I admire your writing which is always free flowing, fresh and cohesive. Yet, sometimes you take it a notch higher. This is one of those times. Congratulations.
We need to look back to the 21-month period from 1975 to 1977 to understand this further. This period was the only one since India gained her independence in 1947, when democratic freedoms were suspended in favor of an “emergency” by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
India's problem has been that the Constitution is democratic, the laws, however, were never adapted accordingly. The "emergency powers" were a colonial leftover that had never been purged. Indira could just implement what the Raj had left on the books.
Whether India is "truculent" - akin to bullying - "Agressive disagreements" - I'm perplexed. This is not the India I've known over 25 years. An India where even mice get their dedicated temple. Argumentative, yes. So says Amartya SEN.
You write: "It is a nation held together not by language (the constitution lists 22 official languages), religion or terrain, but by an idea." Please explain the lofty term.
On a personal note, the complexity of getting to write a comment has become such that I might abandon the feature altogether. Too much of a hassle.
Truculent as in not likley to just do as they are told. Remember that anti incumbency was the major characteristic of Indian politics in the pre - modi era. For the idea of India, I refer you to Sunil Khilnani’s excellent book, The Idea of India (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_of_India)
The Cambridge Dictionary defines truculent as: "having a bad state of mind, or behaving in a threatening manner: He was a truculent bully." Not meekly following authority is not being truculent in my book, unless you are a Straussian.
I'll see Khilnani - if he is less than 200 pages long. At my age, I have hardly time for more.
Thank you Pallavi, for your interpretation on the meaning of the election results in India. To me they confirm that your democracy is pretty sound, admirably so when you consider the tensions within such a complex society, still struggling to rescue much of its population from poverty. Let’s hope Mohdis new Government has heard the voice of the people.
As always, wonderful writing. And although I don't have those writing skills, I thought why not share a PoV. This is strictly a personal PoV with very little instancing of the political details as you have a much deeper understanding.
1. I think one good thing I find from the results is that, the fact that the strong man, after 10 years of full majority couldn't just bull doze the constitution or election machinery to drive an unreasonable outcome. While they tried to get 400+ if they would have got it, everyone else might have claimed, that this was rigged and fixed. The fact that they couldn't get even the majority, they were not rigging the stuff beyond certain checks and balances that the country had in place.
2. Personally, I certainly think this should be a good thing, because it means, as the early signs show there might be a stable government in place as it's still broadly a 3 party lef alliance and not like a 10+ (as in the past ) and a stable government is just good for a country to keep making progress instead of getting stuck in limbos.. The country in general will countinue to make progress forward, may be slower but with better guardrails and not faster in whatever direction a limited few of one person wanted..
3. On the other hand, expressing my political naivity. I wonder every one who voted against, are folks who have switched their votes or they are be voters? Afterall who are they voting for? It's not that most people who voted against, did so with sharp mathematical calculations of bringing down the ruling party just below the full majority and let it lead with a coalition. Or were they? Or they were just voting for anyone in the opposition or they were actually voting for Congress/Rahul Gandhi (the significant gainer).. hoping they will be the saviours in the future??
So a long message, but just thinking aloud the questions that made me wonder about the nuances of what actually happened..
Feel I need to add a few of my views on some of your observations.
"they were not rigging the stuff beyond certain checks and balances that the country had in place."
Well, the elections were not entirely free and fair when you take a closer look at the details. The much ballyhooed "checks and balances" barely functioned. Indeed, whole might and machinery of the state was arrayed against the opposition.
Consider the following :
- 2 Chief Ministers were imprisoned
- The Enforcement Direction and the Tax authorities were let loose by the BJP government on opposition politicians;
- The Election Commission, which consisted of Modi appointees refused to curb the hate speech that Modi spewed;
- Opaque electoral bonds brought in colossal amounts of funding to the BJP;
- Cases were filed against opposition politicians such that they were either forced to defect to the BJP or face litigation and prison time;
- The entire media apparatus was transformed into a propaganda machinery that extolled the cult of Modi, not very different from the Kim Jong-un cult of North Korea;
Despite all of the above dirty tricks to circumvent "checks and balances" and a playing field tilted to its advantage, the BJP lost its lead.
Now imagine how much more seats the BJP would have lost if the checks and balances had actually functioned and institutions such as the Enforcement Directorate, the Election Commission, the Income Tax authorities etc. had done their job. I would therefore conclude that despite rigging the election though the methods outlined above by me, the BJP could not. Let us wait and watch to see how they will rig next time.
"It is a nation held together not by language (the constitution lists 22 official languages), religion or terrain, but by an idea."
You use the verb/phrase "held together" and I agree. Though not for the reasons you mention.
Fact is, India is a territory consisting of disparate regions, ethnicities, languages and religions that are actually "held together" to some extent by force but which have not exactly "come together" to voluntarily to form the nation state we call India.
When the British left in 1947, there were nearly 600 odd princely states and many of them wanted no truck with either India or Pakistan. They had to be cajoled and threatened into joining India, sometimes under threat of force, a task the venerable V.K.Krishna Menon accomplished with aplomb. From the ruins of the Raj, one saw first the creation of an India and a Pakistan and then a splintering of Pakistan itself into a Pakistan & Bangladesh. And in all 3 countries, one sees fissiparous forces which combat the "one size fits all" ideology of one nation, one religion, one language. Sometimes violently through separatist movements, sometimes through more democratic and political means.
My point here is that unlike a France or an Italy or a Switzerland where many of the regions wish to stay together, the sub-continent is rife with polities that do not wish to stay together and therefore are held together by force. Kashmir, Punjab, the North Eastern states and in 1964 even Tamilnadu wanted out. Likewise, Pakistan saw the emergence of Bengali nationalism in East Pakistan and is now plagued by Baluch nationalism and other tribal movements in the Pakhtun regions. In Europe, Spain has seen separatist movements in Catalonia and the Basque regions. Not to forget Scotland, Northern Ireland, the split of Czechoslovakia, the potential breakup of Belgium's regions and so on.
Against this backdrop, I will regard the Indian election results as a shot across the bows to the centralising and "fascistifying"* forces of the BJP/RSS that weaken federalism and look askance at regional, linguistic and religious identities. The one size fits all ideology of Hindi, Hindutva and Hindusthan would only widen and worsen the already weak forces that hold the country together. You only need to see how Indian diaspora groups organise themselves when outside the country. You have Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati, Kannada, Bengali, Sikh groupings that do not interact with each other and often have minimal contact with the Indian state organs such as embassies or consulates.
I hope the election results convey to the BJP and Modi the importance of federalism in a state which essentially started life as a British administrative unit and somehow became a democratic country with a sound Constitution due to the wise men at the helm of affairs at that time. It must also be noted that the RSS which spawned the BJP and to which Modi belongs rejected and de facto continues to reject the Constitution and wanting instead to replace it with Manusmriti. The election results tend to indicate that keeping the idea of India alive necessitates a repudiation of the Hindi-Hindu-Hindusthan paradigm Modi & the RSS are wedded to. Alas, I am afraid that such a repudiation is not in the DNA of Modi, the RSS and the BJP.
I admire your writing which is always free flowing, fresh and cohesive. Yet, sometimes you take it a notch higher. This is one of those times. Congratulations.
Thank you!
Dear Pallavi,
you write:
We need to look back to the 21-month period from 1975 to 1977 to understand this further. This period was the only one since India gained her independence in 1947, when democratic freedoms were suspended in favor of an “emergency” by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
India's problem has been that the Constitution is democratic, the laws, however, were never adapted accordingly. The "emergency powers" were a colonial leftover that had never been purged. Indira could just implement what the Raj had left on the books.
Whether India is "truculent" - akin to bullying - "Agressive disagreements" - I'm perplexed. This is not the India I've known over 25 years. An India where even mice get their dedicated temple. Argumentative, yes. So says Amartya SEN.
You write: "It is a nation held together not by language (the constitution lists 22 official languages), religion or terrain, but by an idea." Please explain the lofty term.
On a personal note, the complexity of getting to write a comment has become such that I might abandon the feature altogether. Too much of a hassle.
Take care
Aldo
Truculent as in not likley to just do as they are told. Remember that anti incumbency was the major characteristic of Indian politics in the pre - modi era. For the idea of India, I refer you to Sunil Khilnani’s excellent book, The Idea of India (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_of_India)
Dear Pallavi,
The Cambridge Dictionary defines truculent as: "having a bad state of mind, or behaving in a threatening manner: He was a truculent bully." Not meekly following authority is not being truculent in my book, unless you are a Straussian.
I'll see Khilnani - if he is less than 200 pages long. At my age, I have hardly time for more.
Take care
Aldo
Thank you Pallavi, for your interpretation on the meaning of the election results in India. To me they confirm that your democracy is pretty sound, admirably so when you consider the tensions within such a complex society, still struggling to rescue much of its population from poverty. Let’s hope Mohdis new Government has heard the voice of the people.
It is indeed a very complex society!
As always, wonderful writing. And although I don't have those writing skills, I thought why not share a PoV. This is strictly a personal PoV with very little instancing of the political details as you have a much deeper understanding.
1. I think one good thing I find from the results is that, the fact that the strong man, after 10 years of full majority couldn't just bull doze the constitution or election machinery to drive an unreasonable outcome. While they tried to get 400+ if they would have got it, everyone else might have claimed, that this was rigged and fixed. The fact that they couldn't get even the majority, they were not rigging the stuff beyond certain checks and balances that the country had in place.
2. Personally, I certainly think this should be a good thing, because it means, as the early signs show there might be a stable government in place as it's still broadly a 3 party lef alliance and not like a 10+ (as in the past ) and a stable government is just good for a country to keep making progress instead of getting stuck in limbos.. The country in general will countinue to make progress forward, may be slower but with better guardrails and not faster in whatever direction a limited few of one person wanted..
3. On the other hand, expressing my political naivity. I wonder every one who voted against, are folks who have switched their votes or they are be voters? Afterall who are they voting for? It's not that most people who voted against, did so with sharp mathematical calculations of bringing down the ruling party just below the full majority and let it lead with a coalition. Or were they? Or they were just voting for anyone in the opposition or they were actually voting for Congress/Rahul Gandhi (the significant gainer).. hoping they will be the saviours in the future??
So a long message, but just thinking aloud the questions that made me wonder about the nuances of what actually happened..
Feel I need to add a few of my views on some of your observations.
"they were not rigging the stuff beyond certain checks and balances that the country had in place."
Well, the elections were not entirely free and fair when you take a closer look at the details. The much ballyhooed "checks and balances" barely functioned. Indeed, whole might and machinery of the state was arrayed against the opposition.
Consider the following :
- 2 Chief Ministers were imprisoned
- The Enforcement Direction and the Tax authorities were let loose by the BJP government on opposition politicians;
- The Election Commission, which consisted of Modi appointees refused to curb the hate speech that Modi spewed;
- Opaque electoral bonds brought in colossal amounts of funding to the BJP;
- Cases were filed against opposition politicians such that they were either forced to defect to the BJP or face litigation and prison time;
- The entire media apparatus was transformed into a propaganda machinery that extolled the cult of Modi, not very different from the Kim Jong-un cult of North Korea;
Despite all of the above dirty tricks to circumvent "checks and balances" and a playing field tilted to its advantage, the BJP lost its lead.
Now imagine how much more seats the BJP would have lost if the checks and balances had actually functioned and institutions such as the Enforcement Directorate, the Election Commission, the Income Tax authorities etc. had done their job. I would therefore conclude that despite rigging the election though the methods outlined above by me, the BJP could not. Let us wait and watch to see how they will rig next time.
I like the comparison you make with China. Indeed, there is a lot to celebrate
Bravo! Bravo! Hear, hear! Brilliantly written.
Succinct yet eloquently fact-laden. (Verdades como puños).
Your flair and wordsmithery is truly that of a craftsperson. (even had me teary eyed at certain junctures)
The Peoples have spoken!
Jai Hind!
Thank you!
Thank you for this, it was very informative for me!
Brilliant
https://www.facebook.com/share/DAZzqaq5w378c4r3/
"It is a nation held together not by language (the constitution lists 22 official languages), religion or terrain, but by an idea."
You use the verb/phrase "held together" and I agree. Though not for the reasons you mention.
Fact is, India is a territory consisting of disparate regions, ethnicities, languages and religions that are actually "held together" to some extent by force but which have not exactly "come together" to voluntarily to form the nation state we call India.
When the British left in 1947, there were nearly 600 odd princely states and many of them wanted no truck with either India or Pakistan. They had to be cajoled and threatened into joining India, sometimes under threat of force, a task the venerable V.K.Krishna Menon accomplished with aplomb. From the ruins of the Raj, one saw first the creation of an India and a Pakistan and then a splintering of Pakistan itself into a Pakistan & Bangladesh. And in all 3 countries, one sees fissiparous forces which combat the "one size fits all" ideology of one nation, one religion, one language. Sometimes violently through separatist movements, sometimes through more democratic and political means.
My point here is that unlike a France or an Italy or a Switzerland where many of the regions wish to stay together, the sub-continent is rife with polities that do not wish to stay together and therefore are held together by force. Kashmir, Punjab, the North Eastern states and in 1964 even Tamilnadu wanted out. Likewise, Pakistan saw the emergence of Bengali nationalism in East Pakistan and is now plagued by Baluch nationalism and other tribal movements in the Pakhtun regions. In Europe, Spain has seen separatist movements in Catalonia and the Basque regions. Not to forget Scotland, Northern Ireland, the split of Czechoslovakia, the potential breakup of Belgium's regions and so on.
Against this backdrop, I will regard the Indian election results as a shot across the bows to the centralising and "fascistifying"* forces of the BJP/RSS that weaken federalism and look askance at regional, linguistic and religious identities. The one size fits all ideology of Hindi, Hindutva and Hindusthan would only widen and worsen the already weak forces that hold the country together. You only need to see how Indian diaspora groups organise themselves when outside the country. You have Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati, Kannada, Bengali, Sikh groupings that do not interact with each other and often have minimal contact with the Indian state organs such as embassies or consulates.
I hope the election results convey to the BJP and Modi the importance of federalism in a state which essentially started life as a British administrative unit and somehow became a democratic country with a sound Constitution due to the wise men at the helm of affairs at that time. It must also be noted that the RSS which spawned the BJP and to which Modi belongs rejected and de facto continues to reject the Constitution and wanting instead to replace it with Manusmriti. The election results tend to indicate that keeping the idea of India alive necessitates a repudiation of the Hindi-Hindu-Hindusthan paradigm Modi & the RSS are wedded to. Alas, I am afraid that such a repudiation is not in the DNA of Modi, the RSS and the BJP.
* I know, that word does not exist !