Can Modi rectify the 'democracy-deficit'?
Nationality is an accident by birth. In my deepest prayers, I have wished to re-incarnate again as a Hindu-Indian, despite the flaws in inequity of caste, gender, or economic disparity within my country. Yes, flaws abound, but are my sentiments seditious or secessionist in their expression for change? Were I to fly to Rome for Mother Teresa’s canonisation, would Modi-bhakts troll me for being a "sickular"/anti-nationalist?
India was once an amalgam of states, now a federation, embracing multicultural diversity and respecting plurality. How can the multitude be bullied into conformity? Which party or individual holds the patent or propriety to "Indutva"? There is a growingly untenable position adopted on sedition by those in power reminiscent of the British who punished natives fighting for freedom from oppression. Neither does holding a flag nor chanting "Bharat Mata ki Jai" sanctify me as a nationalist. This is just symbolic cultural nationalism. My sentiments go much beyond tokenism as a patriot.
Threat
A creeping fascism into the BJP by rightwing Hindu evangelists threatens to condemn as a traitor anyone who is beef-eater, pro-Pakistan or does not hail the chant of Bharat Mata, as viewed through the prism of the rabids. Whether it’s vigilantism or extending the seditious arm of law to muzzle student or social movements that are in conflict with the government or its ideological parent, the RSS, there is an unmistakable social coerciveness in bullying anyone contrarian to their "Idea of India".
The fact is the BJP rose to power on the back of a social coalition of the Hindutva Parivar’s cadres, and both need each other to expand the party’s social and political footprint.
The PM can neither silence nor dispense at will the hardliners by sending them back to their "shakhas", because of the diarchical structure of governance. We experienced dyarchy, meant to be a symbiotic sharing of responsibilities, during the UPA, when Sonia Gandhi managed party affairs and the PM functioned as the administrative head. In an ideal division of labour, shared power between two vertical heads works well in optimising synergies for the greater good of citizenry. But when the two function as polar opposites with separate agendas, it works to the detriment of the populace.
Ram Mandir, the hyper-nationalistic symbol of the last century that unified Hindus, cannot be replayed by the BJP in 2016 in its new avatar of gau raksha, or ultra nationalism to coalesce the majority community and isolate as seditious anyone at variance with the Parivar ideology.
Modi the futurist is a progressive with an incremental economic agenda, yet is unable to control culturally and socially the tyranny of dogma that is drowning the voice of reason, as an orchestrated fear is beginning to silence the voice of innocence.
When RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat appeals to Hindus to procreate more to counter the “imaginary rise” in Muslim demographics, or when Dalits are flogged by Hindu gau rakshaks in Una, it reveals the underbelly of Hindu radicalism at its worst. It is the same Parivar Modi has to rely on, as the crucial UP polls near, to help the saffron cause.
Sedition
How does actor Ramya’s pleasantry, "Pakistan is not hell, people there are like us", come within the ambit of sedition? Even in victimisation of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, the Bombay High Court opined “expressing disapproval of government by lawful means without violence” cannot come under Section 124(A). Activism to rectify the perceived injustices of an errant state is a reformist, and cannot be deemed seditious by intent.
Hardik Patel’s agitation demanding reservations for Patidars, or JNU students union president Kanhaiya Kumar’s activism is an extension of the same challenges, where status quoism and the official line of thinking confine in fetters and chains any liberated thinker.
Agitation
Campus life is about critical thinking, activism for creative disruptions in politics, and democratic dissent. Sedition cannot be unleashed at whim to muzzle liberals, artists and civil society. Section 124(A), a draconian law left behind by the British originated with the aim to stifle dissent against freedom fighters, now revoked it in their own country. It applied to those who intended to “excite disaffection against His Majesty”. Who is the "majesty" in the context to India: a non-radical, free thinker, or the imperious state?
If CBI was the “caged parrot” of the UPA to torment Opposition and tax-terrorism was the hallmark of its regime to intimidate the populace, then oppressive vigilantism and charging for sedition are becoming the BJP’s signature style to scare student movements or agitators into submission.
Mahatma Gandhi said in 1922 when facing trial for sedition, "We desire to show that the government exists to serve the people, not the people the government. No empire intoxicated with the red wine of power has yet lived long enough in this world.”
Midway into its term, the BJP has a chance to course-correct by reigning in extremists before the 2019 elections. What the voter will reward Modi for is how hard he tried to mitigate the injustices of 60 years of inequitable growth, yet strived to deliver jobs and prosperity.
But we the people would be unforgiving if freedom of expression is curtailed in exercising our rights in a mature democracy.