Font size: 
India claims to have a legal system based on its Constitution, a respect for human rights and the rule of law. But often individuals and interests overpower the Constitution; human rights are usually the first casualty of executive and bureaucratic fiat and the rule of law collapses at the whim of people in power.
The most recent example is the massacre in Nandigram in the state of West Bengal. It is the outcome of a brewing discord between local farmers, the state government that proposed the use of eminent domain (the right of the state to expropriate private property), and the henchmen of a political party that have ruled the state unchallenged for the past three decades.
On March 14, in an alleged attempt by the West Bengal state government to restore law and order in Nandigram, an agrarian hamlet in East Midnapur District, 14 people, including children, lost their lives. In addition, several people were injured, houses were vandalized and burned and women were raped, leaving an eternal wound in the minds of the community's people. The violence in Nandigram can be viewed through the prisms of economics, the demands of development and survival. I wish to look though through the eyes of a Nandigram farmer fighting for survival.
It is ironic that the state government that used constitutionally protected land acquisitions for the benefit of landless agricultural labourers is now snatching away the same land from them. Sadly, Nandigram is only one such example. There are many others in the offing.
In the case of Nandigram, the government wanted the land to establish a chemical hub, creating a special economic zone for a private business group. The news disquieted the villagers whose mainstay is agriculture on small patches of land. They knew that the compensation usually offered by the government would never be enough for their survival in the future. Desperate, they began to organize and resist the government's decision with the support of some political parties and opportunistic interest groups. On the fateful day, the police and other government security forces forced their way into the village trying to break this resistance, thus resulting in the tragic incident.
The apparently conflicting claims of the status quo and development are also vital here. A nation and its people cannot progress without paying heed to economic demands and the clarion call of development. However, economic progress should not be at the cost of the survival and subsistence of the common masses. When both claims are of equal importance and are diametrically opposed, chances are that it will be a zero sum game.
Existing laws provide for "adequate compensation" for the land acquired under eminent domain. Why then are the villagers upset?
It is because they know from their experience that the law is seldom enforced in India. The nepotism and corruption of the government acquisition officers, a lack of avenues for reasonable remedies, the inordinate delays and cumbersome procedures of the courts, make them concerned. The plight of the thousands of people displaced by the Narmada dam project, for instance, is a frightening example.
The principles of the rule of law place everyone on an equal pedestal, but where is this egalitarianism when thousands are ousted from their holdings without proper compensation, for the economic benefit of a few? The logic of development requires that those who sacrifice for development should partake in its benefits. In Nandigram, this tenet was missing. Consequently, the people of the community had every right to be wary of the outcome.
The next foundation of the rule of law is that the will of the people should prevail over that of a despotic regime. The ruling party and its henchmen reportedly were battering the people's will. Where was the government which is expected to reflect the people's will in Nandigram? Why could it not respond to the voices of the people?
In a democracy based on the rule of law, accountability of the government to the governed is a key premise. In Nandigram, by brutally unleashing the police on the people, the government failed in this respect also. It now says that the incident was unfortunate and avoidable, but it is too late. People are dead and injured, and their property is destroyed.
Sadly, police shooting at India's people cannot be termed an isolated incident. Experiences from Kalinga in the state of Orissa, in the northwest region of the state of Rajastan and Mutanga in the state of Kerala stand as proof that indiscriminate police firing does occur. Media coverage of these incidents generates debate, but it quickly evaporates as the news passes from the public's consciousness.
What happened in all these incidents?
There may have been inquiries and commissions, but so what? Circumstances may have arisen in the past, and will happen in the future, where the police have to use force. A legal system which vouchsafes justice needs to ensure that every use of illegitimate force is inquired into and punished. The past failures clearly point to a collapse of the justice delivery system and thereby the rule of law.
Unfortunate as it may be, Nandigram happened. Lives were lost. A village is still living with the trauma of the violence it experienced and may do so for many years. What will be the destiny of these villagers? If this case is added to the list of incidents in which the culprits are never brought to court, India is perhaps losing one of its last chances to hold itself up as a democracy based on the cherished principles of the rule of law.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working for the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong.)
