Crime against Constitution
Jagdish N Singh
The Constitution of
India commands
our State to be
secular and
s o c i a l i s t .
Secularism in our
context means our
Government would respect
and accommodate the finer
versions of all religions.
Socialism means the
Government would ensure
an equitable distribution of
national wealth. Both
features of secularism and
socialism in our Constitution
expect our ruling elites to
live as simple as a common
citizen does .But do our
ruling elites care ?
A careful study of various
authentic studies and media
reports reveals the rich have
disproportionately benefited
from the kind of economic
management the successive
governments have practised.
Income inequality in India
has been increasing in the
country . The top one per cent of
earners captured less than 21 per cent
of total income in the late 1930s. Today
the richest one per cent garners as
much as 73 per cent of the total wealth
generated in the land. Over 670000000
Indians amounting to the population's
poorest half saw their wealth rise by
just one per cent in 2017. (
OxfamSurvey-2018).
Our agriculture sector provides food
security to 1.3 billion people. It
accounts for 54 per cent of our
workforce. It touches the lives of twothirds
of the rural population. Yet this
very crucial sector remains ignored.
The Union Budget 2018-19 has
proposed to give farmers a minimum support price (MSP) 1.5
times of the production
cost.
This support price is
hardly sufficient for a
desirable level of living for
the farmers. It does not
seem to be based on the
famous M.S. Swaminathan
report (2006) that
recommended the MSP to
be based on the entire
production cost (all paidout
costs, including the rent
paid for leased-in land and
the imputed value of family
labour) plus a 50 per cent
margin. The Government
had submitted a written
reply in the Supreme Court
against the Swaminathan
formula.
Moreover, the MSP hike
means little to farmers in
general . Eighty-five per
cent of our farmers are
small farmers (owing less
than 5 acres). They have
little marketable surplus.
The economic state of our Nation,
that is, our People, does not trouble
the conscience of our present
political elites. They continue to
derive enough financial and other
benefits from our system to lead the
kind of life-style they may wish. In
the proposed new Union Budget, the
Government has raised the salaries
of our President and Vice-President
to Rs 5000000 and Rs 4000000 a
month respectively . Members of
Parliament will now draw a basic
salary of Rs 1,00,000 (up from
₹ 50,000), the constituency allowance
of ₹ 70,000 (up from ₹ 45,000) and the
secretarial allowance of ₹ 60,000 ( up
from Rs 45,000).
Right to health care universal
Ours is a democratic
republic. The Constitution of
India assures the right to
equality to all citizens.
Regrettably, our ruling elites
are yet to embrace it in
practice. They have not cared
to discard some of the old
feudal-colonial rules that
discriminate against the
have-nots.
It is really shocking to find
that they do not care to do so
even where the right to life,
the most fundamental of all
human rights, is involved. Their
approach could be discerned in the
discriminatory treatment our
Government hospitals provide to our
citizens . We all know these hospitals
have a lot of space ( called Private/ VIP
wards) any time for our political elites
and their allies. But they do not care to
accommodate an ordinary person in
these wards even when his or her life is
threatened .
In a recent case, two noted
Government hospitals in New Delhi
reportedly refused treatment to an
ordinary citizen even when he needed
immediate medical attention. The story
goes that the person in question
suffered head injuries in Shamli ( Uttar
Pradesh) and was taken to Jai Prakash
Narayan Apex Trauma Centre on
October 21, 2017. The Trauma Centre
refused to attend to him saying there
was no bed available in the hospital.
When the patient's attendants insisted
on immediate medical assistance in the
case, the Centre called the security
persons and bouncers to push them
out . Thereafter, the patient was taken
to Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
None cared for the patient there too .
Finally, the patient was taken to Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital where he had to
undergo a four-hour surgery to fix the
fractures of the upper jaw and nose.
What a shame! One fails to
understand why our Government
hospitals should not give such patients treatment in their
special wards.
Any
differential treatment to
citizens in matters of life
and death is antithetical
to our right to equality.
It is absolutely inhuman
too.
It is good to know
that the Delhi High
Court has sought a
response from the
government on a plea
challenging the
distinction between
private VIP and general wards in
government hospitals and the denial of
medical treatment to common people in
the VIP wards even in case of
emergencies.
The Government must listen to its
democratic conscience and stop the
practice of discriminatory medical
treatment. Also, the Government must
provide due health care to all. The
recently announced National Health
Protection Scheme aimed to provide
medical insurance cover of up to ₹ 5 lakh
each to 10 crore families ( approximately
50 crore people or 40 per cent of the
population) is unlikely to cut much ice.
Experts say our Finance Minister Arun
Jetley did not allocate any money for this.
He has only promised to raise the
resources when required. It is yet to be
seen how the Centre and the States come
to fund it ( health is a State subject).
Adequate medicare requires adequate
facilities. We don't have enough
clinics/hospitals, doctors and nurses,
stocks of medicines and equipment.
There are just 1,800 hospitals in our rural
areas. They are often without the
requisite staff. Over 41 per cent of
primary health centres in West Bengal,
Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand do not have
any doctors.There is no doctor in 63.6 per
cent of primary health care centres in
Bihar. About half the primary and
community health centres in Rajasthan,
Haryana and Bihar don't even have a staff
nurse.
An evil social practice
A liberal democratic state
is supposed to ensure that
all the age-old evil social
practices come to an end as
early as possible. One,
however, finds that even
after seven decades of our
Independence, the practice
of female genital mutilation
or cutting (FGM/C)
continues in parts of our
land. According to a report,
this practice is carried out
by certain religious
communities, such as the
DawoodiBohra community
in the country .
Well-meaning social activists rightly
suggest our Government must pass a
law to ban this heinous practice. No
social practice can be allowed to
adversely impact the life of another
human being. Since there is no law
against FGMC in India , people are
coming from countries where this practice is illegal and
getting this genital
mutilation done
herein .
The Government
must stop this
practice in India.
FGM is done within
the family. This
makes any official
records hard to
emerge. Usually,
women are afraid to
file FIRs against this
crime. Our
government needs to
start a large-scale
survey on its own .
Governments of the United States
and the United Kingdom have
commissioned studies about FGM and
included it in their school curriculum to
make children aware of the harmfulness
of the practice. Our Government may do
the same.
Ensuring gender justice
In our Constitution women
have a status of equality with
men . It is heartening to note
our Courts are being strict
about its observance in
practice. Recently, our
Supreme Court has observed
that a woman retains her
identity, including her religious
identity, even after she
exercises her right to marry
outside her community under
the Special Marriage Act.
Heading a five-judge
Constitution Bench early
December, Chief Justice of India Dipak
Misra orally observed that the Special
Marriage Act of 1954 " confers in her the
right of choice. Her choice is sacred. ..
only a woman can choose to curtail her
own identity."
Chief Justice Misra said this on a petition filed by a Parsi,
who was barred by her
community from
attending the last rites of
her parents in the Tower
of Silence for the sole
reason that she married a
Hindu under the Special
Marriage Act. He said
nobody could presume
that a woman had
changed her faith or
religion just because she
chose to change her name
after marrying outside her
community.
Chief Justice Misra said, "The
Tower of Silence is not a mutt or a
citadel of a cult. It is a place to offer
prayers to the dead. Can such a right
of a woman be guillotined? It is part of
her constitutional identity."