|
| Rajesh Tandon: Beyond the middle class? | |
| Rajesh Tandon / New Delhi January 04, 2009, 0:32 IST | |
The poor have been voicing their anger for decades but no one notices them.
Since the Mumbai terror attacks, there has been an unprecedented public demonstration of anger and protest against the inefficiencies in our system of governance. Much of this has been carried out by young, middle-class urban Indians who have contributed to the vigils, demonstrations and demands for greater effectiveness in our security system. Recent public debates have highlighted the importance of the middle class coming to the realisation that our politicians, government leaders and the system of governance have not been able to deliver. Several reports have indicated that the recent assembly election results (in New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh specially) show that voters have decided to support good governance and delivery of developmental promises, and have rejected parochial past affiliations of caste, religion, language, etc.
These are indeed important trends—a shift in the civic engagement of the urban middle classes, and greater assertion of citizens to demand more accountability from our elected leaders and government officials. But, is this phenomenon entirely new? Is this middle class ‘uprising’ unique in the history of independent India? Are other citizens not so engaged? Or concerned?
Several issues are at stake here. The Indian state, its political and official leaders and commentators, have all along assumed that democracy delivered through elections is enough. So long as we have regular elections — and now that we have the Right to Information (RTI) and reform of taxation — Indian citizens are willing to go along. But, protests against official callousness and political indifference have been going on for a long time. The disaffection of the citizens of Jammu & Kashmir and north-eastern states is legendary and chronic. More recently, tribal youths in tens of districts of Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, etc have taken up violence as an act of ‘last resort’. They feel ‘cheated’ and ignored by the official machinery, be it in service provision or in the protection of their rights over natural resources. Their loud and persistent voices have been systematically ignored, and their protests have been labeled ‘naxalite’ activity.
For a large majority of urban lower and middle classes, the protests against official indifference, callousness, apathy and non-performance have taken another form. These households have been chasing and inventing ‘private solutions for public goods’. Therefore, private education, private health care, private transport, private security—all these are manifestations of the disaffection of these classes. Even poorer households in urban and suburban habitats are now accessing such private solutions. Evidence from around the world, as well as in India, clearly shows that if basic public services for the middle class are not available (for which they have to resort to private solutions), then these are unlikely to be accessible to the poor too.
Despite a period of buoyant public revenue through taxation in the past five years, public services in urban and rural areas are non-functional across the board. Who is responsible for this? The finance ministry does not fail to remind the middle classes and the private sector (and even threaten them regularly) to pay various direct and indirect taxes (including special cesses for education etc). But, what system of reminder, or threat of punishment, exists for political leaders and government officials for non-performance? Should not the anger within the middle class and the corporate sector be converted to a ‘tax revolt’? Should not the payment of taxes be directly and closely linked to the provision of services and level of governance?
A few weeks ago in Parliament, our political leaders and ministers made profound commitments to reform the system of security and pledged that they would be responsive to citizens. These proclamations are laughable. But notice what else has been going on during the same period. The UP government’s order to trash the appointment of thousands of policemen was challenged in the High Court. Why did the government cancel the appointments? Because the appointment of policemen (and teachers and health personnel, etc) is a huge racket that involves the giving and taking of bribes. Is this system being reformed?
Another PIL challenged the orders of the current telecommunications minister on spectrum allocation — a clear case of corruption, favouritism and non-transparency. Will he and his officials be held accountable?
Then came the news that the CBI has withdrawn the disproportionate assets case against Mulayam Singh Yadav — clearly because he supports the UPA government. Has any serving politician (or senior bureaucrat) been punished/sentenced in such cases in recent decades? Compare this with the arrest of the Illinois Governor in the US two weeks ago for possible corruption in the appointment of a vacated Senate seat.
When and how will these fundamental systemic weaknesses be reformed? Who will lead the movement for reforming political processes and official procedures? It is indeed a big joke to suggest that only after 20 years of non-performance should a government official be asked to leave (as has been done recently). Why should citizens suffer non-performance for 20 years? Why not 2 years?
The brunt of political callousness and official apathy has been borne by the poor in this country. They have been voicing their frustrations and anger for decades. But who is bothered? The media also gives voice only to the urban middle class. It is useful at this juncture to remember that the ordinary citizens of this country continue to have the lowest respect for politicians and officials. Such a widespread disaffection is injurious to our democracy. When and how will this be addressed?
The author is President’s PRIA
|
|
Content Guide
|