The public imagery of the global pandemic COVID-19 is about stranded migrant workers, impoverished informal workers, jobless middle-class workforce, dejected upper-class employees
and depressed investors. No doubt all these stakeholders suffered, but with varying degrees and impact. All these entities are, in fact, integral to, what is etymologically called, ‘Business’. The unfortunate part is that governments have adopted a binary in case of business versus labour. What is more unfortunate is that the government, actually, has decided, even at the time of pandemic, to align towards the side of investors, rather than workers. Recently, the government diluted numerous labour and environment protection regulations for the ease of doing business, despite the reality of a mass exodus of workers and the reluctance of private companies to sustain the workforce. The fundamental problem here is that the government understands business so synonymous with ‘investors’ that any other stakeholder is seen as a liability. Further, the way trade unions as institutions have been assaulted in the last two decades ensured that there are no organised labour constituencies present for the government to be worried about later onwards. It is not surprising to see that a ruling party spokesperson recently was unable to name the Union Labour Minister. The communities and workers, who are victims of business aggrandizement, are seen as obstructionists not only of business, but also of national economic development. The pandemic thus fortified the discourse of synonymising ‘national development’ with promoting investor-centred understanding of business.
In this context, the Corporate Responsibility Watch (CRW) organised a webinar on Business and Human Rights on 26 August 2020, to bring into fore the voices of communities, workers and consumers, who are affected by the business actions taken even during the pandemic. Participating in the webinar Advocate Easan, founder of Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association, said, “Power Grid is going ahead with their project” and “Farmers lands’ are being taken in the name of greater common good without consultation or adequate compensation for the farmers”. Oinam Rajen from Loktak, Manipur, said, “Fisherfolks in Manipur are not only losing their livelihood but the environment is also being polluted and is at risk” but NHPC continues to ignore their concerns. For many companies, pandemic or not, violations are business as usual. Still, business is important to be watched, as Tom Thomas, Convener, CRW, said, “We are looking at the response of an entity called business from the perspective of marginalised communities. Some call it evil, some panacea”. But the fact is, it is a reality that we are all a part of. Earlier, we used to buy products. Today, we ARE the products!”
The pandemic did expose communities towards vulnerable situations and pushed many poor communities into further marginalisation.
Also Read : India’s NAP on Business and Human Rights: Will It Leverage Public Procurement?
Rustom Kujur, a member of All Adivasi Students Association of Assam (AASAA) who resides in a tea plantation in Dibrugarh, Assam, shared that during the complete lockdown, tea workers did not receive their wages and in few of the tea gardens, workers received a meager amount of Rs. 500 from the government and Rs. 500 from the company”. The pandemic demonstrated the importance of the essential services but it is doubtful whether the same importance is given in safeguarding the rights of the essential service provider. A narrative is being created about ‘being thankful’ to the essential service workers- from sanitation to drivers, to the health service providers. In the current scenario of privatised essential services, the benefit of empathy is largely with the companies. There is nothing left for workers, especially for those who are even sub-contracted. The Gig Economy, which is cab-based, has around 4 million work-forces amongst drivers. Syed Zakir Hussain said, “The pandemic has not changed anything in the occupational terms and conditions for these drivers. The companies are still charging a 25 per cent commission. What is worse is that we drivers do not even have the recognition of being workers”. The companies in the current language are the ‘service providers’ to the drivers, for which they take a commission. However, the entire environment is designed in such a way that those drivers are now trapped in this exploitative relationship with companies. A modern form of slavery, which is still waiting to be christened, as such!
The pandemic has also put forward the underlying debate on the need to strengthen health systems and services and make them accessible and affordable to the poorest. Meanwhile, the privatised health service companies are trying to capitalise maximum from their consumers who are left helpless, but to adhere. Sai Balaji shared his personal experience of how the corporate hospitals running in collusion with political affiliates not only ruthlessly overcharge despite the existence of a stipulated ceiling, but also threaten to discharge and harass patient families. Sai’s case is not a one-off case there have been a number of similar cases where the pandemic has exposed the flaws of an unregulated pharmaceutical, medical device and health industry. Even in extreme forms of capitalism, even among those who are neoliberals in their ideology, when it comes to health, they are considerate and look for state regulations. However, the COVID-19 situation has exposed the capitalism that is integral in the health industry in a major way. Amita Joseph from Business Community Foundation (BCF), rightly said, “The pandemic has only highlighted gaps that are present within our systems on non-implementation of labour laws, ignoring occupational health and safety measures and business-government nexus”.
Neoliberalism has a tendency to create a safety valve, which is generally up for grabs by those who believe in liberal traditions within the neoliberal paradigm. Hence, in parallel, a discourse of business and human rights started ascending among the debates on businesses. In the discussion of business and human rights, it is crucial for Human rights to be central with the business finding its alignment within that conversation. One instrument that has been in the discussion is the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP). This instrument has been effectively put to use in developed countries to facilitate greater business disclosures.
In the context of India, there are two views, while many, including the human rights defenders, argue that its non-mandatory nature is a deterrent to its effective implementation, thereby reducing it to a mere ‘paper tiger’, certain other groups look at it more optimistically, as a tool to demand rights and entitlement for workers and communities. While agreeing to the argument on its ornamental value, the group contends that NAP can be leveraged to ensure human rights are not compromised in the normal course of business activity.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs just before pandemic showed a sense of urgency and wanted the NAP on Business and Human Rights to be in the public domain by the end of May 2020.
Also Read : Baghjan Oil Leak and Blowout: Questions Remain
For almost two months, even during the lockdown phases, the ministry was busy organising online meetings. A number of civil society groups were amplifying voices of business affected communities and human rights defenders, primarily to extract a rights-friendly document from the government to make the latter accountable.
There is a need to understand today, what Dheeraj, from Praxis, said, “The government is the most powerful businessman, the largest investor and the biggest procurer of services and products. The government companies, themselves, need to respect human rights. When the government as a business entity is not protecting human rights, the defenders do not necessarily know where to get justice from”. Pradeep Narayanan from Partners in Change said, “Easan, the farmer leader, pointed out the dilemma of farmers protesting against the government, both for its inaction as a protector of rights and as a violator as a business entity. There is a need for the government to evolve an action plan on business and human rights, exclusively on the role of the State as a model, responsible and ethical businessperson”. The need for the civil and political society is to build a campaign to integrate human rights in the government-run businesses, ranging from PSUs to companies which are given projects, to those where the government has invested, and those companies from where the government is procuring from. As citizens, it is our right to know what they are doing and make them comply with human rights; and it is our duty to make the government accountable for their actions.
