IT was a long march all right. But there were no clenched fists, no display of weapons, not even loud slogans. It was not like the long march in China to conquer the country for communism. It was a peaceful demonstration of some 28,000 landless people from different parts of India. They had waited quietly in their villages and forests for a peaceful solution to their deprivation.

Big dams, industrial projects or special economic zones had devoured their lands and houses. They had come to Delhi on foot all the way from Gwalior, the meeting point, nearly 400 kilometres from Delhi, to tell the Manmohan Singh government that they could not live in the cold any longer. They wanted their own land or some other, not promises, not procedures, not the endless rounds to the corrupt patwari (village functionary), policeman or mahajan (moneylender).

Mahatma Gandhi, whose birthday they chose to start the Janadesh march, had assured them that there would be no tear on anybody’s cheek once the country was free.In the 60 years of independence, they and their families had shed all the tears they had. Neither the government nor the court had paid any attention to them. Some 500 had come a year earlier to give a chetavani (warning). But Delhi was too absorbed in the Indo-US nuclear deal.

They gratefully remember how ordinary people helped them on their way and gave them ration, 50 per cent of their needs, as they marched under the leadership of Gandhian Rajgopal for 26 days on the main road with banners saying in bold words: ‘Land to the tiller’ and ‘Land for the landless’. Political parties were conspicuous by their absence.

The marchers wanted to visit the Commonwealth Games Village which they were told was coming up right on the bed of the Yamuna maa (mother), with concrete buildings being put up on the source of the water recharge. They recalled how they too were ousted because of one project or the other in places where they had lived for generations. Their own experience told them how the builders, bureaucrats and politicians would join hands to uproot them from the land, their maa, like the Yamuna.

During the march, they saw the opulence of some parts of Delhi — the tall buildings, the dazzling malls and unending queues of cars. They hated the village zamindar for his wealth. But they abhorred the sight of the city’s riches and men and women flaunting their wealth. Their zamindar was like a poor relation before these.

Peacefully, the march ended a few days ago at the Ramlila grounds, the centre of the city. Some slept as night descended, but many sat waiting for the government word on their petition — the petition on steps to effect land reforms. They reminded the rulers of what they had promised in the Common Minimum Programme: “Landless families would be endowed with land through implementation of land ceiling and land redistribution legislation. No reversal of ceiling will be permitted.”

While negotiations with the government were going on, the police behaved in an autocratic manner. People were confined to the Ramlila grounds and even water tankers were not permitted to go for refilling for hours.

This illegal detention was not at the instance of Rural Development Minister Raghuvansh Prasad Singh. It was apparent that the order had come from the lieutenant-governor in charge of Delhi’s law and order. It was a mockery of democracy. But then, the police have got used to throwing their weight around since the days of the emergency. At that time too, police officials indulged in excesses. This time it was no better: the police kept the 28,000 people to the ground, without food and water for almost 24 hours.

The ordeal was over when Raghuvansh Prasad Singh came to the ground to convey the news. It had been agreed to appoint a Land Reforms Council under the prime minister to draft a national land reforms policy. The council will be assisted by a committee headed by the rural development minister and it will do the field survey and collect the data.

Too many words in the document and too many bureaucrats to interpret them may stall the real land reforms. Still, it is a small victory for the marchers. But the larger question remains: how do the 75 per cent of the people living on one US dollar (Rs 40) a day or even less improve their lot? What does the growth rate of nine to 10 per cent mean? How long can the two Indias live side by side? The way the Naxalites kill the innocent — the son of Jharkhand’s former chief minister was murdered — is wrong if that is the way sought to put pressure on the government.

Still, the status quo will not only give rise to violence but also give it recognition. Where is the money going? The GDP has more than doubled in a decade and a half.

The Manmohan Singh government needs to appoint a commission to find out who in society is benefiting from the gains. On lesser grounds, Jawaharlal Nehru had ordered a probe. The national income over the first and second plans (1951-66) went up by 43 per cent. But whom had it benefited? Nehru raised the query. He appointed a committee, headed by a progressive P.C. Mahalanobis, to seek the answer.

The committee found “concentration of economic power in the private sector more than what could be justified as necessary on functional grounds”. But it wondered “how far this is an inevitable part of the process of economic development, how far it can be justified in terms of economy of scale and full utilisation of scarce managerial and entrepreneurial resources, and how far the growth which has taken place is unhealthy and anti-social in its consequences”.

Today, there is no check, no scrutiny and no accountability. Increasingly, the question asked is: growth for whom? Today the landless came to Delhi to ventilate their demands. Tomorrow, the rural workers who have no means of income may march on Delhi.

The distance between India and Bharat is not lessening despite the nine to 10 per cent growth. The government has wasted enough of its energy and efforts on the nuclear deal with the US. When will it attend to business?

The health of the democratic system depends on how soon it can create opportunities for all. The island of prosperity on which the elite live will be washed away by the ocean of hunger and poverty that surrounds it. The island has to expand to absorb all. Everyone cannot reach Delhi. It is for Delhi to reach everyone. The rulers still have not realised this.

The writer is a senior columnist based in New Delhi.

MANY Pakistanis today are extremely upset with the return of Benazir Bhutto and the National Reconciliation Ordinance which, in their view, defeats the purpose of curbing corruption in the country. Why did General Musharraf destabilise a civilian government, start corruption cases against the politicians and force them into exile, and spend government money on establishing institutions such as the National Accountability Bureau if he had to eventually retreat?

Notwithstanding the fact that he is master of retreat, the NRO further deepens doubts in the minds of many regarding the credibility of the political leadership. Such sceptics were extremely perturbed to see hundreds and thousands of people come out to receive Benazir Bhutto. So, Oct 18 added to the confusion in the minds of the people.

What the sceptics must understand is not just the incapacity of the regime but also the fact that corruption does not necessarily have any impact on the choices which people eventually make in selecting their leaders in elections.

It is hoped that the GHQ will understand this reality and not bother with using this justification to sack governments next time it wants to do so. People are mainly concerned about which party or politician has the capacity to deliver certain services such as access to the local administration as well as access to the police, jobs etc. Issues pertaining to financial or political corruption (signing a deal with a general) will not ultimately decide whether people vote for Bhutto or not.

The people’s reaction to corruption or methods of defining credibility of the politicians also depicts the urban-rural divide. There are more urban people, especially the middle class educated ones who have access to national resources through the government or the market, who are concerned about corruption and the credibility of the political leadership, although they do not have any choice in terms of better options. Still, in all probability, this class of people will not leave the comfort of their homes to stand in a queue to cast their vote. But they will crib at home about the pathetic nature of politics.

Then there are people belonging to the lower classes in the cities who will go and vote depending on how active their party of choice and its leaders are in taking them to the polling stations. Many of these people are committed to ideological agendas and are diehard supporters of the PPP and PML-N. Then there is the 67 per cent population in the rural areas that is not bothered with the middle class’s definition of credibility. This is the segment which has an important role to play in the next elections.

The political perspective of the rural voter is quite different from the lower class, committed voter from the urban centres. While the poor city dweller gets excited by slogans of social equality and expectation of better socio-economic opportunities, the rural voter calculates from the standpoint of the general norm of the political system. This means that this voter responds to a patronage-based political system in which each party provides facilities and rewards to its workers and supporters.

This has nothing to do with the villagers’ lack of education and more with his sharp perception of socio-political realities. Perhaps, the village folk are sharper in their calculation of what they want and how to get it. The rural people know that Pakistani politics is all about patronage where reputation is not based on how clean you have been but on how much you can deliver to your constituents.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise because all powerful groups provide patronage to their members. The military and civil bureaucracy provides patronage to its members and cronies. Similarly, all political parties have their own clientele. The problem, in fact, is that the common man has fewer benefits and little access to the trickle-down of resources under bureaucratic governments. Such governments put up a show of deciding things on merit which means that there are fewer openings for the common man who cannot boast of academic or other credentials.

Political parties, because they depend on the support of voters, have to provide opportunities to their supporters. Furthermore, political parties are comparatively less pretentious about merit than bureaucratic governments. Although there is no evidence that governments run by bureaucrats or technocrats care more for merit, they generally pretend to be meritocracies which means that their patronage is limited to a select group of people and not the general public. The typical cronies of bureaucratic regimes (civil and military) are the fairly educated middle class.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that so many people turned up at Bhutto’s reception at the airport. Many more will probably vote for her, especially if General Musharraf takes off his uniform. His act will strengthen the public perception that Benazir Bhutto is powerful and could win elections as well which, in turn, would mean that she would be in a position to bring benefits to her clientele. The rural voters, particularly in Punjab and Sindh, appear to be impressed by this fact more than anything else.

An educated middle class Pakistani will probably say that these simpletons vote because they are uneducated and cannot free themselves from the clutches of the feudal. But then this is not the trap laid by just the feudal elite. Feudalism has permeated all organisations and social levels in the country.

Moreover, the ‘simpletons’ realise that this is essentially a bureaucratic state where the only merit pertains to an individual’s ability to twist the law and provide its clients access to the resources of the state. The efficient civil and military bureaucrat will never allow the system of governance to function in a manner so that the common man is freed from the clutches of the feudal. So, why blame the simple people of this country or get upset about their lack of education? Their decisions are actually pretty good and serve their purpose.The story does not end here. The politicians or the bureaucrats cannot continue to ignore the need for bringing about some change. Demography is an important indicator for all to worry about. In the past 60 years, there has been rapid movement from the villages to the cities resulting in the reduction of open spaces in big towns.

Unlike the past, when those living in rural areas constituted 80 per cent of the population, the figure now is 67 per cent. Reports indicate that the urban population is going to increase even further in the coming years. This means that there is greater pressure for basic facilities, health, education, sanitation and others in the urban centres.

Furthermore, the movement is not necessarily positive because it is an indicator of growing poverty in rural areas and depletion of human resource in villages where people are needed to keep the agrarian economy alive. The urban centres are expanding without necessarily leading to an increase in job opportunities.

If the government stops hiding unemployment figures, it would know that the movement towards towns is fraught with numerous challenges. The unemployed, ill-fed, ill-trained, uneducated and unhealthy youth will become more sceptical of the government, political parties and leadership.The vote bank of a party will not necessarily increase or remain constant if it does not deliver in urban areas and fails to change the system which means getting rid of patronage. The obvious threat is that this population will consider extreme options if no one else seems to care for them.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

UNLIKE most politicians who hold elective offices or are members of parliament or provincial assemblies, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz does not have a hereditary constituency. He has, therefore, to find and ‘rent’ one for every election.

With the elections fast approaching, the prime minister’s hunt for a constituency available on ‘rent’ has begun. The hunt, which this year got off to a somewhat late start, has now acquired a sense of urgency. If you have a constituency for ‘rent’, or know of anyone who has one, please contact the prime minister’s office. If there are ‘constituency agents and consultants’ in the business of arranging ‘constituency rentals’, just as there are ‘property agents and consultants’, they are requested to contact the prime minister’s office with details of what they have available.

The ‘constituency lease’ agreement will be between the prime minister who will be the ‘lessee’ and the constituency ‘owner’ who will be the ‘lessor’. The ‘lease’ will commence from the day the prime minister is elected from the ‘leased’ constituency and takes office as prime minister, or takes his seat in the National Assembly as MNA.

While the prime minister is not too particular about the location of the constituency for ‘rent’, except in ‘excluded areas’, constituencies in the remotest interior of Sindh will be preferred. Constituencies in some areas of Karachi, in most areas of the NWFP, the Northern Areas, Swat and at a few other locations are unlikely to be considered. The list of ‘excluded areas’, which is growing by the hour, can be verified from the prime minister’s office, where the list is updated on the hour every hour.

A major consideration for the ‘rental’ decision would be the constituency ‘owner’s’ potential to ‘facilitate’ the prime minister’s election.

The basic terms of the constituency ‘lease’ agreement are outlined below. These are not to be taken as final but as guidelines for what the prime minister is looking for:

• The period of the ‘lease’ agreement will be five years. However, since historically in Pakistan, prime ministers and MNAs have no assurance of completing their terms, the prime minister will retain the option to terminate the ‘lease’ without notice at any time during its currency.

• Advance ‘rental’? Possible, but details of how and in what shape and kind the ‘rental’ would be ‘settled’ will be worked out between the prime minister’s office and the ‘lessor’.

• All maintenance, repairs and improvement works, if any, in the ‘rented’ constituency will be solely the ‘owner’s’ responsibility. The prime minister would hand over the constituency to the ‘owner’ at the end of the ‘lease’ period in the condition it was when ‘leased’, subject to wear and tear to the usual, customary extent.

• If, and when, the prime minister visits the ‘leased’ constituency — he will not inconvenience the ‘owner’ often in this respect — the ‘owner’ will arrange for the crowd which would first vociferously welcome the prime minister, and then be herded to his public meeting. The crowd ‘rental’ costs will be refunded through the prime minister’s party, or other funds, together with the cost of chicken charghas.

• As prime minister, or as MNA, the ‘lessee’ will do nothing to change the socio-economic balance, or the status quo, of the constituency which has remained unchanged, frozen in time, since the time of the ‘owner’s’ forefathers. May their souls rest in peace.



The writer is a retired corporate executive.

husainsk@cyber.net.pk