Author: Ishtiaq Ahmed
Publication: Daily Times
Date: January 11, 2004
URL: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-1-2004_pg3_2
We need to see India as a great
ongoing experiment in social, economic and political transformation. If
nothing is done to create greater economic and social democracy the whole
project can run aground. The battle for democracy in India is not yet won
Understanding India is important
if we are to have normal, friendly relations with our bigger neighbour
on the eastern border. Ignorance is bliss only for fools and my essay does
not address them. As a political scientist I find India a most intriguing
social science puzzle: a caste-ridden, poverty-afflicted, ethnically and
racially heterogeneous, religiously diverse and linguistically fragmented
mosaic of over one billion human beings has managed to stabilise as a democracy,
destined to emerge as a major economic power in the earlier part of the
21st century. How is this possible?
Let me begin by discarding the vulgar
conspiracy explanation. Indian democracy is not a rule of clever Brahmins
who have fooled the Indian population and the whole world. India has held
free and periodic elections on a multi-party basis and that cannot be sustained
through racism and casteism; rather despite two-thousand-and-more years
of racism and casteism built into Brahmanic theology, the Indian system
has evolved perhaps the most sophisticated system of inclusion and accommodation
of races, ethnies, castes and nationalities in the political process.
Apart from secessionist attempts
which were and are being clamped down forcibly, other legitimate demands
for regional autonomy have sooner or later won acceptance with the result
that the Indian federation today consists of many more states or provinces
than at the time of independence. Even Hindu nationalist parties seem to
have accepted the hegemony of the democratic process, although extremists
among them carried out the carnage of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and similar
crimes against Christians.
Democracy brings stability; it provides
ventilation of grievances and also freedom of expression for not only creative
thought and enquiry but also artistic and aesthetical fantasy. All these
qualities are important for creating a strong middle class and an economic
environment conducive to economic growth and investment. India is therefore
attractive to international investors. Thus a connection if not a direct
causal relationship between political democracy and the market economy
can easily be established.
All this would not have been possible
without an enlightened and dedicated leadership. The main architects of
the Indian Constitution, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the chairperson
of the Constitution Committee, the Dalit leader Dr Ambedkar, nurtured a
vision that would take India forward into the 21st century rather than
back to some imaginary, fictitious golden age. They received a helping
hand from Mahatma Gandhi who despite his formal symbolism of Ram Raj, in
practice incorporated progressive ideas about equal rights of all citizens
in his notion of the polity. The Indian constitution therefore unequivocally
rejected the Manusmriti and other orthodox Hindu texts as the source of
law and legislation. Consequently practising untouchability was declared
a penal offence in 1955 and the constitution reserves seats in the legislative
assemblies and government employment for the various untouchable castes
and tribal peoples from among the religions deriving from Hinduism. Considerable
resentment exists among the upper castes against the reservation policy,
but there is a consensus that it should be maintained. In fact the percentage
of reservation has gone up from the original 22 per cent and there are
calls to expand it to include Dalits from Muslim and Christian backgrounds.
Today, a growing body of Dalit intellectuals
and professionals are able to articulate the grievances of their people
and demand justice forcefully. Under a purely Hindu dispensation it would
be unthinkable for Dalits to get an education and climb up the social ladder.
The problem is the traditional Hindu culture which still dominates in the
villages; everyday Dalits are subjected to humiliation and violence and
they no doubt constitute the bulk of the Indian poor.
Women have also been the beneficiaries
of Indian democracy. Hindu marriage laws have been reformed in a democratic
and equalitarian direction. Hindu women are in an infinitely better position
today than they would be under the Laws of Manu. As soon as one crosses
the border between Pakistan and India, one notices that urban women in
India enjoy greater freedom. They ride bicycles and motor-bicycles, travel
in mixed buses where they sit next to men, many of them work and are increasingly
taking up professional careers. With regard to the Muslim community of
India, we need to remember that mainstream Deobandi ulema supported the
Indian National Congress's idea of a united India. In return they were
given assurances by Nehru and other Congress leaders that the government
would not interfere with the internal matters of the Muslim community,
but it was hoped that in due course Muslims would voluntarily integrate
into mainstream political life, partaking in the democratic nation-building
project.
Consequently, when Nehru initiated
a number of reforms to modernise and democratise Hindu marriage and inheritance
laws (also applicable to Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains) the Muslim community
was exempted. Marriage and inheritance have continued to be based on dogmatic
Sharia. Many educated Muslims have been demanding that uniform laws should
apply to all Indian citizens but the ulema continue to block the integration
of the Muslim community into the mainstream. Although the richest man of
India is reportedly a Muslim, Azim Premji, on the whole, the Muslim community
lags behind the other communities. Partly the roots of this can be traced
back to the partition which continues to produce prejudices against Muslims,
but the absence of an educated leadership and the baneful influence of
the ulema compound the difficulties of the Muslim community.
However, the Indian film industry
should be congratulated for its high standards of meritocracy. The highest
awards for the best actor have gone to Dilip Kumar (Yusaf Khan) and Shahrukh
Khan is second on that list. The late Mohammad Rafi enjoys the status of
a god among true connoisseurs of music. Urdu or Hindustani remains the
primary language of Indian films and song and dialogue writers of Muslim
origin have always been the most sought after.
Thus we need to see India as a great
ongoing experiment in social, economic and political transformation. One
cannot deny that police brutality, widespread corruption, minority-bashing
and caste-based oppression abound. And if nothing is done to create greater
economic and social democracy the whole project can run aground. The battle
for democracy in India is therefore not yet won.
The author is an associate professor
of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books.
His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se
