My previous post, the one that I made yesterday, was meek, weak and cowardly. Let me explain why I say that. When I read what Mr. K. Chandrashekar Rao had to say about "self rule" I was righteously indignant but somehow when it came to writing, I ended up making that a small part of a larger post, while the focus should have been on that particular utterance. I have been thinking about my cowardice and have now decided that I shall post what I should have yesterday itself, today. I don't know what kind of repercussions this kind of writing will involve, but I shall go ahead nevertheless. Any Indian, with a concern for the country, should be alarmed by the nature of the separate Telangana agitation and the utterances and actions of the leaders of this agitation. The last one year has completely and comprehensively demonstrated that democracy as a system that leaves decisions to elected representatives is deeply flawed at least in the context of India. The reasons are straight forward. In India, we know the various machinations and manipulations of voters that bring leaders into power as elected representatives. It could be anything from distribution of money, distribution of liquor to plain intimidation that can bring a person into power. Over and above that if one sees the performance of the elected representatives it is very clear that what we have today is a mockery of democracy rather than democracy. Otherwise how will one explain the fact that pan Andhra Pradesh political parties like the Congress and the Telugu Desam have people in their ranks (Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly) clamouring for both separate Telangana and United Andhra Pradesh at the same time? What do these parties stand for? Are they mere aggregation of individuals?
Now to come back to the question of Mr. K. Chandrashekar Rao's utterances. "The only solution to the Telangana problem is the self rule of people of Telangana" is what he said, among many things. In my timid post of yesterdays I only said how does one establish the nativity of a person and say he/she is from Telangana. And I left it at that, thanks to my cowardice. Today, however, I shall raise some points and demonstrate the dangers that are lurking within that statement. First of all let us consider the legal aspects of what goes into the question of local and non-local, the categories that are determine whether someone gets a seat in an educational institution or a job. A person in order to be called local has to live continuously in a designated area for four years without a break. When a person does not satisfy this criterion he/she becomes a non-local. Now when you say that only Telangana people should rule themselves, there are questions. What if a family from another part, be it Coastal Andhra or any other, has made a part of Telangana their home for the last say ten years. Now if someone from that family chooses to contest elections will they be considered non-Telangana and therefore barred from contesting an election? The constitution clearly says that anyone of a sound mind and body over the age of 25 years can contest an election from anywhere in the country. In the light of what is written in the constitution how does one justify KCR's statement? Somebody said that non-Telangana people can contest elections but people will not vote for them. My question then is why cannot the same be done in the present day Andhra Pradesh itself? Let the voters of Telangana not vote for those who come from other parts of the country and are contesting elections in their region. Why does one require a separate Telangana for that?
Already I see in the Osmania University (and I am sure this is the case in other universities and government offices) when it comes to promotions people point fingers at their opponents and say so and so is a Tamilian and therefore a non-local (it does not matter that the person's grandfather also lived here in Telangana only) or that someone is ineligible for the post of Head of Department (which comes routinely) because he/she has some relatives in Coastal Andhra or has antecedents in Coastal Andhra. I hope my readers are able to see the dangers of this argument without my having to elaborate on it further. Doesn't this constitute discrimination? Do we need to introduce newer forms of discrimination into a society that is already riddled with discriminations? One of my friends argues that the situation is no different in Coastal Andhra and that people from Telangana are discriminated there. I believe my friend fully. The solution is taking the fight to Coastal Andhra against discrimination rather than saying we will discriminate against you here. One discrimination only reinforces the other, something that is detrimental to the good health of a nation.
One of the things that frightens me about this whole nativity thing is that tomorrow this could be used against minorities and that could culminate in the re-ignition of communal passions which thankfully are dormant today. Already those belonging to certain political parties believe that people belonging to some religions are not indigenous people and in order to prove their patriotism they should follow certain things. The kind of parochialism that the Telangana argument raises over questions of nativity will most certainly at some point in the near future find place in questions pertaining to religious minorities as well. Also the language that is being used by Mr. K. Chandrashekar Rao and other leaders about self rule and nativity are bound to spread to other parts of India where there are some active parochial movements and some passive ones. If this goes unchecked and unnoticed here, one day the whole nation stands to be harmed. It is therefore very surprising that no editorial pieces or op-ed articles appear anywhere in any newspaper looking at the deeper implications of this kind of language and utterances.
And that is what brings me back to the point that I made in the first paragraph about the failure of the existing model of democracy. Given the fact that political leadership in the country by and large consists of lumpen elements, it is difficult to believe that only electoral politics and a democracy based only in them can find solutions to the problems of this country, be they demands for separate statehoods or corruption or anything else. I do not want to be misunderstood here. Electoral politics cannot be done away with. But in themselves, they are inadequate. Deliberative democracy has to come into the picture in order to question the wrong doings of elected leaders and also to suggest appropriate amendments to various failed public policies. Most problems of the country today are the doing of elected representatives, so to expect them to solve them is akin to expecting a thief to catch a thief. Deliberative politics will ensure that elected representatives constantly get a feed back about what people think of them and therefore will pressure them into working for the people, rather than for themselves. For this to happen a vibrant print and electronic media are required. That this country does not have them yet is another story and therefore a subject for another post. Till then Ciao.
No comments:
Post a Comment