For our democracy to be reactive, the country is in need of a political system that is committed to alter theself-seeking and shaky polity into a steady, sensible and selfless one
Judith M Brown, Emeritus Beit Professor of Commonwealth History, University of Oxford and author of several books on Mahatma Gandhi in her recent article 4 questions Gandhi asked of himself, and of all of us listed the following.
1. What is religion?
2. How should one live?
3. What is the nature of political identity, particularly the nation?
4. How should one conduct oneself in the practice of politics?
Brown answered the questions underlining the supreme importance of non-violence and Gandhi’s radical thinking. The opening lines of the article reads: “150 years after Gandhi’s birth there are many Gandhis, in India and worldwide. Diverse people and groups have valued and used some of his ideas and practices, or used his name to grace their own projects. Sometimes he has been deployed in support of causes which he would not have recognised. In a real sense, he has become global property.”
On the question of religion, Brown writes, “for Gandhi, religion was not a clearly packaged and labelled set of beliefs and practices; neither was it a communal or semi-tribal identity. It was a pilgrimage in search of truth, a lifelong searching for God as truth rather than for a divinity which could be described in any simpler way.”
In response to the second question she remarked that “Gandhi pronounced the powerful aphorism that there is enough in the world for the needs of every man, but not for the greed of every man..... His own lifestyle in the last 25 years of his life back in India is well-known and Gandhi was very aware of the advertising effect of his freely-chosen poverty and simplicity in food, clothing and possessions.”
In answer to the third question, Brown mentions that “India was not to be defined by language or creed or even place of birth and heritage. What mattered in making “an Indian” was living in the subcontinent, making it one’s home, and valuing its ancient and complex civilisation. The identity of the nation was urgent in his time because of the imminent departure of the British rulers and increasingly violent controversies over the relationship between national and religious identity.”
Answering the final question, the historian writes, “Gandhi recognised that disagreement and conflict are inevitable in human society and interaction between individuals and groups.....Conversion rather than coercion was his remedy for conflict.......Even though non-violent modes of public and political action often seem to have failed in his lifetime and beyond, his life and teaching raise the perennial question of the right ways to behave in the public arena.”
Now, let me attempt to extrapolate Brown’s standpoint by looking at present-day India, which is marked by many contradictions. The political setting is worrisome as the world’s largest democracy is contaminated by the constraints of politics — from religious hate crimes to politics of tokenism to politics of polarisation and corruption. In a sense, extreme, vocal ideologues are gaining ground on both the far-Right and far-Left parties. Incidentally, each and every political party, populated by individuals who have no moral compass, is perhaps the best explanation for the perilous state in which Indian democracy resides today. All of this makes abundantly clear something that has long been obvious about India’s grimy political mess.
Whether it’s religious hate crimes, let’s remember that Gandhi was appreciative of India’s religious and linguistic diversity and was against politics of hate. In Bapu’s words, “I came to the conclusion long ago . . . that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian.” Through the decades, political tokenism in our country has become not just accepted but celebrated as the leaders indulged in wearing skull cap or shawl, inflammatory advocacy of certain issues, lunch diplomacy and so on. Ironically, our political leaders look up to Gandhi for inspiration, who never wore a skull cap and yet fasted for Muslims’ safety during the riots in Delhi and West Bengal at the time of Partition. It goes to show how tokenism-ridden politics has been quite successful in almost replacing Bapu’s philosophy in wooing voters. After all, tokenism is what the political system sells to you and me.
We live in a paradoxical time as some political parties are getting stronger and others weaker. While the former is well-financed, well-organised that bring a mass of resources to bear on campaigns and candidates, the latter’s linkages with voters have grown weaker due to poor organisational ability to lack of leadership. Incidentally, in an era of intense political polarisation, there is hardly any party which is ideologically cohesive and is above political posturing.
It’s for this reason there is a question mark over the centrality of political parties as key institutions of India and their increasing inability to perform functions seen as essential to a healthy performance of democracy. As Indian politics has acquired a darker shade, it’s time to revisit Gandhi’s deep ethical view of politics. According to Spiritualizing Politics section of Mahatma Gandhi’s Leadership - Moral And Spiritual Foundations by YP Anand, Gandhi never sought a public or political office or title. He was in politics for spiritual reasons. He explained in a speech in London “….although to all appearances my mission is political….its roots are, if I may use the term, spiritual….I claim that at least my politics are not divorces from morality, from spirituality, from religion….a man who is trying to discover and follow the will of God, cannot possibly leave a single field of life untouched. I found through bitter experience that, if I wanted to do social service, I could not possibly leave politics alone.”
Now, let’s talk about another reality that is political corruption. It thrives in our country. With social media and the smartphone, we can help form an opinion fast but we can’t have political leaders agree that corruption funds their politics. Concluding, India has been a representative democracy but, it’s yet to be a responsive democracy. And to be a responsive democracy, it needs to set right the political system. Our country is in need of a political system that is committed to alter the self-seeking and shaky polity into steady, sensible and selfless one. In columnist Steve Chapman’s words, “The bad news is that our democracy does a poor job of giving the people what they want. The good news is that it’s easier to fix a rotten system than a rotten people.”
(The writer is former Deputy General Manager, India International Centre, New Delhi and General Manager, International Centre Goa)
