Date:03-01-18

सुधारों का ‘श्रम’

संपादकीय

भारत के आदिम एवं निषेधात्मक श्रम कानूनों को लंबे समय से अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए एक अवरोध माना जाता रहा है। इन श्रम कानूनों के चलते भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था अपनी पूरी क्षमता का उपयोग नहीं कर पा रही है। इस स्थिति में श्रम सुधार लंबे समय से अपेक्षित हैं लेकिन मौजूदा राष्ट्रीय जनतांत्रिक गठबंधन सरकार के नीतिगत एजेंडा में इसे अधिक तवज्जो नहीं मिली है। केंद्रीय श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय ने अब एक ऐसा मसौदा जारी करने का फैसला किया है जिसमें कारोबारी संस्थानों को निश्चित अवधि के अनुबंध पर कर्मचारी रखने की मंजूरी देने का प्रावधान होगा। इसका मतलब है कि संस्थान तय समय के लिए भी कर्मचारियों को काम पर रख सकेंगे और परियोजना पूरी होते ही उनकी नियुक्ति भी खत्म मानी जाएगी। सरकार ने गत दिसंबर में फुटवियर और चमड़ा क्षेत्र में इस प्रावधान को लागू करने की इजाजत दी थी। अब वह इसे सभी क्षेत्रों में लागू करने के बारे में सोच रही है।

यह मानने की काफी वजह हैं कि सीमित-अवधि के रोजगार से कंपनियों की कई समस्याएं कम हो सकती हैं। खासकर अपना कारोबार फैलाने या नई इकाइयों में निवेश की योजना बना रही कंपनियों को इससे बड़ी राहत मिल सकती है। फिलहाल किसी भी कंपनी के लिए नया निवेश करना या विस्तार करना मुश्किल होता है क्योंकि नए कर्मचारी रखने का मतलब है जिंदगी भर के लिए उन्हें अपने साथ जोडऩा। भारत के कठोर श्रम कानून के तहत कोई भी कंपनी सरकारी अनुमति के बगैर कर्मचारियों को बर्खास्त नहीं कर सकती है। दुनिया के किसी भी दूसरे देश की तुलना में यह प्रावधान काफी कड़ा है। मान लीजिए कि इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स उपकरण बनाने वाली एक कंपनी किसी नए उत्पाद की मांग देखते हुए नई इकाई लगाना चाहती है तो उसे इस पहलू को भी ध्यान में रखना होगा कि आगे चलकर उस उत्पाद की मांग कम होने या खत्म होने पर उन कर्मचारियों का क्या होगा? मौजूदा दौर में तेजी से बदलते बाजार परिदृश्य को देखते हुए यह काफी असामान्य बात है। वैसे सीमित-अवधि के अनुबंध देकर कंपनियां कुछ हद तक इस मुश्किल से निजात पा सकती हैं।

बहरहाल यह भी साफ होना चाहिए कि भारत के समक्ष मौजूद श्रम चुनौतियों को देखते हुए यह समाधान पर्याप्त नहीं है। इसके साथ कई बड़े कानूनी सवाल भी खड़े होते हैं। मसलन, श्रम अनुबंध की अवधि खत्म होने के बाद उन कर्मचारियों का क्या होगा? ऐसे सवाल अक्सर न्यायिक हस्तक्षेप का विषय बनते रहे हैं। अगर सीमित-अवधि अनुबंध के समर्थकों की इच्छा के मुताबिक इन कानूनी बाधाओं को पार कर भी लिया जाता है तो कई दूसरे सवाल बाकी रह जाते हैं। कुछ कर्मचारियों के स्थायी होने और कुछ के अस्थायी होने से उनके साथ बर्ताव भी अलग होता है जिससे किसी कार्यस्थल का माहौल कारोबार और सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था दोनों के लिए खराब हो जाता है। अनुबंधित श्रम का अधिक इस्तेमाल कर्मचारियों और प्रबंधन के बीच स्वस्थ संबंध बननेे से रोकता है और एक कारगर श्रमिक संगठन भी आकार नहीं ले पाता है। सबसे बड़ी बात यह है कि यह न तो नियोक्ताओं को नीतिगत स्थिरता देता नजर आता है और न ही कर्मचारियों को वास्तविक स्थायित्व महसूस कराता दिखता है। इससे एक बार फिर औद्योगिक क्षेत्र बेतुके श्रम नियमों का सामना करता हुआ दिखेगा। श्रम कानूनों में सुधार का कोई शॉर्टकट नहीं है। इसे मूल योजना के मुताबिक राज्यों के भरोसे भी नहीं छोड़ा जा सकता है। इसी तरह तय समय के लिए रोजगार की वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था बनाने से भी छंटनी के बारे में बने नियमों में कोई वास्तविक सुधार नहीं हो सकते हैं। अगर सरकार वाकई में तीव्र वृद्धि के लिए फिक्रमंद है तो उसे वर्तमान केंद्रीय श्रम कानून में निष्पक्ष, लचीले एवं न्यायसंगत सुधारों की रूपरेखा बनाने, उसे पारित कराने और लागू कराने में अपनी राजनीतिक पूंजी लगानी चाहिए।

Date:02-01-18

The secular condition

Suhrith Parthasarathy (Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate practising at the Madras High Court)

To fully understand what secularism in the Indian context means, we must read the Constitution in its entiretyThere was a point of time, perhaps, when we might have taken the idea of a secular, pluralistic India, tolerant of all sects and religions, as a position set in stone. But, incidents, especially since the early 1990s, have radically altered both reality and our imagination. That certain groups, including many within the political party presently in power at the Centre and in many States, actively believe in a different kind of India is today intensely palpable. Against this backdrop, statements made on December 24, in a public address, by the Minister of State for Employment and Skill Development, Anantkumar Hegde, scarcely come as a surprise.

Secularism and us

“Secular people,” he declared, “do not have an identity of their parental blood.” “We (the BJP),” he added, “are here to change the Constitution,” making it quite clear that in his, and his party’s, belief secularism was a model unworthy of constitutional status. Since then, the ruling government has sought to distance itself from these comments, and Mr. Hegde himself has, without explicitly retracting his statements, pledged his allegiance to the Constitution and its superiority. But the message, as it were, is already out, and its discourse is anything but opposed to the present regime’s larger ideology. Indeed, Mr. Hegde’s comments even mirror those made on several occasions by people belonging to the top brass of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, who have repeatedly stressed on what they view as their ultimate aim: the recognition of India as a Hindu state, in which secularism lies not at the Constitution’s bedrock, but entirely outside the document’s aims and purposes.

The reactions to Mr. Hegde’s speech have been manifold. Some have welcomed it, as a call for debate, while others have viewed it as the ringing of a veritable alarm bell. Those on the far right in particular, though, have embraced the message, and have gone as far as to suggest that India has never been a secular state, that the Constitution, as it was originally adopted, did not contain the word “secular”, which was inserted into the Preamble only through the 42nd amendment introduced by Indira Gandhi’s government during the height of Emergency rule. They also point to B.R. Ambedkar’s pointed rejection of proposals during the Constitution’s drafting to have the word “secular” included in the Preamble. Given that the Constitution is mutable, these facts, in their belief, only buttress arguments against the inclusion of secularism as a constitutional ideal.

But what statements such as those made by Mr. Hegde don’t quite grasp is that our Constitution doesn’t acquire its secular character merely from the words in the Preamble, but from a collective reading of many of its provisions, particularly the various fundamental rights that it guarantees. Any move, therefore, to amend the Constitution, to remove the word “secular” from the Preamble, before we consider whether such a change will survive judicial review, will have to remain purely symbolic. Yet, Mr. Hegde’s statements nonetheless bear significance, for they exemplify the confidence that he has in the broader project that is already underway. The endeavour here is to steadily strike at the secular values that the Constitution espouses, to defeat it not so much from within, but first from outside. Negating this mission requires sustained effort, not only in thwarting any efforts to amend the Constitution, if indeed they do fructify, but, even more critically, by working towards building a contrary public opinion, not through rhetoric, but through facts, by reaffirming our faith in constitutionalism, and in the hallowed values of plurality and tolerance that our democracy must embody.

Inbuilt freedoms

Now, it is certainly true that the Constituent Assembly explicitly rejected a motion moved by Brajeshwar Prasad from Bihar to have the words “secular” and “socialist” included in the Preamble. But this was not on account of any scepticism that the drafters might have had on the values of secularism. Quite to the contrary, despite what some might want us to believe today, the assembly virtually took for granted India’s secular status. To them, any republic that purports to grant equality before the law to all its citizens, that purports to recognise people’s rights to free speech, to a freedom of religion and conscience simply cannot be un-secular. To be so would be an incongruity. Secularism, as would be clear on any morally reasonable analysis, is inbuilt in the foundations of constitutionalism, in the idea of a democracy properly understood. In the case of our Constitution, it flows from the series of fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III. How can a person be guaranteed a right to freedom of religion without a concomitant guarantee that people of all religions will be treated with equal concern?

To fully understand what secularism in the Indian context means, therefore, we must read the Constitution in its entirely. There is no doubt that within the Assembly, there existed a conflict between two differing visions of secularism: one that called for a complete wall of separation between state and religion, and another that demanded that the state treat every religion with equal respect. A study of the Constitution and the debates that went into its framing reveals that ultimately it was the latter vision that prevailed.

As the political scientist Shefali Jha has pointed out, this constitutional dream can be best comprehended from K.M. Munshi’s words. “The non-establishment clause (of the U.S. Constitution),” Munshi wrote, “was inappropriate to Indian conditions and we had to evolve a characteristically Indian secularism… We are a people with deeply religious moorings. At the same time, we have a living tradition of religious tolerance — the results of the broad outlook of Hinduism that all religions lead to the same god… In view of this situation, our state could not possibly have a state religion, nor could a rigid line be drawn between the state and the church as in the U.S..” Or, as Rajeev Bhargava has explained, what secularism in the Indian setting calls for is the maintenance of a “principled distance” between state and religion. This does not mean that the state cannot intervene in religion and its affairs, but that any intervention should be within the limitations prescribed by the Constitution. Sometimes this might even call for differential treatment across religions, which would be valid so long as such differentiation, as Mr. Bhargava explains, can be justified on the grounds that it “promotes freedom, equality, or any other value integral to secularism.”

We can certainly debate the extent to which the state intervenes in religious matters, and whether that falls foul of the Constitution’s guarantees. We can also debate whether an enactment of a Uniform Civil Code would be in keeping with Indian secularism or not. But what’s clear is that a diverse, plural society such as India’s cannot thrive without following the sui generis form of secularism that our founders put in place.

It might well yet be inconceivable that the government chooses to amend the Constitution by destroying its basic structure. But these are not the only efforts we must guard against. We must equally oppose every move, every action, with or without the state’s sanction, that promotes tyrannical majoritarianism, that imposes an unreasonable burden on the simple freedoms of the minority. We can only do this by recognising what constitutes the essence and soul of the Constitution: a trust in the promise of equality. What, we might want to keeping asking ourselves, does equality really entail? What does it truly demand?