Scribbling in Dark Times-2
- Subhash Gatade
IV
What is a sine qua non of democracy?
It is the understanding that minority voices will be allowed to flourish and they will not be bulldozed.
At the apparent level majoritarianism - rule by majority - sounds very similar to democracy but it essentially stands democracy on its head. For real democracy to thrive, it is essential that ideas and principles of secularism are at its core. The idea that there will be a clear separation between state and religion and there won't be any discrimination on the basis of religion has to be its guiding principle.
Majoritarianism thus clearly defeats democracy in idea as well as practice.
While democracy's metamorphosis into majoritarianism is a real danger, under rule of capital - especially its present phase of neoliberalism - another lurking danger is its evolution into what can be called as plutocracy - government by the rich.
Recently two interesting books have come out discussing 21 st century capitalism. The one by Thomas Picketty 'Capitalism in the 21 st Century ' - which demonstrates convincingly that the twentieth century exhibited a secular tendency toward continuous and widening inequality - has been received well here also. It discusses increasingly disproportionate concentration of income at the top, and the widening inequality that goes along with it, is integral to the system and a consequence of “the central contradiction of capitalism,” (Capital, 571).Piketty’s core theoretical concept is expressed in the formula ‘r>g’, where ‘r’ represents the return on capital/INVESTMENT, and ‘g’ the rate of growth of the economy.
Much like Piketty's contribution, a major study of democracy in America has also received almost as much attention in the west. It confirms our suspicions that oligarchy has replaced democracy. The authors found that “policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed….
The study “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”.by Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) - which entirely undermine the notion that America is a democracy - and carries wider significance has not received attention here..(http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/02/apolitical-economy-democracy-and-dynasty/)
. “Majority rule” accounts, construed numerically or by any “median voter” criterion, are found to be a “nearly total failure.” Controlling for the preferences of economic elites and business-oriented interest groups, the preferences of the average citizen have a “near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
The preferences of economic elites have “far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.” This does not mean that ordinary citizens never get what they want by way of policy. Sometimes they do, but only when their preferences are the same as those of the economic elite...
“
(http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/02/apolitical-economy-democracy-and-dynasty/)
According to the authors their results are ‘troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy.’ “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose…even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”
In such an unfolding situation, where we are faced with this dangers of democracy metamorphosing into majoritarianism and democracy becoming oligarchy with the highly undemocratic, violent Indian society - which glorifies violence against the oppressed and legitimises, sanctifies inequality in very many ways acting as a backdrop question arises - the same question which Comrade Lenin had asked in a very different context 'What is to be Done' ?
V
Looking back at the earlier experiences of fighting authoritarianism, totalitarianism or fascism, the natural reaction would be to explore the possibility of forming United All India Fascist Front.
While in principle agreeing with the idea that that there should be broader unity among all those forces, formations who are against what can be variously described as 'communal fascism', neoliberal fascism or corporate fascism' etc one sincerely feels that any hurry in this direction would be counterproductive. It should be seen more as a process - which will have to first achieve clarity on challenges/dangers which confront us, get ready for serious self-introspection about what went wrong or what proved inadequate in our practice and then slowly move towards joint actions/co-ordination etc. Any top down approach towards such unity can be mentally soothing for many of us but would not be of much use in addressing the challenge.
There are three four questions around which we need to have a clarity before moving further.
1. How to view the genesis of Hindutva in India ?
As we normally see the idea and politics of Hindutva is understood in the form of religious imaginaries.
For its proponents, it is THE way to correct 'historial wrongs' supposedly committed by 'aggressors' of various hues against 'Hindu Nation' -which according to them has been in existence since times immemorial. It does not need recounting how this strange mix of mythology and history which is fed to the gullible followers unfolds itself before us with dangerous implications.
The dominant antidote to this exclusivist idea, rubbishes the 'us' versus 'them' rationale provided to justify its actions, denies any such continuous strife on the basis of religion amongst people, talks of emergence of composite heritage and the flourishing of many syncretic traditions etc. It is no surprise that the explosive manifestations of communal conflict are presented here as a handiwork of 'few bad apples' within the communities which need to be weeded out or quarantined. A logical consequence of this understanding is that secularism as it is practised here as part of statecraft similarly veers around Sarv Dharm Sambhav (Equal Respect to All Religions) and not to separation of religion from running of the state and society as it is normally understood.
Looking at the fact that the politics of Hindutva has been on ascendance since last two and half decades - despite witnessing temporary setbacks here and there - and the established/standard response to it losing its luster, and the strategies devised to deal with losing their appeal and impact, it is time to look at the phenomenon in a more nuanced way. It is time to move away from standard questions and their pet answers to an arena less probed and investigated. Perhaps it it time to raise questions which were never raised or did not receive the attention they really deserved.
Would it be proper to say that Hindutva is rather an extension of the ongoing Brahminical project of hegemonising and homogenising of Indian society and in fact could be seen as part of Brahminical counterrevolution against the Shudras-Atishudras who had witnessed loosening of the social bondages and restrictions under the twin impact of policies promulgated by the colonial regime coupled with the path breaking movements led by the social revolutionaries.
How does one relate to the emergence of the weltanshauung (world view) of Hindutva with the struggles against Brahminism pioneered by the likes of Savitribai and Jyotiba Phule and the ongoing efforts of many stalwarts of the movement - ranging from the plethora of leaders of the Satyashodhak Samaj to the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha, Independent Labour Party or for that matter Republican Party of India and the pathbreaking role played by the legendary son of the oppressed Dr Ambedkar.
A question could be why Maharashtra - where the population of minorities has never crossed ten per cent mark, and where they were never politically dominant, metamorphosed into a region which saw not only emergence of many leading Hindutva ideologues - ranging from Savarkar, Hedgewar and Golwalkar - and their organisations but a strong base as well as popular legitimacy as well.
A satisfactory answer to all these queries can only be had if we are able to look afresh at all those assumptions about ascent of Hindutva and are ready to break new grounds in pursuit of this aim.
To put it other way we need to address what Dilip Menon calls 'the general reluctance to engage with what is arguably an intimate relation between the discourses of caste, secularism and communalism.' He adds :
The inner violence within Hinduism explains to a considerable extent the violence directed outwards against Muslims once we concede that the former is historically prior. The question needs to be : how has the deployment of violence against an internal other (defined primarily in terms of inherent inequality), the dalit, come to be transformed at certain conjectures into one of aggression against an external other (defined primarily in terms of inherent difference), the Muslim ? Is communalism a deflection of the central issue of violence and inegalitarianism in Indian society ? (do)
(See P2, The Blindness of Singht, Navayana 2006).
2. What is our understanding of minority communalism?
One knows that when it comes to the situation of Muslims - the biggest religious minority here - we find ourselves in a particular bind. While we are aware that a large section of the community faces deprivation, dispossession, pauperisation - brought in by the nature of socio-economic development followed here which gets accentuated because of the prejudice/bias prevalent against them in all the organs of the state and 'civil society'. Thanks to the report of the Sachar commission, many of the myths perpetuated by the majoritarian forces like 'appeasement of Muslims' lie shattered and their 'majority going for Madarasa education' stand exposed.
There have been thousands of riots in post-independence times, where they have been at the receiving end of administrative apathy and connivance and the combined might of the majoritarian forces. None of the real planners/masterminds of the riots have been caught or people leading riots have been arrested and despite reports by various judicial commissions rarely one notices prosecution of anyone from the administrative side or people supposed to maintain law and order for their complicity in the pogroms. And as rightly put by Paul R Brass, there have developed what he terms as 'institutionalised riot systems' which are in a position to engineer riot at any moment.
CONTD.........
Scribbling in Dark Times-1
( Revised version of presentation at All India Consultative meeting of Progressive Organisations and Individuals, organised by Karnataka Kaumu Sauhardu Vedike
