Sadly, alternative politics to BJP is also floundering
There are several commonalities between Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar and his Karnataka counterpart Siddaramaiah, though they are in different political parties.
To begin with, they are almost the same age. Both of them are first generation politicians in their families, and both began their political journey within a few years of each other in the Janata Parivar. This political stable in the late 1970s and early 1980s widened the social and economic base of the political arena by providing a platform and opportunities for several underprivileged social groups.
Finally, both are currently pursuing certain questionable policies as chief executives of their states but are getting away with it because of their claim of leading front line forces in the defence of secularism in the country. By raising the bogey of the BJP and other members of its clan, the two leaders have avoided being questioned for some of their policies which in the long run will only strengthen the BJP's brand of politics.
Take for instance Nitish's much-publicised policy of imposing total prohibition in the state. After having given the indication of a slow roll-out, the government imposed complete ban almost overnight, thereby allowing the police to use strong-arm tactics against suspected violators.
In the public criticism of the opposition to the policy by JNUSU president, Kanhaiya Kumar, Nitish invoked the Directive Principles of State Policy.
 |
| The merit of Nitish's policy of imposing total prohibition in the state almost overnight is questionable. |
The danger of drawing strength from moribund parts of the Constitution - described by TT Krishnamachari as "veritable dustbin of sentiment... sufficiently resilient as to permit any individual of this House to ride his hobby horse into it" - could not have been more evident than during the recent gau raksha debate.
The Bihar chief minister was on a sticky wicket because if one quotes the directive principles to justify prohibition, other groups cannot be denied the right to similar privileges to defend their stance on cow protection. Moral policing of any kind and on any issue can only strengthen anti-democratic and reactionary forces.
On the one hand, the Bihar chief minister swears by the words of socialist demagogue Ram Manohar Lohia, and on the other, he practises politics that will end up strengthening the Sangh Parivar. For short gains, Nitish is taking a long-term risk.
Earlier this week, 16 people died and several have lost their vision in the hooch tragedy in Bihar's Gopalganj district which demonstrates that prohibition encourages rise of the liquor mafia and induces people to seek alcohol whose safety and authenticity is not vouched by government agencies.
Data make it amply evident that illicit liquor takes a deadly toll almost in every part of India, even in states where liquor trade and consumption is banned. Government statistics, between 2012 and 2014, reveal that there were more than 3,000 incidents of consumption of spurious liquor in the country, resulting in the loss of 2,927 lives.
Going by records, one can say with a certain premonition that the deadly game has just begun in Bihar. Moreover, with the state law and order situation going out of hand, one can question the extent to which Nitish is justified in diverting police attention from the priority areas. Clearly, governance is being sacrificed at the altar of populism.
Bihar has also recently made worrisome amendments to its four-month-old legislation. In a nutshell, this amended law makes all adults in a family liable to punishment if any person drinks or keeps liquor at home. This violates the rights of adults because one can be prosecuted for violation of the law by the others.
It also provides the district administration with powers to extern a drinker for six months. The new law - Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 - is the most stringent among prohibition laws in the country. The law has several draconian clauses including providing the police with the right to confiscate premises where liquor is consumed or stored.
Nitish is pursuing prohibition with zeal because of the belief that it has pumped up his popularity among women for being able to force men in families to stay off bacchus. While no one should argue that drinking is one's constitutional right, it cannot be ignored that such a strict law is an incursion into privileges of an individual. Progressive governments must utilise alternative avenues to wean people away from alcoholism if it is indeed such a social and medical problem.
The spirit behind Siddaramaiah's decision to give priority to the ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad) FIR against Amnesty International India is no different. The basic issue is also the right of an individual to say and act in a manner which (s)he chooses.
The complainants in the Amnesty case have nowhere stated that the meeting endangered law and order. When the Karnataka government pursues the charge with such intent, it provides justification to the BJP's argument that anyone not agreeing with its vision of nationalism is anti-national. And any individual who questions any state policy is also guilty of treason and can be charged of sedition.
Archaic laws, whether limiting freedom of expression or those that govern personal choices, are most paradoxical when pursued by regimes that claim to be an alternative to the BJP. India's tragedy is that the choice is becoming increasingly limited between the devil and deep sea.