Opinion - News Analysis   

The idea of India is under assault statecraft

In less than two weeks we shall be performing in New Delhi and the various State capitals the all familiar Republic Day ceremonies and rituals, presumably reaffirming our collective national persona. In the context of the institutional disarray in our immediate neighbourhood, we may permit ourselves to feel satisfied, even superior, about the durability of the Republic and the depth of the republican sentiment. Yet, we will find our joy somewhat soured if we take a real ha rd look at the balance between the shrinking national sentiment and the expanding regional assertiveness. The signs of an imbalance are all too visible.

Narendra Modi seems to have won a famous victory, touting among other slogans and sentiments something called “Gujarat asmita.” The bottom line of that victory is the success he has had in rancorously pitting “Gujarati pride” against the rest of India. Rather than regret that a dichotomy can be invented between Gujarati pride and the pan-Indian sentiments, that victory has been particularly savoured by those who have reason to disapprove of the Congress. That is the Congress’ problem and challenge. But the trouble is that Mr. Modi belongs to a party that once spoke the language of “akhand bharat” and which still takes pride in positioning itself as the only viable and robust custodian of Indian national interests. Yet the Bharatiya Janata Party’s entire national leadership found it expedient to indulge Mr. Modi in his parochial assertiveness. A separatist incision into the notion of togetherness has been celebrated as a wholesome development.

Then, we have the spectacle of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati grousing unremittingly against the Centre. Sometimes she demands that the law be changed to provide her the super-elite SPG protection because she sees a massive threat to her life from enemies; sometimes she demands exemption and impunity from various authorities, including the taxman; sometimes she complains that the Centre is not allotting Rs.80,000 crore for Uttar Pradesh, as per her desire. Worse, those who man the Centre find it expedient to want to arrive at some kind of quid pro quo with her.

Then, there is the Chief Minister of Bihar. The other day, Nitish Kumar wrote to the Prime Minister, protesting against what he called “inadequate arrangements made for the Haj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia.” Since a large number of the pilgrims were from Bihar, he obviously felt he was entitled to protest. Maybe Mr. Kumar was trying to score a point over his regional rivals, who lay better claim to the allegiance of Muslim voters, but this solicitousness about Bihari Haj pilgrims fits the larger — and worrying — pattern of Chief Ministers willing to tap sentiments which tend to exclude larger loyalties and to weaken the obligation of each and every citizen of the republic to have a pan-Indian allegiance.

Such regional expressions are not new; from time to time, we have had the experience of regional outfits making special claims on a section of citizens but in due course all such expressions and resentments got harmonised with the “mainstream.” And as the polity moved into the coalition era, regional bosses found themselves in a position of having to sustain governing arrangements at the Centre. H.D. Deve Gowda became Prime Minister, and, later N. Chandrababu Naidu emerged the critical prop for the National Democratic Alliance. Whereas earlier it was the outsider railing against the insider, the new strain appears to be the incumbent insider carving out a different — and distinct — space against other insiders.

Curiously enough, there is also the reverse phenomenon. When Indian immigrants get roughed up in Malaysia, the Tamil political leaders demand of the Prime Minister that he should intervene — and intervene forcefully. When some Indian expatriates get caught in Kenya’s internal political turmoil, the Chief Minister of Gujarat promptly positions himself as the long-distance protector of the “Gujaratis” and demands that the Prime Minister should do “something.” On the one hand, there is this inclination to weaken, ignore, and dilute the Central ruling arrangement, Central institutions and constraints, and, on the other, the expectation remains high that the Centre should be able to protect and promote anyone who invokes an “Indian” connection, however removed. The balance between the Centre’s political capacity and its constitutional responsibilities is becoming precarious by the day.

Two related developments have aggravated this larger weakening of the pan-Indian sentiment that must ultimately sustain the Indian state. First, since Rajiv Gandhi we have not had a Prime Minister who truly commanded a pan-Indian image and respect. Name-recognition does accrue to anyone who becomes Prime Minister, but that does not necessarily convert itself into a confidence-generating, affection-creating, awe-inspiring national presence, commensurate with the pan-Indian authority that he seeks to command. V.P. Singh and S. Chandra Shekhar, both Uttar Pradesh-centric leaders, depended on regional bosses to purchase a bit of political acceptability in the country. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s appeal remained confined mostly to the Hindi-speaking areas. Until we are able to discover a new all-India helmsman, the task of negotiating central authority would continue to remain difficult.

The second development that has contributed to the decline of the Centre is the short-sightedness of the “national” political elites. There is an irresistible temptation between the two principal national parties — the BJP and the Congress — to want to win the most immediate next electoral battle or, inversely, to see to it that the other party is denied victory, even if it means humouring and accommodating the most sectarian or separatist outfit. For instance, in the last elections in Andhra Pradesh, the Congress blithely aligned itself with the Telangana votaries, without thinking through the implications. Or, in Chhattisgarh, both the Congress and the BJP have varyingly teamed up with assorted naxalite groups to ensure victory in a few constituencies.

The two parties have ended up providing space, respectability, resources and moral arguments to regional outfits, complicating the recovery of their own national following and appeal across the nation.

In the last two decades, the decline of the Congress has been widely hailed, mostly because of the arrogance and ineptitude the leadership displayed during its heyday, especially in the 1980s. Historically, this decline would not have caused worry had any other all-India political formation taken its place and role. For a while it did look that perhaps a working alliance of regional outfits would be the ideal way of forging provincial resentments and local aspirations into a powerful national synergy; however, the three experiments of the United Front, the National Democratic Alliance and the current United Progressive Alliance do not induce any confidence in terms of producing a coherent governing culture.

We could arguably go on stumbling from one weak arrangement to another — except that we have also invented for ourselves aspirations of a great power. If that dream is to be realised, we need to be alert in three areas. First, it is obvious that we will need to regroup our resources as to how we deal with the challenge of global terror groups, who respect no national boundaries and certainly do not recognise States’ autonomy. The persistent opposition from the State governments to the idea of a “federal” force, first proposed by the NDA regime, is the most painful reminder of the indifference to the need to retrieve the capacity of the Central authority. Secondly, there is the emergence of powerful all-India corporate players, who are virtually corralling weak State governments into their greedy agendas. The ideologue will, of course, see this as an inevitable triumph of the market, but without a strong and vigilant Centre, the globalised political economy of pain and pleasure can easily end up producing massive chaos at home. Thirdly, there is the question of India’s reputation and efficacy as an international player, as has been so poignantly brought home in the course of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal negotiations.

The weakening of the Central authority has a way of encouraging unhelpful external players to crowd in on New Delhi. The onus to arrest the decline of the Central authority is on all those who think they have a stake in India transforming itself into a global player abroad and a sensitive arrangement at home. Neither partisanship nor narrow ambitions would help produce the much-needed transformative leadership to resuscitate the idea of India.

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

Stories in this Section

The global slowdown
Telangana issue to the fore
Discrimination for dummies: V. 2008
The idea of India is under assault statecraft
Religion and the politics of Hindraf
New lyrics to Spain anthem axed after just five days
Bird flu
Bharat Ratna
Court ruling
Ensuring safety

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu