 |
||
|
||
|
||
The defeat of the Janata Dal in the prime minister's erstwhile
constituency a while ago has been interpreted, cutting across party
lines, as a vote against outsiders. Considering the fact that the
Dal's film star candidate belonged to the neighbouring district and
prime minister's home district is itself not far away, Ramnagaram's
electorate has taken localism to new heights.
Other states may not have gone as far as Karnataka has in
preferring the local. But with Punjab having been won by the
Akalis wooing the Sikhs and the BJP the Hindus, the Indian version
of to-each-his-own has clearly come to stay.
Power-seekers
The response of political parties to this reality has fallen into
two broad patterns. The Congress and the BJP have tried to
exchange power in the states for the support of the regional
parties at the Centre. The United Front, on the other hand, has
offered a share of power at the Centre to its regional parties.
More than the success or failure of either approach, what is
significant is that both experiments are being worked out through
compromises rather than alternative perceptions. The BJP, for
instance, is being less hawkish on the Anandpur Sahib resolution
than it was some years ago. But it has not officially altered its
position, choosing instead to brush its differences with the Akalis
on the issue under the carpet. Similarly, the United Front is
nowhere near coming up with an alternative federalist perception of
liberalisation. Notwithstanding the promise of the Common Minimum
Programme, what we have in reality is case-by-case compromises
between its constituents.
This preference for compromise over alternative perceptions may
appear politically expedient, but it further erodes the credibility
of the political leadership. A coalition of leaders who are
together because of short-term expediency, and do not even pretend
to share a common perception of India's future, is hardly likely to
enthuse a large nation. And as the leaders of national parties try
to overcome the limitations of their ideologies through political
compromises, they too are transformed from committed leaders to
mere power-seekers.
Politicians may believe that they have little to lose as long as
their competitors are also tarred with the same brush. But the
costs of a nation that scorns its political leadership are becoming
more evident. Within the country the decline in credibility is
hurting the government's ability to carry out its basic duty of
maintaining the rule of the law. If the CBI investigates some
politicians, no one is certain that there is no political motive.
If corporate houses are raided for malpractices, there is an
immediate fear of a raid-raj.
It is convenient to believe that judicial activism can make up for
the politician's loss of credibility. But the judiciary can, at
best, interpret the law. It cannot change the law to suit a rapidly
changing society. The continuation of laws that are considered
unjust has contributed to the phenomenon of people in more backward
areas preferring to elect dacoits. And without a credible political
leadership that is seen to be changing the law to bring in a more
just society, an aggressive implementation of existing laws may
only further alienate these groups.
Bargaining Power
Much as the short-sightedness of politicians may have contributed
to the present crisis of national confidence, the problem cannot be
attributed to the political class alone. Even if politicians were
to address themselves afresh to the question of what diverse
sections of the Indian population expect from the nation, and what
India must expect from the rest of the world, there are not many
answers going around. Within the country there is no clearly
worked out alternative to the centralised philosophies of
Nehruvianism, Hindutva or the different shades of socialism.
In the international sphere too there is no clear perspective of
what India can expect from the rest of the world. While successful
globalising countries offer to open up their economy in exchange
for benefits from the rest of the world, India does not know what
to ask for. It has thus to establish its bargaining power by
offering less, even when it can afford to offer more. This has now
reached ridiculous proportions with the country committing itself
in the latest WTO Telecom agreement to only 25 per cent foreign
ownership, though current policy already allows 49 per cent in
direct foreign equity.
In a sense, this crisis of ideas was not entirely unexpected. It
can be argued that even in the past such crises emerged when a new
political order was establishing itself. British rule too went
through at least three phases before it established itself. Under
Clive there was dual government, with British control being masked.
There was then Cornwallis's attempt to establish a uniform system.
But British rule matured only after Munro and others worked out
means of absorbing local Indian practices into a system of national
government.
By the same token, India's experience soon after Independence was a
form of dual government with the Oxbridge left-of-centre national
leadership coexisting with a feudal system in the remote areas.
When in the post-Nehru years this coexistence was no longer
possible, there was an attempt to impose uniformity whether this
took the form of a centralised charismatic leadership or more
direct methods like the demand for a uniform civil code. But now
that the centralised system is showing enough cracks for the
national parties to compromise with local forces, there is no sign
of a new perception that will absorb local aspirations and link
them not just to the national system but also to the global one.
Western Marxism
And the prospects of such a perspective emerging in the foreseeable
future are also not very bright. Indian academia has traditionally
responded to questions raised in the West. Even when it was
fashionable to be inward-looking, the intellectual basis for this
approach was taken from western Marxism. With liberalisation
increasing the opportunities to relate to the western intellectual
world, it may be too much to expect Indian academia to be willing,
or able, to come up with an alternative perspective.
Without such a perspective the process of decentralisation leads
only to a local consciousness, which could over time eat into the
overall national consciousness. Politicians may find a way to win
elections even in the new environment. But what matters is not
whether Mr Deve Gowda can win back Ramnagaram, but whether the
efforts to satisfy the local aspirations of these voters erodes
their national consciousness.
|
||
|
||
|
||