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.

Shaheed Bhagat Sngh .... The Terrorist

Later this year the nation will celebrate the birth centenary of Sardar Bhagat Singh and as a curtain raise, the revolutionary hero is getting a great deal more attention that he would otherwise get. It is also a good time to study his ideology. But even though, I started off trying to read up about a man of who I had read about only in history books, I ended up admiring the man. I am learning to admire Bhagat Singh not necessarily for his ideological convictions which I do not agree with but for the sheer amount of content that hi short life of only 23 years produced. Bhagat Singh, born in 1907 was hanged on March 23^rd, 1931 having avenged the lathi charge on his hero ands mentor, Lala Lajpat Rai who died shortly after the lathi charge.

Bollywood has of course done well to capture the influence his life had through Rang De Basanti as well as through at least 5 other biopics on his life. They might or might not have done him justice. But it is amazing as to how what we would think to be a callow youth developed strong convictions, lived by them and died for them. Bhagat singh was an atheist, considered to be one of the earliest Marxist in India and in line with hi thinking, he renamed the Hindustan Republican Party and called it the Hindustan Socialist Revolutionary Party. Bhagat Finally, awaiting his own execution for the murder of Saunders, Bhagat Singh at the young age of 24 studied Marxism thoroughly and wrote a profound pamphlet “Why I am an Atheist. ” which is an ideological statement in itself.

The circumstances of his death and execution are worth recounting. Although, Bhagat Singh had assassinated Saunders, the Assistant Superintendent of Police at Lahore as a means of avenging Lala Lajpat Rai’s death, he was not arrested then. It was later, when he along with his co patriots threw a bomb in Delhi’s Central Legislative Assembly, that he was captured though escape could have been possible as he wanted to embrace martyrdom. Consequent to that, once sentenced to death, he made no further appeals to the higher courts or the Privy Council in the House of Lords.

There is some controversy about the role of Mahatma Gandhi in the attempts that were otherwise made to save him from the gallows. The Gandhi – Irwin talks were going on at the time and it was felt that a word from Gandhi could have made a difference. Other leaders like Motilal Nehru made public appeals , but it seems that Gandhiji kept away , ostensibly because he believed in non violence but according to some historians, because he perceived Bhagat Singh to be a threat like Netaji to his own stranglehold over the Nationalist movement.

As I said in the beginning, I set out to debate it out whether Bhagat Singh was an terrorist or a freedom fighter but like the actors in Aamir Khan’s Rang De Basanti who are happy go lucky folks whose lives are transformed as they read about the characters they play, I find myself challenged. When we all see and read about are Vikas Yadav , Anand Jon , Amardeep Singh Gill, and the many politically active Bahu Balis of Uttar Pradesh is it really possible that a man like Bhagat Singh achieved all that he did and left behind a lasting revolutionary legacy that lasts till this day and all that in a short span of 24 years? Well may be Bhagat singh was a terrorist and may be he wasn’t. But he surely lived a full life in the short span of time he was alive. And that by itself is no mean thing!