Policy paternalism

With Modi, the 'mai-baap sarkar' has returned with a vengeance

Instead of having rights, citizens are at the mercy of the government's goodwill.

During the United Progressive Alliance decade starting from 2004 , several steps were taken to create a rights-based welfare system. The enactment of socio-economic legislations like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the National Food Security Act, the Right to Education and the Right to Information are now widely characterised by the media as a manifestation of the UPA government's “mai-baap sarkar” attitude. It is claimed that these programmes create dependency and amount to paying out doles.

In fact, these laws are the opposite of a mai-baap sarkar. They guarantee people basic rights independent of a particular government’s commitment to social and economic justice. And though India is a laggard on this count, even among poor countries, these initiatives faced shrill opposition from the privileged classes.

Since the new government has taken over, we are witnessing the return of the mai-baap sarkar – where citizens are at the mercy of the government's goodwill instead of having entitlements. The clearest example is in Rajasthan. In less than a year of rule, chief minister Vasundhara Raje (described by one commentator as the “aam admi maharani”) has demonstrated this in at least three ways.

Raje’s record

The previous government’s scheme of granting special food entitlements to the “particularly vulnerable” Sahariya tribe, which has made headlines for cases of starvation deaths and bonded labour, was immediately put in limbo when Raje returned to office. The special package provided 35 kg of wheat, 2 kg of edible oil and dal and one kg of ghee free of cost to all Sahariya families. For six months, the Sahariya community were not sure what had happened. Assurances of resuming supplies were made repeatedly, yet when supplies began in July the government decided to charge Rs 2 per kg of wheat; there was no word on the other, more nutritious food items.

Finally, in September, the state government succumbed to continued public pressure. It announced that wheat will be sold free of cost and the other items will be provided through the Tribal Area Development Authority. But it only granted this extension till February 2015. Come February the community will have to plead with the Maharani, and experience the same uncertainty and anxiety that they have had to endure since December 2013.

The second example of the Rajasthan chief minister treating these programmes as largesse is the decision to restrict the previous government’s very popular initiative to provide free medicines and diagnostics for all at public health facilities. The only criterion to get these services was that the person had to be a “human being”. Raje, throughout her election campaign, labelled the medicines as “poison”. Thankfully, upon taking office, the state decided continue with it. But then In July the mood changed yet again: the scheme has been restricted to beneficiaries under the National Food Security Act.

Raje’s views on NREGA are even more revealing. At the India Today conclave in March, she said, “Everybody knows that this has been a failure. People are being given a dole. It’s literally a dole because people don’t work anymore. You work for four hours, you pick up your money and you go home – so now you’ve taught people to be lazy.” (In contrast, the World Development Report 2014 describes NREGA as “a stellar example of rural development”.)

Later in a letter to the rural development minister, in June 2014, she went further: “It is a moot issue why rural employment should be guaranteed by an Act, and why such employment cannot be delivered, or even guaranteed, as a scheme." Subsequently (on July 5), she had to clarify on Twitter, “...The Right to guaranteed employment remains enshrined." Recall that NREGA had been passed unanimously – by all parties – in 2005.

Changing NREGA

This mai-baap attitude is not restricted to Rajasthan. The central government has already made some worrying proposals to NREGA. An important one is that the labour-material expenditure ratio may be increased in favour of material. This will bring back contractors, who were banned under NREGA, and were the root cause of corruption in earlier employment programmes.

Under some circumstances, machines will be allowed. Wages have been frozen, in real terms, for a long time now. All these have diluted the initial focus, which was on empowering rural labourers, who worked in conditions of extreme exploitation before NREGA. It is now rumoured that the Act itself is going to be restricted to less than one-third of the districts of the country.

No more food security?

The National Food Security Act has also been quietly put on the back burner. Some argue that the ball is in the court of the state governments, since they need to identify entitled households under the act. In fact, the states are being hampered by the centre, which has not made Socio-Economic Caste Census data available to the states. This is required for identifying households that are entitled to participate.

Some people contend that restricting NREGA and delaying NFSA has nothing to do with the government’s mai-baap mentality, but is required to contain fiscal deficit. NREGA’s budget is currently 0.3% of the GDP. To put things in perspective, tax revenue foregone (i.e., tax breaks for various purposes, which mainly go to the corporate sector) is more than 3% of the GDP. Avenues for raising tax revenues are not even discussed in public debates. According to research by Piketty and Qian (2007), between 1986 and 2008, China’s income tax base increased from less than 0.1% to about 20%. India has been stuck between 2-3%. There is fiscal space aplenty – but it is reserved for the rich.

Running entitlements programmes on the whims and fancies of political leaders defeats the purpose of establishing them as rights. Rights are meant to give people some security and enable them to think beyond their immediate survival, about their future. Diluting the rights framework pushes them back into uncertainty, unsure of when the carpet will be pulled from under them.

If that isn’t a mai-baap sarkar, what is?

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.