Once again the election season is on. Once again the people of India have the opportunity to choose their rulers. Once again the political leaders and political parties shall cast their net far and wide and use all possible means, legal, illegal and in between, to secure the support of the electorate.
The electoral system has inbuilt defects and limitations. The Government of the day hardly ever represents the majority of the people. Its electoral base is generally limited to 25-30% of the people. In this scheme of things the vocal minority of the organised and entrenched groups have a larger-than-life role. This minority gets the people's ears, sets the stage and colours the electoral environment. The silent majority, the unorganised or the deprived groups, are ignored or taken for granted. Thus it is that the high castes, the Brahmins, the Rajputs and the Vaishyas, together constituting 15% of the national electorate, dominate the system. Thus it is that among the Shudras, the Ahirs, the Koeris and the Kurmis rule the roost. Thus it is that among the Achhuts, relatively speaking, the Chamars and the Dusadhs take the lion's share. Thus it is that among the Muslims, the so-called Ashraf- the Syeds, the Shaikhs and the Pathans- enjoy the monopoly of holding the flag of Islam! Thus it is among the tribals that, say in Bihar, the Oraons and the Mundas have the upper hand.
Thus, exploitation in Indian society is not limited to the exploitation of one social group by another, political or otherwise. Within each social group, one sub-group exploits another and deprives it of its due share of goods, services and resources. In-group exploitation is as unjust, as inequitable, as dehumanising, as inter-group exploitation. The message of Social Justice and Social Equality must therefore resonate through the entire system to secure for each group, each sub-group and each sub-subgroup, each state, each region, each district, each block and each Panchayat, each religion, and each sect, each language and each dialect, each caste and each sub-caste, each race and each sub-race, its due share of the national cake, its place in the sun.
Justice precondition for Unity
In the ideal society, the entire people, all social groups and sub-groups, shall—individual variations apart—have the same educational and economic characteristics: same literacy level, same number of graduates and professionals per thousand of population, same per capita income, some representation in public or private employment, same representation in the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, same standard of housing, even same vulnerability to environmental diseases! Random sampling will display no variation based on race or religion or caste or language or domicile, just as there are no variations in intelligence and in learning capacity or in blood chemistry. Once man-made variations disappear and every individual realises his God-given potential, uniformity will make for equality and protection shall become redundant. Unity and solidarity shall reign supreme and there shall be no communal or caste or racial or regional tension. Fragmentation shall lead to reintegration; fission shall be replaced by fusion; sharing and participation shall lead to unity and solidarity.
But do we have the wisdom to manage a controlled fission so that the process of fission does not get out of control and cause explosion and disintegration?
In fission there is a concept of critical mass. In the race to establish an identity, somewhere a line has to be drawn. In a democratic set up the thrust is on sharing power, on representation in the legislature and in public employment. Even a miniscule group, howsoever identified, can demand protection, but a quota of less than 1% is not feasible purely on grounds of practicability. Minis groups which form less than 1% of the total population at any operational level can group together or with any larger group or sub-group according to their choice. But the claim of each group or sub-group which forms at least 1% of the total population at any operational level must be conceded.
Let us take the general election. Roughly each Lok Sabha seat represents nearly 1.5 million people. Thus any identifiable group which has at least 1.5 million members, even if dispersed throughout the length and breadth of India, has a right not only to at least one seat in the Lok Sabha but to a seat of its choice where it has a good candidate and a reasonable chance of winning, with the help of other groups which support the same political formation. The problem becomes easier as one goes on to larger and larger groups. Take the Muslim Indians—a major group and one of the few Pan-Indian communities. If they form 12% of the population, they are entitled to 65 seats in the Lok Sabha. So far they have never got their due. Even when nominated, the quality of the candidate and the choice of constituency leave much to be desired.
Indeed if all national parties which claim to represent the Muslim Indians and, therefore, demand their support, put up capable Muslim candidates in the 65 Constituencies with the highest Muslim percentage in the electorate (excluding those which happen to be reserved), not only will it reassure the Muslim community but give them a clear ideological choice among parties taken together with the candidates but also give the non-Muslim voters an opportunity to opt for the more acceptable Muslim candidate in each Constituency. Thus a perfect balance will be reached when a Muslim will win a Muslim concentration constituency with the support of non-Muslim voters. The centrist politics will expand at the cost of fringe politics.
Similarly a Yadav more acceptable to non-Yadavs should be nominated from a Yadav-dominated constituency or a Brahmin, more acceptable to non-Brahmins, from a Brahmin dominated constituency. This will eliminate the politics of extremism and confrontation and pave the way for the politics of cooperation and collaboration.
No party can claim to be a national party in the true sense of the term. Every party has a well-demarcated social constituency consisting of several identifiable social groups or sub-groups. It should distribute its tickets in a manner that at least every supporting and target group feels satisfied with regard to number and quality of candidates as well as choice of the constituencies. And the parties can adopt the convention to give the highest priority to the smallest and weakest group and progressively move to the larger and the stronger groups.
Vote Banks at Constituency Level
How should a deprived group like the Muslim Indian behave? It should not bind itself forever or everywhere to the apron strings of any party in a multi-party system. It should always have a range of choice so that it is not taken for granted nor treated as an adversary. The Muslim Indian should look both at the profession of the Party and the record of the candidate. But whomsoever it chooses to support in a given constituency, it must vote massively and unitedly as a block, so as to make its weight felt. Its watchword should be: No national vote bank for any party but constituency vote banks for optimum combination of candidate and party. Vote-bank politics of any dominated social group has a legitimacy of its own but it is beneficial only if it is not a mechanism to channelise all the credit towards a monopoly entrepreneur through its commissioned agents and brokers. The group must have the political sophistication and maturity to function as a vote-bank on a constituency by constituency basis. In any case, the constituency-wise choice is likely to be influenced by the overall current perception about various political parties.
It is a different matter that some groups have the institutional mechanism at the constituency level to make a rational and considered choice; some do not. But working mechanism based on consultations is not difficult to establish
Social Justice-Key Issue
In the coming election, social justice which implies intergroup justice is the key issue. Operationally it means the secular order, the rule of law, federalism, administrative and financial decentralisation (right down to the Panchayat level), Sarvodaya or universal social welfare, cultural unity in diversity, reservation in public employment, development benefits and education, uniform protection of rights of the minorities at every level (irrespective of religion, caste, language, race and domicile).
Janata Dal, of all political parties, is on the right track. It has set the national agenda; its message of social justice is resonant throughout the land; it has catalysed an inexorable process of change. It is uniting the deprived groups. It has accepted that national unity lies in justice and equality. It rejects chauvinism; it is not prepared to compromise with the dominant groups; it is anti-status quo and anti-status quo in a fundamental sense.
Janata Dal: Conscious Agent of Change
Muslims Indians should support Janata Dal not as an emotional response to the political choice made by V.P. Singh in November 1990 (‘renunciation of power for the sake of a Masjid’) but because V.P. Singh and Janata Dal have become conscious agents of history for the restructuring of the Indian society and are taking the country forward in the right direction.
In the coming election, the coming contest is likely to be largely triangular between the NF-LF (including JD), the Congress(I) and the BJP. The major objective of the Muslim community should be to contain and defeat the rising wave of Hindu chauvinism symbolised by the BJP. This could be easily achieved if the secular parties held together. Unfortunately, the secular forces are divided and have their own candidates. Apart from them, ‘Muslim’ parties are likely to field candidates in Muslim concentration constituencies. The BJP is bound to benefit from this fragmentation, splitting or scattering.
Muslim Indians in a given constituency should support the winning candidate with a secular record of a secular party which, given its non-Muslim social base and the Muslim support, is in a position to defeat the BJP candidate. They should not waste their votes on ‘Muslim candidates’ or the candidates of Muslim parties or small parties who can never win. The Muslim Indians should NOT vote for the BJP and generally they should vote for the NF-LF candidates. In the few seats where the NF-LF (including JD) does not figure in the fight and the contest is between Congress(I) and BJP, they should vote for the Congress (I) only to ensure BJP’s defeat.
Distribution of Tickets & Manifesto
The Janata Dal should not take the support of any group or subgroup for granted but by adopting a rational and equitable approach in the distribution of tickets should not only be just to, but be seen as just by, all of them in terms of quality and quantity as well as the constituency. In formulating its Manifesto and Programme of Action, it should boldly proclaim its concern for safeguarding their legitimate interests and realising their just aspirations.
The Janata Dal, which is indeed riding high on the wave created by the support of the Shudras, the Dalits, the Adivasis and the Muslims should use this historic moment, which comes but in a generation, lay the foundation of the future, of a new polity which equitably protects the interests of all deprived social groups and binds them together for the common struggle which lies ahead and which has to be relentlessly waged until final victory.
New Delhi
1 April, 1991
