The Case Against Democracy

(Headline ripped off from the New York Times)

Democracy is absolutely great. Who would’t like the idea of people governing themselves, or at least having their chosen representatives in the government? Democracy is fair, and more compatible with concepts prevalent today like free-thinking, freedom of expression, and so on.

Democracy, at least an ideal one, does not discriminate between people on the basis of gender, religion, enthnicity, and other factors. It gives power to media and judiciary, the institutions that help check the government if it veers off in authoritarian direction.
But is democracy perfect? No, far from it. My biggest grouse with democracy is that it allows demagoguery to flourish. The head of the state, and other leaders might be representatives chosen by the majority of the people, but that does not make them the perfect choice. That just means that they ran an amazing (and expensive) political campaign and are good at oratory, and have a commanding personality.

The rise of right-wing populism in the form of world leaders like Modi, Putin, Erdogan, and most recently Trump is a testament of the weakness of democracy. Charm of personal strength, manliness, calllousness against minorities and intense scorn towards their politican opponents are some of the few qualities that these leaders share. But none of that stopped them from being elected. One reason was the weakness or bad track record of their opponents, the other that people bought their narrative. It is the second reason that should worry proponents of democracy.

That being said, there is no credible alternative for democracy as yet. People should still be trusted to make their own choices unless somebody is feeling adventurous and wants to throw the world into anarchy. Perhaps a few modifications are required to iron out the chinks and democracy might turn out to be fine. The press and judiciary should be empowered, people should get better education, children should be instilled with leadership qualities from the beginning so that they take interest in politics and become educated, informed politicians in future. Media should return to objectivity (no matter how boring it may sound) and get their stories across to the people in remote areas so that people actually know who they are voting for.


He Who Must Not Be Named

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, continues to inspire revulsion in Hindu right-wingers even after more than half a century of his death. He’s been blamed him for almost everything bad India is going through today – terrorism, poverty, corruption, sluggish economy, and so on. So it hardly comes as a surprise when they insist that Nehru should not have been the first prime minister of India, and that Sardar Vallabhai Patel deserved the post more. India, they argue, would have been better off, politically and economically, under Patel’s leadership.

This narrative has always been there – it was there even during Nehru’s tenure, but it gained prominence only after Narendra Modi, who would go on to become India’s prime minister, endorsed it in his 2014 election campaign. And why not? After all, Modi had been an RSS man through and through right from his adolescence. And the name of Patel seemed to win him votes. The tide of public opinion had overwhelmingly turned in Patel’s favour. The first Union Budget of the Modi government announced allocation of money to an edifice they had promised in the manifesto: the construction of “Statue of Unity,” said to be the tallest statue in the world when completed, dedicated to the memory of Sardar Patel. The word ‘unity’ in the name of the structure is a reference to Patel’s contribution in ‘unifying’ India by convincing, through force or otherwise, about 500 princely states to join the Indian Union.

The constant rhetoric spewed over Sardar Patel’s role in ‘unification of India’ by Hindu right is another veiled attack on Nehru. Comparing the role of Nehru and Patel in the integration of India, Nehru’s perceived failure is repeatedly pointed out in securing Kashmir – apparently the one task that he had had. It is anybody’s guess if Sardar Patel would have been the better prime-minister, or if he would have handled the Kashmir issue better. He was, no doubt, a capable diplomat but according to most analysts Nehru was the better choice as PM as he was more sophisticated and worldly. One is free to agree or disagree. But for the Hindu right, Nehru was the Devil who escaped hell.


Recently, this pathological hatred of Nehru has been taken to another level. The Hindu fundamentalists these days are not satisfied with just obscuring Nehru’s achievements and making him look as evil as possible, now they want to simply erase Nehru from Indian history altogether. The new Social Science textbook for class VIII in Rajasthan state board does not have a single reference to the first prime minister of India. Yes, you read that right. Nehru is not directly mentioned. Not even once. This is really strange, and one can’t help but wonder how students are supposed to study modern history of India without learning about the existence of the man who first graced its highest office, and who led it for more than a decade. The government probably believes that removing Nehru from textbooks would make future generations forget that a man called Jawahar Lal Nehru was ever born. It is the most repugnant form of brainwashing. It is like Nehru was a gaffe that India had made and wiping off his name would save India from past embarrassment.

Granted, Congress is not entirely blameless. Every government – Congress, BJP or otherwise – has tried to teach students its own version of history. And one must also keep in mind – no version of history is ‘true’, really. Napoleon Bonaparte was right when he rhetorically asked the world, “What is history but a fable agreed upon?” The NCERT History and Social Science textbooks written in Congress rule have traditionally deified Nehru and undermined the role of other freedom fighters and leaders, especially those who were not associated with Congress, and that is what partly prompted the Sangh Parivar to undermine Nehru in the first place, (one of the other reasons being Nehruvian secularism was anathema to their Hindutva – the dream of a Hindu Rashtra or Hindu Nation). But denying the very existence of arguably one of the biggest figures of 20th century is something only the most twisted and bigoted minds could manage.

The present government would do well to keep in mind that refusing to acknowledge historical figures or events does not actually alter history. If it did, European countries would have eliminated Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini from their history long ago.