangma saga. He and Sharad Pawar had challenged Sonia Gandhi’s supremacy in the Congress and broke away to form the NCP. But today, their party is a part of the Congress-led UPA government. Useless to say that Sonia is the Chairperson of the UPA! Obviously there are no untouchables in the firmament of coalition politics. (There are several earlier instances also where parties pretending to be secular sided with the BJP, and the proponent of Hindutva had no qualms joining hands with the ‘pseudo-secular’ parties).
So where is our politics heading to? At a time when the Left has shunned socialism (Jyoti Basu had famously said, “We want capital, … Socialism is not possible now"), socialist Mulayam Singh hobnobs with capitalist Anil Ambani, and the BJP and the Congress lead them all to crony capitalism, isn’t this politics bereft of any ideology?
Little surprise therefore that in the absence of any value system, divisive issues today guide a political party to maintain its identity – be it caste (read forwards and backwards), origin (such as tribals, dalits and OBCs), region (such as Telengana, Bodoland and Kashmir), or religion (read Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christians etc.).
Little surprise therefore that in the absence of any value system, divisive issues today guide a political party to maintain its identity – be it caste (read forwards and backwards), origin (such as tribals, dalits and OBCs), region (such as Telengana, Bodoland and Kashmir), or religion (read Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christians etc.).
So what about the ‘Welfare State’ as envisaged by our founding fathers? (It is this concept of ‘Welfare State’ which inspires the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in our Constitution).
Whose welfare? Do we really care?
(The writer is a Delhi-based senior journalist and filmmaker)
Comments
Post a Comment