Font size:

However, among other things, a recent case reported from the Indian state of Haryana contradicts the minister's view.

Last month the chief judicial magistrate of the Central Bureau of Investigation court fined and sentenced S.P.S. Rathore, a former director general of police, to six months' rigorous imprisonment for molesting a 14-year-old girl.

The fact that the convict's profile did not prevent him from being convicted is the silver lining to this whole affair. But the amount of time the system took to deliver its verdict is contrary to the concept of justice. The court took 19 years to decide the case. Meanwhile the victim committed suicide.

The fate of an investor in India could be compared to the case of the 14-year-old girl cited above. It is true that the government, at all levels, is opening up its doors to attract new investment. But that is in theory.

In practice it is not the government's investment-friendly policies that run the show. Rather, it is the people who run the government and several of its departments – and their policies are guided by nepotism, corruption, religion, caste and party politics. At the very minimum, nothing is possible in India without paying bribes. The amount of the bribe is directly proportional to the amount of the investment.

In addition, in terms of policies, the government completely disregards the poor people. For instance, most government-sponsored development programs that call for financial investment in states like Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are anti-people and anti-environment. The loss of livelihood options from defective state policies has pushed millions of citizens into malnutrition and poverty in the two states.

Investments that depend on such policies not only alienate the population, but investors could later be held accountable for human rights violations and environment degradation. India, for that matter, is not China.

Any sensible investor would be reluctant to spend resources without investment security. Business, irrespective of its nature, is prone to disputes, which in India are not decided by a "peoples'" court as in China. Neither are the courts in India “flexible” as in China, where often connections at appropriate places decide the fate of a case.

Though in China everything is suffixed with the facade “people” – as in the people's court, people's police or the people's party – state-run systems are not people-friendly. For instance, a company can hire and fire at will in China, and the government can evict people from their dwellings whenever it wants. There would hardly be any protest; should there be one, the government would silence it.

China does not have many social organizations where the voice of the people can be documented, distributed or acted upon. The Chinese model contradicts sustainable development.

Dispute resolution in India can take, as in the case of the 14-year-old girl, a decade or more. Although there are a few contradictory examples, there are no guaranteed shortcuts – as in China – to get the justice system to work for vested interests.

Once inside the rut of the judicial process, the only options for a businessperson seeking an early settlement are an out-of-court settlement or a long wait for the system to complete its process. The possibility of arbitration for dispute resolution is also limited, as a contending party could still approach a regular court to set aside an arbitration award, subject to the terms of the contract.

These concerns mean that India is doomed.

India is a democracy and the strength of a democracy lies in its people. In essence, it is the democratic space that makes India stronger than any of its neighbors or competitors. And this should be India's selling point.

But what is lacking in India is the basic infrastructure within which a democracy can gain strength. Instead of addressing issues that affect democratic governance, the government in India is interested in catching up with China and other competitors, at whatever cost. This process has started alienating the people from the government.

If India is to attract business investment, the government must address the immediate requirements of setting up a functioning democratic state. For this, the primary requirement would be to fix the country's ailing judicial institutions. This would also result in enriching and empowering the country's people – the real strength and wealth of the country.

--

(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)