If the same set of persons, who are beneficiaries and voters, also begin to demand accountability of government and government representatives and enforcement of constitutional and legal rights and rule of law at all times, then it can become frightening and politically unsettling for the ruling establishment at all levels of government. In a mature democracy, people are not satisfied with just being beneficiaries and voters but also demand their rights as citizens of the country writes Sunil Kumar, a former civil servant.
Different stories play out simultaneously in different parts of the country. Consider these. There are stories of dissent, of protest, of people clamouring for accountability and justice. And there are also stories of people being manipulated by politicians and political parties for their own ends which may have nothing to do with the people’s own self-interest.
In the first week of September, a resident of Pune, Vidyanand Bapat, who has launched a campaign against noise pollution during the Ganpati festival, is assaulted in full public view when he was speaking to the media. Fortunately, the assailant was quickly arrested by the police and the attack was condemned by the Maharashtra Chief Minister.
In New Delhi, it is only after a protest at the Parliament Street police station led by two MPs, Indian Youth Congress and members of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) that the self-styled social media ‘influencer’ (reportedly close to some political leaders), who admitted to attacking the father of a young Jantar Mantar protestor in July in a social media post is arrested. Earlier, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha had to stage a dharna at the same police station to get registered a FIR by a youth injured during the July 20 incident.
Stories of villagers refusing to cast their vote on account of non-fulfilment of their long-pending demand for road, bridge or school building, routinely crop up. In the 2024 General Elections, residents in Hisampur Marho in Uttar Pradesh’s Kaushambi district, boycotted the election and refused to cast their vote as their demand for road and overbridge over the railway track (which children have to cross to go to school) were not heeded by their elected representatives. In the upcoming local government elections in Jaipur, residents of Sultan Nagar colony living along Kartarpura Nullah, have similarly threatened to boycott Municipal Corporation polls alleging years of neglect in clearing the drain.
The above were stories of people wanting to be heard. What follow are stories of people being made to bend to the will of politicians. There are stories of members of women self-help groups (SHGs) being herded into buses and brought to attend political rallies of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister in different states. Mission Shakti, launched by the Biju Janta Dal (BJD) in Odisha, was aimed at mobilizing women SHG members in support of the ruling BJD. In other States like Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu, the political parties have left no stone unturned in their effort to appeal to the large group of women voters. Promise of benefits under different existing or new schemes of the government is used by workers of political parties to muster support and increase attendance in political rallies.
These stories tell us about the different perceptions of people by the political parties and individuals themselves. One perception of the politicians is people as ‘beneficiaries’ e.g. the women members of SHGs are labelled ‘beneficiaries’ in Government parlance. All persons receiving benefits, under some welfare scheme or the other of state and/or union government, are expected to follow the diktat of the government officials and leaders of the political parties in power in the union and/or state government and vote for them. Else, they run the risk of losing access to those benefits. We have had instances where senior Ministers have gone to the extent of labelling those persons who receive benefits of government schemes and yet vote for their opponents during elections as ‘namak harams’ (ungrateful or lacking in gratitude).
This perception of people as beneficiaries is also sometimes shared by those citizens who feel that because they have received ‘benefits’ from the government, they should be grateful to the government. For instance, the late Ms. Indira Gandhi is still worshipped and fondly remembered as Indiramma (mother Indira) by a large section of people (especially from the southern states) who devoutly visit the Indira Memorial in Delhi. Then there are those who feel that Shri Narendra Modi genuinely took care of them during the difficult Covid period by giving them free ration and so they are prepared to overlook the shortcomings in health governance or the administrative ineptitude shown during the covid pandemic, during demonetization and/or during the proclamation of national lock-down in March 2020 (which adversely affected crores of people). Obviously, such people too have internalized the ‘maai-baap’ culture and look upon themselves as beneficiaries rather than citizens with rights who are entitled to receive welfare benefits from the government.
Interestingly, it is perhaps, these very people who, once elections are announced, begin to feel that candidates would need to approach them for their votes and this would give them some kind of bargaining power over candidates. So, stories of villagers and/or residents refusing to cast their vote as a mark of protest reflects the fact that, in an ‘electoral democracy’ like India, the voter becomes sovereign only at the time of elections. Scenes of candidates falling at the feet of poor villagers and seeking their ‘blessings’ or shedding copious tears at their poor conditions and promising to alleviate them are quite common. The fear of anti-incumbency is very real and all political parties do their level best to try and mitigate the adverse impact of anti-incumbency on their electoral prospects. This is achieved (or tried to be achieved) by showering different types of benefits to voters. So, the ‘voters as beneficiaries’ perception persists.
After elections, voters are quietly forgotten as the elected representatives feel that they have got the authority to represent them for a period of five years. The same elected representatives are no longer to be seen in their constituencies. Instead, it is their ‘representative’ who holds the fort on their behalf, whether in official meetings or attending to voters. This shows that elected representatives feel that votes can be secured by extending benefits to people or somehow assuaging their ‘hurt’ feelings at the time of elections.
However, there is another perception of people as citizens. The same set of people (beneficiaries and voters) also become ‘citizens’ once they begin to demand their constitutional or legal rights from authorities. These persons are aware of their rights and demand them as a matter of right (and not as a pelf). They know that the government is accountable to them and they can demand transparency and accountability from not only the elected representatives but all government officials who are ‘public servants’ and not their masters. They may also be aware that government at all levels, the union, state or local, can legally act only in ‘public interest’ and not ‘party interest’.
Often in countries like India where democracy has proved since the last decade in particular, to be still immature, all political parties (in varying degrees) and most elected representatives are happiest dealing with persons as ‘beneficiary’ rather than citizen. An analysis of the election manifesto of political parties and speeches made in electoral rallies would show that they are competing to launch schemes which would turn a large number of people into ‘beneficiary’. The expectation is that their votes can be garnered as a quid pro quo for benefits extended to them by the government and the ruling party. If the same set of persons are aware of their right to vote and the power of their vote (during election time), they can cause considerable anxiety to candidates and political parties in the fray. To top it, if they become aware of their constitutional and legal rights as citizens of this country, then it would virtually be an unending nightmare for politicians, political parties and bureaucracy alike.
But this was not always so. The trend to turn the focus of government towards ‘individual beneficiary’ on a large scale started tentatively in the 1970s (launch of ICDS), bloomed in the 1980s (IRDP & IAY), flourished in the 1990s (NSAP) and is at its zenith in present times (NRLM, PMUY, PM-KISAN, PMGKAY). The explosion in the number of beneficiaries is by design. It increases the dependency of people on government and enhances the ‘maai-baap’ image of the union and state governments. More specifically, that of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, as almost all schemes carry their name and the packaging and publicizing of the schemes has their imprint. It suits all political parties as they can remind the recipients that these benefits are flowing to them courtesy the benevolence of the rulers/ruling party and they should remain ever ‘grateful’ to them. The best way to show their gratitude is to vote for the ruling party.
What is an absolute ‘no-no’, is any attempt to harbour the belief that it is the duty of the government to take care of them and it is the right of people to demand governance, whether merely in the form of the rule of law or also in the form of beneficiary-oriented specific welfare schemes. No questioning of any sort is permissible. The people are to be recipients of the ‘message’ flowing from the top and are not expected to exercise their independent judgment in public matters. Thus, the beneficiary is at the lowest rung of the spectrum and the easiest to manage in a democratic set-up where rulers are forced to seek periodic popular approval through elections.
Angry voters are dreaded by politicians at the time of elections. These persons may be ‘beneficiaries’ alright but are dissatisfied with the quality of service rendered and are aware of the power of their vote. Stories of poll boycott also trouble political parties and candidates no end. But these can somehow be tackled and forgotten once polling has taken place. In the ‘first past the post’ system adopted by India, it does not matter as to what percentage of voters have exercised their power to vote or not. Whoever gets a majority of the legally valid votes cast is declared the winner.
But if the same set of persons, who are beneficiaries and voters, also begin to demand accountability of government and government representatives and enforcement of constitutional and legal rights and rule of law at all times, then it can become frightening and politically unsettling for the ruling establishment at all levels of government. In a mature democracy, people are not satisfied with just being beneficiaries and voters but also demand their rights as citizens of the country.
Seen in this light, the campaign against ‘noise pollution’ in Pune and Maharashtra reflects the transition of Indians from being mere beneficiaries and voters to becoming conscious citizens. The public assault of Shri Bapat in Pune (and the death of a musician from Manipur who was fatally assaulted by miscreants for objecting to noise in Delhi) is a pointer to the hurdles that citizens face in different parts of the country for demanding that the law be enforced and that their status as citizens be recognized.
The law relating to noise pollution is clear. According to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, the permitted noise decibel levels in industrial, commercial, residential and silence zones such as in and around hospitals are clearly laid down. All noise must cease between 10 pm to 6 am. While the police can temporarily extend the time limit, no authority can legally enhance the permissible noise decibel level or grant any time or volume exemption in designated silence zones. Whether it is during festivals, marriages, celebrations or election campaigns, noise pollution cannot be legally permitted. Similarly, there are laws prohibiting littering in public places. But are these laws enforced?
Encroachments on footpath meant for pedestrians are common place in all cities and towns, big or small, across the country. Use of loudspeakers and public address system require police permission and high-decibel equipment like plasma and pressure-mid sound systems are often banned. Yet in different parts of the country, DJ equipment is freely used and music played at such high levels that glass window panes shatter and yet the police turn a blind eye.
The problem is that despite laws being in existence, law enforcement in the country remains a joke. Flouting of law is seen as a symbol of ‘power’. The VIP culture, as understood in India, means flouting of rules and laws with arrogance and impunity.
The Pune incident mentioned above is definitely a cause for concern. The fear that “if a person speaking out against noise pollution is assaulted today, tomorrow any citizen might fear raising their voice against injustice, superstition, pollution, corruption or public malpractices” (as aired by the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti) is very real. It is heartening that earlier this month over a thousand residents of Pune took to the streets and led a public march against noise pollution. Strict and uniform enforcement of laws alone would establish the ‘rule of law’ in the country and not judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and/or High Courts. For instance, nothing much seems to have changed on the ground despite rulings by the Supreme Court regarding ‘bulldozer justice’ and rights of pedestrians over safe footpaths.
To sum up, the perception of people needs to change, wherever people see themselves as ‘beneficiary’. They should stop looking themselves as mere ‘beneficiaries’ dependent on largesse extended to them by the political parties. Nor should citizens see themselves as having rights only as ‘voters’ who wield the power of vote during the polls. Citizens of India belong to a parliamentary democracy where their rights are guaranteed by the highest law of the land, their Indian Constitution. Their right to be governed according to the Constitution and by the rule of law is not a privilege granted to them by any ruling dispensation, at any level of government. Elections and populism are endemic to sound democracies but the accountability of governments in a democracy is permanent. We, the people of India, must, at all times, perceive ourselves as citizens of India who derive their rights from the Constitution and who shall demand accountability of elected representatives and bureaucrats for failures in governance. Presently, feeble signs of such change occurring is visible at a few places. But that is not enough. The pace of transition from being a beneficiary to a citizen needs rapid and sustained acceleration. This is the only true way to becoming a genuine democracy, not just an electoral one. The onus of forcing accountability and the rule of law is as much or even more upon us citizens than the political orders.
(Sunil Kumar is a visiting Senior Fellow associated with the Centre for Cooperative Federalism and Multilevel Governance in Pune International Centre and a former civil servant. Views expressed are personal.)
