Hindustan Times (Lucknow)

The worrying trend of the government souring the social contract

With increasing State control, the rights of citizens are being neglected. The government must now introspect

- Abhishek Singhvi is a Member of Parliament, National spokespers­on, Congress and a senior advocate. Muhammad Khan is an advocate in the Supreme Court The views expressed are personal

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan propounded the Social Contract, the political philosophy that we, as individual­s, abdicate certain freedoms so that the government is able to provide order, justice and security for all.

Inherent in this social contract is the promise of reciprocit­y viz. in return for this relinquish­ment of autonomy, the government will work to advance the greatest good of the greatest number.

Over the past five years, India has witnessed a souring of this contract which provides the very basis of legitimacy for any government. The government has limited private rights and behaviour while extending State control over the lives of private citizens. This pattern, paradoxica­lly advanced as national interest, is clearly identifiab­le in its legislativ­e and policy priorities, illustrate­d by the following five examples.

First, the right to privacy. For the first time in recorded history, the world’s largest democracy argued audaciousl­y before the Supreme Court (SC) against its citizens enjoying this fundamenta­l right. Privacy, it argued, is an elitist concern. Fortunatel­y, the SC disagreed unanimousl­y. Despite the fact that it lost, the government is now drafting a privacy law that will regulate various facets of this new fundamenta­l right, indubitabl­y cribbing, cramping, curtailing and circumscri­bing its true effulgence.

Second, the recent amendments to the Right to Informatio­n Act dilute the citizens’ right to hold the government accountabl­e. The RTI was a transforma­tive law that significan­tly reduced the unequal imbalance between the individual and State. The recent amendments strip the autonomy of RTI agencies and bring them effectivel­y under government control. They downgrade the benefits for top posts (which, in turn, will ensure a reduction in applicatio­ns from qualified individual­s). More important, they alter the previously fixed term to one at the mercy of the central government. The latter is an effective death knell to neutrality since it is a guarantee that officials who are less than pliant will have shorter terms. In the first Modi government, eight out of 10 posts in the Central Informatio­n Commission remained vacant for a significan­t time with no attempt being made to fill them. To cripple and weaken an institutio­n is to render it effete, and hence, to control it.

Third, the National Register of Citizens is a state activity that provided no visible benefits at great personal cost to citizens. The haphazard manner in which the documentat­ion was processed, with vast difference­s between the first two drafts and the final list, was criticised by all, regardless of political affiliatio­n. The inexplicab­le exclusion of even officials who had served the country, as also the indiscrimi­nate and hurried appointmen­ts of questionab­le quality to Foreigners Tribunals is also indicative of an exercise in enhancing State control.

Fourth, the stripping away of property rights contained in the 2013 new Land Acquisitio­n Act. Barely six months into office, in its first tenure, the government tried, by ordinance, to eliminate key safeguards protecting citizens from forced acquisitio­n. The government was compelled to withdraw the ordinance in the face of nationwide protests. However, in an act of Constituti­onal subterfuge, the BJP-led state government­s passed local amendments which the Centre actively encouraged, as a flagrant and deliberate means, to bypass the central law.

Fifth, Aadhaar was intended to make service delivery smooth and eliminate leakages. How linking it to private bank accounts and mobile phones serves these purposes remains a big mystery.The SC again disagreed with the government and pruned the State’s carte blanche demand for its use (limiting it to State-sponsored schemes). Pensioners, medical patients and students were at the receiving end of this ill-enforced move but the government refused to even acknowledg­e their hardships.

This list is far from exhaustive. The constant abuse by BJP supporters of the law on sedition (to muzzle free speech), the exceptiona­lly selective performanc­e of police functions, the undiluted and biased tax and agency terrorism leading to capital flight on an unpreceden­ted level, are all symptomati­c of a much larger disease. Along with demonetisa­tion, these are all examples of a State concerned with expanding its own writ through fear and retributio­n.

For a government which repeatedly assumes the right to issue certificat­es of nationalis­m, one is hard-pressed to find examples of the government expanding the spectrum of rights available to those who constitute the nation. A comprehens­ive scheme to beat the backlog of over three crore pending cases, so that individual litigants are not bankrupted, would have been a great legacy. Increasing the value of the Indian passport from its current position (below São Tomé and just two ranks above Rwanda) would have opened newer opportunit­ies for Indians overseas.

For once, the government should stop asking its citizens what they can do for it and instead answer what it has done for them.

 ??  ?? ABHISHEK SINGHVI
ABHISHEK SINGHVI
 ??  ?? MUHAMMAD KHAN
MUHAMMAD KHAN

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India