Congress, BJP and the Art of Governance

   The Curious Case of Sandeep Pandey

In this semester I am teaching political sociology, and this naturally forces me to think about the way political parties cement their hold on power structure. I am not a Marxist, but I always advice my students: ‘you cannot do social science without understanding Marxism’. The reason being, that we live in the ‘age of capital’, and no one has analysed the logic of capital better than Marx. So, I myself will begin this short essay with Marx and some of his ideas about politics. For Marx, peasants were burden on the history, as they lived in isolation, and had hardly any contact among themselves. They had neither means nor vision to become revolutionary proletariat. They were ‘class-in-itself’, as per the famous distinction Marx made between 'class-in-itself’ and ‘class-for-itself’. It is the urban-industrial proletariat, Marx opined, that had the potential to become ‘class-for-itself’, and are the vehicle of revolution.

However, in course of time Marx proved himself wrong. While agrarian societies, like Russia and China, had experienced communist revolutions; the industrial societies of the west, in spite of being the home of some of the largest and very powerful communist parties, were not experiencing any form of proletariat revolution. Gramsci, who was very much concerned as to why revolution had not taken place in western societies, as predicted by Marx, developed the concept of HEGEMONY to understand the non-revolutionary character of industrial proletariat in the capitalist west. For Gramsci, the way cultural institutions advocating the virtues of capitalist logic have evolved in the western world, that, these institutions do not allow the proletariats to perceive their real enemies. Broadly this is what Gramsci meant by hegemony. For Gramsci, the ‘sacred canopy’ of cultural values and ideas are essential for any economic or political system to function and stabilise.

This theory of hegemony helps me to understand the issue of Sandeep Pandey. For me, it is not important why Pandey was removed from the IIT Banaras, but more important to understand is to how he entered the IIT (without any corresponding degree). Pandey was proclaimed as a Gandhian who would teach Gandhian values to the students. But there is a reason why the Congress party ‘adjusted’ Pandey inside the IIT. The Congress Party has read Gramsci thoroughly. The Congress knows that if it has to rule the country in long terms, it needs the support of not only the people (voters), but equally important, of those, who play important role in ‘opinion making’. Thus, after Independence, the Congress has worked very hard to control most of the educational and cultural institutions that shape the ideas favourable to it, with the help of these ‘independent scholars’ (be it film, or curriculum, or other forms of discourses).

The Congress knows that opinion of an ‘independent’ person or expert carries more weight in the eyes of the people, than those who are overtly aligned to a political party. The ‘secular’, ‘leftist’, ‘human right advocates’, ‘Gandhians’, to name a few, receive support from the Congress, but they are hardly visible on the Congress platform. They proclaim themselves ‘apolitical’, and also ‘speak’ against the Congress, but they never hit the Congress where it hurts the most. This was one of the reasons why Kejriwal and Anna found political space during the UPA rule, since most the ‘independent’ scholars and activists were not willing to confront the Congress on the issue of corruption. These ‘independent’ scholars share very cosy relationship with the Congress Party.

Thus, the Congress can bank upon the power of ‘independent’ scholars during critical political situation. (One such example in recent times has been the ‘intolerance’ debate and ‘award wapsi’ by ‘independent public figures’ just before the Bihar assembly election). While legitimation of dissent is most important feature of a democracy; the protest by these ‘independent’ scholars against the NDA government for ‘systematically destroying the institutions,’ had also something to do with an attempt to help the Congress Party to perpetuate its control over those institutions that play important role in the production and reproduction of hegemonic ideas favourable to the Congress Party (one can see the way Indian Independence struggle has been written by the historians of ‘repute’, and how people have forgotten the ‘Emergency’).

Contrast this with the BJP. First, the BJP has not been able to put much of its supporters in the public institutions, since it has not been in power for long. But whatever little supporters it is cultivating, it forces them to publically affirm their loyalties to the party. (Recently one such meeting took place in the Delhi University) I am not sure who gets what from this type of event in the BJP, but certainly it forces the scholars of repute, even when they are its best sympathisers, to distance themselves from the BJP. And those who publically affirm their loyalties to the Party, their viewpoints hardly carry much weight among the general population. The BJP perceives intellectuals not as source of ideas, who would help the Party in the creation of a hegemonic structure favourable to it, but in terms of number. Thus the BJP cannot bank upon the power of ‘independent’ scholars and experts when it needs, and its hold over power remains fragile.

No doubt the Congress remain a natural ruling party in this country (even it has less support in terms of numbers), and others, including the BJP’s entry in the government remain an abrasion (even they have more support in terms of number). Erosion of people’s support, to some extent, can be compensated by control over ideas.

Is there a Bihari Exceptionalism?

    No. It is in conformity with the arrival of ‘new' politics 

                Shashi Bhushan Singh

As the dust of Bihar assembly election has settled down, it is right time to analyse not what was different about Bihar election, but if there is some continuity in the Indian electoral behaviour. My assessment is that though every election has its own specificity, there is also some commonality. What is the trend in Indian politics today?

For me the 2015 Bihar Assembly election result is in sync with the ‘new politics’ the nation is experiencing from the past few years. The main feature of this politics is that except for few castes and communities (mostly dominant) whose caste men or the political party they traditionally support, have chance to win elections; majorities of the castes and communities have started perceiving different levels of elections differently. Means, earlier people voted for the same political party at two different levels of elections (assembly and Lok Sabha), but now they take the voting decision keeping in mind, who can be the best bet at a particular level. The party and personality play important role in selection and rejection of parties, if not candidates.

During the run up of 2014 Lok Sabha election, when the BJP was claiming to win majority of seats in Bihar and UP (two states where it was politically very weak); people were cynical about its claim. However, the BJP sensed that people have started looking Lok Sabha election differently from state assembly elections, and accordingly devised its electoral strategy. To large extent the credit for this detachment of national political mood from regional one goes to Mr. Modi, whose appeal to build a new India found many takers across castes and regions. However, after 2014 Lok Sabha election, the BJP forgot this detachment principle, that even though it has got massive mandate at the national level, people might vote for different political parties during forthcoming assembly elections. This misconception developed since the BJP, even after breaking away from its long- time political allies, won Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand state assembly elections. But the fact remains that the BJP won these assembly elections, only because the political rivals were highly ‘discredited’. To think that it was Modi ‘magic’ that brought victory for the BJP in these states (at the most one can say that the presence of Modi was necessary, but not sufficient condition) was negation of a principle (detachment), which the BJP had rightly sensed during 2014 Lok Sabha election, worked accordingly and reaped rich dividends.

Thus earlier in Delhi and now during Bihar Assembly election, BJP did not change its strategy and relied heavily on Modi ‘magic’. In a highly diverse and plural society, like India, Modi’s aim of bring uniformity by invoking the slogan, ‘same party (at the state and centre) better rule’ did not find many takers. He forgot his own slogan about his idea of Delhi Sultanate, when the UPA was attacking him, and after becoming the Prime Minister disbanded the Planning Commission, which, he alleged, acted on ‘one size fit all’ plan. Modi himself used the term Gujrat ashmita to debunk Congress high command culture. To think that a particular socio-cultural trait of Indians that has helped him politically, but would not help others was political blunder. Indians aspire for diversity as well as good governance and found Kejriwal and Nitish better bet to govern the states.

As far as Bihar is concerned, people in general were happy with Nitish administration. They wanted Nitish, but were wary of his association with Lalu Yadav. The major issue in election was not the track record of Nitish, but the place of Lalu in the new scheme of thing. The NDA was telling the people that Nitish would not be able to control Lalu, leading to arrival of what the NDA called the ‘jungle raj’. On the other hand Nitish was trying to convince people that his association with Lalu would not have any impact on administration. Finally Nitish was able to convince the electorate about his side of story. People preferred to vote for a person who was already tested, against some unknown face of the NDA. Finally Nitish won.

Thus Bihar election result is not exceptional and should be seen as the continuation of a process, whereas state assembly and Lok sabha elections are now detached, not only in timing but also in orientation. The clean sweep by the BJP in 2014 Lok Sabha election, and within eighteen months, the overwhelming victory of AAP in Delhi and RJD-JD (U) in Bihar, that were routed in 2014 Lok Sabha election, is pointer of this detachment. The outcome of forthcoming state elections would also be decided by the same principle. BJP has paid the price by forgetting this principle. The Congress and other parties (including Kejriwal and Nitish) would also suffer heavily, if they think that Delhi or Bihar assembly election result has anything to do with Modi’s popularity at the national level, or assembly election results are in any manner referendum on the working of the central government.

Context will change but this principle (detachment) will remain relevant for some time.

(The writer teaches sociology at the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi)

Elusive State, Restless Society

Elusive State, Restless Society

        Nirbhaya Rape, Dimapur Lynching and class contradiction in Indian society

Two events of this week- controversy over documentary ‘India’s Daughter’ based on Nirbhaya’s gang rape case, and the lynching of a rape accused in Nagaland by a mob of more than thousand people, has brought the issue of relation between the Indian state (here only I am concerned about the justice system) and a restless society (the restlessness was most visible in the crushing defeat of the Congress Party in 2014 Lok Sabha election) in public discourse. In Indian context it has something to do with the entrenched class bias in which we Indians have lived from time immemorial.

Societies have existed from centuries. However there are certain functions that must be performed if a society has to survive, and one of these functions is the ‘maintenance of law and order’. Earlier, before the arrival of modern state, societies had built certain institutions to maintain order, and it was the threat of feud, leading to extinction of the entire society that played the most important role in maintaining order. The modern state having ‘monopoly over the use of force’, whereas ‘non-state actors cannot take law into their hand’, is recent phenomenon in the history of mankind. In modern state-centric societies the state took up the role of punishing the accused, and providing justice to the victim. The reason this switch over from society-centric to state-centric justice system was, that many times the force used against the accused was disproportionate to the crime committed, and sometimes innocents were the victims of vigilantism.

This gave birth to the modern justice system and court. There are certain principles on which the modern justice system functions. Firstly, justice would be swift, since ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Secondly, the victim would get justice and the culprit would be brought to book. Thirdly, an accused is innocent till he/she is proven guilty. In modern state-centric societies vigilantism is considered illegal and hallmark of a backward society.

First, I would discuss the way the justice system vis-à-vis rape has functioned in India. It won’t be totally incorrect to say that the justice system has not lived up to the ‘expectation’, of victim’s families, as well as for a section of people. This dissatisfaction from justice system has been growing in recent times, whereas people think that the justice system has been lenient towards the accused and cruel to the victim. The Nirbhaya case, which drew world-wide attention and outrage can be used to understand this process. Three years have passed since the heinous crime took place, but no one knows when the victim would get justice. The case is with the highest court of the land, but from the past one year nothing has happened. The rape accused are on the death row and living under acute ‘mental torture’.

What is the people’s perception about this particular case now? People suspect that after a year or two the death penalty would be confirmed by the highest court. But the confirmation will come only when a particular ‘time gap’ between the award of death penalty by the lower court, and its execution schedule has taken place. After that ‘someone’ would approach the court and the court would pronounce another verdict which would commute the death sentence to life-imprisonment. The logic would be that the culprit has been on death row from long time, and has already lived a life worse than death. The ‘enlightened people’ would cite European cases (very smartly not American case where death penalty is not only legal but is very much active in practice) to defend commutation of death penalty into life- imprisonment on the ground that the state has no right to kill anyone. Thereafter the death sentence would be commuted to life-imprisonment, and ultimately, sometimes in future, the accused would be on the basis of having ‘good behaviour’ during the prison years. Just see what happened to Surinder Koli, the perpetrator of Nithari rape cum murder of more than a dozen children from lower class. After he was awarded death penalty and had exhausted all options to save himself, suddenly Allahabad High Court commuted his death penalty into life imprisonment.

The second issue relates to the class bias in Indian society. Hierarchy is inbuilt principle of our social order and that is very much manifested in rape cases. Almost every victim of rape comes from the lower and lower middle classes. But the state and the judicial system is controlled by the upper classes (through Supreme Court) - judges, advocates, human right activists, academicians. This class has been totally insensitive to the culture, value and needs of the lower classes. For this upper class, publically championing the interests of the lower class is just a means to legitimise their higher position in society. To cite an example to make the issue clear. When it came to Teesta Setalvad, the top advocates ensured that she was saved from the custodial interrogation. The same law that has been invoked to ‘extract’ information from lower classes became blasphemous in Teesta case. The upper class considers the lower class not only totally different from them, but also less human who are born to be humiliated, killed and raped. This leads to travesty of justice. The Fundamental Right as enshrined in the Constitution (Article 14) about not only ‘equality before the law, but equal protection of the laws within the territory of India’ has remained sham.

This complex relation between a state controlled by the upper class and denial of the justice to the lower class has brought restlessness among the people, particularly those who have been the victim of this duel administration of law. For the lower classes how the judicial system functions is becoming mysterious, though we are supposed to be living in an era of right to information and transparency. Once people know that it is almost impossible to get justice, they are forced to take law into their hands. Only recently the women MPs, while raising concerns about the documentary India’s Daughter, demanded that if the judiciary is incapable in punishing the culprits, the culprits should be handed over to them. The killing of a rape under- trial by the mob in Nagaland is sad commentary on the way the upper class managed justice system and the state has functioned. History shows that men have rebelled only when a perception grows that the institutional arrangements that has been created to provide justice to them has failed. The sooner the upper class controlled state and judiciary take note of this fact the better it would be for the state as well as society. 

Aam Aadmi Party 2015: The Death of an ‘Idea’; The Birth of a Party

Aam Aadmi Party 2015: The death of an ‘idea’; the birth of a party

The AAP did not come into existence as part of any design, but was product of the time. More than a political party, the AAP was an ‘idea ‘whose main goal was to inject a new political culture in Indian political system, particularly in electoral democracy. The AAP was a platform for all those who wanted to work for a ‘clean’ politics. Those who believed in political morality, total revolution and saintly politics started associating with the party. Means received priority over the end (power). The main goal of the party was not to capture power, but to clean the political system. Even while remaining part of the mainstream electoral democracy; still doing things differently was the very basis of its existence. The founders wanted the AAP to be an ‘experiment’ which would have demonstration effects on other political parties. The India against Corruption (IAC) members who founded the AAP just wanted to prove that they not only preach (as was the case with the Anna movement and was criticized by the mainstream political parties), but can also practice a ‘clean’ politics. The strategy was to bring the ‘public’ into public policy and the method of AAP’s work was built upon a basic principle- ‘medium is message’, that is ‘what we preach, we practice’.

In 2013 when the AAP became a political reality, two types of issues were agitating the minds of people in Delhi- political corruption and price rise. The people of Delhi were looking for some political alternative to the existing Congress regime, but the BJP, the main opposition party to the Congress in Delhi was so weak that voters had no faith in the ability of the BJP to dethrone the Congress. Kejriwal went on to brinkmanship and many of his ‘unlawful’ acts were applauded by the people. The result of Delhi assembly election was astonishing and defied all political logic. There was worldwide acclaim of the AAP model of politics. A dozens of AAP’s copycats sprouted in the country. However the AAP remained in the movement mode even after it headed the government. Its forty-nine days tenure was known more for the controversy it generated than the works it did. One day Kejriwal declared that since his government was not able to get the Jan Lokpal Bill passed (that he claimed was the very ‘soul’ of the party’s existence) he was resigning.

AAP probably got carried away by the type of mandate it had received in Delhi. Kejriwal’s strategy to position himself as the main rival of Modi sent him to Varanasi to contest election against Modi. However looking Delhi election result as the microcosm of national politics did not pay off. The absolute majority the BJP and total rout of the Congress Party left no scope for any post-poll maneuverings in the Lok Sabha. Now AAP strategy was to anyhow remain relevant in Delhi. Before Delhi election the AAP was acting, whereas it was in control of its vision, agenda and mode of action. However after 2013 Delhi assembly election, the AAP was not acting but reacting to the emerging situation. As the end (to capture power) acquired precedence over the means, it led to manifold complications for the party. It even could not fight Maharashtra and Haryana assembly elections, since with limited resources it was necessary for the party to ‘reclaim’ Delhi. Of course the party has got unprecedented mandate in Delhi, but it has also fielded 23 candidates with criminal background and an equal number of crorepatis. The idealism with which it had started is the thing of the past. Today, like other political parties, the winability of candidate has acquired priority, and the sole aim of the party is to capture power. A party formed to inject transparency in political system today remains highly non-transparent in its working. It criticized the high command culture of other political parties, but today the party revolves around whims and fancies of one person. Just to come to power it has promised all sorts of things to different segments of the society. Aam aadmi is just a voter and not a participant in the way the party is conducting itself. The classical Marxist doctrine that people are not capable of deciding about their destiny and must be guided by the enlightened agents has become the hallmark of the AAP. One more party has been added into the Indian political system. The party of ‘aam aadmi’ is dead.

‘Long live that Idea.’

The Riddles of Religious Conversion in India

The Riddles of Religious Conversion in India

The Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the ‘freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion’, ‘subject to public order, morality and health and all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion’. While freedom of conscience and free profession and practice’ of one’s religion has remained non-controversial; it is the ‘freedom to propagate’ one’s religion, that has been a subject of controversy, because the line separating conversion through conscience and conversion through ‘force, allurement or fraud’ gets easily blurred. The question is why the issue of conversion has suddenly become tricky whereas not only domestic but even a foreign dignitary (the US President) was forced to speak out about it.

I try to understand the complexities inherent in this phenomena and why it won’t be easy to resolve it.

The conversion from Hindus/ tribes/ scheduled castes (while Hindu groups say that these groups are Hindus; others say that tribes and scheduled castes cannot be categorised as Hindus) to non-Hindus is going on, as Christianity and Islam allows people from other faith to become part of their religion. However in post-Independence India there is difference between conversion to Islam and Christianity. While conversion to Islam has been local phenomena whereas certain low caste Hindus convert to Islam due to ‘bad’ treatment, marriage or just due to sheer belief; the Christianity has a well-organised institutional structure to convert people into their fold. In the process the economic aid, service to humanity and conversion to Christianity get mixed up.

The Hinduism has a different story altogether, since one can become Hindu only by birth. Though ‘the Hindu method of absorption’, whereas indigenous and tribal groups have become part of the Hindu fold, has been going on from centuries; it is not organized one and the process is so slow that  it takes three to four generation to be accepted into the Hindu fold.

What is the implications of this dichotomy between a legal (constitutional) order that allows people to propagate their religion, and a social order, whereas while the Hindus cannot convert others to their religion, but Christian and Muslims can do the same?

While there are many reasons why the Hindu groups find themselves in disadvantageous position due to this dichotomous relation between the legal and social order; one of the immediate reasons seems to be the place of population in democracy. The minority community still does not support the BJP which is the preferred party of a section of fundamentalist Hindus. These Hindu groups believe that the rising population of Christian and Muslim will be detrimental to their idea of India. So in order to increase their number, now certain Hindu organizations have started advocating that one can also become Hindu, like one becomes Christian or Muslim, through conversion. Though this is against the long tradition of Hinduism, it has found takers among the Hindus religious heads and other organizations. The dilemma has been resolved by stating  that Hindu groups are not bringing anyone to Hindu fold, but just facilitating these people (Muslims and Christians) once again revert back to Hinduism. Their claim is that these people were Hindu and converted to other religion either due to fear (Islam) or favour (Christianity). The process of bringing these people into Hindu fold has become easier due to detachment of occupation from caste and floating urban population. Just imagine that if someone takes up a Hindu name after conversion he will get married among Hindus somewhere and no one is going to question him. The economic benefits that the Hindu SCs gets from the protective discrimination of the state policy has acted like an incentive to non-Hindus to adopt Hindu religion.

And here lies the predicament of the Christian missionaries and secular parties. The Muslims are not much affected by this process since they don’t have an organized institution to convert people (even if it exist it is not as strong as the Christianity) into their fold, and most of the conversion to Islam has taken place in distant past so Islamic ideology has become part of their conscience. Thus there is little chance for Muslims to convert to Hinduism. However the conversion to Christianity has been very recent one and there is very high level of probability that these groups would revert back to the Hindu fold. These newly converted Christians still have not been able to totally detach themselves from the previous faith.

The irony is that it is the Hindus groups that demand enactment of an anti-conversion law, and it is the Christians, who are at the receiving end, are vehemently opposed to any anti-conversion law. The reason is that the Christian organisations know that any anti-conversion law would stop the conversion of Hindus and other indigenous groups to Christianity. But the irony is that they don’t want the Hindu groups to indulge in the process of ‘re-conversion’ or ‘Ghar Wapsi. Earlier the dichotomy of legal and social order worked in the favour of Christians, but as the dichotomy is getting erased the Christians find themselves in disadvantageous position. 

And that’s why the issue would remain very tricky for some time.