Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46269)	5/23/2004 4:34:56 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

The roots of Indian democracy —Ishtiaq Ahmed <Indian democracy is a guiding issue for Pakistan, we make no comparisons with a very mature democracy, we understand that Pakistan needs to learn a lot it is presently a nascent, dictator prone, and dictated by bug infested Islamic software democracy, with so many impediments where we could have been a talibinised state by 2001 if 911 would have not happened our journey is hard but progressive we are seeing green offshoots emerging, that is the sign of growth and nation striving for maturity > India is a mature and sophisticated democracy. That’s evident from the recent Indian elections. But how has India achieved this, becoming a democracy and sustaining it? The odds were against this: caste hierarchy, ethnic diversity, religious heterogeneity, linguistic plurality and abject poverty are some of the snags on which Indian democracy could have stumbled. Additionally, there are secessionist tendencies within certain areas and adverse relations with Pakistan and China. Even so, India has retained its sanity. This is remarkable. The USA has witnessed the neo-conservative reaction following the 9/11 attacks but India, despite all its troubles, has not succumbed to the extremist agenda of the RSS, VHP and Shiv Sena. I believe the most important factor that explains Indian democracy is a consensus among all sections of Indian society that democracy is preferable to any other type of government. Indeed, it is the ‘democratic hegemony’ that has set the stage for legitimate politics and sustains it. Any political actor that violates that framework is penalised by the voter. Mrs Indira Gandhi’s emergency cost her the office of prime minister and the Congress suffered a major defeat in 1977. The NDA government prided itself over the fast economic growth rate but failed to tackle the question of equitable distribution. Additionally, it failed to bring to the book those thugs who went on the rampage and killed thousands of Muslims in Gujrat. India’s sizable minorities, especially the Muslims, never forgave that terrorism, although many prominent Muslims joined the BJP when it adopted an apologetic stance on the Gujrat carnage. All these arguments are well known. But the question is: How and why the democratic hegemony emerged? There is very little to suggest that such a consensus is natural to the Indian tradition or religious culture (Hinduism). On the contrary, there is a consistent record of despotism during the so-called Hindu and Muslim periods. British rule, too, was by no means based on conventional democratic principles and practices. Still, it did bequeath ideas of responsible government and political liberty and thus introduced a democratic vision of polity. So the origins of the democratic consensus must be sought in the long-drawn, non-violent freedom struggle against the British rule that sought to terminate colonialism through constitutionalism. To this constitutionalism were added the values of compromise and adjustment of competing interests, which became the hallmark of the Congress’ political ethos. Since that party ruled India for a very long time, its tradition of compromise and adjustment became entrenched in Indian politics. Thus even BJP has had to look for compromises and adjustments, although it played the Hindu nationalist card successfully to come to power in 1996 and later. But once in power, it could not ignore for long the diversity of Indian society — that would have meant a fascist direction for India. Mr Vajpayee successfully avoided such a path. So while he has lost the election, India has won the battle of democracy. In intellectual terms, the democratic consensus grew out of a long and gradual cultivation of liberal and rationalist values by the Indian intellectual and political elites. In particular I have in mind Jawaharlal Nehru and his band of reformers. Nehru was a confirmed rationalist who abhorred the idea of giving institutionalised religion any role in public life. He invested heavily in ensuring that India remained an open society. An open society cannot be based on a fixed and rigid ideology. It must always provide scope for dissent and doubt and the right to challenge all types of orthodoxies. Indian intellectuals are able to do so more successfully because there are no blasphemy laws upheld by the state to hunt them down. Consequently in partnership with the leader of the Dalits, Dr Ambedkar, Nehru gave India a constitution which is indeed an epitome of liberal humanism. The efforts of the rationalist elite to establish a progressive polity were augmented in a rather curious manner by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi sought to harmonise the conflicting religious traditions of India by preaching the equality of all faiths and especially targeting Hinduism’s evil practice of untouchability. Such reform fitted in well with the rationalist project of Nehru. Thus it is not surprising that the current president of India is a Muslim, the previous one was born a Dalit, and now a Sikh has become the prime minister. Were it not for the virulent racism of rightwing Hindus, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, a Catholic-born and Italian origin lady, would surely have become the prime minister. It is a pity she gave in to the racism-in-reverse of the ultra-nationalists. But these changes are not taking place only at the level of the elite. Democracy has made possible for traditionally disadvantaged groups to gain real political clout and indeed power. Politicians of Dalit and OBC (Other Backward Castes) backgrounds are now strong regional and national leaders. Both UP and Bihar have OBC chief ministers from the Yadav caste. Mahrashtra is under a Dalit chief minister. Other prominent Dalit leaders are Mayawati, Ram Vilyas Paswan and Kansi Ram, though, overall, Dalits remain poor and disadvantaged. Muslims occupy senior positions in the Congress Party. One need only visit the websites of the Congress Party to ascertain that. Even the BJP now has a number of prominent Muslims in leadership roles. Also, the Samajwadi Party has an impressive representation of Muslims. We also need to remember that India is the only democracy in the world that allows elected Communist governments to remain in power. The Left and other progressive parties are supporting the prospective Congress government whether as part of the alliance or from the outside. Perhaps such a government can perform the historic task of making the Hindu society learn to accept the fundamental equality of all human beings. What India needs is a cultural revolution that combines Nehru’s rationalism to the humanism of Gandhi and the idealism of Ambedkar. Special effort should be made to consolidate and deepen the secular foundations of the polity so that the minorities and women feel included in the nation on an equal basis. It is time for India to eliminate the gap between the higher ideals of the constitution and the conduct of the government. If that happens, India will indeed become the greatest democracy on earth. The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se