Our identities are often tied to our histories; but perhaps those of various agencies of the Government of India are exceptions. Trends in their policies present us with some clues, perhaps.

Born out of two centuries long struggle for independence, mostly characterized by nonviolent direction action and satyagraha, participatory democracy should have been the most dominant identity of governance processes in India if they were to be defined by their histories. However, past and recent policy changes and actions suggest otherwise.

Consistently policies and efforts have been antithetical to concerns and even causing pain to significant sections of our country.

It is worthwhile to start with the most recent example. Sharmila Irom has for years now been on a non-violent protest through a hunger fast against the Armed Forces Special Act (AFSA). It has wrecked terror in N. East, killing dissent that is seen as necessary in any healthy society, breaking down communities and breeding intimidation from which much violence has sprung. It has perhaps had as much impact on communities as terror it aims to end. An example was the rape and murder by members of the Assam Rifles – the investigation has been in name only. Members of the Armed Forces have violated laws and ethical norms as per their whims with no possibility of accountability to the larger democratic society which they claim to protect.

Sharmila Irom’s fast in Delhi has given greater exposure to the implications of AFSA on communities that are considered to be at the fringes of our nation – people about whom our nation’s institutions have cared little. In such a situation, agencies of the government have reacted by presenting new charges and starting new investigations against NGOs supporting Sharmila as well as against Sharmila herself. What a travesty!

A government committed to democracy would have given a more sensitive ear to these concerns, and perhaps attempted to address them even while keeping issues of national security in mind. Not this government though. How else should people present their concerns? To what kind of dissent will the government listen?

This, unfortunately, is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a sustained trend. The attempt to amend the Right to Information is another example. A key act passed in 2005, after immense pressure from a huge majority, this was a landmark act, perhaps finally ending the impact of a colonial style of governance.

However, within months, bureaucrats and government officials as well as members of the parliament proposed amending the act that would severely limit the transparency resulting from the implementation of this act. The Prime Minister even went on to explain how this amendment would actually help transparency. When this resulted in a national uproar, the government and its various agencies backed off – temporarily. They may yet introduce the amendment in future sessions.

Meanwhile, these agencies continue to use bureaucratic processes to frustrate the implementation of the act and annul its essence. Government agencies use varying delaying tactics, digressional mechanisms and even deny information. And this is in large cities, with middle class applicants. With poorer sections, initimidation is often the norm. This, despite the law having specific provisions to penalize such tactics. Penalties are rarely enforced. The government machinery has, in a large number of instances, successfully frustrated the implementation of the act.

Another example is the ongoing effort to change the guidelines of the Environmental Impact Assessment. These laws protect communities from pollution dumping and other forms of environmental exploitation by corporations and other government or non-government bodies that are engaged in production or service activities. Besides ensuring that these units meet all environmental guidelines before these units can start their activities, it also demands that these units – prior to operations – must hold public hearings to describe to these communities, in detail, various aspects of their operations as well as address concerns of the community.

In the past, these processes were organized shabbily. For example, at a public hearing organized for a chemical unit in Gujarat, in the presence of State Pollution Board officials and district administration, people raising concerns were beaten up and verbally abused and intimidated. In another recent incident, a government agency planning for a set up of a nuclear reactor for energy production in Tamil Nadu, advertised the notice for public hearing – as the EIA guidelines require – in one of the most irrelevant pamphlets that local communities do not read, setting up the hearing at a location quite distant for the affected communities and at an inconvenient time. When people still showed up and asked questions, improper and inaccurate answers were provided.

In the context of such inefficient implementation of these guidelines, a monitoring committee set up by the Supreme Court of India found approximately 20,000 cases of pollution dumping in one year – a large number by multinational and large corporations. These included Lever dumping mercury, Aventis dumping its waste through a wholly owned subsidiary, etc. The Supreme Court demanded action on this front by the government. In response, the government has now chosen to prevent such illegalities by weakening these laws. Ironically, this is within three years of the Kathmandu Declaration where Senior Justices from all South Asian countries recognized that environmental exploitation affects the poorest the most and committed to pro-actively stop such exploitation.

In a more recent incident that would be hilarious if it was not so manipulative, the Ministry of Rural Development has drafted a rehabilitation policy and has presented the draft to the country for comments. That would be commendable except that the draft has only been posted on the ministry’s website and only 7 days have been given for any feedback. How many of those who will be affected can access the internet? How many could give their feedback through this medium? Are they not being actively kept out of any participative process? This policy bears special significance given the increasing number of projects sanctioned by the government that will cause displacement.

The question that the government must answer is who it serves. For it does not seem to serve the people. In each case, the processes the government has proposed will impact communities negatively, disempowering them, limiting their participation and affecting their sustainability. On the other hand, these policies help either members of the government or they help corporate lobbies.

These government agencies act more like colonial forces than representatives of the people. Perhaps, the government has indeed taken its identity from historical processes – it has taken the colonial ethos of the British.