Republic | SabrangIndia

Let’s Save the Republic on our 75th Republic Day

sabrang — Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:02:00 +0000

This 75th Republic Day celebration of India provides an opportunity to reflect on the critical challenges faced by the Indian state and to contemplate how to uphold, preserve and protect India’s cherished ideals of democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, which are considered the cornerstone of the Indian republic. The notable features of the Indian Republic include democracy, a Constitution, and civil and political freedom for all citizens, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, or language. In a democratic republic system, the constitution holds paramount importance, with no individual or entity having absolute power. The rule of law must be maintained and enforced in all circumstances. However, over the past decade, the political class, executive, and judiciary, which constitute the State, have significantly undermined the constitutional values and principles of Indian republicanism.

Undeniably, this is the most critical phase for the Indian republic and this 75^th Republic Day is also a grim reminder to us what would be the future of Indian democracy. What kind of statecraft we have envisioned under the present scenario? India has been a secular and multicultural society for centuries. However, recent developments in the country raise concerns about the future of democracy, secularism, and constitutional values. Some indicators show that less chances of survival of republicanism in India. Notably, India has scored pathetic performance on global indices for successful democracies, almost non-existent press freedom as per the Global Press Freedom Index 2023, controversial judicial decisions that have undermined people’s trust in the judicial system, and attacks on minorities have led to growing sense of insecurity among Muslims. The consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on 22nd January 2024, despite objections from various quarters, has only added to this insecurity. These developments reflect the prevailing atmosphere in society, characterized by cultural aggression and radical Hindutva nationalism. Such tendencies arise from a deep sense of insecurity and may harm India’s future. The propensity to assert nationalism constantly is unnecessary.

Indian democracy, which was once recognized for its remarkable scale and duration, has suffered a setback due to the unprecedented rise of xenophobic violence, Hindutva nationalism, threats to religious minorities, and the transformation of the secular, democratic, welfare state to a chauvinistic state. These trends have intensified with the growth of Hindutva nationalism, culminating in the latest episode in Ayodhya on January 22, 2024. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power in 2014, has either promoted or tolerated attacks on women, Dalits, Christians, and Muslims by its members in the government, party, and cadre. Furthermore, the BJP government has centralized state power and curtailed human rights and civil liberties. It is crucial to understand that the protection of democracy and religious freedoms are intricately linked, and safeguarding both is of utmost importance.

Communal Polarisation at its Peak

Whatever happened in Ayodhya on January 22, 2024 has reinforced the notion that the Indian constitution, democracy and secularism inching towards a slow death. One of the foremost challenges to secularism in India is the escalating communal polarization that has permeated various facets of society. On January 22, right after the consecration of the idol at the new Ram temple in Ayodhya, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his televised address that “Ram is not a dispute, Ram is the solution, Ram is for everyone”. However, the reality on the ground was different. Violence broke out in some parts of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and any form of dissent was met with police action. Screenings of the documentary film “Ram ke Naam” by Anand Patwardhan were disrupted in Hyderabad and Kerala. Some educational institutions even imposed restrictions on their students. Students were beaten up, and posters were torn down in some areas.

Following the idol consecration ceremony at Ayodhya, there were reports of violence and attacks on minority communities’ places of worship across the nation. Reports from all around the country surfaced about the rampant hooliganism in north Indian cities, where people were seen flying saffron flags from their motorbikes and cars. A ferocious mob of thousands of people has removed the holy flag from the mosque in Shahjanhanpur, Uttar Pradesh. A similar incident involving the vandalism in a historical mosque occurred in Agra as well. On Monday, January 22, 2024, there were other vandalism incidents at Mira Raod, Mumbai, and adjoining parts of the city. The incidents ranged in scale from violent confrontations in numerous regions of Maharashtra to slippers supposedly hurled into a mosque, a tiny establishment burnt down in Telangana, and a graveyard set on fire in Bihar by saffron-clad criminals.

It is deeply sickening to see the current political scenario where hate has taken predominant and those who spoke about the rule of law, constitutional values and democracy have been treated as foes. The enormous rise in divisive politics and the exploitation of religious sentiments for political gains is unprecedented and also questions our claim as a civilised democratic society. It is the question of where we are heading. The ruling party, in particular, has not hesitated to exacerbate tensions between different religious communities to seek political advantage in the upcoming 2024 election. This ‘us versus them’ approach not only undermines the pluralistic ethos of the nation but also endangers the coexistence of diverse communities. The increasing incidents of hate speech, discriminatory practices, and communal violence are indicative of the growing divide between communities. The government’s role in addressing this issue is crucial, but the lack of decisive action to curb hate speech and communal incidents raises concerns about their commitment to maintaining a secular fabric.

India, a country known for its diversity, democracy, and secularism, has been facing some challenges regarding the rights of its minority communities. Many international forums and communities have started raising their concerns about India’s future, as the basic human rights of its largest minority community have been violated. India has democratic institutions such as an election commission, a human right watch body, and a minority rights institution, but if these institutions are not able to protect constitutional values, secularism, and the trust of minorities, it could become a threat to the Indian state’s existence. India gained independence in 1947, and its constitution describes the country as a democratic, secular state that protects the religious freedom of all communities, irrespective of religion.

India, like many other countries, has recently seen a rise in xenophobic violence and Hindutva nationalism that is hostile towards religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians. The United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF-2023) has identified India, along with several other countries, as a place where the government allows or even promotes violations of religious freedoms. This means that people are not free to practice their religion without interference. The USCIRF (2023) report says that India’s multi-religious and multicultural identity is being threatened by a view of national identity that excludes people based on their religion. According to the report, groups that support this view and are responsible for violence against religious minorities include those connected to the ruling party of India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch also share these concerns.

Minorities welfare missing in government policies

Secularism goes beyond mere coexistence; it involves the active protection and promotion of the rights and welfare of all religious communities, particularly minorities. However, the absence of a comprehensive minority welfare agenda in government policies and programs reflects a systemic failure in addressing the needs of marginalized communities. Despite constitutional provisions ensuring the rights of minorities, there is a discernible gap in the implementation of inclusive policies. Issues such as economic disparities, educational opportunities, and access to healthcare persist among minority communities.

The Muslim community in India faces significant challenges, including but not limited to under-representation and backwardness in education, employment, trade, health, and professional courses. Unfortunately, these challenges are often systemic in nature, leading to disparities in opportunities and outcomes. The government must acknowledge and address these disparities by designing inclusive policies that specifically target the upliftment of minority communities. Without targeted interventions, the gap between majority and minority communities is likely to persist, hindering the overall progress of the nation. Muslims often find themselves under-represented in various sectors, limiting their economic opportunities. The government must actively promote policies that encourage equal representation in the workforce, fostering a more inclusive and diverse economy. This not only benefits minority communities but contributes to the overall economic growth of the nation, creating a more equitable and prosperous future for all.

The government’s neglect of the welfare and social development of religious minorities is a matter of serious concern. The state must adhere to its constitutional mandate of equality and implement progressive policies to address the specific challenges faced by minorities. Recognizing the importance of inclusive development in fostering national progress, it is imperative that governments prioritize the well-being of all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliations. Failure to do so not only perpetuates social disparities but also undermines the very essence of a just and equitable society.

Now, AMU on the radar of the saffron brigade

Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Jamia Millia Islamia (Jamia), and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) are widely recognized as strongholds of free speech and intellectual discourse in India. These universities have always been welcoming to all sorts of debates, and discussions, and have been known to foster dissent. However, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views these institutions as an obstacle to its political agenda because they have consistently opposed the communal and divisive policies of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and BJP. Regrettably, Jamia and JNU have nearly lost their distinct academic culture due to strict control and administration restrictions in nearly every area of academics. Such interference has had a significant impact on the universities’ unique identity and academic standards. After JNU and Jamia Millia Islamia, the saffron brigade’s next ambition is to make AMU unimportant in academic circles.

The unnecessary controversy surrounding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is another fresh example of how the state treats the place of dissent, discussion and institute which promotes religious and scientific education. The sudden and unprecedented attack on AMU’s minority status not only threatens the autonomy of educational institutions but also sends a message of insecurity to minority communities. It is evident that minority educational institutions play a pivotal role in fostering a sense of identity, preserving cultural heritage, and promoting educational diversity, if still government adamant about slashing AMU’s autonomy, character and heritage then it will convey a very wrong signal to the entire minority communities. AMU is not just an institution rather serves as the bedrock for the transmission of cultural values, traditions, and language from one generation to the next. By enabling minorities to establish and manage their educational institutions, the Constitution recognizes the importance of protecting their distinctiveness within the broader fabric of Indian society. When a government disregards the constitutional safeguards provided to minority institutions, it sends a distressing message about the commitment to upholding the principles of justice, equality, and secularism. Such policies not only violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution but also undermine the delicate social equilibrium that defines the Indian pluralistic society.

Furthermore, the policies of the State that target minority institutions can lead to a feeling of further alienation among the affected communities. These policies may be seen as an attack on the cultural and religious identity of minorities, which can lead to resentment and mistrust towards the state. The alienation of minority communities has serious implications for social cohesion and national integration, hindering the collective pursuit of shared goals and aspirations. It is crucial to maintain the trust between the government and minority communities for the health of a democratic society. Government policies that aim to reclaim or derecognize minority educational institutions not only undermine constitutional guarantees but also erode the trust that is essential for a harmonious and inclusive nation.

Summing up

On the occasion of India’s 75th Republic Day, it is vital to confront the challenges that confront its democracy, secularism, constitutional values, and social justice. The unity of the nation is at risk due to the polarization of communities, the lack of a comprehensive welfare plan for minority groups, and the targeting of minority institutions such as AMU, which reflects the government’s discriminatory attitude towards minorities. To preserve the Indian republic and its fundamental principles, all stakeholders – government, civil society, and citizens – must work together to encourage interfaith dialogue, implement inclusive policies for minorities, safeguard the autonomy of minority institutions, and ensure that communal harmony and fraternity remain intact. The responsibility of upholding secularism is a collective one, and it requires a multi-pronged approach to ensure that India remains a symbol of diversity, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence. This approach should focus on addressing the root causes of communal tensions, promoting social and economic inclusion for all communities, and fostering a culture of mutual understanding and respect. Only then can we safeguard the future of Indian democracy and ensure that it remains a beacon of hope for generations to come.

(The author is an academic with the Law Faculty at Delhi University)

[1] Author teaches at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

The post Let’s Save the Republic on our 75th Republic Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Reclaiming the republic

Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:42:20 +0000

The People of India have given sufficient publicity to the Preamble of the Constitution in the run up to and actually on, Republic Day. This must now be moved forward by achieving greater traction in a number of ways. Here are a few suggested next steps.

Lawmakers, members of the judiciary, and police and others involved in maintaining law and order, must also reaffirm the oath to serve all the people, as mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. This should apply to all parties at the centre and in the states.
Likewise, all Government servants and all others in the system, as heads of institutions , departments etc, both in central and state services, must also read out the Preamble , and re-affirm their commitment to tender honest advice; not be partisan to any political party; and work for the welfare of the people.
This is also a good time to urge all elected representatives, government servants and citizens to read the Preamble in conjunction with Article 51 A of the Constitution, which lists basic fundamental duties and reminds us of so much that still needs to be done.
These steps are being suggested as an appropriate and meaningful way in which the extraordinary examples of non violent protest by the students and the people across the country can be publicly recognized and acknowledged. Hopefully this will help to ensure that an effective connection between the ‘public servant’ and the ‘Public’ be built for continuing interaction and dialogue in the future.

The post Reclaiming the republic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Disgusted with the Coverage of Gauri Lankesh’s Murder on the Republic, Journo Resigns

Fri, 08 Sep 2017 04:45:34 +0000

Different things hit different people. Not known for sober or responsible journalism, when Arnav Goswami launched the Republic channel, backed by funds from the BJP politician, many journalists joined his venture. One of them has, yesterday, resigned. Disgusted with his coverage of senior journalist and activist, Gauri Lankesh’s brute murder, Sumana Nandy has not merely resigned but has made her decision public on Facebook, also saying quite clearly that she will not put her tenure with the Repubic on her CV! That is saying something for a journalist, especially today.

While some on social media have criticised her for joining the Republic in the first place, we salute her decision.

Here is what she says on her FB post. Sumana Nandy of the Republic, who resigned says:

” I have always been proud of the organisations I have worked with in my extremely small career in journalism. But today I am ashamed! An ‘independent’ news organisation is now batting for a rogue government. And openly so.
A journalist is murdered in cold blood days after receiving death threats from the BJP-RSS cadres. And instead of questioning these murderers, you question the opposition? Where is the integrity? Where are we heading? Some ‘journalists’ are even celebrating the massacre (that she brought it on herself.) Well, yes! This is what happens in Saudi Arabia and North Korea. We are just a few more deaths away from catching up with these countries.
If the fourth pillar sells its soul, where will the society go?
We have failed you, ma’am. All I know, you are probably in a much much better place.
P.S.: For whatever it is worth and whatever significance it has, I have decided to not put Republic TV as one of my employers on my CV and on social media. I regret my association with this rogue organisation.
#GauriLankesh

The post Disgusted with the Coverage of Gauri Lankesh’s Murder on the Republic, Journo Resigns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sovereign and Super Sovereign of Indian Republic

Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:34:55 +0000

Given the republican thrust of the Indian Constitution, the above title might look quite anachronistic to some.

Given the republican thrust of the Indian constitution, the above title might look quite anachronistic to some. This is because Indian constitution does not allow for such a reading as its republican character eliminates the need for hierarchical or parallel conception of sovereignty. The republican character of the Indian constitution makes people uniformly sovereign thus ruling out any competing conception of sovereignty. To put differently, the republican conception of sovereignty seeks to dissolve all the particular caste and gender based identities into more universal category of citizens. In constitutional terms people’s sovereignty then becomes a singular conception. If this is the constitutional status of the conception of sovereignty then the question that requires to be answered is: is it possible for anyone to adopt a title that suggests not only hierarchical but parallel conception of sovereignty? The assumption behind the proposed title suggests that a uniformed conception of sovereign citizens has only a formal /constitutional status and that in actual practice, in fact, there are competing and even intersecting conceptions of sovereignty. These mutually exclusory forms have evolved in the course of the last seventy years’ long life of the Indian republic as visualised in our constitution. Thus, the main focus of this essay is to highlight these different forms of sovereignty that seems to be having existed side by side but with conflicting relationship with each other. We will take on board the critique of the liberal conception of republic that houses not one but several intersection conceptions of sovereignty. Sovereign citizen is a neat and coherent category. As a part of this claim let me try and divide sovereign citizens into two basic sets: Law abiding and lawless sovereign citizens. In addition to these two, we shall also discuss the emergence of third category of citizens who have acquired the status of super-sovereign. We would like to argue that these are not ordinarily sovereign citizens but they seem to be enjoying extraordinary sovereign status. These are certain corporate houses as well as corporate NGOs. We will further argue that these corporates, along with the states in India do share the same ethical space of parental ‘benevolence’. We shall discuss this kind of super sovereign afterwards; let us discuss those who exercise their sovereignty within the constitutional framework and those who exercise their sovereignty outside the constitutional framework.

Lawless and law abiding sovereign citizens
Arguably, there are citizens who seek to exercise their sovereignty within the legal/ law framework. For example, dalits like general citizens are constitutionally entitled to enjoy political sovereignty in regard to participation in decision making processes of the country. However, dalits are sovereign in one more additional sense of being socially sovereign. The need to establish organic connection between dalits and social sovereignty becomes important in the context of the 19th century social history of Western India, particularly Peshwa rule in Pune. The Peshwa rule which functioned on the basis of Brahaminical ideology, officially denied dalits physical access to public spaces. Today, in the 21st century, dalits through capacity for defiance and resistance have been struggling to access public spaces and hold on to them by paying heavy social cost. For example, dalit protests organised through the upper caste lane in the urban-semi urban centres and even through some of the villages or celebrations of Ambedkar’s birth anniversaries are some of the cases that point at the exercise of social sovereignty. But this lawful exercise of sovereignty is trumped by the lawless forms of sovereignty that finds its expression in the dalit atrocities perpetrated by the dominant castes.

These citizens tend to operate in the zone of lawlessness to the extent that they use their own caste based law which operates parallel to the existing rule of law. The dominant castes demonstrate their sovereign power by imposing social boycott on dalits, or by parading dalit women naked and flogging them publically, like at Una in Gujarat. They are not governed by the modern law but by their own laws that are based on regressive principle of caste. Those who were involved in dalit humiliation at Una carry this dubious distinction of being in the zone of outlaw. This was evident from their being openly aggressive, contemptuous, violent and barbaric towards dalits at Una. This, in effect, invalidates the upper castes’ claim to exist under any plausible form of justice. Those who exist in the zone of outlaw, however, do not have a harder time in the republic. On the contrary, In fact, such ‘sovereign citizens’ seek to brandish their crime on social media projecting such acts as a heroic venture. In the context of upper caste atrocities against dalits , it would not be sufficient to say that the dominant castes take law in their hand and punish dalits, it would be adequate to say that these dominant castes are above the constitutional law with their own caste laws firmly held in their hand. Continuous spree of fresh rounds of atrocities against dalits, have made them to feel as victims of the republic rather than its citizens. In the Indian republic, their sense of self worth is on probation far from being completely realised.

Republic of self-respecting citizens or servile subjects?
Republican thrust of Indian constitution provided new ways of organising Indian society on egalitarian lines. The language of rights and social justice that have been provided with in Indian constitution not only made dalits the legitimate recipient of such rights, but more importantly such rights offered them an opportunity to reject what could be termed as negative rights such as right to jhootan (left over food), right to cast off clothes of the feudal lord and right to carcass and to the flesh of the dead animal. Within the framework of the republic, dalits were able to replace servility with more positive sense of self respect and self worth. In essence, for dalits, Indian republic has been the ideology of enlightenment. The republican promise to create a new society empowered dalits to give up or get rid of negative rights as mentioned above. Regrettably, these negative rights are back in different forms with a modern feudal lord such as states in India and even the corporates.

During the 1970s, Indian government was referred to as maa-baap sarkar (government as benevolent parental authority). It adopted some subsides for the poor who could barely survive. The states in India had acquired the role of “anna data” (food donor). Various chief ministers of different states have been competing to become ‘anna data’ by adopting even drastic forms of subsidies, for example, in rice and other grains, or one rupee idli and mid day meal scheme.

Today, the corporate class has chosen to share this parental benevolence with the State. This parental benevolence has been couched in moral vocabulary such as corporate social responsibility. As a part of the CSR, various philanthropic organisations are cooking food while some others are said to be collecting the ‘surplus’ food by going from restaurant to restaurant. The language of rights gets replaced by the language of seva, daan (charity) and dharma. However, food collected from the restaurant or cooked food does not seem to carry the sacred meaning of prasadam. It is claimed that several lakhs of hungry kids are fed from the inexhaustible plate. Whether one agrees or not these philanthropic efforts are the manifestation of what Utsa Patnaik calls a ‘republic of hunger’. What implication does this philanthropic have for the cognitive power of the recipients of this parental benevolence of the State and the corporates? Dalits have a definite understanding of the ethics (in fact ideology) of care. Such ethics tend to hide the fact that the philanthropists ‘sell’ the sacrifice and do not tell the truth. The truth has been expressed by the dalit parents of the children who are the recipients of mid day meals which does not come to them without paying the social cost of humiliation. The parents of the dalit children ask not just for the mid day meal, but ask the State to appoint adequate number of quality teachers in the government schools. The dalits have expressed intellectual need to get enough competent teachers in government schools besides material good like mid day meal. Their hunger for living worthily is far more morally superior to merely living. It is a different kind of hunger. The State needs to provide decent livelihood resource for the parents of the kids. Hence the dignity of kids to depend on some body’s patronage in moral sense gets violated. India has failed to create hunger for ideas as it has collaterally failed to remove the hunger as basic human existence problem that has a bearing on their existence with dignity.

Let me in conclusion make a point: at this point in time, where the poor privilege hunger for ideas over the hunger for food or hunger for quality education than the desire for food quantity that is made available through mid-day meals. Neither is it the matter of subsidised satisfaction that these sections can draw from the symbolic showcasing of the republic on a certain spectacular event. The dalits and adivasis would be equally happy to appreciate the 26th of January not simply as a one day spectacle, but can sustain their happiness only in the conditions where they would have enough resources to protect their dignity and self-worth. They cannot have a romantic attitude towards the Indian republic.

Courtesy: Peoples Democracy

The post Sovereign and Super Sovereign of Indian Republic appeared first on SabrangIndia.