The constituency of peace

“New fiscal policy aims to enlarge constituency of peace”, says the Finance Minister. This talk is obviously in the backdrop of the recent budget that he put on table, and the contents of which are in discussion in the relevant circles. If the core of any state is probed, it’s about human security, and human needs. All the debates on state, government and economy are finally about how peace is ensured and resources are managed justly. How human live, and live gracefully. The conflicts that we have witnessed throughout history are mainly because human security was threatened, or human needs were unmet, or both. If the Finance Minister talks about enlarging the constituency of peace through fiscal reforms, it can be easily placed in the backdrop of the larger ambit of human needs. Any government that succeeds in meeting human needs, regardless of differences with the politics of the ruling party, minimises the chances of conflict taking a violent turn. In the peculiar situation that our state is in, it is extremely important to work on this dimension of governance, because any shortcoming on this front complicates other spheres of human expression, resulting in more layered responses embedded in the overall matrix of violence. But there is a pitfall. The fiscal reforms, and the consequent ease it is expected to bring to the lives of many, should not be projected as a mass-bribe. Such mistakes have been done earlier, and we have had an ugly harvest as an outcome. The cheap propaganda carried on in the earlier years around the themes of reviving tourism, creating more employment, or giving incentive to different sections, have finally downgraded politics and governance in this state. The politics of the conflict that surrounds us should in no way be brought into the frame while talking about improvement in governance, spike in business, or reform in services. Put simply, it’s self-defeating. The constituency of peace can only be expanded if things finally prove, as they are firstly made to appear. Human needs must be met as human needs; it shouldn’t be used as a lever to move a particular politics. Cynicism apart, if human needs are really met, it will automatically inform better political response from people on all fronts.