Mr. Modi and Mr.Monroe

I never thought that I would write any thing even remotely favoring Narendra Modi, so this comes as a surprise. But the thought of the current US administration preaching human rights to any one is horrifying. In fact Narendra Modi, who displayed a very studied restraint in the after math of the Gujarat bomb blasts, recently comes through as a statesman in comparison. And the whole episode really goes onto prove that might is right in international relations.

Of course there is little doubt of Narendra Modi’s explicit and implicit involvement in the Gujarat riots, but the tough act to swallow was the moral grand standing by the Bush administration, which to protect its view of the way in which the world should function happily trampled upon the rights of several sovereign countries and governments without thinking twice.

The thing with the American law by whose provisions of course Bush is abiding is Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that confers discretionary powers on the administration and using that provision, the administration is trying to legistalate for the world at large a morality which the administration itself does not follow.

The Bush administration has long tried to pass off its own transgressions and trespasses under religious and patriotic cloaks. Way back in 2002, Bush said to West Point graduates and future US Army Commanders that “We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name,” A little further down the road, chronologically, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister in 2003 said to the BBC: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.”

Of course Bush is not the first American president to promote American interests through any means possible. For that, we can back to 1823, when president James Monroe outlined a pillar of American government policy- that the American continents(north and south) was the exclusive playing field of the United States and no other country’s involvement and interference would be tolerated. The influence of the doctrine was first seen in Latin America and subsequently post World War II, through out the world. The US State Department web site clearly describes this pivotal doctrine of American foreign policy and says that it “provided precedent and support for U.S. expansion on the American continent. In the late 1800s, U.S. economic and military power enabled it to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine's greatest extension came with Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary, which inverted the original meaning of the doctrine and came to justify unilateral U.S. intervention in Latin America.”

The initial application of the Monroe doctrine was of course territorial but over time, it today connotes now just American territorial hegemony but the hegemony of the American way of life and their ideology. And so democracy human rights, religious liberty and other facets of American life are imposed on the world. Not that these things are necessarily unimportant but the manner in which these virtues have been introduced and imposed in the world often give offence and give off a whiff of arrogance.As Mr. Modi is discovering to his chagrin unfortunately.

A Colonial Democracy

Reading about the reports about the Gujjar agitation and the fact that apparently the Rajasthan government is seeking out alternate Gujjar leadership, I wonder some times about the nature of our democracy. Democracy is meant to be an inclusive process, listening to different and even divergent voices and then arrive at a decision that, even if it does not please every body, at last is accepted by every body. This listening, consulting, decision making process is what is meant to separate out democracy supposedly as the most superior of governance mechanisms. But is democracy working? And if it is, then why are so many people angry?

Reflecting on how the State handles dissent today, not much of a difference is discernible between the Colonial times and now. The first response when any voice of dissent is heard is to repress it and crush it; hoping that the uncomfortable voices will eventually die out. Of course many do…. Many voices die down. But some don’t and in fact over some times, some voices get amplified. Then when things go out of control, you get people over for talks.

That looks very much like the cat and mouse game that Mahatma Gandhi and the British used to play. Gandhiji would launch one agitation or the other, he and his associates would be promptly packed off to jail, there would be a public outcry and then once a certain line was crossed, Gandhiji would be called for talks. More often than not, the talks would break down, after a while another agitation would be launched and then the whole cycle would repeat itself all over again.

Sixty years and more after independence, what is the difference? Be it the Maoists or the Naxalites, the numerous underground outfits of the North East and now the Gujjars, as long as the movement is perceived to be small and inconsequential, the weapon of choice is the jackboot to stamp out the fire. If that doesn’t happen, either because there is a capable leader in the background like Col. Bainsla or strong grassroots support as is the situation with many of the underground groups, then they get called for talks after they have already caused a lot of mayhem.

In contrast, look at the khadi clad Medha Patkar and her Narmada activists or the Telengana activists who are pursuing their goals through peaceful means. No body gives a damn about them and the speeches that they make for they do not yet block traffic, stop trains and damage public property. So in the eyes of the State they and their cause can rot to high heaven.

We pride ourselves on being the world’s largest democracy and that is fine. We do hold elections every five years or some times even oftener and these elections do provide an opportunity for governments to be voted in and out and that is a lot more than what many of our neighbors might be able to say though Bhutan and may be even Nepal might be playing catch up.

But the nagging question before is: what eventually is the essence of democracy? The process of holding elections alone or also the (implicit) commitment that one man one vote is more than a slip of paper or a punch on the electronic voting machine – one man one vote equates into one man- one voice too. That each individual and his or her voice counts- that democracy is not synonymous with majoritarianism,- that the one with the largest demography may get to rule – but they rule in a spirit of bi partisanship on key issues by forging , maintaining and sustaining consensus through listening, accommodation and inclusion. Unfortunately we have not got there in the last sixty years …. May be, we will be there in the next sixty years.