Opinion Alok Rai writes | The rise of Advaitic democracy – one nation, one election, one leader

There is a long, and even honourable, history of dissatisfaction with democratic politics. In any case, the institution of full adult franchise-based democracy in a largely illiterate country, steeped in feudal and caste-based social practices, was always a huge gamble. Our own neighbourhood has sprouted “benign” dictators and generals who masquerade as saviours of the people. General Ayub Khan introduced what he chose to call “basic democracy” in Pakistan. Our ONOE aspires to some form of “limited democracy.” Still, it addresses a real dissatisfaction, and one must take that on board.

One must start with the fact that all politicians represent — indeed, should labour to represent — particular constituencies. These “constituencies” are not merely lines on a map, demarcated electoral districts. They are also particular demographies, conglomerations of particular interests which have cohered under the appeal of particular political campaigns and ideologies. Thus, it is only right that they act to advance the interests of these constituencies.

Again, these constituencies — whether as geographies or demographies — do not have perfectly coordinated interests. In fact, these interests are frequently at variance with, and even opposed to, certain other interests. (Thus, to take an obvious example, there is a contradiction between the farmers’ need for higher crop prices and the nutritional needs of the urban poor.) The resulting contention of competing interests is precisely the stuff of democratic politics. The jostling and the haggling, the deals and the compromises, are precisely the process by which the dynamic optimisations between competing interests are achieved — only and always only for the time being.

Thus, it is only to be expected that the parties and interests that are presently gathering under the INDIA umbrella will have difficulty in working out a minimum programme. And even when that is done — and it should be seen to be done, seen to be a-doing even — there will still be mumblings and grumblings, fractious noises. This is to be expected in the process of dynamic democratic optimisation. What is important is that this process is not sought to be aborted, and replaced by one big electoral tamasha.

It is typical that politicians often pretend that they do not represent “special interests” — groups, classes, castes, etc. Instead, they pretend to speak for the “general interest.” Such claims are, invariably, deceptive — and easily exposed: Mayawati’s “Bahujan” are a particular kind of Dalit, the samaj of the Samajwadis is largely Yadav… But the hypocrisy of the BJP is of another order. They claim to speak for the “national” interest, no less. It follows that all who dare to dissent are deemed “anti-national”. After all, if One speaks for “the nation”, what need is there for anyone else to speak at all? But the question that needs to be asked here as well is — what is the “special interest” that is masquerading in the loud “national” costume?

Quite simply, it represents the one “special interest” that dare not speak its name: That is the interest of the dominant Hindu-savarna class which enjoys near total control over all social and cultural capital — to say nothing of the other kind. The ideological defences of this special interest have been worn threadbare by the processes of modernity and democracy, as well as by the tireless efforts of the Hindu social reformers — the Arya Samaj, the Brahmo Samaj, by Phule and Periyar and Shree Narayana Guru and Ambedkar — for well over a hundred years. And no amount of fulminating and fudging over “sanatana dharma” is going to restore the lost legitimacy of the Brahminical order, the blessed varnashrama dharma. (It is significant that the “sanatana” defence was first mounted against precisely these reform movements.) The “Hindu nationalism” of the BJP-RSS is, I would suggest, merely the politically mutated (and motivated) form of that exploded savarna ideology. I would, however, hasten to add that this “special interest” too has a perfect right to be heard in the cacophony of the democratic marketplace.

But, and this is where the sneaky idea of ONOE originates, the practice of democratic politics is something of a blood-sport. In this arena, masks get ripped off, disguises torn, and carefully curated appearances get ruined mercilessly. I would suggest, in all humility, that it is only the moral insecurity of the savarna elite, its awareness of its lost legitimacy and its consequent vulnerability, that has led to the emergence of the faux-democratic forms that have emerged in the last 10 years. This is the origin of the “legislative ambush” that has replaced parliamentary deliberation — so that we are about to witness the drama of a “special parliamentary session” with a hitherto secret agenda. It is their insecurity and bad faith that underlies the thought control that is sought to be introduced via corporate control of the media, and by legislative subterfuge. What other explanation can there be for the farce of parliamentary “consultation” that preceded the passage of the agricultural reform bills, or the desperate silence over Manipur, burning?

Much better, then, to dispense with the whole charade. The party that commands the state machinery, and is awash with the “transparent” funds garnered by opaque electoral bonds, is understandably tempted by the idea of one massive election. Once that is done and dusted, it can satisfy its lust for “oneness”, and settle down to the business of establishing its version of “advaitic democracy” — one nation, one election, one language, one examination … and, of course, One Party and One Leader.

The writer taught at the department of English, Delhi University