/sites/default/files/161215_national_campaign_on_dalit_hr_judgement.pdf?745

The post SC Judgement on SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, December 15, 2016 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has directed the National Legal Services Authority to formulate appropriate schemes to spread awareness and provide free legal aid to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

It is rare that the Courts give a pronouncement that is both decisive and revealing. The moot question lies regarding implementation. On December 15, 2016, disposing of a petition filed by the National Campaign nine years before in 2006, a three member bench led by Chief Justice T.S.Thakur, DY Chandrachud and L Nageshwar Rao pulled up the Centrak Government and all state governments for a complete and abject failure to implement squarely and fairly the provisions of the SCST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

The Supreme Court, while refusing to monitor the implemention of this specially enacted law aimed to prevent increasing atrocities against India’s Dalits,  has rapped the Centre and states for failing to safeguard the interests of the downtrodden Dalits. It said the laudable intent with which the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted has not been achieved. The Act was even amended through efforts made between 2009-2014 that finally came to fruition in 2015 under the Modi regime.

Expressing anguish over the continued failure on part of the Centre and sates to protect dalits, a three-judge bench — comprising Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao — said the ever increasing number of cases of crimes committed against the community is also an indication of total failure on the part of the authorities in complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It said the object with which the Act was made stands defeated by the indifferent attitude of the authorities.

Disposing of a writ petition filed by National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights in 2006, the bench said it is true that the state governments are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Act. At the same time, the central government has an important role to play in ensuring the compliance of the provisions of the Act. The constitutional goal of equality for all the citizens of this country can be achieved only when the rights of the SC and ST are effectively protected.

The bench pointed out that the Act provides protection to the SC and ST for various atrocities affecting social disabilities, properties, malicious prosecution, political rights and economic exploitation. The Act also provides for enhanced punishment for commission of offences against the SC and ST.

Writing the judgment, Justice Rao said the abundant material on record proves that the authorities concerned are guilty of not enforcing the provisions of the Act. The travails of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes continue unabated. The bench, therefore, directed the Centre and state governments to strictly enforce the provisions of the Act. The National Commissions are also directed to discharge their duties to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court asked the National Legal Services Authority to formulate appropriate schemes to spread awareness and provide free legal aid to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The judgement may be read here.

In the concluding paragraphs of the 27 page judgement, Para 12, the Judges state that,
                                                   “We have carefully examined the material on record and we are  of  the opinion that there  has  been  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  concerned authorities in                                                          complying with the provisions  of  the  Act  and  Rules. The laudable object with which  the  Act  had  been  made  is  defeated  by  the indifferent  attitude                                                          of  the  authorities.  It  is  true  that  the  State Governments are responsible for carrying out the provisions of  the  Act  as contended by the counsel for the                                                            Union of  India.  At  the  same  time,  the Central Government has an important role to play in ensuring the  compliance of the provisions of the Act. Section                                                        21 (4)  of  the  Act  provides  for  a report  on  the  measures  taken  by  the  Central  Government   and   State Governments for the effective implementation                                                        of the Act to be placed  before the Parliament every year. The constitutional goal of equality for  all  the citizens of this country can  be  achieved  only  when                                                      the rights  of  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are protected. The  abundant  material on record proves that the authorities concerned are guilty of                                                        not  enforcing the provisions of the Act. The travails of  the  members  of  the  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes continue unabated.  We  are                                                                  satisfied  that the Central Government and State Governments should be directed to  strictly enforce the provisions of the Act and we do  so.  The  National                                                          Commissions are also directed to discharge their duties to protect the Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The National Legal Services Authority is                                                              requested  to formulate appropriate schemes to spread awareness  and  provide  free  legal aid to members of the Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes.  
                                                    Acknowledging a chronic failure on the part of governments, the para  goes on  further to read,
                                                    “…A  similar situation arose before this Court in Safai Karamchari Andolan  v.  Union  of India, (2014) 11 SCC 224.  The Petitioners therein  filed  a  Writ                                                           Petition seeking  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  the  Employment   of   Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act,  1993.                                                        
                                                    This Court held as under:
                                                    “24. In the light of various provisions of the Act  referred  to  above  and the Rules in addition to various directions issued by this Court, we  hereby
                                                     direct all  the  State  Governments  and  the  Union  Territories  to  fully implement the same and take appropriate  action  for  non-implementation  as
                                                     well as violation of the provisions contained in the Act 2013.  Inasmuch  as the 2013 Act occupies the entire field, we are of the view that  no  further
                                                     monitoring is required by this Court. However, we once again reiterate  that the duty is cast on all the  States  and  the  Union  Territories  to  fully
                                                     implement and to take action  against  the  violators.  Henceforth,  persons aggrieved are permitted to approach the authorities concerned at  the  first
                                                     instance and thereafter the High Court having jurisdiction.”
 
                                                    13.   The Petitioners are at liberty to approach the  concerned  authorities and thereafter the High Courts for redressal of their  grievances,  if  any.
                                                    In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost.”
 

It said the object with which the Act was made stands defeated by the indifferent attitude of the authorities.

Related Articles:

1. Caste Crimes

2. Broken People

The post SC Indictment: Both Centre & States have Failed Dalits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court verdict on Singur land acquisition that eventually signaled the beginning of the end of CPI(M)-led Left Front’s 34 year long rule in West Bengal, has come as a breath of fresh air. It is especially so, because the advent of the Modi government at the Centre had succeeded in reinstating the logic of corporate development, brushing aside all concerns regarding environmental clearances to land acquisition, despite its attempts to undo the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 (LARR 2013), being effectively rebuffed. The implications of the Singur judgement go far beyond West Bengal, for the argument made by Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra underlines one thing starkly: the “brunt of development” should not be borne by the “weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural workers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty State government.” While the 204 page still waits to be read more closely, it is clear that the break that the Singur-Nandigram moment had already initiated in the neoliberal consensus among the political and state elite in 2006-7, continues to acquire legitimacy. Even the 2013 Act was a consequence of that break. The SC verdict recognizes that ‘growth’ and industrialization’ do not come without costs and who pays for those costs remains a key question at the end of the day.

At a very basic level, this is a recognition of the the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘trickle down’ effect – at least in the short run. Indeed, as every common person has always known, ‘trickle down’ only means access to crumbs thrown towards them by the partying elites. ‘Trickle down’ theory very simply evades the justice question by reifying the ‘economy’ and its ‘laws’ to the status of a theology that trumps everything else – including ethical questions. While it is understandable that commentators like the Indian Express editorial writer, find that “(T)he Left Front’s diagnosis that West Bengal needed an industrial revolution to overcome social and economic stagnation was apt”, or that economists would still continue to harp on the virtues of ‘industrialization’, what is truly appalling are the reactions from the CPI(M).

The CPI(M) reaction ranged from its West Bengal state secretary, Suryakanta Misra adamantly reiterating there is no question of apologizing (implying that there is nothing to rethink – after all just the other day his party’s Singur candidate Rabin Deb, had thought it fit to campaign in Singur, riding on his Nano) – to the party’s politburo blaming it all on the 1894 Land Acquisition Act! The utter dishonesty of the assertion that the land had to be acquired “under the 1894 Act as that was the only instrument available at that time” is only matched by the continuing arrogance of a party that has got used to believing that it can make people believe whatever non-sense it dishes out. That nobody is any longer buying their stories has not sunk in despite continuous erosion of the party’s support and credibility. Very simply, no law can prevent you from giving the farmers a better deal – it is your decision that you want to go by the worst features of the law. In any case, the judgement makes it clear that the state government had not even adhered to “the proper procedure as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act”, so it is nothing less than comic to suggest that the party’s and government’s hands were tied by an archaic law. Indeed, as we have often argued on Kafila and elsewhere, and as the this article by TK Arun shows, there have been, since, more creative ways of dealing with the question of land acquisition in places like NOIDA and Haryana. Since the CPI(M) leaders have made it a virtue to not think or read, they may have missed the news that even the IMF now seems to be having second thoughts about the neoliberal dogma.

Here is a report from The Guardian by Aditya Chakrabortty that they might do well to read. An extract from the article:

The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn’t delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off. It causes epic crashes that leave behind human wreckage and cost billions to clean up, a finding with which most residents of food bank Britain would agree. And while George Osborne might justify austerity as “fixing the roof while the sun is shining”, the fund team defines it as “curbing the size of the state … another aspect of the neoliberal agenda”. And, they say, its costs “could be large – much larger than the benefit”.

And this is by no means the only report to have emerged from within the citadels of the orthodoxy, which have begun the question the creed. But like a broken record, the CPMWB is stuck on its theme of selling industrialization as the panacea for all the ills in the state. This is not the place to get into the larger argument about industrialization – I have written about and against it on many occasions ealier – but it may be worthwhile recalling the Left’s own history in the state a bit in order to underline one of the key questions that cries out for rethinking today.

For those aware of the period of the late 1960s, the tumultuous period of the 1967 and 1969 United Front governments was one of intense struggle – for seizure of benami land on the one hand and militant labour struggles in the urban areas on the other. The word gherao was coined during those heady days and it does seem that much of the militancy of the party was related to the challenge from the Left that it had been facing in the form of the Naxalite revolt. Whatever be the case, it was largely a consequence of the militant workers’ struggles of those days that large-scale flight of capital from the state took place. Industry rapidly moved to greener pastures in North India, where there was general ‘industrial peace’ – what current CPM leaders would call a ‘healthy investment climate’. (That this statement is is not an exaggeration is adequately proven by the fact that one of its leaders, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya in fact spoke like a FICCI or CII spokesperson, when he said of the SC verdict, that “this will create panic among investors, no one would come to Bengal”!)

As industry moved out, leading to what has been referred to as the deindustrialization of West Bengal, the state reeled under a long spell of gloom and depression. Unemployment or bekari became the theme song of some of the most important literary and cinematic creations of the time. But while these literary or cinematic reflections maintained their critique of ‘the system’, the CPMWB, quietly learnt another lesson. It learnt that it was workers’ militancy that was responsible for the flight of capital and therefore, of unemployment. As a matter of fact, CPMWB never recovered from that sense of defeat. Thus when the Left Front came to power with the CPMWB alone holding absolute majority, it had no desire to repeat the militancy of the 1960s; rather its entire effort was geared towards the industrialization of the state – and, as a corollary, ensuring the right ‘investment climate’ for capital. S0me of the initial industrial projects like the Bakreshwar Thermal Power project or Haldia Petrochemicals became points of emotive mass mobilization by the Left organizations among the students and youth. Very soon, by 1985, Jyoti Basu in fact, virtually forced the party to fall in line with his plan to develop industry in the ‘joint sector’ – what would be called public-private partnership in today’s language. The story that began thus, was destined to end in Singur and Nandigram. ‘Industrialization’, the communists had already forgotten, was in fact a part of the problem, not the solution as far as unemployment was concerned. Once you start believing that corporate bourgeois property is the only legitimate form of property and ownership and all other forms must cede way to it, then there is no other way. That is the classic scenario outlined by Marx, where there are owners of capital on one side, and owners of nothing but their labour power on the other. What other way of dealing with unemployment can this yield but surrender to capital and its whims?

In a manner of speaking, this is not a specific problem of CPI(M) or even Indian communists in general but a more global one. In the 1990s, German trade unions had to virtually surrender to ‘their capital’, accept humiliating conditions for making it stay in the country and not relocate elsewhere. And yet, such is the power of ‘ideology’ that this is one tenet of Marxism that communists do not want to touch (most Indian communists of course do not want to touch any but let’s leave that for another day). Is it really not possible to think of different forms of ownership (from the commons to cooperatives) as possible alternative models, alongside other forms that base themselves on use rather than ownership? Is is necessary to first destroy all other forms of life and livelihoods (where property in its bourgeois form may not even be a separately identifiable entity) and let the problem of unemployment overtake you? Must the question of forms of property and ownership be deferred to an always-deferred, perhaps never-to-arrive future? These questions have now acquired a new urgency in the context of climate change when it is no longer possible to innocently talk of industrialization and pretend not to see that we are on the edge of a precipice, rapidly moving towards self-destruction.

Courtesy: Kafila; Photo Courtesy: Tribune
 

The post The Singur Judgement, End of Neoliberalism and Questions for the Indian Left appeared first on SabrangIndia.