Punctured by polarity

Has the reform process in India been held to ransom by ideological extremism?

In a further blow that threatens to unravel the UPA's flagship Aadhaar project, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Government of India to withdraw all orders that make the Aadhaar mandatory for availing any service. It also asked the government to desist from sharing a card holder's information with other government agencies without prior permission from the holder of the card. This directive comes in after the apex court's interim order in 2013, directing the center not to make Aadhaar obligatory for people availing essential government services.

 

It is a victory for the growing battery of anti-Aadhaar activists. For the last three years their common refrain has been that the UID scheme is unconstitutional as it is not backed by a statute and could pose a national security risk by aiding illegal migrants. They also complain that it is invasive to the private life of citizens, is superfluous if our PDS is not systemically reformed and so is in essence a huge expense on the exchequer that could have been avoided altogether. The government on the other hand dismisses all these concerns and continues to harp on the fact that UID is, for the poorest people in this country a first step towards social and economic inclusion as it gives them a proof of identity. It is also a valid KYC tool that opens access to formal financial banking, a foundation for programs like the direct cash transfers and has the potential to realize massive fiscal savings by eliminating waste and duplication. Moreover the fact that it is likely to exceed its 600 million enrollment target by mid-2014 demonstrates its unprecedented scale and capacity to transform delivery mechanisms in the country.

 

 

It is unlikely that you haven't been befuddled by all these claims and counterclaims and asked yourself who/what you must believe. So polarized has this debate become, that for the layman to cut through the din of propaganda on either side of the debate and uncover the truth of the matter has become nearly impossible.

 

It is not just Aadhaar though, that's been caught in this battle of unbending beliefs/egos, with truth being sacrificed on the alter. Take any reform initiative of the government and you'd be hard pressed to find an example in India, where progress has been made without resistance, where tactics of negotiation and conciliation have prevailed over an approach of dissent and remonstration. Genetically modified food crops for instance, have been facing opposition for nearly a decade since a group of NGOs filed a public interest litigation seeking a moratorium on their introduction. As things stand today, there is an indefinite freeze imposed by the Supreme Court on even open field trials. Here too the pro and anti arguments have been so extreme that it has become impossible to discern the truth. Or for the ideologues to find a common meeting ground.

 

The new drug policy introduced by the government last year, bringing more medicines under price control and moving to a market based pricing mechanism, is another example. It had sparked an intense and rather polarized debate last year, pitching health activists firmly against big pharma. The arguments predictably forged all sense of balance and were brought down by the two sides to the lowest cerebral levels - good for society vs. good for pharmaceutical companies. Either access, or profits. With us, without us.

 

Similar is the story with FDI in multi-brand retail, for which this government was willing to risk its survival. It was only a matter of time before we realized that the opposition and fear mongering by vested groups to the entry of big retail in India was as pointless as the tall promises made by the government on the transformative effect of big retail on back-end infrastructure and investment flows. In the end, despite all the hot air, the policy has, to put it mildly, been a damp squib.

 

Perhaps the most contentious of reforms that has seen 6 decades of impasse is the one on labour markets. And quite unsurprisingly, a study done by the Takshashila Foundation in 2013 identified they key cause of that continuing gridlock to be the lack of a nuanced, workable approach by policymakers and industry on one hand and unions on the other. Each has been suggesting methods that are quite ”drastic in nature” but fail to “consider stakeholders with vested interests in an in?exible labour market” says the paper. It has suggested ideas that would be in the “realm of the possible”, marginally progressive if not revolutionary and argued that this was a better tactic than continuing with a stalemate.

 

The crux of the matter is this  - is the reform process in India being held to ransom by ideological extremism by those on either side of the spectrum? Are strong lobby groups playing a game of one-upmanship, purposely running misinformation campaigns in a bid to get things done their way? Is it that the only thing we agree on these days is to disagree? Can there be no common ground on which we can reach a compromise on anything? Can those arguing for and against Aadhar for instance, not sit together, keep the good, discard the bad, make mutual concessions and move on rather than persisting with a hideous adamantine mind-set?  

 

For all those accusations hurled at the bureaucracy for paralyzing policy-making in the country, it seems like our lobby groups - whether it is the NGOs, the activists, the government arms or the industrial bodies - are no better. Obdurate and seeped in their dogmatic beliefs, they are equally responsible for India's one step forward, two steps backward reforms saga.