Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: December 25, 2005
Last week, I heard a distinguished MP from
the Opposition explaining the dynamics of India's development to an inquisitive
foreigner. "We take two steps forward and then a step back", he
said, taking his cue from Lenin. The net effect is a step forward.
Occasionally, however, we turn the logic of
muddled advance on its head. We take a step forward and then, for the meanest
of reasons, we proceed to take many steps backward. Indira Gandhi proceeded
on such a course between the nationalisation of banks in 1969 and the declaration
of Emergency in 1975. Overwhelmed by populist compulsions, she set India's
economic development back by almost 15 years with a series of measures that
also included the nationalisation of insurance, coal and the grain trade,
and the imposition of punitive personal taxes.
It is a commentary on the state of public
discourse in India that the 104th Constitution Amendment Bill was near-unanimously
passed in Parliament without either assessing its full implications or taking
into account the concerns of civil society. Indeed, the ramifications of this
perverse legislation haven't yet sunk in. When it does, the consequences are
certain to be devastating.
Just when India seems poised to take-off and
enter the big league, this legislation will take us back many years. There
is even a legitimate fear that it could open the floodgates of an assault
on the autonomy and competitiveness of the entire private sector.
Let us be quite clear about what the 104th
Amendment does. First, the legislation is tantamount to the quasi-nationalisation
of the entire private sector in education. It is one thing for any government
to insist on pre-conditions for doling out assistance to private educational
bodies. If a college or school takes government land at discounted rates,
it is fair that the government demands a stake in its admissions policy in
return.
Why should this principle be extended to institutions
that neither ask nor expect government grants? By making it mandatory for
"unaided" institutions-and these range from professional colleges
to nursery schools-to keep aside 50 per cent of seats for people of certain
castes and communities, the legislation is hitting at the very heart of both
private initiative and voluntary association.
The 104th Amendment is an act of backdoor
nationalisation. It assaults the autonomy of private education by putting
it at the mercy of government inspectors and their political masters. The
Government always had the right to shape the overall curriculum, especially
if there was a public examination at stake. Now, the so-called "social
control" will extend to both fees and admissions. No wonder some of the
centres of excellence are thinking of closing shop in India and relocating
to Dubai, Singapore or Malaysia.
Second, the 104th Amendment creates two classes
of citizens-minorities and non-minorities, a euphemism for Hindus. The former
enjoys all legitimate democratic rights of association and institution building,
free from the inspector raj and political dadagiri. They can have their own
schools and colleges, admit and reject whosoever they want and charge any
fee they consider appropriate, without the constraints of "social control."
The others, because of an accident of birth, or because they happen to be
Hindus in India, are relegated to the category of second-class citizens on
permanent parole.
I am glad that my old school in Kolkata and
the college I attended in Delhi will be outside the purview of the new legislation.
They can bask in the sunshine of autonomy because they are Christian-run in
character-although, to be fair, there's precious little Bible-thumping. My
son attends a non-denominational school run by a corporate group.
His school will be subject to reservations
because it is neither Christian nor Muslim. That it is not particularly Hindu
either is another matter. The logic is simple: Hindus need to be controlled;
minorities have earned their freedom. If this is secularism, it stinks.
Unless the Supreme Court strikes down this
perversion, the message for the "majority" is clear: Convert or
perish. Better still, migrate.
