Dear Lobbyists; thank you for falling out of the closet.

Because if certain pieces of good journalism hadn't yanked you out, we would still be under the impression that we live in a-sort of- free and democratic country.

Scandals are popping out faster than you can blink. First, the Commonwealth Games corruption expose, then the 2G loot, and related to that, the Niira Radia tapes. The latter, particularly, was a tremendous, tremendous expose, touching as it does huge names in the media, corporate honchos and their nefarious links with the government. We all knew that policy decisions were up for sale and that the Tatas, the Ambanis and Big Money ran the Government (which has, at its helm, a Prime Minister who played a key part in liberalising India's economy). But to see it laid out in the form of audio recordings and transcripts- conversations between a PR professional and lobbyist, willing journalist 'go-betweens' and the government... To in effect hear conversations where powerful people with Big Money outside of the government manipulate Cabinet portfolios and buy policy decisions... I'm trying to imagine how this particular expose can die down and fade away, and I cannot.

Television and print journalists from big media houses have been exposed (it is almost amusing to see them all put up explanations, defences and counter attack the story carried by Open Magazine...) for the-at best- dubious role they play. Big Money has been exposed for the Big Grip they have on how our country is run. In view of this, it was quite ironic to see the content of PM Manmohan Singh's speech at the forty third Indian Labour Conference. The man who holds big brownie points for being so educated, an economist, and an energetic friend of the corporate world, announced-officially-his endorsement of the restructuring of the Indian labour laws. Laws that are some of the most progressive and labour friendly laws in the world (atleast on paper-interpretation by the Courts are increasingly becoming a different story altogether), won after years and years of struggle, are deemed by the PM to not have had the " intended good effects that we would like to see on the ground". 'Good effects' by whose definition and what would the PM like to see on the ground? Legalisation of the process of creating big business that isn't required to ensure Decent Work conditions? “Is it possible that our best intentions for labour are not actually met by laws that sound progressive on paper but end up hurting the very workers they are meant to protect,” said Dr. Singh. 

Big Business whines about how the Indian labour laws don't let them hire and fire at will, a dispensible workforce apparently being indispensible to the growth of the business. They complain about trade unions, which, horror of horrors, actually have the audacity to pretend workers have rights worth fighting for. News channels (owned by Big Business) run dramatised stories of Workers Gone Wild who violently attack the management and play the Be Afraid card while announcing that enough is enough. Who do they think they are kidding? If our laws were really that literally implemented and in the spirit they were meant to- wouldn't most businesses-for a start- be operating with a permanent workforce? Paying atleast minimum wages? Taking care of OHS (occupational health & safety) issues at the workplace? Respecting the Indian Constitution by recognising the inalienable right of workers to organise?

Why are they so scared of trade unions and worker rights?Why must a country choose between Decent Work conditions and 'growth of employment'? Doesn't this say terrible things about the way we choose to design our growth?

Our activist Supreme Court is no friend of the workers. Just a few days ago, a Bench of  Justices Markandey Katju (of the 'keep' fame) and Gyan Sudha Misra upheld differential duty hours at the workplace. Their logic? That “It is not prudent or pragmatic for the Court to insist on absolute equality when there are diverse situations and contingencies. In view of the inherent complexities involved in modern society, some free play must be given to the executive authorities in this connection.” And this is just one example of the many anti-worker stance increasingly being adopted in the high chair of the judiciary.

If lobbyists can work their blackmagic on the Government, I'm wondering whether they haven't-gasp-touched the judiciary as well. After all, in the hypothetical situation where the buyer and end product (a workforce denuded of rights and hence pliable in the interests of Profit) remain the same, surely the intermediary commodities become the irrelevant pawns of this game? 

Please, Mr. PM. Let us not pretend that a restructuring of labour laws will benefit workers. We know who you are really gunning for.