SACW | 22 Jan 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire   | 22 Jan.,  2005
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Appeal Against Fundamentalisms:  WLUML statement to the World Social Forum
[2] Sri Lanka: A last chance for peace in Sri Lanka (Rohini Hensman)
[3] India: Hindutva in Funk over a Report (I.K.Shukla)
[4] India: The case for employment guarantee (Rajeev Dhavan)


--------------

[1]

APPEAL AGAINST FUNDAMENTALISMS - WLUML STATEMENT TO THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM

21/01/2005

There is no such thing as the 'clash of civilizations': the clash in 
the world today is between fascists and antifascists. (WLUML)

The rise of fundamentalisms is part and parcel of the rise of extreme 
right movements and of the expansion of liberal pro-capitalist 
politics in the world today. This includes Muslim fundamentalism 
which is the specific context of our lived reality.

For more than two decades, women have identified fundamentalisms as 
political forces from the Right and the extreme-Right working under 
the guise of religion and culture -- rather than the religious and 
spiritual movements they pretend to be. The present influence of 
Christian fundamentalism on the politics of the USA, and the rise of 
terrorist policies and acts in the name of "defending Islam" only 
confirm our analysis. Moreover, women have experienced on various 
occasions - starting with the Cairo U N International Conference on 
Population and Development (ICPD) - the mutual support that various 
forms of fundamentalists and extreme right forces give each other.

For more than two decades, women have identified one of the warning 
signs of fundamentalisms to be anti-women policies, whether it is the 
attacks on contraception and abortion in the USA and in Europe, or 
the imposition of dress codes and forced veiling and the attacks on 
freedom of movement and on the rights to education and work under 
Taliban-like regimes. Women have massively mobilized for Afghan women 
starving under their burqa or Nigerian women sentenced to death by 
stoning for sex outside marriage, while so-called religious laws were 
invading these countries.

However, we are now facing a new challenge: what seemed to be clear 
politically when we were talking of far off countries loses its 
clarity when fundamentalist policies come closer to Europe and the 
USA in the guise of 'authentic' cultural identity, and the worldwide 
support once given to both victims and resisters of fundamentalism 
vanishes under the weight of considerations of right to 'difference' 
and cultural relativism.

What is happening? Muslim fundamentalism has opened a new front in 
Europe and North America. There are numerous warning signs, such as 
the demand for separate laws supposedly based on religion for 
resolving especially family matters within the 'Muslim community.' 
Our experience in our countries shows that these will operate as 
deeply discriminatory and anti-women. Yet fundamentalism's proponents 
seek support from progressive forces, in the name of the very values 
that we too defend: equality, anti-racism, freedom of thought, 
freedom of expression. Human Rights organizations, the Left and 
progressive forces at large, and now even feminists are solicited to 
support the fundamentalist agenda.

Disturbed by the discrimination and exclusion that more than often 
affect people of migrant descent in Europe and North America, 
progressive forces in the West are keen to denounce racism - and 
rightly so. But subsequently, they often choose to sacrifice both 
women and our own internal indigenous democratic progressive 
opposition forces to fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship, on the 
altar of anti-racism. Or they censor their expressions of solidarity 
with us for fear of being accused of racism.
Derailed by neocolonial invasions and wars, progressive forces are 
prepared to support any opposition to the super powers. We have 
already witnessed prominent Left intellectuals and activists publicly 
share the view that they could not care less if fundamentalist 
theocratic regimes come to power in Palestine or Iraq, provided that 
the USA and Israel get booted out. We have witnessed representatives 
of fundamentalist organizations and their ideologists be invited and 
cheered in Social Fora. We have witnessed prominent feminists defend 
the 'right to veil' - and this sadly reminds us of the defense of the 
'cultural right' to female genital mutilation, some decades ago.

To those who attempt to justify their political confusion by saying 
that fundamentalism is a popular movement, we remind them that Hitler 
was elected by the people -- i.e. by democratic means -- but 
certainly not for the best of democracy!
We dare dissent.

We dissent as women, i.e. the most visible victims of fundamentalist 
policies, and we dissent as progressive democratic anti-theocratic 
people's movement.

To a situation of exclusion or oppression, there can be several types 
of responses: from the Left, or from the Right and extreme Right. 
There can be responses that open to universalism, humanity, 
democracy, fundamental rights for all, or responses clenched and 
contorted on particularisms, ethnicity, differences. While our 
diversities must be recognized and homogeneity not imposed, we should 
never forget that 'difference' has also been used and abused by all 
sorts of extreme right forces, from nazism to apartheid, to the pro 
slavery southern States of the USA, to Muslim fundamentalists, ... 
and to anti women ideologies! - just to name a few..... We should 
walk the thin line and not fall into the trap that fundamentalists 
are opening under our feet.

We will not support an extreme right response to situations of 
oppression. We will not support the coming to power of fundamentalist 
theocracies. It will only replace a terrible situation of injustice 
by an even worse one.

We will not support those as legitimate answers to oppression, 
exclusion, racism, exploitation and invasions.

We will, with all our might, support progressive responses and gender 
equitable responses to situations of oppression, exclusion, 
invasions, exploitation.

Fundamentalist terror is by no means a tool of the poor against the 
rich, of the Third World against the West, of people against 
capitalism. It is not a legitimate response that can be supported by 
the progressive forces of the world. Its main target is the internal 
democratic opposition to their theocratic project and to their 
project of controlling all aspects of society in the name of 
religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. 
When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people, they 
physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, 
musicians, painters - like fascists do. Like fascists, they 
physically eliminate the 'untermensch' - the subhumans -, among them 
'inferior races', gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And 
they lock women 'in their place', which as we know from experience 
ends up being a straight jacket. Like fascists, they do support 
capitalism.
There is no such thing as the 'clash of civilizations', as both the 
Bushes and the Bin Ladens would like us to believe. The clash in the 
world today is between fascists and antifascists. And that definitely 
cuts across national, ethnic and religious boundaries.

We call on the democratic movement at large, on the antiglobalization 
movement gathered in Porto Alegre, and more specifically on the 
women's movement, to give international visibility and recognition to 
progressive democratic forces and to the women's movement within it, 
that oppose the fundamentalist theocratic project.

We urge them all to stop supporting fundamentalists as though it were 
a legitimate response to situations of oppression.

In solidarity,
Women Living Under Muslim Laws international solidarity network


_______



[2]


The Island
21 January 2004

A LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE IN SRI LANKA

by Rohini Hensman

On 25 December 2004, Sri Lanka was on the verge of a disaster. Not a
natural disaster, but a man-made one. War fever in the LTTE-controlled
areas of the North and East, which had been whipped up from Prabakaran's
Heroes' Day speech on 26 November onwards, reached a peak on Christmas
Day. There were clear indications from the LTTE leadership that it was
about to end the ceasefire agreement and resume the decades-long civil war
which is estimated to have killed over 60,000 and displaced more than
one-and-a-half million. Most people in Sri Lanka viewed such a prospect
with apprehension, even despair, but thought there was no power on earth
which could avert it.

They were wrong, of course. The tsunami of 26 December killed over 30,000
in Sri Lanka and displaced around a million, but it also averted the
immediate threat of war. It is not an underestimation of the tragedy of
this disaster but merely a recognition of the even greater tragedy of the
war to say that victims of the former are lucky by comparison with victims
of the latter. Sinhalese, Muslim, and above all Tamil refugees in camps in
1990, especially in the North and East, were subjected to deprivation,
fear, and all too often violence. Hostility between communities was the
norm rather than the exception.

By contrast, the tsunami disaster brought to the fore the traditional Sri
Lankan culture of kindness and generosity, warmth and love. The BBC
reported that Buddhist monks and Sinhalese villagers from Polonnaruwa
District going to the LTTE-controlled Vaharai area with truckloads of food
and urgent relief were received warmly by the local LTTE commander and
cadres. Trincomalee's Tamil National Alliance MP, Mr Sampanthan, was
quoted by the Asian Tribune as saying, "Not only the government, but even
the Sinhalese people are rushing to help us. " The Colombo-based Tamil
paper Thinakkural reported a moving example of Sinhalese compassion on
December 30: 50 trucks loaded with rice, sugar and cooked food arrived
from Uhana, Amparai, Kandy, Mahiyanga and Polonnaruwa with relief for the
Tamil coastal villages north of Kalmunai. Owing to bridges and roads being
damaged, some villages were inaccessible by truck, so these Sinhalese
donors carried relief supplies on their heads and shoulders for distances
of up to five miles to reach them. Saddest of all was the story witnessed
by a toddy tapper in Trincomalee from his perch up in a coconut tree. He
saw a navy man braving the flood to rescue two children, then saw all
three swept away by the second wave. Later, the corpse of a naval man
clutching that of a child he was trying to save was recovered, his
shoelace caught in a fence. Many witnesses reported members of the Sri
Lankan armed forces putting aside their weapons and throwing themselves
into the dangerous waters to rescue civilians, sometimes losing their
lives in the effort.

What these incidents bear witness to is a transformation in the attitude
of the government, armed forces and most Sinhalese people in Sri Lanka
since 1994. Despite changes of government since then, the majority of
Sinhalese people have voted for peace in every election. Hill-country
Tamils who were disenfranchised and made stateless by the Citizenship Acts
of 1948 and 1949 were granted citizenship. The rejection of Tamil as an
official language in 1956, which resulted in injustice and discrimination
against Tamil-speaking people, was reversed, with Tamil now being accepted
as an official language. Sinhalese children in state schools are learning
Tamil, an option that would have been unthinkable earlier. Violence
against Tamils by the armed forces, which was encouraged by previous
governments, has been reined in. While Sinhala nationalism is still very
much alive, even among some elements who are in the UPFA government, it no
longer has legitimacy or majority support. Some of the grievances of
Tamils which led to the civil war have been addressed, and a climate
exists where others can be addressed too.

Paradoxically, the hundreds of Tamils who have been killed since the
current ceasefire began have been killed by Tamils. Hunting down and
killing Tamils who criticise them or attempt to organize independently was
and is the main way in which the LTTE has established itself as the 'sole
representative' of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Internal dissension has been dealt
with in the same way, so that when the Eastern leader Karuna articulated
the grievances of Eastern Tamils in March 2004, he was expelled and only
escaped death by going underground. The consequent war between Eastern and
Northern LTTE forces resulted in child conscripts on both sides being
killed. When Karuna was defeated, children in the Eastern LTTE armed
forces were released, only to be subjected once again to forced
conscription by the Northern forces. The so-called peace process did not
bring peace to the North and East, and the drift towards total war
continued.

In this context, it is almost as if the ocean said, "You foolish people!
For thousands of years I brought settlers to your beautiful island, from
India, East and Southeast Asia, Arabia, Europe and Africa. In the past,
you accepted my gifts gratefully, and every one of them made your culture
richer. But recently you have been throwing them back in my face, trying
to create sterile Sinhala and Tamil states that never existed in the past.
So you were planning to send your children to kill each other again, were
you? In that case, you don't deserve to have them! Let me take them - they
will sleep more peacefully in my arms. "

The behaviour of the LTTE since the tsunami gives us a good idea what
Eelam is all about. While members of the government visited the
tsunami-affected people of the North and East despite security risks
(President Chandrika Kumaratunga had lost an eye and almost lost her life
in an LTTE assassination attempt), Prabakaran was conspicuous by his
absence. His insistence that all aid to LTTE-controlled areas should be
given to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) which they control,
even while they prevented refugees from leaving uncleared areas and
compelled others to move into them, demonstrates that his primary
objective is to rebuild his war machine and reassert control over the
Tamil people of the North and East. Canadian intelligence reports and
Karuna agree on one thing: funds donated to the TRO have been used to buy
arms. And people whose lives depend on LTTE handouts will not be able to
protest against the forcible conscription of their children, which Human
Rights Watch and UNICEF have reported is taking place in the
LTTE-controlled refugee camps - a despicable example of thugs preying on
tsunami-stricken people.

Prabakaran's lack of concern for the suffering and loss of life caused by
the tsunami is no surprise, given his routine infliction of death and
suffering on the people of the North and East at other times. But his
cowardly preoccupation with personal security at a time when decisive
leadership was required is more puzzling. Apparently every other Tamil
must be ready to sacrifice his or her life for Eelam, but not he.

The trajectory of the LTTE becomes clear in the light of this. They can
justify the killing of Tamils working for the human rights and civil
liberties of Tamils (like Rajani Thiranagama, Neelan Thiruchelvam) by
saying that they are not working for Eelam. But what about the killings of
cadres of other militant groups working for Eelam, which has been taking
place from 1986 onwards? What about the murder and attempted murder of
some of Prabakaran's closest associates in the LTTE itself, like
Mahatthaya, Kittu and Karuna? How can Eelam survive this systematic
decimation unless it is identified solely with the LTTE, and the LTTE is
identified with the absolute power of Prabakaran as an individual?

New possibilities for peace will not be realised unless there is rapid
movement towards a permanent settlement of the residual issues which led
to the civil war. An interim settlement may be as hard to achieve and
would inevitably be fragile and short-lived; moreover, the only proposal
currently on offer - the LTTE's Interim Self-Governing Authority - has
been described by TULF President V.Anandasangaree in an open letter to
Prabakaran as one which "will not be accepted by anyone as a reasonable
one. The Tamils themselves will not accept it; neither the Sinhalese nor
the Muslims ". Rather than wasting time negotiating an interim agreement
which is acceptable to no one, not even Tamils, it would be better to go
for a permanent settlement which is acceptable to the majority in all
communities.

The first condition for a process that will lead to a permanent solution
is that the fiction that the LTTE is the 'sole representative' of the
Tamils of Sri Lanka, or of the people of the North and East, must be
discarded. Firstly, it is patently untrue: the LTTE would not have killed
thousands of Tamils if it truly represented them. But secondly, the whole
notion of "sole representation' is that of a totalitarian dictatorship.

In a democracy, even a government elected by free and fair elections
cannot claim to be sole representative of the electorate, because there
will always be electoral minorities - hence the importance of an
opposition. Those who support the LTTE's claim should therefore be aware
that implicitly they support the killings that must be carried out to
silence all opposition. Thirdly, the North and East are not ethnically
homogeneous. They have a Muslim population which has been subjected to
massacres and ethnic cleansing by the LTTE, and the idea that they should
be represented by those who have massacred and ethnically cleansed them is
bizarre indeed. There is also a Sinhalese minority, and ignoring the need
for their protection plays rght into the hands of Sinhala nationalists in
the South. The LTTE represents neither all the Tamils of Sri Lanka nor all
the people of the North and East; negotiations towards a permanent
settlement must include opposition parties and civil society groups in all
parts of the island.

The most critical requirement for a durable peace is that the government
must play a proactive role rather than passively allowing the situation to
drift yet again towards war. They should present their proposals for a
settlement which combines regional autonomy with protection for the human
rights and civil liberties of all people in all parts of Sri Lanka, and
invite other political parties and civil society groups to propose
amendments or concrete alternatives. All these proposals should be
publicised and discussed as widely as possible in all three languages in
all parts of the island: a democratic solution can only emerge from a
democratic process. And while this process is going on, they can take
other other confidence-building measures, such as (1) ensuring that all
government offices, police stations, army posts, etc., have people who
speak and understand Tamil, and other measures to implement the parity of
Tamil; (2) passing and implementing comprehensive non-discrimination and
equal opportunities legislation; and (3) signing and ratifying the Rome
Treaty of the International Criminal Court, which would bind themselves
and all future governments to avoid the crimes against humanity and war
crimes perpetrated against Tamil people in the past. It is important to
emphasise that none of this - for example, recognising representatives of
the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the people of the North and East other than
the LTTE, or negotiating a new Constitution with them - is precluded by
the Cease-fire Agreement, and therefore cannot be interpreted by anyone as
a violation of it.

Legal obstacles to the enactment of constitutional changes, even if these
changes have overwhelming support from all communities, require creative
thinking if they are to be overcome. What is the rationale for the
two-thirds majority requirement? Under the first-past-the-post system, if
there are three or more parties contesting an election, a party can form a
government with one-third of the votes or less. It therefore makes sense
to stipulate that a two-thirds majority is required to change the
Constitution, since this is the only guarantee that a majority of the
electorate supports such a change. With Proportional Representation,
however, a simple majority in parliament guarantees the support of the
majority of the electorate. The drawback of putting constitutional changes
to the vote in parliament in the present situation is that it effectively
disenfranchises the people of the North and East, since reports, by the
European Union and Centre for Monitoring Election Violence, of massive
electoral violence and fraud in the North and East during the last
elections suggests that most MPs from this region do not represent the
people. A preferable option is to call on the UN to conduct a free and
fair referendum (including a period of campaigning where campaigners will
be protected from assassination) once a Constitution which appears to have
majority support from all communities has been drafted. This will also
give legitimacy to the results, and make them easier to implement.

It is crucially important that these measures should be supported
internationally. While some international organisations, foreign
governments and foreign reporters (e.g. Human Rights Watch, Annieke
Kranenberg of Volkskrant) have produced excellent reports on the basis of
serious investigation, others, perhaps ignorant of the background to the
conflict and influenced by a racist assumption that Sri Lankans are not
'ready' for democracy, have supported the LTTE's totalitarian claims.
Their support facilitates the transfer of funds to the LTTE-controlled
TRO, and makes them accomplices in the war crimes (targetting of
civilians, child conscription and use of children in combat) of the LTTE.
The role of the Norwegian government is especially reprehensible. Their
assistance to Prabakaran's hardline faction in the war to crush the
faction headed by Karuna, who was more amenable to peace, casts doubt on
their impartiality, commitment to peace and concern for the human rights
of Tamils. These people must do their homework and understand that the
conflict originated in the denial of human and democratic rights to Tamils
in Sri Lanka. A separate state where everyone's human rights are respected
might have made sense in a context where Sri Lanka was ruled by a
dictatorship that violated these rights; but a separate state where no
one's rights are respected in a context where it is possible to work for
recognition of everyone's rights in Sri Lanka as a whole makes no sense at
all.

A section of Sinhalese liberals, including some who call themselves
socialists and feminists, also bolster the LTTE's claim to be 'sole
representative' of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Of course they would hit the
ceiling if anyone suggested that they themselves were adequately
represented by Sinhalese politicians in the government and therefore
should be silenced or killed; yet they provide passive support to such
measures being taken against their Tamil counterparts. It is hard to
explain these double standards, which are also demonstrated by their hue
and cry over election irregularities in Sinhala-majority areas but total
silence about the same irregularities in Tamil-majority areas. Perhaps
they are evidence of deep-seated, unconscious Sinhala chauvinism. Unless
these people recognise that Tamils are entitled to the same human and
democratic rights as they demand for themselves, there will not be
sufficient support for permanent peace in Sri Lanka.

As V.Anandasangaree, who has amply demonstrated his integrity and
determination to fight for the rights of Tamils even at the risk of his
life, says in his open letter to Prabakaran, " Everyone in this country is
keen on finding a solution to the ethnic problem. I am personally of the
opinion that this is the best time for it. " The tsunami has given us a
last chance for peace. If we fail to grasp it, we really do deserve to be
swallowed up by the ocean!

_______

[3]

HINDUTVA IN FUNK OVER A REPORT
I.K.Shukla

Jan. 17, 2005 is a day the HinduTaliban would like to scourge not 
commemorate. It was a day their perfidy was exposed, their mendacity 
highlighted. All their efforts at hoodwinking justice, stalling and 
strangling truth, concealing their crimes, covering up their bloody 
tracks, validating their outlawry and sacralizing their barbaric 
brutality were set at naught by the Interim Report on Godhra issued 
by Justice Umesh Chandra Bannerjee, the Chairman of the Inquiry 
Commission set up to probe the Godhra Fire.

This was the statutory duty of the former Railway Minister Nitish 
Kumar of BJP-NDA who chose to go not only derelict in the matter but 
also awol. He did not set up any inquiry. Nor did he deem it 
worthwhile, for departmental or humanitarian reasons, to visit the 
site of the terrible railway disaster. He also forgot to resign for 
his failure to ensure passengers' safety in the trains. He forgot, 
again, his promise to reveal the secret of the tragedy. BJP had 
expected that the nation would forget too. It was not to be. Nitish 
served BJP not the passengers, nor his charge, the ndian Railways. It 
was a big betrayal, a crying shame.

It is the finding of this interim report that Godhra train fire was 
an accident, issuing from within the S6 bogey itself, sequent to 
someone lighting a stove and trying to cook. From this it is 
indubitably apparent, that augmenting the accident into a statewide 
communal fire of monstrous proportions immediately after, was the 
real conspiracy. The conspirators were Modi and his saffronazi gang 
in the ministry, in the bureaucracy, in the police, and the fascist 
Hindu offshoots of RSS, viz.,VHP-BJP-BajrangDal, etc., etc. which put 
the minorities (Muslims) to torch.

In independent India, for the first time, state-sponsored terror was 
unleashed to teach the Muslims a lesson for their refusal to vote for 
the HinduTaliban. They learnt it; and the Modi gang won after it had 
ignominiously lost several elections in succession. Since then, 
Gujarat has been a veritable hell for the minorities and anyone 
sympathetic to them. The criminals at the helm in Gujarat were 
approved and applauded by their cohort in Delhi (Atal-Advani), and 
encouraged by the Congress' spinelessness then, and its sub rosa 
Hindu communalism now.  The Modi government was not sacked for law 
and order failure by the BJP warlords in Delhi then. Nor has it been 
kicked out now by the Cong-UPA for its abject violations of the 
Constitution. This should set us thinking: Is only Hindutva 
contemptuous and destructive of it? Let the Left check it out.

As to the question of it being made public a few reflections are in 
order. The EC is abruptly and unconscionably awake in the matter. Why 
did it issue no such stricture when in the wake of the Gujarat 
Genocide of 2001 Modi and his cavemen lustily utilized Godhra (and 
the massacre of Muslims) as their poll plank in order to return to 
power with a massive majority? Why should this threat to society and 
polity be kept within wraps only during the election time, and to 
whose advantage? Why should not the electorate be allowed to 
participate in the debate on the serious and burning issues facing 
the country and the state?  Again, when the fire-eaters and saffro 
furies like UmAbharti are going to stump for BJP in Bihar, does the 
EC expect they would sing paeans to democracy and secularism, 
pluralism and diversity, justice and dissent, equity and 
egalitarianism?  Why does the EC set itself as the national arbiter 
to privilege communal fascists rampaging all over and propagating 
Gujarat as the pristine paradigm in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Haryana? 
Promoting Hindu fascism in the nation by its partisan pugilism is not 
among the EC's assignments. It was not mandated to handicap those 
countering the communal criminals.

EC's enthusiasm and alacrity must not come in spurts, randomly, 
supporting division, nation's disintegration,  desecration of the 
Constitution, and widespread desolation through violence and anarchy, 
through communalism and its paterfamilias, fascism. In the interests 
of its own probity to be found unsullied the EC must be ever careful 
of its dicta and its directives. It must not be seen in any way 
politicizing the issues or its own firmans. For that would be 
deleterious to its reputation and impinge on its usefulness.

Another murder yesterday in Kanchi Mutt of another dissenter and the 
Jharkhand murder of Mahendra Singh, an MLA, both none too 
mysteriously within a certain time frame, must not be treated as 
isolated incidents.  They are linked.

The Jharkhand assassination, allegedly involving BJP's CM there, 
Marandi, and his Industries Minister, has some very salient points to 
ponder. One, this is a warning shot of the HinduTaliban, in respect 
of the imminent polls in Bihar. It is a demonstrative dress rehearsal 
of the "voter persuasion" of the kind historically and habitually 
favored by the Hindutva brigade. Two, it prefigures Gujarat. Modi 
redux. Marandi rising to the template sanctified by the saffronazis 
of Gujarat geared to winning power at the polls. This is their idea 
of democracy. Three, the protagonists of the Chariot of Fire trail of 
death and destruction, having been pre-empted from burning Bihar 
then, have been gearing up for revenge ever since. To defeat Lalu 
Prasad Yadav and get even with him for having been checkmated years 
ago, they would drench Bihar in blood in revenge and for electoral 
success. See, who is with them, - George Fernandes, so very famous 
for secularism, and even more for financial uprightness.

The murder of Shankararaman in Kanchi Mutt, according to 
VedicTaliban, enhanced the stature of Hindutva, just as the setting 
afire of Staines and his two sons in Orissa was touted as having 
saved Hindutva. In both the cases those demanding that criminals be 
brought to justice are supposedly insulting Hindutva. This line prods 
the Hindu fascists to launch a campaign for the release of 
Jayendra-Vijayendra, the Chief and his Deputy. It is a repeat of the 
campaign to absolve Dara Singh, the murderer of Staines family. He 
was also enabled by the Hindutva cabal to contest elections to the 
State Assembly. The lawbreaker as lawmaker is the trick that a 
prostituted and pulverised democracy allows fascists to employ with 
great effect.

If the killers of Shankararaman can be absolved and freed through the 
street mobsterism of Hindu fascists, Advanis and their ilk (guilty in 
Hawala, Ayodhya, and other scams) too can, is the hope and cretinous 
logic firing the champions of the saffronite campaign.

If Gujarat murderers and rapists can be saved from the clutches of 
law, Marandis too can be. If mega murders established the dharma of 
Hindu Rashtra in Gujarat, the mini murders elsewhere too would do the 
same. They are not crimes, but political performances, assert who? 
The criminals themselves.

Thus, it is evident that much rides on these elections particularly 
in Bihar. To mollycoddle the proven savages and reprobates, to 
provide a cover for the ruthless enemies of India, under the cover of 
the Electoral Commission would be a travesty of the functions and 
faith invested in it, and a betrayal and blight of the democratic 
institutions that the founding fathers of the Constitution envisaged, 
and the Hindu fascists sniped at and scorched over several decades, 
arching their foul and traitorous mayhem with the assassination of 
Gandhi, the Father of Free India.

20 Jan. 2005


______



[4]

The Hindu
January 21, 2005

The case for employment guarantee

By Rajeev Dhavan

If the schemes are illusory, the National Employment Guarantee will 
end up being neither national, nor providing sufficient employment, 
nor being a guarantee.

ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1949, Babasaheb Ambedkar warned the Constituent 
Assembly that on January 26, 1950, India was going to enter into a 
"life of contradictions." The Constitution guaranteed political as 
well as social and economic equality. Ambedkar asked: "How long shall 
we continue to deny equality in social and economic life? If we 
continue to deny it for long, we shall do so by putting our political 
democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest 
... lest those who suffer from inequality will blow up the political 
structure which this Assembly has so laboriously built up." Nobody 
paid heed to this warning.

Apart from the equality clauses (Article 14), the Constitution 
injuncted forced labour and exploitation (Articles 23 and 24). But 
positive assurances were put into the wish fulfilment list of the 
Directive Principles to include the objectives of social justice, the 
right to livelihood and a living wage (Articles 38, 39 and 43). 
Later, ameliorative legislation was made for the `employed' in terms 
of minimum wages, pensions, provident funds and wage revisions. But 
for the `unemployed,' there was nothing other than their daily heroic 
struggle for survival.

Two important circumstances caught up with this unforgivable neglect. 
The lesser circumstance was the Supreme Court's decision in Olga 
Tellis' case (1985) treating the right to livelihood as an 
enforceable - albeit hedged in - fundamental right. The more 
important circumstance was the demand from political democracy. The 
unemployed poor had a valuable vote, including more than 150 million 
ever increasing voters. This vote converted a constitutional 
objective into a political demand. The voiceless had a voice. The 
voice could not be ignored.

After the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, there was little doubt that the 
votes of the poor determine which government should be elected to 
power. To ignore this vote-bank is to ignore political democracy and 
risk forfeiting a political party's future.

The question was: having done everything for the `wage' sector, what 
did the Government promise to the unemployed rural sector? Nothing, 
something or a national guarantee? The record of successive 
governments was to provide a little something in the shape of various 
yojanas (programmes) such as the Annual Action Plan or Perspective 
Plan for the Sampoorna Grameen Yojana (SGRY) or the National Food For 
Work Programme (NFFWP). The Supreme Court has made it clear that 
continuous employment in Jawahar Yojana and other schemes did not 
entitle a person to regular employment. These schemes dispensed 
unpredictable palliatives, which rotated benefits available only as 
long as funds were available. But there was no guarantee.

What supposedly made the National Employment Guarantee (NEG) scheme 
different was that, at last, the Government was talking of a national 
guarantee. Since it is the poor that edged the United Progressive 
Alliance Government to victory, this constitutional gift was promised 
as a living reality. The original draft of the advisory committee was 
diluted in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill 2004 
introduced in the Lok Sabha. In our view, the NEG has diluted the 
very concept of a firm guarantee for the unemployed rural poor.

The NEG Bill converts a guarantee scheme into a discretionary 
programme similar to its non-statutory predecessors. To begin with, 
the Act will commence when the Central Government may implement it in 
"different States and different areas" (Clause 1(3)). We know from 
A.K. Roy's case (1981) that the courts cannot mandate that an Act 
with such a clause should be brought into effect. After Roy's case, 
even a post-Emergency constitutional amendment to preventive 
detention in 1979 has not been brought into effect till now - 2005!

The NEG Bill must come into effect immediately - even if programmes 
may be staggered on the basis of a statutory scheme. This may require 
a new Clause 4A. Secondly, the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages 
Act should be the floor wage. In the Asiad Construction case (1982), 
the Supreme Court clearly laid down that anything short of the 
minimum would be exploitative and forced labour within the meaning of 
Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. The NEG Bill wholly ignores 
this - as did earlier programmes (Clause 6). To talk of wages less 
than minimum wages is irresponsible and wrong. Such a wage fixation 
will affect other provisions of the Act. The Bill lays down that 
after 15 days, unemployment allowance may be given in lieu of 
employment being unavailable (Clause 7). Where the economic capacity 
of the State prevents it, the unemployment allowance will be 
one-fourth of the (possibly less than) minimum wage for 30 days and 
one-half for the rest of the year until the 100 days target is met. 
Who can possibly survive on less than a minimum wage or a fraction of 
it? Clearly the NEG Bill must stick to the minimum wage as a floor 
guarantee. Even the promise of this unemployment allowance is 
illusory (Clause 8). If it is not paid, all that will happen is that 
a note will be made of it!

Thirdly, the benefit of the guarantee will be given to the wider 
concept of `household' potentially consisting of several families 
related by blood who share a residence, ration card or kitchen 
(Clause 2(f)). This definition runs through and undermines the 
benefit offered. Can several families of a household live off one 
family member's less-than-minimum wage? The Bill seems to think so 
because as soon as any one member of this wider household gets a job, 
the unemployment benefit for the others will stop (Clause 7). If the 
purpose of the Bill is to provide a guarantee of livelihood, a 
`household' must be defined as a nuclear family. Otherwise, ensuring 
a livelihood will become impossible.

Fourthly, harsh penalties prescribe for forfeiting the unemployment 
allowance for three months for not turning up for work - even if 
there is good cause or because a corrupt Programme Officer may not 
grant permission to be absent (Clause 9).

Fifthly, the schemes for which work may be obtained are laid down and 
need to be re-examined (Schedule I). But all this may be altered by 
Clause 29, which lawyers call a Henry VIII clause because the Central 
Government may change the statute after simply informing Parliament. 
Henry VIII clauses are rightly characterised as `executive 
autocracy.' The First Schedule should be reworked and the Henry VIII 
Clause withdrawn.

Sixthly, assigning work projects to the panchayats should be 
mandatory and not left to the discretion of the State (Clause 16). 
Aruna Roy and others in Rajasthan have shown that panchayat control 
increases participation, transparency and accountability. Seventhly, 
the public finance provisions require elucidation. Normally, labour 
welfare statutes affect the States' budget only as an employer or by 
way of administrative costs. Under the Bill, the Union will pay the 
wages, some of the administrative costs, and three-fourth of the 
material cost (Clause 22). The States are a little perplexed. 
Significantly, unemployment allowance has to be met by the States. So 
if no work is available in an area, the States will have to bear the 
cost to the same extent as if the wage was paid (Clause 7).

The Bill fails to grasp the essentials of financial federalism, which 
require that where the Union wants to promote legislation requiring 
special costs, it has to pay for them - with the Chief Justice of 
India to arbitrate (Article 258 of the Constitution). This is a 
scheme that is crying out to be derailed through the lack of 
guaranteed funds. Financial federalism does not work on such 
principles.

Eighthly, the scheme has become so discretionary in its application 
that it will result in political patronage or very few schemes with 
even lesser guarantees. Both the Centre and the States will target 
marginal constituencies to convert an economic guarantee into a 
political game.

Where do we go next? The NEG scheme is a promise of guarantee to some 
300-400 million people who are unemployed, destitute, without 
livelihood and with little prospect for themselves and their 
families. By diluting these schemes, the very concept of effective 
livelihood protection disappears. If the schemes become excessively 
selective and discretionary in terms of their content and areas of 
application, the concept of a guarantee is lost. These schemes will 
be no better than their executive predecessors. The Act should 
contain a strong Preamble, objects clause and provisions for 
incremental extension. If the schemes are illusory, the NEG will end 
up being neither national, nor providing sufficient employment, nor 
being a guarantee. National guarantees for the poor cost money, for 
which the poor agree to work on public projects at minimal wages. If 
designed properly, the NEG Bill will be a landmark. Otherwise, at the 
next election, the UPA Government will learn the consequences of 
making false promises to the voting poor.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace 
and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & 
non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia 
Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at:  bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project :  snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.