The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was founded in Bhim on May 1, 1990 with the aim of organising people at the grassroots. By addressing issues of minimum wage and land and reading out official records, thereby exposing the enormous corruption in the system, it mobilised peasants and workers in rural Rajasthan. A dharna held in Beawar in 1996 demanding access to government records culminated in a nation-wide movement that led to the enactment of the historic Right to Information Act a decade later. In this interview, Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, two founder-members of the MKSS, talk about what the MKSS is all about and 25 years of the movement. Excerpts from an interview:
Which are the main campaigns the MKSS is NOW involved with?
The MKSS has come to understand that even the enactment of landmark legislations like the RTI and MGNREGA is only half the battle won. In India, implementation remains a huge challenge. That is why we are focusing on generic citizen-centric accountability frameworks like a grievance redress law, and social audits. However, we have come to realise our marginalisation would be complete without the democratic space to organise, mobilise, and express dissent. Ironically, groups like ours are struggling to protect our constitutional democracy at a time the ruling establishment is using “growth” as an excuse to undermine plurality, free speech, and people’s basic rights.
What is the contribution of peasants and workers to the MKSS' campaigns?
From the conception of ideas to the shaping of policy and legislation, peasants and workers clearly have the greater sustainability and commitment required to make landmark concepts like the RTI or employment guarantee credible. It is their time and effort for days and years on the street, and in the field that shaped the contours of these movements, and have deepened our concepts of development and democracy.
Have government schemes introduced in the last one year been useful in addressing problems at the grassroots?
The social sector initiatives of the last year have been symbolic and devoid of imagination. There has been a significant weakening of the rights-based entitlements in monetary and administrative terms. The attempt to replace universal health and pension entitlements with contributory schemes is going to be a non-starter. Unorganised sector, workers with their multiple vulnerabilities (of income, employment, and organisation) cannot make regular contributions, and they do not have the power to negotiate their claims. The only potentially meaningful initiative is the Jan Dhan Yojana for financial inclusion. However, it has so far largely created inactive accounts as people do not have the money to operate them. We still need to put financial inclusion into a rights based framework that gives the poor real access to money and credit.
With no Planning Commission, what are the avenues available for civil society organisations to engage with the government?
There are orders of the Government of India (Law Ministry) making it compulsory to have a pre-legislative consultative process for any law or subordinate legislation. (http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/plcp.pdf). This requirement is not being followed for new laws or amendments. Nor does action match the rhetoric that the NEETI Aayog has replaced the Planning Commission so that policy can be planned bottom up. Courts and public protests are the two ways left of putting ones point of view across.
The promulgation of ordinances has been an undemocratic use of an emergency measure. It has got worse with this government repeatedly re-promulgating extremely unpopular ordinances. The Rajasthan ordinance on minimum qualifications for panchayat elections was so timed that even the courts could not review its constitutionality before the electoral process began. Finally, people will have to relentlessly struggle to open up democratic decision making to public participation, and protect democratic spaces for even the weakest communities.
How can the RTI be effectively used?
Every single RTI threatens the concentration of power in a small or big way. When you get the information out, it is the first success. There are cases in which the information that is brought out would have to be made part of a larger political campaign. For instance, one single application was not enough to campaign against Bt. brinjal. When campaigns use the RTI, then its applicability extends far beyond accessing that information. It is information in the context of a big issue. In some cases, individuals find it difficult to extract information. That is why RTI groups support each other and help out people who have come into conflict with vested interests.
How effective is Jantar Mantar as a platform for protest? How is a movement sustained?
Jantar Mantar is a vital space for protest. It must be protected because people in distress from all over the country come to Delhi to try to have their voice heard by policy makers. But, Jantar Mantar is only a small part of our overall work, and it is not the only place where people mobilise.
People’s movements have primarily been engaged with marginalised communities in villages, and in slums reaching out to people, talking to them on the streets, on worksites, in their homes. The reason why Jantar Mantar dominates people’s mind space is because that’s the only time decision makers in Delhi acknowledge us. Groups are active on the ground, with efforts of sangharsh, seva, and nirman, but the government rarely responds as it should.
This is why the MKSS story of 25 years is important. Even when you are pushed back, you find ways and means to sustain your struggle among the people, keep the discourse going, and amplify the voices of the marginalized. The MKSS experience also shows that while social media can strengthen a movement, it cannot be the movement.
How can the middle class take up issues it feels strongly about?
The middle class needs to leave its comfort zone, and go out to experience the condition of the less fortunate, in a compassionate way. One problem with the middle class is that it has a strong sense of entitlement primarily for itself. It gets angry when its own interests are hurt. If the middle class had to lead one day like the poor, it would realise that it’s not about “me”; that there are people facing far more drastic conditions. Its perception would change.
A lot of good people have shown that when they come face to face with certain issues, they make an effort, and get passionately involved. The alliance between sensitive middle class and working class people is of great value in helping highlight issues of justice and equality in our hierarchical and stratified society.
