Events & Issues
New Delhi, 9 July 2022
Diluting Democracy
HAMPERS HINDUTVA
By Dusmanta Kumar
BJP’s core theme of mobilisation has been
Hindutva. Scholars and leaders seek to make a distinction between Hindutva and
Hinduism; the former is treated as a political construct. Be that as it may.
Hindutva and Hinduism are increasingly becoming synonymous for want of viable
champions of Hinduism in opposition ranks. BJP has therefore managed to
consolidate the Hindus. The concern in this piece is to examine how undermining
democracy will hamper Hindutva mobilisation.
Let me make two formulations. One,
Hinduism/Hindutva and democracy are co-terminus. I know that could be a
provocative proposition. Yet, let us proceed with it as a working hypothesis.
To use a caveat, in 1990s, I was participating in a democracy seminar in the
University of Lancashire in the Lake District of United Kingdom. One of the
presenters, a British professor called Indian democracy ‘an ethnic democracy’.
Elaborating on it, he said, Indian democracy survives on account of diversity
as well as pluralism in the Hindu religion itself which is a majority religion
in India. This formulation has merits.
Hinduism is a polytheist religion, meaning
there are various streams of spiritualism and practice. Believing in oneness of
God and humanity, Hindus worship thousands of Gods and Goddesses which they
consider the manifestations of the supreme God. In addition to differentiated
Hindu spiritualism, the existence of caste which is considered a social sin,
adds variety of identities in Hinduism which complement democracy. In
conceptual terms, democracy means recognising and reconciling multiple
identities.
Secondly, democracy involves sharing of
positions, power and political space among various communities. That is how the
tickets for candidates for Assembly and Parliamentary elections are decided on
the basis of community support; the ministerial berths are allocated on same
terms. In a representative democracy, not only the leaders represent people,
they also represent various segments of population defined in terms of
communities, which in turn are based on language, ethnicity, caste, religion,
gender, profession and so on.
As the essence of Hinduism consists of
pluralist beliefs and practices, it conduces democratic politics which promotes
diversities and reconciles differences emerging out of them. The logical
extension of this formulation is that Hinduism and democracy are symbiotic. If
democracy is diluted, Hinduism is undermined, and vice versa. In other words, it is to be underlined that
the champions of Hindutva should respect and redeem democracy. This is not
happening in hanker for power, and out of ignorance of the interface between
Hinduism and democracy.
The second formulation is that legal and
democratic are not one and the same. Political parties, mainly the present
ruling regimes in the States and at the Centre seem to conflate the concepts of
legal and democratic which leads to upending democracy. For the sake of
conceptual clarity, take it that what is legal is not necessarily democratic.
Legal relates to an outcome, a decision taken, but democratic refers to the
process of arriving at such decisions. Debates, discussion, dialogues,
inclusive participation of stakeholders, building consensus wherever possible,
encouraging and respecting dissent are elements of a democratic process. Sadly,
all these attributes are missing in our legislatures and even in public
discourses across the country.
A law can be passed in the Parliament on the
basis of majority. That is legal. But is it democratic? Was there adequate
discussion in Parliament? Members of Parliament belonging to the Opposition
parties complain that they are not given time to speak on bills that are made
into laws. They are not even provided with the draft of the Bill in good time
before it is tabled in the Parliament.
There are Parliamentary committees to
scrutinise the Bills before they are put into motion. These committees are
bypassed in making laws. Thus the roles of Parliamentary Committees ensuring
accountability, value addition and an inclusive process, are undermined. The
committees seek opinions from the public, professional bodies to examine
various dimensions of a Bill. Thus, the stakeholders of various Bills are taken
into a consultation process. This practice also helps in acceptance of laws by
citizens.
Remember the three farm laws, which were
passed without adequate consultation with the Opposition or the primary
stakeholders, causing widespread and prolonged protest by the farmers until the
laws were withdrawn. The infamous note ban is another example, which caused
undue and avoidable distress to people without achieving the intended results –
curbing black money etc.
Another example could be passing of CAA –
Citizenship Amendment Act. The government may have its logic in excluding a
particular community and including the minorities who are persecuted in their
host countries. This was not adequately debated in the Parliament and explained
to the public. Consequently, the country was plunged into unrest and strikes by
students in the universities. This could have been avoided with due dialogue
across the board.
Convening all party meetings is a practice
that helps democracy. The government has the benefit of contrarian suggestions
from different parties which help in better formulation of policies. These
meetings have become rare across the federal layers of our country. The other
medium for communication by government is the press, which can carry
government’s intent and actions to the public. But strangely, the ministers do
not address the press.
The ruling party has spokespersons, who, not
being part of the government, could disseminate wrong messages. We noticed
recently, one of their spokespersons, making indiscreet remarks about a
religion which led to strong and hostile reactions in the country and abroad.
The ruling party promptly disowned the spokesperson, disagreed with her remarks
and dismissed her from the position. The point is, spokespersons could
represent the party not the government. Sadly, the Prime Minister never
addresses any press meet.
In recent times, an unhealthy trend of
discussing religions in public is being noticed across States of the country.
This is stemming from party-politicisation and radicalisation of religions.
Both these practices do not augur well for our democracy. As said before,
community mobilisation in electoral politics without causing inter-community
antagonism is acceptable. In that sense, consolidation of Hindus may be in
order. Many progressives will challenge this though. So be it. It is an
existential reality for political parties in a competitive electoral politics.
If Muslim partiers can be registered by the
Election Commission and allowed to function, why not Hindu parties! But radicalisation of Hinduism, even in
response to the same practice in other religions, negates the essence of
Hinduism which consists of being tolerant, accommodative, reconciling and so
on. To reiterate the point, radicalisation and religious monism of Hinduism
goes against the practice of democracy as well as the spirit of the religion.
Pluralism present in Hinduism fosters religious pluralism in India, which leads
to political pluralism that constitutes the main pillar democracy.
To sum up, let us dig into the tenets of
Hinduism. Only two will prove our premise here.
Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – the world is just one family. The other, “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve
Santu Niraamayaah, Sarve Bhadraanni Pashyantu, Maa
Kashcid-Duhkha-Bhaag-Bhavet (May all be
happy, may all be free from illness, may all see what is auspicious, may no one
suffer). If that is so, where is the scope for polarisation between
communities, hounding, hate, vengeance and violence? ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|