Truckers drive home a fine point of democracy

Rushing to pass legislation in parliament without adequate deliberation and debate is a manifestation of ‘political muscularity’. To some, enamoured by speed, uninitiated or simply unaffected by the nuances of consensual democracy, it may wrongly signify decisiveness and resoluteness. This disparity in perspectives was evident in the passing of the farm bills in 2019 that had led to the prolonged farmers’ protests earlier, over which a large section of non-farmers were aghast at the reaction of the farmers to the proposed ‘reforms’. They attributed the protests to partisan politics, funding from abroad (even by terrorists), vested interest of middlemen, incredulously even sponsorship by Pakistan and China. The assumption that the financially struggling farmers didn’t know what was good for them was grossly presumptuous. Sadly, the optics of the farmers’ protest seemed tied to identities in terms of religion, region, and even caste denominations, making it convenient to make unfair accusations against a particular minority section. 
 
Today, another section of the citizenry is protesting the possible consequences for them of yet another swift passage of a law -- the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita -- without any meaningful debate, and at a time when 143 Opposition MPs were under suspension. As is the wont, it was passed with much fanfare and portents of symbolic nationalism thrown in for good measure, except that those directly affected by its implications, such as the truckers, were alarmed by its implications.
 
Reforms are necessary. What is completely overlooked, however, is the potential misuse of the proposed reforms and their detrimental effects on vulnerable sections. It is common knowledge that truckers routinely deal with the most corrupt and face harassment from law enforcement agencies and tax authorities. The proposed crucial reforms pertaining to policing and the autonomy of enforcement agencies, which can be beneficial to vulnerable groups like truckers who barely manage to eke out a living, continue to gather dust. But laws and reforms that make the vulnerable even more vulnerable financially and susceptible to bullying and threats are pushed through. Substantive, all-encompassing reforms that are beneficial to all, particularly to the most vulnerable, like truckers and farmers, are essential, rather than symbolic, conveniently selective gestures and posturing for political gains.

The hapless truckers justifiably argue that the ‘big fish,’ in this case the owners and clients, are protected from the provisions of the contentious Section 104, which states, “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine”. That it is, more often than not, the owners and the clients who insist on unrealistic timelines of delivery from the truckers, forcing them to forsake safety, is vitally ignored.

Regrettably, the effect that the truckers’ protest can have on the daily lives of a vast majority of the citizenry—hampered supply of essential commodities and spiralling prices—gives room to set off a narrative blaming the opposition parties, ‘anti-nationals’, etc., and blithely ignore the point the truckers are trying to make through their protests.
Truckers, like the farmers, are a heterogeneous group and encompass citizenry of all possible denominations and diversities in terms of region, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. However, considering that some regions or communities are more engaged than others in the trucking profession, there is a high chance that certain sections will be targeted yet again using the ‘vested interest’ bogey.

As a principle, reforms or amendments to laws should aim for universal betterment. Something as sacred as the Constitution of India has also been amended over a hundred times with the same intent. For example, the 86th Amendment (2002), providing the right to education until the age of 14, was universally beneficial, progressive, and reformative. However, bills that have the potential to further imperil the already diminished, such as the vulnerable truckers and farmers, need a lot more sensitivity, engagement, and deliberation to address issues holistically. It is unfair to impose the idea of ‘larger national good’ on those who are already struggling to survive. Unfortunately, a large section of the population remains ignorant or indifferent to the pain of the marginalised, who are readily crushed at the altar of ‘larger good’.

Given that election season is looming and the ruling party seeks the persistence of the chimera of overall prosperity, it is keen not to force the issue and exacerbate inflationary pressures. Consequently, the government has yielded and agreed to consult truckers before implementing these contentious laws. Experts also concur on the need for collaborative, consultative, and overarching reforms as opposed to those that can be pushed through, especially when 143 Opposition MPs are not even present. A minister insisted, “I have gone through every comma, full stop of the new criminal laws.” Clearly, it wasn’t enough, as the necessary involvement of experts, key stakeholders, jurists, lawyers, criminologists, etc., had been dispensed with, and soon enough, the government had to backtrack, as it did during the farmers’ protest. Yet, it still fails to acknowledge the failures of other hasty ‘masterstrokes,’ such as demonetisation.

Our democracy has come to normalise the ‘us-versus-them’ approach to any dissenting voice, insisting that the government is yours only to support it on all it does or doesn’t do, but not to criticise it on any issue. The blunt ‘drive-through’ approach may impress some, like it did during the Emergency – when the trains ran on time, apparently -- but it cannot compensate for the damage it inflicts. An Opposition leader who has actually travelled with truckers in India and abroad recently slammed the approach, likening it to a Shahenshah ke Farmaan, the Emperor’s directive. While that might seem political, the fact remains that the average Indian toiling in the farms, driving trucks, running shops, or protecting the borders needs a more genuine inclusivity and say in their affairs that extend beyond partisan or nationalistic considerations.

(The writer is former lieutenant governor of Puducherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands)