Poll rhetoric threatens India’s plurality
INDIA’s compelling reality is its immense diversity. No political dispensation, no matter how powerful and ideologically driven it may be, can succeed in putting a monochromatic frame over this. Ours is a shared culture, but the emphasis lies on the aspect of sharing, not of adhering. It’s a crossroads culture, created through the assimilation of influences India was exposed to through the millennia. It lay at the intersecting point of the caravan routes from Central Asia, stretching into the West Asia and to the Mediterranean, and the maritime sea routes connecting it to both the eastern and western flanks of the Indian Ocean. Just as Indian religious and political thought, languages and art and architecture flowed out to these geographies outwards from the subcontinent, so, too, did corresponding influences from the latter spread across India. This has bequeathed to Indian culture and to the temperament of its people an innate cosmopolitanism, which makes Indians one of the most adaptable people in the world. We have been the original global citizens of the world.
It is a matter of pride that the country has been able to conduct elections on an unprecedented scale every five years and that there has been a smooth & uneventful transfer of power.
When India hosted the G20 summit in September 2023, it was most appropriate to have Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the whole world is one family) as its defining motto. But to embrace the whole world, one must begin with embracing the people of one’s own country. This is also the reason why the Preamble to the Constitution lays as much stress on fraternity as it does on liberty and equality. Fraternity is particularly important for a diverse country like India. It creates a sense of affinity that transcends differences in caste, creed or religion and in the ways of living. It is fraternity which is the true basis of nationhood. Of belonging to a common cause and engaged in the pursuit of a shared national mission.
The framers of the Constitution recognised that Indian nationalism would have to be built on acknowledging rather than suppressing the multiple identities of its people. And yet, in the final analysis, they did not quite trust the people of India to successfully balance their separate identities with an overarching concept of equal citizenship. In its final shape, its subsequent amendments and in laws passed by the legislature, the Constitution enabled the coercive power of the state to be progressively strengthened at the expense of the citizen. The state became selective in allowing some assertions of separate identities but in seeking to suppress others, the touchstone being what best served political interests of the moment. Suppression of some identities would be justified on the grounds of a threat to national unity. Others may be promoted and even legitimised to ostensibly advance national unity. The state is able to use its control and influence over the media and information channels to demonise some communities but ennoble others. Political rhetoric, then, aligns with the strategy of the moment. Such rhetoric often takes on a hysterical pitch, which drowns out all reasoned arguments.
In a democracy, the holding of free and fair elections is indispensable but not sufficient. An independent media and a vibrant civil society provide the means to safeguard the ordinary citizen against transgressions by the state. They hold the state accountable on behalf of the citizen and constitute an alternative channel of information for the people. This is also the role played by a powerful and independent judiciary. In history, it has often been the case that the national security and national unity arguments have been used as powerful labels to de-legitimise independent institutions and dissenting voices and, eventually, political competition.
India is midway through its 18th General Election. It is a matter of pride that the country has been able to successfully conduct these elections on an unprecedented scale every five years and that there has been a smooth and uneventful transfer of political power without violence or challenge. An independent Election Commission makes certain that all political parties and politicians play by the rules when seeking votes during their election campaigns. It is expected to make sure that candidates do not use religion, caste or creed to mobilise votes, but it is not always successful, and sometimes it is allegedly selective in imposing penalties. But during the ongoing elections, the rhetoric indulged in by certain political parties and leaders has crossed all limits. There has been a most vulgar and scurrilous attack against our Muslim citizens and charges of ‘anti-national’ activities have been repeatedly flung at political rivals. There is a thick fog of deliberate misinformation and outright lies designed to mislead and confuse voters. We profess Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and yet indulge in openly creating dangerous fissures in our fragile social fabric. I have said this before and will repeat it: an overarching national unity cannot be constructed on a Hindu-Muslim binary.
It is easy to dismiss the offensive and threatening statements made against India’s Muslims as election rhetoric, which will dissipate once the polls are over, but this is not true. The hurt and pervasive fear they have inflicted will simmer long after the elections conclude. Words once spoken cannot be retracted. The damage is done. As Rahim has said in one of his most celebrated couplets:
Rahiman jihwa bawari; Kah gai sarag paatal
Aapu toh kahi bhitar rahi; Jooti khaat kapaal.
(My wayward tongue has said all that lies between heaven and hell. It has said what it wanted and retreated, but it is my head which is receiving painful blows as a consequence).
Election rhetoric must remain within the limits of civilised discourse. The pursuit of political power cannot be without ethical markers, for that will take us on a dangerous road of national and social fragmentation. I write this with a sense of deep concern about our country, whose ability to accommodate incredible diversity and sustain a vibrant democracy has been our pride and the envy of the world. It is this most precious of assets, honed over the centuries, which is in danger of being lost forever. This is a treasure which a future Vishvaguru may be unable to resurrect.
