Compulsions and Democracy

What is that forces people, in a democracy, to stay away from speaking against systemic fault-lines? One would think that democracy, being a guarantor of freedom of speech, would encourage the opposite. Recently, I had the privilege of speaking to two distinguished personalities, who have served two of the most powerful institutions in India – a former senior IPS officer and a former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court. The two gentlemen have also served the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as well as other organisations working for the promotion of civil liberties. The issue was the large number of mercy petitions of prisoners on death row, pending before the Government of India. At least 26 such petitions are reported to be pending before the government, with the oldest among them having been filed a decade ago. The Supreme Court of India recently slammed the Central government over this record. Not only was this shameful, said the Apex court, but it also violated a prisoner’s right to live with dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The event was a live discussion on national television. I and a colleague of mine spoke to the two guests on the finer print behind this issue. Our guests immediately agreed with the view taken by the Supreme Court and informed that the reason behind the delay was mostly political. But of these 26 petitioners, we argued, cases of only a handful had some sort of political connection, the most famous and the most recent one being that of Afzal Guru, convicted for conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on Indian Parliament. Several others are ordinary people, put on death row for gruesome murders. What was the reason behind the delay in deciding their cases? The observations put forward by our guests indicated that they did not have concrete answers.

Or were they keeping the answers to themselves? This question, which I asked to myself, was answered by one of the guests, but off the record. When the show was over and the cameras turned off, he offered me an insight. Awarding death sentence to somebody who has committed a heinous crime is a populist measure, he said, referring to the common man’s perception of justice. And abolishing capital punishment, something that human rights activists are fighting for across the globe, would amount to taking a step that would involve the risk of inviting the displeasure of a large section of the electorate. Translated psephologically, this could mean loss of a few thousand (or more) votes. And no government in India, irrespective of the party in power, has had the courage to look beyond this risk, till now.

Now I haven’t met any relative of a victim of a heinous crime, like murder or rape. So I don’t know whether what my guest pointed out is really the aam aadmi’s perception of justice. But even if it is, it does open another debate - who should be made the guarantor of justice: law or popular perceptions? I was left wondering as to why either of my esteemed guests could not make this observation in full view of the TV audience?

The first step towards correcting one's mistake is acknowledging that one is wrong. When even two retired representatives of the State can not be frank about systemic fault-lines, how can we expect the State itself to be honest in admitting that something is wrong? History has shown us that this couldn’t even be thought of in a monarchy. The modern world is still telling us that this is not possible in an autocratic setup as well. But what prevents a democracy, and a liberal one at that, from truly guaranteeing freedom of speech?
Still wondering…

Charu Kartikeya

International Day of Democracy Demands Thorough Attention

When the intellectuals of the country accepted ‘Charwak’ as Rishi, Akbar initiated Din-i-Ilahi, Mahatma Gandhi advocated paying lump-sum amount to Pakistan after partition, Pandit Nehru fostered the presence of opposition parties in the Parliament and Atal Behari Vajpayee reminded Narendra Modi of Raj-Dharma after the Gujarat carnage, what they all were doing was basically translating the essence of political tolerance. But all these examples, somehow, were indicators of exceptional behavior that our leaders showed in the past. Talk of local, national or international politics, the spirit behind these moves has never really been the custom of political arena. Although we see a sharp division between the behaviours of leaders and the masses, humanity, all over the world is laden with the incidents of deliberate denial of the doctrine of political tolerance, which is the essence of democracy. Therefore, on this International Day of Democracy (September 15, 2009) the theme for which is ‘Democracy and Political Tolerance’ as decided by the United Nations, we need to discuss, debate and imbibe the cherished culture of political tolerance in our day to day behavior.

What is Political Tolerance?

Political tolerance can be defined as “the willingness to extend basic rights and civil liberties to persons and groups whose viewpoints differ from one's own”. This is a central tenet of liberal democracy. Democracy must encourage a wide array of ideas, values and beliefs - even those which may offend segments of the population, provided such rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the law of the land. Democracy functions better when there is perfect harmony between the will of the majority and respect for the rights of individuals and groups in the minority. Without safeguards for free expression of divergent opinions, there is the risk of perpetration of “tyranny of the majority”. In a free and open society, public deliberation should expose "bad" ideas instead of suppressing them.

In simpler terms, political (religious and social) tolerance means accepting (accommodating, living and putting up with, and respecting) the views and ideas of others you do not agree with.

The exercise of political tolerance and promoting a culture of political pluralism are the cornerstone of democracy. Democracy is unthinkable when only the dominant political discourse and views are heard. Tight control or the monopoly of information by the dominant class of society stifles debate and undermines citizen’s ability to influence government’s decisions and policies. All ideas must therefore be allowed a place in the “market place of ideas” as connoted by renowned political thinker John Stuart Mill. The best public policy should arise out of competition among divergent views and ideas that are expressed in a free and transparent public discourse.

Remember Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 in China, anti-Sikh riots of 1984, Gujarat violence in 2002 and very recently the Nandigram Massacre in 2007. These incidents explicitly narrate the story of the debauchery of democratic values and political tolerance in and outside the country which appears to have direct or sometimes hidden consent of respective state machineries. This no doubt is deplorable but there is a darker face of it which needs serious condemnation on all the levels of national life.

Who can forget the denouncement of a group of noted intellectuals and artists, who were known for their non-partisan political approach, by the left government in West Bengal, expulsion of a onetime best parliamentarian known for his unflinching ideological adherence from CPM, the forced exile of Taslima Nasreen, house detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, huge criticism faced by L.K. Advani after his statement over Jinnah and very recently, the expulsion of veteran B.J.P leader Jaswant Singh just because of a few pro-Jinnah remarks in his book? Are these merely some discrete incidents or they underline a very subtle kind of violation of the principle of political tolerance growing in the mind of the masses and the political parties governing them? On this occasion of International Day of Democracy the situation demands thorough attention of all pro-democracy activists, academicians and scholars.

B. Sanjay

Happy New Year

The past year has been a tough one, for our country as well the rest of the world. As we step into a new year, lets all take out a few moments from our respective busy schedules and stop and think how can we shape 2009 to be as we want it 2 – a year of revival, a year of peace and a year of overall growth of the human civilisation.

SAHBHAG wishes everybody a very Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Sahbhag's First Seminar

When Ved Marwah was serving as the governor of Mizoram, he came to Delhi once to attend a governors' conference. A senior bureaucrat happened to introduce Marwah to another bureaucrat and said," Meet . Ved P. Marwah, Governor of Nagaland." Marwah objected to it and corrected the gentleman, saying, hesitatingly, that he was the governor of Mizoram and not Nagaland. It is hard to discern, whether the bureaucrat’s reply to this correction offered by Marwah was his attempt at being humorous or it was a testimony to the general perception about the North East. His profound reply was, "Kya fark parta hai, ek hi baat toh hai (what difference does it make, for they are one and the same.)"

The seven states in India's North East have quite often been looked upon as a single entity. So how do you expect people who can not even differentiate between seven different states to know what their problems are, let alone understand those problems? This was one of the several facets to the North East problem that were discussed at a seminar, organised on February 17, by Centre For Democratic Research. The centre is the research wing of Sahbhag, an organisation that works for strengthening democracy.

The seminar focussed on evolving an understanding of the various threads that make up the socio-political fabric of the North Eastern states. With elections in three of the states in the region round the corner, the aim was to put under the scanner, various claims of free and fair elections and peace and progress, made by the government, political parties and other pressure groups. Introducing the topic, General Secretary of Sahbhag, Charu Kartikeya, said that after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Arunachal Pradesh, it had become clear that there is an external force which is trying to create instability in the region. Keeping this and certain other factors in mind, concern arises whether the upcoming elections woulds be held in a free and fair manner.

Marwah’s years of experience as Governor of two different states in the region were very helpful as he informed the seminar participants of the forces at play there. He corroborated what studies have been saying for a very long time now, that throughout the country there is a general apathy towards the seven states and their people. Corruption was also rampant in the region, with the former Governor himself recalling government projects regarding which his investigations revealed a 100% siphoning of funds.

Senior journalist, Ram Bahadur Rai, turned the compass to point solely towards the political aspects of the problem. He wondered what kind of a democracy was this, where the party coming to power at the centre also determined what type of government would be formed in these states. As Marwah, who presided over the seminar, explained, this was because if there were divergent camps in power at the centre and the state, the latter would find it difficult to secure government funds. And the states, at least in the North East, were in the least favourable position to survive on their own resources.

Rai also pointed out to certain other distinct features of the politics in the region. Corruption is witnessed not just in the day-to-day functioning of the administration, but before elections as well, as seats are openly bought and sold. Rai mentioned the findings of a confidential report, commissioned by senior BJP leader LK Advani, which Rai had access to. According to the report, every MLA has to arrange for Rs. 15 lakh to save his seat!

Apart from corruption, the government also resorts to other measures to maintain its hold on the region, violence being one of them. Rai informed that after the infamous Nelli massacre in Assam, 25 years ago, polling was held on 110 constituencies in state elections, 109 of which went to the Congress. Several winning candidates had secured as low as 10-25 votes. And this was just one of several similar instances of electoral violence and ensuing victory. Marwah also spoke later about maintenance of private militia by all ethnic groups in the region, the reason being that people just don’t trust the police and other symbols of state machinery. Consequently, these groups “govern the rules of the game”, Marwah noted.

Rai also spoke about two other features marking the political landscape of the North East – identity politics and border politics. He said ever since Jawahar Lal Nehru allowed the creation of an entire state from just one district (Arunachal Pradesh), he gave recognition to identity politics in the country. As far as border politics is concerned, it is widely known now that one needs a special Inner Line Permit, for being able to visit at least 5 of the 7 North Eastern states. This permit, Rai alleged, was a symbol of vested interests at play in the region.

Marwah had the last word on the topic. Stressing on the need of protecting and strengthening the democratic institutions in the North East, he observed that the substance of democracy was empowerment of the common man. Sahbhag feels that the government, the political parties, the non-governmental sector and the various activism-based associations must strive to help the country in achieving this ideal.

Sahbhag : An Introduction

When the debate over the inclusion of the word ‘democratic’ in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution started in the Constituent Assembly, Pandit Nehru said, ‘The whole of our past is witness to the fact that we stand for democratic institutions. Obviously we are aiming at democracy and nothing less than democracy. What form of democracy, what shape it might take is another matter?”

We, as a nation, adopted Representative Democracy then, which we are still practicing. It was expected
that the system of governance this representative democracy would evolve into would eradicate all the
evils which our society was suffering from and lead the whole country towards achieving the cherished
goal of a glorious development. Today, we have a proud claim of sustaining our democracy through all
odds. But we are overburdened with acute problems in all walks of life. A vast population of India is still illiterate and starving. A major section of our society still lives below the poverty line. We are facing problems of terrorism, communalism, regionalism and many more such roadblocks.

We have a large population of sensible, educated and committed youth. But most of them are disillusioned with the prevailing political scenario in the country. They don’t think that the anomalies plaguing our nation can be removed through the present political system. The ever-decreasing voter turn-outs in the general elections are clear indicators of this fact.

All these problems call for a systemic change in order to empower each and every individual. A system that can ensure transparency and accountability at every level of governance is very much essential. Sahbhag believes that for all this, we need grass-root level political education of our citizens, which we failed to deliver during 60 years of our independence. We are desperately in need of a kind of education which can motivate every citizen to exist as an embodiment of humanity and the ethos that our nation stands for. A more vibrant democracy, which can ensure the participation of the common man in policy-making, its implementation and consequent monitoring, can be the answer. Sahbhag, therefore, believes that it’s the right time to mobilize the whole nation for a switchover from Representative Democracy to Participatory Democracy.

Center For Applied Democracy (CAD) , the research wing of Sahbhag, earlier known as Centre For Democratic Research (CFDR), was established to evolve proper instruments for moving ahead in this mission and provide proper research inputs to the movement.