The Indian Republic is, was, and will be
in crisis. And perhaps the biggest issue that dogs the Republic is social and
economic inequality. Seventy years of electioneering has not solved the
problem. Successive governments and civil society groups have failed to address
the issue of inequality. The social and economic inequalities manifest in the
form of routinized violence and discrimination in everyday life for the
marginalized and minoritized communities. The crisis will only deepen in the
future if these inequalities remain unaddressed.
The routinized violence and discrimination
against the marginalized and minoritized communities are not new; it is a way
of life since the establishment of the Indian Republic. Ever since its
founding, the Indian Republic has been unable to stop the discrimination and
atrocities committed against its marginalized and minoritized communities. The most
recent and shocking revelations of the death of Dr. Payal Tadvi, a resident
doctor at a hospital in Bombay, exposes yet again the casteist way of life in
India. Barely three years after the institutional murder of Hyderabad Central
University scholar Rohith Vemula, Dr. Tadvi’s institutional murder (now suspected
to be cold-blooded murder) is déjà vu for those familiar with the
discrimination, harassment, and violence against marginalized and minoritized
communities.
The recent deaths contradict the
democratic vision enshrined in the constitution of India. The routine violence
and harassment fly in the face of political grandstanding about the greatness
of Indian culture and its ability to harmoniously bond the various communities
now and in the future. Fractures of caste and religion are often
used—especially during elections—to polarize and scapegoat many marginalized
communities. The result of almost seven decades of polarization, scapegoating,
and a deepening of casteism is the spread of Hindu majoritarianism. Any
attempts at realizing democracy and equality in India have to confront the
juggernaut of religious majoritarianism—whether
under the guise of secularism or a theocratic ideology.
The Indian Republic, emerging after the
transfer of power from the British Raj, faced a crisis in the sharing of power
with marginalized caste and minoritized religious groups. The elite Hindu
groups, who controlled politics after the departure of the British, kept most
of the power for themselves and their kin, while there were thousands of
religious and caste communities, socially subordinated to the Hindu
upper-castes, who expected to share power and influence in a new Republic. In
such a scenario, the elite groups of the country, mostly Hindu, nurtured a
political illusion of equal rights for all, while they maintained their
hegemony. In other words, the Indian polity was actually based not on equality
but clientelism. Most of the marginalized caste and religious communities have
to play second fiddle to one or more upper-caste Hindu communities.
The contradictory nature of the Indian Republic
whereby the elites sought (and seek) to hold on to power while employing a
language of liberalism, secularism, and democracy obstructed any meaningful
changes in terms of social justice. The culture of the new Republic too was
overwhelmingly upper-caste Hindu. Thus, communities which did not emerge out of
an upper-caste Hindu location had to change their culture to make it compatible
with Hindu, or euphemistically, Indian cultural forms. The public culture in
the new Republic was also marked by those cultural forms deemed appropriate by
Hindu culture in terms of food, drink, and dress.
With their hold on power, elite Hindus (as
well as non-Hindu elites), ensure that insignificant social and economic
mobility for marginalized caste and religious communities. True, the
constitution of India provides many safeguards against oppression and promotes
affirmative action, but the push-back from the elite sections has resulted in
the dilution of the progressive vision of the constitution. In publicly-funded
universities and government employ, persons such as Tadvi and Vemula face
constant and vicious harassment. It is not an exaggeration to say that persons
from marginalized castes and minority religions are often unwelcome in the
public institutions of the Indian Republic.
The problem of an equal, or at least a
fair, sharing of power has dogged the Republic since the beginning. If one
thinks about politics—and not just elections alone—in the Indian Republic, the
elites shared power only on limited occasions. They have done so begrudgingly
if at all power has been shared in the first place. One could think of the recommendations
of the Mandal Commission and the deep-seated resentment that many elites in the
country feel even today, as an example. The resulting concentration of power
within the hands of a few is the cause of the continued crisis facing the
Republic.
The crisis that confronts the Indian
Republic is an old one: How to eradicate the deep-seated inequalities to build
a community that looks after its own and nurtures its citizenry to its full
potential? It is this question that most public intellectuals do not confront. Of
late, there is the talk of the fundamental ethos of the Indian Republic being
in danger. There is no doubt that it is in danger. However, one must
bear in mind that the progressive ethos of the Republic has always been in
danger. There has always been strong opposition to any progressive politics
that goes beyond just words, that actually empowers the weak and shares power
with the downtrodden.
The way out of the crisis of inequality,
violence, and minoritization is to recognize that chest-thumping nationalism—of
any shade—only diverts attention from the real issues. It allows those in power
to engage in further polarizing the polity and permit the wholesale diversion
of resources to crony capitalists from those who need them the most.
(First published in O Heraldo, dt: 4 June, 2019)
