Sanjay Kumar
Indian
democracy faces an unprecedented crisis.
We do not have to get into debates about whether the current regime is fascist,
or not. It is clearly and cleverly, creating, as well egging on, a majoritarian
politics, which for instance calls upon 'people of India' to target their
selected enemies; minorities, leftists, anti-national liberals, etc. What Nehru had warned against, a majority
communalism masquerading as nationalism, is growing right before our eyes. This
is no longer a possible conspiracy, or a plan of Nagpur headquarters, but an
embodied reality in terms of popular attitudes, modes of behaviour and values.
On the other hand, the Modi government is implementing many anti-people
economic and social policies. But somehow the popular mobilisations against
those are not able to cross a critical mass. We can compare and contrast the
situation with Emergency when a particular leader and the state power became
the symbol of anti people authoritarianism. Then, the idea that given a chance
people will throw out the authoritarian leader seemed reasonable; and that is
how indeed it turned out in 1977 elections. Now, the nature and modus operandi
of 'authoritarianism' are different. How do you challenge a 'popular'
authoritarianism, whose kit bag also contains legitimate 'democratic' tools. In
any democratic project, it is ultimately the people themselves who assert their
democratic rights and make society and state democratic. How do we address the
people who are supporting anti-democratic politics. Old assumptions and methods
will not work. It seems democratic politics now has to be 'molecular', work at
micro-level, make people confront their own attitudes, modes of behaviour, and
long held beliefs. At the other level, we have to unpack deeper and more rooted
contradictions of the Modi regime with the people of India. Of course, all this
is easier said than done. However, what we can call the 'self criticism' of the
democracy in India, a self awareness of its blind spots and limitations, can be a first constructive
step.
So what are
these blind spots and limitations? We can only briefly touch some of them here.
Our understanding about democracy in India has generally worked on a simplistic
notion of people, which can best be called populist. While presenting the draft
of the constitution Dr Ambedkar had famously warned about the health and future
of the plant on democracy in a social soil which was deeply anti democratic. He
most likely had feudal, casteist, partiarchal hold overs in mind, which had
made Indian society one of the most unequal and dehumanising in human history.
People like Dr Ambedkar were deeply aware that in a society like India
democracy will not be a spontaneous development. It was not that once a liberal
democratic constitution is in place, the state and society will merrily start
chugging along the path of democracy. We all know how the power of office
(whose other name is corruption), money, and muscle have thrived in our society
since independence. We have come to accept a narrow definition of democracy,
which is mainly centered on regular elections and a modicum of freedom of
expression and association for a small, relatively privileged minority. On the
other hand, the overwhelming majority of Indians have been deprived of even
basic citizenship rights, except of course the right to vote. Actually, the
relatively small privileged minority also does not interact with state as
citizens.
There is no
doubt that the past nearly seventy years of electoral democracy have expanded
and deepened the stake people feel in the elected governments. Over time, many
oppressed and deprived sections of society, which could not vote in earlier
elections, have been mobilised, and in India we actually witness an
interesting phenomenon that larger percentages of deprived and oppressed people
vote than the privileged and the rich. Another interesting phenomenon is that this
mobilisation has occurred at the level of community, mainly caste. It has been
generally believed that participation of oppressed castes has broadened and
deepened democracy in India. While this is true in its own special way, another
parallel process got overlooked. All communities which become active during
elections are actually 'created' communities, called into action by leaders, parties and their ground
level workers. If communities like these become the main mode of address to an
average voter, then it is only a matter of time that an organisation gets
successful in mobilising the largest
such 'community' , the Hindu religious community. This follows from the logic
of the 'arithmetic' of electoral politics in our country. For some time many of
us had thought that the pluralities of caste, language, and regional variations
in India will not allow mobilisation of people around a monolithic Hindutva
identity to be successful. Actually, it seems that in states like Asom and UP,
Hindutva has gone around this problem. In UP it managed to mobolise non Jatav
dalits and non Yadav OBCs by specifically targeting them under an the over all
ideological hegemony of upper castes. In the process it managed to disempower
nearly 18% Muslim voters. Actually this exercise of dis empowering a
significant minority is not unique to India. In the US, in the past four
decades, the Republican Party has evolved a programme which systematically
disregards the interests to 12 percent African Americans. And, in all presidential
elections the majority of white voters have always voted for republican
candidates. This was the case even during 'landslide' Obama victories.
Among the
blind spots of Indian democracy we must also touch upon its hugely compromising
notion and practice of secularism. The unique brand of secularism in India has
been called 'sarv dharm sambhav', which literally translates as equal attitude
towards all religions. Opportunistic politicians have translated it to 'equal
respect for all religions'. An idea like the latter is completely against the spirit of secularism.
Secularism in a democracy has two assumptions. One, the fundamental democratic
values, those of equality and fundamental rights, are not based upon any religious
idea. The people who give themselves a constitution do not derive this power
from authority of any religious belief. In this sense the basic democratic
values are secular. The second principle, that a secular state will not prefer
any religion over others, is a requirement of the principle of equality. A
consequence of the secular basis of democracy is that any religious practice
which violate these principles, for instance the principle of equality, can be
outlawed. No religious belief can sanction inequality. Indian state did outlaw
untouchability, even though for many Hindus it was an article of faith. So a
secular democratic state power can not follow a formula like equal respect, or
equal attitude towards all religions. Yet it does not mean that secularism is anti religion. It
just does not entertain any religious sanction in its domain. It does not
interfere in the sphere of personal beliefs, nor does it deny believers the right to associate
on the basis of their religion.
Finally, the
vexed relationship of caste in India with democracy need to be addressed. The
electoral democracy has largely succeeded in reducing struggles against caste
oppression to a politics of representation. While the reality is that in the
era of electoral democracy and reservations for oppressed castes in state jobs
and educational institutions, caste inequalities morphed into newer forms,
which the politics of representation fully integrated into existing structures
is often unable to address. It is in this regard that Rohith Vemula's suicide
note becomes an important window to the lived reality of politically and
socially conscious Dalit youth. Second, an important observation of Ambedkar in
Annihilation of Caste is that as long as Hindus remain caste ridden, Hindu
society is actually not a society. Caste fragments, and arranges society
hierarchically so that any large scale unity becomes difficult. A public
sphere, in which any individual rights bearing citizen interacts with others as
their equal, is an important part of any
democratic society. Continuing salience of caste in Indian society has limited
and compromised the possibilities of public sphere in India?
The text is based upon author's presentation at a round table on the
same title organised by People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism on 15th
July, 2017.
1 comments:
Very nice
Post a Comment