Backpage

IN her Foreword to what arguably is the most detailed and nuanced book on the vexed Sardar Sarovar Project (Conflict and Collective Action, Ranjit Dwivedi, Routledge, 2006), sociologist Amita Baviskar reminds us of the hegemonic power of ‘situated knowledge’, that ‘perceptions of "facts", and the relative value that one places on different facts, are shaped by social position.’ She goes on to argue that ‘whether produced by judges, government committees, or scholars, views from above may seem all-seeing, but they too are partial, their horizons bounded by the blinkers that accompany every subject position.’ Moreover, ‘the journey beyond this limited field of vision requires empathy and a willingness to recognize and engage with other realities. Not only are all truth claims not equal, situating different kinds of truth claims, made using different vocabularies within the same field of politics requires a feat of translation that challenges…’ even the best among us.

All this may sound passé to the academia, yet our scholarly community, not to speak of the journalists, seem to forget this self-evident axiom when debating contentious public issues and shaping public discourse. Each of the major issues hogging headlines in recent weeks has been marked by a disturbing certitude about one’s favoured position, acrimony, and vicious and personalized attacks upon those advancing differing views. Somehow the space for a reasoned and reasonable discourse, even what the late Amulya Reddy termed ‘polite dissent’, seems to have been squeezed out.

The Sardar Sarovar dam project has always elicited strong views, both pro and against, with neither side willing to concede any ground to the other. Once the dam was a fait accompli, one had thought that at least the rehabilitation claims of those adversely affected by the project would receive fair hearing. What then are we to make of the ostensible resiling from its original position of the court that satisfactory prior rehabilitation must be ensured before a further increase in the dam height? And yet, few seem keen to point this out, either for fear of being branded anti-development or more likely ‘contempt of court’. Is this an indication of how our public discourse will be shaped in future?

The debate on the ongoing demolition of ‘illegal structures’ in Delhi exhibits similar tendencies. The drive to make Delhi a ‘planned and clean city’ has in part turned into a war against slum and pavement settlements, their livelihoods and human rights. Yet, to point this out is to be accused of supporting criminality, of being in the payroll of the propertied classes who have ‘overbuilt’ or ‘illegally’ commercialized residential spaces.

But nothing is as disturbing and distasteful as the ongoing debate on extending reservations in educational institutions for the OBCs. It does not matter what one’s position is – for quotas, for affirmative action but not quotas, or against the very idea of positive discrimination – the discourse is suffused with casteist slurs. If one lot links caste based quotas or affirmative action to a demise of merit and excellence, the pro-reservationists read all dissenting arguments as reflecting an upper caste, ‘Manuvadi’ bias. One can only despair at the relative absence of data-based, nuanced arguments debating the efficacy and relative merit of different strategies, fiscal or legal, for ensuring a fairer distribution of educational opportunities in our institutions. And this despite decades of experience. To state it sharply, it is as if each side wants its worst fears to come true.

Compounding the problems in public discourse contributing to a hardening of positions in the citizenry is the response of our policy-makers. Each contentious issue is sought to be deferred, a throwback to the P.V. Narasimha Rao strategy of inaction and silence in the hope that the problem will blow over. Correction, the current regime goes a step further. It sets up a committee to examine the problem and suggest suitable response.

In the case of the Sardar Sarovar dam, we have the Shunglu panel, expected to submit its recommendations in three months. It’s another matter that by then many more will have been forced to relocate. Faced with protests over demolitions in Delhi, the government has passed a Bill and brought itself another year, promising that the new policy will satisfy all. And in a bid to douse the ‘anger’ over proposed quotas, there is talk of staggering the reservation regime, increasing the number of seats in educational institutions, and so on, so that no group suffers. In neither case, have we any indication from our elected leaders as to how they understand the issues, far less what they propose to do. Meanwhile, business can continue as usual.

Harsh Sethi