Elections are less than three weeks away and
there are many who are not sure how they will vote, and even, whether they will
vote. I go into this election with definite concerns and preferences. This post is written as a way of sharing those in a constructive way, in
the hope that someone will find them useful.
The touchstone for me are
Constitutional values. I grant, none of our politicians show a steadfast
devotion to them, but which group is less likely to want to intervene and
actually change them? In my head, the answer is clear, but I will not spell it
out for you. I will instead take you through my reflections on the Preamble,
which offers us the clearest distillation of the values that our founding
leadership in the Constituent Assembly thought were important. You can make
your decision.
***
“We, the People of India”
This phrase thrills me, always has,
but in recent years, I have had to meditate more and more on it.
Who are we, the ‘People of India’? Even
when I was a child, I knew that this was not a homogeneous lump of humans.
People were different from me, like my classmates in school and their parents.
Their languages were different and their lunch dabbas were different. Diversity
looked like the floats on Republic Day.
I see so much more when I now look, as
an adult in a world where we are learning to think intersectionally and take
better cognizance of how each one wants to be identified. And all of us, each
of us, with our full wardrobes of identities, make up the ‘People of India.’
A Brazilian friend once said, “I am
not Brazilian because I am White/ Black/ etc. I am Brazilian and therefore, I
am all those things.” In that spirit, “we” who are the people of India are
Bangla and Tamil and Muslim and Hindu and cis-men and transwomen and Dalit and
Brahmin and music-lovers and kabbadi players and an infinite number of our
identities-as-numerous-as-our-gods.
I thrill to try and imagine that
unimaginable possibility of being so much and so many. Now that I am learning
that our diversity and my possibilities are infinite, I do not want anyone to
boil me down to a simple two-ingredient soup stock. And I will vote and
advocate for a government that enables me to be all the different people I want
to be.
***
“Sovereign
Nationalism loads ‘sovereign’ with
agendas that the word need not have. It once simply meant being acknowledged by the
world as free to decide for itself and acknowledged by people within as
competent to decide for them. The idea of self-interest, very narrowly and
contentiously defined by nationalism, I am uncomfortable with.
Nehru’s much reviled idealism is the
kind of sovereignty that works for me. I want India to be focused on doing the
right thing and to be an imaginative influence for a more peaceful world. I
want us to be secure enough in our sovereignty to be a part of global regimes
and conventions that promote human rights, justice, sustainable development and
equity.
Within India, I want the government to
show the moral courage to take decisions that create a more equal and fairer
world and to take a strong stand against those whose speech and actions
diminish the humanity of others. I would consider such a government worthy of
the authority to make decisions in my name.
It is ‘we, the people of India’ who
are constituting ourselves as sovereign and not the government of India which
is sovereign. Whoever is the agent of our sovereignty—the government of
India—must engage with us, respond to our questions and challenges and be
accountable to us. They cannot take actions in our name that violate the core
values we go on to list.
Yes, it is true that disrespect for
civil society and public questioning are common traits of Indian governments in
the last few decades. However, I would vote for people who would be more likely
to hesitate to slap sedition charges, and less likely to disdain media
interactions or revile civil society. That would be my way of understanding how
‘sovereignty’ is meant to work.
***
“Socialist,” read with “Equality of status and
opportunity”
The Constituent Assembly of India did
not feel the need to write the word ‘socialist’ into the Preamble. It was
perhaps assumed that justice and equality would suffice. By the time this word
was added in 1975, we had however been speaking of a ‘socialistic pattern’ of
society for a long time.
India is a hierarchical society and
the only way an Indian would not notice that is if they were sitting at the top
of the hierarchy. A hierarchical society and a democratic polity are mutually
incompatible, and the very intelligent people who debated and drafted our
Constitution knew that. In order to balance the individualistic orientation of
the Fundamental Rights chapter, they wrote the Directive Principles of State Policy
which essentially asked successive governments of India to place the common
good over individual interest. While the word ‘socialist’ was not in the
Preamble for the first twenty-five years of the Republic, the idea of the
“greatest happiness of the greatest number” certainly informed the government’s
approach to development—from planning to nationalisation to the public
distribution system to food self-sufficiency.
Some things improved, but so much
inequality remains. While the post-liberalisation boom has extended some
benefits across the board—maybe the ownership of consumer durables like
televisions, mobile phones or scooters—so much that is essential remains
shamefully inaccessible to too many Indians—drinking water, decent schools,
primary health care. We are still talking about the same shortages that
prevailed forty years ago. Some of us live in comfort we could scarcely have
imagined then, connected at the tips of our fingers to the whole world, and
others, still cannot read, cannot reach a hospital in time or dare to dream
about what they will be when they grow up.
India’s burgeoning youth population is
growing up with the same unconscionable inequalities and discrimination as
their parents did.
This means, as I reflect on the
Preamble three weeks before elections, I am going to seek out those who feel
for ordinary people and place them front and centre in their politics. I am
going to look for people who condemn discrimination on any grounds. I want a
government that will balance growth and equity but when tough choices are made,
will have enough compassion and fairness to place equity first. I want a
government that will engage with local communities before dumping
infrastructure projects and economic zones into their lives. I want leaders who
understand how hard it was for women to save those 1000s and 500s that suddenly
lost value. I want a government whose heart places economic and social justice
ahead of private profits and Davos invitations.
***
“Secular
I am particularly passionate about this
rather dry word. India as the home to people of many faiths is a part of what
defines me.
The people I grew up around were from
families that followed many faiths and many versions and variations of the same
traditions. All of these taught the same values—truth, kindness, generosity and
faith. The manner of observance, the dates of celebration and the feasts may
have been different as well as the ways in which we named those we worshipped
or venerated. But something at bottom was the same and as children, we
understood that.
As an adult, I have sought help and
succour where I could reach when I needed it, and I have found it. Music from
all faith traditions has touched me in the same way. And I am convinced that if
there is a god, as it comforts many of us to believe, that god could not be so
petty as to discriminate between one cry for help or another.
An India reduced to one faith
community, whose faith (mine) is simplified in the most unimaginative way with
all of us expected to conform is an unbearable idea to me. What I do cherish is
that the way that I get to be Hindu is the way that appeals to my heart and
mind, and if you take that away from me and impose your essentialised notion of
this magnificently plural civilisation of traditions and ideas, you will kill
all that is appealing about being a Hindu.
Secularism is about keeping the state,
the government and the raucous majority out of my house of worship, my sacred
text, my communion with what I consider divine and my way of relating to that.
Secularism is about freedom of religion (or no religion) and freedom of
conscience.
I will not have the government define
faith, tradition or culture for me. Nor will I have a government that wants to
tell me what to eat, how to eat or when to eat. The only relationship a
government should have with my food is to make sure I have some and that it is
safe and healthy. Everything else is a violation of my freedom.
***
“Democratic
A few weeks ago, we had a discussion
in our office on the Preamble and in response to my question about democracy, a
young student chimed, “Government of the people, for the people, by the
people.”
The word ‘democratic’ ties together
all the other words in the Preamble. It speaks to popular sovereignty—by the
people. It speaks to equality and justice, socialism and secularism, fraternity
and freedom—for the people. And it is the people who choose the representatives
who will make all this a reality for all of us—of the people.
How democratic is India? Indian
elections make history every time and they are an awe-inspiring logistical
exercise but not perfect, as anyone whose name has mysteriously disappeared off
the electoral list will tell you. However, elections are not the only way
to judge democracy. Others include: autonomy and unimpaired functioning of
institutions; accountability in systems and in political culture; rule of law
and freedom of speech, expression and conscience.
I am old enough to have reason to be
cynical, but still, I am going to vote hopefully for a government I think will
at least have some qualms about decimating democracy in India.
***
“Republic
The word ‘republic’ has two common
meanings. The first is that sovereignty resides in the people and the people
rule. In most republics, they rule through representatives they elect, directly
or indirectly. The second signals that those who rule, do so by the authority
people vest in them through elections rather than through hereditary right. And yes, this means that the children of politicians cannot assume that they will inherit the ‘throne’ but have to work for it in some way.
But there is a larger, and to my mind, more important
point. Even a government with a large
majority, even a majority of votes, ultimately acts in our name, and must have
the humility to communicate with us. Communication means a two-way exchange—you
tell me, I tell you, I ask you, you respond and if you cannot, you tell me so
honestly. Communication is not a broadcast; you talk, I listen. And if I have
any questions I dare ask, I am anti-national and seditious. That is not how
republics should work.
It is my duty to hold governments
accountable and good governments invite and respond to that act of citizenship
with grace and honesty.
I will state honestly that most
governments I have seen in my life fail to meet that bar but that means my only
way to control that tendency is to give people just one term so that they do
not feel that can perennially get away with silencing me.
***
The Preamble explicitly states that we
decide to constitute ourselves as a republic in order to secure justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity. That is, the whole point of being India, and
the government of India, is to secure justice, liberty, equality and fraternity
for ALL of us, who are citizens of India.
***
“Justice, social, economic and political
In a society that has been deeply
hierarchical and unequal and where recent economic choices have exacerbated
those divisions, justice sometimes seems like a distant dream. And yet, no
other signs of development or progress have meaning without it. The case for
social and economic justice has been made in the discussion of socialism and
equality.
The Preamble speaks, however, of
political justice. What does justice mean in the political realm, I wonder?
Is it the justice that ensues when
institutions are respected and allowed to function autonomously so that each is
able to protect those processes and values that are in its charge? Is it the
justice that ensues when the relationship between central and state governments
are not repeatedly abused using constitutional means like Article 356 and
unconstitutional means like shopping for MLAs? Is it the justice that ensues
when all points of view are heard and policy and project decisions are made in
consultation with those who will be affected by them?
Political justice, in my view, also
points to the impunity with which men, including male politicians, male
celebrities and agents of the state, get away with acts of violence—verbal,
physical, emotional, economic and sexual—on a routine basis. A culture of impunity
is inimical to democracy, good governance, justice and peace.
Political justice must mean to respect
dissent and to make equal room in the national conversation on any topic for
naysayers, questioners and challengers. It is unpleasant to feel constantly
challenged but only if your sense of self and security depends on being
unassailable rather than amenable to reflection and learning. Political justice
follows when there is a great degree of comfort with a public reckoning on
policies and politics—and when leaders are able to say, this is what we are
thinking, tell me what you think, what you know. Shutting people up and locking
them in jail for disagreeing with you, is not political justice.
This means that dialogue in conflict
situations is also political justice. Instant action and vengeance work in the
movies but in the real world, solutions are found through restraint, listening,
talking, reconciliation and people to people interaction. Anything else is
unfair to those who are caught in the crossfire and deprives them of the
justice promised to them.
Finally, political justice lies in defining Indian citizenship and
protecting equally the political rights of all Indians, regardless of how
inconvenient it is to one’s vested electoral or economic interests.
***
“Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
Elections do not make us democratic; liberty does. In Tagore’s poem,
which we learn in school, the India he prays for has freedom of thought (“the
mind is without fear”) and there are no strictures on learning (“where
knowledge is free”). No one insists on rewriting history or dictating
appropriate subjects for PhDs or reinventing science. There is neither fear of
independent thought nor of learning. This is the India that the founders of this
country meant us to have.
I cannot believe that I have been living in an India where people have
been jailed for human rights advocacy and legal work. I cannot believe that I
have been living in an India where people have been assassinated for the way
they thought and the things they wrote.
I cannot believe that when something happens, more and more of us
self-censor what we write. It is not that we lack conviction or courage. It is
a strategic choice. Let me keep quiet for this; it is smaller than the other
thing that is likely to happen next. Let me hold my fire now; I will need when
the crisis comes closer. Let me wait; I don’t have the energy to argue with
trolls. This is not Tagore’s “heaven of freedom.”
It is not even the country of my Constitution which guarantees me six
fundamental freedoms and the right to defend them against the state. Yes, my
freedoms are limited by the condition of the security of the state, but that,
any citizen with a conscience will tell you is an extreme contingency and not
one to be invoked like the Queen of Hearts in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ just on a
personal whim.
In this election, I will vote for the party I trust more to know that
difference. I will vote to defend my freedom and your freedom to disagree with
me. I will vote for a government that will allows us both room to say what we
want but will not tolerate hate speech, mob violence or targeted
assassinations. I want a government that will be proactive in defending my
freedoms not in taking them away from me.
***
“Equality
I just want to add here that we are very lucky to have a Constitution
that gives primacy to the Right to Equality. The very first right listed in the
Chapter on Fundamental Rights is equality. I want a government that recognises
how essential equality and justice are, ahead of everything else including
looking good in international business circles.
***
“Fraternity
“India is my country. All Indians are my brothers and sisters. I
love my country and I am proud of its rich and varied heritage.” The opening
words of the pledge printed in most of our textbooks underscore the ‘unity in
diversity’ theme we grew up with.
Today, we are a country of siblings urged to fight with each other over
issues as trivial as food and dress. We might still recite the words but we
seem to be forgetting what they mean. We do not feel for each other, we judge
each other, we are unable to put another’s need first. Or so it seems to me.
I want that other country back.
When farmers march across the country to say they have a problem, I want
a government that feels shame that they had to march to be noticed, and that
too, after media prodding. When women speak about violence, I want to belong to
a country that will not second guess the timing of their revelation or speak
ill of them, adding to their trauma. I want a government whose response is
empathy and justice and not to lock up women and cover them head to toe. I want
us to care about human rights violations in parts of the country we may never
visit.
I want to vote this time for the party more likely to show empathy. I do
not want a unidirectional broadcast of crocodile tears. I want someone to
quietly act with common sense and compassion both. I want a government which
seeks to unite India, not divide us.
If you look at the Preamble, it associates Fraternity with the ‘dignity
of the individual’ and also with the ‘unity and integrity’ of India. These are
not contradictory. I can feel for the young people who have lost their sight
thanks to pellet-guns, I can lament the use of those guns and I can also wish—not that the government somehow holds on to
Jammu and Kashmir but—that we can all find a way to reconciliation and peace,
so that young people can worry about the things they should be thinking about
at 18 and 20 and 22—studies, careers, romance, adventure, science and art—and
not being dead, injured or left with a permanent disability. I can have my vision for that ‘unity and
integrity’ even if it is different from yours. Our differences will not divide
us, because we are bound to each other by another feeling…. or we should be.
I will vote for that integrative, inclusive vision of India.
***
On April 18, 2019, I will be voting for the Constitution of India and
for its core values, spelt out clearly in its Preamble.
Swarna
Written on March 26, 2019
