By Srivatsa Krishna
When Narendra Modi took charge, I wrote in The Financial Times (bit.ly/38SQHvh) that “Modi’s task is a Thatcher-style revolution”, and I can say with some unabashed satisfaction that I have been verified correct on most issues that I had predicted (and incorrect on a couple of). And certainly, he is facing challenges that make these faced by Margaret Thatcher appear like a stroll in the park. What Modi’s opponents do not look to have learnt is that the more pig-headed the opposition, the more resolute and obdurate he becomes to push reforms through—see Article 370, demonetisation, GST, migrants’ crisis. Not for a moment am I saying that the government couldn’t have performed more or performed specific issues differently what I am saying is the PM has had the strength to survive such crises in the previous and will do so once again.
The courts need to and need to examine just about every complete-cease and comma when the constitutionality of laws is challenged, but need to they not be concerned if some of their pronouncements incentivise “mobocracy” when protests against validly enacted laws appear at these as a sign of their legitimacy? Legal luminaries think that it is not the job of the Supreme Court (SC) to generate such poor constitutional precedent by suspending the farm laws, encroaching on each the legislature’s and executive’s original domains.
If the correct-wing bhakts show up and gherao Delhi for 50 days, insisting on deleting the word “secularism” from the Constitution, can a comparable remedy be offered? Some farmers are even taking on the SC, saying that the committee that the SC has setup has basically been decided by the government do they imply to say SC cannot believe for itself? Shocking! Already, lawyer Dushyant Dave is saying Chief Justice SA Bobde has “deliberately” kept them away from SC.
Next, the farmers might say “we will only accept the judgment which is pronounced by the bench that we pick in the SC”. Worse, suppose the Supreme Court, with all its may possibly and explanation, lastly guidelines in favour of the laws the farmers may possibly then attribute some motive to the apex court or even cast aspersions on its integrity. Isn’t this pure, unadulterated blackmail?
Farmers are saying a thing akin to ‘let’s initial convert the Rashtrapati Bhawan into a Khap Panchayat, insist on MSP for something and every little thing that vaguely resembles a crop or a vegetable (fiscal deficit be dammed), with out which we will not come forward for any dialogue, we will not even let farmers of other states, who want the laws to advantage from these, accept these’. Is this “more democracy”? Has everyone wondered why there is no opposition to the really purposeful labour and education reforms, which also occurred about the very same time as the farm laws and no clarion calls have been offered about democracy getting subverted?
“You dare use as much as a water-cannon to disperse us, we will play the victim card immediately and say democracy is under threat.” They do not seem to want a resolution they just want to retain the agitation alive and kicking, and somehow save the Rs 5,000-odd crore of unaudited, untaxed money-flows to middlemen in Punjab. For them, the synonym of “less” democracy is not Chinese-style communist dictatorship, but merely strict adherence to what ever is the prevailing law of the land enacted by a legitimately elected government, specially when its complexion might not seem sanguine for political factors, notwithstanding the reform logic getting compelling. Amitabh Kant, the articulate voice of this government, was spot on when he mentioned that India cannot compete with China sans tough reforms, which are challenging to do with as well substantially democracy.
The push-back against the farm laws—which just about every single government of just about every complexion and colour, in a single type or the other, has paid lip-service to more than the final 35 years—is the height of hypocrisy. Should such lies be peddled in the name of democracy just mainly because an individual you do not like decided to stroll the speak and implement what was below discussion for decades? Should the government not tackle the trouble of depleting water-table in Punjab and in BJP-ruled states as nicely, with out curbing the evil of absolutely free energy that leads to unfettered pumping of groundwater?
Should burning telecom cables and destroying 1,500 telecom towers be noticed as “more democracy” to protest against the farm laws that 27 states of the nation look to have no trouble with? Is absolutely free movement from a single aspect of the nation to the other, and freedom to do business—losses of crores of rupees are getting incurred just about every day, with the agitating farmers threatening to reduce off supplies to the national capital—a aspect of “authentic democracy”? What about “democracy” for these impacted by the agitation? When the editor-in-chief of a respected South-primarily based newspaper conglomerate was threatened with arrest by then Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa to assure no unfavorable coverage thereafter (he had to flee the city), was that not “less democracy”?
The CBI raided MK Stalin just two days immediately after he left the ruling coalition in March 2013, but why was that not known as “less democracy” or intolerance? Or was that not a selective political raid? Why the sudden chorus against “less democracy” now? Every government, at just about every time in recorded history, has nudged the tools in its armoury to act. What is the major deal? Isn’t that what competitive politics is all about?
During a panel discussion chaired by Diana Farrell of McKinsey, the director-common of the Pudong People’s Government, Shanghai, and I have been asked to comment on how the Hyderabad and Shanghai clusters have been made. The official from Shanghai talked about how the Chinese army paints concentric circles in red, yellow and green and moves out every person, on distinct terms, and the acquired region is cleared out in a month to allow new building. I, on the other hand, spoke of the many lawsuits a single faced although acquiring land for Cyberabad, like these from individuals who claimed a Nizam-era lake to be their private home with excellent, “authentic” deep-fake papers!
This illustrates, in a compact way, the substantial challenge of carrying out difficult reforms in a noisy, fractious democracy. Indeed, we have as well substantially democracy, and the government need to use its energy to assure democracy is not saved on a aspect-time basis by vested interests, but rather is protected by following the law in letter and spirit—again not selectively, for a selected couple of.
The demographic dividend is going to final only till 2055. If we shed this golden window of chance, we will under no circumstances climb up the scales of greater GDP and more per capita revenue. Why not let 10% significantly less democracy, and trust our personal, elected government, with all its nicely-identified faults, to engage in the implementation of 10% more reforms that every person has cried hoarse about, as getting crucial, for at least two decades now?
Why let the hatred of a single man to come in the way of reforms and ruin the reaping of the demographic dividend that is not perpetually obtainable? As the present pop-culture anthem goes: Twada kutta Tommy, sada kutta kutta? Twada democracy democracy, sada democracy dictatorship? (Your dog is Tommy, but my dog is just a dog? Your democracy is democracy, my democracy is dictatorship?)
Author is an IAS officer. Views are private
Twitter: @srivatsakrishna