We, as a nation, are not tired of patting ourselves on the back for practising what we unabashedly call democracy. We not only speak of democracy in glowing terms, we also impart a lesson or two to those who are not professed democrats like we are. It does not matter whether we follow the tenets of democracy. A democrat, we are told, as a matter of principle, must be tolerant. But tolerant of what? Tolerant of our inherent contradictions? Tolerant of all that is going on; tolerant of all that is happening around us? This, while we stand committed to bringing about orderliness in the society and so much more?
But before we pry any further into this, let us take a look at our constitution itself. The constitution says that Hindi is the national language, but says so in English, not in Hindi. And although we have belatedly compiled a Hindi version of the constitution, it is only the English version that is legally binding. Therefore, only the original version written in English is the valid document. What a paradox?
The constitution guarantees equal opportunity to all without any discrimination whatsoever, or so its preamble promises. But contradictions begin to flow soon. Reservations are to be provided to different categories of the people. Whatever the rationale of such an arrangement, we have accepted the contradiction. In fact our political system thrives on this apparent contradiction. After all we cannot deprive our political parties of the issues. And we are given to understand that after a certain period of time (it was for ten years to begin with), this issue of reservation will be killed. And therein lies the catch 22 situation. Who, yes, who will decide that the opportune moment has come when all can truly be said to have become equal, no longer needing the dose of reservation? And who will measure the equality and what will be the yardstick for measuring this equality? The political parties will see to it that such a moment comes never. Will they really have to try to achieve this end? There never was and there will never be the mirage of equality. Haves and have-nots have always been there and they will remain so long as the world remains in existence. So who are we trying to fool by inserting this article on reservation till the status of equality is achieved? This is contradiction within contradiction. But we must live with that. There are many more in the constitution. But let us just examine one more of it and then get out of this obnoxious argument of insidious intent that could lead us nowhere.
When the constitution came into force in two instalments on 26th November 1949 (19 Articles came into force on this day) and on 26th January 1950 (the remaining provisions came into force on this day), it had 395 articles and today it is somewhere above 400 articles and till date it has been trampled upon for more than 115 times. The entire constitution is prepared by the great luminaries headed by Dr. Ambedkar who is justly venerated by the people of the country, especially by those who do political business in his name. No problem with that. But why is it that while the creator/s is/are venerated, some of the creations are frowned upon? Some of the leading national leaders and parties would not like to touch Article 44 (Uniform civil code for citizens), Article 47 on Directive for Prohibition of consumption of intoxicants (fundamental principle of governance) and Article 370 (temporary provisions with respect to the state of J&K) even with a barge pole. The question is—why? These too have been created by those very venerated hands of Dr. Ambedkar and his team of erudite men of eminence that created the other articles. Apparently, these contradictions suit the politicians and so the matter is best left unresolved. This is what I call the art of living by contradictions. We are quite adept at that.
Then we have the election manifestoes of the political parties to contend with. The language they use in their political declarations is of greater importance. The usual refrain is ’if voted to power, we shall……’ Yes, they say ‘we shall’, which means commitment. But once they are voted to power and the government is formed, the prime minister or chief ministers never again say ‘we shall’. Instead, now they resort to normative science and accordingly their statements veer around, ‘there should be justice for all…we should ensure….’ and so on and so forth, as if it is now the people themselves who must do all this and not the politicians who were duly voted by the people to do these things for them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the people themselves to achieve all that was promised by the political masters. And well, there is an explanation for all this. Now-a-days we keep hearing that it is not possible for a government alone (a poor government) to do everything unless the people themselves undertook the responsibility. And how do people take responsibility without taking law into their own hands? Aren’t we regularly told not to take law into our own hands and that law will take its own course? What a contradiction to live by?
As if these are not enough already, we are constantly exhorted and egged on by our political masters to become so many things just in one life. It takes an individual the whole of his life to live his own self. Imagine the plight of a man when on one occasion he is asked to inculcate the qualities of Gandhiji as well as those of Netaji. On yet another occasion he is asked to follow the preaching of Guru Nanak and on another occasion he is told to emulate Shivaji. Sometimes he is asked to follow in the footsteps of Bhagat Singh and sometimes those of Buddha. Now, is it possible for a single man to emulate the qualities of all these great personages without himself becoming a bundle of contradictions? And will such a citizen really be an asset to the nation which he ought to be in the first place?
Bur who really cares? Leaders will just say anything, without caring a whit about the meaning and the possible impact their utterances make. In any case, people have understood what to make of their outbursts. Nevertheless, lying and contradictions are the order of the day. And no one suffers any compunction on this count either. In fact, the more they lie and contradict, the more limelight they hog. And what is politics if not hogging of limelight!
A nation that was identified not long ago with truthfulness and virtuosity is now thriving on deceit, lies, falsehood and contradictions. But we have come to tolerate all this. Because a democrat is he who can ‘tolerate’—tolerate sufferings, tolerate humiliations, tolerate deprivations, tolerate indignities and above all tolerate politicians who, however, will not tolerate a ‘sore thumb’. A critical remark of an ordinary citizen is not only frowned upon, but the person making such a remark is hauled up and mauled by the political heavyweights. When it comes to winning of an election, everything except persuasion is at work. Every instrumentality other than canvassing support is used to browbeat the electorate into submission. Though they are the very people who are supposed to guarantee the right of franchise, they are the ones who deny the people this right.
Today neither law nor the law enforcing authority, no matter at what level, can boast of respectability. Contradictions have destroyed the moral fibre of the society. Why then complain if an Anna emerges to lead a movement against all these contradictions!
No comments:
Post a Comment