“Man is a political animal,” said Aristotle. If God created men, humanity invented politics. From the home to the nation, we humans cannot live without it; politics is all-pervasive. It touches nearly every aspect of life, even spirituality. Given this reality, it’s no surprise that when the Wuhan pandemic struck, no country escaped from politicizing it.
In India, a country Swami Vivekananda famously said is more interested in spirituality than politics, we are nonetheless renowned for our political engagement. The pandemic offered a vivid illustration of this, as political maneuvering unfolded both at the Central and State levels. The way politics played out during this crisis is a story in itself—one uniquely Indian in its scope and complexity.
Modi and the Wuhan Virus
At first, I thought of providing a point-by-point rebuttal to your messages, but it would take too much time. Instead, I’d like to summarize my thoughts.
Let me start with the famous saying: “People get the government or leaders they deserve.” In a democracy, we have to learn to live with various political leaders. Particularly in a country like India, democracy doesn’t survive solely based on the principles of democracy but is conditioned by many factors, such as caste, religion, and regionalism. Other countries, like the USA, also have their limitations, such as racial issues. In India, we do have an independent judiciary and free media, which are blessings but also present problems, often clashing with administration in many ways.
Ours is an evolving democracy, still in its infancy, and we need to grow into maturity through several trials and errors. Even in America, with over 400 years of democracy, the system hasn’t matured in some aspects.
In the past, several leaders like Nehru, Shastri, and Desai served the nation to the best of their abilities, but our democracy slowly disoriented to the point where politicizing religion and communalizing politics became the norm. Indian secularism, for example, eludes a clear understanding or definition. Indira Gandhi introduced the concept in our Constitution:
“In 1977, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi introduced an amendment to the Constitution of India whereby the word ‘secular’ was formally enshrined into the Preamble. The late L.M. Singhvi, who served as a consultant, refused to sign the Hindi version of the draft that translated ‘secular’ as ‘dharma-nirapeksha’1 (literally meaning indifferent on dharma). Since dharma is a foundation of society, he said, the correct Hindi translation of ‘secular’ should be ‘pantha-nirapeksha’ (i.e., neutral or indifferent with reference to organized sect).” — Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2011, p. 329.
The difference between the original Western notion of secularism and India’s adaptation has led to significant problems. As Malhotra further elaborates:
“Secularized Indians have failed to appreciate that a dharma-nirapeksha society – or a society lacking dharma (as secularism has often been translated) – would be dangerously ambivalent toward ethical conduct. Nirad Chaudhuri warned against India’s adopting secularism of even the highest European type, because without dharma’s moral and spiritual qualities, society would become immoral and culturally debased. The result of importing secularism into a dharmic society has thus been disastrous in many ways.” — Ibid., p. 330.
Furthermore:
“The recent import of secularism from the West is based on substituting ‘religion’ for ‘dharma’ and adopting Western social and legal structures. This has led to divisive vote-bank politics in the name of secularism and to a counter-reaction by a segment of Hindu politicians wanting to create a Hindu ‘religion’ that is equally political.” — Ibid., p. 341.
This distinction between secular nationalism and communalism complicates the understanding of our political history. As Peter van der Veer notes:
“A stark distinction between secular nationalism, espoused by Gandhi’s Congress Party, and communalism, espoused by the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha, would certainly not help our understanding of the events leading to Independence and Partition. In fact, what we have to realize is that the very distinction between religious and secular is a product of the Enlightenment that was used in orientalism to draw a sharp opposition between irrational, religious behaviour of the Oriental and rational secularism, which enabled the westerner to rule the Oriental.” — Peter van der Veer, The Foreign Hand: Orientalist Discourse in Sociology and Communalism, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993, p. 39.
Regarding Modi
You may not agree with Modi’s personality or way of functioning, and you have the right to your opinion. However, my point is not to favor one leader over another but to defend the office of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister. While they hold office for the entire nation or a particular state, they are still politicians who have to play to different galleries to survive in the political arena. Unfortunately, common and innocent people often pay the price for this, but that’s a downside of democracy.
Blaming the central government for everything, without understanding the federal structure of our country where states have their own roles, is unfair. Not all the points raised against Modi are accurate. I believe you’ve been influenced by media hype and statements from the opposition. Like any other Prime Minister, Modi is doing his best to serve the nation during this crisis. Merely accusing him without understanding the challenges he faces is unjust. While he isn’t perfect and has his own shortcomings, he has set certain standards, such as during his tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat.
One example is his refusal to provide free electricity, opting instead for uninterrupted power supply, encouraging people to work hard rather than depend on free handouts. This, in turn, contributes to the state’s development. His mantra of hard work rather than freebies is commendable, even though his authoritarian style may irritate some. At least he doesn’t misuse his power for family needs. I’m not sure how much you know about Indira Gandhi and her style of governance, but the Emergency remains a permanent dark spot in our democracy. Furthermore, the dynastic politics she inherited from her father and passed down to her son and grandson has taken its toll on the nation.
Unlike Congress, the BJP—with all its flaws—puts India first, not a family. While the BJP isn’t perfect, it’s the best available option to keep democracy alive. Congress, on the other hand, uses minority appeasement and vote-bank politics. If you want to blame someone for the BJP’s rise, blame the Indra Gandhi family, which introduced pseudo-secularism, caste politics, minority appeasement, and dynastic politics.
The Congress Party is currently neither a strong opposition nor an alternative, largely because of the Gandhi family. They act as both an asset and a liability. Sonia Gandhi is the glue holding the disintegrating party together, but the family also prevents any other Congress leader from strengthening the party. Rahul Gandhi is perhaps the most unfortunate politician, unable to lead or step aside. His inability to break free from his family’s legacy is the tragic result of dynastic politics.
If you wish to discuss more, we can talk over the phone, as I don’t have time to respond point by point. This doesn’t mean I lack responses to your points, but it’s to save time.
Part Two
Dialogue with Anti-Modi Camp
[28/04, 7:57 a.m.]: Anti-Modi: Really?! Best party to keep democracy alive?! Do you even know the meaning of democracy? Do you truly know what is going on in this country?! Are you watching Republic TV?
Non-Anti -Modi: I am not an enlightened person like you. So you have to enlighten me on democracy. I never watch Republic TV—I don’t like the way Arnab shouts on his channel. Only two kinds of people can watch his channel—either an angel or a mad person. I mostly watch WION, specifically Gravitas. It’s a neutral and international channel that rarely discusses Indian political issues. If you have time, watch Gravitas, especially the episodes from the 26th and 27th of April. They will help you understand international politics and the Wuhan virus. I rarely watch other TV channels, except sometimes BBC World News.
[28/04, 8:02 a.m.]: Anti-Modi: You do realize you’re contradicting yourself, right? The terms “democracy” and “benevolent dictator” cannot go together! By the way, there’s no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Dictators, by definition, are cruel, egoistic, narcissistic, power-hungry megalomaniacs—psychopaths and sociopaths! Name one good dictator in all of written human history!
Non-Anti-Modi: Yes, I understand this. But I used that term in a satirical way. I’m not fully agreeing with Modi and Amit Shah’s way of running things. But we’ve had benevolent dictators like Indira Gandhi. Though I don’t like dynastic politics, I am a fan of Indira Gandhi and her statesmanship (or should I say “stateswomanship”). I know many people like you don’t like Modi, but you have no other option but to live with him. Though I don’t agree with all his views, I do, with a pinch of salt, appreciate his statesmanship, particularly in foreign policy. Time alone will show how successful he is as PM. Better to leave this kind of anger behind—it will only affect your health and won’t change the situation. For instance, I would prefer someone other than Stalin as the CM of Tamil Nadu, even from the DMK, as there are more capable leaders. But because of dynastic politics, we are stuck with Stalin until the party perishes under its own curse.
[28/04, 8:06 a.m.]: Anti-Modi: I will never defend the Emergency under Indira Gandhi. She acted like a dictator! But at least, as a woman, she had the guts to be upfront about it. This rat, Modi, doesn’t even have the courage. He’s sneaky, cunning, and duplicitous, more worried about his image than anything. He’s doing the same thing Indira did during the Emergency!
Non-Anti -Modi: I’ve already shared my views on both Indira and Modi, so I have nothing more to add.
[28/04, 8:08 a.m.]: Anti-Modi: If a family running the country means hospitals, colleges, and infrastructure, I’d rather have that family ruling! If the Emergency is the only thing you have against Congress after all these years, then bully for you.
Non-Anti -Modi: If Congress couldn’t build hospitals, colleges, and infrastructure in all these years, there’s no chance they will in the future. Compared to Congress, the BJP has built more hospitals, AIIMS, IITs, colleges, and roads. Only a neutral person can accept this. What BJP has achieved in the past five years in these areas is something Congress failed to do in decades. Congress kept the Ram Janmabhoomi issue alive for political reasons and minority appeasement, but Modi resolved it. Modi had the courage to abolish Triple Talaq, which many Muslim women wanted gone, but Congress had no guts and treated minorities as a vote bank. His handling of the Kashmir issue, though controversial, has been welcomed by many, particularly Kashmiri Pandits, who were persecuted and driven out under Congress rule. I wonder how people like you never see these atrocities under Congress and never consider the suffering of others in this country. This attitude ultimately paved the way for Modi to rise to power. Though I’m not targeting you personally, minorities need to rethink their views about other Indians in this country.
You’re welcome to support that family, but I won’t. Congress has more capable leaders who can run the party and the country better than the Gandhi family. If they care about India, they should hand over leadership to others and step away from politics. Whatever you feel about Modi, he belongs to a party where ideology matters more than individuals. The RSS backs the BJP, and they have clear goals for the nation. That’s why I respect both Communists and BJP, even though I disagree with them on several issues. Both parties don’t promote personality cults. If a leader is removed, there are many to replace them. Congress, on the other hand, has only promoted dynastic politics, which is dangerous for democracy. You need to study more about Congress. If you want, I can share some neutral and Western scholars’ studies on Congress.
[28/04, 8:10 a.m.]: Anti-Modi: This idiot Modi, if he’s so smart, why hasn’t he implemented the Gujarat model at the national level? He had five years! No, he WON’T because the Gujarat model is a failed model.
Non-Anti -Modi: You may say the Gujarat model is a failure, but the people in Gujarat don’t say that—they’re flourishing. It’s one of the most progressive states in India. When Mamata opposed Tata’s Nano project in Bengal, Modi immediately welcomed Tata to Gujarat, providing land for him. Have you researched Gujarat’s business and industry? The farmers there don’t even ask for free electricity. When the farmers requested infrastructure for exporting bananas, Modi listened and implemented their request to speed up exports from the interior to the harbor. I visited Gujarat 20 years ago when Modi was CM, and I was amazed by the roads and public transport. He was ahead of other states in many projects. However, in a federal structure, a CM’s success at the state level doesn’t always translate to the central level due to restrictions. Congress faced the same problem. The same goes for any party that comes to power. For example, Biju Patnaik is one of the best CMs, and he brought remarkable progress to Odisha. But at the national level, it’s harder to replicate such success. For instance, why don’t we hear much panic about the pandemic in Odisha?
Part Three:
The Critic [28/04, 9:02 a.m.]: BTW, let’s not be selective in our criticism. People of Europe changed their behavior because their leaders insisted on it. The European people hold their leaders accountable. Their leaders also prioritize their people. They questioned the vaccines because 5 people in a million died.
My Response [28/04, 9:10 a.m.]: In a democracy, people have more responsibility than the leaders because they are the ones who elect them to rule. As for European people holding their leaders accountable, that system won’t work in India. When Indians are willing to sell their vote for money and other freebies, they lose the moral right and authority to question their leaders. People hold significant power—both democratic and undemocratic—to challenge their leaders. After all, leaders can be in power only for five years, but WE THE PEOPLE have power constantly. In some cases, due to internal party betrayal, they lose power within months or years. How many governments have been toppled by their own party members after coming to power? As long as horse trading and vote selling become the norm in Indian democracy, we cannot compare our system with that of other countries.
Several times, people have ended elected governments through undemocratic means like strikes and violence. When someone topples a government through undemocratic means, they lose the moral right to question any government. For instance, despite an all-party meeting agreeing to reopen the Tutucorin Sterlite factory to produce oxygen, local people refuse to accept it, ignoring court verdicts, and won’t allow production. Local politicians with vested interests are influencing them. Given this scenario in India, it’s impossible to compare Indian democracy with other democracies.
Pavan K. Varma captures it well: “The miracle of India is that the practice of democracy has flourished within its boundaries for over five decades in the absence of a democratic temperament.” — Pavan K. Varma, Being Indian, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2004, p. 55.
I can show numerous examples from both the past and present to support this. That doesn’t mean I completely agree with everything the BJP does. They, too, ‘manipulate’ people by instilling some kind of phobia in their minds. However, what the Sangh Parivar has done is largely a REACTION to what others have done in the past. I could write several pages on this, citing scholars extensively, but that’s not necessary here.
Similarly, the media is only concerned about TRP (Television Rating Points). Just wait until this evening. Starting with exit polls and then the counting on May 2nd, every media outlet will forget about the corona pandemic and will focus on discussing election results and their impact on Indian politics. This is also true of the people. We only need another major crisis to forget about this pandemic. Even world media like BBC do the same. I have seen Indian TV channels continuously campaign for a particular cause after a major incident, but soon all that is put on the back burner, and current events dominate. We cannot completely blame them. In this stiff competition for survival, they are forced to prioritize their TRP over people’s needs and interests.
30-4-2021
Mathirigi
Notes
1 …Secularized Indians have failed to appreciate that a dharma-nirapeksha society – or a society lacking dharma (as secularism has often been translated) – would be dangerously ambivalent toward ethical conduct. Nirad Chaudhuri warned against India’s adopting secularism of even the highest European type, because without dharma’s moral and spiritual qualities, society would become immoral and culturally debased. Being irreligious still allows for ethical behaviour, but being un-dharmic equates with things like corruption and abuse. The result of importing secularism into a dharmic society has thus been disastrous in many ways.— Malhotra, op. Cit., p. 330
The recent import of secularism from the West is based on substituting ‘religion’ for ‘dharma’ and adopting Western social and legal structures. This has led to divisive vote-bank politics in the name of secularism and to a counter-reaction by a segment of Hindu politicians wanting to create a Hindu ‘religion’ that is equally political. The chain reaction set in motion has been disastrous both for Hindus and minorities….—ibid. p. 341
…A stark distinction between secular nationalism, espoused by Gandhi’s Congress Party, and communalism, espoused by the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha, would certainly not help our understanding of the events leading to Independence and Partition. In fact, what we have to realize is that the very distinction between religious and secular is a product of the Enlightenment that was used in orientalism to draw a sharp opposition between irrational, religious behaviour of the Oriental and rational secularism, which enabled the westerner to rule the Oriental…..—The Foreign Hand: Orientalist Discourse in Sociology and Communalism. Peter van der Veer. Pp.23-44, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993, p. 39
Some points on Democracy
…As observed by Dr. Radhakrishnan in `Kalkin or the future of civilization’ (4th ed. of 1956) `Democracy in actual working rarely permits a country to be governed by its ablest. The opinions of the mass prevails over those of the thinking few. We must strive for some better way for conducting human affairs than the lottery of the ballot-box’ (pp.20-22). Rene Guenon in `Crisis of the modern world’ (translated by Arthur Osborne, London, 1932) remarks `the law is supposed to be make by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided or modified i.e. opinion can be manufactured. The majority on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on a full knowledge of the subject’ (p.108)–P.V.Kane. History of Dharmasastra, vol.V, part, II. Ch.XXXVII p.1668
…Democracy is so interpreted as to justify not only the very legitimate aspiration to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth, but also the increasing tendency for a leveling down of all talent. This is not possible. There will always be men of ability who lead and direct, and others who will obey and follow. Brains and character will come to the top, and within the framework of democracy we shall have an aristocracy of direction. It is not true that all men are born equal in every way, and everyone is equally fit to govern the country or till the ground. The functional diversities of workers cannot be suppressed. Every line of development is specific and exclusive…. We should not be under the illusion that we can abolish the distinctions of the genius and the fool, the able organizer and the submissive worker. Modern democracies tend to make us all mere ‘human beings’, but such beings exist nowhere.— The Hindu View of Life, Radhakrishnan, New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, (1927), 1998, Fourth impression, p.91
…Democracy has survived and flourished in India because it was very quickly seen to be one of the most effective systems for upward mobility, and for the acquisition of personal power and wealth.— Pavan K Varma, Being Indian, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2004, p.7
When parliamentary democracy was introduced, most Indian politicians were attracted by the rewards of the democratic process, not by the democratic idea….—ibid. p.46
…Political parties are rarely democratic internally. The word of the leader is law. Political dynasties proliferate, regardless of merit. Dissent is neither encouraged nor (p.46) tolerated. Sycophancy abounds, and has conventional sanction. Strong leaders are venerated for the power they exude, not always for their democratic credentials….—ibid. pp.46-47
… [In India] The democratic experiment did not collapse prematurely—as happened in most other former colonies—because of a unique process of adjustment: the opposed traditions quickly carved out a complementary playing field, where neither could prevail fully, but both could survive.—ibid. p.52
The truth then is that democracy has survived in India not because Indians are democratic, but because democracy has proved to be the most effective instrument for the cherished pursuit of power. A people stifling in the pressure cooker of a hierarchically sealed society embraced the machinery of democratic politics for the promise it held of upward mobility within the inherited framework of an undemocratic society. The hierarchical frame of mind did not give way to a new egalitarianism; democracy was attractive for its unprecedented ability to provide legitimacy to hierarchies, both old and new. No other institution could provide such a nationwide canvas for the interplay of existing notions of power, status and hierarchy. Democracy did not adopt India. Indians usurped democracy (p.54) because it could be moulded to fit earlier structures without threatening them. It caught the popular imagination not for the new values it symbolized, but for the possibilities it opened up for the consolidation of the old. The miracle of India is that the practice of democracy has flourished within its boundaries for over five decades in the absence of a democratic temperament.—ibid. pp.54-55
…The real triumph of Indian democracy is not that it has succeeded in bringing about a qualitative change in such [‘crisis of’] values, but that it has effected a shift in power towards hitherto excluded constituencies, thereby creating new vested interests in the (p.56) continuation of the institution….—ibid. pp.56-57
… It would be a fair inference to make that if another system, less democratic and more authoritarian, becomes available to better serve its interests, the middle class would have little hesitation in opting for it. This is neither an alarmist nor an extreme assessment; for, in any society where values become subordinate to interests, it is the fulfillment of these interests that will have priority rather than the preservation of the value structure. Democracy is about the empowerment of the largest number of people; self-interest is about restricting empowerment to a level where it does not threaten such a pursuit….—— Great Indian Middle Class, Pavan K Varma, New Delhi, Viking, 1998, p.149
Ambedkar ended his speech with three warnings about the future. The first concerned the place of popular protest in a democracy. There was no place for bloody revolution, of course, but in his view there was no room for Gandhian methods either. ‘We must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha [popular protest]’. Under an autocratic regime, there might be some justification for them, but not now, when constitutional methods of redress were available. Satyagraha and the like, said Ambedkar, were ‘nothing but the grammar of anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us’.[This section is based on Ambedkar’s last speech to the Constituent Assembly, Constituent Assembly Debates: Official Report {CAD} (reprint New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1988), vol. 11, pp. 972-81.]— Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, London, Picador, 2007, p.121
…Democracy, which literally means rule or domination of the Demos, the people, is now a passion working on the entire life of a nation, and it makes that life conform to the opinions, wishes, and preferences of the largest number of persons constituting it. It is, in a word, the domination (for some the tyranny) of the majority.— N. C. Chaudhuri, Three Horsemen of the New Apocalypse, Nirad C. Chaudhuri,Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1997, p.62
Leave a Reply