Democracy, as famously said, is a rule of the people, by the people, for the people. Though a very lucid definition, if interpreted narrowly, this can be used to justify the most heinous of crimes and can play havoc with our social fabric. Lets take some examples to understand this.
Case 1: Nazi Germany - A leader with a huge popular support puts Germany on fast track of development. However, a democracy where majority is everything, the minority (the Jews) suffers the most despicable and horrible extermination recorded in human history. Is this acceptable in democracy?
Case 2: Current Switzerland - A nation famous for its Direct Democracy model. However not many people around the world know the plight suffered by the silent minority of Switzerland - the Muslims. They are not allowed to make mosques, have no religious freedom and must lead a silent life without asserting their identity. Is this acceptable in democracy?
Case 3: Malaysia - The case of HINDRAF, the organisation of minority Hindus in Malaysia, is now well documented in newspapers. These people face a lifelong legal discrimination in their own country just because they are a minority in Muslim majority Malasia. Is this acceptable in democracy?
Case 4: New Delhi - The lieutinant general of Delhi asks for identity card to be carried by every one in Delhi. The due date for compliance was just 3 weeks after the announcement. Again, the majority regular educated Delhite has no trouble. It is the uneducated workers from Bihar & UP who feel the pain. These people, though a lot in quantitative numbers, have absolutely no voice in Delhi because most of them are not enrolled in Delhi voter list. So there is no Delhi politician to talk for them. Does democracy grant power to Delhites to make any law without keeping the lot of the daily wage labourers in consideration?
We see that if interpreted narrowly, democracy can turn out to be no better than communism - fear of an all powerful majority or state for every individual. Because everybody belongs to a minority community in one classification or the other. Imagine what would happen if all the illiterates in India unite and vote for an illiterate Prime Minister, who orders the next day for all schools, academic institutions, R&D establishments etc to be shut down. Do you believe in this kind of a democracy?
I hope not. And thats the reason why Democracy can not be interpreted merely as a rule of majority. An equally important aspect of Democracy is Individual Liberty & Rights. Freedom of an individual, regardless of sex, religion, beliefs, sexual orientation or education, to live life on his/her own terms. Freedom not to be afraid of majority. It is precisely this freedom that Jews under Hitler, Muslims in Switzerland, Hindus in Malaysia (and in Bangladesh & Pakistan), workers in Delhi lack. It is also this same freedom that West Bengal government took away from Tasleema Nasreen, that Indian government took away from M F Hussain, that Congress took away from Sikhs after Indira Gandhi assassination and now finally, that Modi had taken away from Muslims in Gujrat.
Decide for yourself what kind of democracy you want. Remember always, everyone belongs to one minority group or other, including you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The kind of world that you or I might want does not exist. And it is useless to pray for that kind. I am yet to know of a nation where the first and only defining principle is that of freedom and that principle being not misused by some group or the other.
The constitutions of most of the nations including India guarantee individual freedom. What you mean is that its not getting practised and that some morons have been successful in hijacking it. Thats right, but thats what makes it even more important to keep fighting. The small state of Iowa in US has a great slogan - Live free or die! How Ayn Randian and how true!
but isnt it totally opposite in india... chuk the majority, protect of minority ?? or are you saying india's democracy is a success becoz of this...
all your points are taken, except that of Hussain... we have fundamental rights of liberty but also have the fundamental DUTY of not hurting others sentiments.. which he has violated
Minority protection is indeed a key element of a democracy and to a large extent, we in India seem to have done a good job of it, as compared to many developed European nations. Unfortunately, for political purposes, sometimes the minority protection takes the form of Minority appeasement, which in principle, violates our fundamental right of equality.
Coming to M F Hussain, right of free speech & expression has to be an absolute one, without any sub-clauses or riders. Otherwise, you will see that any thing one says starts hurting one group or the other, and if we believe in such riders, pretty soon our voices would be choked by the moral brigade. Today it is a painting by Hussain, tomorrow it will be a particular dress worn by a girl which hurts somebody's sentiments, then probably a book and thus it goes on. When Sant Kabir challenged the muslims and the hindus with his dohas , he also hurt a lot of sentiments but I am sure we dont disagree with them. We may disagree with what M F Hussain has depicted in the paintings but that does not mean he has no right to express whatever he wants.
PD:
Could not agree with you more on the freedom of expression. As Voltaire said "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it".
But such rights have to be uniform and the standards should be the same for all. As u have said without sub-clauses.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens...
when we put this as the first line in our legal document governing all people, we cannot expect but to make a khichdi of everything... somebody remarked in some context, but it does seem very appropriate here - it is just a phrase
"trying to give everyone a bj..."
it just cannot happen... some gain some lose... some gain unfairly... that is what freedom means...
it is foolish to dream of a utopia where things are supposed to do whatever they were defined as... or expect that there would be nobody whose sentiments would be hurt or that nobody would scream "violation of my basic rights" because hoping against this fails the purpose of freedom and democracy...
Post a Comment