Is mafia behind move to take away land from leprosy patients?

The battle for acquisition of land of the people by the state, the land mafia and the corporations in the name of development has evoked different reactions at different levels.

In the imagination of the state it was all about development to provide manna for every citizen who hungers and thirsts. People have viewed it differently since in their imaginations the state is no more credible. For them it is all about the nexus of the state with corporations to loot and plunder natural resources. That is why there has been resistance for land acquisition by farmers, peasants and the commons.

 The Cabinet decision on September 21, 2012 to take over 45 acres of the 50 acres of land allocated by the state in 1977 to the rehabilitation of lepers, the most unwanted in society has to be constructed differently. That land at Magadi Road reflected the concerns of a welfare state towards a stigmatised people whom nobody wanted around. They were placed at the outskirts of the city at the time when the place was first allocated.

Leprosy was considered contagious then and lepers had to be kept out from the city.

Summanahalli is all about those discarded by the system, the lepers and the beggars and the desire of the state to provide them an abode in the place outside the city so that they live with honour and dignity.  Their existence was tolerated. They could not be in the mainstream but on the margins. At least there was concern expressed towards them.

The imagination of the state has changed. In a market economy, the poor have no place.

The corporate and the politicians have been eyeing the place. With the prices of land soaring, the property at Summanahalli is priced high. Politicians and the corporate world in nexus want the beggars and the lepers to exit to make place for them. It is all about loot of the poor. What necessitates this loot?  It is greed.  In the economy we are a part, there is no place for the discarded. The rich, the mighty and the powerful can decide to crush the helpless and make them extinct. When a cabinet makes a decision to take the land of the lepers and the beggars away, the broader ethics of the state for which it exists, to care for the poor, is lost. It is a sign of a civilisation that has lost its conscience and a symbol of a moral collapse.

Tragic situation

The cabinet decision is tragic. Who decides in a state? Is it a small group of persons whose credibility remains very low today in the public mind? Do they represent the people anymore?  What is Vidhana Soudha, the center of power without any mandate from the poor and the helpless? It is ultimately these groups of subalterns who go to the polling booths to elect their representatives once in five years. The poor think it is their government. But where is the place for subaltern voices in the decisions of the cabinet? How tragic a situation? To turn people’s democracy into a democracy for the economic interests of a class will take us away from the democracy we ought to be. The decision of the cabinet on Summanahalli property raises larger questions about the place of the poor in a democracy where land becomes a site of a bigger debate. In that sense both beggar colony and lepers’ rehabilitation are metaphors for a deeper tragedy.

Is there a communal angle for the acquisition of Summanahalli land? The care of the lepers there has been dear to a committed band of priests and nuns from the Catholic community.  For the last several years, the members placed there have done everything possible to provide solace and comfort, skills and training to those despised by society. Is the presence of the community with the discarded of society disturb those in power? Do they think that Christians are cultural spoilers? In serving the cause of humanity why does the state mix up issues of religion and faith? Is it because without a divisive agenda the party in power does not have a future?

Sumanahalli is about the people on the margins where the poor are asking whether words like inclusion, concern for the poor and the deprived can ever be debated any more in the public domain. The fact that there has been dissent against the cabinet decision, Summanahalli evokes another kind of discourse, the discourse of dissent as well. Rights focus on the individual. At Summanahalli the rights that are violated are of the community of lepers. Without a united struggle these rights of a community of people who cannot fight for them cannot be protected. The judiciary had made its contribution to the cause of the lepers. The civil society must come together to uphold the sovereignty of the people and to protect the rights of the lepers.

(The writer is the administrator of St Joseph’s Evening College, Bangalore)