Economic rights are as much a part of human rights as political rights. It is a matter of deep regret, however, that many democratic countries concentrate on the latter to the neglect of the former. A feeling is growing, therefore, that democracy can provide only political rights and not economic rights, a feeling which is inimical to its survival and growth.
In developed democratic countries citizens now enjoy both political as well as economic rights. It is not, however, the case in developing countries who have chosen the democratic way of life. Their citizens enjoy political but not economic rights. They have the right to vote and to free speech and press, but not the right to work and to get minimum necessities of life. In the absence of the latter they do not attach much importance to the former in the hope of getting the latter. It is never fulfilled, but such an attitude of mind makes it difficult for democracy to strike deep roots in those countries.
That is why in June 1975 democracy was subverted in India without much difficulty. Though it was restored nineteen months later, it will remain insecure and unstable as long as effective steps are not taken to ensure economic rights.
Denial of Rights
The right to live and to have the minimum requirements of life is the most fundamental of human rights. These include food, shelter and clothing. In a society that is not primitive, they include nutrition, health measures and education. Mr. Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank, defined his concept of that fundamental human right in an interview that he gave to the “New York Times” in April 1975: “Among the most fundamental human rights are the rights to minimum acceptable levels of nutrition, health and education.” He regretted that: “Hundreds of millions of people in developing countries, through no fault of their own, are denied these rights today.”
India is one of those developing countries where those basic human rights are denied to large masses of the people. And curiously enough, in India this number is only increasing rather than decreasing in spite of the notable progress that she has made in economic development. According to an estimate of the Planning Commission, “the percentage of the population below the poverty line in 1977–78 may be projected at 48 percent in rural areas and 41 percent in urban areas.” Other estimates place the percentage higher. But even at the lowest percentage, the number of persons who fall below the poverty line is 290 million. This is a colossal figure. What interest can this large mass of people have in a system that keeps them in that abject state of poverty?
Equally alarming is the position with regard to unemployment and underemployment. No definite figures are available as there is no countrywide system for the registration of the unemployed or underemployed. Figures have to be estimated on the basis of information collected through National Sample Surveys. The Planning Commission has arrived at an estimate of 20.6 million person-years of unemployment in March 1978. This figure is, according to it, “staggeringly large and larger than in any country in the world for which any unemployment statistics are available.” The problem is rendered more difficult by the prevalence of large-scale underemployment. The dire poverty that exists in the country is mainly due to this widespread unemployment and underemployment. Those who are the victims of this evil have little regard for the values of a society which condemns them to a life of misery and facility.
The most disturbing feature of this is that it contains a significant number of educated unemployed who are capable of contemplating and organising concerted action to put an end to the injustice unwarrantably heaped upon them. The action may be of a leftist or rightist variety. But, whatever the variety, it will be aimed at subverting the existing democratic structure. Indian society as it exists today faces this grave danger.
Also read: Don’t trade votes for bread. Democracy and growth should go hand in hand: MR Masani
Political Rights Not Enough
It should be clear, therefore, that provision of political rights is not enough. They must be accompanied by economic rights and the State should be so organised as would facilitate immediate and vigorous action for the eradication of poverty and gross economic and social inequalities. One of the authors of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, was aware of this. In a memorandum presented to the Constituent Assembly in March 1947, he stated: “Old-time constitutional lawyers believed that the scope and function of Constitutional Law was to prescribe the shape and form of the political structure of the society. They never realised that it was equally essential to prescribe the shape and form of the economic structure of society, if democracy is to live up to its principle of one man one value. All countries which are late-comers in the field of constitution-making should not copy the faults of other countries. They should profit by the experience of their predecessors.” Dr. Ambedkar did not succeed in persuading the Constituent Assembly to profit by the experience to which he had drawn attention, as it was still under the influence of “old-time constitutional lawyers.” The Constitution laid down only “the political structure” and left “the economic structure” to evolve by itself.
Aware of the dangers that would flow from the failure of the Constituent Assembly to accept his suggestion, Dr. Ambedkar warned: “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.” He pointed out how “on the 26th of January 1950” we were entering “a life of contradictions,” as “in politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.”
Asking, “how long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?” he advised: “we must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.”
Also read: India is under the spell of socialism. It has fooled common man and capitalist alike
Fresh Thinking Needed
Thirty years have passed since then and no steps have been initiated to remove “the contradictions” to which Dr. Ambedkar had drawn attention. He had suggested the economic structure of “State Socialism”. The years that have passed have exposed many drawbacks and shortcomings of that structure. A few years after the promulgation of the Constitution, Pandit Nehru adopted it more or less. In his hands it became State Capitalism, resulting in the widening of economic inequalities. As commonly put, the rich became richer and the poor poorer. It is necessary, therefore, to think of another more appropriate system. However, the necessity of urgent action to abolish unemployment, reduce poverty, and establish equality cannot be denied.
The need has become all the more urgent in the new political situation that has developed with the re-emergence of authoritarian forces and their attempt to strengthen themselves by taking advantage of the poverty and ignorance of the masses. The leaders of the Janata Party have from time to time made many brave statements about ending unemployment and eradicating poverty, but in concrete terms nothing has been done so far to improve the economic condition of the people. It is true that political rights have been restored, but economic rights remain as far away as ever before. The large masses will not develop a stake in the democratic system as long as the system allows them to be oppressed and exploited. Human rights and democratic freedoms will have no meaning for them as long as they are not translated into work and food. That is the big challenge that India faces in the new year.
This piece is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. It is excerpted from the booklet Freedom First with the title “Political And Economic Rights”, which was published in January 1979. The original version can be accessed at this link.