Examining the Contours of Politics of Development and Democracy through the Prism of Right to Food in India

In order to probe the rhetorical claims about efficacy of Indian Democracy that it is one of the biggest democracy[1] in the third world countries and its thriving on electoral and procedural mechanisms of governance coupled by rule of law and that it has deepened the sensibility of justice and concerns regarding democratic rights towards citizens of country. How far these claims can be justified and sustained at the surface and deep grammar of development[2] and democracy is one of the major concerns of the paper. Because, democracy and development[3] have always been in the centre of any debate related to nation building processes in colonial and post-colonial India. At the same time one is reminded of the peculiar nature of colonial structure of democracy and markers of development debate in post-independent India where structural texture of reality has not changed because of its hierarchical legitimacy on the one hand and socio-economic and gross inequalities on the other. Though Constitutional mechanisms against these sharpened inequalities and injustices are not only radical but full of promises and hope to liberate and emancipate subaltern masses and provide them a sense of dignity and meaningful self-[4]. Keeping in mind these broad contours of debate concerning meanings of development and claims of egalitarian democracy, the paper endeavors a critical mapping through two registers of democracy to evaluate the efficacy of debate. Now let us elaborate the fundamental spirit of these arguments and to evaluate whether the „right to food‟ is able to unpack the nuances of development and churning of democracy in India.

In above mentioned context one can explore two registers of democracy; the first is related with and is known as democracy of symbolism or electoral or procedural democracy. The logic of electoral democracy brings within its fold the constitutionalism, policies, planning, institutions and agencies of the state. It is through these processes of the electoral or procedural democracy the Indian state tries to cater the dreams of its citizens. In India, the Constitution envisages to establish a society based on egalitarian norms. Constitution makes numerous kinds of promises which include the notion of justice, equality and liberty. Sometime these promises are dubbed as gestures of symbolism. While other agencies of the state make an effort to implement these promises on the ground

the periphery continues to be in the perpetual quest for this mirage of development that becomes curious paradox of Indian democracy. But beneath these notions of developmental paradigm there is an attempt being made to have inclusive democracy through various kinds of rhetorical and polemical stances. The Constitution which is talking in the language of inclusion and promises of equality, liberty and justice[5], which have been made under it, are not being fulfilled. Rather when it comes at the level of implementation there is institutionalized and systematic erosion of those promises and set goals of utopian society. The impaired/blurred vision of development and democracy bring within its fold only the selected few but others remain in continuous search of the mirage of development through first register of the democracy. Even after more than sixty years of democracy the benefit of development has not percolated deep down and it has yet to reach to the most needy who are standing in long queue to get their share of democracy and development. Thus we call first register of democracy as an official mechanism of governance and it is full of contradictions and paradoxical in nature[6]. Let us describe and explain the second register of democracy which emerges as a reaction of failure[7] of the first register of the democracy to bring the desired fruits of development. Second register of democracy is emanating in the forms of resistance, struggles, mass public movements and their alternative politics. These struggles are a reaction to mal-governance and not keeping the promises of Constitutional goals. There are many kinds of movements which are emerging as a politics of resistance and struggles[8] The right to food campaign in India is one of such politics of resistance which has emerged on the initiatives taken by civil societies which are engaged in alternative politics of democracy and development.

EGALITARIAN DEMOCRACY

The right to food movement[9] itself reflects the pitfalls of the traditional approach of the notion of development and the failure of the first register of the democracy. A close reading of the language of protests of civil societies against hunger deaths[10] can be helpful to understand that how over the years it has created a space for political society to ensure minimum sense of social justice[11] to the people who have been living in the margins of Indian society[12]. And to probe these issues one has to catalogue the multiple debates those emerged out of legal interventions from NGO's and various democratic rights groups such as PUCL (Peoples Union for Civil Liberty) and PUDR (Peoples Union for Democratic Rights)[13] and also other social and political country where the food grains are decaying due to negligent storage. The present status of food security is a palpable story of abject failure[14] of state as an institution to harness the social justice. And it shows the real picture of much hyped great story of Indian development and democracy. There is a contrasting story of shining and starving India and so many India within India which again probe the point that in the electoral democracy only selected few are included in the process of development. Position of India in world hunger index reflects the cruel but true picture of its ever growing GDP. Because of these paradoxical situations the resistance is growing stronger and stronger. The right to food campaign constitutes an important part of struggles for development and democracy for those people who have always been on the periphery of development and democracy. The right to food is not just about getting two squares of meals in a day but food security is very much in the centre of any debate regarding development and democracy. Ideological base for these protests are provided in the form of various theories of justice and development. For instance one uses the theoretical insights of John Rawl‟s[15] and specifically Amartya Sen‟s[16] body of work respectively examining the question of food security on the basis of basic need and of capability approach that is the freedom of choice theory respectively. Therefore these movements draw strength from these liberal pluralistic distributive justice oriented ethos not as a derivative discourses and assert that it constitute the base of democracy as well as the ethos of development. The right to food has close link with entitlement patterns in society and their gendered nature, the disabling effects of persistent hunger, presence or absence of social safety like employment guarantee, nutrition scheme for children, degree of importance given to propriety or land rights, hunger deaths, forceful dislocation, right over natural recourses and social exclusion. All these have close relation with the quality of available social justice. Among all the above mentioned principles, the basic right principle is the fundamental principle of social justice, which demands the minimum level of material well-being, it includes basic needs i.e. those needs which must be met in order to remain a normally functioning human being and a socially responsible citizen. It is in this context that food security or freedom from hunger is important. If hungry people are not provided with this basic need i.e. right to have access to food, and then it is considered as gross violation of social justice. Rawls talks about the conception of minimal justice i.e. also the part of distributive justice. Here one has to understand how two sets of theoretical problems of hunger and food security dealing with the readdresses of distributive justice and the recognition of gross inequality as basic denominators of substantive rights to the people of a

even in a highly capitalized and market oriented society there should be guarantee of having two meals with dignity. If the policy and ultimately laws of any state fails to provide this basic subsistence right which is the fundamental principle of social justice, then that system fails even in the basic test of social justice. The principle of distributive justice advocates the allocation of equal material goods to all the members of a society, but Rawls alternative distributive justice system to which he calls „difference principle‟ allows allocation that does not follow to strict equality. He says that as long as the inequality has the effect that the least concern advantage in the society is materially better off than they would be under a strict equality. It is here that distributive justice ensures at least minimal rights to the citizen of a state. Every state must respect, protect and fulfill (it includes two steps i.e. facilitate and provide) right to food. Although The agents of procedural democracy have taken steps like mid-day meals for school going children and making available food grains at very low cost through public distribution system but these initiatives have fallen flat on the ground and nowhere near the constitutional promises of establishing a social order where development will be the obvious goal of every government. These initiatives in the form of politics of appropriation appear to be just as a mechanism for resisting the politics of resistance from the players of second register of democracy and development. The right to food Act, which has recently become subject matter of debate within institutional framework of Indian governance, after long drawn struggles of civil and political society and specifically after Supreme Court's intervention in form of interim orders to ensure food-security to poverty stricken citizens in India, is latest addition in this saga of politics of resistance. Thus I juxtapose second resister of democracy to critically evaluate the claims of egalitarian democracy in the light of emergent resistance movements and various sites of protests and dissents with in broad working and experiences of Indian developmental agendas in post globalization era in India. However a case study of right to food[17] is an illustrative one and it does not exhaust the other possibilities of explorations within the realm of Indian democracy. We have to also examine about strengths and weaknesses of two projected registers of democracy and political economy of development programs in Indian subcontinent. The first one is regarding limits of derivative discourses in articulating the matrix of social, political and cultural transformations in India. How far these are valid and legitimate theoretical mechanisms to capture the nuances of surface and deep grammar of experiences of democracy in India. Another relates with a possibility of indigenous or alternative method for critical evaluation about the become full-fledged citizens and may become self-sovereign to legislate their own human freedom.

1. This is mainly claimed on the basis that we have the lengthiest and bulkiest constitution in the world which confers the right to vote to all its adult population. 2. See: Joachim von Braun, M. S. Swaminathan, and Mark W. Rosegrant, 2003-2004 IFPRI Annual Report Essay Agriculture, Food Security, Nutrition and the Millennium Development Goals, see http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/ar2003/ar2003_essay.html 3. See: Linda J. Peltier, Book review, Reviewed work: “The Right to Food by P. Alston”; K. Tomaševski .Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1, 104-113 (Feb., 1987). For details see: http://www.jstor.org/stable/761949 as accessed on 20.5.2009. 4. See: The fundamental rights and directive principles as given in Part III and IV of the Indian Constitution. 5. See: Jona Aravind Dohrmann and Sukhadeo Thorat, Right to Food, Food Security and Discrimination in the Indian Context ASIEN 102 (January 2007), S. 9-31for detail see http://www.asienkunde.de/ content/zeitschrift_ asien/archiv/ pdf/DohrmannA102 .pdf as accessed on 26.12.2009. 6. See: India State Hunger Index: Alarming Results International Food Policy Research Institute as accessed on 2nd July, 2009. See: http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/newsletters/ IFPRIForum/if24/if24ishi.asp as accessed on 02.07.2009. 7. See: Hunger Facts and Challenges for details see :http://www2.iies.su.se/~svedberp/Hunger%20in%20India_TOTAL.pdf as accessed on 23 .10. 2008. 8. Jean Dreze & Amartya Sen (Ed), “Well Beyond Liberalisation”, in India Development and Participation, 336 (2009). 9. For details on right to food in India campaign see the website:www.righttofoodindia.org as accessed on 27.11.2010.

and Odihsa see: For full report refer to http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/madhya_pradesh_epicentre_ of_hunger.php as accessed on 22.10.2010.,see also The silent tragedy of hunger, The Sunday Magazine, The Hindu, April 05, 2009 http://www.sacw.net/article877.html as accessed on 15.01.2010 11. See: Pradeep Bhargava and Manju Balana, “United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research”, Realizing the Right to Food in South Asia Research Paper No. 2006/122, October 12. See: Biraj Patnaik, “The right to food”, http://southasia.oneworld.net/ article/view/141996/1/1893 as accessed on 24 .10. 2008. 13. PUCL v. Union of India and Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 196/2001. Interim orders of the Supreme Court regarding Right to Food in PUCL case is available on http://www.righttofoodindia.org/data/scordersprimer.doc as accessed on 25.11.2010. 14. See: Joachim von Braun, M. S. Swaminathan, and Mark W. Rosegrant, 2003-2004 IFPRI Annual Report Essay Agriculture, Food Security, Nutrition and the Millennium Development Goals, see http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/ar2003/ar2003_essay.html 15. As discussed by Rondey G. Peffer in, “World Hunger, Moral theory, and Radical Rawlsianism”, International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Volume 3 Number 1, 45-78 (2005). 16. Aamartya Sen observed that there are number of social and economic employment, rising food prices poor public distribution system, which led to hunger deaths of the deprived section of society. Amartya Sen‟s contribution to the welfare and development economics is the concept of capability which is a conceptual frame work for evaluating welfare states in terms of social justice and human welfare. For more insight in to the concept refer to Amartya Sen's capability approach by Wiebke Kuklys, Springer publisher. http://www.springerlink.com/content/t48665vn10142587/ as accessed on 28.11.2010 17. See: GianPietro Bordignon, The challenge of food security in India http://www.hindu.com/ 2006/10/24/stories/2006102405731100.html as accessed on 22.10. 2008.

Assistant Professor, Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh anil.pu@gmail.com