Damaged democracies

 

The fall of Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh is very worrisome for the Indian strategic interests; just like the fall of Rajapakshe clan in Sri Lanka must have bothered the Chinese communist government.

For a country like India, whose democracy is always on the livewire, it’s suitable to have democracies in its neighboring countries. Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina—however milder version of democracy it might have been—is always a better bet for India in comparison to any other option.

She was firmly in the seat for the last fifteen years. Despite all the diluting elements of a proper democracy—like ‘crackdown on the opposition, including the jailing of leaders, stifling of dissent, and muzzling of media’ (was she too inspired by the strong, autocratic leaders who are emerging world over of late?)—she has been the best shot for the Indian interests. Her ouster acquires more worrisome shades given the fact of unfriendly regimes in Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and the military junta in Myanmar.

When you are a proponent of strongman (or strongwoman) politics, there is a very fine line between what is tolerable and intolerable. Dissension builds up over a period of time and if you aren’t prudent enough to keep safety valves for the seepage of extra effervescence—thus avoiding an explosion—you might become a villain suddenly. The fuel has accumulated over the years; now it needs just one trigger to ignite mass sentiments. There were people swimming in the private pools of the mighty Rajapakshes and now you have people taking away framed picture and paintings from Hasina’s official residence.

She could have easily enjoyed her fifth term. What was the use of bringing job quota for the descendants of freedom fighters? One can give positive incentives in so many other ways instead of directly antagonizing the younger section of the population. It was foolish on her part; as farcical as would be the Indian government’s job quota for the descendants of the founding members of the Hindu rightist organizations in the country. Instead of allowing the fire to spread while hundreds died in the protests she could have shown a clever side—staying adamant at all costs is being very foolish, even if it makes one feel strong—by revoking the said job reservation; like Modi did once during the farmer protests by taking back the unpopular farming laws. This is the only time I have seen him allowing some space to the voice of dissent; otherwise it has been a steel frame. But this one kind and considerate decision fetches much respect in my eyes for the powerful Indian ruler. It’s fortunate that he did it because it saved India from a bigger fire. But the way female wrestlers were treated—and the oppressor facilitated—still rankles the soul of most of the people in the peasantry class. And the less we say about Manipur, the better it is. I know it’s a far more complex situation over there than anyone of a common person like you or me can understand. But despite all the nitty-gritty, the country’s premier can at least take some symbolic measures to put balm on the bleeding Manipuri wounds. 

It’s fortunate that the collective Indian psyche is far more mature and would respond—not react—through ballot paper during elections under similar circumstances, like it did during the recently held general elections. In the face of the talks of threat to the constitution in the country, the Indian voters’ response has been to dilute the power structure by denying the BJP government an absolute majority in the general election. Despite the alleged misuse of agencies and partisan role played by the election commission—due to which many critics take the result with a pinch of salt and the opposition seems convinced that there are enough reasons to believe that election wasn’t as fair as it’s supposed to be in the world’s largest democracy—the BJP lost its majority and hence the power to rule with an unsparing rod is diluted significantly. A coalition government is the best shot for the social harmony of the country at the moment.

What is it that undoes the position of a powerful authoritarian leader in a democracy? I think, it’s the plain old overconfidence. An illusion that what has been passing for long will continue to do so. As the most powerful person in the country, you think that the alpha male type tactics are the only signs of strength and power. You think any adjustment of other’s opinion is a sign of weakness.

About 700 farmers lost their lives during the cruel summer and winter months during the yearlong agitation. A kind leader—and kindness doesn’t decrease the strength of a leader—would have met his farmer subjects. When the champion and elite female sporting icons were crying on the road for justice, a kinder ruler would have expressed his willingness to listen to them. Manipur is burning for more than a year. A kind ruler would have visited it during the times when his subjects need a healing touch. Just mere presence and soft words will do. He is after all our ruler and such kind symbolism puts balm on many wounds. All said, we are lucky that the Indian voters are far more mature and respond through ballot box only. And that’s the strength of Indian democracy.