The upcoming million mutinies
New Delhi policymakers do not need to go far to see that there is something
wrong with their development model. While one part of the capital city
witnesses a booming economy, there is a systematic assault on the city's
poor. A pumped-up judiciary and insensitive executive together demolish
'illegal' slums; the working class is deprived of livelihood, dignity and
social security, because labour laws in the unorganised sector are not
enforced by the administration. If this is the pattern in New Delhi, where
government planners at least have a need to make a show of working for
equity, the injustice rampant in rural, semi-rural and urban India alike can
only be imagined.
The inequity, economic distress and discrimination across the teeming
metropolises and large swathes of rural India breed alienation, anger and
violence. For long, this was dismissed by security and neoliberal hawks as
too 'romantic' a vision of dissent. But this is the essence of the
conclusion of a report released in late April by an expert group appointed
by the Planning Commission of the Indian government, tasked with looking
into the causes of discontent, unrest and extremism in the country. Perhaps
for the first time, an official document pointedly states that the
development model pursued since Independence has actually aggravated the
restlessness among marginalised sections of India. The report's conclusion
is not new. What is striking is that the commission was composed of former
intelligence officials and police chiefs, bureaucrats who have served in
Naxalite areas, a human-rights activist, academics who have studied left
extremism for decades, and citizens who have direct experience of
negotiating with such groups. That people from such diverse professional
backgrounds – who have often been at loggerheads in the past – could reach a
consensus on the roots of rural violence is itself extraordinary.
Their consensus is that India is in deep trouble. The continuing
discrimination against Dalits and Adivasis, the absence of any credit
mechanism, and the weakening commitment to land reform, addressing
displacement and a coherent forest policy – all have contributed to
discontent. In turn, this is easily harnessed by politically extreme
movements such as Naxalism. In particular, the report focuses on ten reasons
for the growth of Naxalism, amongst them poverty, low literacy, high infant
mortality, and low foodgrain production.
The expert group is scathing in its indictment of the government's economic
policies. Sample what it says about one of the government's pet schemes, the
special economic zone (SEZ): "Land is a source of livelihood for the farmer
and also for other rural inhabitants. The notion of Special Economic Zone,
irrespective of whether it is established in multi-cropped land or not, is
an assault on a major livelihood resource." The report goes on to point out
that if landlessness is a primary source of discontent among the rural poor,
unemployment and insecurity of livelihood are the origins of anger among the
youth in both rural and urban areas.
Accounting for reality
If a paradigm shift is required, it is in the mindset, policy and actions of
the state. The government has to recognise that Naxalism is a political
movement, with a strong base among the landless, poor peasantry and
Adivasis. Viewing it solely as an internal security threat is foolish even
from the strategic point of view, because it does little to stem the rising
Naxalite tide. The government has not been committed to talks at either the
state or central level; the 2004 experience in Andhra Pradesh shows that it
was the authorities that engineered encounter killings and shifted
goalposts, rather than engaging in the supposed 'first-ever direct talks'.
The government's insistence that Naxalites disarm before heading to the
negotiating table is not only naïve, but also inconsistent with its own
talks policy regarding other groups, such as the Naga rebels.
Interestingly, the harshest words of the Planning Commission report are
reserved for the brutal Salwa Judum, a militia formed by the Chhattisgarh
state government to curb Naxalism in the state. "It delegitimises politics,
dehumanises people, degenerates those engaged in their security, and above
all represents the abdication of the state itself," states the expert group.
"It should be undone immediately."
The issue clearly is whether the netas and babus in New Delhi and the
militancy-affected states will pay heed. Unfortunately, the trends point in
the opposite direction. The release of the report coincided with two
separate events, which together constitute a pattern. Reportedly, the
government is now thinking of starting up vigilante groups modelled after
the Salwa Judum to combat militancy in Manipur. If there is one lesson from
the Chhattisgarh experience, it is that with such groups the conflict will
only escalate, and people will die needlessly.
The report's launch also occurred at the same time as Binayak Sen, a doctor
and civil-rights activist branded (on flimsy charges) as a Naxalite by the
Chhattisgarh state, completed a year in jail. Though Sen's case has received
considerable attention, it is not an isolated incident. The situation
surrounding jailed journalist Praful Jha, in Raipur, is another instance of
the state crushing all dissent, and harassing those it considers as
troublemakers. Sections of the media and rights groups, in India and
outside, have stood up to fight against this fundamental violation of human
rights. But the authorities remain unmoved.
The Naxalites themselves, of course, have a lot to answer for. Their mode of
resistance has only triggered a spiral of violence and counter-violence,
where the innocents in whose name they claim to fight are crushed. The
report shows that, contrary to the Naxalites' claims that they are
successfully fighting against government corruption and inefficient
bureaucracy, administration in Naxalite-controlled areas is in shambles, and
that the effect on official corruption is slight. Dissent, naturally, is
also not tolerated in those areas. For many extremists, the movement is
little more than a money-making exercise, run through extortion.
In the end, it is the government that has the most to account for. The
Planning Commission report provides an opportunity for the Indian government
to embark on a corrective course vis-à-vis its economic and security policy.
Otherwise, it will have to prepare for a million more mutinies.
www.morungexpress.com/index.php?news=10097
Published On: 2008-06-04
Point Counterpoint
Inclusionary policy towards the adivasis
Albert Mankin
**
EVERY year when the national budget preparation time comes, various
professional groups, political parties, civil society members, labour
parties, sympathisers of the disabled, and women's groups present demands to
the sitting government for inclusion in the national budget. During the
period, daily papers are full of news of roundtable conferences making
demands and recommendations.
It is noted that in the whole process of the national budget preparation the
adivasis are neglected. Constitutionally, adivasis (ethnic groups) are
included in the "disadvantaged group." There has been a tradition of neglect
from the beginning of the budgetary exercises since 1972.
The government, as well as the groups mentioned above, might assume that the
allocations for the majority population will invariably "trickle down" to
the indigenous peoples. Development practitioners will testify that it is
not so simple. As corruption and rent seeking reigned in every sphere of
public resources management, access to scarce resources by the indigenous
peoples communities at local and national level was almost a dream.
On April 24, the Center for Indigenous Peoples Research and Development
(CIPRAD) and Tribal Welfare Association (TWA) jointly organised a press
conference at the Reporters' Unity, Dhaka, appealing to the caretaker
government to allocate budget for indigenous peoples of the plains.
Similarly, in 2007, CIPRAD and TWA appealed to the caretaker government for
inclusion of adivasi issues in the national budget.
PRSP 2005 (page 150) states: "Over the years the adivasis have been made to
experience a strong sense of social, political and economic exclusion, lack
of recognition, fear and insecurity, loss of cultural identity and social
oppression." It further added: "Mainstream development efforts have either
ignored their concerns and/or had negative impacts on them."
Jumias from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, due to their unique position, get
some budgetary provisions for development. By contrast the plains adivasis
(approximately 2 million in 43 ethnic groups) are in a disadvantaged
position. One research shows that Tk 6 to 7 crores are allocated annually
for the plain land adivasis through the Special Affairs Division (SAD),
under the Prime Minister's Secretariat. The plains adivasis have to be
engaged actively in the management of funds, and have their participation
ensured in program policy development. Several workshops/seminars organised
by indigenous people categorically recommended transparency in SAD funds
management, and their accessibility to the funds.
As mentioned in the PRSP, one of the most marginalised communities in
Bangladesh are the adivasis, having had no enabling conditions built into
various national institutions, legal systems, finance and budget and, thus,
they have continued to suffer many kinds of deprivation. This has resulted
in large-scale alienation of indigenous communities from national political,
social and economic activities.
Building space in the national budget is inextricably linked to rights
recognition, and will certainly lead, to some extent, to the development of
deprived and marginalised communities in the county. The caretaker
government is certainly aware of the deprivation of adivasis, and it is time
to ensure inclusion of their issues in the coming national budget for 2008-
2009.
www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=39520
--
Jharkhand Online Network
www.jharkhand.org.uk
