By Justice Markandey Katju
I saw on YouTube the discussion on my friend Kapil Sibal's show 'Dil se ' on the topic '' Loktantra ki haalat itni kharaab hai, bataiye to kya jawab hai ''
I regret to say that I found the discussion totally superficial, vacuous, and inane.
The panellists on the show, Mridula Mukherji, Purushottam Agarwal, and Rakshanda Jalil, are acclaimed to be prominent Indian academicians and writers.
But to my mind, they exemplify and are typical of the fatuous 'intellectuals' of India who are strutting around like peacocks on the Indian stage, with their half-baked, bookish, shallow, depthless knowledge.
The discussion centred on the faults in Indian democracy, but all speakers assumed that democracy was a good thing for India, without questioning whether it really is so.
Prof Mukherji said that there is a crisis in Indian democracy, and spoke of the large number of people who were deprived of the right to vote in the recent West Bengal elections. She spoke of Rahul Gandhi's yatra and said that the people's rejection of the Emergency of 1975 showed that Indians had a strong faith in democracy
Dr Agarwal said that the top institutions were negligent of healthy democracy, and blamed the RSS for trying to convert India into a Hindu Rashtra. He said that 27 lac voters in West Bengal were deprived of voting by the SIR of the Election Commission of India, and emphasised the lack of inclusivity in Indian politics. He said that an environment of fear and insecurity was sought to be created among Hindus ( to get their votes ).
Ms Rakshanda Jalil spoke on the need of federalism and the need to strengthen the regional parties in India. She said that the state was equating vegetarianism with nationalism, implying that Muslims were not nationalists.
All the speakers, including Kapil, emphasized that India is a country of great diversity, and so there cannot be a single ideology in India.
Kapil said that it was the Supreme Court which should say how the country should be run, indicating that the Court was not doing its duty properly. He said that there was 'bulldozer politics' in India.
Now, let us examine the discussion.
The speakers all assumed that democracy is a good thing for India, and hence must be safeguarded.
My own opinion is that most Indians are not suited for democracy, since a pre-requisite for democracy is people with rational minds, whereas most of our people ( including even most of our so-called 'educated' people ) have feudal mindsets, full of casteism and communalism.
The word ‘democracy’, when considered in the abstract, presents a rosy picture, as it stands for rule by the people ( as Abraham Lincoln defined it ). But what we have to see is not democracy in the abstract or in general, but as it is actually practised in India.
Everyone who understands Indian politics knows that in India, politics largely runs on the basis of caste and communal vote banks. When about 90% Indians go to vote they they do not see the candidate’s merits, whether he is a good man or bad, educated or uneducated, criminal or not, etc. They also do not take into consideration the rise in prices and unemployment. They do not consider whether the candidate they vote for, if elected, will work for their welfare.
All the voters see is the candidate’s caste or religion ( or the caste or religion which the candidate’s party claims to represent ).
In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, almost half the MPs elected have criminal backgrounds
This proves that most of our voters are not bothered whether the candidate they are voting for is a criminal or not. All they see is his caste or religion. Phoolan Devi, a notorious dacoit who had killed several people, was elected to the Lok Sabha just because she was of a backward caste, which was numerous in her constituency.
Democracy is not an end in itself. It can only be a means to an end. And that end must be raising the standard of living of the people, and giving them better lives. If democracy helps to achieve that end, it is a good thing, but not otherwise. Indian democracy fortifies and strengthens casteism and communalism, for it runs on their basis. Casteism and communalism are feudal forces, which must be destroyed if India is to progress, but as stated before, democracy as practised in India further entrenches them. How then can it be said to be a good thing?
Democracy professes to be rule by the people. But the truth is that India is ruled by a bunch of crooks ( of all parties ), who have no genuine love for the people, but only seek power and pelf, as everyone knows.
Before the Bihar state assembly elections, I was interviewed by journalist Neelu Vyas who asked me my opinion about the numerous complaints of ‘vote chori’ ( vote theft ) and alleged rigging by the Election Commission of India. I replied that that there should be more vote chori, in the sense that most Indians are not fit for democracy and should not have the right to vote at all ( as they will vote on caste or communal lines ).
In this interview, I said that even if there is no vote chori, and no one eligible is deprived of the right to vote, how is this relevant? Most voters will still vote on the basis of caste and religion, and not on the merit of the candidate.
Casteism and communalism are feudal forces, which have to be destroyed if India is to progress, but democracy, as practised in India, further strengthens, fortifies, and entrenches them ( because it largely runs on their basis ). So how can democracy be said to be a good thing for India?
The test of every political activity is one, and only one : does it raise the standard of living of the common people ? Does it give them better lives?
From that viewpoint, how does it matter who wins the elections? At most, it may result in a change of the Chief Minister and the party in government. But the common people will keep leading miserable lives. There will be no abolition or substantial reduction in the prevailing massive poverty, massive unemployment, appalling level of child malnutrition ( every second child in India is malnourished, according to Global Hunger Index, and the situation has got worse in recent years ), skyrocketing prices of essential commodities like food, fuel, etc, almost total lack of proper healthcare and good education for the masses, etc.
One is reminded of a story in the Ramayan. When King Dasharath became old, the question arose who should be the next king of Ayodhya. Queen Kaikeyi, the second wife of Dasharath, wanted her son Bharat to be the next king, in preference to Ram, the son of the elder Queen Kaushalya.
At this time, Manthara, the slave girl of Kaikeyi told Kaikeyi :
” Koi nrip hoye hamein ka haani
Chedi chaand ka hoib rani ? ”
i.e.
How does it matter who will be the next king, Ram or Bharat ?
Will I cease to be a slave and become a Queen?
Similarly, how does it matter to the common people what will be results of the elections in India? Their miserable lives will continue as before, as none of our present politicians, of all parties, are really interested in improving the lives of the common people, but only seek power and pelf for themselves or their kith and kin.
China has no democracy, but it has become the second superpower in the world with a GDP of 20.85 trillion dollars, and has lifted 80-90 crore of its people above the poverty line
On the other hand, the GDP of India ( which has about the same population of China ) is about 4 trillion dollars ( and there are many doubts about even that figure ), with our vast masses living in abject poverty.
As regards the comments of some speakers that attempts were being made to convert India into a Hindu Rashtra, my opinion is this :
This was inevitable once India was divided in 1947 on the basis of the bogus 2 nation theory ( that Hindus and Muslims are 2 separate nations who cannot live together ).
To explain my point of view, we have to go back deep into history.
As explained in my articles below, partition of India in 1947 was a British swindle, whose purpose was to prevent united India from emerging as a modern industrial giant, like another China ( for which it had all the potential ), and thus, with its cheap labour, becoming a big rival and danger to Western industry, which would not be able to face our competition, forcing many Western industries to close down, throwing millions out of employment.
No doubt Jinnah, at the behest of our British rulers pressed for Partition, but why did the Congress leaders agree to it ? I regard the latter equally complicit in this national crime. Obviously it was because they wanted to enjoy the fruits of office, after so many years of struggle, but by their treachery the Congress leaders like Nehru and Sardar Patel condemned generations of our people to untold horrors and suffering.
While Pakistan declared itself an Islamic state, India was declared by our leaders as a secular state. This was not because Congressmen were inherently secular. In fact, apart from a handful of leaders like Nehru, most Congress leaders, as well as the Congress rank and file, were highly communal.
The 'secularism' of the Congress was not motivated by any genuine regard for the welfare of Muslims ( as the Sachar Committee Report proves ), but with an eye on Muslim votes. In North India, particularly, there are large Muslim vote banks. UP and Bihar have about 18% Muslim population, West Bengal has about 28 %, and Assam has about 35 %.
Congress leaders cunningly propagated among the Muslims that if they don't vote for the Congress, the pro-Hindu Jan Sangh ( which later became the BJP ) will eat them up. So out of fear, Muslims have always voted against the BJP.
But since 80% of India is Hindu, and Partition of India was done on the basis of the 2 nation theory, and Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state, a day had inevitably to come when India would become a Hindu state. The way out is to annul the phoney partition, and create a united India as a secular state, with genuinely modern minded leaders, though no doubt this will take time
As regards Kapil's suggestion that the Indian Supreme Court can solve the problem, I regard it laughable, considering the state of the Indian judiciary today ( I will not say more for fear of contempt of court ).
I regret that the speakers on Kapil Sibal's show seemed to be ignorant of all that has been stated above, and hence only indulged in platitudes, truism, cliches, homilies, banality, and inanity.
Justice Katju is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India and a former Chairman of the Press Council of India. These are his personal views.
