Democracy seems to be a troubling word in today’s lexicon. The citizenry in most states wants to go far right, for it is a more linear autocratic path without too many complicated choices.
In this regard, the Conference on the Future of Indian Democracy (CFID), South Asia Institute (SAI), Heidelberg University extrapolated different aspects and choices of a true democratic structure and also the lapses within.
The debate on Indian democracy took a sharp note with a former member of parliament and cabinet minister bringing out the Union government’s stand on rights, the way it projected itself as the righteous way, reigning in democracy rather than expanding it. A major point was the North-South divide that can happen with a rich South and a struggling North and the feelings of inequity. The idea of dissent too was discussed through the seminar as being choked off along with the erosion of values and institutions. Even the so-called win by the parties showed a dubious vote share.
Where did India go wrong? It initially had a white canvas where dissent was allowed and then not at all. A single mandate and a single authority follow dangerously close to having a single leader.
Harsh Mander having personally faced this time and time again brought the richness and the contrariness of his own examples and of thousands of immigrants marching home in the sudden lockdown of the COVID-19 period with hardly any food, shelter, or transport. A pitiable situation not seeming to concern the powers that be that seemed to be ensconced in their own world.
The state of Indian media seemed to show a similar manifestation of the press becoming 180th (Seema Chishti) in the freedom index. India, a flowering democracy, had a varying independent press looked on by admiration by other nations as having diverse reportage. In the last decade, it has really come down as a mouthpiece for the government in power, not at all a healthy sign for a pillar of democracy.
The marginalisation of Indian Muslims was another point brought out in the seminar, a fact representing it well was Christoph Jaffrelot’s erudite explanation as a multi-faceted process. According to him, Muslims in India are not well represented. There are only 25% Muslims in the IPS, IAS representation at the best of times, not many, and zero representation in the Lok Sabha, another pillar of democracy. Indian Muslims by no imagination are pampered as they are made out to be and by no means do they feel appeased. Socio-economic conditions do not show that even in their education ratio.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
Assam’s political history was mirrored in the recolonisation of Assam, its people and the Ahom dynasty. But of course, the women did not have too much of a say. But the citizenship issue which has emerged recently was represented by a young human rights lawyer who brought up issues pertinent to women, for example, them not being counted whereas the whole family is. Also, a man working in the Army having a recommendation letter from a former President of India, Abdul Kalam and even then, about his services not being counted as being a citizen. The moving criteria was heart-rending as people committed suicide, became depressed with many more problems in a nation they thought was theirs. And they had made their own.
A point well made, but not pushed forth, unfortunately, was a very important aspect of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and what it is and what is its actual role. The inference being that we will all then know how powerful it is and invasively enter into fields which it never did in the past.
Secularism is spoken of as mostly prevalent in the first Republic (1950-2015). Democracy may now be recaptured but not in the same way and not back to the first Republic. There has to be a reclaiming of that kind of Republic but with caste and class and gender in the frame.
To make successful the former agenda, there needs to be a revival and reunification of the Congress Party as even an opposition party but of substance if not of ruling. To even regain and maintain a large coalition is a must. Recovery of our cultural resources and a window to Swadharma (a person’s righteous duty) will help (Yogendra Yadav).
More papers on a counter-thesis on Hindu-Muslim relations opened ones’ eyes to the distortion in relations within India and Muslims known as terrorists the world over too. The basic question being why is not any other religion known as that.
In competitive authoritarianism and India’s civil society, the graph shows quite clearly the nexus between various parties and organisations and which organisations in India have been shut down because of government perceptions nor given funding on terms of their own. With no accountability from the government’s side. This is truly a biased way of operating.
The erosion of the independence of the judiciary and the Election Commission – that reforms were needed was discussed by someone very much personally touched by the judicial system in India in truly a negative way (Prashant Bhushan) and yet there was a hope that reform will take place. A constant friction was maybe a good way to keep the problem in the limelight and make the judiciary more accountable. This actually happened in the electoral bonds scandal and the quid-pro-quo it established between the judiciary and the political class was an interesting case. It finally exemplified the dirty politics in the system taking six years for the judiciary to take a stand on. Even though it showed apathy and a black mark on the judicial system which one fervently hopes will be obliterated.
Definitely, an important aspect of the dialogic interaction dovetailed to India-German relations. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) member of the Bundestag Dr Thorsten Rudolph too talked of 1) improving foreign investment, 2) including climate change as an important aspect 3) reformulating security architecture in South Asia. These would of course be linked to democratic structures and practices.
Christian Wagner spoke of close relations between Germany and India and since he has mostly worked on this aspect it is but to be expected that he would want a closer relationship in both trade and economy, and defence and security. He has always reiterated that bilateral relations were important but now even more placed emphasis on multilateral relations as the Indo-Pacific question took even more centre stage.
In the light of serious war situations in the international sphere for example Ukraine and Gaza, a more dynamic (response) strategy needs to be better crafted by India. India and Germany being part of many international associations need to interact both more bilaterally and multilaterally in order to achieve higher ideals of peace and security.
In essence, democracy is the superstructure within which nations can make policies of legislating, executing, adjudicating, to have a sense of inclusiveness of public citizenry to achieve equality.
Of course, there are many definitions of democracy but one that focuses on participation are Carole Pateman’s Participation and Democratic Theory (1970) and the Sexual Contract (1988). The first emphasises the value of participation in democracy, which has been taken seriously, but on the other hand feminist theory even now has not.
In conclusion, the Conference on the Future of Indian Democracy (CFID) programme at South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University, through an engaging post-mortem was a step forward for introspection of values, interests, and forging ahead.
Veena Ravikumar is a strategic and political affairs commentator, and former faculty at Lady Shri Ram College for Women of the University of Delhi.
