The Historic Choice You Face

By: Pushparaj Deshpande

Even though what the greater good is has evolved over the years, the raison d’être of all societies continues to remain the same- to survive and thrive together. Drawing upon this foundational motivator, Mahatma Gandhi defined the State as the body of people (or praja) and not as an agency possessing a monopoly over the legitimized use of coercive force (the modern Weberian State). In his conception, the praja preceded a government, and the basic unit of the praja was the individual- a bearer of fundamental rights and capable of swaraj (self-actualization). In this normative framework, the government contracted to govern on behalf of the praja (and the individual) was merely a means to an end. That end was to ensure the fullness of life for each individual. Given this, every citizen has claims upon the government, which must observe their individual rights and freedoms on one hand, and actualize those conditions through which they can fulfill their aspirations. Unless the government guarantees and delivers those conditions, individuals would not be able to act in their own rights (“sui iuris” or of one’s own laws).

It was strongly felt that creating those conditions necessitated a strong central government that would undo the graded socio-economic and political inequalities of the past, and socialize a nascent nation to constitutional values. That is why India’s founders consciously carried forward India’s pre-colonial State apparatus. Nevertheless, they strived hard to strike a balance between their commitment to the Gandhian principles of ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truth), and dialogue on one hand, and the impulses of a Weberian State on the other hand.

Dialogue, even with one’s opponents, was central to Gandhi and his disciples (who would go on to become the architects of modern India). India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru consciously included people across party lines in his cabinet- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (who established the Republican Party), Shyama P. Mookerjee (who founded the Jan Sangh), John Mathai, C.H. Bhabha (a businessman), and Shanmukham Chetty (from the Justice Party). Despite enjoying a brute majority, India’s founders also institutionalized India’s parliamentary norms painstakingly. For example, the Prime Minister regularly attended Question Hour (even on days when his Ministry was not involved in the day’s interpellations). Similarly, ministers answered debates in the spirit of cooperation and extended the great courtesy to opposition legislators. Interestingly, the first no-confidence motion, tabled by Acharya Kripalani, was entertained with patience and constructively, even though it was foredoomed to failure by the arithmetic of seats. Every single minister and legislator of the ruling dispensation sat through attack after attack and answered the charges of every opposition leader, without resorting to jingoism.

Unfortunately, both dialogue and this consensual style of politics have been assigned to the dustbin of history. Today, Prime Minister Narendra Modi refuses to engage any Opposition party in a dialectic, let alone dialogue. Multiple parliamentary instruments that ensure accountability have been arbitrarily curtailed by his government. These include the abrogation of Question Hour, circumventing Standing Committees, and ramrodded legislation in a matter of hours, with no scrutiny. Worst of all, Opposition legislators are routinely suspended on frivolous charges and their functioning has been drastically circumscribed with the stoppage of the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (which enables legislators to recommend development work in their respective constituencies). Moving beyond opposition parties, the Prime Minister has refused to address a single press conference or unscripted interview in the past seven years, choosing instead to pontificate through his monologic Mann-ki-Baat (Mind’s Conversation).

Similarly, rather than accommodating different truths to become more than our individual parts (as Gandhi and India’s founders did), India’s ruling dispensation has reduced truth to a mere prop. In the defense of the indefensible, experts-for-hire have aggressively propagated divergent ‘facts’, pandering to the prejudices of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP)’s core base. These inevitably obfuscate reality and reduce the complexities of real-life to binaries. For example, unemployment in India is at a historic 45 year high, while consumption (accounting for 57% of India’s GDP) is at a historic 40 year low. This is exacerbated with raging inflation and household debt, and consequently a resurgence of mass poverty, a first since 1973. Rather than objectively reviewing where we are and collectively forging consensus on how to move forward, PM Modi’s government stopped publishing data or released some belatedly (conveniently, after key elections). The suppression of uncomfortable facts and sacrifice of the truth at the altar of political partisanship is a grave portend for India’s social contract. If we cannot agree on who and where we are, then how are we to move forward as a society?

Furthermore, abjuring Gandhi’s insistence on ahimsa (non-violence), lawlessness in India’s streets is matched by lawlessness in India’s government. Untethered from constitutional and institutional values, the BJP government has ruthlessly suppressed all contrarian voices. Thousands of Non-Government Organisations championing human rights, climate change, and accountability have been de-recognized, starved, or coerced into submission. Equally worryingly, numerous academics, activists, and journalists have been incarcerated on spurious charges for years without trial, while State-sanctioned murders are passed off as a necessary evil in the pursuance of good governance. Especially problematic is the manner in which the BJP government has responded to civil disobedience. Mahatma Gandhi (like Martin Luther King) routinely resorted to civil disobedience as a moral duty to protest against unjust laws and rulers. Consequently, non-violent satyagraha (insistence on the truth) is embedded in India’s collective psyche. Yet, every satyagraha in the past few years-by farmers, students, teachers, activists, or opposition parties, has been invariably met by tear-gas, water canons, internet shutdowns, and in some cases, even rubber bullets. Violence has become the first and last response to engage with India’s vast diversities.

On the other hand, the government has democratized violence by allowing non-State actors (primarily assorted organs of its ideological parent, the Sangh Parivar) to usurp and freely exercise power to enforce what they deem moral and acceptable (which is unfailingly antithetical to India’s constitutional principles). Much like Nazi stormtroopers, these non-State actors have lynched Muslims for their vocational, dietary, and religious choices; they have also physically chastised students and academics for organizing conferences and discussions on topics they deem anathema; some have even murdered whistleblowers and journalists for demanding accountability. Not only have BJP governments at both the union and state levels restricted the State apparatus from upholding the law, but some of its senior ministers have also even publicly felicitated these atavistic forces and shielded people who have allegedly molested and raped women. It is widely believed that under the current ruling dispensation, the State can no longer be relied upon to be an infallible protector and promoter of constitutional values.

Mahatma Gandhi also spearheaded many fasts, satyagrahas, and marches for communal harmony. In 1947, he famously wrote “the state is bound to be wholly secular… All subjects will thus be equal in the eye of the law. But every single individual will be free to pursue a religion without let or hindrance so long as it does not transgress the common law”. In stark contrast, the BJP government seems to have made an Omelas trade-off in the past few years. There appears to be a systemic conspiracy to target, persecute and suppress Muslims in India. Everything seems to be leading to a dreaded and inevitable finality, much like Germany in the late 1930s. By spearheading a blatantly illegal amendment to the Citizenship Act (CAA) that perpetuates the Two-Nation theory, the BJP government has laid down the legal basis for discriminating against people on the basis of their religion. The CAA paves the grounds for the National Register of Citizens to disenfranchise Indian Muslims. Indirectly and indirectly suggesting to Muslims that they are second-class citizens, PM Modi is just breathing life into his guru MS Golwalkar’s prescriptions (who he idolized so much that he even penned a biography titled Shree Guru ji: Ek Swayamsevak). Drawing from fascism, Golwalkar famously suggested Muslims and Christians are “not deserving of citizens’ rights”. Consequently, the BJP has slashed social sector expenditure for minorities, de-operationalized Article 370, not taken speedy action against perpetrators of lynchings (and instead valorized lynchers), and even given tickets to those accused of terrorism. The sickening ingenuity and malice display by the BJP in ramming home its hostility towards Muslims is unrelenting.

In its craze to impose one ideology and one leader onto India, the BJP is unleashing centrifugal forces it will be unable to manage. And these fires will spread. The inclination to remain silent, to live to fight another day, or shrug off these fire as isolated problems might be compelling. But what happens in India will have ripple effects, as did “Project Alamo” in the USA, which had a domino effect reflected in the “Brexit” or “Leaves EU Campaign”, the “Alternative Germany Campaign”, the “Do So Campaign” in Trinidad & Tobago, etc. As Prof. Shawn Rosenberg argued, “democracy will devour itself”.

Every person is inevitably faced with a moment when s/he is faced with a choice between good and evil; between acting and looking away. The choices we make can have profound changes, even if the impact is not immediately visible to us. After all, we are our choices. It is therefore our moral duty to stand up, and do everything in our power to turn the tide. History will judge us for what we do next. The only question is, will you join this noble cause?

About The Author: Pushparaj Deshpande is the Director of Samruddha Bharat Foundation & Series Editor, Rethinking India series (Penguin)

Image credits: Photo by Greg Schneider on Unsplash

source https://nrinews24x7.com/the-historic-choice-you-face/

October 02, 2021