Wrong way

From about 1875 until World War I, a lot of pressure was brought on the viceroy and his council by well-intentioned Christian priests from Britain with Victorian values to introduce "reformatory" legislation in India. In most instances this was done. Subsequent studies have shown that a great deal of damage also done as a result.

Something like this appears to be happening under the UPA government, with the priests now having been replaced by NGOs, who are long on the social conscience but short on economics (the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) and jurisprudence [the freshly introduced Older Person's (Maintenance, Care and Protection) Bill].

This proposed legislation, if it becomes law at any point, is intended to force children (only sons""or daughters as well? If so, how will married daughters do it?) to provide for their aged parents in a variety of ways, including financial support and companionship. It also provides: "If the children fail to, or refuse to provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to their old parents, any transfer of property (from parents to children) shall be declared void."

This will enable parents to claim maintenance from their children. But what if the children are themselves too poor? In view of the problems of enforcement the Bill says "tribunals will be set up in all the districts by the state governments or through an approved person or organisation. An officer not below the rank of sub-divisional officer will head these tribunals. The district judge in every district shall be the appellate authority under the proposed Bill against orders passed by the tribunal." NGOs will naturally play a role in helping to administer the law.

There are several ways of looking at this legislation. One is from the point of view of jurisprudence; another is administrative feasibility; a third is in terms of the rights of the individual vis-à-vis the state. There will always be people who can argue convincingly and passionately on the pros and cons of such legislation. Some will look at the practicality of what is proposed, in terms of the government's ability to actually deliver what is intended, and the risk that things will be badly handled by those empowered by a new law.

Others will see a problem in a society where the number of senior citizens is growing rapidly, and argue that solutions must be found. But even if one were to grant that the state has a duty to protect the weak and vulnerable, should it not devise the best way of doing it instead of jumping in with a Bill that has some draconian provisions? And might a better answer not emerge from public consultation, before such a Bill is drafted?

Also, it is pertinent to ask: should governments not prioritise legislation, and their own goals""since they do not deliver on so many essentials? There are already many laws that exist only on paper, so why add more? And, can anyone begin to imagine the corruption this could spawn? In short, a society has to be ready for certain types of state intervention. India is patently not there, primarily because the instrumentalities of the Indian state are both inept and corrupt. What the UPA government needs to spend some time doing is to address this last issue, before expanding the role of the state in all directions.