dailyO
Politics

Dangers of government wanting us to shut up

Advertisement
Mani Shankar Aiyar
Mani Shankar AiyarOct 06, 2015 | 15:27

Dangers of government wanting us to shut up

I think to seek a national consensus on fundamental issues is fundamentally undemocratic at the least and anti-democratic at the most. The only reason political parties exist is because they have different views on important issues. The differences between the Congress and BJP are so fundamental that they affect the most important national question which is the nature of our nation: are we a Hindu Rasthra or are we a secular republic? On this, there is a rift that divides the Sangh Parivar's thinking from that of the Congress, and not only would it be impossible, but also undesirable if we ourselves came to an agreement. For any agreement would require a give and take and on the question of a secular India, I am not willing to give an inch and on the question of a Hindu nation, the BJP is not willing to take an inch.

Advertisement

In these circumstances, suggesting these very different points of view on what our nation is and what we should strive for is not an impossible dream but an impossible nightmare. I certainly would not wish to find myself to be following the path charted by VD Savarkar, or taken further forward by Hedgewar or Golwarkar, or symbolised today by Mohan Bhagwat. I certainly know on which side of the beef ban argument I stand on and I certainly know that my sympathies are entirely with that relatively young man who was murdered in a village not far from Delhi, on the allegation that he was eating beef and that too on the day of Eid. I don't think it is really relevant if they had mutton or beef in the fridge, but that anybody can be killed for having gobi or palak in the refrigerator is, I think, a repudiation of everything that India stands for.

Arising out of this fundamental divide, there are further fundamental differences on other aspects of our nation. The BJP describes itself a right-wing party, the Congress, used to unashamedly describe itself as a socialist party, and now it is beginning to hedge at the edges, and calls itself a left-wing party or a left of centre party. And therefore, there are various areas of economic policy where we do not see eye to eye. We do not see eye to eye in cutting the allocations to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), or slashing the allotment to the Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan, reducing the allotments for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). We don't see eye to eye on various aspects of the budget presented this year. That doesn't mean there aren't specifics on which we do see eye to eye. There was more legislation passed by the current Parliament in the first six months than perhaps the six years of the previous Parliament. That is because in the previous Parliament, everything was blocked or disrupted by the BJP. In our first six months, when a number of programmes that we had suggested, such as the insurance bill were brought before the Parliament, we were happy to cooperate with the government, in carrying the matters forward. But in December last year, immediately after the winter session came to a close, the BJP government decided to move from a parliamentary democracy to an ordinance raj. And it is at that point that the upbreak with BJP's respect of parliament cooperation took place.

Advertisement

One of their most important ordinances was with respect to the Land Acquisition Bill. Given the fact that every member of the BJP in Parliament, both in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, had voted in favour of the Bill of 2013, to bring amendments to that Bill without consulting the Parliament was a gross abuse of parliamentary power. They thought that they could get away with it because they had such an overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha. And the Congress particularly, had been reduced to such a small position in the Lok Sabha, that riding roughshod over the Congress and rest of the opposition was feasible. But, in the Rajya Sabha, the numbers game fell in our favour. The ordinance was brought in for one reason only: the government of Gujarat has pitted itself totally against the Land Acquisition Bill 2013. There should have been questions raised and a debate started on the Bill, instead an ordinance was chosen. 

But when the Land Acquisition Bill 2013 was passed, there wasn't a clear front runner for the job of leading the campaign. That gentlemen who had opposed the Bill, became the prime minister in 2014 and so he decided to bring in amendments through ordinances to serve his own interest. And to replicate the Gujarat model of development in the entire country. The fundamental aspect of the Gujarat model of development is giving land away, either cheaply or at no price to industrialists. This is why industrialists had flocked to the state. In every Nano built by Tata, there is a contribution, estimated at Rs 66,000 by the state and people of Gujarat. Now, if you are producing a-one-lakh-rupee car - which is what the slogan of the Nano car was - and Rs 66,000 is coming from others, then you are selling a-one-lakh-rupee car while actually spending only Rs 34,000 on it. No wonder, Ratan Tata thought this was the great white hope. Especially as he eventually sold the Nano for Rs 3,00,000, and now getting to Rs 5,00,000. Similarly, land in Kutch was sold off to the Adani group for a very, very small price to begin with, and after some development, they were able to sell it off at 1,500 times the price that it had been bought for, as one estimate says.

Advertisement

Therefore, it was a fact that there was a land bonanza for industrialists in Gujarat, which Modi thought he could replicate at the pan-India level by completely altering the basis on which the Land Acquisition Act had been brought in 2013. Owing to the lack of reflection within the ruling establishment, given that we succeeded in blocking the Bill initially in the Rajya Sabha, it turned out that many elements of the Sangh Parivar, as also many elements that are allied to them, such as the Akali Dal, had their own reservations about what needed to be done. The net result is that after three promulgations and re-promulgations of the Land Acquisition Act, it is now being allowed to lapse because there is no support for it. How is it possible for a government to move away from a parliamentary system to an ordinance raj, on a subject that may be of high importance but no urgency? The Constitution clearly says that an ordinance can only be moved when it is a matter of high urgency. The fact that the BJP repeatedly did not bring the Land Acquisition Bill to the upper house shows there was no urgency and therefore, the ordinance was not justified.

Similarly, we see with respect to the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Bill, that there is a complete absence of sensitivity to the demands of the opposition. Mr Jaitley argues in session and out of session, mostly out of session, that the Bill was a Congress proposal. Of course, it was a Congress proposal in national interest. Why did Mr Jaitely oppose the Bill in 2011 then? And when he brought it in 2014, he made so many amendments to the 2011 Bill that it is unrecognisable. It is not the Mukherjee Bill, it is the Jaitley Bill.

The ordinary parliamentary practice requires that all political parties in a standing committee examine what the provisions of the Bill are and present their questions, seek clarifications, and then in the end make available their amendments. It so happened that I was among the three Congress members in the GST committee and the first problem we were confronted with was that during Pranab Mukherjee's time as the finance minister, it had been estimated by chambers of commerce, and economists that the GST rate would be about 14 per cent. Given that our direct taxes are levied at 33 per cent, a gap of 19 per cent between indirect and direct taxes would have been fair and just, but because of all the exclusions that Mr Jaitley had made, petroleum will not be immediately covered, tobacco will not be immediately covered, that alcohol and electricity will never be covered. The result of the exclusion of all these revenue-generating goods meant that the GST rate that was proposed at the time the committee met, was 27 or 28 per cent.

How can we possibly have a GST rate, which is going to be the only indirect tax, a mere five per cent below the rate of direct tax? Since everyone knows direct taxes are progressive whereas indirect taxes are regressive. This is such a fundamental divide between the Congress and BJP's views of social justice that we moved for the Constitution to provide that the GST would be limited to 18 per cent. We moved this as an amendment. It could have been negotiated. The right place to have negotiated this was the GST committee, the BJP could have explained to us why 18 per cent is not the right figure, but instead of adopting a democratic attitude of trying to sort out this problem, the BJP considered us isolated and decided to totally reject our suggestion, on the ground that you cannot have a figure in the Constitution. We pointed out to the BJP that ever since the beginning, there has been a specific figure for professional taxes. It used to be Rs 500, it is now Rs 2,000. We also pointed out that they themselves had proposed an additional one per cent levy. So if they themselves could put a figure, why couldn't we put a figure of 18 per cent?

How do you expect us to have a national consensus in a system where the government blocks its ears and closes its mouth and says the business of the opposition is to shut up.

Democracy is a dialectic between a proposal that comes from a majority and an antithesis that comes from a minority. Either there is a synthesis or the majority prevails, and it so happens that the constitutional majority in the Rajya Sabha is different to the ordinary parliamentary majority in the Lok Sabha, and unless and until there is due recognition of the disharmony between the arrangements of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the part of the governement, I cannot see us moving forward.

Based on Mani Shankar Aiyar's remarks at the discussion on "Desirability & Feasibility of National Consensus on Major Issues' by the Centre for Peace and Progress in Delhi on October 1, 2015.

Recorded by Ursila Ali".

Last updated: October 07, 2015 | 11:49
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy