Kolkata 700 032
India started its Economic Reforms programme in July 1991 under the TINA (There Is No Alternative) doctrine in wake of foreign exchange liquidity crisis, declining GDP growth rate and a near stagnating economy. Soon all the political parties across the spectrum accepted it as an ‘inevitable’ and ‘irreversible’ process. The reforms have continued since then irrespective of changes in the government at centre. After more than a decade, the ‘pain’ and the ‘gain’ of the reforms process is not hidden from anyone. The debate on the process has its supporters on both the sides depending on what they have got from it, ‘pain’ or ‘gain’. The ruling argument has often been that some one will have to bear the price of ‘Development’ in the larger interest of ‘Nation’. But the people have started challenging and asking, why should only the poor suffer? Why the rights of poor already at the margins of development should always suffer? Why can’t the gains of the process be distributed equitably? Why should the reforms carried in the name of generating employment and high economic growth result in further impoverishment and disempowerment? It is these issues which are now beginning to gather the centre stage all over the world.
The resistance has grown since then and the neo-liberal economic policy has drawn flak from various quarters. The protests have been stringent especially because of its predatory effects on the poor and marginalised communities, now pushed further along paths of impoverishment and disempowerment. These protests emanate from the enhanced understanding of the globalisation process among people who are beginning to see the linkages between the government’s policies, wider economic processes and the impact on their livelihood. This has been confirmed by researchers, World Bank, IMF and government’s own reports as a result of which in recent times a whole lot of policy measures has been introduced and tabled in Parliament with mainly two aims : 1) To control and mitigate the effects of globalisation process on the society; 2) To meet the demands posed by neo-liberal economic policies on the economy, environment and resources.
The current UPA government has acknowledged this fact especially after the election verdict that rejected the NDA government’s ‘India Shining’ and ‘Feel Good’ Campaign. So, now in second-generation reforms the emphasis is on reforms with a ‘human’ face. But we need to critically look at the dictum of the ‘human’ face and resulting ‘policies’ in order to seek answers to the questions raised above and see if these polices lead to sustainability of the socio-economic rights of the marginalised communities and If they can ensure enhanced social and political participation by these groups in governance structures and civil society.
The movement articulated the issues in the three questions it posed:
Whom does Chilika belong to - the people or the state?
If the big business houses enter into prawn culture what will be the fate of the people for whom fishing has been the only source of livelihood?
In a situation where the commercial use of resources comes into conflict with the livelihood pursuit of poor people, what should be the priority of the state?
This and many other movements have contributed to the evolution of a whole new perspective on the issues of development, governance, transparency, and accountability which include:
A model of development that will be truly sustainable and not exclusionary.
People's power is superior to state power and they are agents for social change.
Women are equal partners at all level of decision making and development.
Ensure a truly participatory democratic, transparent, and accountable government.
Nurture a culture of non-violent protest against all forms of injustice.
Promote constructive work at the village level through efforts of voluntary action and government.
Bring policy changes which would ensure equitable development, and ensure a just and sustainable livelihood to millions of poor.
Emphasise non-violent direct action as a tool of basic change.
Control of livelihood resources should be in the hands of the local people/communities so that people's basic survival is guaranteed.
Protect the indigenous peoples culture and their way of life, which is increasingly being threatened by a 'mainstream' model of development.
Implement pro-poor policies and legislations that have been enacted but never implemented for example, a minimum wage act, equal wage for equal work, bonded labour release rehabilitation act, harijan adivasi's atrocities act, scheduled caste and scheduled tribes atrocities act.
Develop an ethos of conservation that is based on the synthesis of human rights of forest dwellers and required conservation needs.
The demand of the movements has forced the government to open up and be more sensitive and inclusive to the demands of the popular movements. If at one level it has meant change in the language of the government’s policy then on the other hand it has meant co-option of the movement’s leaders in the governments consultative and advisory committees. However, the process has not resulted in significant results either in terms of more people friendly policies, or better implementation. The process of policy formulation is still fraught with a capital-intensive logic of development with precedence of economics over the social. This was very much visible in the way the provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill were diluted only due to larger economic concerns completely bypassing the accrued social benefits.
If the response of the government on one hand is due to people’s struggle then on other it is also to meet new challenges which the reforms process has thrown up for governance. It is important to note that the social security policies (even on paper) are a prerequisite to access to loans and investments from international financial institutions and Western countries.
Thus the government on one hand moves on with the reform process at policy level and tries to mitigate its fallout through social measures and policies. This does not take us anywhere as we will see later in the volume, because it is these policies which are responsible for the deteriorating conditions, growing disparity, inequality, and regional imbalances throughout the country.
The Workshop Structure
It is in this background that the workshop wishes to discuss the state policies and its impact over the question of sustainability of rights of marginalised communities in the context of globalisation. The meeting will be organised around following five themes:
Agriculture, Employment and Sustainable Livelihood
Development, Displacement, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Education, Information, Development and Governance
Environment and Sustainable Development
Each theme will have 4-5 participants from organisations, social movements, networks and individuals working on these issues. Organised around these themes participants would be required to speak in panels from their experience of working with Dalits, indigenous peoples, women, children and other marginalised communities’ vis-à-vis the state policies crafted for their development and empowerment. The endeavour would be to engage critically with the state policies and contribute to ongoing debate on the policy regime in the context of economic reforms.