The Indian Express: National: Friday, December 15, 2017.
Any
evaluation of the political legacy of Sonia Gandhi has to acknowledge her
seminal contribution to getting rights-based legislation enacted. It was one of
her most significant contributions to development politics in India.
The year 2005
marks a watershed for social sector legislation. The RTI and NREGA two pieces
of legislation that have since their passage dominated the discourse on
governance and entitlements for the poor were passed after rigorous debate and
discussion, inside and outside Parliament. These were followed by the enactment
of many rights-based laws seeking to address basic needs of the marginalised,
strengthening their agency and empowerment. Despite many shortcomings, the
Forest Rights Act, Right to Education Act, National Food Security Act, the
amended Land Acquisition Act, Domestic Violence Act, Street Vendors Act, Social
Security Act, the amended SC/ST Atrocities Act, would never have been passed in
form and substance had Sonia Gandhi not put her political weight and influence
behind them as head of the UPA and of the National Advisory Council (NAC).
Sonia Gandhi
should feel a sense of satisfaction for her fundamental role in establishing
this path-breaking legislative paradigm. Whether supportive or critical, this
was participatory democratic governance at its best. Even if many stalwarts in
her party were not enthused, people in India’s marginalised majorities
understand what these laws have achieved to change their lives.
It requires
immense strength of purpose, conviction, and assertion, to push social sector
issues and the real concerns of the marginalised into the mainstream of India’s
decision-making platforms. The National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) and the
creation of the NAC headed by her, gave these issues a unique space. It enabled
the transformation of political commitments to citizens into working frameworks
of law and policy. The NCMP played a useful role when Sonia Gandhi used this
declaration of intent as justification to overcome resistance in the government
and party.
Our
discussions with Sonia Gandhi on these issues began when she was Leader of the
Opposition. She was easy to meet and a patient listener. She evinced an
interest in the concerns of the poor and supported the Right to Information
(RTI) movement from its early years.
When the
Prime Minister’s Office called, inviting me to join the NAC, I feared
restrictions on the freedom of expression and dissent, my most jealously
guarded privilege. My only condition before joining was to request full freedom
to express my views, even those critical of the government or its policies. I
was never constrained from expressing dissent, disagreement or discontent;
either within the NAC or outside. Sonia Gandhi’s capacity to respect dissenting
opinions with grace distinguishes her from others in similar positions. Many of
my NAC colleagues will bear witness that as chairperson, she never interfered
with sharp debates or critical public statements issued by members. This
established strong democratic principles of open discussions and robust
decision-making in the NAC.
That Sonia
Gandhi the chairperson of a ruling alliance headed an advisory body rather than
the government was a quirk of history. Its mandate to confine itself to social
sector promises and initiatives was a significant, deliberate decision. She
selected an eclectic group of members in the NAC, displaying political maturity
and breaking new ground. This collaborative exercise in preparing draft
legislation and policy with civil society organisations and government yielded
very useful results. The contributions from social activists, rooted in
contemporary realities, and robust consultations with communities, lent rigour
to the formulations.
The RTI and
MGNREGA campaigns got her personal attention. The first promise in the NCMP,
that “The UPA government will immediately enact a National Employment Guarantee
Act. This will provide a legal guarantee for at least 100 days of employment”,
provoked furious debate. The opposition from centres of power to this
legitimate demand for a small share of the GDP for the poor was
disproportionately high. Criticism and ridicule from neoliberal economists
haunted this legislation from the beginning. Even though she was tentative
about fiscal arguments, some crucial recommendations about the MGNREGA were
finally incorporated, largely due to her support. Sonia Gandhi’s determined
efforts pulled together the pro-poor elements in her party and the government
along with the strong political support of the Left from outside.
A series of
state RTI laws had widened the understanding of the critical need for
transparency in governance. The RTI faced bureaucratic contestation in equal
measure. There were objections about the scope of the law, promoting blanket
exemptions, inclusion of parts of the armed forces and covering aspects of
intelligence and security agencies under transparency norms. Penalties under
the RTI were disputed hotly, as were the independent appellate authorities later the Information Commission. The RTI required a statesman rather than a
politician to provide political support. Sonia Gandhi’s decisions were critical
to the resolution of every attempt to prevent dilution. There were over 150
amendments on the floor of the House, indicating the degree of resistance that
had to be overcome. History will credit her leadership in steering the RTI law
and for promoting more open and responsible governance.
In the shadow
of these furious debates, other rights-based laws were drafted and legislated.
She kept her focus on the marginalised people’s access to constitutional
guarantees. The legislation raised hope that movements and governments could
work in collaboration for realising the constitutional mandate to address
inequality and injustice.
The series of
rights-based laws that followed drew upon this framework to begin a new phase
in the legal lexicon of India’s constitutional democracy. It began to address
inequality and the concentration of power. Sonia Gandhi’s contribution is an
important part of that history and legacy.
(The writer is
a social activist and former member of the NAC.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
