The heart of darkness

It is true, as Vajpayee wrote in his Kumarakom musings, that globalisation has come to stay. No political party, he asserted, could go against its diktats. This untried dogmatism is at the root of the NDA rout; for it shows a cavalier irreverence to the ethos of India, which not only adopts but also adapts. We have always transformed what we accepted. In contrast, the servile surrender to globalisation particularly to its apathy to the plight of the poor belittles the ethos of India. It erodes the genius of our culture: the ability to adapt, even transform, what we adopt in order to harmonise it with the spirit of India. Secularism is a case in point. Like globalisation, secularism too is of ‘foreign origin.’ We have adapted the idea and practice of secularism to match our unique context. We do not separate State from religion. Instead we factor, at least in theory, religious harmony into our secular culture.

The transforming power of Indian genius stems mainly from its pluralist character. The intolerant mindset works in terms of ‘‘Either…or.’’ It sees, mostly, in black and white. There is nothing in between. So it is either the State or the Church. Indian tolerance is a fruit of our pluralist genius, which allows different ingredients to co-exist, interact and evolve newer possibilities of which Sufism is an example in the sphere of spirituality.

That being the case, we should not assume that globalisation and the priorities of democracy are mutually exclusive. To assume dogmatically that no party or government can resist the juggernaut of globalisation is to imply that ‘the will of the people’ has become irrelevant to governance. That amounts to a de facto rejection of democracy.

In the days ahead, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) will have to evolve an authentic synthesis of globalisation and democracy. This is an enterprise that could benefit not only India, but also scores of Afro-Asian nations. It would be a gross betrayal of the mandate of the people if the UPA government were to endorse the NDA dogma in this respect.

Already powerful forces are out to hijack Verdict 2004 and to anchor the UPA in Dalal Street. Mistake it not, what we heard through Verdict 2004 was the outcry of popular anger at people’s needs being slighted and overlooked. Ironically, the ‘‘India Shining’’ campaign catalysed this chemistry in ‘pockets of darkness’. Destitute farmers committed suicide in silence. The unemployed youth did not. They went out and voted. A majority of Hindus saw through the communal conspiracy to hijack their religion for political ends. They kept quiet for a while, but used their votes to dilute their embarrassment. The minorities retreated in fear and humiliation and waited for their turn to ‘cry freedom’; and they did it with tactical precision.

Let us get this right: the core issue in this election was hunger and criminal neglect of human needs. Globalisation showcased consumer goods of infinite variety and aggravated the thirst for more and more. It made the underprivileged people aware of their exclusion from the feast of nascent prosperity. This enabled economics to supersede ideology. No longer will Indian voters march to the drumbeats of ideology along rotten and unlit roads on empty stomachs. Perhaps Chidambaram has got the message right. ‘‘India’’ he says wisely, ‘‘must shine for all people’’.

The second important message of this verdict is that the days of communalism are finally over. The common man in this country is too genuinely religious to be fooled for long by the false colours of communalism. He knows that communalism is the enemy of the religion it pretends to serve. He knows, too, that given our religious plurality, religious harmony is a precondition for peace and progress. His own welfare hinges on this.

The BJP gave the Hindus a choice between and Indian bahu of foreign origin and a foreign ideology painted in saffron. They rejected the ideology and embraced the bahu. In doing so, they have mandated the UPA government to secure the cause of secularism, decisively. Consider the pathetic downfall of Narendra Modi; and no further argument will be required.

The third most significant feature of this election is the fact that the women of this country have unseated the NDA. This is juicy irony. The macho, patriarchal outfit proved a mere bubble at the fingertips of the disempowered women of this country! Why have women supported the Congress so overwhelmingly? Part of the answer lies in the affinity they feel towards Sonia. But why do women turn to Sonia? The women voters in particular have expressed themselves against the oppressive political culture of the Parivar-driven NDA.

Women love peace, for they are the worst victims in a culture of violence. In Sonia they see the ultimate victim of violence. And no one should underestimate its deep appeal to the masses. The more she is vilified, victimised and caricatured, the deeper will they feel for her. The managers of the anti-Sonia campaign are her best benefactors.

The UPA government must pay special heed to the aspirations of the women in the country. It must make on all-out effort to do justice to the women of India. This is not merely a matter of giving women the long-delayed 33 per cent reservation in the Parliament, which brooks no further delay. But that, by itself, will be only a token, even if it is a significant and powerful one. In the end, doing justice to women involves founding our society on compassion, peace, and justice: a society in which violence has no place. That includes not only physical violence, but also systemic violences like poverty and gender-based discrimination of all kinds. Besides this, we must propagate an attitude of respect towards women.

In the wake of Sonia’s decision not to be Prime Minister, anxieties were expressed, even by some sober journalists, that a double-centre of power might develop; one centred on the PM and the other on Sonia. It is being made out that this will be a disaster. The truth of the matter is, it would be a disaster if Sonia were to renounce her responsibilities towards the people of India, just because she renounced power. To see this clearly, just consider the rout of Chandrababu Naidu. Was it not his single-seater of power that proved his undoing? Mesmerized by the glitter of high-tech progress, he lost touch with the people and became the CEO of Andhra Pradesh. There was none in the country who had the courage to link governance with the people. Underlining the need for Sonia to be the eyes and ears of the people within the power-centre of governance, need not amount to any disrespect to Dr Manmohan Singh’s ability or sterling qualities. He would be the first to admit that he needs the guidance of people-oriented politicians to make governance people-centred and oriented towards their needs.

More than anyone else, Sonia has a duty to ensure that this government addresses the needs, hopes and aspirations of the people of India. It was in this respect that the NDA government failed and got thrown out by the people. It is a costly lesson that she cannot afford to ignore. The people of this country gave her the mandate; they will hold her, and no one else, accountable.

Swami Agnivesh can be reached at agnivesh@vsnl.com