Democracy’s strength is the people’s power that runs it. It should function on the collective will of the people, but in India, sadly, it is also that the spirit of democracy is often getting polluted by sectarian feelings of regional pulls, casteism, clan loyalties and religious pressures.
The general atmosphere gets vitiated and merit of individuals and parties often get relegated to the background. Resultantly, the nation as a whole suffers. A welcome ruling by the Supreme Court Monday 3 January 2017 on PILs against a 1995 judgement of the same Court, must be seen in this light.
A Constitution bench of the apex court has made it clear that sectarian considerations should be eschewed in the nation’s election process – and in specific, campaigns on the basis of caste and religion. The Court ruled that “no politician can seek vote in the name of caste, creed or religion.”
The 1995 ruling had stated, in response to objections raised against use of Hindutva sentiments in election campaigns, that “it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on Hindu religion, as opposed to other religions.
These words are used in a speech to emphasise a way of life of the Indian people and the Indian cultural ethos.” The present ruling makes it clear that there is a need for politicians to avoid directly or indirectly exploiting religious and other feelings in elections.
Ideally, parties fight on the basis of issues as also the policies and principles that each party upholds. It is imperative that these are in tune with the collective interests of the people and the nation.
Every political outfit swears that it seeks the uplift of the disadvantaged sections which may have a sectarian shade to it. But that is seen as an attempt at promoting a collective cause. Several parties that speak out in sectarian terms are not only in circulation but some of them also hold power.
The BJP itself had cleverly used the Hindutva card by raking up the Ayodhya Ram Temple issue – that formed the sub text for its political manifestos in the 1990s. Today too, there are those who think Hindutva is at the core of the BJP’s political philosophy and that it sugar-coats this with a shade of nationalism.
There also the Muslim League, the Dravidian parties and the parties in the North-East that could be labeled in sectarian ways. There is acute caste politics in Uttar Pradesh, but they label their parties in collective tones and generally function under the four walls of the prescribed laws and regulations.
The Election Commission has the power to derecognize parties that flout such rules or work on religious and casteist lines.
This here is not to argue that the present ruling by the apex court will automatically eject the resort to caste, religion and other such sectarian feelings from the campaign scene or from elections as a whole.
These are bound to have their role in future as well, but here is an attempt to progressively reduce such influences, so that democracy could function in a more idealistic way. This is also important as elections in the world’s top democracy — the US — itself is coming under the shadow of serious deficiencies and malpractices.
India, as the world’s largest democracy would need to strengthen its fabric in a way that the democracies around the world can look more up to as an inspiration in future.
Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court ruling has essentially set the record straight, rather than coming up with a new framework for political or electoral conduct. Law has its strengths, and every party and politician will now have to be doubly careful as to how public statements are made and not be made. Such restrictions help. There cannot be a circus without a ring.
What, however, can be said is that the efficacy of such rulings is extremely doubtful. The social system in India is capable of circumventing virtually any law. The recent example of demonetization is something to ponder about.
Over dependence about efficiency of existing banking system proved disastrous and the experiment failed miserably. Similarly, the assumption of the apex Court that its ruling in matters of caste and such issues would truly be implemented is evidently grossly incorrect.
Unless some party or candidate prints and distributes hard copy of evidently caste or religion based opinions, even video or audio clippings can never be trustworthy in today’s age of morphing and juxtaposing.
Like any established business automatically attracts time tested clientele so also caste and religion attract their own overt and covert disciples. Maybe the Court should have first tested out its thinking by stopping caste based matrimonial advertisements in newspapers of north India.
