|
|
|
Research Programme on Globalisation and Sustainability of Rights in collaboration with ICSSR Concept note 1. CRG’s Past Researches in this Area: This proposal is intended to carry forward Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group’s (CRG) ongoing work on socio-economic rights of people and the communities, rendered marginal in context of economic reforms in India. Besides providing opportunities for research, the segment will enable dialogues with researchers, rights activists and thinkers, college teachers, young researchers, and activists in popular movements towards a better understanding of interdependence and the complexities of the global processes, and their unequal impact on nations, countries, regions, and populations at various levels, also understanding the nature, causes and consequences of poverty and erosion of rights. With special focus on women, dalits, indigenous population, and unorganised labour the project will seek to address the important questions of: How can rights be sustained in face of globalisation? What is the nature of the erosion of rights we are witnessing? And what is meant by ‘sustainability’? The field studies will be significant as in the past in researches, dialogues, and orientation activities of CRG. 2. The Perspective: Globalisation often understood as an ambivalent process (bringing both possibilities and challenges in the socio-economic realm) encompasses global processes that increase interconnectedness between people and intensify the global trade in products between them. The neo-liberal model of globalisation promoting the right of free trade and capital has a basic clash with the tenets of universal human rights. Thus there is a constant tension between the ‘social’ yearning for democratic values and ‘economic’ competition for unhindered profit, trade and movement of capital. Since the 1980s, India has moved to varying degrees, to a strategy of export-orientated development, liberalisation and privatisation and fiscal strategies of neo-liberal economic paradigm, which gained momentum in the early 1990s. India’s Economic Reforms Programme (July 1991) under the TINA (There Is No Alternative) theory was also in wake of foreign exchange liquidity crisis, declining GDP growth rate and a near stagnating economy. The reforms have continued since then irrespective of changes in the government at the Centre. The rupee is stronger, and a particular section of people had never had so many choices to spend their money on. Yet, the abundance of choices, unprecedented growth in income of the middle and upper classes, and the increased urban base - all these have come at an irreparable cost borne by a large section of population (dalits, indigenous population groups, women, and wandering informal labour), which have been rendered invisible in past fifteen years. 3. State Policies: The government policies in this period have consistently revised or removed support structures for small farmers in Indian agriculture while promoting unsustainable, high-input agriculture which farmers, especially in dry areas, cannot afford to practice. Farmers are facing the worst ever crisis due to increased inputs cost, frequent failures of rain, erosion of government support mechanism in terms of subsidies, loans, attractive support prices and other such policies which went in strengthening the agriculture sector in past. The demand for strengthening the minimum support price system to cover the real cost of production, waiver of debt and proactive support to low-input sustainable agriculture especially in rain-fed areas has fallen on deaf year. Moreover, land is seen not as something required for meeting the food needs of population but as real estate meant for development of SEZs (Special Economic Zones), creating high class infrastructure, multi storied housing projects, export-based units, while depriving thousands of the only available source of income or sustenance. Many studies confirm that nothing less then long- term solution will solve this problem. 4. The Issue of Sustainability of Rights in these Conditions: Globalisation is a rights-centric conflict between different interests of various actors in direct confrontation. These actors are (a) the nation states, (b) the international institutions (UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF, etc.), (c) the MNCs, and (d) the affected population groups in various countries, in this case, India. Nation states have to assert their right to retain their sovereignty. International Institutions clamour for the right to global governance. Multinational corporations claim the right of free trade and commerce. Affected population groups demand that basic human rights be achieved, and sustained. It therefore becomes necessary to understand the context in which globalisation functions and the way popular struggles see their own struggles in the broader framework of these conflicting rights of different actors. The rights question has assumed significance in such a perspective; it differs significantly from the traditional Western concept dominated human rights scenario. In the post-colonial context the rights discourse is a part of the claim makings dynamics in a democracy; it expands democratic tolerance, stresses the preservation of popular gains in face of globalisation, and emphasises socio-economic rights in the same measure as civil and political rights. 5. The Programme: The programme has three segments: Research, Orientation and Training, and Publications. 6. Objectives: The main aim of the programme is: To engender research in rights based approaches to development, livelihood, and globalisation; also to sensitise representatives of the government and civil society engaged in the formulation and implementation of policies about the special needs of the women, Dalits, indigenous communities, specially challenged people, and other marginalised groups in society during the crisis situation such as Tsunami, floods, ethnic conflicts, internal displacement, etc. 7. Research Segment: This segment of the programme will look in to the demands of several popular struggles and government’s responses through detailed field surveys in East India especially in West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand and North East India around following issues: · A model of development, which is sustainable and more inclusive; · Women as equal partners at all level of decision-making and development; · Providing a participatory democratic, transparent, and accountable government; · Ensuring the spaces and respecting the people rights to non-violent protest against all forms of injustice; · Providing access to livelihood resources in the hands of the local people/communities so that people's basic survival is guaranteed; · Implementation of pro-poor policies and legislations that have been enacted but never implemented for example, Minimum Wage Act, Equal Wage for Equal Work, Bonded Labour Release & Rehabilitation Act, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Prevention Act. To sum up, the proposed tasks will be achieved by primary research through selected case studies and examining them in the context of the effectiveness of the policy measures. The emphasis will be on studying the implementation and efficacy of these policy measures, and developing an alternative policy framework. The project would also study and document the alternatives developed by communities through their popular struggles against the changing socio-economic scenario in localities. The research programme will be thus part analytical, part ethnographic. 8. Orientation Segment: To address the above mentioned concerns CRG also proposes to organize short orientation programmes on “Rethinking the Issue of Rights, Justice and Development” with participants from various parts of the country, particularly from the East and the Northeast, during the proposed duration of the programme. 9. Publications Programme: This study will contribute to the literature on globalisation processes, its social, economic and political impacts, policy analysis and critiques, and offer findings on addressing the chinks in formulation and implementation of policy measures especially on the issue sustainability of rights of the marginalised communities which would further serve as a toolkit for training and teaching by other implementing organisations of the government programmes, and independent developmental programmes in this region. Research articles, monographs and volumes will be published on the basis of the research work. Past work on Globalisation and Rights see archives: - http://www.mcrg.ac.in/research.htmFirst Research Workshop on Globalization and Sustainability of Rights The research workshop began with a round of self-introduction. Ranabir Samaddar in his introductory remarks reflected on CRG’s previous work on sustainable livelihood and durability of rights. In this context, he shared with the participants, CRG’s engagement with the SAARC Social Charter since it is the only agreed declaration of social responsibility and states it was important to relevance of this document. He indicated that, over a period of time, CRG has built up an annoited directory of human rights organizations in South Asia, online version of training manual of human rights laws, directory of different documents which are available on CRG’s website- www.mcrg.ac.in. CRG has also developed a guide tool of information on minority rights in South Asia. As a result of all these, CRG has produced Guiding Principles of Minority Rights in South Asia. Though this research workshop tries to understand globalization and sustainability of rights from different vantage points, particularly on the basis of some interesting case studies, it is important that these case studies should reflect how the whole notion of rights and conception of rights have undergone a change. Some of the lawyers throughout the world are saying “dignity” is better than “rights”, for instance, in case of the rights of the physically challenged. What is the legal shape of rights? How do we reconcile with competing claims? Hence the idea is to examine “rights” in India. What happens to the CPRs today? There are various movements for legal pluralism; the rights relating to CPRs can be defended on grounds of legal pluralism. How under today’s idea of globalization, the idea of commons is being interrogated. For example, in case of West Bengal; the question of saving and why it is certain matters are understood as “commons”. This project will engage in deeper intellectual enquiry of “rights”. Sanjay Chaturvedi chaired the session. Session IIn Session I, Prasanta Ray, as Chair, invited Madhuresh Kumar and Oishik Sircar to present their research proposals. Madhuresh Kumar in his presentation on “Correcting Historical Injustice: A critical Appraisal of Forest Rights Act” highlighted the processes and examined the significance to study the Forest Act. Two main objectives of his study would be to critically document the struggles of the forest-dwelling communities and their efforts at linking this issue alone with the larger global struggles on the issue of environmental justice through a detailed field survey in select areas of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. This would relate to the extent and nature of participation of these people in popular struggles with regard to the issues of social security for workers, right to food and work all leading to the creation of a larger comprehensive vision. The purpose of this study would be to examine the extent to which this ‘historical’ Forest Act has been able to deliver justice to the communities and meet other objectives as enshrined in the Act. Since Oishik Sircar could not be present in the meeting due to some unavoidable circumstances, Suha Priyadarshini Chakraborty read out his abstract. Oishik, in his research proposal, argues that the liberal turn of the Indian economy marked the flourishing of an activist judiciary and the innovation of PIL as a tool for claiming and signifying rights. What is interesting to note in the trajectory of the PILs in India is the ‘conservative’ turn that the judiciary has taken on the issues of economic and social rights using the identical language of emancipation as it did during the ‘heydays’ of judicial activism. In the proposed study, he would attempt to capture three moments in this cul-de-sac of the judiciary and juridical formulations around social and economic rights in India by (1) looking at a set of paradigmatic cases that mark the ‘conservative’ turn and how they build on or demolish earlier precedents, (2) reading how the representation of private compassion is taking over state accountability and (3) tracing the curious incident of the ban on Hans Dembowski’s book on PILs by the Calcutta High Court on the grounds of contempt of court. The idea is to understand how spectacles operate as an excess even in times of circumscribed emancipation. Kalpana Kannabiran’s Comments and Observations Kalpana Kannabiran was the discussant for this session. At the very outset, she pointed out that, central to both the proposals is the idea of the Constitution. One was not speaking about the Constitution as text but as the shared vision of what the diverse people looked for within the space of the country. With regard to Madhuresh’s proposal, she made the following observations: What does the Forest Rights Act do to the understanding of the property needs to be closely examined as the Forest Rights Act puts into place a different notion of ownership and possession. One of the major contradictions within Forest Rights Act is that, on the one hand, the people have been residing in the forest area for three generations, but the concept of property mainly points toward the immovable property. The central problem lies in the articulation of the forest-dwellers. Theoretically, how does the Forest Rights Act engage with notions of territoriality, possession? In this context, she referred to the Hindi quote mentioned by Madhuresh, which propounds a very different notion of property. It is important to remind that something about the act that mediates the way in which property or absence of notion of property has entered legal discourses. Her second observation was to look at the idea of popular constitutionalism or subaltern constitutionalism, grassroots constitutionalism, communities and mass struggle. What are the mechanisms through which popular constitutionalism is institutionalized? Thirdly, question of labour and dignity of labour; how is that important in the Forest Rights Act? The idea of labour is closely tied to the idea of constitutionalism. Fourthly, it is important to reexamine how NREGA and RTI Act have been empowering? Under NREGA, the dalits have been asked to cultivate bio-fuel in cultivable land (in Andhra Pradesh). Hence the implementation of legislations is crucial to examine. Fifthly, since it is a question of land; will be interested to see the conflict of interests between dalits and adivasis. Kalpana Kannabiran made the following observations on Oishik’s presentation. If he is speaking about the constitution, there is a spectacle of emancipation, however, there is also discrimination to huge extent and that is real and not a spectacle, idea and need for liberty are real. It is liberty and not emancipation. Liberty and freedom are the central truths. There is through juridical governance, spectacle of liberty, emancipation but by taking popular constitutionalism to court, we have been able to dismantle the spectacle. Not all of it can be dismissed entirely: one case: case of the safai karmachari andolan in the Supreme Court. It has stayed for a long time and has not abated, because, a struggle has been pushing it and has stopped its reduction into a mere spectacle. She also expressed the need for detailed illustration of the use of PILs would have been useful for situating the proposed study. Remaining Observations/ Comments / Suggestions on Madhuresh ‘s Research Proposal were· The dominant geopolitical discourse of climate change produces a discourse where the category of forest is both de poiticized and politicized. How science might be used to depoliticize the forests? Amazonian rain forests as the lungs of planet earth: turning the forest into a category of wilderness and then asking the dwellers not to do certain things. If the forest is taken as a geopolitical space, then certain things must be there which cannot be done. Per capita right to pollute: engagement of carbon trading and urban carbon emission at the same time. · Suggestions to revisit the legal discourse on forest. The idea of forest as a political space needs to be revisited · It is important to look at the movement for the tribal self-rule and forest act together · Suggestion to do field work in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh; perhaps Jharkhand · Suggestion to revisit how the Forest Act got framed? Its almost freezing of time. Question of community forest in the context of production needs to be reexamined. how does one think about motion and stasis at the same time? Question of non-humans seems to be disappearing from the discussion. Remaining Observations/ Comments / Suggestions on Oishik’s Research Proposal were · While on one hand a very ambitious statement in the first part critiquing law; is it possible to illustrate the critique merely through PILs. · Detailed proposal illustrating the use of PIL would have been useful for the discussion Session IIIn Session II, Paula Banerjee, as Chair, invited Swati Ghosh and Ishita Dey to present their research proposals. Swati Ghosh in her research proposal “Great New Transformation: The Labour Market Scenario in India” aimed to delineate the social, economic and ideological ramifications of a deep-rooted process, serving to undermine human rights and equality for labour. Starting with labour rights, it seeks to address how the understandings of welfare manifest in policy making exercises vis-a-vis labour markets in India. The role of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in ensuring social justice and better living condition for workers everywhere in the less developed world can not be ignored at this juncture. With the unprecedented wave of Globalisation, in the past two decades, it also becomes necessary to revisit the violently restructured institutions, the production process, the market and the very lives of the workers. The overall methodology for the study would be based on the current theoretical debates on labour issues and labour well-being. Secondary research at the policy level as well as empirical evidences of transformations of the labour market would be other important sources. Ishita Dey, in her research proposal, “Global Economic Restructuring and Development as Right – the Case of SEZ” argued that, the emergence of special economic zones needs to be contextualised within the broader understanding of the global economic restructuring of the world in general and the post- liberlaisation of the Indian economy in particular. The proposed research essay will raise the following questions through the case study of Falta Special Economic Zone and transition of Batanagar Private Limited to Calcutta Riverside Project. Sharit Bhowmick’s Comments and ObservationsBoth projects seem to be a review but the central question of who controls the labour process needs to be addressed. The struggle between the labour forces is being bypassed. Can we understand the process of outsourcing within the framework of “Reserve Army of Labour”? Another observation on Swati Ghosh’s paper was the question of space and spatiality in the industry where the capital is becoming less mobile. Is there a space for reconciliation of market forces and institutions for protection of rights? The proposal on SEZ needs to look into the labour processes in detail to understand how these zones are exceptional. The issue of labour is getting sidelined. There is a relation between the common property and individual right in the case of SEZ. He cited an instance where the landowners in Raigad have formed SeZ. This is an example of exercising development as a right and participatory democratic management of special economic zones. Remaining Suggestions and Comments on Swati Ghosh’s Propsoal · Suggestion to include a comparative case study of migrant and non-migrant workers to understand rights and less mobility of capital. Remaining Observations/ Comments / Suggestions on Ishita’s Research Proposal were · There are two problems that the research proposal addresses. Firstly, the setting up of SEZ and secondly, the working of SEZ rights. As long as compensation is linked to ownership of property the problem will persist. When the designation of the area changes there is nothing in the intangible owners of the land. The second problem illustrates the working of the SEZ rights of citizens and rights of workers and the site of SEZ itself comes under scrutiny. · The peculiarity and exceptionality of SEZ can also be looked at from the vantage point of the “primitive accumulation” particularly Nehruvian fruits of development and displacement and link it with the current process of land acquisition. In this context, it was also pointed out that one should remember that what Government did in 1950s was through “national capital”; but in case of SEZs “transnational capital” is being encouraged · In SEZ, while one is aware that the normal course of law is not applicable why it so attractive an idea. Is it the emergency system or the exception of law? · General profile of setting up of SEZ involves a certain set of government guided anarchy. The anarchy of a SEZ is something to be closely examined. · It was suggested that people with vulnerabilities particularly young women and children who work under conditions of bondage suffer from repression. SEZ experience is a modern form of bonded labour; where there has been identification of vulnerable groups into this kind of labour. Women from Adivasi communities in North Coastal Andhra Pradesh were told they would be trained in fashion designing; instead they were taken to training centres and then recruited by textile factories in SEZs. Session IIISanjoy Borbora, as Chair, invited the paper presenters to present their research proposals. Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury in his presentation on “Access to Information and Sustainability of Rights in a Globalising India” argued that, the new opportunities of globalization, like Right to Information Act appear to have benefited only a small section of the societies in the developing world given the digital divide emerging from widespread poverty, illiteracy (the question of computer illiteracy coming much later) and inequality in these societies. India has perhaps been no exception to that. Therefore, we need to inquire whether these new opportunities of communication have been able to contribute significantly to the sustainability of rights in India facing a globalising world or not. If the answer is yes, how far has this been possible? In a country with high indices of poverty, illiteracy and inequality, have the RTI and similar other initiatives, in fact, given rise to a new knowledge-enriched mediating class of people representing the most down-trodden, or have they genuinely been able to empower the people and ensure the sustainability of their economic, political and cultural rights in a fast globalising, yet somewhat fragmenting world? Have the different agencies of the Union and State Governments in India been reasonably cooperative to extend due respect to the RTI? Suha Priyadarshini Chakraborty in her presentation “An enquiry into Common Property Resources: The Question of Sustainability of Rights in a Globalized economy” would look into the dialectic of economic and political ‘framings’ to understand the way in which ‘common property’ has been recognised in the development literature: laws and policies in the Indian states of West Bengal, Jharkhand and Orissa by essentially looking at the Subarnarekha river basin region. The basic objective of the study would be to examine whether the role of Globalisation has been a reiteration of the post-colonial hangover in terms of the rights’ discourse; the rights dissonance imminent in the issue of managing common property due to the obvious positioned disparities (that are a consequence of a diversity of vested interests) and the manner in which these disparities could be effectively diminished if not altogether alleviated. The study would also explore the dynamics of livelihood vis-à-vis management of CPRs and enunciate the quandary of land rights (especially the politics of reclamation of char land in the aforesaid region). Interestingly, also pertinent to case of the Subarnrekha river basin region, is the issue of ‘pollution’ crisis (including uncontrolled mining practices especially those of radioactive elements) that faces the local communities and has deep rooted ramifications on both the geo-physical health as well as the socio-economic status of the region. Pradeep Bhargava’s Comments and Observations The role of the local governments like Panchayats is crucial to understand the complexities of common property resources as this will bring into limelight the myths and memories associated with CPRs. The management of property is crucial to understand the complexities of CPRs. CPRs may be vehicle to study local governments. As far as evaluation of RTI is concerned, a methodological problem arises as digital divide cannot be captured through the case studies. There is a need to relook the methods by which these can be captured or to look into where it could reach. Remaining Observations/Suggestions/ Recommendations on Suha's Proposal · There is a need to link the case studies in CPR. While on one hand, “char” case is unique, Jadugora is more complex. It is crucial to understand what defines the “common” of CPRs. Is it common risk rather than common property? Environment is not perceived as property whereas char is. This can be a connecting link. One should be slightly critical to understand what defines and reconstitutes “rights” of CPRs as “ownership” is closely tied to “property” so what are the forms of ownership and management of ownership in CPRs. · Does absence of demarcation of property help the powerful? Often the status of public land is very ambiguously delineated and hence often held to be common. This provides the space for the marginal groups to assert their claims; but often their claims acquire a backseat in the process. The issue that needs to be addressed is how people who are not formally recognized gets recognition. In this context it was pointed out that law invariably works on the principle of exclusion which mostly goes against the marginalized and it leads to exclusion of av very implacable way. Therefore quantification would not serve the purpose. Remaining Observations / Comments/ Suggestions on Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury's Proposal· Has RTI impacted the functioning of democracy and governance? Does it justify empowerment of people? · Even with the existence of RTI there are ways to hide what the Government intends to hide. Hence a shift in practice and no substantive change in policy. In the concluding session Partha Chatterjee, as Chair, invited the paper presenters to reflect on the day’s proceedings and the following decisions were taken. Ranabir Samaddar requested Ashok Agrwaal to join the research team. He explained the time frame of the research programme. Following decisions were taken: - · The research proposal/ abstract titled “Spectacles of Emancipation: Liberalism, Governmentality and The Cul-de-sac of Economic and Social Rights in India” was found by the workshop participants too brief and vague, and was not accepted. · Revised Research Proposals to reach CRG by 15 July 2009. · First draft of papers to be submitted by 31 December 2009 · Second Research Workshop to be held on 13-14 February 2010. It was suggested the researchers should present a directory of the sources used for the papers. The list of documents, would be made available for other research activities in the CRG website. · Another suggestion was to establish an email group/google/ yahoo group to share and discuss ideas about the research programme · CRG’s efforts to make the documents and sources available on CRG’s website was appreciated by ICSSR. · Word Limit of research papers: not less than 10,000 words.
·
Advisory Committee of the research programme was decided. (Ranabir Samaddar requested them to be discussants for the second research workshop and attend second research workshop on 13 February 2010). The programme ended with a vote of thanks by Ishita Dey on behalf of the CRG. Annexure IResearch Workshop on Globalization and Sustainability of Rights By CRG in collaboration with ICSSR || Date: 20 June 2009 ||Venue: Hotel Akashdeep
9.30
– 10.00am
Introduction to the Programme by Ranabir Samaddar, Director, Calcutta
Research Group
10.00-11.30 am Session I (i) “Correcting Historical Injustice: A Critical Appraisal of Forest Rights Act,” Presentation of a research proposal by Madhuresh Kumar, Critical Action Centre in Movements, New Delhi. (ii) “Spectacles of Emancipation: Liberalism, Governmentality and the Cul-de-sac of Social Jurisprudence in India” Presentation of a research proposal by Oishik Sircar, National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata.
Discussant:
Kalpana Kannabiran, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad 11.30-11.45am Tea Break 11.45-1.15pm Session II (i) “Globalization and Sustainability of Labour Rights” Presentation of a research proposal by Swati Ghosh, Rabindra Bharati University. (ii) “Global Economic Restructuring and Development as Right- The Case of SEZ” Presentation of a research proposal by Ishita Dey, Calcutta Research Group.
Discussant:
Sharit K. Bhaumik, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai 1.15-2.15pm Lunch Break 2.15 –3.45pm Session III (i) “Access to Information and Sustainability of Rights in a Globalising India” Presentation of a research proposal by Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, Calcutta Research Group & Rabindra Bharati University. (ii) "An Enquiry into Common Property Resources: The Question of Sustainability of Rights in a Globalized economy" Presentation of a research proposal by Suha Priyadarshini Chakravorty, Calcutta Research Group.
Discussant:
Pradeep Bhargava, GB Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad 3.45-4.00pm Tea Break 4.00-5.00pm Concluding session (Summary of the discussion on finalisation of the research agenda and schedule) Chair: Partha Chatterjee, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Kolkata Vote of thanks Annexure 2 List of Participants
|
|
