The real intent of Hindi imposition
Their proposal for simultaneous elections and the even more wishful thing about a presidential system clearly showed their intent. I’ve been wary for a long time. It’s coming to the fore.
“I didn’t take the one language thing seriously, because the inevitable opposition from many quarters took care of it and got a backing off immediately. But this is worrying, and sinister. It’s not always right to draw parallels to Nazi Germany, but this one does remind one of how they made all other parties illegal. In it’s portrayal, these guys have been doing that for a while now, and this seems to be testing the waters for whether they could get away acting on it. If they start – it’ll be the biggest abuse of an absolute majority thus far.
Denmark, for instance, has never has a majority govt for a century now. They have true libertarianism and deeply believed in equality for all citizens and their rights and access to the public commons, and say in the country. I’d kinda assert they’ve done better, but hey. “
Is Amit Shah implying bi-party system like US? The author seems to assum
e one-party. Even biparty system is terrible for India. The US doesn’t have a biparty system. It is a multiplayer party system. But the campaign expenses have contained smaller parties. Otherwise it will look more like Israel. When multiple parties have seats in legislature, all groups and all perspectives are accommodated. That’s the only way to prevent tyranny. Dominant groups still have to negotiate with smaller groups. That prevents surprises, unrest and treachery. Otherwise, oppressed groups have to revolt or work with outside powers to
gain their share of power.
The two-party presidential system
has actually been terrible for the US. The last thing India needs to do is
adopt it. BJP has been pushing for this since the Vajpayee days and it aligns
with their centralized, autocratic way of thinking. We must move ahead in a coordinated fashion – somehow that sounds like Amit
Shah has a march in mind. Don’t think he’s talking about abolishing or
outlawing other parties. Single party rule will persist as long as the public
As long as the main opposition is led by a corrupt dynasty determined to hold onto power by any means, the public may well continue to see single party majority rule as the lesser of two evils.
Even the strong push for a dominant party as the only option is unhealthy? Of course it is. But we have few options. Too bad Indian political parties are not democratic where they allow ordinary members to remove leaders and elect new ones. And MPs nowadays are just spineless yes-men who are incapable of disposing rotten leadership when they need to.
Comparing India to
countries like Denmark is out of context. Entire Denmark has a population of
57.5 Lakhs while Bangalore alone is 84+ Lakhs. And most of them are also a more
homogeneous lot with a much better economy. This often-repeated examples of
these small homogenous countries is actually misleading. They can of course
talk of everything from Liberalism to Multi-culturism, without having to really
solve the problems of diversity and conflicting interests. What works in
Denmark or Norway, will no way work for India.
This is not to justify a single party rule or to advocate, Mr Shah’s commitment to democratic values. The system put in place in India is, however, in my view, is flawed. It is a political democracy imposed on top of essentially a feudal society and mindset (which is disintegrating but at a very slow pace). Therefore, the politics here is organized in terms of loyalty to sub-groups of the caste, community, the local strongman and so on, rather than on the desires of enlightened citizens.
We keep giving
ourselves these reasons. Try comparing Karnataka, or the density or so many
other parameters. We have a lower density than the Netherlands for instance.
And more natural resources. It’s a lack of imagining a different way. We have
to stop assuming we are feudal. Wrong Examples lead to wrong conclusions, something that we
need to be careful about.
But, for the second part about “It’s a lack of imaginino skin in this discussion, except to point out that Bangalore has a population closer to 1.35 crores now. Or there about saying the same thing in a different way.”, that is perfectly true. I think that was the point I made too. We can’t take these examples, because our imagining has to be very different and novel suitable for our scale of problem.
India technically is not a feudal society because the term refers to a form of society that evolved in Europe. It may be semantics, but the little details matter a lot. For instance, feudal societies are divided by class, not caste, so using that lens here will miss the dynamics of how this society actually works.