HS 309: Random Bakwaas

Going by the set notion of democracy, it is not very difficult to imagine some kind of a political structure wherein a collective conscience of community is at work to address the aspirations of the community. And it is not difficult either to imagine something like a powerful tool through which the shape of the aspirations is doctored to meet the ideology, that is so very not-of-the-community. Not for nothing has it been called the influence of corrupt eloquence over the unintelligent majority, and for all the right reasons, some dub it as the necessary safeguard, against humanity’s inclination towards injustice, in as much capacity for justice as it can.

Some of the very confusing identities that have masked that notion of this form of government are equality, justice, liberty et al and for an incisive clarification, an understanding of the democratic system worldwide, and not just of any particular region, particularly one as diverse as that of the subcontinent, and one as inconsistent as south Asia, where only “few” countries have democracy as the form of government, formal or real notwithstanding, is required. The comparisons to the societies of the States and the United Kingdom are almost as necessary as inevitable. What brings more specificity to Indian democracy is its root in the heavily plural society. The Americans might have well called democracy as the triumph of the fifty one percent over the will of the other forty nine percent, but when we set out to discuss in the purview of the Indian democratic system, the numbers become more and more hazy. It no longer remains just an equation of numbers, but a more meticulously, and inadvertently, charted out concept to bring to fore, a united will of the state, the composition of which is very volatile. At the best, what we can make of the democracy in the southern asia as such is to form specificities, regional or derived from it, to the general democratic theory.

The Republic of India, or if it is democratic republic, for the records, has hardly seen 60 years of free political society. The consistency though has been remarkable, in terms of the persistence with a form of governance that had almost become brittle in the formative years of the Indian nation. With global concern and remarks against democracy, and keeping in mind the then contemporary state of Indian civil society, it deserves more than an effort to keep the faith going in the sub conscience of the people. And this might very well have been the reason behind the Indian elite choosing this form of rule. The form of governance that was initially thought out as the set of principles rather than as a form of governance, has traced an upward path in terms of achieving the principles that it had set out for, but simultaneously has  not been able to distance itself with the material aspect of power relationship. The social structure acquiring a different form and a subsequent meaning, the established dominance -I would not prefer calling it hegemony- of the historically superior caste taking a backseat and the renewed interest in the Hindu unity have been hallmarks of the history of Indian democracy.

Prominent, also, is the improving focus on the regional forces, or rather regional effect over the national political scene. The decline of the congress party has not been an isolated event. The continuum has been complemented by the more than willing response of the masses, and those of the so called lower castes. What this has done is to bring to conspicuousness the role that people actually can play in determining the contours of the democracy. The politics of obedience has gradually transformed into the politics of the people’s call, and thereby has had increasing effect on the policy making of the state. The figment of imagination –As I would not be a master, so I would not be a slave- or the other way round, has become more and more salient in the case of Indian democracy. As opposed to the British system, where the concept of universal suffrage found a late implementation, the success of Indian democracy can be attributed to its almost immediate resort to universal adult suffrage. This has all along ensured, even if only on paper, an equal say of all the sections of the society in the formulation of policies and the welfare towards the people.

Ever since the first of Indian statesmen emerged on the political scene of India, they demanded the equality in terms of representation of the masses. The demand for more representation of the natives in the governing bodies embodies the concept of democracy very strongly within it. The importance of an inclusive democracy was highlighted, and with it was highlighted the fact that the minorities, and I mean the political minorities, needed some voice to raise a concern amongst the higher echelons of governance. To bring about a visible change in the societal order, a section of the society needs to give a tongue to its concerns, and demands, and even to the fact that rights are not things meant to decorate articles or sections in books, but a thing of practice. This pronounces the contestation principle of a democracy. And for a healthy democracy, both these principles assume paramount importance. Contestation had always been the hinge of argument, and still is an important issue that needs to be addressed in the Indian democratic setup. How freely does the political opposition drag the majority, the functioning government into the box, or how freely is the policy making process and the policies that come out as a result scrutinized by the voice of the dissatisfied, the opposition. Important point here, I think should be that scrutiny never implicitly states a total rejection of the policies in favor of self proposed ideals. India heavily boasts of a very old argumentative tradition, something reflected since centuries in the public as well as private sphere of Indian society, and the functioning of the legislature should hinge upon this aspect of debate. The second principle, one of inclusiveness, guarantees a logical and sound inclusion of groups in the democratic institutions and processes. People’s rule does not mean people electing representatives from a group of similar minded people who do not have any body to minutely peruse their way of “leading the people”. The participation of multiple parties in the legislature to some extent vouches for the representation of all “major” factions of a society.

Having talked about the principles that lead towards a “more” successful democracy, we need to talk about the guiding principle of democracy –the proposition that all men are created equal. Whether this equality forms the basis of a better democracy, or whether a successful democracy leads to more of an egalitarian society, the one I mean without social difference between sections of people, is the matter of concern. The aforementioned principles of democracy are largely taking into account the practice of electoral equality, or political equality to be subtler. What this does is that by giving political equality to the socially or perhaps economically unequal society, we tilt the bridge towards a majority which is lower down the societal ladder. Ultimately, the influence of this section of the society, the one in majority, is bound to change the way the society functions, at least in the electoral institutions. What this may not achieve though is the social equality, since the respect amongst fellow men is one thing, this kind of action may not be able to generate. On the contrary, it may quite handsomely end up in an antipathy towards the lower rungs of the society.

Contestation and participation encompass the ideas of acceptance and tolerance. Though a diversely distributed demography marks the landscape of the country, the diversity is such highly localized that the horizontal perspective does not seem to hold any particular relevance in determining the political contours. And here come the pillars of acceptance and tolerance. Whether or not the above two principles are applied with acceptance as the core or a very blunt tolerance, determines the position on the scale of continuum, that democracy is. A continuous variable, democracy can’t just be quantified into values to indicate the success of the system. Stressing upon this fact, I think the role, or perhaps the place of equality in a democratic system assumes a great importance. Whether or not can a system be called undemocratic based on the level of equality it vouchsafes for its citizens is a point in question. Now analyzing the democratic societies that have been in existence, and healthy existence, I mean, or similarly, analyzing the possibility of setting up of democratic institutions that embody the above mentioned principles, we can assert that neither of these is a precursor to the other. Equality does not imply democracy and democracy does not predicate equality. Social and political equality, on one hand and economic equality on the other are determining coefficients of the efficacy of a functioning democracy, and not simply values that debar a system from being called so. As I mentioned earlier, the unavoidable reference to the western democracies, on which our system is very largely based upon, we see that even though the States had a fair number of parties contesting, it became even fairer after the civil rights revolution. In the British Kingdom, even though there was a very vigorous contestation of the participating groups, the participation became even better with the extension of the franchise to all classes. This ensured a progress from the already existing and sound democratic system. On the other hand, assuming equality in the society, there is no democracy without elections. History has witnessed nation states awarding fairness to all sections of its subjects, and still not being democratic. So the assumption that democracy or equality is in some way related to being the other’s cause or following from the other is a flawed one.

So what basically has the Indian system been over the years? Has been successfully pledged equality to its citizens and simultaneously, been efficient in carrying out this pledge? Since we know that there is considerable amount of inequality in the Indian society, social, economic political, whatever, and though the constitution safeguards the right to choose their own representatives, a great majority of the Indians have not been able to find a voice to their concerns. This brings us to the point of discussing the path that Indian system of governance and the composition of the political scene have taken.

I am in no mood to discuss that.

Someone Knows the Reason

Sometimes I cannot understand some things. I know you think it is most of the times. But the problem is that those of you who say so are most of the times ignorant of the fact that it is you who are incapable of doing so, as far as my state of mind is concerned. I will cite some examples. Someone said to me yesterday about her liking for some piece of work, that I did not like somehow. I simply remarked that I knew the reason why. And surprisingly I got a NO back. What the heck? How do you know what did I think? If I say I thought you have a decent level of affection within you for the author, what would you say? Or simply, If I say you like anything that you do not understand, would the answer still be a NO? Perhaps, I should have said that you like those because you tend to locate yourself within the plot so to say, or may be you see the author grossly involved in the plot, writing something that he connects, even if remotely, to you. I think I knew why you liked it because it is very apparent from the writing that it is not new, and not very exotic as such. Tell me why do people in Bengal still flock to Mithun flicks, or Sunny Deol flicks grab considerable eyeballs still in Northern India? How can someone justify people still having fantasies with some typical south indian action film? I do not understand.

So, the reply I got was a very weird one. She said that every such tale brought tears in her eyes, and that the writing was so realistic. Oh my God! I had an unintentional smile on my face. There are two kinds of sweet people. Ones who are actually sweet and the others who are stupid enough to be labeled sweet. I myself have been in the second category few times, but I was freed of all doubts regarding the other person. The only difference was that the adjective should not have been sweet but naive. 

The pity with the world is that most of us find comfort only when we see some mishap having direct or indirect forbearance on our lives. And most of us enjoy this. I do. I like people coming up to me and condoling with me in times of distress. And for that matter, I do not want to come out of it, or present myself as someone who is very carefree, regardless of the fact that he is troubled by a lot many other issues. On the contrary, I find pleasure in forming my own issues and drifting around with that grief stricken and that very not-smiling, serious face of mine. Attention grabbing techniques? Certainly one of those. At this point, I ask for some digression, since attention grabbing techniques have been mentioned. The other day when the professor asked the girl about her notes, I was waving mine. The reaction was simpler. "Vivek, are you trying to send some feelers to her, as if you want her to share notes with you". "I wish I could have succeeded, Ma'am". Smiles all around. I have better techniques I guess.

So, I was talking about some things that I do not understand. I was traveling the other day in the train from Delhi to Guwahati. I saw this slum area near the Guwahati station. The train abruptly stopped outside the station. The area was full of trash, I mean both the people and the surroundings. Trash and people you might say is very radical on my part. Yeah, it is, but I doubt you would have had second thoughts had you witnessed what I did. The setting is not one that typically fits the slum area. This was not anything different but it had a strange atmosphere looming large over the roofs of the huts that were built. The sanitation was at level zero, because I could see people actually using the paths they use to walk for toilets, the drains were nothing but a very shallow channel provided to drain away any water that crept into the locality from the nearby drain, and the broken sewer pipe, to the other half of the same drain. It was disgusting. The place was likely to be a dumping ground for the human waste from all around the city, and the huts were built over the mounds of the waste. The "roads" leading into the area and further into the huts were the ones where the pigs bred. I am not writing anything other that what I actually saw.

The broken telephone booth served as a perfect irony in that weird landscape, a piece of happening and touching photography for one of the fellow travelers. I was appalled. Not only at the sight, but also at the attitude of the fellow traveler. All this this while complaining about the locality and its inhuman condition, he was abusing the people as well, calling them all sorts of weird names, Bangladeshis being one of them. What surprised me was that he blamed the inhabitants for all that was there, overlooking the rehabilitation problems they might have been facing when they shifted here. After all no one sleeps on human waste and a mound of rubbish, beside a dog and a couple of pigs, out of choice.

I am no humanitarian or some activist who aims at pointing out the fact that the government has ignored these people, leave alone doing something. I will write just that I saw. And I hope this evokes as much pity and sympathy as some monotonous, banal piece of fiction does,if not more, and gets instrumental in having people shed a tear or two at the plight of the ones who are not fortunate as we are.

Amidst all this jargon, a sudden violent drama unfolds. The train is still halted, waiting for proper signals may be, or perchance the driver needed some recreation and refused to go any further without it. The event might as well have provided him one. The small man, I thought he was a Nepali, comes shouting out of a shack, with a stick in his hand. He was a short fellow, sturdy, but i thought he could have done well with a little more clothes and some more hair on his head. So, he has this stick, log I dare call it, in his raised hand, and following him come out a pair of boys, small,very small. He starts lashing out at them. They are helpless. The neighbors all come together, not for the help of the boys, but as spectators. And as I would have expected them to form a group at the site and do nothing, they did not. After a moment or two, only the man and the boys were in the picture, again. The man still shaking with anger, shouting abuses at both the children and at his shack. The children wailing, swollen after the treatment. I thought he might have been drunken. And that it might have been a routine for him and the children, the boys.

Someone said it was not a routine work. He might have been disturbed by the daily income troubles, and was frustrated. The other person commented on his wife's unfaithfulness, confidently stating that he understood what the man was rumbling all the time. I do not know. I was stuck on the apathy of the people. Apathy in the sense of total ignorance. They all of a sudden became oblivious of their surroundings, what was happening around them, the man, the boys, the exercise, the train, the thundering sound of the clouds...everything. They did not stop at anything. The Nepali went off with his stick somewhere into the trash. The local boys came around with their football, and started playing. The football hit one of the boys who had taken the beating, and he forgot about everything else. He got up to play. Everything had changed in a while. A woman, disheveled hair, dusky complexion rendered dirty somehow, wiping tears, and trying to cover herself uncomfortably in that sari of hers, comes out of that  shack, goes straight to the boys, hits them hard, pulls them by their ears and drags them back into the hut. The game continues, without the feeling of any interruption. The boys begin their crying again.

The passengers find amusement at this.  Someone clicks at, and records, the sight of the woman's naked breast that kept popping out of the insufficient clothing she had. Some other, sophisticated passengers find this place fitting to dump out all the waste they managed to have collected through out the journey. Some football fans simply wonder at the finesse with which the street boys were playing. Amongst the few others, a couple goes out into the hill and begins asking the locals something in the native language. I was simply staring out of the window, cursing the driver to have stopped at a filthy place like this, with filth all around, and filthy people all around.

And now when the person says about the connection she established with the characters in that imaginary writing, I think about the futility of human life. (Errr.....where am I leading towards....). We relate more to things that we fancy we were a part of rather than being able to put ourselves into the positions of reality. Why do we empathize at the tragedies of some imaginary creations when we have all the misery in the world to be a part of, to be a spectator to, and to be a cause of as well.  Why do we find pleasure to imagine ordeals when we have live accounts of such, imprinted on the canvas that we behold every moment? I know not.

This is simply one of the things that I do not understand.