Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Land Acquisition: The Clash of Ideologies – “Negative” Congress vs. “Positive” BJP



The political difference between Congress and BJP over land acquisition is fundamentally a clash of ideologies between two concepts of individual liberty: the negative liberty versus the positive liberty. (This is from an essay “Two Concepts of Liberty” by Isaiah Berlin (1958)). The notion of negative liberty refers to defence of the individual “freedom from” other individuals or the state. It consists in the “negative” aim of guarding the individual from interference, in particular, by the state. While the positive notion of individual liberty consists in the “positive” aim – the individual to be his own master or the “freedom to” do what one wills. These two concepts of individual liberty are ideologically very different and their clash is at the heart of the great political battle between the Congress and the BJP.

In 2013, the UPA government headed by the Congress party repealed the draconian Land Acquisition Act of 1894 by passing The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. The primary objective of the act was to defend individuals right to property and work from arbitrary invasion by the state. Through this act the Congress attempted to defend the “negative” notion of individual liberty. In essence the act made it extremely difficult for the government or the state to coercively or forcefully acquire individual property no matter how lofty or noble the purpose might be. The act introduced several impediments, such as, the “consent” clause where for private and for the PPP (public private partnerships) projects consent of 80% and 70%, respectively of the affected families, which included both the owners of the land and those working on the land, was required prior to acquisition. Moreover, the act also required a preliminary investigation of the social impact and the public purpose of the land acquisition. This would happen in consultation with local political representatives at the panchayat or the municipal level. Last but not the least the act repeatedly emphasises that in the event of land acquisition “the absolute bare minimum extent needed for the project” is acquired. The act was historical in defending the individual independence from interference by the state and it went far beyond the simple issue of increasing compensation. By adhering to defend the negative notion of individual liberty I refer to the congress as the “negative” congress.

In 2014, BJP came to power by promising governance, growth and development. According to the BJP poverty and backwardness are a big impediment to individual “freedom to” be the master of their own will. They fundamentally believe that every individual irrespective of their race, religion and creed is united in their aspiration to growth and progress and therefore, the single most important objective of the government is to create an enabling environment where every individual has a fair chance to grow, develop and progress. However, the ground reality might be very different. In particular what should the state do with those individuals who do not aspire to grow or are not willing to sacrifice their property for the larger national interest of growth and progress? It is in this context that one must view the amendments that BJP introduced. In essence the amendments makes it easier for the government to coercively acquire land for larger national interest by removing the consent clause and social impact assessment. The philosophical justification for this is that in case of those individuals, who voluntarily do not sacrifice their right to land and work for the larger national interest of growth and progress, are not fully aware of what it means to be free and therefore the state has the right to coerce such individuals to be free. This is precisely BJP’s defence – ad nauseam they have argued that the amendments are in national interest for growth and progress of poor people who are not fully aware of what it means to be free. BJPs primary argument, therefore, is that it is all right for some individual freedom to be sacrificed for more freedom in the future because if individuals voluntarily gave up their right to land and work for larger national interest then the issue of coercion and land acquisition would not arise. Therefore, in the context of land acquisition BJP is an adherent of “positive” notion of liberty, hence I refer to the BJP as the “positive” BJP. Broadly speaking BJP has taken a very similar stance of defending national interest by imposing draconian measures on the liberty of individuals or group of individuals, such as, by deplaning a Greenpeace activist, questioning or banning non government organisations (NGOs), or targeting civil right activists.

For adherents of “negative” notion of individual liberty, the “positive” notion of individual liberty merely represents a “specious disguise of brutal tyranny.” It is this clash of ideology between the negative and the positive notion of individual liberty that is at the heart of the political battle between the “negative” Congress and the “positive” BJP.


Monday, April 6, 2015

In Defence of the Pursuit of Power

It is important to remind our self that the only driving force for a political leader is quest for power. There are no other higher ideals or purposes. This is the fundamental truth about leaders in any forms of government, whether it is a democracy, dictatorship or an authoritarian rule. However, there is a subtle but an important difference between a democracy and other forms of government. In a democracy it is the anonymous “unknown” citizens of the country who elect the political leaders while in other forms of government it is the select few “known” citizens. Therefore, a political leader in a democracy in order to acquire and retain power is compelled to cater to the needs of the public at large while in other forms of government a political leader only needs to cater to a select few, perhaps at the expense of large section of the society. An important implication of this is that a political leader in a democracy will have to be a relentless campaigner to woo the public to elect him to power. His foreign policy, socio-economic policy and national security policy will by and large be shaped by the demands of the public that will elect and re-elect him to power. If the campaign ends then so will the political life. The campaign must go on. Because it is this relentless campaign that connects the leader to the masses, it is this campaign that disciplines the leader to work in the interest of the public.

In a recent article Mr. P Chidambaram, a veteran Congress leader, candidly and critically mocked, that the Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, unlike the prime ministers in the past, is always in “campaign mode”. Well there is an important lesson for the Congress party to be learnt here – to be relevant it will have to campaign.  In 2004 and 2009, relentless campaigning by the Congress party brought them to power and in 2014 the lack of it resulted in the worst ever defeat for the Congress party – it could not even muster enough seats to claim the leadership of the opposition. The lacklustre campaign in the recently concluded Delhi assembly elections is the single most important reason for the complete wipe out of the Congress party where 62 of its candidates lost their deposits. Had the Congress party lost due to lack of performance it would have been understandable but the truth is that it actually performed. In 1998 the Delhi infrastructure was crumbling, the economy was stagnant, life in general was old and sluggish but in 2013 there was a world-class metro, flyovers, local economy booming, life in general vibrant and young. For some inexplicable reason the Congress party did not feel a need to communicate this to the public.

When did the Congress party stop campaigning? I believe it happened with the anointment of Mr. Rahul Gandhi as the Vice President of the Congress Party on January 19th, 2013. Rahul Gandhi’s summary rejection of the quest of power ended the Congress’s campaign. Perhaps not having to struggle for power led him to a naïve belief that he can be politically relevant without the quest for power. In his maiden speech as Vice President Rahul emotionally talked about what his mother told him “power that many people seek is poison” and “we should not chase power, but use it to empower others.” Rahul Gandhi was very sincere and genuine in what he said but unknowingly his childlike detachment from the quest of power took away the only reason to be a political leader. And without a political leader the Congress party did not have a campaign and, therefore, ceased to be relevant. Rahul Gandhi forgot the basic tenets of democracy - the only “antidote to power” in a democracy is that to get power one needs the consent of the people – and it is the seeking of this consent that “empowers voices”. Paradoxically, the political leaders in democracy who quest for power are more grounded in reality in terms of what people actually need while those who detach themselves from power live in a narrow, make belief world of what they think the people want. Such leaders, unfortunately, have a paternalistic approach to the betterment and empowerment of society and therefore, for good reasons are rejected by the people. This is precisely what happened to the Congress party in the recent Lok Sabha elections.

Well for the sake of Indian democracy it is extremely important that the Congress party is revived. The disciplining mechanism of democracy is effective only if people have alternatives. Otherwise it is a matter of time before power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The resurrection of the Congress party is in national interest and it can only happen if the animal spirits for quest of power are rekindled in the Congress leadership, particularly in Mr. Rahul Gandhi. In this regard there is a lot he can learn from his grandmother, Indira Gandhi, who had an unquenchable thirst for power. She derived her strength and power directly from the public and that made her a mass leader. She was on a perpetual campaign mode. In more recent times, Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Arvind Kejriwal have emerged as populist mass leaders, like Indira Gandhi, they have direct connect with the people, and the hunger and the drive to be in power, and so they campaign hard for it and the masses love and cheer them for it. Their politics of directly appealing to the anonymous “unknown” citizens to get power is a refreshing change from the “(a)dharma” of coalition politics of more recent times where only a few “known” elected representatives are appeased to retain power. For the sake of democracy the Congress party must rise to the new era of mass politics and it needs to remind itself that the quest for power is the only driving force for political survival.