Democracy is all about plurality. Coexistence of diversity is the fundamental premise on which it survives. And coexistence presumes tolerance, freedom to criticise and right to disagree and dissent. When society truly believes in tolerance, freedom to criticise and the right to dissent, democratic polity will be marked by civility in public utterances and conduct. Though we are the largest democracy in the world, our political arena is characterised by acts that can hardly be termed as civilised or graceful.
Though political murders are an extreme case of intolerance, its seeds are sown all the time often by those unaware of its lethal consequences. Campus politics is a case in point. Students who are supposed to get trained in democratic processes subconsciously emulate an unfortunate behavioural pattern they see in the political arena. Nobody knows for certain what ideological differences trigger the frequent clashes, particularly during students’ union elections. Why should the youth, enjoying the luxury of university education, demean themselves with irresponsible, impulsive and violent actions and reactions? Shouldn’t students learn the art of civilised debates? Shouldn’t students unions lift the level of the intellectual discourse? But no party can advise their students’ wings what they fail to practice.
Political murders are an extreme manifestation of the lack of the very virtues that constitute democracy. They declare our inability to tolerate differences, much less acknowledge the right to be different. Local skirmishes are often fanned up as hatred and vengeance. Non-political factors that drive a wedge among people are cleverly arrayed to manipulate the willing weaklings, mostly youth, already inebriated by partisan bigotry. Once violence is given a political hue, cold- blooded murders begin to be hailed as acts of heroism and such deaths are thereafter called martyrdom. This sheen of political heroism is contagious and triggers a self-perpetuating cycle. When violence is valourised, civility is the natural casualty.
As the statues of leaders are disfigured, toppled and mutilated in acts of violent jubilation or irreverent disapprovals, the message conveyed is the right of might and callous rejection of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to be different. Intolerance towards the statue of a leader and the act of hacking it is quite akin to manslaughter. Whenever divergence and plurality become sources of political conflict and violence, democracy becomes weak and sick. Anything that directly or obliquely violates the guarantee of equality and freedom accelerates this rot. That is why even insignificant display of privileged (unequal) treatment to a political heavyweight at a traffic signal or on the motorway or the mindless hardships inflicted on the common citizen on the eve of a VVIP visit to a city (other than Delhi), has to be seen as the symptoms of a deeper malady. In all these instances the principles of equality, tolerance and freedom are smothered by the misplaced emphasis on the privileges of a chosen few.
Recently in a Municipal Corporation of one of the cities in Kerala, two rival groups clashed and those hurt from both sides were hospitalised. Senior leaders from both political dispensations duly visited the hospital. They went to the bedside of their respective partymen and returned. What a magnificent sight it would have been if one leader chose to visit both sides? Whoever is hurt in an assault needs solace. And if it comes in the form of a visit from a leader of the rival party, it would be more soothing. Such acts will have the effect of defusing tension. Alas! We have veered too far even to conceive the beauty of such a hypothetical situation.
The image of our Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament has been badly battered by repeated acts unacceptable to civilized societies. The only question to be asked is whether such acts will be tolerated in our homes? Even if governments have the power not to take cognisance of offences that could be termed as political, such powers are meant to be exercised only after careful consideration of their long-term consequences and moral impact on society. Moral relativism is a slippery ground.
When asked by the British Magistrate whether he is guilty of the charges levelled against him, Gandhiji not only conceded the charges but submitted that he may be granted the severest of punishments for his acts which were admittedly against the then prevailing law. A public figure involved in a criminal procedure (albeit having a public context) should have the moral fortitude to plead guilty as he has consciously (and not impulsively) violated the law for a public purpose and accept the punishment. Such greatness can be expected only from a Mahatma. Yet such a noble posture would instantly lift a leader to morally unassailable heights. On the other hand, invoking special powers of the government to meekly wriggle out of legal consequences of their actions would only dwarf them on the scale of public morality. They know not that they forfeit forever their moral credibility.
People of high public visibility have a special responsibility to express civility, decorum and tolerance in their conduct. Political differences should not blind people to unite for common causes, forget differences and respect the rival in private and public. That our prime- time channel discussions reflect this lack of civility is not accidental. The discussions emit acute intolerance even when the topic discussed is the value of tolerance! As long as we do not treat those with diametrically opposite points of view and beliefs with dignity and respect, our democracy will be destined to graceless existence. Civility in democracy is like fragrance to a flower.
K Jayakumar
Former Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala and former Vice-Chancellor of Malayalam University
Email: k.jayakumar123@gmail.com