No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 – after 1939) on Voltaire

If Sagarika Ghose will ever be remembered, it is likely for her coinage of the term Internet Hindu. In no time, this moniker was adopted by those journalists & commentators who had been finding it more and more difficult to counter opinions, queries and comments posed by people who seemed to be educated, well off, passionate of their beliefs and impatient of what they saw as a duplicitous and insensitive approach of the Government and chattering classes to their concern. With a pejorative for those, who could otherwise not be castigated as Fascists or Nazis, the commentators now had a ready term of reference to all those who dared questioning them on matters of Nationalism and Secularism (the way it is practiced in India)

One might argue that a moniker is not pejorative by default. Certainly - but only when it is adopted by the concerned Group/Individual itself. If awarded by others, particularly those who stand at the opposite spectrum, monikers are by default, pejorative. There is nothing endearing about the terms knickerwallah, behenji types, babalog or faggot; the same holds true for the term Internet Hindu.

But why this disdain for such people? After all, it is the same ilk of intellectuals who proclaim their right to speak the unpalatable ‘truth’. Truth may be as they see it, but for others having a different frame of reference, that ‘truth’ may be very different. So, why do otherwise civilized people practice this apartheid and untouchability to those who hold diverse views? Why do those, who believe that they have the special right to question, to comment and to sermonize, react with visceral hatred towards those who dare question and comment on them?

An easy explanation would be - mere intellectual snobbery. Since people who question and opine do not belong to the hallowed privileged circles to which the questioned belong, outrage is the natural expression of the latter who feel trespassed upon! Result is invectives galore! A question may arise on how can people gain access to these circles of privilege? Not easy certainly; for birth, upbringing and schooling, which provides one with reference-able connections is a must. The other requirement is mirroring of articulated opinions. If it seems too far fetched, a cursory look at the process by which Ramchandra Guha was anointed with celebrity-hood should put Doubting Thomas’s to rest. Guha is today recognized as amongst the front ranking modern historians and a leading intellectual of our times. Hence, to no surprise, the ubiquitous Mr Guha can be found holding forth on a variety of topics, both in the print and visual media and seminars of all sorts, where he is introduced as a leading historian.

Nothing wrong in that. Mr Guha has indeed written a well received book ‘India After Gandhi’ (Ref Reviews). Quite a turn from being an unknown scholar of Cricket and someone whose formidable aunt Dharma Kumar, had apparently despaired of (Ref: Foreword - Civil Lines). However, Mr Guha is not a trained Historian. He graduated from St. Stephen's College with a BA degree in Economics in 1977 and completed a Master's degree from the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. He then enrolled at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (for a Fellowship program (equivalent to a Ph.D) on the social history of forestry in Uttaranchal, focusing on the Chipko movement.

Before I am accused of being cussed in finding issues with an honorific, let me please refer to the instances of SR Goel and Koenraad Elst. These names may not ring familiar to most except for the intelligentsia and a small section of the Internet Hindus. Koenraad Elst is a Belgian who has written extensively on the Hindu Nationalist movement and history of medieval India. Elst graduated in Indology, Sinology and Philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven and went on to obtain a Ph.D. from the same university on Hindu revivalism and Hindu reform movements. Goel graduated in History and was a Persian and Sanskrit Scholar. He leveraged his skills in producing a formidable body of work, quite of lot of which were self published. In spite of their importance to the Nationalist narrative, neither of them is given the honorific of a Historian. The reason offered – ‘They are not history scholars, they did not train under a professional historian, their work is not peer reviewed…’

Certainly they are more qualified than Mr Guha to write on history by virtue of their education and entire  body of work. But being outsiders, they are grudgingly introduced as 'writers' and not 'historians', the way Mr Guha is. Readers are requested to also refer to RISA Lila. This seminal piece by Rajiv Malhotra succinctly explains the power play which defines the academia narrative.

As we can see, reasons get invented to exclude rather than to include. The bogey of Internet Hindu has been raised on account of two reasons. One – those who question do not belong; Two, there is no better way to discredit those who question by attributing motives and demeaning them. The latter serves two purposes, firstly, queries from those who are seen as discredited do not merit a response. Secondly, a pejorative image will deter others from joining this hated group.

The rage of Guhas and Ghoses of the world are difficult to understand. The so-called Internet Hindus are merely expressing those opinions which they believe have been smothered by the mainstream media. Most of these comments choose to challenge and seek answers from those who have cartelized public discourse in our country. True, some of it may be abusive but is internet abuse limited to the Nationalist alone? Pursue any forum and you will find that invectives spout from even those who claim to swear by Indian secularism.

Why then this demonization of the Right? In one of his chapters of his recent book, excerpts of which were published in Outlook, Guha has launched a broadside against whosoever comments on his works in less than flattering a manner. Guha has neatly compartmentalized such reactions as being either being hurt, complaining, angry, paranoid, or abusive. While abusive comments are certainly not welcome, Mr Guha complaints encompasses even those comments which are hurt, complaining, angry or paranoid. Even with regards to abuse, quite a few of the comments which he presents as being abusive are benign when compared to his instant act of branding the 'others' as lesser people. For a person ostensibly belonging to an enlightened tribe where caste does not exist, Mr Guha doesn’t desist from giving a caste to this breed of Internet Hindus. By his definition, they are invariably Upper Caste. Even if this were to be true, how does it de-legitimise their right to offer their opinion on something published/presented for public consumption? If mere caste was a criterion, then our entire independence movement could be dismissed as mere expression of an upper caste upper class angst. While the post 1857 Independence movement till before early twentieth century almost exclusively upper caste, upper class in nature, even the later leaders of this movement generally belonged to the upper crust of society. Not surprisingly, for in any society, movements for change are led by groups which have an accumulated social capital and have a greater access to resources.

The last two decades have seen the space for Nationalist Hindu narrative shrinking. Unlike the 80s and the early 90s, when a host of intellectuals had no qualms in articulating the Rightist ideological thoughts, the last decade in particular has seen a rapid desiccation of such works. The constant demonization and vilification of those who adhere to and articulate a polity at odds with the Nehruvian view of India has resulted in a scenario where the average Nationalist has no option but to recourse to Internet to present his thoughts. Faced with the prospect of battling a disparate leaderless group of people who were confident and analytical enough to question incisively, the likes of Ghose and Guha have resorted to McCarthyism. While Ghose’s fulminations on the tribe of Internet Hindus can only be of limited impact, the intellectual spin given by the likes of Guha are dangerous for they serve to limit our expression to what has been defined as ‘proper’ by the intelligentsia. This intelligentsia has decreed to itself, the right to define, to allege, to judge and to execute. Any uncomfortable question gets declared as abuse and anyone who does not conform, a reactionary.

While consistency was never a strong point for our intelligentsia, they having developed greater confidence in their ability to mould the ‘acceptable’, have jettisoned any pretense of maintaining a ‘balance’ in the narrative.

A column, a book, a quote, an interview – all are meant for public consumption. The general public has a right to like or dislike, accept or reject a viewpoint. How and why are then these two groups treated so differently? Why cannot the commentators accept that both bouquets and brickbats go hand in hand and demonizing those who offer brickbats only, indicates a stunted intellectual growth of the able commentator. A normal and reasonable people would respect the right of others to possess and to articulate contrary opinions. If a significant section of the population feels that the mainstream discourse is not reflective of his/her concerns, why not allow and encourage those forums where they can make themselves heard and in many’s words ‘to vent their spleen’? Did not the British Government act as a mid-wife for the Indian National Congress precisely for the same reason? But no, if Mr Guha and others of his tribe have their way, no such forum is to be provided to anyone who digresses from what has been defined for thought and for speech.

Once, people who disagreed with the Church were declared heretics and burnt on the Cross. With such act snot being possible today, the next best approach of intellectual lynching has been successfully adopted by large sections of our opinion makers. Declare a person a Fascist, a Nazi, a reactionary, a conservative, a fundamentalist, a fanatic and now, an Internet Hindu, and you are now secure from the duty of answering any question, howsoever uncomfortable it might be.

The saga of calumny and vilification of alternate viewpoints by Guha and his ilk hits the very basis of our democracy for the end intent of these acts are to define and control our thoughts. It may be interesting to note that while this intelligentsia has virtually asked for banning of the Internet Hindu from public consciousness, majority of these Internet Hindus have only asked for debates and answers and not a banishment of the Ramchandra Guhas of the world. But do the torch-bearers of this ideology of hate and exclusion realize that? For them, only one commandment matters: No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!

But we are against you…

‘De mortuis nil nisi bonum’ - ”Speak no ill of the dead”

Social niceties across civilizations over the world dictate that any accused be given a chance to defend himself in face of allegations posed by others. Since the dead cannot, for obvious reasons, defend themselves against any stain on their honor, speaking ill of the dead is frowned upon. For many, death is a sort of redeemer and no eyebrows are raised when even the most evil get eulogized in their funeral services.

At the same time, evil that men do outlives them. This holds truer for people in the public eye and even more so, for leaders of men. For such people, neither the general public nor posterity is so kind so as to whitewash their acts of omission and commission. Hence, it is not unusual to find sharp, acrid obituaries for the more known and the lesser liked.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Indian media-persons and commentators strongly believe in honoring the memory of the dead. More often than not, media commentary following timely or untimely death of a known personality unleashes a barrage of features, all with a simple underlining message – that the deceased was next to an angel personified, all the virtues which could possibly be attributed to humans, nay, superhumans, co-existed peacefully within that small earthly frame of the dead and lastly, the void caused by that death would never be fulfilled.

So, even a VP Singh got positive press coverage when he died, a Jyoti Basu became the most non-communist Communist ever and a YSR became the proverbial messiah in their respective deaths.

But surprisingly, or not that much so, these social niceties do not get extended to those who are seen as ploughing the right-of-centre furrow. The obituaries on K Sudarshan remained focused on his run-ins with Vajpayee while those on Bhairon Singh Shekhawat focused on his feud with RSS and with Vasundhara Raje Scindia. Hence, media reactions to Bal Thackeray’s illness and subsequent death did not come as a surprise.

It did not take long for the media’s initial expressions of disdain to change to astonishment when an hitherto unseen number of people paid their humble and heartfelt homage to Thackeray. Soon, we had some commentators sniping on how the numbers could not really compare with the crowds for Gandhi, Nehru et al for Mumbai was much more populated now or that Mumbai closed out of fear rather than respect. These statements are quite amusing when you consider that the English Language Media alongwith the Lokmat Group has consistently maintained for the last decade or so that the Tiger was toothless, that his writ did not run even within Matoshree or simply that he no longer ruled Mumbai.

It took the arrest of a couple of girls under the UPA Government amended IT Act for the media to heave a sigh of relief. For it was now that they could go back to their Thackeray – Sena bashing without guilt. Did not the arrest of the those girls represent the true fascist face of Sena? It is sickening, but the media seems to have missed a couple of points:

·        A formal complaint was lodged by Sena office bearers against the girls under provisions of the newly amended IT Act. These amendments were proposed and passed by the UPA Government to curb dissent. Sena, the BJP or the RSS were not a party to this decision. The Sena office bearers merely took recourse to a clause which the law of our land had provided them

·        The act of arrest and subsequent imprisonment was not Sena’s but of the police and lower judiciary. Since it can be agreed that neither of these wings are immune to political interference, it is UPA which rules Maharashtra. Any culpability should lie on them and not on Sena for the arrests

Now, vandalisation was certainly reprehensible and the guilty should be punished in the strictest possible manner. But, yet again, one is stuck by a contrast – the sympathetic, empathetic tone adopted by these very commentators when a huge Muslim mob rioted, vandalized National icons and destroyed public property for something which had ostensibly happened in Myanmar vis-à-vis the visceral hatred displayed for Sena men who were still emotional following the death of their demi-god only a day back!

It is ironical but the post on account of which the girls suffered was innocuous and factual. It had nothing on Bal Thackeray but on Mumbai’s closing down. Why did the Sena have to react to this post when very clearly, the cyberspace was replete with celebratory posts of ghoulish joy on passing away of this man? Very clearly, the goons who ransacked the clinic of this girl’s uncle did a great disservice to the memory of their departed leader while rendering yeomen service to the anchors who, disturbed with a city remaining calm could now proclaim with glee – ‘Look, we told you so!’

It is sad that the ghastly display of joy at the demise of a human being goes unabated today. Going back a little, history cannot deny that in the days preceding his killing, Gandhi had begun to be seen by large section of the Indian population in general and the Hindu refugees in particular, as the epitome of all what was wrong with the policies of our leaders. As documented in ‘Freedom at Midnight’, refugees and locals alike took out processions condemning Gandhi and chanting ‘Let Gandhi die’ when he was on his last ‘fast unto death’. Yet, the Nation united in grief when he fell to bullets fired by an assassin. The same people who were baying for his blood till the other day, beat their breasts and joined his funeral procession! Thackeray was no Gandhi by any stretch of imagination. But certainly, celebrations on his death could at least be postponed till the embers of his pier had cooled?

But no – we Indians are prone to hyperbole and proliferation of media networks has presented us with a galaxy of hyperventilating commentators who seem to possess a bewildering degree of self righteousness. For them, Thackeray was nothing more than a mass murderer, a Pol Pot, an Indian Fuehrer, a Fascist and a lumpen thug. They of course could care little that the objects of comparison are those who killed millions of innocents in their madness. These commentators have nothing but contempt for the average Maharashtrian who adored Bal Thackeray. They could not, for even a moment comprehend that such adoration could be built only on some sound foundation. They could see the following, they could never see the angst that made them his followers. For his followers and admirers, he was a Nationalist who even when talking of Maharashtrian pride, thought of the country first. He was the one who made it possible for the Kashmiri exiles to get into institute of higher education in Maharashtra. A leader who stood by the acts of his boys on December 6, 1992; a firm believer of one creed, who was resolute in his opposition to the Mandal Commission, one who made a practicing Brahmin the Maharashtra Chief Minister when his entire following comes from Marathas and the OBCs. A man who made it possible for the Mumbai Hindu community to survive in face of vicious rioting by organized Muslim mobs and the underworld.

The average follower of Bal Thackeray is well aware of his limitations, his shortcomings as a leader and why exactly he was not someone who was indeed a Great Maratha. He does not see Bal Thackeray as a modern day Shivaji, a Baji Rao, a Nana Phadanwis or a Lokmanya Tilak. He recognizes Bal Thackeray as a leader who vocalized his angst and the one who, made his survival a little more possible.

But, this capacity to evaluate Bal Thackeray for what he represented as a whole is missing in those who have and are demonizing him. If only they could see that this person from the eyes of those sullen masses who resent this uni-dimensional demonization of their icon!

But how can they, when leading lights of proclaim that ‘…I have *never* sought theoretical balance on issues of secularism (sic) & politics of hate (sic)’

Lessons from America – Part 2; UPA 3?

When the UPA returned to power with an enhanced majority in 2009, very few except for the die-hard optimists in the opposition were surprised. While there certainly were very valid reasons as to why the UPA should have lost those elections, there was no credible reason as to why the BJP should have been returned to the throne of India. The carefully drafted but low key campaign probably did little to infuse the voters’ confidence in the BJP’s promises. So, not only did they vote for the UPA in droves, they punished the BJP such that both the latter’s vote share and seats touched their lowest levels in over 6 General Elections.

Five years back, the BJP believed that voter anger over inflation and internal security would bring it back to power. Today, it believes that voter anger over inflation and corruption would do the needful. Then, the BJP had won state elections in Jharkhand, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Himachal & Gujarat while losing miserably in Uttar Pradesh and the Presidential polls; almost the same state of affairs prevail today. Then, Rajnath Singh was seen as a Sangh appointee fighting the Delhi-4 coterie  while today, Nitin Gadkari is seen a Sangh appointee, fighting his battles with the Delhi-4 + 1.

Well, the BJP lost in 2009. It may very well be on course to losing 2014 too.

The USA too had a spectacle of a President whose performance could be rated mediocre at best and lousy at the worst. Still, the incumbent returned to power on the basis of a sharp campaign and identity based politics. For all the talk about economy being the prime motivator for people, the electorate finally voted on identity and Government doles.

In a democracy the loser is ripped multiple times – first by the voter and then by sundry analysts, who manage to find flaws in every iota of the loser's existence - his dress, his speech, what he said, what he did not say and so on. Though harsh on the loser, there is hardly any alternative to such analysis for those who wish to don the role of challengers in the next elections. So, it would do well for the BJP to analyse the 2012 US Presidential polls for its course correction.

• The GOP was cautious in its approach. Believing that the elections are ripe for picking, it kept its campaign focus on economy and was careful to avoid any reference to anything which could potentially turn off independent voters. It succeeded in a way for it managed to attract a majority of the independent voters. However, overall it failed because it allowed the Democrats to set the agenda for elections. There would hardly be any election where the party which has failed to set an agenda won. Be it the 2004 or 2008 US polls or our very own General elections right from 1952. True, 2004 for us was an aberration but that is what it was. BJP seems to have forgotten that its election victories in the 1990s were not won in television studios and cameo street demonstrations – those were the results of carefully crafted, long drawn mass connect and education programs. In each of those elections, the BJP attacked and presented an alternate vision, forcing other parties to react. Where is that BJP now?

• The GOP discounted the forces of identity. Believing that the core group of Obama voters would no longer be as excited as they were in 2008, the GOP calculated that its outreach would be sufficient fto seal a victory. But wrong they were. Similarly, egged on by many, most outside but some within, the BJP seems to have started believing that the average Muslim will not vote for the UPA in an emphatic manner and because no consequent anti BJP consolidation will happen, BJP will sail to victory basis its core and some additional votes. Well, if 2012 UP assembly election results have not been sufficient to disprove this theory, then nothing will. For good or for bad, Muslims will not vote for the BJP in any scenario and in any General Election, they will vote for Congress lest BJP comes to power. The average Muslim may be disillusioned with Congress and may really want to vote for any of the Muslim League clones. But, he is also wise enough to know that till these clones develop into an agenda defining force, he will have to make good with the second best, which happen to be the Congress and its allies

• The GOP discounted the importance of voter mobilisation. In words of a Republican campaign strategist; “…the droves who came to vote for Obama, we did not even know that many of them existed” What use is of latent voter sentiment if it does not get translated into electoral votes on polling day? The BJP may believe that it represents the emotions and reasons of a vast upper class, middle class, upper caste, OBC, tribal constituency but if it cannot get this constituency to come out and vote on the polling day, the day will be carried by groups who vote in numbers disproportionate to their share of population. Let us do a quick calculation. Some 80% of the Indian population is supposedly Hindu. Assuming that the same percentage applies to its electorate too, we have around 80% Hindu electorate. Say, 50% of the Hindu electorate votes in an election. But, 80% of the minority electorate casts their votes. Aggregated, we have a 56% voting of which Hindu vote is around 71%. To reach the critical 35% vote share required to win elections in a first past the post electoral system, the BJP has to win over 50% of this Hindu vote while the Congress needs to win only around 15% of such votes. So, who loses if the ostensible constituency does not vote?

• Media will report as per its own agenda. The GOP is not oblivious of the importance of media and unlike the BJP, has its own media and propaganda networks. At the same time, the liberal elites dominate the print and visual media and the latter in particular, has an impact which is difficult to beat. With this media supporting Obama and caricaturing GOP and Romney, the latter suffered a significant disadvantage in reporting. Unfortunately, in India, the odds against the BJP are stacked even higher, as far as media perceptions are concerned. Rather than sending lambs for slaughter in the meaningless television studio wars, the BJP could do good to boycott them altogether. After all, what is the point in trying to present your case to an anchor who is the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner!

• Focus on Battlegrounds: It may have been the need to raise funds or simply an attempt to placate the faithful, the fact remains that Romney spent too much of time campaigning in states which were solidly Republican. Given that the outcome was decided by some ten and not all the fifty two stats of the USA, gives credence to belief that Obama benefited from his laser like focus on the battleground states; so much so that while the National difference in vote share for the two candidates was less than 2%, in all but one of the swing states, Obama romped home by anything in between 3% to over 5% of the popular vote. This means that even if GOP had made up for the Nation-wide vote share deficit, Obama would still have been re-elected. Same way in India, BJP by itself is present in some 380 odd constituencies and is strong enough to pose a fight in some 280-300 seats. Of these, some 60 - 70 would fall under, what may be called safe seats while a similar number would comprise of those which would be very tough to win. Ideally, the unwavering focus for the party should be on the balance 180 or so seats, so that it can realistically aim at reaching an individual seat tally of 180-190.

• Personalised attacks do make a difference. The Democrats ran a campaign which was probably amongst the ugliest in the US history. Even before the Republican nomination was sealed, the Democrat machinery unleashed a shrill attack on Romney painting him as an out of touch plutocrat. While there certainly was some sniping on Obama from the GOP fringes, the mainstream Republicans did not target Obama on issues other than performance. On the other hand, Obama himself took the lead in deriding Romney, taking names, poking fun and being generally nasty. It did work! In India too, any successful campaign has been built around personalities, either for or against. BJP itself successfully painted Sonia as a foreigner in the General Elections of the 1990s but turned coy later. Even now, only claiming that the UPA is corrupt will not provide it with any benefits till the time this corruption is given a face. Obama’s ratings started looking up post a dip only after he adopted an aggressive stance against Romney. The BJP could do well to shed its diffidence and a hands-off policy against the Nehru-Gandhis and take its battle to the enemy camp.

It is difficult to conceive that the individually brilliant BJP strategists would be unaware of the pitfalls of the party’s current approach. Then why is it that they have failed to present themselves as a credible alternative to the Congress? Surely, individual ambitions cannot be so high so as to blind them to the fallacies of only acting like an opposition, that too on an intermittent basis? But since there is little evidence to the contrary, we need to go with what appearances suggest. Thence, welcome UPA 3.

Lessons from America – Part 1; Has the US democracy gone Indian?

Jiski Jitni Sankhya Bhari, uski utni hissedari!

A couple of decades ago, when a fledgling Bahujan Samaj Party, under the leadership of the irascible Kanshi Ram popularized the above slogan, the establishment was shocked with its crudity. While the idiom could not be truer than in a democracy, i.e., a group should command political power in proportion to its strength, the brazen truth of demography dictating democracy was a little tough for the genteel soul to digest.

Much water having flown down the Ganga over these years, barely anyone in India, sophisticated pollsters included, even feigns to deny the criticality of group based voting predisposition amongst the electorate.

However, the optimist believes that we are still an evolving democracy and with voter maturity, we will purge ourselves of evils plaguing us. Believes the optimist - soon there will be a day when the voter votes not on basis of his/her caste, gender, religion or language but only on the basis of quality of the candidate and the agenda offered. Only, this sounds somewhat like a Godman painting a picture of the Promised Land to the faithful. And like what most Godmen promise, such visions could be nothing more than mere pipedreams!

The USA is one of the world’s oldest and arguably amongst the most evolved democracy, with even the candidates being chosen by the people before they appear on the ballot! However, an analysis of the voting patterns in the recent Presidential polls give much reason to suspect if the average American is any different from an average Indian, as far as voting proclivities are concerned.

There has been lot of celebrations around the belief that Obama managed to build a rainbow coalition of the minorities which propelled him to power. Even more has been made of the belief that the GOP represents a fossilized world view and has lost confidence of those who will dominate the US of tomorrow. Many headlines have been devoted on how Obama won support of the Hispanics, the Blacks, the Asians, the LGBT, the young and the women. This assertion is a little problematic for the last three are umbrella categories and encompass the first three ethnic groups. But let us have a look at the data before arriving at any conclusion:

Voter Group Obama Romney

Male 45% 53%

Female 55% 44%

White 39% 59%

Blacks 93% 06%

Latinos 71% 27%

Asians 73% 26%

White Men 35% 62%

White Women 42% 56%

Black Men 87% 11%

Black Women 96% 03%

Latino Men 65% 33%

Latino Women 76% 23%

Young White Voters 44% 51%

Young Black Voters 91% 08%

Young Latino Voters 74% 23%

One can wonder as to why has the White voter been condemned for his inclination to vote for the GOP while his Black counterpart spared even though the latter has displayed its bias in much stronger terms?

Again, the GOP has been condemned for its inability to attract Latinos. However, is it really in the National interest of the US to host illegal immigrants make it both easy and lucrative for them to get their ilk in the country? Why should the American citizen of Hispanic origin have any sympathy with aliens who have slipped in the US surreptitiously and have no legal right on the country? We can only imagine the outcome of a situation where Muslims vote for those who promise regularization of Bangladeshis, residing illegally in our country. We saw a trailer of the outcome of such feelings only a couple of months back and certainly have no appetite to sit through the entire spectacle

The moot point from the US elections is that identity based politics and voter management have given the mandate in favor of a man who may not necessarily represent the majority opinion or at least the opinion of the dominant ethnic group of the country. In a country which is still predominantly white, the given race based voting percentages would normally have meant a majority or a near majority for the Romney, basis the white votes alone. However, given tat the minorities seem to have voted in numbers disproportionate to their share in population, Obama’s vote share is significantly higher than what it would have been in a situation where group voting patterns would have been representative of their respective populations.

How much different is Obama’s victory then, when compared to victories of many parties in Indian elections? Like here, in US too, flocks voted for Obama basis his race, his background, his party, his likeability and because one of their idols campaigned for him, performance or the lack of it was a secondary concern! A pointer, unemployment amongst the Blacks never dipped below 10%. It did nothing to allay their love for the incumbent. This is not to say that the GOP offered a great alternative of that Obama was not a deserving candidate at all. The only point to be noted is that the race of the voter seemed to have played the deciding role on which of these two candidates was voted for, in a country which is supposedly a much more evolved democracy that India is.

So, the late Kanshi Ram was right yet again though in a convoluted way. Jitni jiski sankhya bhari….

Do we deserve our rulers?

Once upon a time, there was a king who ruled over a small kingdom somewhere in India. Like many other rulers, he spent his time enjoying the good things in life, with his ministers and officials managing the affairs of his kingdom. One night, he dreamt of a majestic, resplendent deity who thundered – “O King. Anarchy reigns on your kingdom. Go and mingle with your people to find out for yourself the extent of their misery. If you don’t mend your ways, I, your kuldevi, shall destroy you and your family”

The king woke up, very much disturbed and a little scared. He decided to move around his capital incognito. Without fail, he noticed the traders trying to overcharge, the buyers trying to steal and his officials extort. The next day, early morning, he moved further to the outskirts of his capital and saw an old man cleaning thorns and broken glass from his door. Unfortunately, a thorn pricked the poor man’s foot and he fell down crying. Curiously, as he picked the thorn out, he cursed – “The way this thorn has pricked my foot, let a lance pierce the king's heart”. Offended, the king berated the old man stating ‘You fool. You put your foot on the thorn on account of your falling sight and lack of attention. What has your king to do with it that you curse him thus? The old man replied – “Sire. Law and order is absent in this kingdom. We all live in such fear of robbers that while we have buried all our valuables, to save our lives, we spend our nights in the jungle, after securing our houses by spreading thorns, glass outside the entrances. Each morning, we come back, clean and try to go about our tasks only to repeat the act in the evening. Tell me, if our king had attended to our security, would this thorn have pierced me?”

Failing to provide an answer, the king moved ahead, to find a middle aged woman climbing a tree to pluck some berries. Unfortunately, she slipped and fell down, badly hurt. As she gasped, she cursed – “The way I fell down from the tree, let the king fall off his elephant’s howdah and be crushed under its feet”. Angered the king cried – “You old hag. Your youth has withered but it has not deterred you from youthful activities. You fell down because of your infirmity, not the king.” The woman responded tearfully – “My husband was killed by robbers and I have to sell fruits to sustain myself. I have two young girls and normally would never have had to pluck fruits myself. But worried about them getting picked up, I have to keep them secured in the house, away from eyes of everyone. Had the king upheld law and order, my husband would have been alive and even otherwise, I would not have had to climb trees. So, is not the king responsible for my plight?”

After experiencing more of such snubs, the king realized the folly of his ways and started attending to his kingly duties. Soon thereafter, the situation normalized and the people lived a happy and prosperous life!

This was a story and hence there is a happy ending. More importantly, this tale seeks to link the well being of a people to its very top leadership. And haven’t our scriptures spoken oft about the need for the king to uphold dharma? If the king was righteous, the Gods would be happy, the elements of nature bountiful. It would rain on time, crops would be aplenty, rivers would respect their boundaries, there would be no untimely deaths and so on. If the king would be evil, misery befell his people and the people would themselves adopt to evil ways. Yatha Raja Tatha Praja – As the king, so are his people.

Since the days of kings are no more, one wonders if adages of the old hold true today. Certainly, if we elect our rulers, then is it not that the ruled define the rulers rather than the other way? And if I have continuously elected the corrupt, the dynast, the incompetent as our representatives, then maybe we deserve them. It will be quite funny for a dispassionate observer to see a down and out Jayalalitha winning her next elections or an SP regime, known for lax law and order returning after a stint in the opposition. This peculiar phenomenon of the discredited gaining credibility in cycles is not an Indian phenomenon alone. A Mr 10% of Pakistan rose to become its President while Bangladesh alternates between its two begums, both embroiled in various scams.

So, we are told that if we don’t have qualms to bribe the policeman to let us off hook on the challan or pay some money to the babu to get our files moving, are we not corrupt ourselves? Don’t we then deserve corrupt rulers? We decry any attempt to tinker with the rules but ourselves make a hue and cry to get rules waived if it is for Unmukt Chand or Sachin Tendulkar. We claim to hate murderers but believe that Salman Khan is a National icon. We decry short cuts but Dhirubhai is our role model. My countrymen, don’t we then deserve what we get?

But then again, if the system works well, why would there be any need to pay bribes? If there would be a sufficient fear of the law, would anyone break law with impunity? If law would indeed treat everyone alike, would a son or a son-in-law not hesitate before treating the Nation with contempt? We live in a democracy but the design and costs of our electoral system ensures that we always have to choose between the lesser of two evils, as it appears then. If Jaya had to be punished for her monumental follies, did the Tamil people have any option other than to vote for a thoroughly corrupt DMK? Or, if Left was to be punished, did the Bengali people have any option but to vote for Mamata, even when knowing well that she had little by way of a constructive agenda to offer? More critically, the choices of human beings are always governed by the Recency effect. Exploiting this weakness of the human psyche, it is not difficult for a thoroughly incompetent government to attempt purchasing votes through handing out of copious doles near the election time. In a society where sustenance is the pressing concern, values and larger good of the Nation will by default, be condemned to be relegated to secondary concerns.

Our electoral system needs an overhaul if we have to have a make our representatives accountable to us. We need to evaluate if the American system, where the candidates go through an election process before nomination can be introduced. To reduce the ill effect of vote banks, a two tier election process in which the top 2 vote winners are made to go through a play off election, can be introduced. This would ensure that the local representative can justly claim to be a majority choice and better reflect the concerns of our people. A right to recall those representatives, who fail to meet the people’s aspirations can be introduced. To bring in probity, any candidate for any post, whether nominated or elected, should be made to disclose details of the assets, tax returns and income statement for his entire family and not just for the spouse. 

These steps could of course be ineffectual if not backed by judicial and police reforms. But, a beginning has to be made, if we don’t want to see the rulers continue to rule the way they have ruled us for the last 7 decades.