The Tyranny of Majority
Democracy, sans democratic traditions, is a tyranny of majority.
Ideally speaking, I would not like to utilize my blog for any political posturing, for three reasons. First and foremost, I am most of the time an apolitical entity, because I believe that politics is just one of the tools for the betterment of humanity, and at times not even the most important, and therefore does not entice me to think much. Two, I feel that a blog is not the most appropriate forum of putting forth a political opinion, let alone building a movement around it. Third and perhaps the most important reason, I would not ever like my blog to become a political front piece, even at the cost of being labeled as lifeless.
But I am for once trying to put forth a political thought because I am perturbed by two isolated chain of events, which superficially are separated thematically and ideologically, but at the core are precursor to the same trend. The trend of tyranny, tyranny of majority. The first is one, which plagues, the oft-lofted Indian state of Gujarat and the second the Indian state itself. In one palette is the colour of non-tolerance and in the other is the colour of non-receptiveness.
Even before I put forth my chain of thoughts, I would like to clarify that I am not being judgmental; the parties concerned in both the case may be right or wrong beyond my limited sensibilities and understanding of issues at stake. So I would not be passing any judgment on the issues, but would like to comment upon the way these cases are being pursued and the way the issues are precipitating. These cases could have been pursued more empathetically, in a more humane manner- whatever the political ideologies were, and yet they were not. Simply because, a more humane handling would have made them look mundane and any mundane political posturing is not considered sexy in a democracy. Is it or is it not, is something that lies in the womb of future, and sadly enough future is just a vantage point, from where we can write histories and ...... obituaries.
Firstly Gujarat. Frankly, if I have seen one Indian state, where development is a rule than an exception, then it has to be Gujarat. Yes I have seen the tribal villages of Panchmahal and more importantly of Vadodara district, without roads and more importantly without a functional primary health centre and yet I say it because at other places I have seen a bleaker India. And because I consider governance as a continuum, therefore rather than attributing it to a person or a government, I attribute it to the people therein. And therefore I consider the chain of events even worse, because I believe that education is a vital backward and forward linkage to economic development- and with education comes a degree of liberalism, and humility to see oneself from a perspective that differs. Gujarat proves me wrong.
OK! So Narmada is the lifeline of parched Gujarat and sentiments of millions is attached with it. Democratically speaking, an overwhelming majority believes in it; awaits the lifeline to be extended to their villages, to their localities and to their homes. With this belief close to their heart they can democratically make or mar anybody who chose to speak for them or against it, respectively.
So! Does it give them a right to strangulate any voice, which differs or chooses to differ from them? Just because that voice is too feeble, is not voiced by many.
Anyone, who believes in the liberty for humans and human liberty as a value, would emphatically answer a NO! And rightly so, because it's not about democracy alone, its about democratic traditions, wherein a person even in dire lack of majority has to be heard and not flooded by a cacophony, wherein a person desperately alone needs to be convinced and not outcasted.
So when a vandalizing crowd destroys the office of a dissenting voice, its damaging this democratic tradition. So when an extra-constitutional authority bans a film for an actor who chose to speak what he felt (right or wrong, is another question) it's a victory of tyranny over democracy. I heard somebody asking this actor to study the matter and then air his voice- why should he behave in this suggested manner, why shouldn’t he have a right to form an opinion on what he felt prima-facie- after all, all those who vandalized the NBA office or burnt effigies of Aamir Khan- did they study the whole issue liberally before doing that. Why all the onus of forming an informed opinion is put on a dissenting voice. The sad part of it is that the voice diametrically opposite to the party in government also did not do anything more than paying a lip service, perhaps because taking up the cause of a dissenting minority would have been suicidal on the altars of a democracy.
And secondly India, itself. Strangely, on this macroscopic level those who chose to speak against the tyranny of majority in Gujarat, were parties to this tyranny of majority at national level. The issue at stake was reservations for the socially and economically backward class (SEBC) in premier educational institution. Before anybody brands me another pro-forward caste writer, I would like to specify that I am not; my commentary is on how the issue was handled by us as a society.
OK! Our society has largely been dominated by a particular group, for thousands of year. It happens everywhere, though, in our case the social mobility available for an individual was minimal and for the namesake. The social privileges were handed over from one generation to another, in such a shrouded manner that birth and only birth became a parameter of attaining social privileges. To make matter worse, these social privileges weren’t only economic (in fact least so) but also pertaining to social acceptance, and rejection (so even a economically enterprising lower caste person remained socially unacceptable, whereas a nincompoop and therefore economically burdening higher caste person had a tremendous social currency)
Today this historically marginalized class has got politically galvanized (and rightly so) and realized the power of its brute majority in this democratic setup and therefore can win any democratic battle, perhaps too easily. And therefore forms the opinion of the majority, in-fact a too emphatic majority.
But there exists a voice, a small one which opposes this majority voice. This minority voice may have its own set of logic- not necessarily right and not necessarily wrong. The idea is not accepting or discarding it, but of giving a fair listening and not branding it as an inanity. They must be convinced and not threatened, debated and not pulverized. After all, not all of them belong to the privileged class or caste of yesteryears, not all of them have arrived in life because they had a historical right over it. Peep into their household and you will see a few families which lived in a small room, which stood for hours in a queue to have the cheap food-grains from a fair-price shop, you will see a few fathers who worked as part-time tuition teachers beyond office hours to make ends meet without compromising the education of their only hope. At least, they deserved a sympathetic hearing.
And what they got, was some real-politicking by a veteran politician, an statement rubbishing their argument by a reformist (and therefore a liberalist, perhaps) minister and threatening statements by some firebrands- accept it or else, we can further limit your pie. And yes not to forget a repressive state apparatus. Perhaps not giving them a patience hearing was sexy in the state of democracy we are living in. That’s why not even a single politician was seen touching them even by a bargepole, except a few maverick ones, who have profession other than politics to fall back upon.
But in both the cases, the dangers are not very far to be realized. In both the case the society becomes intolerant to a non conforming thinking; refrains from debate and rationally wining their battles. Gujarat has lost out an opportunity of looking into other models of watershed management and India has lost an opportunity of asking a few very relevant questions- for whom reservations were meant, whom it is accruing to, what better can be done to target the real underprivileged group and in a few states where reservations have been in force for nearly 80 years, and therefore 4 generations- is it the time to start rolling it back.
I may be wrong, but as I would accept in a democratic tradition- prove me wrong and don’t brand me one.
Please don’t be a democracy, become one. Future, as I said is just vantage point.
Ideally speaking, I would not like to utilize my blog for any political posturing, for three reasons. First and foremost, I am most of the time an apolitical entity, because I believe that politics is just one of the tools for the betterment of humanity, and at times not even the most important, and therefore does not entice me to think much. Two, I feel that a blog is not the most appropriate forum of putting forth a political opinion, let alone building a movement around it. Third and perhaps the most important reason, I would not ever like my blog to become a political front piece, even at the cost of being labeled as lifeless.
But I am for once trying to put forth a political thought because I am perturbed by two isolated chain of events, which superficially are separated thematically and ideologically, but at the core are precursor to the same trend. The trend of tyranny, tyranny of majority. The first is one, which plagues, the oft-lofted Indian state of Gujarat and the second the Indian state itself. In one palette is the colour of non-tolerance and in the other is the colour of non-receptiveness.
Even before I put forth my chain of thoughts, I would like to clarify that I am not being judgmental; the parties concerned in both the case may be right or wrong beyond my limited sensibilities and understanding of issues at stake. So I would not be passing any judgment on the issues, but would like to comment upon the way these cases are being pursued and the way the issues are precipitating. These cases could have been pursued more empathetically, in a more humane manner- whatever the political ideologies were, and yet they were not. Simply because, a more humane handling would have made them look mundane and any mundane political posturing is not considered sexy in a democracy. Is it or is it not, is something that lies in the womb of future, and sadly enough future is just a vantage point, from where we can write histories and ...... obituaries.
Firstly Gujarat. Frankly, if I have seen one Indian state, where development is a rule than an exception, then it has to be Gujarat. Yes I have seen the tribal villages of Panchmahal and more importantly of Vadodara district, without roads and more importantly without a functional primary health centre and yet I say it because at other places I have seen a bleaker India. And because I consider governance as a continuum, therefore rather than attributing it to a person or a government, I attribute it to the people therein. And therefore I consider the chain of events even worse, because I believe that education is a vital backward and forward linkage to economic development- and with education comes a degree of liberalism, and humility to see oneself from a perspective that differs. Gujarat proves me wrong.
OK! So Narmada is the lifeline of parched Gujarat and sentiments of millions is attached with it. Democratically speaking, an overwhelming majority believes in it; awaits the lifeline to be extended to their villages, to their localities and to their homes. With this belief close to their heart they can democratically make or mar anybody who chose to speak for them or against it, respectively.
So! Does it give them a right to strangulate any voice, which differs or chooses to differ from them? Just because that voice is too feeble, is not voiced by many.
Anyone, who believes in the liberty for humans and human liberty as a value, would emphatically answer a NO! And rightly so, because it's not about democracy alone, its about democratic traditions, wherein a person even in dire lack of majority has to be heard and not flooded by a cacophony, wherein a person desperately alone needs to be convinced and not outcasted.
So when a vandalizing crowd destroys the office of a dissenting voice, its damaging this democratic tradition. So when an extra-constitutional authority bans a film for an actor who chose to speak what he felt (right or wrong, is another question) it's a victory of tyranny over democracy. I heard somebody asking this actor to study the matter and then air his voice- why should he behave in this suggested manner, why shouldn’t he have a right to form an opinion on what he felt prima-facie- after all, all those who vandalized the NBA office or burnt effigies of Aamir Khan- did they study the whole issue liberally before doing that. Why all the onus of forming an informed opinion is put on a dissenting voice. The sad part of it is that the voice diametrically opposite to the party in government also did not do anything more than paying a lip service, perhaps because taking up the cause of a dissenting minority would have been suicidal on the altars of a democracy.
And secondly India, itself. Strangely, on this macroscopic level those who chose to speak against the tyranny of majority in Gujarat, were parties to this tyranny of majority at national level. The issue at stake was reservations for the socially and economically backward class (SEBC) in premier educational institution. Before anybody brands me another pro-forward caste writer, I would like to specify that I am not; my commentary is on how the issue was handled by us as a society.
OK! Our society has largely been dominated by a particular group, for thousands of year. It happens everywhere, though, in our case the social mobility available for an individual was minimal and for the namesake. The social privileges were handed over from one generation to another, in such a shrouded manner that birth and only birth became a parameter of attaining social privileges. To make matter worse, these social privileges weren’t only economic (in fact least so) but also pertaining to social acceptance, and rejection (so even a economically enterprising lower caste person remained socially unacceptable, whereas a nincompoop and therefore economically burdening higher caste person had a tremendous social currency)
Today this historically marginalized class has got politically galvanized (and rightly so) and realized the power of its brute majority in this democratic setup and therefore can win any democratic battle, perhaps too easily. And therefore forms the opinion of the majority, in-fact a too emphatic majority.
But there exists a voice, a small one which opposes this majority voice. This minority voice may have its own set of logic- not necessarily right and not necessarily wrong. The idea is not accepting or discarding it, but of giving a fair listening and not branding it as an inanity. They must be convinced and not threatened, debated and not pulverized. After all, not all of them belong to the privileged class or caste of yesteryears, not all of them have arrived in life because they had a historical right over it. Peep into their household and you will see a few families which lived in a small room, which stood for hours in a queue to have the cheap food-grains from a fair-price shop, you will see a few fathers who worked as part-time tuition teachers beyond office hours to make ends meet without compromising the education of their only hope. At least, they deserved a sympathetic hearing.
And what they got, was some real-politicking by a veteran politician, an statement rubbishing their argument by a reformist (and therefore a liberalist, perhaps) minister and threatening statements by some firebrands- accept it or else, we can further limit your pie. And yes not to forget a repressive state apparatus. Perhaps not giving them a patience hearing was sexy in the state of democracy we are living in. That’s why not even a single politician was seen touching them even by a bargepole, except a few maverick ones, who have profession other than politics to fall back upon.
But in both the cases, the dangers are not very far to be realized. In both the case the society becomes intolerant to a non conforming thinking; refrains from debate and rationally wining their battles. Gujarat has lost out an opportunity of looking into other models of watershed management and India has lost an opportunity of asking a few very relevant questions- for whom reservations were meant, whom it is accruing to, what better can be done to target the real underprivileged group and in a few states where reservations have been in force for nearly 80 years, and therefore 4 generations- is it the time to start rolling it back.
I may be wrong, but as I would accept in a democratic tradition- prove me wrong and don’t brand me one.
Please don’t be a democracy, become one. Future, as I said is just vantage point.
No comments:
Post a Comment