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

This is part two of three of the series. Link to the first part is here. Part one talks about the context and problems that India as a nation state faces.

This essay has been really challenging to write. When I started researching and thinking about what I would write, it really hit home how complicated and difficult a topic this (duh). So, having said that, I’m sure that I would have missed a lot or not thought things through completely. I’m happy to discuss these things and learn more in the comments!

As discussed in the previous essay, India has a major problem when it comes to how to run the state- diversity, and how to satisfy India’s various stakeholders. Additionally, India also has problems such as lacklustre and malignant politicians, a flawed electoral system to name a few.

This essay explores a solution that, while impossible to implement, could be considered as a viable political structure for the country.

Democracy is Flawed, but it’s the Best Option Available

India has a flawed but democratic system at present. It is by far preferable to what the country is headed towards right now under the ruling party - fascism.

Democracy as a concept has in recent years become somewhat unpalatable to me- especially in the Indian context. The first past the post system ensures that the representation does not truly manifest in a numerically proportionate manner. In addition to this, given India’s demographic make-up, democracy really can and has recently resulted in rule of the majority over the minority. This is terrifying in a country where there are sizable and numerous minorities.

These minorities in most of India’s history have lived peacefully and cooperatively with the Hindu majority for the lion’s share of India’s existence. Historically also, the Indian Sub-Continent has proven to be a haven for cross cultural interactions and for tolerance. We can see this in the Mughal Emperor, Akbar’s attempts at syncretism and of encouraging open and productive dialogue amongst India’s many religions. We can see it in the fact that India was home to a large Jewish diaspora (most of whom returned to the Levant upon the formation of Israel). India was also the choice of destination for those following the Zoroastrian faith, better known today as Parsees. They came to India fleeing persecution from the Muslim states there at the time. Incidentally, India is also home to three major religions in the world- Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.

Today, we have seen the rise of Hindutva- or Hindu Nationalism. This was originally seen, even legally ruled, to be a way of life and not related to Hindu fundamentalism. It was faith agnostic. The term was coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The term, according to Savarkar, seeks to promote an identity that has a common nation, common race and common culture. Savarkar was a fan of Hitler and Mussolini and complemented the systems and how they improved the fortunes of those countries. You can brush up a bit on Savarkar here. You can see how this is a problem in a country as diverse as India.

The modern iteration of Hindutva is even more terrifying- it seeks to enhance and empower Hindu hegemony in India, and to raise the Hindu culture (if not religion) to a state of prominence and superiority over others. The RSS, which is the chief proponent of this philosophy, along with the BJP, its political arm will deny this outright, but digging just beneath the surface demonstrates their true intentions. This coupled with the fact that the media and the Hindutva movement is portraying the numerically superior Hindus almost as a persecuted minority can and has lead to much communal tension, discrimination and violence.

As discussed in one of my previous essays, the ruling BJP is seeking to undermine the institutions of India and the separation of powers vital to any functional and true democracy. They have by and large been successful.

Though never discussed officially (obviously), the BJP is aiming to create the veneer of democracy, while maintaining outright and total control over the governance of the nation and its people. The courts act more as a source of legitimisation of the executive than a protector of the constitution and civil rights. This has been highlighted in recent times by the contempt cases filed against Prashant Bhushan, a senior and well respected lawyer, and the go ahead from the attorney general of India to proceed with contempt charges against Kunal Kamra, a comedian who has risen to prominence after hounding Arnab Goswami on a domestic flight.

Dissent is seen as anti-national, communal tensions are stoked over and over again, and the media obediently tows the party line. Narendra Modi is almost deified and is defined as the strong leader that will bring glory to the country. Interestingly over the last few months, the BJP and Modi have sought to reimagine Modi as a leader of the people as opposed to a leader of the country.

Disagreeing with Modi or his government is also classified as being anti-national or an Urban Naxal (a uniquely Indian term that has no official recognition, but holds massive popular appeal and power. You can read about it briefly here). It is trademark fascism, and it is remarkable that it is almost distasteful to bring this up in conversation today.

Given the current trajectory, and following it to its historical and logical conclusion, we would see an India that is a democracy only in name, non-secular, and intolerant of its many minorities. A recent article from the economist has highlighted the plight of Indian Democracy and its trend towards a one party authoritarian state- you can read the article here.

It is therefore imperative to understand what is missing from our current democratic and nation state system, and how it could be better. A true and flourishing democracy is the only real and viable system of governance that can protect what India was formed to be, and what it aspired to be.

Democracy, but Reformed

To start with we need to look at the electoral system itself. India currently is a multi-party democracy featuring elections every five years. The leader of the nation, the prime minister, is not directly elected by voters, but by members of parliament who are chosen by voters to represent local interests. India follows a First Past the Post electoral system (FPTP). There are no term limits on Members of Parliament (MPs) and Prime Minister.

FPTP enables more coherent and unified governments by giving parties or individuals that have the largest vote share a disproportionate number of seats. The benefit of this is to ensure that there are minimal instances of hung parliaments, or minority parties holding the government hostage. The disadvantage of this system is that it does not reflect the result of the popular vote. In India’s last election, the BJP got slightly under 38% of the popular vote, but ended up with around 55% of the seats in parliament.

This has given them the power to do almost whatever they want in governing the country at a national level. They have, in my opinion, abused their two recent mandated- with the long term goal of entrenching their interest and their corporate overlords- Ambani and Adani to name two. In the case of the former we can see laws such as the recently modified UAPA -which gives draconian and near unlimited powers to arrest and hold without charges anyone- using vague assertions to label them as threats to the nation or terrorists. Many of those who peacefully protested the government’s CAA and NRC bills and victims of the Delhi pogrom have been charged under this law. In the case of the latter we can see bills such as the recent agriculture reforms which seek to disempower farmers and empower corporates. Protests are currently ongoing in the capital against this legislation.

FPTP also allows for situations like the one dating back to the 2004 parliamentary elections, where in the state of Kerala, the CPI(M) won 31.5% of the vote share and was awarded 12 seats. The congress won 32.1% of the vote share and won 0 seats! Granted this was for local level individual seats, but the result does not seem to tally up with the overall will of the people in the state.

In researching this, I surprisingly found that there are many electoral systems in place around the world. You can learn more about some of them here. Keep in mind that though the systems have ratings, the website is not taking into account functionality of parliament or unity in parliament.

When it comes to India, below is a table that states the main advantages and disadvantages that the FPTP systems confers.

Given the diversity issues India faces described in part one, the FPTP system fails in addressing the nuance and complication presented by India’s demographics. Local cultures, faiths, issues and challenges can go unaddressed at a national level. More worryingly, minorities such as Dalits, Christians and Muslims to name a few can be underserved and marginalised.

Instead, let’s consider an alternative system. This would require a complete change in how the government and parliament functions and would certainly require changes to the constitution.

First- keep the federal system. State governments still have some amount of autonomy and the ability to self-govern and self-determine. State governments can have district and sub-district wise representation as it does now, but at the national level states get to send only the number of people to the Lok Sabha as the relative size of their population merits. This can be adjusted as population sizes change over time. The state wise representation at the national level will be chosen by clumping districts and having a runoff election between the candidates.

When it comes to how the elections itself function, there will be a mixed system.

At the local district level, a FPTP system can be used. This will keep elections simple and straightforward. The issue of under representation and disproportionality is minimised at a local level as local demographics are typically more homogenous than heterogenous. When deciding which representatives get to go to the Lok Sabha, a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is used.

The STV system allows for voters to number a preference of candidates. Say for example that there are four candidates running for a single constituency or district, the voter has the option to indicate that their preferred option is denoted with a number 1, the second with 2 and so on. This way should a minority candidate not succeed in being anywhere near winning the election, the votes that went to the minority candidate will be transferred to the next preference. This means that voters still have a say in impacting the final winner of the contest. This ensures maximum representation and inclusivity.

The STV system does not typically have the benefits of having majorities that can rule decisively and without undue interference from minority parties or candidates. However, given the diverse interests of the country, the trade-off is worth it.

For national level elections that determine the leader of the nation- the prime minister, we use a similar system that works in presidential systems. Candidates may come from political parties or be independent. There are two rounds of voting, candidates are encouraged to engage in discourse to convince the electorate. The first round eliminates all but the top two candidates. The final two candidates ideally face off in a final series of debates, and voters choose from the last two candidates- this final vote can be FPTP.

The idea behind having this mixed system is to ensure that local politics, interests, cultures, faiths, etc are addressed and taken care of. In a country like India where the vast majority of the population is Hindu (79.8%), we can be relatively certain that their interest will be addressed throughout the nation. At the same time, where there are local concentrations of other faiths or interest groups, we can be sure that they will have representatives who are looking out for them. If the minority is sizable enough, they will also have representatives in the Lok Sabha, therefore also ensuring that their interests are looked after at a national level as well.

This is in contrast to the current situation where, Muslims have no significant representation; partially because there is no political party of note dedicated to serving that community- which is a whole other topic. Muslims make up 14.2% of the country, but only 4.9% of seats in parliament.

Similarly, Dalits, Christians and other interest groups would benefit. This would also have the added benefit of forcing parties such as the BJP and the Congress to diversify in order to broaden their appeal and put up appealing candidates for the relative constituencies.

I would like to clarify that this system isn’t without its problems. For how complicated this whole subject is, this is the best solution I could come up with. Issues that I can immediately think of are things like illiteracy being a challenge to the SVT systems, as about 26% of the populace is illiterate. This means that they wouldn’t be able to number preferred candidates. This can be solved with work arounds though.

Additionally, there is a law on the books called the Anti Defection Law. The logic behind this law, passed under the government of Rajiv Gandhi, was to prevent politicians from jumping ship from one part to another in order to be rewarded with plum positions or outright monetary bribery. The problematic part of the law is that it prevents members of parliament from voting against the party line. For me this is hard to understand- it prevents members of parliament from voting their conscience and from voting in the interest of their constituents should the need arise. It also stifles debate and promotes a perhaps fall notion of unity and unanimity in passing laws within parties. It would be in the best interest of democracy in India to remove this part of the law, while maintaining the part that prevents switching between parties during times of elections or coalition building; something which is necessary given how politicians function in the country. Most recent example of this is how the Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh governments collapsed

Ensuring a True Balance of Powers

The mixed system of voting and elections that I proposed above does not truly preclude the possibility of a tyranny of the majority situation happening. After all Hindus do make up 79% (not to villainise and demonise that demographic) of the population, and would possibly have very commanding majorities in parliament even given this proportionately representative electoral system proposed.

Therefore, it is vital that the constitution is enforced and protected properly. In order to do this, we need to have several institutions that function fully independently and autonomously. In theory this is already in practice. In reality it is not, as described in the part one essay.

There are four main institutions that will check the power of the government, ensure the efficacy of the constitution and serve the people of the nation- Parliament, the courts, the Election Commission of India and a fourth organisation that will have to be created- an anti-corruption body (one does already exist, but it doesn’t really live up to its purpose). The media could be considered an institution, but since it doesn’t fall under the purview of anything that belongs to the government, I will discuss this later.

India in theory and on paper (as the law of the land and the constitution of India) does have strong and independent institutions meant to balance power. As we have seen in the last few years though, theoretically independent and strong institutions can only exist if the government allows them to.

This current government has not seen fit to do so- resulting in the Supreme Court of India being in a state where it has lost almost all of its credibility, the Election Commission of India is routinely maligned and questioned with every election that comes and goes, and the broad section of the media serves as a lapdog and cheerleader for the government, which in turn duly protects and favours such media outlets-- seen most recently in how Arnab Goswami of Republic TV (a right wing and incendiary media outlet) was rescued by the government via the Supreme Court, who were on holiday no less, and while having declined to afford other journalists similar protection and consideration while ignoring vital constitutional cases pending before them such as the NRC/CAA, abrogation of article 370, etc.

Therefore, it is important to note that whatever is written below is of course strictly theoretical and could only come to exist with the governments and the peoples’ support.

Looking at how these institutional bodies are chosen and maintain their independence has been quite informative. In the case of the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court, the members are recommended by parliament and by the Supreme Court itself respectively. The president of the country then gives approval for the candidates. The president has typically been a rubber stamp figure, but has occasionally gone against recommendations made.

The problem with this is that the president is an elected official that comes from political parties- typically the Congress or the BJP. This, like in the US can result in the nominations and approvals being made for political gains or with particular vested interests in mind.

It is hard to come up with a system that ensures that political influence has minimal or no sway in these independent bodies, but it is something worth considering. For when the government or when any of the other institutions that upholds the state behaves inappropriately or criminally, it is the duty and the purview of the other institutions to rein the guilty part in and to take corrective actions. That is the purpose of the balance and separation of powers.

Therefore, maybe we can consider a system where in the case of the Supreme Court, the members nominate new members- they are qualified to do so, and having already been a part of the court they would already be under scrutiny and would in theory be unbiased or favourable towards any particular political party. The president does not get to give approval, but in the event that a Supreme Court justice is not fulfilling their duties, or abusing their position, parliament has the authority to impeach and remove the offending party by a two third majority vote. This isn’t so different from the current system. It simply removes the requirement for the president to give approval.

In the case of the Election Commission of India, a system where the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) nominates and has an internal vote for the next commissioner or member of the ECI will be held. IAS members are therefore to be under high levels of scrutiny- meetings, phone calls, bank statements, etc, in order to ensure that no undue influence has gone into the voting procedure. Again, if a member of the Election Commission does not fulfil their duties or violates them, parliament will have the authority to impeach and oust the offending party with a two third majority vote.

In order to oversee and maintain the integrity of these institutions, a new anti-corruption body will have to be formed with real powers and authority to investigate, arrest and bring cases to the courts for rulings. All members of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission will be heavily scrutinised by this body, and the anti-corruption body itself will have their records as matter of public record upon request, to be granted by the courts. Therefore, the courts, the media and the legislature will be able to ensure that the overseeing body itself does not become corrupt.

And that leaves one “institution”- the media. This is a topic that could quite easily merit a series of essays by itself, so forgive the lack of nuance and details in this essay.

Recently India’s rank in World Press Freedom Index fell two places to rank 142 in the world! If you check the website and explore it, details are available as to why exactly we merit this rank. In addition to that there are articles there related to India and almost every other nation and the challenges the press faces in each country, it’s worth checking out!

The media is a complicated thing to consider. It is neither considered as part of the state institutions, nor is it considered a private and fully autonomous entity. The media in India derives its freedom and independence through other rights granted by the constitution such as the right to freedom (which further confers the right to speech and expression). As far as I can tell, there are no specific provisions in the law or the constitution that protects or holds the media to a higher responsibility than citizens. Therefore, if a news anchor was to incite millions of people to riot, he or she would be no more criminally liable than an ordinary citizen would be. Again, as far as I can tell.

In order to prevent such things from happening, the media is semi regulated by the Press Council of India. The council is made up mostly by various media persons; editors, owners of media houses and journalists. There are a few representatives appointed by the legislature as well. The Press Council of India doesn’t have the power to ban or fine any wayward institution. They can only investigate, reprimand and warn.

What has become clear to me while researching this is that very few countries, if any really, have laws that explicitly protect or hold the media to higher standards. Some countries have laws in place to protect journalists from violence, and some countries have laws that protect the sources that journalists and media outlets use. In a country like India, where we have notoriously vague laws regarding sedition, hurting the feelings of communities, etc has unsurprisingly led to media freedom being restricted. In fact, recently the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) has been amended, and the government has been clamping down on journalists and protestors alike.

A free press and media are vital to any democracy, but especially to one as large, diverse and relatively young as India. In this day and age, where everyone has news at their fingertips, and anyone can be a Twitter journalist of sorts- a well-functioning and unbiased media is vital to provide us with news and facts that are true and that are important for us to know, so that we as citizens can make informed decisions in our everyday lives, and in who we choose to be our leaders.

Instead, what we see today is a small handful of media outlets who dare to oppose the government (and are persecuted and hate mongered for it), while the rest tow the BJP line, and do what they can to stoke communal tensions and get BJP politicians elected.

It should come as no surprise really that people like Mukesh Ambani (TV-18 Network), Subash Chandra Goenka (chairman of Essel Group, which owns Zee News) own large media outlets which support the current government. To my surprise (and also not somehow), I also found that Republic TV is majorly funded by a BJP Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar. There are several other outlets also owned by politicians or their families. I was astounded to find this, as I could not believe that there wasn’t any law or regulation for preventing conflicts of interests, or public interest or something like that.

It's hard to come up with structural ways to fix the media in my opinion, especially since we can see that the media tends to derive its autonomy and freedom from free speech provisions. There are a few things that we should all think about though-

● Should there be any specific laws that prevent governments from interfering with a free and fair media?

● How would this be enforced?

● What is the nature of truth, and how do we ensure that there is a minimum amount of fake news?

● Can/Should the media and journalists be held criminally liable for fake news and causing things like communal tension, violence, etc and if so- shouldn’t the law be clear and specific (unlike our current vague and draconian laws that are widely open to interpretation and abuse)?

● Should running for political office be illegal if an individual or their family owns a registered and public media outlet?

● Should the anti-trust laws be modified to ensure that media companies cannot be owned by individuals or companies that have other large business holdings?

● Do we need to reconsider the various draconian and often abused laws- such as laws relating to sedition or the UAPA, etc? What constitutes inciting violence, hurting a community or religion, and what constitutes national security?

● How do we as consumers punish or give less power to media outlets who peddle false information or mislead the public in the interest of politicians, governments, religions or indeed corporates? Will refusing to consume such media help, or do we need to take an additional step such as refusing to consume products of companies whose advertisement fees fund media outlets?

To conclude with regard to the media, it seems like the freedom of the press is more of a cultural phenomenon, as opposed to something enshrined in a constitution or specifically protected by the law. It is up to the courts, the legislature and the executive to ensure that basic constitutional rights are guaranteed for everyone, but in some ways especially for those in the press and media. Furthermore, it falls to civil society to hold the government and the courts accountable for not providing a safe and free environment for the media in the country. We need to see the media as a vital interest in our country that deserves and needs to have its integrity maintained in order for society to function better. The purpose of the media is to hold the legislature, the courts and the executive to account and to ask them pertinent questions, not to parrot an ideology or political party. That isn’t something we can say about our country right now for the most part.

Education may be the only realistic way forward

The key really, is to have a well-educated populace- there’s a distinction to be made here; having a degree and being able to get a job does not make one well educated, informed or independent in their thinking. Critical and analytical thinking is what enables us to question and understand concepts, ideas, philosophies and to dig beneath the surface of information.

India has cultivated (with a helping hand from the British) a system that does not encourage people to think for themselves, but to think in terms of tribes, or cultural identities, families or religious groups. We can see this in how religions expect unquestioning faith and obedience, schools expect discipline and the ability to rote memorise more than understand and apply concepts (not to mention remember them long term). The police and politicians expect meek obedience and obeisance, and the government does not appreciate or stand for being questioned or challenged.

Society due to social media and human nature has become more insular and homogenous than I can remember- certainly more than when I was growing up. How are the people of this nation to question, think for themselves and stand up for their own interest if most aspects of our culture and society mould them and tell them to be compliant with the various groups holding power in the country?

The only real solution is a long-term solution- to ensure that education is available to all, fair and unbiased and of high quality (and not just in cities and in private schools). Additionally, we need to ensure that political motivations stay out of our syllabus. Mughals should not be erased from history, understanding the constitution and things like this should not be slowly removed from our education systems as we can see in the current environment. How is a citizen of the nation to understand the threat of majoritarian politics if they have no reference and idea of what happened in the past and how it was allowed to happen?

In many ways, fixing our broken education system will address many issues in the future, from employment, to informed voting, to LGBTQ rights, women empowerment etc.

Without a fixed education system, we can expect by and large a status quo if not a worsening overall situation. After all, a poor education makes employment difficult to attain, especially in our skill and technologically driven world. I would further argue that unemployed people are the most susceptible to calls to marginalise and hate the “other”- something we can see all over the world, mostly with regard to immigrants. In India it is mostly about cross state border migration and against Muslims.

The problem with a lack of a critically thinking populace is that populist and nationalist forces can easily redirect or repurpose their movement and terminology to focus on another out group. Therefore, there will always be an enemy of the state or anti national elements.

Once they are done suppressing Muslims, it will be against Christians and other minorities.

A lack of a quality education for the population may in fact be one of the biggest threats to the future of India, as I will elaborate on in a future essay.

Secular in Name, but not in Spirit

India according to the constitution is by definition a secular country. However, in India we see a different version of secularism than what we see in the west or by any typical definitions. A secular state is a state that does not promote or discriminate against any religion both directly and indirectly.

What we see in India is a state that encourages religiosity and cohabitation, but not a state that is divorced from religious matters in the country.

We can see this in the fact that minorities like Muslims have a separate personal law code, or that religious pilgrimages are supported by the state. The state has also provided funds for maintenance of temples and the like.

However, the government of India has seen fit to reduce and compromise the rights of minorities, particularly Muslims in the country, whilst not applying the same logic to other communities, notably Hindus in the country.

Recent examples of this are the abolishment of the Haj subsidy- which confusingly, the Supreme Court did not rule as unconstitutional, but then a second bench asked the government to phase it out. Even today as of writing this- the UP court’s decision to disallow use of speakers in Azaan (the call to prayer for Muslims). This was purportedly done to promote religious cohesion and because no religious texts mandate the use of loudspeakers in religious activities. That is for obvious reasons, since speakers didn’t exist during the time of the Prophet Muhammed. But one must ask, shouldn’t the same reasoning be applied to equally invasive Hindu and Christian festivals that use speakers, often into the wee hours of the night or that block roads for days at a time? Neither of those religions or their texts mandated the use of speakers either.

Last year alone, the government of UP provided 4200 crores for promoting and funding the Kumbh Mela. The central government and state governments provide thousands of crores worth of funding for religious pilgrimages and yatras every year. Mostly Hindu ones with one or two select Christian and Muslim ones as a token measure. A secular state has no business in funding any religious activities or matters, other than for security purposes and the like. In light of this, is it fair or right for the government of India to cancel the Haj Pilgrimage subsidies? A state that chooses which religions and pilgrimages to support is by definition discriminating and favouring one religion over the other.

Besides which The Waqf Board and the various temple trusts and Christian churches are obscenely wealthy, and tax exempt as well (which I would argue they absolutely should not be). Why shouldn’t these organisations use their considerable resources to promote and support their religion and their culture. Tax payers should not have to bear the expense of others’ personal choice in religion.

India as a state needs to reconsider the meaning of secular and make changes accordingly. The state shouldn’t have any business in funding, promoting or discriminating against any religion. Period. A uniform civil code should be applied, and the same standard that minority communities and religions are held to account should apply to the majority as well.

It is true that the Congress in the past to some extent did play vote bank politics such as the Shah Banno case and other instances- as all parties do to this day. The difference however is that while the Congress may have done communally destructive things (like supporting the Sikh genocide in 1984) or things that they have seen as politically expedient such as the aforementioned Shah Bano case, they did not do these things due to ideology.

The Sikh Genocide was a reaction to the assassination of Indira Gandhi, not a movement against Sikhs because of any particular hatred towards them. The Shah Bano controversy occurred because Rajiv Gandhi decided to dilute a secular ruling in order to not lose a major vote bank in the next election. The BJP on the other hand allow and promote communal disharmony in order to secure their idea of a Hindutva nation- it doesn’t hurt that it wins votes too.

The BJP and their supporters often view difference in how other demographic groups are treated as an “us vs them” contest. This needs to change to thinking about what is fair, equal and secular in human terms, and allow for that to be applied to everyone in the country regardless of what their carious social identifiers are.

Recently the abolishment of the Haj subsidy, Triple Talaq and the granting of the Ayodhya lands to various Hindu trusts were seen as victories against Muslim and minority appeasement. Attitudes like that are not conducive to social harmony- the government and courts should first and foremost protect and enforce the constitution and its values.

India is undeniably a Hindu majority country, but to think that their ways of life and culture are under threat is simply ludicrous. Hindus have and always will have the numbers to ensure that their culture and faith is not threatened. That is unless forces in the country choose to allow issues to arise or instigate them themselves in order to stoke communal tensions. We have seen much of that in the last two to three decades, beginning with the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid. It is hard, if not impossible to undo the damage done in recent years, but going forward the state should aim to live up to the spirit of the idea of a secular state, not just pay lip service to the idea.

Personal Freedom and the Freedom of Speech

Any modern definition of the idea of democracy contains and enshrines the idea of personal liberty, freedom of thought, religion and speech. It is an essential feature of democracy and liberty. I am sure, almost everyone would agree—but some, including myself, would argue that there are limits on personal freedom and freedom of speech. The degree to which people view these issues is what is creating problems in society.

India has always had a troubled relationship with personal liberty, freedom and free speech. However the situation has never been so dire as it has been since the current government came into power in 2014.

Recently India fell two places to a rank of 142 in the world in a freedom index. Ironically, just today as I am writing this, Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India hailed India as the “Mother of Democracy”.

To think that India is the largest democratic country in the world by population, that has the highest number of voters, and arguable some of the best voter inclusivity in the world is a fallacy and wishful thinking at best. We have seen in the last few years, various kinds of protestors, from farmers, to minorities, pro secular protestors, anti-rape movements, freedom of speech protests (in the cases of jailed activists and journalists) and many others have been branded as enemies of the state or anti-national. This view has been actively promoted by the mainstream media, right wing idealogues and the government.

In addition to this, peaceful protests are frequently dealt with by the government and their supporters with harsh and violent repression; lathi charges, water cannons, illegal detentions, vigilante violence, destruction of video evidence etc.

The state has a monopoly on violence, but the use of violence needs to be justified in the interest of the nation, not a particular social group or ideology. The examples of this sort of repression are far too numerous- the CAA/NRC protests, the recent farmers’ protests to name a few. Quite frequently, we also find that government or Hindutva sympathisers are planted in crowds to instigate violence or create a false narrative to incriminate protestors.

Most of these movements and protests are non-violent and try and adhere to a peaceful approach. Any true and well-functioning democracy protects the right to demonstrate and protest, as a healthy democracy understands the value of protest and freedom of speech. People who are elected do not necessarily reflect the will of the people or their best interests at all, therefore it is important for civilians to have the ability and the right to voice their objections. Often political interests serve ideologies and corporate interest rather than what is good for the economic and social well-being of the general populace. Arguably the only way to make any headway against this current government, or indeed any oppressor is for having a sort of power in numbers on the streets.

We as a people of this nation need to reclaim the spirit of independence, where the citizens of the nation protested in the face of danger and overwhelming odds. In our current modern context whether this is done by taking to the streets, talking to your friends and relatives, being a social media warrior or contributing financially to causes or volunteering your time to causes- all are valid and valuable contributions to society- not everyone has the will, resources and desire to fight directly, and that is okay, and not even necessary. We all have a role to play in society and that is okay.