Who's asking you?

For some months now, I have tried a little experiment on people whose thinking seemed starkly different from mine, and even egregious. Rather than argue my opposite conviction I first assessed if the person was likely to repeat his views in larger gatherings --- some people say things privately they wouldn't repeat publicly. Further, I tried to determine if he would actively advocate actions and policies based on that belief. Occasionally I concluded that what I was hearing was mere conversation, with little intent to act behind it. Once I'd made this decision, I would declare that "it doesn't really matter very much what you think, since it's unlikely that you'll actually do anything based on your views". That's not a recommended way to make friends; it was instructive nonetheless to see how much people care that their views are taken seriously, even if they themselves have no intention to act on their opinions.

But really, why should anyone care what you think?

Don't take that question as an affront; instead treat it as literal. That is, why would anyone listen to another person's sentiments, or be amenable to them once they're expressed? At least two other related questions could be tacked on, and I'll list those here as well. One, why would anyone solicit another's opinion in the first place, and the second, with regard to the compelling public interest issues and policies of the day --- war, religious freedom, education funding, health care, transportation, taxes, take your pick --- has anyone sought your endorsement of the policies actually in place? In formulating public policy on any subject the give-and-take of views is crucial, and it is important to understand what makes us heard and seen.

A little rewind to place things in context. Following an earlier column on these pages, a number of you wrote to say that more than the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, it is the politicians and business leaders in India who are to blame for the continuing exploitation of the poor, and thus we must turn our grievances chiefly against them. Besides, you pointed out, opinion-making cannot match the grassroots efforts of concerned citizens. In private correspondence, I assured some of you that the Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti has long sought to influence local decision-making in Gujarat's industrial corridor, and that grievances expressed against the World Bank must be seen alongside those actions.

In any event, I agree only partly with the distinction. Vocal activism isn't in fact very different from the grassroots efforts, and to understand this one has only to examine what many activists actually do. The range of their efforts usually includes a good component based on information --- writing letters to authorities, conveying public interest messages by dance-dramas and other educational art, expressing opinions at public hearings, providing literature on preventive medicine, etc. Nearly every example of grassroots work includes communication. The well-managed public-interest groups, in fact, are careful to disseminate their information; they realise that widely held opinions influence public policy and therefore actively seek to inform the people. Any difference between 'vocal activism' and 'actual work' lies only in the minds of those who do not participate; the 'workers' themselves see no such distinction.

But does either of these matter, and why?

I recall a conversation with my friend Subramanya Sastry, who for many years has been active in supporting the Narmada Bachao Andolan's protests and demands for reparations to displaced persons in the Narmada valley. It is true, he said, that the gross injustices imposed on poor people must be fought, and it is true that corrupt governments and businesses working together to exploit them must be exposed. But these are not themselves the primary reasons to become involved in civil society. His opposition to the policies that make up the current blend of globalisation, or to the large-scale displacement of people from the lands inundated by the Sardar Sarovar dam, he said, was more than an attack on the policies of the Bank or the World Trade Organisation. His opposition, above all, was a demand to be included in the decision-making processes of organisations and institutions that claim to act in my name without once having asked for my opinion.

That's something to take very seriously. Let me give you a few examples. Under the WTO rules, India was allowed to take several years to open itself to imports of certain goods, those on the so-called 'quantitative restrictions' list. One year ahead of the deadline, however, the government decided to lift these curbs anyway, exposing Indian manufacturers and producers to unnecessary competition. A decision that plainly disadvantaged Indians, which no interest group within the nation had publicly sought, was made quietly and quickly nonetheless. Here's another --- disputes in the Enron/Dabhol case were to be settled in foreign courts, and payments made in foreign currencies. In the one election where Enron was a significant factor, the voters sided against the schemes of the power plant and its advocates, but it went ahead anyway! Here the debasement of the public voice was even greater --- the voters actively expressed one desire and the government went the other way!

World Bank-sponsored reforms in Punjab's public health system simply moved people off medical care because they couldn't pay the user fees that were mandated. Whose fault is that? The politicians who are busy giving away goodies to their core constituencies and neglecting funding for public health? The World Bank, for demanding fees from the impoverished, knowing fully that those fees could result in even lower levels of public health? The indifferent upper-income groups who obtain their own health from private providers and have little to gain from reforming public health systems? Wherever you think the fault lies, there is little opportunity for your voice to be heard. No part of this 'reform' happens with the people's input; it's all very top-down. At the heart of nearly every public interest issue today lies a simple truth --- unaccountability begins with deliberate disregard for input from the citizenry.

More examples: Nearly all parties proclaim the virtue of liberal markets, but did any one of them give you this wisdom at the time of election? Do you think the large public holdings of the Government of India should be divested at discounted prices to selected individuals who in turn immediately sell them at a higher price? Do you think discretionary allotments of petrol pumps and other goodies should be made to relatives and friends of those in power? Do you think the rupee should be held to a low value so that software, textile, and other exporters can stay competitive, even if that dampens the buying power of the other 99 per cent of the population? Do you think a minister can decide himself whether someone should pay duties and taxes, say, on gifted Ferraris? Do you think... well, has anyone asked you?

Indian democracy has not advanced sufficiently to accept regular public input, or to reflect average public sentiment by other means. A few interest groups have acquired enough leverage to champion their particular needs, but this is often to the detriment of huge sections of the populace. In the few instances where legal requirements are in place to solicit public opinion before important decisions are taken, these are easily circumvented --- notices are posted in obscure places, meetings are held by force, public information is denied even when Freedom of Information laws are passed, and documents that ought to be scrutinised by all citizens are arbitrarily declared confidential. Each of these is but one spoke in an enormous wheel of misrule that locks ordinary citizens out of public action.

Civil society, however, demands a balance of aspirations and opportunities among all members. Far too often, citizens are left to choose from among the options presented to them, and clearly this is less than the total range of possible choices. Would more people vote for a party that was proud of Indian heritage, but not associated with the hooliganism of extreme groups, such as the lynching of dalits? How many Congress supporters would gladly abandon Sonia Gandhi and attempt an honest rebuilding of the party? Would the majority of Indians prefer a high level of expenditure on schools and public health, rather than weaponry? Would you like to see less violence on television, and more programming to inform viewers of critical public interest issues? Perhaps, but who is offering those choices?

Nobody. In interest group-based politics --- both internal and inter-party --- the absence of opposition is a free pass, and for this reason many decisions are made unknown to many. Our response to a political process that neither seeks our input nor sufficiently accepts it, however, cannot be to withdraw into private spaces of relative comfort and satisfaction; that bubble will eventually burst. Instead, we must bring forth our interested voices and place them squarely in the midst of decision-making; even in cacophony they serve our democracy well and offer the promise of progress. The alternative is irrelevant silence.

Ashwin Mahesh