People's Democracy

EDITORIAL

Popular Protests:

A Non-Negotiable Right

FINALLY, the prime minister was forced to make a statement in both the Houses of Parliament on the arrest of Anna Hazare. This was being refused earlier and some opposition parties toyed with the idea of boycotting the parliament as it happened during the course of the Bofors anti-corruption agitation.  Mercifully, this view did not prevail, else the government would have had a field day in passing all the pending legislations without any opposition as well as the pressure on the PM to make a statement would have been diluted. 

In the event, the long statement by the PM was a laboured exercise in trying to explain that these developments were primarily the responsibility of the law and order agencies and Delhi police.  Naturally, this did not cut much ice.  It was, after all, this very government that treated Anna Hazare and his associates with kid-gloves.   A joint drafting committee was officially set-up and the whole country was witness to the unfolding developments.  This was the same government that laid out a red carpet treatment for Ramdev with four of its senior-most ministers standing in attention to receive him when he arrived in a private jet. 

Now the prime minister speaks of the supremacy of the parliament and the parliament alone to legislate laws in our constitutional scheme of things.  This was never under any serious contention. Through these columns in the past, we had repeatedly pointed out that the centrality of our constitution lies in the supreme sovereignty of the people.  This is exercised by the people through their elected representatives in parliament to whom the government is both accountable and answerable. 

However, this does not preclude the right of individuals or groups of people from mounting pressure on the government and the parliament through popular mobilisations in order to ensure that effective legislations are adopted.  This has happened on several occasions in the past and on many occasions, the laws adopted by the parliament like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, (TADA) were opposed by huge popular mobilisations.  This is a right that no well-meaning democracy can deny. 

Curiously, towards the end of his statement, the prime minister referred to India as an emerging economy and said, “We are now emerging as one of the important players on the world stage. There are many forces that would not like to see India realise its true place in the comity of nations.  We must not play into their hands.  We must not create an environment in which our economic progress is hijacked by internal dissention.  We must keep our mind focused on the need to push ahead with economic progress for the upliftment of the `aam aadmi’.”

This sounds disturbingly familiar to the arguments advanced by late prime minister, Indira Gandhi, who invoked the bogey of foreign hand to justify the imposition of internal Emergency in 1975.  The Indian people had heroically defeated such an attack on democracy then and they are today more than ever determined to foil any such effort. 

Strangely, such a caution comes from this UPA government which voluntarily chose the status of becoming a subordinate ally of US imperialism.  Such a status, as noted earlier in these columns, was recently cemented by the joint Indo-US statement issued when Hillary Clinton visited India.  India can only realise its true place in the comity of nations when it pursues an independent foreign policy and when it strengthens its bonds of solidarity with the countries of the developing world.  There is little point in bemoaning the consequences of abandoning this direction.  The point is to change this direction if we want to push ahead with our country’s progress and development. 

However, the debate in the Lok Sabha on PM’s statement ended literally with a whimper with the BJP accepting the home minister and not the prime minister to reply.  This has naturally raised questions about whether the BJP and the Congress have come to some agreement on this issue as well like they did on the issue of price rise. 

No compromise on the issue of corruption is acceptable.  For over two decades now, the CPI(M) has been advocating a strong Lokpal which includes the prime minister in its ambit.  In these decades, whenever the Lokpal bill was brought before the parliament, it was at the insistence of the CPI(M) – both under the United Front government of 1996 and the UPA-I government of 2004. 

The struggle for an effective institution of the Lokpal will be mounted inside the parliament when the debate on the draft bill takes place.  Simultaneously, popular mobilisations of the people will be strengthened in order to mount popular pressure on the government for an effective Lokpal. 

(August 17, 2011)