One of the alarming pieces of communication heard in social media/conversations these days w.r.t to political debate in India is about how the "middle class" or "urban" voters will get woken up by the activism of Anna Hazare or the ensuing debate on Lokpal. Every time I participate in a debate, I get the response - "Did you vote?" or an appropriate corollary as may be deemed fit.
So, I have been thinking about this long and hard. After all, it seems a valid question and a valid response is a prerequisite to further debate. For the record, I have voted every single time I was eligible and present in the jurisdiction of my voting eligibility. Unfortunately, due to the fact that I wasn't present at my normal residences during both the 2004 & 2009 general elections (first time due to studies and second time due to occupation), I actually have a poor record at voting.
Having cleared my record, let me take this further. The key issue about my voting and its effects on the politics of India lies somewhere else. Having born in a middle class, high caste Hindu, and brought up in urban upbringings all my life, I am in no way a minority in the traditional sense of the word. Yet, for the purpose of politics, I am clearly a minority. For the purposes of winning an election in India, the demographic of an influential voter constitutes a lower-middle/lower class, lower caste, rural non-Hindu (Non-Hindus, in general, are known to vote en masse.)
The statistics are easy: Over half of our population live in villages, over half of our population is lower caste and over half of our population is essentially what I term lower middle class or lower. Further, almost every constituency has the same structure. Lower class will out vote, higher class voters in most constituencies in urban India too. And of course, as a whole, the lower caste, lower class population can and does determine the output of most elections in our country.
Now, the aspirations of Indians in generally convergent - almost all of them want a strong, clean, honest, non-corrupt country where people can work and enjoy their lives with safety and security. But the means to that end is significantly divergent between the political majority and political minority.
The political minority wants a government who can sacrifice day-to-day gains for long term gains, remove subsidies, reward merit, and reward equality for the weak and meek as opposed to populism. The political majority is appeased by quotas, subsidies, populism and short term gains. Nobody can fault them. They are looking for immediate survival and whoever gets them that wins the most votes.
Nobody can question the individual wisdom in their decisions and yet collectively, the political minority will almost always end up voting those who can appease to their demands and not those who can cook up a strong nation. Nobody can blame their individual demands, since the fulfillment of the same is essential to their immediate survival.
The farmer who has to pay for power will be appeased with free power while he is ignorant of the cost of free power to the nation. A hungry man will love his Rs. 2/kg rice, irrespective of whether it is the most nutritious or the best option for the nation. A lower caste auto driver will happily accept a quota, if his son graduating next year can get an admission/job based on that, irrespective of what that quota does to the nation.
To the outsider (or the observant insider), our politics might be mind-numbingly corrupt, illogical and completely chaotic. And yet, if we agree to the above premise, it is reasonably straight forward to understand why our political parties are as they are. Indian politics has to favor the political majority and since the immediate demands of the political majority, unfortunately, is heavily loaded in favor of keeping such people in the political majority, the cycle is vicious.
And I have realized, I am in a political minority.
So, I have been thinking about this long and hard. After all, it seems a valid question and a valid response is a prerequisite to further debate. For the record, I have voted every single time I was eligible and present in the jurisdiction of my voting eligibility. Unfortunately, due to the fact that I wasn't present at my normal residences during both the 2004 & 2009 general elections (first time due to studies and second time due to occupation), I actually have a poor record at voting.
Having cleared my record, let me take this further. The key issue about my voting and its effects on the politics of India lies somewhere else. Having born in a middle class, high caste Hindu, and brought up in urban upbringings all my life, I am in no way a minority in the traditional sense of the word. Yet, for the purpose of politics, I am clearly a minority. For the purposes of winning an election in India, the demographic of an influential voter constitutes a lower-middle/lower class, lower caste, rural non-Hindu (Non-Hindus, in general, are known to vote en masse.)
The statistics are easy: Over half of our population live in villages, over half of our population is lower caste and over half of our population is essentially what I term lower middle class or lower. Further, almost every constituency has the same structure. Lower class will out vote, higher class voters in most constituencies in urban India too. And of course, as a whole, the lower caste, lower class population can and does determine the output of most elections in our country.
Now, the aspirations of Indians in generally convergent - almost all of them want a strong, clean, honest, non-corrupt country where people can work and enjoy their lives with safety and security. But the means to that end is significantly divergent between the political majority and political minority.
The political minority wants a government who can sacrifice day-to-day gains for long term gains, remove subsidies, reward merit, and reward equality for the weak and meek as opposed to populism. The political majority is appeased by quotas, subsidies, populism and short term gains. Nobody can fault them. They are looking for immediate survival and whoever gets them that wins the most votes.
Nobody can question the individual wisdom in their decisions and yet collectively, the political minority will almost always end up voting those who can appease to their demands and not those who can cook up a strong nation. Nobody can blame their individual demands, since the fulfillment of the same is essential to their immediate survival.
The farmer who has to pay for power will be appeased with free power while he is ignorant of the cost of free power to the nation. A hungry man will love his Rs. 2/kg rice, irrespective of whether it is the most nutritious or the best option for the nation. A lower caste auto driver will happily accept a quota, if his son graduating next year can get an admission/job based on that, irrespective of what that quota does to the nation.
To the outsider (or the observant insider), our politics might be mind-numbingly corrupt, illogical and completely chaotic. And yet, if we agree to the above premise, it is reasonably straight forward to understand why our political parties are as they are. Indian politics has to favor the political majority and since the immediate demands of the political majority, unfortunately, is heavily loaded in favor of keeping such people in the political majority, the cycle is vicious.
And I have realized, I am in a political minority.
4 comments:
I think what you described is a well-known flaw of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). However, I think what works for India is that we are too heterogeneous (and fractured) for any single majority to come together and exert its influence overwhelmingly. Which is why I think you see more of minority appeasement in an attempt to capture a large number of small groups rather than capture a few large groups. I also think the recent focus on the 74th amendment (http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend74.htm) will also reduce the tyranny of the majority by shifting power to lower levels (say in Bangalore city, where you and I can hope to be part of the political majority).
While I say that to offer a contrarian view, I'm far from hopeful myself :)
Deepak: Fully agreed. I never expected this to a novel thought. All I was saying is the following:
"Because I am in a political minority, and many other well meaning people too, asking for whether somebody has voted should not be a precursor to include them in a conversation/debate."
As a corollary, everybody including foreigners, should be heard if they are making sense. If there is a bias, you can make that observation too. But, of late, discourse in politics has become a game of exclusion, than of inclusion.
Also, Deepak, I am thinking of a follow up post covering how exactly can a system get out of this vicious cycle. At least, my version of it. Will keep you posted when I do that.
I too have asked that question of others, but only because the answer to it is a good proxy for apathy. I ask that to call out people who believe the self-fulfilling prophecy "My vote doesn't count. so I won't vote!"
Apart from that I think any political view should be judged on its merits and not based on who is saying it. :)
Looking forward to the follow up post
Post a Comment