ON the 40th anniversary of emergency, the veteran BJP leader LK Advani remarked that though the political leadership of the country is mature, he was not confident that the country would not face an emergency like situation again. He further added that the forces who could crush democracy had become stronger. This comment has sparked off a debate on the nature of the current NDA-2 regime. In fact the events of the last few months have made it amply clear that this regime is unwilling to tolerate any criticism and is indeed hounding those who dare to oppose it. Perhaps the best example of such authoritarian practices is the case that has been filed against civil rights activists Javed Anand and Teesta Setalvad who have been courageous and steadfast in exposing Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and have been fighting for the victims of these riots. An analysis of this case shows the close nexus between an increasingly authoritarian State and the forces of right wing economic and religious fundamentalism.

CBI’S CASE AGAINST

TEESTA SETALVAD

Filing an FIR against their organisation, Sabrang Communications and Citizens for Peace and Justice, the CBI has accused Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand of being a threat to the “national security and economy of India”. This bizarre charge is linked to the donations that were received by Sabrang Communications from Ford Foundation for their work against communalism and for peace and justice. The main objective of the grant received between 2006 and 2009 was to:

·         Organise public meetings on a regular basis to bring together community leaders and popular personalities, dialogue among neighbourhood communities, schools, colleges and clubs for a peace campaign.

·         Educate lawyers association through a series of meetings on the issue of criminal law and its use and misuse.

·         Promote media advocacy to be sensitive to the issue of minorities.

·         Counteract adverse propaganda (being spread against particular communities) by creating strong civil society voices for engendering peace and changing the public discourse. Monitoring the media and the administration will be a part of this activity.

·         No funds may be used for activities conducted in the United States, including travel to or from the United States for such activities.

(CBI FIR against Teesta Setalvad, p.10)

The CBI concluded that these objectives and the intent of the funding was to disturb the internal security and harmony of the country. In its observations, it stated that the motive of the funding was to undermine the “security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State” and to disturb the “harmony between religious, racial, social, linguistic or regional groups, castes or communities” amongst other things. This contention shows the malafide intent of the investigators as it assumes that an anti-communal campaign will assume anti-national proportions. At the very heart of this understanding is the link between economic interests and communal strife which are advocated by the present day ruling classes. In this sense the activities of Teesta Setalvad and her associates have been linked to an opposition to big corporate capital whose investment opportunities will be affected by the negative anti-government propaganda on the communal front.

CORPORATE CAPITAL, AUTHORITARIANISM &

COMMUNAL STRIFE

The links between big business and authoritarianism have been evident since the early 1930s when monopoly capital supported and benefitted from its support to the Nazis. The immediate aim of the monopolists in 1933 was to ensure that any organisational changes in the business world were carried out in such a way as to leave them in control of their own affairs. This was the meaning of the slogan ‘self-government of industry’ which they advanced. In effect this meant that the monopolists wanted to have no regulation of their activities, a factor which is quite akin to the behaviour of big business and corporate capital in India. This was also seen in the case of India when big business extracted important concessions during Emergency of 1975. The twenty point programme announced by Indira Gandhi had certain provisions relating to industry which facilitated private sector activity. The measures received endorsement from JRD Tata who remarked that the economic policies during emergency were "refreshingly pragmatic and result-oriented approach" that had led to "conditions of discipline, productivity, industrial peace, price stability and widespread involvement necessary to achieve rapid economic growth."

The link between benefits to corporate capital and an increasingly partisan and majoritarian State are seen in the case of Gujarat after the riots of 2002. In post-riot phase Chief Minister Modi launched an aggressive pro-corporate developmental drive in the state. At the same time his vision of development was closely accompanied by the marginalisation of the Muslim minorities in social, political and economic life. The inaction and criminal culpability of the police in the riots and the subsequent cover up operations signalled a model of development that was inherently non-inclusive and discriminatory. It has also been accompanied by a vicious campaign of targeting all those who are pressing for justice for the victims of the riots on the one hand, and opposing corporate land acquisitions on the other hand. It is therefore not surprising that any attempt to expose the Gujarat state government has met with repressive tactics and force that is often accompanied by the extra-constitutional mob of Sangh Parivar. At the same time protests against forcible land acquisitions in urban and rural Gujarat for big corporate houses were also crushed through the use of repressive State apparatus. This meant that the people displaced from projects like the Mundra port and Sabarmati river front found no hearing despite their protests. Any protest against these projects was termed as an anti-Gujarat movement and questioning of the state on question of justice for Gujarat riot victims was termed as an act against the pride of the state. The early attacks against Teesta Setalvad and other civil rights activists also started on these grounds.

In this context, the CBI charge sheet against Teesta Setalvad, Javed Anand and their company can be seen as a continuation of the Gujarat model of governance that is advocated by the Modi-Shah led BJP. Under this model, all voices that speak for the rights of the minorities and the working class will be repressed as they have been in the state of Gujarat under the chief ministership of Modi. It is therefore not surprising that CBI has equated the anti-communalism of Teesta Setalvad with being anti-national. This typical BJP argument shows that the CBI is being used to push a corporate Hindutva conception of nationhood and silence the critics of Modi. In doing so it is violating the civil liberties and constitutional rights of activists who are pushing a more inclusive and anti-neo-liberal conception of nationhood. This effort should be contested aggressively through a broad alliance of secular and democratic forces so that the space for politics with a vision of an egalitarian society can be expanded.