The Diversity, Democracy, and Dissent Politics in India

The term Democracy was first coined during the 5th century BC in Greece and Athens to describe a State which was ruled 'by the people' in contrast to the then prevailing Aristocracy, or 'rule by the elites'. However, although these two words were directly opposite to each other in meaning, their practice continuously bridged the gap in terms of definitions. In the political establishment in Classical Athens too, only the people at the top of the societal hierarchy were given a chance at exercising their rights through their political citizenship. This meant that black men, slaves, and women were naturally excluded from any form of political participation. And this positive elitist discrimination continued through centuries across regions and democracies till the widespread upsurge of various suffragette movements across the world in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries granted full enfranchisement to every adult irrespective of caste, religion, creed or sex.

Democracy, a system where citizens reserve the right to elect the government of their choice, has been the mainstay of Indian political ecosystem since independence. And the two most important factors in a democracy are respecting diversity and allowing dissent. At the time of independence, most pundits predicted a breakdown of Indian democracy within a few years, considering its incommensurable polity and the associated difference of opinions which would ultimately lead to large-scale dissents across the country. But withstanding very possible challenge in its way, India proved the world wrong. India did not succumb to its colossal diversity, a factor which was historically pitted as India’s biggest challenge to its democracy. Instead, India had discovered a new mantra, “Unity in Diversity”.

Political theorists have agreed that democracy, an exercise of majoritarian decision-making, is sometimes morally and normatively problematic. Although majoritarianism stands as one of the main pillars of democracy with no better substitute to it in current times, yet it cannot be deemed as a completely unalloyed good. While the advantages of such a system are recognised and appreciated, its glaring shortcomings must also be acknowledged and worked upon at the same time. And it is taking cognizance of the limits of such a majority rule, that the political intellectuals and discoverers have for long tried to explore and surface the substantive and procedural limits to it in an insanely heterogeneous and diversified polity like that of a country as India.

It has always been understood and accepted almost as a global norm for countries that a democracy owes something to its political minorities. One of the main reasons for doing so is to prevent a gradual alienation of such communities in the wake of undue pressure from the subjective norms, rules, and regulations of a resulting majoritarian State. Hence, political theory has always been clear on its views about what a Democracy owes to its minorities, the two being- procedural safeguards and a limited set of substantive rights. Historically, only a handful intellectuals have ventured out to question the moral importunate of majority to wield maximum power and influence over the institutions of the country, given the fact that majorities exercise their power under the shackles of a set of established and rigid constraints. However, given the principles and basis on which the idea of democracy is constructed, it can also not be denied that majorities are by and large entitled to rule, and under this veil of a democratic discourse, minorities are made to be subjects to this rule, with or without their wilful intentions. This is because; all of this is now normatively acceptable. But, there exists one such perspective in democratic theory where the normative clamant of majority is not deemed as divisive or problematic. It is the dogmatic belief that majority coalitions are transient. According to the conceptual definition of classical democratic theory, majoritarianism is unobjectionable only as long as people take turns ruling and being ruled. This is one of the ways of justifying majority decision-making; not as a power but as a right. Whether one follows the more modern Dahlian conception of changing majority coalitions or the more classical idea which believes that ruler and ruled are ever-changing paradigms where every community gets a turn in each case, the point sojourns that neither the status of majority nor minority is expected to be a permanent archetype attached to the character of an individual or group of people in a democracy.

A more pragmatic approach, however, would be to acknowledge the gradual erosion of the original principles of the classical idea of democracy which has resulted in the societal predicament wherein minority status has become more perpetual than transient. And such groups or communities who tend to disagree with this prevailing discourse have only two choices with regard to governance- act moderately or speak radically. And it is to be understood that when such communities perpetually weighed under the tag of a minority dissent, they tend to do so with more of a critical than an authoritative voice. And in either of the two ways, that is speaking moderately or radically, minorities do not brandish political power. They are always “speaking truth to power” as opposed to acting with power. But unfortunately, such asymmetries in power which fuels uproar and dissent in society are understood in an unreflective and unnuanced way by the majority-ruled State as individuals who belong to groups trying to eat into the social fabric of the diverse country, igniting intolerance in people, and directly threatening their control on power. Such individuals and groups are then quintessentialised in a pejorative manner that is reductionist in nature and a betrayal of their humanity. This oppugnant attitude of the State paves way for an array of ad hominem attacks, inimical character assassination, and contravening the motives of such individuals on the basis of unfair and preposterous assumptions about them, their morals and values, and their political and social commitments and concerns. Such vacant and incongruous lines of thought have further been given a platform by the rapidly expanding plexus of social media networks supporting itself on the backbone of a new era of internet where one’s identity is masked behind a computer or a mobile screen. And with the 24*7 news media networks also sensationalising news to rake up TRPs and garner advertisements, the society is being forced into an cultivating an idea of fear. A fear of dissolution of one’s identity in the sea of opinions, a fear of an impending suppression of voices, and a fear of holding onto one’s diversity. The idea which once united India and its people is now being used against it. The idea of “Unity in Diversity”. The culture of respecting ideologically opposite opinions, actions, and discourses seem to be fading out fast under the wave of an increasingly intolerant social media, creating deeper and deeper valleys of differences among citizens on the lines of caste, religion, gender, and opinions.

Whatever one’s politics, respect for dissent and pluralism is highly essential for a thriving democracy and the protection of human rights in their diversity and comprehensiveness. So too are mutual respect, empathy, humility, compassion, self-criticism, generosity of spirit and intellect and the willingness to listen to opposing views and engage with them critically and not only with hostility, even when they are directly challenging to one’s convictions and identity and potentially offensive.