The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2022
First Prize
(shared)
HAVISHA SINGH
‘Claiming the right of free opinion and free action as we do, we must extend
the same to others. The rule of majority when it becomes coercive is as intolerable
as that of a bureaucratic minority.’ (M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 26-1-1922).
Do these words have relevance in India today? Give examples.
Indian Independence heralded new values, ushering in a revolutionary transformation that declared democracy and gave its citizens the taste of political participation and freedom. M.K. Gandhi’s ‘practical idealism’ during the turbulent time and the radical ideologues of independence laid the groundwork for the pillars of fundamental rights. The constitution, guaranteeing the right to equality and freedom of expression, weaved the fragmented strands of the society into a unified nation and achieved what had seemed elusive before. But time isn’t linear, it’s circular. Earlier, we had to fight to get rights, now we have to fight to exercise them. Today, the question isn’t about the guarantee of freedom of speech and action, but about accessibility.
The prevailing politics that mask the importance of governance with ‘government’ are changing the coordinates of the country’s legal framework and judicature, which are now filled with complacent inertia and ignorance. It has led to a narrow and impoverished view that democracy is synonymous with majority rule. In a country whose history is rife with communal tensions and majority-minority conflicts, this ostensible view has further aggravated the existing inequality. The majority exploits the guaranteed fundamental rights, dissects them and gives the bare minimum to the people who do need it and will use it to shake the prevailing dormancy. The ones who will use them to deliberate matters of jurisprudence and push for reforms. Call it the slippery slope fallacy in favour of the people with economic advantage and political ties or the ubiquitous glass ceiling over the people with no assets but their voice, claiming the right of free opinion and action has always been limited to certain groups and often excluded the ones who demand change.
It is the despotism of the majority that is inimical to the protection of minorities. It gives rise to measures that enable certain groups to disenfranchise minorities from exercising their rights and sideline the associated normative problems. India has witnessed extreme incidents where majority rule has led to polarisation and bloodshed. Communism, linked with dogmatic ideals and religious fundamentalism of the majorities, weakened the country’s unity and led to partition. It inflamed the majority in Kashmir and consequently led to various communal tensions. The list of communal riots and massacres is long including the 1961 Jabalpur riots, 1969 Ahemdabad riots, 1984 Sikh riots, 1987 Meerut riots, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, 1992 Mumbai riots, 2002 Gujarat riots etc [1]. All these promoted majoritarian interests, fuelled a disturbing rise in intolerance and violence, and weakened the constitutional safeguards placed for the minorities.
India had developed a unique asymmetrical federal model that accommodated various ethnicities and diverse cultures. With the motto of ‘unity in diversity’, it sought to connect all with the spirit of nationalism. This nationalist sentiment recognised a sense of common identity among its citizens which would transcend group identities based on ‘caste, creed, and religion’ that divided them. However, this has been replaced with ethnocentrism in recent times. Changes in media have also fanned the flames of polarisation as biased and partisan-leaning outlets have become increasingly influential, at the expense of nonpartisan news sources. Social media, in many cases, amplifies these sources and has given rise to hate speech (especially against minorities) which spreads like wildfire. There has also been an increase in vigilante groups and mobs attacking minorities, activists, and human rights defenders, often with impunity. The number of people charged with sedition by the government is on the rise as the difference between government criticism (when people voice their concerns and exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression) and contempt towards the government becomes increasingly blurred. It is, again, majoritarianism that routinely allows the government to run amok in passing laws or enforcing them at will. It has led to a system that combines elements of majoritarianism and federalism which is likely to trigger a host of political and constitutional crises. These propensities lead to misuse of power, marginalisation of minorities and cement polarisation instead of overcoming it. There has also been a rise of divisive political leadership, competitive caste politics and political hegemony; all of which have politically manipulated social divisions in an already fragmented society. It can be seen in various instances that even different levels of courts don’t weaken judicial majoritarianism, hence undermining legal decisions, discussions and dissent. These tendencies, which weaken the integrity and transparency of the government, should be questioned against the backdrop of the constitutive promise of our country.
In M.K. Gandhi’s words: ‘The greater the institution, the greater the chances of abuse; democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to be greatly abused.’ It is alarming to see the dissolution of the fundamental tenets of the constitution to the forces of majoritarianism. It has deepened social tensions, stifled pluralism, fostered corruption and weakened institutional performance. The concomitant obstructions in the emergence of social consensus on critical political questions have reinforced divisions and weakened the accessibility of fundamental rights for the marginalised minority. As said by Supreme Court judge D.Y. Chandrachud, ‘Any semblance of majoritarian rule, any clampdown on civil liberties or religious freedom upset a sacred promise made to the ancestors who accepted India as their constitutional Republic.’ Hence, it is important to determine the key fault lines and fine-tune the balance between the ‘rule of many’ and the ‘rights of few’.
The Indian Constitution holds the view that the solution to India’s mosaic of acute ethnic, religious, cultural and caste divisions lay not in perpetuating these existing distinctions, but in transcending them in favour of secularism, nationalism and equality of opportunity for all. The democratic ideals, as affirmed in the governing principle of the preamble, emphasise equality for all citizens irrespective of their social and caste affiliations. The Constitution is sacrosanct when it comes to mandated political representation in favour of minorities and prohibiting targeted discrimination or vilification of minorities. In fact, the special rights and reservations for minorities are designed to bring about equality by ensuring the preservation of minority institutions and by guaranteeing autonomy in the matter of administration of these institutions.
However, despite the aims of these articles and acts, the infractions of the human rights of minorities still persist. This development implies that it is one thing to promulgate laws forbidding rights infringements in society and quite another to implement legislation that could curtail such breaches, particularly when they run against the interests of powerful groups in a polity. The conflict between majority-minority institutionalises ethnic entitlement, segregates accessibility of fundamental rights and reinforces inequality. This raises an important question about the effectiveness of constitutional protections with reference to minority rights and whether the government is working in the interest of minority groups or not.
The existing laws are often too weak in achieving the intended goals of reducing ethnic violence and secessionist mobilisation. Inter-ethnic tensions, divisions and exclusion that remain unaddressed can easily become a source of instability and conflict. Dealing efficiently with minority-majority relations is central to achieving durable peace. In this regard, the protection of minorities and the extension of fundamental rights are essential in order to achieve democratic security, communal harmony and comprehensive development. It is important to prevent actions that stoke communal hatred, create deep fissures in society, and lead to fear and mistrust of authorities among minority communities. The government must protect and safeguard the rights of the minority and uphold the universal standards of tolerance and intercultural dialogue. It is important to promote the constitutional principles that advocate inclusive growth and equal fundamental rights. Another pressure point is the representation of the minorities’ interests among the majority and how their presence impacts the composition of the political parties and the nature of public policy framed.
Gandhi wanted India to be a harmonious collection of religious communities that were to be treated as equals and had envisioned a nation premised on the idea of a polity governed by allegiance to the principles of tolerance and respect for India’s diversity, the protection of all its minorities, and the fundamental right to equality and liberty. The current issues and how India overcomes them will signify the resurgence of social cohesion and the rise of an indisputable democracy.
HAVISHA SINGH
DPS, CHANDIGARH
No comments:
Post a Comment