By alluding to grievance, I am referring to perceptions of historical injustices spanning many centuries that still seem to affect identity formulations in modern India and have the ability to impact political outcomes.
However, the critical question remains: Is this continued obsession with historical baggage beneficial to the ethos of Indian society or is this detrimental to community relations in a diverse country? Whatever the substantive merits of the historical grievance, there is a real need for communities and individuals within those communities to desist today from seeing themselves as victims of an endless cycle.
My contention is that those individuals who fail to break free from the burden of the past are shackling their own present and consequently, their future too.
One of the prominent issues in Indian politics arising out of a sense of grievance noted above is a notion of the "silent majority" that is still prevented from claiming its rightful sphere of influence after centuries of subjugation.
VS Naipaul, one of my favourite authors - though with whose political prescriptions I sometimes disagree with - brings out this angst eloquently in his work, India: A Wounded Civilization. However, while the suggestion of the "silent majority" rendered voiceless is tempting, it is not borne out by a factual analysis of Indian democracy.
At all levels of representative democracy, from the village panchayat to the Lok Sabha, members of the majority community exercise the dominant influence. By its very nature, this is how democracies operate. In no sense, can it be said that the majority is silent.
The rise of the BJP through the 1990's owed much to the strategy of seeking to cultivate a feeling of grievance among members of the majority community, along of course with the desire of creating a viable alternative to the Congress.
However, it does not befit a party that aspires to be at the forefront of Indian political life to obtain nourishment from a regular diet of suspicion and loathing of minorities.
Here, I should mention that there are some other aspects of the BJP's approach which I concur with. For example, while the party's "India Shining" campaign proved unsuccessful in the last general election, in my view, the campaign represented a welcome step towards establishing a positive language of political discourse far removed from the negative propaganda of grievance.
Further, there are compelling socio-legal reasons for a uniform civil code, a constitutional cause I've consistently supported.
However, at the same time, I remain unwavering in maintaining that the BJP must eschew its vitriolic rhetoric against minorities or else it runs the risk of alienating itself from the moderate mainstream.
A measure of a civilised democratic society is the level of dignity that it accords to its minorities. LK Advani is on the record stating that December 6 1992 was "the saddest day in my life". As he embarks on a "national integration" rath-yatra in circa 2006 to counter the UPA's policies of "minority appeasement", he would do well to reflect over his own words.
The BJP is not alone in capitalising on grievance. This tendency cuts across the political spectrum. The emergence of the BSP claiming to be the champion of the marginalised sections of society offers another instructive example of this. In theory, a party that aims to represent and empower the oppressed ought to be welcomed.
But perversely, the very reason for its existence has ensured that the BSP has a direct interest in regularly stoking the embers of grievance among those that it seeks to represent. Preserving the status quo camouflaged by token gestures has been its consistent approach.
Any actual empowerment of the marginalised runs counterproductive to its prospects. It is vitally important to the party that the marginalised must always think of themselves as marginalised.
Another extremely contentious domain where grievance has provided a tool for political machination is reservation i.e. affirmative action. From the implementation of the Mandal Commission's report to this day, the area is beset with controversy and obfuscation.
While there is no denying that affirmative action is an instrument of public policy capable of promoting substantive equality, perhaps the time has arrived to enquire whether the present system of blanket quotas is working efficiently or whether the system requires a radical overhauling.
It is particularly important to look at whether affirmative action for an indefinite period is contributing to the perpetuation of a culture of grievance that it is meant to eradicate. For these reasons, I remain sceptical of efforts to extend affirmative action on the basis of religion or into the private sector. Moreover, any introduction of affirmative action into the private sector would also be an overwhelming fetter on free enterprise and Indian competitiveness.
Notwithstanding the above illustrations of grievance and polarisation, India is undeniably moving forward. As a consequence of liberalisation, the aspirations of a changing society is altering how individuals see themselves and indeed, in how the world has begun to look at India. While India may not yet be shining, there is little doubt that it is on its way.
A political party that is able grasp this altered mood and converse with the electorate in an optimistic language can extract considerable leverage. For a new generation of confident Indians, issues regarding schools, infrastructure and job opportunities have a greater relevance to their lives than cumbersome historical baggage.
Unburdened by the past, they are assuming greater control over their own lives and have ceased to think of themselves as victims. On the other hand, individuals who remain engulfed by grievance and prefer blaming others instead of addressing their own inadequacies will find progress difficult to achieve in this brave new world.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)first published:March 20, 2006, 16:35 ISTlast updated:March 20, 2006, 16:35 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
The extent to which the political landscape in India continues to be influenced by grievance should be a matter of concern. Recent events bring this issue again into sharp relief.
By alluding to grievance, I am referring to perceptions of historical injustices spanning many centuries that still seem to affect identity formulations in modern India and have the ability to impact political outcomes.
However, the critical question remains: Is this continued obsession with historical baggage beneficial to the ethos of Indian society or is this detrimental to community relations in a diverse country? Whatever the substantive merits of the historical grievance, there is a real need for communities and individuals within those communities to desist today from seeing themselves as victims of an endless cycle.
My contention is that those individuals who fail to break free from the burden of the past are shackling their own present and consequently, their future too.
One of the prominent issues in Indian politics arising out of a sense of grievance noted above is a notion of the "silent majority" that is still prevented from claiming its rightful sphere of influence after centuries of subjugation.
VS Naipaul, one of my favourite authors - though with whose political prescriptions I sometimes disagree with - brings out this angst eloquently in his work, India: A Wounded Civilization. However, while the suggestion of the "silent majority" rendered voiceless is tempting, it is not borne out by a factual analysis of Indian democracy.
At all levels of representative democracy, from the village panchayat to the Lok Sabha, members of the majority community exercise the dominant influence. By its very nature, this is how democracies operate. In no sense, can it be said that the majority is silent.
The rise of the BJP through the 1990's owed much to the strategy of seeking to cultivate a feeling of grievance among members of the majority community, along of course with the desire of creating a viable alternative to the Congress.
However, it does not befit a party that aspires to be at the forefront of Indian political life to obtain nourishment from a regular diet of suspicion and loathing of minorities.
Here, I should mention that there are some other aspects of the BJP's approach which I concur with. For example, while the party's "India Shining" campaign proved unsuccessful in the last general election, in my view, the campaign represented a welcome step towards establishing a positive language of political discourse far removed from the negative propaganda of grievance.
Further, there are compelling socio-legal reasons for a uniform civil code, a constitutional cause I've consistently supported.
However, at the same time, I remain unwavering in maintaining that the BJP must eschew its vitriolic rhetoric against minorities or else it runs the risk of alienating itself from the moderate mainstream.
A measure of a civilised democratic society is the level of dignity that it accords to its minorities. LK Advani is on the record stating that December 6 1992 was "the saddest day in my life". As he embarks on a "national integration" rath-yatra in circa 2006 to counter the UPA's policies of "minority appeasement", he would do well to reflect over his own words.
The BJP is not alone in capitalising on grievance. This tendency cuts across the political spectrum. The emergence of the BSP claiming to be the champion of the marginalised sections of society offers another instructive example of this. In theory, a party that aims to represent and empower the oppressed ought to be welcomed.
But perversely, the very reason for its existence has ensured that the BSP has a direct interest in regularly stoking the embers of grievance among those that it seeks to represent. Preserving the status quo camouflaged by token gestures has been its consistent approach.
Any actual empowerment of the marginalised runs counterproductive to its prospects. It is vitally important to the party that the marginalised must always think of themselves as marginalised.
Another extremely contentious domain where grievance has provided a tool for political machination is reservation i.e. affirmative action. From the implementation of the Mandal Commission's report to this day, the area is beset with controversy and obfuscation.
While there is no denying that affirmative action is an instrument of public policy capable of promoting substantive equality, perhaps the time has arrived to enquire whether the present system of blanket quotas is working efficiently or whether the system requires a radical overhauling.
It is particularly important to look at whether affirmative action for an indefinite period is contributing to the perpetuation of a culture of grievance that it is meant to eradicate. For these reasons, I remain sceptical of efforts to extend affirmative action on the basis of religion or into the private sector. Moreover, any introduction of affirmative action into the private sector would also be an overwhelming fetter on free enterprise and Indian competitiveness.
Notwithstanding the above illustrations of grievance and polarisation, India is undeniably moving forward. As a consequence of liberalisation, the aspirations of a changing society is altering how individuals see themselves and indeed, in how the world has begun to look at India. While India may not yet be shining, there is little doubt that it is on its way.
A political party that is able grasp this altered mood and converse with the electorate in an optimistic language can extract considerable leverage. For a new generation of confident Indians, issues regarding schools, infrastructure and job opportunities have a greater relevance to their lives than cumbersome historical baggage.
Unburdened by the past, they are assuming greater control over their own lives and have ceased to think of themselves as victims. On the other hand, individuals who remain engulfed by grievance and prefer blaming others instead of addressing their own inadequacies will find progress difficult to achieve in this brave new world.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)
Comments
0 comment