What's the Best Way to Govern India- Part One

This will be part one of three- an attempt to make my wordy essays more readable perhaps. Part one seeks to provide context and the problems faced by India.

Disclaimer- This is one of my “ought” ideas explained here. I don’t think this is practical and possible or even truly desirable (the second solution). Think of it is as a thought experiment if that helps the following be a bit more palatable.

To try and understand and figure out what is the most ideal form of government for India, we need to understand a few things first.

A True Example of Diversity

Twenty eight states, eight union territories. Seven hundred and eighty languages (second highest in the world, behind Papua New Guinea with eight hundred and thirty nine). Almost every major and minor religion, along with innumerable cults and sects. Four main castes, five if you count Dalits as a caste(technically they are not classified as a caste, they are outside the Caste System as outcasts) - all of which are collectively sub divided into three thousand specific caste identities, with a further twenty five thousand sub castes. The country has dozens, if not hundreds of distinct cultures and sub-cultures and traditions. India is home to at least three distinct races- Indo-Aryans, Dravidians and Mongoloid (there are further sub divisions and other classifications as well- researching this I found that there are completely different classifications, so I just had to choose one set). Here is a link for a map of languages for the Indian Sub Continent, and here a map for religion.

Such is the diversity of the Indian nation state. It was conceived and created as one of the most audacious experiments in the history of civilisation. Winston Churchill even predicted that- “India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages”. There were many such predictions and verdicts. None of them were to come to pass.

India as a Nation State

If India followed a similar path to the formation of Nation States as Europe did- forming nations around a shared culture, language and religion, India would quite possibly be twenty eight countries, if not more.

The traditional idea of a Westphallian Nation States are typically defined as-

• · Having a sacrosanct and non-transferable territory. This territory is defined by clear borders, and can be formed either around distinct and relatively homogenous populations, or sometimes around natural environmental features, such as mountains, rivers, etc.

• · Having a population- This means that the nation state has a fixed population that can be seen as adhering to the national identity, defined by the state. This population in most cases around the world speaks the same language, follows the same culture, is of the same race, and practices the same religion. This enables the population to have unity. In today’s world the homogeneity expected of a nation state is not necessarily case, with migration leading to melting pots of cultures and identities.

• · Sovereignty- Meaning that the Nation State has absolute power and authority to make decisions as to how the country is run- domestically and in terms of foreign relations.

• · Government- A modern Nation State must be organised and controlled by a body that has a legitimate claim to power. The government is the only entity that is entitled to utilising force and issuing laws in order to maintain and run the Nation State.

India does indeed fulfil most of these requirements.

India does have a defined territory with key borders. But unlike European states such as France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries, India was not formed around a shared religion, language and culture. The British drew borders almost solely based on religion, not on other factors.

India does have a fixed population. However the sheer diversity present in this population defeats the spirit of this defining characteristic of the Nation State. As stated above, if India was to be divided amongst distinct population groups, it would quite possibly be over thirty nations.

India does have sovereign control of its affairs, internal and external. This doesn't really merit further explanation.

And India has had and has a government in charge of running the affairs of the State. The effectiveness and legitimacy of these governments can be debated.

So then what's the issue?

India, unlike European and other western states, was not formed around three core tenants- a shared nationality, a shared language and a shared religion. Is it much of a surprise that India and Indians lack unity and the shared identity that many other modern nation states share?

The Problem with India’s Diverse Population

Diversity is often touted as a strength in building a nation. This can often be the case- a clear example being the USA. In India however, with so many different and distinct groups with differing interest and ideas of what India is and what it should be- what the nation should do for the people, how does one create policy that satisfies the various peoples of the country?

Any policy made can always be seen as beneficial to one group, and disadvantageous to another. The reality of making policy decisions is that it is highly complicated as consequences and impacts are hard to foresee as every system that comprises society is heavily interlinked and interdependent. This isn’t made any easier by the range of needs and wants from such a heterogeneous society.

India is a democracy (though one under extreme duress and danger). It is considered to be relatively free and fair in its elections. Perhaps relative to other countries, it is. In my opinion elections in India are hardly free and fair. Not to get too into the topic, but a country where you can buy votes by bribing voters with alcohol, sarees, electronics and outright money cannot be considered free and fair.

Nevertheless, the government, duly elected through nation and state wide elections gets to make decisions with regard to how the nation is to be run, what policies are pursued and where budgets are allocated. The flaw in all this is that the people being elected are often criminals, or accused of very serious crimes- ranging from kidnap and extortion to corruption, rape and murder. I highly recommend reading Milan Vaishnav’s When Crime Pays to get a grasp on the link inexorable link between criminality and politics.

These politicians are typically elected through corrupt means- bribery and intimidation. Misuse of state resources and the unfair use of money in swaying elections (an individual who runs an election has a cap on how much money can be spent). More worryingly, voters are perfectly aware of their leader’s criminal activities and past. What voters do not seem to be aware of is that politicians are not typically serving a greater good or aiming to build the prosperity of the country or its citizens. Most politicians typically seek to attain wealth and power and entrench their families for generations. Once entrenched and wealthy, politicians pursue their own narrow vision for improving and serving society. Indeed, as argued in When Crime Pays, politicians often have no desire to nation build and improve institutions, as they are the ones providing the services the country should be- so why improve those systems, if it's going to make the voters less reliant and enamored by them?

Politicians in India use India’s diversity in its caste, religion, culture and language in almost weaponised forms- pitting social strata against each other and stoking hatred and prejudice against people considered to be outsiders.

We can see this happen in India in many ways- from the recent pogrom in Delhi against Muslims in Delhi- almost certainly supported silently, yet directly by the ruling party and its government. We have seen it with Jat and Patel agitations for higher caste reservations- agitations that led to violence and even riots leading to the respective governments conceding to the demands (the nature of the demands were also quite possibly unfair as those communities are generally prosperous, especially when compared to other lower castes). We have seen it in terms of discrimination towards lower castes, especially Dalits, in an entrenched and unfair system that has been perpetuated for thousands of years. There are too many to mention here. Needless to say, it happens far to often, and does not serve the interests of the nation.

A Selfish and Ideologically Driven Political Class

Given the current political climate, election results, prevalence of nationalism and Hindutva ambitions along with national and state level governments pushing these agendas, the very idea of India- being a secular and pluralistic country, with socialist values (there was a motion in parliament recently to remove the word socialism from the constitution recently) is very much under threat. The current situation is such that minorities, especially Muslims are being persecuted and dehumanised. It will not end with Muslims, as the Hindutva and RSS ideology seeks to elevate the status of Hindus above all other faiths and minorities.

The government has no real achievements or policy that has elevated the millions of citizens who are homeless, food insecure, unemployed and marginalised. That is because the government doesn’t care about the people’s prosperity. They only care that their faith is ascendant in the nation. Unfortunately, given the level of education, tolerance and empathy in the country, a large segment of the country seems to be on board with this- enough to give the BJP a resounding second mandate. Here though it is important to note that despite the volume of BJP and its allies share of parliament seats, the BJP only won slightly below 38% of the national vote- resulting in them controlling slightly above 55% of parliament. This is indicative of India's broken political system.

In India right now, the Covid 19 situation is seemingly under control - though I would argue not truly as the government is being wilfully blind by refusing to test large numbers of people. In addition to this the government had the Supreme Court rule that any news in India about the pandemic has to come from government data and directives- something hard to trust given this government’s relationship with reality and truth. The truth is that they have badly bungled the lock down- with a callous, ill planned (if at all) and insensitive approach that is threatening the food and financial security of millions of people. As a result, official unemployment has hit twenty four percent- a catastrophic rate (the unofficial rate is probably far higher). The economy is in the worst state of recent times, even including the recession of 2008.

Having said all of this, I would be highly surprised if the government does not sweep the next election- they will simply rally their Hindu base with jingoism, xenophobia and nationalism and will say something that amounts to- forget the economy and our track record, we’re building a Ram Temple!

The aim of this government and its party is not to care for its people. It’s to maintain power and enforce their will and vision on an India that should never have been this way in the first place (according to them).

Even if the politicians in the country did care for its people or the nation itself (which to me they clearly do not given the roll out of demonetisation and the preparedness the government had for the current Covid 19 lockdown), how would an elected official in the government go about making policy? As mentioned before there are just too many diverse interests and stakeholders in the country. How would one afford religious freedom and tolerance? How would one work on a system of affirmative action? How would the central government coordinate with local, state level interest to benefit the country as a whole? How can the government uphold values such as free speech and right to equality given the sectarian and communal tones we have witnessed in the country? How does the government ensure that we make progress fighting patriarchy when there are vested interests in the country that do not desire or prioritise this?

All of this will be explored in the next essay.