Modi sarkar has made a mockery of 'sabka saath, sabka vikas'

"Sabka saath, sabka vikas" is unexceptional as a political proposition but it is equally lacking in robustness. Somehow it fails to indicate a determination and resolve and at best remains a statement of the obvious. But it is also somewhat misleading because it fails to elucidate the two important words, "saath" and "vikas" in the hope that ordinary people are familiar with that vocabulary. All reasonable and respectable political theory tells us that such terms are keenly contested and constitutional jurisprudence is replete with attempts to understand the true meaning and extent of the terms. Essentially the exercise relates to our understanding of and commitment to equality as a salient feature of our political system. Treating equals as unequal is just as wrong as treating unequals as equals.

Equality

How do we judge equality then? Essentially by treating all people as equals and giving them equal concern and respect. Sadly the "saath/vikas" pronouncement does not touch upon this dimension. Are we to believe that the government intends to give equal concern and respect to people whose opinions or way of life it does not agree with? The real test of a liberal democracy is not the support the government of the day gives to things it likes but whether it refrains from interference in what it does not like.

The issue is understandably difficult, particularly for someone not familiar with intricate ideas. To what extent is imposing legal and vigilante ban on beef eating and therefore on people’s eating habits, or pronouncing that AMU and Jamia Millia are not Minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution, or rubbishing the discrimination complaints of Dalit students traumatised by the suicide of Rohith and their innumerable well meaning sympathisers, or indeed ridiculing eminent intellectuals for returning their awards in protest against intolerance, all indicative of a sensitive, accommodative and liberal approach towards difference of opinion on public issues? Inherently contested political understanding of entitlements are inevitable in a democracy and may well have considerable immunity to electoral verdicts. Fundamental Rights, and many principles of Rule of Law are therefore treated as trumps against electoral majorities.

These matters will become rallying points for stiff opposition as indeed one expects that the government will brace itself to resist with all its might if their recent record is any indication. Inevitably many of these issues will end up in courts. But we will stand to gain as a democracy if we are able to address some, if not all these issues through a larger political dialogue. India is widely seen as a rapidly modernising nation and rightly so.

Morality

In many matters we have left western democracies far behind. Ensuring space for women as equal partners in public domain is one such example. But at the same time we continue to suffer the most distressing cases of exploitation and sexual violence as we do the continuing assertion by jurassic institutions like Khap Panchayats and religious organisations to dictate out modded public morality. It is sad that political leaders and parties turn a blind eye to many of these distortions due to a cynical calculus of votes. Here First-Past-The-Post electoral system has been the bane of our democracy undermining the deserving accolades we have received for the management of an enterprise in which a billion people elect their representatives.

Discourse

Where are then we to begin? A grand national discourse or dialogue is the need of the hour. The civil society is yet too small, though impressive, to make a comprehensive impact. But of course we must concede to them unqualified credit for having spear headed very important movement over the years, at times at a considerable cost to the members personally. Teesta Setalvad is the latest example of a well meaning person being hounded for their convictions. Even in this but for a few enlightened voices that refuse to be silenced and continue to support her, there is little indignation amongst ordinary folk and the media.

Then again the media has its own limitations and despite the great strides we have taken in the matter of freedom of speech the very idea of free speech remains confined to speech that we approve of. A word or phrase unacceptable to us invites verbal onslaughts in the electronic media as indeed from public platforms. The Award Wapsi intellectuals would know what I mean. Their attempts to use symbolic gestures to encourage a national debate on intolerance might have validated their concerns but did precious little else.

The public dialogue proposed here must inevitably come at the initiative of the governments of the day, at the Centre as well as states. However for that to happen, particularly in the case of the central government, the incumbents in power will need to understand that election verdicts, even massive ones, are not a mandate for fundamental changes in established shared values of society endorsed over the decades by institutions of governance. Some changes must come through assiduously built consensus rather than as the victor’s prerogative.