Margaret Alva laments the alienation and disenchantment of large sections of the population despite high economic growth

Rural-urban disparities are a challenge, says Ms Margaret Alva,
General Secretary of the AICC and in charge of the Congress party's
affairs in the Maharashtra

Economic growth is fine, but the "LPG" syndrome (liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation impacting the country at the same time) has led to disparities between the haves and the have-nots, as also between those who have broken barriers and those who are still left behind.

Agrarian distress and the challenge of food security (even for farmers) are responsible for the disenchantment of large sections of the population with the political processes and the political leadership at various levels. This has resulted in a society impatient with the shackles of the past, struggling for the empowerment of the marginalised.

This is the reality of today in the face of glowing accounts of investments, of multinationals, of SEZs, of crores of rupees in investments in various sectors and promises of a bright future, as per Ms. Margaret Alva, General Secretary of the AICC and who is in charge of the party's affairs in Maharashtra.

Speaking on "Towards an inclusive society" at the last meeting, she posed some key questions: How many in the country had come within the "golden circle"? How far had change, progress and development brought a sense of satisfaction, of belonging and of justice for the mass of people?

We have to work ceaselessly to build a new society that offers justice, dignity and development to all our people. The need is to adapt, to reform and to innovate while preserving and upholding time-tested values which are uniquely Indian..

Ms Alva stated at the outset that she generally had a negative press in Bombay. Besides, her views on various issues created controversies both in the city as well as in the State, especially in political circles. That was the reason why she had decided to steer clear of politics and to speak, instead, on the reality of India 60 years after freedom and the challenges in creating a"strong India of our dreams".

She started by stating that India was an ancient civilization but a young nation; with one billion people of diverse groupings, languages and religions, India represented a political wonder.

Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, men and women belonging to all religions, communities and social strata had united and gathered strength from sharing a common objective. They strove for freedom and to create a country in which people would live without fear in a just and peaceful social order.

But had India succeeded in establishing democracy? And had Indian democracy succeeded in achieving the goals it set for itself? These were the basic questions that often bothered her after 60 years of freedom. Despite many onslaughts and threats to secularism, to unity and to the country's multi-pluralism, it had by and large remained true to the democratic, secular constitution that it had adopted, she noted.

Yet, Ms Alva said, it was apparent that India had a fractured polity, a growing, restless population and a dominant, demanding youth that was eager to determine the future. Therewas also the truth of poor governance, at times no governance, and the eternal challenge of corruption.

The .great divide. between the rural and urban population was leading to migrations which caused upheavals of populations at the rural end and the pressure of slums and unhygienic living conditions in the urban areas.

Economic growth was fine, but the "LPG" syndrome (liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation impacting the country at the same time) had led to disparities between the haves and the have-nots, as also between those who had broken barriers and those who were still left behind.

At the same time, there was the changing face of the traditional Indian village which was known for peaceful existence over the centuries; there, the changing caste equations, the liberalising effect of grassroots democracy and the break in the traditional "patron" and "subject" populations had led to a certain sense of disquiet and unease.

The reassertion of caste, religion and regional interests and identities was a backlash to the insecurity caused by the changing situation. Violent protests and assertion of rights were being resorted to by those who saw themselves as victims of an unjust and uncaring social order that sought to exclude them from the benefits of development.

Ms Alva pointed out that agrarian distress and the challenge of food security (even for farmers) was responsible for the disenchantment of large sections of the population with the political processes and the political leadership at various levels. This had resulted in a society impatient with the shackles of the past, struggling for the empowerment of the marginalised.

This was the reality of today in the face of glowing accounts of investments, of multinationals, of SEZs, of crores of rupees in investments in various sectors and promises of a bright future. But how many had come within the "golden circle"? How far had change, progress and development brought in a sense of satisfaction, of belonging and of justice for the mass of people?

.We have to work ceaselessly to build a new society that offers justice, dignity and development to all our people. The need is to adapt, to reform and to innovate while preserving and upholding time-tested values which are uniquely Indian..

There was a feeling that to be modern one had to be western; that in order to be accepted, the young had to give up most of their traditions and their Indianness. The young believed that the world was a village, anyway, and nothing really mattered; "the past is to be left behind and the future is to be what we want it to be".

But, Ms Alva said, .we need to create a society that is inclusive and that binds and holds us together. Unfortunately, we have seen over the years a falling apart even of those who had held together under the most difficult of circumstances..

India had a minority population of over 15% and a proud heritage of pluralism. Yet, this democratic, secular nation was fraught with complex problems. Communal flare-ups caused by the rupture of faith between people of different communities recurred because leaders exploited the people.s emotions and ignorance.

At such times it was important to reinforce the bonds that bound the people together, even as the foundations that held them together were tested.

Although untouchability and rigid segregation had been outlawed and were mostly invisible in urban slums and high-rise apartments, the fact remained that despite the existence of a state mechanism for affirmativeaction that was statutorily created by the Indian Constitution, the scourge persisted, especially in rural areas.

Despite the enactment of laws with criminal provisions to contain and punish prejudicial acts of insults, segregation and violence towards scheduled castes and tribes, and also positive discrimination in their favour, the systematic non-prosecution and the poor rate of hearings and convictions revealed a severe caste bias in the legal system and in the enforcement agencies in the rural areas.

We must realise that peace and stability cannot come where the majority of human beings are denied the economic opportunities enjoyed by the privileged few; and largely ignored when decisions about the economy are taken. Those who enjoy wealth and power have a moral obligation to take account of the views of those that don't, in enlightened self-interest, for otherwise society itself is threatened. Violence is born out of injustice, poverty and a feeling of alienation.

."Development can be ensured only when there is freedom from want and violence; the human rights and dignity are guaranteed; and citizens have an equal opportunity to attain decent living standards. Science, technology, national commitment and international assistance have made this a reachable goal; and yet, as we look around us, freedom, equality, fair play and security seem a distant dream for a large section of our people".

Touching on the question of equality of women, Ms Alva pointed out that women were among the most discriminated sections in society, whether in rural India or in the cities. But women could no longer be kept out of issues of growth and development. They were demanding an end to their centuries of silence and suffering.

Steering clear of politics. Ms Margaret Alva answers questions at
the last meeting. To her right is PP Gul Kripalani (who introduced
the guest speaker), while President Dr. Rumi Jehangir is to her left.
In the second picture, Dr. R.D. Lele presents Ms Alva with a copy of
his book on rural reconstruction published by the Club in 1996

"Discrimination and violence against women from the womb to the tomb must end and I hope we are in the process of achieving this".

India could not take its democracy for granted. It required care and nurturing. People involved in decisionmaking, in opinion-making and in recasting social structures had to keep in mind the need to deepen their commitment and involvement in giving substance to Indian democracy.

Sadly, even voting was a burden to many in the educated, better-off groups in the country. Although vocal at seminars and meetings, many thought it a waste of time to go out to vote.

Ms Alva said it was important to deal with the danger of a weakening national civic identity in favour of many debilitating sub-identities when most issues appeared to be becoming localised. Everything was viewed from the prism of caste, of religion, of regional interest and of regional parties .and essentially to help one's self.

.We have to resolve the growing tension between the constraints of a liberal constitutional democracy and the rule of law, on the one hand, and the strident demand of the political marketplace, on the other. Often, there seems to be more interest and commitment to vote-bank politics which seems to be much more important than upholding the rule of law.

.We have to curb the tendency to convert citizens. social and economic rights into discretionary allocations by the State. Democratisation and decentralisation of political party structure and curbing of the power of money in elections is a challenge which all of us face..

Transparency and accountability in administration and a decentralised power structure through the panchayati raj system with the slogan of power to the people had been attempted; but how far it had succeeded was a question still being debated. Public-private partnership in growth and development and in recasting social priorities had come to stay.

Ms Alva said these were issues that were changing the approach to the functioning not just of the Central government but also of State governments.

But since there were as many political parties and governments as there were states, the regional ethos expressed through regional parties was making a common, comprehensive approach to national problems a challenge, one that India did not face in the early years after freedom. Compromise, consultation and weak implementation of political agendas were an impediment to the kind of progress that the country wanted to see.

.We live in an inter-dependent society which is bound together by a common destiny. We cannot and must not rest while millions of our countrymen suffer the pain of indignity, poverty and exploitation.

.Hundreds of millions of our people yearn for a new order in which they can live better lives, where they can feel involved and part of the entire process; where state institutions and resources are dedicated to the achievement of the happiness of all citizens by empowering them to freely determine their destiny.

All citizens should be able not just to express themselves, but to be participants in development. Often, we believe that they could be recipients rather than participants. But I think the age of charity is long dead. What people are asking for is human dignity, equality and the right to be accepted as equal citizens in a democracy which belongs to them as much as it does to the rich and the powerful..

Sadly, Ms Alva said, the disparities in development patterns between states and the capacity of some states to absorb more than the others was responsible for large sections of the people to feel that they were being left out. This pointed to the failure of the effort to become an inclusive democracy.

Already, 167 districts in the country were under the influence of Naxalite groups. The Naxalite problem was not a law-and-order situation but one in which sections of the people in tribal areas, particularly the youth, felt that they had no stake in the running of the country, in its development potential, or in improving their own life.

They did not want violence for their families or for their areas. They were fighting for justice and for their fundamental rights; this challenge could not be answered by bullets or by the army. A social response, laced with an economic approach, was the need of the hour. And this was one of the biggest challenges of the future . dealing with the growing numbers of youth who were demanding a future for themselves.

.Freedom was brought to us by one generation; if that freedom is to be strengthened and passed on to the next, we have a lot of soul-searching and thinking to do; a lot of correctives that policy makers have to initiate"and development has to be for the people and for all the people, not for just a few".

Ms Alva concluded her talk by expressing the view that the people of Bombay would focus on issues that made Bombay what it was known for "an inclusive city which found place for people from everywhere and truly represented the soul of a secular, democratic India.

A number of fiery questions were directed at Ms Alva at the end of her talk, but she fielded all of them like a seasoned politician.

Shanta Chatterji pointed out that NGOs acted like a link between the government and the masses; this could be called an effort at ensuring inclusiveness. But while the government response time was extremely slow, on the one hand, on the other, when an NGO succeeded it was looked upon as a threat rather than as a partner.

Ms Alva said it was unfortunate if NGOs were seen as a threat. They had both a place and a role to play. Moreover, it benefited everyone when independent opinions and independent groups came forward to associate with implementation or with initiatives for change.

As for government response time, it was well known that there were layers and layers of government. For example, in Bombay alone, what with the Municipal Corporation, the Mayor, the Municipal Commissioner, the corporators, MLAs, MPs, ministers and the government, there were innumerable layers of decisionmaking.

During the late Rajiv Gandhi.s tenure as Prime Minister, when she was a member of his cabinet, she had tried to push for cutting red tape and making government accessible.

Now, the Right to Information Act (RTI) had emerged as a very powerful instrument in the hands of the citizens. Unfortunately, many people believed that even this was too much of a problem, or required too much of an effort, especially in semi-urban and rural areas. .But I think lots of people are beginning to realise the strength and the power of the RTI Act to get governments to work..

Vijay Dhawan said he was an angry man; angry at the fact that Naxalites had control over 167 districts in the country; angry at the appalling levels of poverty in the countryside; angry at the media, especially The Times of India, for highlighting the marriages of film stars and rape cases that had an edge of .glamour., rather than the abysmal quality of life of the people in Eastern UP and Bihar.

Blaming Ms Alva.s party and its MP, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, for focussing on khadi and abstinence from liquor, Vijay said the Congress party had played an important role in the creation of vote-bank politics.

Ms Alva clarified that Mr. Gandhi had only wondered aloud whether it was relevant to continue printing two points in the Congress party's membership admission forms - that on joining the party the new member would become a habitual wearer of khadi and that he or she would not consume alcohol.

.I know that Congressmen drink. The point is, it is there in the old traditional constitution and the (application) forms of the Congress. The question (was) should we change it or not? Nothing beyond that. But, as you said, the press can make headlines even out of a Congress form.

Sharing her thoughts with Nandan. Ms Margaret Alva interacts
with Shanta Chatterji (from left), Vice-President Nandan Damani and
PP Gul Kripalani. (Right) Thank you for sparing the afternoon for us.
President Dr. Rumi Jehangir presents a memento to Ms Margaret
Alva at the last meeting

PDG Manibhai Doshi chipped in to say that khadi was as old as the Indian freedom movement, when it was agreed that economic freedom was the foundation of all freedoms.

Then came Dilnavaz Variava who thanked Ms Alva .for bringing the rural poor into this room.

She said the Rotary Club of Bombay had been working with the farmers of Vidarbha for three years and the observations made and conclusions reached could be adopted by the Congress party while drawing up its policies.

It was the high input costs foisted on farmers through agricultural policies promoted over the four decades (after the .green revolution.) that had resulted in input costs being substantially higher than the minimum support price offered by the government.

The agricultural universities in the state owned thousands of acres of land but were unable to make a profit. "What are they going to teach the farmers? Each agricultural university is a land-grant university. It is unable to make a profit even when it has 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 acres of its own".

Moreover, the agricultural extension machinery was taken over by the input providers, the fertilizer companies, pesticide companies and so on, which were providing .knowledge .; obviously, this .knowledge. was slanted towards their own interests.

Dilnavaz, who is the Club's Chairperson for Organic Farming, said she was associated with people who had been working with over 500 farmers in the poorest areas of Vidarbha - and not a single one of them had committed suicide.

The farmers had been freed from the government.s agricultural machinery and taught to make their own fertilizers and pesticides; they had learnt to go for inter-cropping, to sow foodgrain crops with their cotton so that in case their cotton crop failed, they still had enough to feed themselves.

And as for pesticides, they didn.t need any; instead, they used the knowledge that had been virtually wiped out over the last five or six decades, and which was to go for a nitrogen-fixing crop next to a cotton crop; this would provide the required nutrients. Some of the farmers went in for as many as six, seven or even more crops; this attracted predators that came in and ate the insect pests; thus there was no need for pesticides.

The need of the hour was for this knowledge to be taken up, analysed and disseminated. Of course, nobody would make any money out of this approach; and there would be no huge subsidy for chemical fertilizers (reportedly Rs. 22,000 crores) which could be diverted into people.s pockets.

Dilnavaz said the need was to find examples of successful farmers who could share their experiences with others. She narrated the story of a successful "chemical farmer", Bhaskar Save, who was a conventional farmer with one and a half acres of land. But the cost of chemical fertilizers kept on rising and eroding his profits.

Soon, he became a loss-making farmer. That was when he shifted to organic farming. "Today, he owns 14 acres of land, not a rupee of debt, he is not beholden to anyone and he freely shares his knowledge with anybody who wants it. These people.s knowledge should be transmitted through Doordarshan, through its programmes".

When Ms Alva said she was glad that Dilnavaz had brought up these issues and that there was a full-time channel on agriculture for farmers, Dilnavaz said caustically, (the channel was) .promoting the wrong agriculture .

The speaker said this was not true, but the points made could be disseminated through the channel"Dilnavaz asked, "Will you help me?" Ms Alva replied, "Yes, I will".

Finally, Dr. Nayna Dastur rose to ask whether there was any sense in Mr. Rahul Gandhi talking about khadi and the dress code, rather than a code of conduct, for conduct was far more important.

Your talk has emphasised that you are aware of what is wrong with society, with the ministers, the government and the ruling party; then why is nobody raising their voice? Why are you all keeping quiet? Raise your voice "We also feel, but what can we do? You are the people, in government and in Parliament, who need to do things".

Ms Alva said no government could do everything, especially in a democratic system. All citizens had a duty to become instruments for creating a society where there was justice.

This cannot be done only through the law courts or through judicial pronouncements... We can pass laws, but how involved are the citizens in creating and taking forward the demo- cratic processes? Like someone said (just now- see) what you pay your domestic staff; we have laws against child labour, but you see them everywhere, and nobody thinks about it..

Earlier, introducing the guest speaker, PP Gul Kripalani said that Ms Margaret Alva, who had been a member of both the Rajya Sabha as well as the Lok Sabha, had served as Minister under the late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and the late Mr. Narasimha Rao.

Conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Literature by the University of Mysore, she was a recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award for achievements in public life. She was also honoured by the President of South Africa for her support to the African National Congress during its struggle for freedom and received the first Nelson Mandela Award for minority empowerment in South Africa.

In 1986 she was elected Chairperson of the first SAARC Ministerial meet on women and the UNICEFsponsored conference on children in South Asia.

The vote of thanks was proposed by Mahakhurshid Byramjee.