Let me start with an anecdote here. A few days ago I was asked to go for a recording of a discussion programme on Maoist Extremism and if and how it is a detriment to the developmental process. My co-panelists in this discussion were a retired professor of economics from another university and a professor of communication and journalism from a university which is in the neighbourhood of my university. The moderator was someone who does these programmes as a contractor. I had suggested to the moderator and the other panelists that we have a plan of action in place so that the discussion would be relevant and meaningful. I was told that it would be okay even otherwise, so I let it be. Then the moderator started of the discussion by shooting a question at the communications professor about how extremism can be an impediment to development. To my utter disbelief the professor started off by saying that the proposition was wrong and went on to speak for a staggeringly long time about police atrocities. Then the economics professor let loose about various developmental schemes launched by the government for an almost equal amount of time. By the time my turn had come to speak I was already in a petrified trance, since I had no clue whatsoever as to what this was all about. Before I could say anything meaningful I was told that my time was up since it was time for a break. I was shocked since this was a recording and how could anyone stop me for a break. I was told that the channel preferred not to edit the programme and therefore recorded it as if it were live. Then the second round started. The moderator asked the professor of communications about the role of the media in taking information to the people (what information was not specified) and the good professor rambled on for sometime and then another question was asked of the professor of economics about how the Tatas moved their car factory from Singur to Sanand. He rambled on about a few welfare schemes in Maharashtra and in the districts of Adilabad and Khammam in Andhra Pradesh. Then there was the signal to wind up the discussion and I was asked to briefly speak about why there was unemployment in the country. In the twenty five minutes of discussion that we had, Maoism was never mentioned by the moderator or the other two speakers. Everybody spoke about what they knew and the moderator was quite happy to let them continue since he had no questions. Police atrocities, development schemes of the Union Government, Tatas and Singur and unemployment at the National level were all discussed. If this is how teachers are, it is no surprise that our students write what they know in exams irrespective of the questions asked. But that is not the reason why I started this post with this story.
What came out clearly in this episode was that no one had an idea as to what the State is, what is development and the role of the people in the developmental process. I had a similar experience when I was once asked to speak to research scholars about the role of people in a democracy and the participants were fairly shocked by my starting off with the responsibilities that people have to fulfill in a democracy. They were of the opinion that it is democracy if we just vote and then attack the State for not doing what is expected of it. I simply asked a question there. I asked them as to who was responsible for people breaking traffic laws in Hyderabad when they drive and was told that it was the State. The substantiation behind that was the traffic police were not stopping the law breaking motorists. I said would it not be better if the people did not break rules in the first place and the response was that it is still the responsibility of the State to ensure that people did not break rules.
Put the two episodes together and you can see what I am driving at. We don't seem to have an idea as to what the State is and what its responsibilities are. We also seem to treat it as the 'other' that is distinct from the people and that which is responsible for the miseries and misfortunes that we as people suffer. Institutions such as the police which are seen as enemies are not seen as those which are empowered and legitimized by the State which is itself legitimated by the people. Most people are happy to identify democracy with just procedures such as voting and no more. People do not seem to understand the idea that democracy is self governance of the people in substance, with the procedure of voting put in, to simply identify representatives of the people, who will work for the welfare of their constituents. In my previous posts I have been saying that what is missing in Indian democracy is the deliberative component, which is obviously the key requirement. We do not seem to be able to connect institutions such the Parliament and State Legislative Assembly to the notion of deliberation. We don't seem to realize that these institutions are provided with the idea that they will serve as platforms for people's representatives to discuss the problems and prospects of their constituents, and also to find mechanisms of problem resolution. Contributing to this lack of understanding is the behaviour of our politicians who use the Parliament or the Assembly (if and when they go there) to behave boorishly. My question then is where is the substance of democracy in India? Only in procedures? Add another variable to this and it becomes even more confusing. Could we possibly have societies without power relations in them?
Power is one of the crucial variables that we need to understand when looking at the functioning of society. Otherwise why would we require authority? Authority should be seen as the official and legitimate empowerment of offices and officials so that these can deter naked power. The existence of authority is the acquiescence to the existence of power relations. Democracy seeks to overcome naked power and jungle law through a deliberative process and hence deliberation is at the centre of all democratic thinking. But it seems when judging the functioning of institutions and offices it seems as if we see authority abstracted from the context of naked power in which it exists and hence our disbelief in police and the State. Contributing to this are politicians who use the authority vested in them by their constituents as naked power rather than legitimate authority. How else does one explain the distancing of elected representatives from their people?
This is pretty much the case in Andhra Pradesh today. Politicians have by and large misused the trust of the people to get into manipulations that have very little to do with the interests of their constituents. The interest of the constituents is used as a facade for the pursuance of the politicians own ends, which rely heavily on the politicians ability to extend their naked power. When what should have been legitimate authority begins to act in the manner of naked power, there is a cascading effect that extends to all other institutions as well. We therefore forget that the police and bureaucracy are at one level people like us but those who can go against the dis-empowered people by serving the interests of various contending paradigms of naked power. Separatists movements like the separate Telangana movement or at another level secessionist movements like the onetime Khalistan movement and the present Kashmir movement or extremist movements like Maoism are all conjured by politicians by pitting people against people for the furtherance and fulfillment of their (politicians) own goals of power mongering. In response to one of my previous posts (the one pertaining to Caste at the root of the great divide) my friend Pramod has written a few comments (you can find them at the bottom of the post in the comments section) where among many other things he talked of how it is disheartening to see some people at the bottom of the society having no access to any social and economic goods. In spite of him and I not agreeing on the separation of Telangana into a new State, we have both seen eye to eye about the plight of the truly common and dis-empowered people. His solution seems to be that if the numbers are smaller than the possibility of justice is greater, whereas for me since the problem itself is the making of politicians we need to work at making democracy truly deliberative. That can happen only when we sit down to speak rather than shout at each other. What is urgent now is first the restoration of deliberation at the centre of democracy rather than harping on procedures. People are capable of rational speech and that is the need of the hour. After that if there is still a demand for separation, so be it; that is acceptable since it will be enlightened.
No comments:
Post a Comment