Beyond the loud and often confusing political rhetoric, the nature of legislation any government is obsessed with provides the best yardstick for a dispassionate judgment. It’s a mirror that doesn’t lie. If the Manmohan Singh government is known for its progressive legislations like rural job guarantee scheme Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Right to Information (RTI) and Food Security Act (FSA), the Narendra Modi regime generated maximum noise through measures like Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), abolition of Article 370, farm laws and the Waqf Amendment Bill.
Amidst the myriad battlefields that our politics has created, people’s rights are probably the most critical conflict crying for the nation’s attention. The buzzword during Manmohan’s tenure between 2004 and 2014 was “rights-based” legislations. It was a unique concept that envisioned people’s empowerment through legal guarantees. Political imagination appears to have undergone a sea change under Modi after 2014, manifested vividly through legislations, administrative outlook and narratives. Now the first suspicion of political opponents and intelligentsia invariably is – somebody’s rights are going to be curtailed. More than the legislative merits of the draft, the intent of the government comes under question.
The first dramatic shift came in the form of an ordinance at the very outset of Modi’s first term when the historic Land Acquisition Act was sought to be diluted. The Congress and the farmers said Modi wanted to favour the industries at the cost of the poor people. That triggered a massive political storm, forcing the government to step back. This, along with reckless decisions like changing the rules to allot more than one airport to a private party, unambiguously demonstrated Modi’s inclination towards a pro-corporate policy. As more layers of decision-making got unwrapped, the opposition parties alleged that the pro-corporate tilt was turning into full-fledged crony capitalism.
Also read: ‘Vote Bank Politics’ Versus ‘Disenfranchisement’ As Waqf Bill Passes Lok Sabha
What, however, dominated the political discourse was the emerging trajectory showing a clear intent to enforce the ideological agenda. Different sections of society – students, farmers, workers and Muslims – felt their rights were being trampled by a political design. If the unrest in JNU and other institutions signaled an attempt to manipulate the academic culture, CAA triggered widespread fears among Muslims and secular citizens who sustained for months unprecedented agitations across the country. This was followed by the historic farmers’ movement for around a year in which lakhs of people sat in protest on roads outside the nation’s capital in extreme heat and tormenting rains. Over 700 farmers died as ministers and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders kept hailing the three laws that generated apprehensions of a sinister design to facilitate corporate takeover of agriculture trade. Though the prime minister finally relented after 12 months to withdraw the laws, India discovered to her horror that laws can create ripples of joy as well as trail of destruction.
Manmohan had shown how MGNREGA spurred economic activities across rural India and Modi had demonstrated how CAA and farm laws could incite a social turmoil. Modi’s most ambitious initiative – demonetisation – had achieved far worse. It caused a socio-economic upheaval of unparalleled magnitude, resulting in catastrophic fallouts like massive job losses, closure of thriving industries, economic slowdown and disturbing humanitarian miseries. No other policy in the history of independent India inflicted such wounds on the people and the economy.
Then came the Covid pandemic and the thoughtless lockdowns, triggering another wave of unprecedented miseries, deaths and destruction. The Manmohan government had also faced the 2008 global financial crisis but the masses were largely kept insulated from the shocks. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government persisted with its pro-people agenda, pushing ahead with legislations like Aadhar, Right to Education (RTE), Street Vendors Act and FSA. It showed democratic responsiveness by meaningfully engaging with protesters to enact legislations for Lokayukta and safety of women.
Previous governments since Independence had navigated difficult legislations and revolutionary decisions without much social turmoil during India’s formative years when wretched poverty created easy conditions for conflicts and crisis. Apart from creating an industrial base and institutions of eternal importance, critical laws like anti-Dowry Act, Representation of People’s Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Essential Commodities Act, Anti-Defection Act, Child Labour Act, Prevention of Atrocities on SC-ST Act, Panchayati Raj, MPLADS, Abolition of Privy Purses, nationalisation of banks, mid-day meal scheme, etc. Governments achieved states reorganisation, green revolution, white revolution, telecom revolution, information technology, Mandal Commission and many other legislations with far reaching consequences without much upheaval.
Modi, who proudly flaunts that his risk-taking capacity has not been fully utilised, has valid reasons to introspect why so many of his decisions evoked widespread protests and created social turmoil. Peaceful protests were crushed using police force at several places during the anti-CAA agitation. Students were assaulted inside universities, members of civil society were defamed and arrested merely for raising their voices against a government decision. After removal of Article 370, Kashmir was contained by brute force; while thousands of politicians and people were put under arrest, there was a curfew-like situation – with even internet shut – for months. It is not healthy in a democracy that the intent and purpose of the government in bringing legislations comes under suspicion. An amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was seen by the entire opposition as a ploy to crush dissent.
Also read: This Eid, BJP Has Perfected the Use of the State Apparatus to Restrict Muslims
Muslim community lives under fear, nursing a painful apprehension in their minds and hearts about a sinister design to marginalise them. Whether it is the reckless use of bulldozers or the toxic communal narrative, digging up newer temple-mosque disputes or the deathless whisper campaign against their cultural ethos and food habits, an atmosphere of bias and discrimination has been created over the decade. The passage of the Waqf Bill despite fierce opposition from the Muslim community and a large number of political parties has reignited these fears. What if another anti-CAA like movement starts in the country? Is it desirable to have social turmoil at a time when the world is grappling with tariff wars and economic uncertainties? Has the Modi government learnt any lessons from the bitter experiences of CAA and farm laws? Or is it a deliberate ploy to divert attention from the menacing unemployment and lurking financial troubles?
There was no point in pushing the farm laws without taking the farmers in confidence. There is no need to bulldoze the Waqf Bill against an emotional resistance by the Muslim community. Modi needs to recognise the virtue of consultation in democracy. If he doesn’t, his risk-taking capacity can drive him to another note-bandi like madness. He needs to look within and learn. He supported the demand for MSP (minimum support price) for farmers when he was the chief minister. He ate his words after he became the prime minister. He opposed Aadhar as chief minister and embraced it as the prime minister. He created such a ruckus on Manmohan’s policy of allocation of 2G spectrum and coal blocks on first-come-first-serve basis and then went to the Supreme Court seeking change in its 2012 judgment to allow allocation of spectrum without auction. Modi needs to internalise this message – look before you leap – unless legislations are planned and executed as part of a political strategy to divide and rule.
Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.
