The Hindu : Opinion/News Analysis : Elections, the state and the people

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Apr 04, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Elections, the state and the people

Success in the elections for one group will neutralise all critical questions, writes Jyotirmaya Sharma.

WHEN THE results of the Lok Sabha elections are announced in May, politicians of all parties will surprisingly unite in celebrating the triumph of Indian democracy. Phrases such as `the world's largest democracy' and `the biggest democratic exercise in the world' will be doled out. Everyone would have forgotten the shrillness and cacophony of the election campaign. Few will bother to pause and consider that not one noble idea emerged out of the campaign. Politicians with criminal records would have got elected once again, and money, muscle and murder would have played an important role in the election process.

Democracy, for a large majority of Indians, has become another elaborate act of self-deception. It provides a way to forget our inadequacies as a nation and hide our inability to restate the very foundations of our polity. There is a bitter irony in celebrating democracy in a country where books are banned on the pretext of `hurt sentiments', where large-scale communal riots can be justified on the basis of a perverse `action-reaction' theory, and where the sole criterion of national pride is reduced to a surging stock market.

The greatest impact, often unnoticed, of Indian democracy has been on the shaping of a certain idea of the Indian state itself. The bond of the state is no longer citizenship but the idea of individuals sharing a certain vision of happiness, prosperity, welfare and even gratification. This is why for some people India is shining. Every instance of invoking the question of the rule of law or compliance with constitutional forms is met with the idea of efficacy and efficiency. This is not to suggest that law does not play a part in the instrumental notion of the state; it does so only as a tool to facilitate a common aim of prosperity or gratification.

If one were to summarise the current `ideology' of the Indian state, an element shared by all political parties without exception, it could be reduced to three major characteristics:

1) People must get uninterrupted and undiluted prosperity all the time. Those who oppose this aim or express scepticism about it are reduced to a bunch of sulking, whining, bloody-minded losers who ought to be restrained and marginalised.

2) The authority for pursuing gratification and mindless prosperity comes from the religion of the sovereign people. Following this argument, the post-Godhra riots acquire legitimacy not merely because Narendra Modi is voted back to power, but also because of the promise to convert Gujarat into a prosperous and glorious State. In return, if Mr. Modi has to curb certain freedoms, unleash a reign of fear and intimidation, it is but a small price to pay for the ultimate goal of better and bigger balance sheets and bank balances.

3) The authority invested by the sovereign people must be seen to be idealistic, moral, caring and compassionate. This prevents people from feeling a sense of loss in their comfortable but servile condition.

The immediate fallout of the instrumental notion of the state is to relegate notions such as freedom from arbitrary power and enhancing human dignity to becoming subsets of growth in the GDP, low inflation and spilling foreign exchange reserves. This state, in turn, creates and works through a notion of in-groups and out-groups. If one disagrees with the ideals of the instrumental state, the in-group can, at best, brand you as uncaring, unpatriotic and irresponsible. But if the instrumental state is supported by an extreme, ultra nationalistic regime, you could end up feeling very sorry for yourself and for your friends and kin.

In a situation of this kind, the idea of legitimacy is the most visible victim. Since the whole purpose of the state is to cater to what is most desirable and most effective, legitimacy has no place in the scheme of things. It is merely seen as an irritant and a stumbling block in the way of creating a glorious nation. Equality before law, then, is reduced to equality for those who support the instrumental purpose of the state. There is nothing that anyone can do to question the aims and purposes of the in-group, for the very creation of this segment rests on the naïve faith that these are the very people who are imbued with qualities that automatically guarantee success and inspire trust.

The latest tool to justify the ends of the instrumental state is the idea of good governance. It is an idea that can do without building institutions that would hold those who have power accountable. The moment the conception of good governance is questioned, the very act of questioning it is seen as an impediment in the path of progress. To say that good governance without democracy is a form of fascism, and worse still, good governance without democracy and liberal institutions is a return to kind of enlightened despotism, is perceived as the predictable quibbling of the chattering classes. Discussion, debate, constitutional forms and the rule of law are replaced by a managerial and bureaucratic government that works through plans, policies, decrees, orders, inspectors, coordination committees and bargaining procedures.

Over the past several years, the rhetoric of all political parties has been geared to making India a strong state, or to use the jargon of international relations and positivist political science, a hard state. Sadly, what the Indian state resembles most today is an overripe banana. Like the banana's peel, the hard outer covering is useless and lacks in nutritional value. For example, the state creates a Bhindranwale and then sends tanks to the Golden Temple to flush out the extremist and his followers. It neglects national borders and calls the process of recovering its own territory in Kargil a victory. Armed commandos guard the self-appointed pillars of the state, the politicians, while the ordinary citizen gets increasingly insecure.

If the soft element were to be kindness, gentleness, empathy and a respect for human rights, the situation could still be saved. But today, the soft element is represented by questions such as the building of a Ram temple, changing school syllabi, distributing trishuls, challenging the autonomy of institutions of excellence and banning cow slaughter. The state no longer exercises its sovereignty legitimately, but outsources its functions to a bunch of religious leaders and new age gurus.

The real loss is that of an idea of India that is liberal, plural, and one where the state does not have an illicit liaison with arbitrary power. The general elections will only enhance this instrumental view of the state, regardless of who wins or loses. Success in the elections for one group will neutralise all critical questions. The losers will paint themselves as powerless martyrs and helpless victims.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

The battle for Uttar Pradesh

Elections, the state and the people

The Dalits' dilemma

Economic growth rate is sustainable: Jaswant

Contradictions - old and new