Quo vadis....?

So ends the great Indian tamasha. Or maybe it hasn’t; one can really never be sure. But if there’s one thing that one can be sure of, it is this that there is no depth in Hades that can be surpassed, no threshold in Hell that can be bettered by our political class.

We are wont to claim that we are the world’s biggest democracy, and that this alone should be cause to welcome us with open arms into the corridors of global power. But the fact remains that irrespective of our size as a democratic system, it still remains suspect as to whether we have truly comprehended the full import of the responsibilities that being a democracy entails.

Democracy is a word (pardon my lesson on linguistics J) formed from the Greek word for popular government ‘dimokratia’, itself derived from the words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratos’ (rule). It is therefore expected that the will of the people would be considered sacrosanct by a democratic system. So where lies the will of the people?

One must admit that the quality of the debate in Parliament has significantly improved, considering that for the first time in independent India’s history a government was being questioned on a matter of foreign policy. It’s true that this matter had greater domestic implications, but essentially the objections to the policy decision were mainly on concerns of sovereignty, surely not a domestic concern.

The nuclear deal is the need of the hour, if not in its form, but at least in spirit and essence. India cannot meet the growing energy requirements of a progressing populace with conventional and non-nuclear non-conventional sources of energy. The conventional sources are too polluting and given the concerns on global warming, we would be better off trying to reduce our reliance on such sources. The non-nuclear non-conventional sources of energy (wind, tidal, solar, hydro) are too expensive and too untested to deliver the concrete results that we need.

The opponents of the deal have stated that this deal would make us beholden to a certain foreign power and to its ‘undesirable’ influence. What they seem to have failed to comprehend, or at least wish not to comprehend, is that the due process being followed to go through with the deal would enable us to get the nuclear technology and fuel from all the current members of the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group), and not just from one or two selected members. And then again, those who accuse the government of selling out to a particular power are themselves ‘guilty’, by their own standards, of having ‘sold out’ the nation to the very same power. A case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps?

The government now has 9 months to get the deal through. Its task wouldn’t be any easier, what with its motley team of allies, all of whom are as temperamental as a baby with a soiled diaper. History will show us whether this vote was just; posterity will judge us for our commitment to our principles.

Vive Le Republic!

Two years ago, this blog covered the crisis then occurring in Nepal, wherein the pro-democracy activists were pitted against the incumbent monarch, King Gyanendra. Then, one had mused that if the ‘good’ King weren’t careful, his people would gladly throw him overboard for his Machiavellian ways.

And now, one cannot help the temptation of saying, “I told you so”. To be fair, any person with a basic knowledge of history and politics would have been able to predict that this would be the way things would turn out. So, no credit to me alone for having ‘predicted’ this event.

Nepal now stands on the threshold of a new age. One hopes that the future is more calm and peaceful for the Himalayan state, considering that it’s people have suffered so much over the past decades, nay centuries, owing to the intransigence of a few autocratic tyrants. That the Maoists, people who most other people would say are most amenable to overthrowing governments and ruling like dictators themselves, are now part of the democratic process is encouraging.

The challenge before Nepal now is to let go of the past, of its bigoted traditions and rituals, of a civil code that was meant to repress the significant majority of the people, and to forge ahead into a future more agreeable to everyone. The discontent that fuelled the Maoists’ power needs to be addressed, and alleviated.

It would not do anyone any credit if the new regime fails the people just as miserably as the old one. Let us not forget that even after the French Revolution, the nouveau regime got barely 15 years when the people began clamouring for a renewal of the monarchy, leading to the First French Empire. Nepal cannot afford to slip into this state of affairs, because unlike in the 17th century, when times were slow and somewhat relaxed, now the world is more fast-paced, and any internal turmoil would result in unforgivable delays in the modernization of the Nepalese nation.

So one prays and hopes that the Nepalese people would not let this opportunity for change go unutilized. They cannot afford to.

Aprés moi, le deluge.....(or is it...?)

We, the People...

When one speaks of ‘democracy’, one means ‘rule of the people’. How beautiful this concept sounds! For it implies that unlike in monarchies or plutocracies, the power to change or influence the course of history, of their own destiny, lies not in the hands of one singular person or a group of individuals, but in the hands of the people who live this destiny. Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people” not only binds a democracy to the people but also implores the people to adhere to the values of democracy.

But then Acton has said “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Has this come to be true in India, a nation that prides itself on its ‘democratic’ traditions? Has our democracy lost its vitality, its zeal to work for the better of the people? And in truth, have the people of India lost their enthusiasm for democracy, for its institutions and for its mechanisms?

Two incidents stand out of the plethora of news flooding the television screen, incidents which serve to remind us that no matter how much we may tom-tom our democratic values, we remain a nation which has perhaps never really comprehended the true meaning of what it means to be a democracy. Two incidents, which may not seem out of the ordinary, and that they aren’t so isn’t a matter of pride or an excuse for their occurrence, but all the more reason for us to ponder over where we are headed as a nation.

At Bhagalpur, two policemen assaulted and dragged a criminal from a motorcycle till such time that he should become unconscious. And this was all done at the prodding of the crowd. That this occurred in a state notorious with the law being broken is no justification; that this occurred at the hands of the police, an institution already demonised as an unruly arm of the State, isn’t any defence. What is shocking, perhaps even more so, is that the people stood watching, encouraging the officials concerned to perform their dastardly act a little longer.

At Agra, famed city of love, an angry mob torched vehicles and brought the entire city to a standstill, all supposedly in the act of grieving for four young men killed by an errant truck-driver. And when the police went in to try and control the mob, the mass turned on them and proceeded to show them just who’s the ‘boss’.

Both incidents serve to illustrate that the people have perhaps lost their faith in the ability of the democracy that we have come to take for granted to deliver justice to them. They have decided that if justice will not come to them of its own, they will force it to come, but ‘justice’ will be done.

The two policemen have been suspended, which is a positive sign implying that no breach of the law will be permitted, especially by those entrusted with the responsibility of protecting it, but what about the mob? We are well aware that whenever we have the State committing atrocities, we have exact details on who did what. But when it comes to the masses, why is it that we choose to hide behind the illusion of the ‘faceless’ crowd?

That these incidents are but a mere footnote in our history is no reason not to wake up and smell the coffee. It is time that we decided the course of this nation, of how we will allow this nation to progress here on. And in this, we find ourselves bearing a most onerous responsibility. It will not be easy; it will certainly not be fast. But one thing’s for sure: the rule of the people must not be permitted to deteriorate into the rule of the jungle.

The will of the people....?

How does one determine the will of the people? I mean, when a legislature states with impunity that it represents the will of the people in a matter that clearly divides the people along ideological lines, can it really be taken at its word?

It is paradoxical at most to state that one represents or is capable of aggregating the will of the people. This flies in the face of the fact that the will of only a sub-section of the people are consulted, and only their views and opinions accorded the respect and attention that should have ideally been accorded to the people as a whole.

India is not a direct democracy. By definition, a direct democracy is one wherein citizens or the demos vote on all major policy decisions. In contrast, India's representative democracy does not empower the people to such an extent. I quote Wikipedia as follows:

A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people, to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.

Essentially, this would mean that although the representatives are elected to represent the people, they are sufficiently empowered to determine on their own as to what constitutes public interest. It is not necessary, but is generally and ideally expected, that such a judgment would approximately mirror the 'will of the people'. That it may not is a definitely accepted possibility, but that would be one that cannot be repudiated.

The Government, shaken after the Supreme Court stayed the reservation process for the OBC communes on technical grounds, has made an appeal that since Parliament had unanimously affirmed the legislation, it represents the will of the people. A Union Minister has even gone to extent of stating that by staying a process affirmed by the 'will of the people', the judiciary has implied that it is 'against the people'. To state that Parliament is infallible just because it is the sole representative arm of the State is to confer too great prerogatives on it.

Any representative arm is susceptible of the allure of interpreting a situation in light of their own biases and prejudices. This is irrespective of whether this interpretation is true of the general populace's viewpoint about the same.

That such an 'erroneous' interpretation may not be challenged would be a severe infringement on the liberties of the people, as it implies that even if a law be bad, it cannot be revoked simply because the legislature had approved it. Agreed that if a bill's provisos are seen and known to be bad, the people can proclaim that they would not approve of it, but what if the legislature sees such a proclamation as not truly representative of the people and insists on its own legitimacy as the sole guardians of public interest?

The concept of judicial review is based on the idea that the Constitution expresses the true will of the people, while the decisions of any particular legislature represent only the shifting, changeable will of that particular legislature. The will of the legislature may not trump the will of the people, as expressed in the Constitution, and therefore laws which violate the Constitution are void—and the judges are the people who decide whether the a law does go that far.

History is replete with examples wherein despite the presence of representative democracies, some of the most heinous crimes have been permitted to take place against the people, that too with the compliance of the legislature.

While I don't think that the reservation policy is a crime against the people, in its current form, it is still an aberration. It needs reform, reform which the Supreme Court has indicated viz. the basis for the caste populace calculation and the adherence to the creamy layer proviso (which would ideally ensure that only the needy get the benefits). A failure to look into these areas would be a transgression against the people for sure. Whether such a policy then truly represents the will of the people needs to be investigated.

Total Recall

I am reading in the newspaper that the Speaker of the House of the People, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, has expressed his support for the right of the people to recall their representatives in the legislatures. To quote him, “The people who elected him should also have the right to say, ‘I sent you to perform but you have let me down, so come back.’”

With all due respect to him, the idea is a really brilliant, if not original concept. The principle of recall already exists in the United States, as far as my limited knowledge of its politics goes. Indeed, the people should not be expected to be encumbered by the incompetencies of their representatives (sounds more like an insult than an honour, given the quality of these blokes) for five years. Give them the chance to recall the fool, if he/she isn’t performing to their expectations. I do feel that if this idea is implemented, not just on paper, but also in reality, then there will be a huge increase in the accountability that elected representatives will have to bear with respect to their duties towards their constituents.

However, I am cognizant that in our country wherein elections are such an expensive affair, and having them even once in five years is like a burden, expecting the State to bear such a burden once every two or three years is simply not practical. Moreover, the people do have an implicit right of recall; only this right can be invoked only when the next elections for the legislative body concerned come around. Heck, if you aren’t happy with the way the bloke’s worked; don’t elect him the next time, as simple as that.

Again, the fact’s that our populace isn’t as educated as one would like it to be, if such a scheme is to be introduced. When I mean educated, I am not implying an academic education, but a general awareness of one’s rights and responsibilities towards one’s society, and one’s nation. Until such awareness can be perceived, introducing any such scheme, no matter how well-meaning it may be, will be in vain.