Dear Smriti Irani, are politicians not political?

It is ironic that politicians, especially those whose careers are devoted to politics, criticise critics for "politicising" issues. HRD minister Smriti Irani shouted at the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha today against the purported politicising of the issues surrounding Rohith Vemula's death, JNU and other connected matters.

Surely Irani should have realised after her political experience not to speak of her rather limited education, that political issues will be politicised. After all, are discussions in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, not to speak of the Assemblies and panchayats, not political?

If discussions in political bodies are not politically motivated, will these be restricted to financial or spiritual motivations? Are political parties supposed to eschew political issues? There seems to be a political bias here.

Parties consider their own ideologies irrefutable. But those of other parties are "politicised" as Smt Irani loudly proclaimed. However, just one or few political parties cannot be blamed for this confusion. For example, the JNU debate, including the strident dispute over "sedition" alleged by the NDA and the Sangh Parivar.

To question the verdict of the courts including Afzal Guru's hanging is commonplace in Kashmir, as is their grief that that Guru's body was not returned to his hometown in Kashmir. Mainstream parties in Kashmir also asked for the return of his body so his final rites could be performed. Was this political difference "sedition"?

Did the February 9 meeting incite violence which could be termed "seditious"? Very many people think, including Kashmiris, that certain instruments of accession for Kashmir to India, include Article 370 which is enshrined in the Constitution. Yet, the Sangh Parivar wants Article 370 removed from the Constitution, which would lead to a storm in the Valley. But would such "incitement to violence" be sedition?

No!

So sedition is rather more complex than stated. And so is politicisation.

The most dangerous aspect of the denial of politics is that that this phenomenon has accentuated the decline of democratic institutions.

Look at educational institutions like schools and universities. As many know, school textbooks produced by SCERTs and the NCERT are rewritten to suit the ideologies and interests of ruling parties. In each case the "updating" of texts is usually of subjects like history and other social sciences, philosophy etc is justified as a correction marked by the incorporation of necessary information and the required theoretical stances.

As is well known, in colleges, universities, institutes, the selection of principals and vice-chancellors, is generally decided on political considerations. In central universities, the political intervention in specific instances, may be significantly less. The funding of universities and institutes is also political, with non-metropolitan universities/institutes often getting relatively less central funds.

So is all politics bad?

No.

Elections are the base of democratic politics. There cannot be a multi-party political system without sustained politics. The gradual emancipation of the backward classes, women, minorities would not have occurred without very substantial politicisation.

The Constitution framed in the Constituent Assembly would not have laid the basis for Indian unity and democracy without nationalist politics.

Yet there were criticisms by members, particularly by the likes of Thakurdas Bhargava, KT Shah, VD Tripathi, and others on the Right to Property being a Fundamental Right, and on the Directive Principles of State Policy not being part of the Fundamental Rights, and so on.

Some members wanted the Objectives Revolution, later termed the Preamble, to include the word "socialism". Babasaheb Ambedkar and Nehru opposed it, arguing that this would bind later generations. So even among democratic and secular politicians, differences arose in the making of the Constitution.

Frankly, the politics that is accepted as proper "politicisation" is often the politics of the powerful economic interests and the acceptable politics backed by dominant political formations of the day.

If we look at the global south, India's record including widespread poverty, seriously inadequate social expenditure, rising unemployment, troubling lapses in the empowerment of the backward classes, and women, still stands out because of the democratic current.