BJP’s cynical calculation

AFTER withstanding months of pressure from the opposition and human rights groups to step down, the controversial chief minister of India’s Gujarat state, Narendra Modi, has finally resigned and paved the way for fresh elections in the troubled state. His resignation at this stage is seen as a mixed blessing by his critics, who fear that he will exploit the heightened communal tensions in the state to improve his legislative majority. They believe that Modi, who presided over the worst wave of communal violence in India in a decade, has decided to call for fresh elections simply to cash in on the communal polarization in Gujarat. In February this year, the state witnessed a horrifying wave of anti-Muslim violence following an attack in Godhra on a train carrying Hindu activists. Following that incident, there was an explosion of anti-Muslim violence across the state, with Hindu mobs committing the most gruesome atrocities against innocent Muslim men, women and children. What was most chilling about the violence was that it was cold-blooded, systematic and pre-planned rather than a spontaneous outburst of communal frenzy. While official figures put the death toll at 1,000, many independent sources claim that the figure is closer to 2,500, with a vast majority of the dead being Muslims.

What shocked the world about the Gujarat carnage was how the state functionaries colluded in the killing spree. In many cases, the police simply looked on as the rampaging mobs engaged in a frenzy of rape, burning and looting. Modi was widely accused of being actively involved in stoking the violence — or at least doing nothing to put an end to it. Despite all the condemnation of his role in the bloodbath, Modi remained defiant and refused to step down. Worse, the BJP-led government at the centre backed Modi and refused to heed calls for his dismissal. This reluctance to act was clearly the result of a cynical calculation by the ruling party. Sacking Modi at that point would be tantamount to chastising him, which in turn would preclude any political advantage that the BJP wanted to gain from the anti-Muslim carnage in Gujarat. Modi’s belated resignation on Friday will now allow the BJP to exploit the Gujarat violence to further its Hindutva agenda and make electoral gains. For the ruling party, it seems, this is a price it is willing to pay to hold on to its bastion in Gujarat.

Since it came to power, the BJP has suffered a number of electoral setbacks and lost control over a number of key states. Gujarat, run by the hardline Modi, was one of the few states, and certainly the most important one, still under BJP rule. By calling for early elections, the government seeks to ensure that the state remains firmly under its control, despite the serious risks involved. Many of those displaced following the violence remain sheltered in makeshift camps and communal tensions remain high. India’s Human Rights Commission has warned that elections held under such circumstances could trigger a new wave of violence between Hindus and Muslims. It is a sad commentary on Indian politics that this risk of violence could encourage, rather than dissuade, zealots such as Narendra Modi to take to the hustings and seeking a fresh mandate.

Deeper in poverty

A RECENTLY released report presents some sobering statistics about the steep increase in poverty and inequality in the country since the early 1990s. Compiled by a leading independent research organization, the report paints a depressing picture of how both the fruits of development and the cost of painful economic adjustments are not being shared equitably between the rich and the poor. According to the report, more than 350,000 people have been rendered jobless since 1999 while the number living below the poverty line has risen by a staggering seven million. The unemployment rate rose from 3.5 per cent between 1981 and 1990 to 5.7 per cent from 1991 to 2000. The figure today stands at 6.7 per cent. The percentage of people below the poverty line has also risen at an alarming rate — from 17 per cent between 1979 and 1998 to 38 per cent today. In recent years, the purchasing power of the richest segment has grown by 23 per cent while that of the poorest has grown by a meagre two per cent. This perhaps explains why the country’s urban centres are full of expensive new cars, lavish homes and fancy shopping malls even as a growing number of people fall into the poverty trap.

Many economists claim that this rise in poverty and inequality is the direct result of rapid economic liberalization. The expansion of the free market and the shrinking role of the public sector in areas such as health, education, transport and others has also fuelled inequality. For all its inefficiency and corruption, the public sector did help remove some of the more glaring inequities in society by providing essential services at an affordable cost to the poor. While there is no reversing the process of liberalization, the government must keep in mind the needs of the poorest sections of society during this difficult period of economic transition. The poor must be protected from the more negative effects of privatization and the free market if major social upheavals in the years ahead are to be avoided.

Teachers’ worries

THE Punjab government’s scheme for denationalizing educational institutions has created strong apprehensions among the teaching community. Enjoying the benefits of service security, promotion and pension like other regular government servants, teachers of nationalized institutions think that they might lose their current status and benefits if the decision is implemented. However, the notification earlier issued about the denationalization, setting out the terms and conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching staff, suggested that the government probably did not plan to wash its hands of the teachers affected by the move and wanted to fully protect their rights and interests. The provincial education minister, addressing a news conference some days ago, also said that the staff serving in nationalized institutions would remain the liability of the government unless they decided to join the denationalized institutions. Moreover, he said the education department had about 60,000 teaching and non-teaching posts lying vacant and there would be no problem in absorbing all government employees serving in nationalized institutions.

It is necessary to reassure the teachers and allay their fears about job security and status and protection of their legitimate rights and interests in case they decide to join privatized institutions. Before nationalization, there were complaints regarding being underpaid and the absence of a proper career structure for the teachers. In this context, some of the fears of protesting teachers seem to be well-founded. A major cause for concern is that privatized institutions might exorbitantly increase their fee structure, notwithstanding the education minister’s assurances that the government would continue to monitor fees and would not allow a raise beyond a certain ceiling. It would be most unfortunate if the poor students are unable to get admission just on account of high fees. These and other vital issues need to be properly addressed in the interest of the teachers and students as also in pursuit of broader goal of educational development.