India is probably fighting a civil war right now, we could all turn our eyes and call it a “Naxal Menace”, or “Maosists” or any such term, but the fact remains that it is a civil war, albeit in a small scale. Naxals beheaded a cop, kidnapped one, hijacked a train, 200 naxals attacked a police station. The rich dont care about all of this, and the poor are taking up arms in protest. In terms of inclusiveness, of integrating people divided by language, culture, religion, politics and geography, India as an experiment has come very far, farther than most countries, but all of the current violence is surely an indication of how far it has yet to go. For Indian democracy has failed miserably in a lot of cases.
True, it may have made all attempts to integrate tribals and other lower economic castes into the democratic process, and in a lot of cases has also succeeded well, but the growing Naxal threat, rising farmer suicides is symptomatic of deeper problems: lack of inclusiveness in mainstream democratic processes, failure of institutions to provide social and economic mobility, rising entry barriers into various institutions(democratic and political), and the rise of a privileged class which can afford to ignore all of these problems and lead their ignorant life in happy seclusion. For as long as Indians keep ignorging their poor, these problems will exist, and keep escalating until it blows up in all of our faces, but by then it will be too late to do anything anyway. As Rahul Gandhi said, we have to bridge tha gap between India and Bharat, an India filled with the nouveau rich, swanky offices and homes, MNC jobs and cars, and a Bharat filled with Naxals with AK 47’s, villagers opposing them with bows and arrows, famers commiting suicides, and villages which still havent seen electricity.
Yes, democracy exists, but JFK’s message seems to have been lost, a government by the people(who dont vote) of the people(who wont let anybody but their offspring contest) and for the people(hasnt happened yet). Why do “enlightened” cities like Mumbai and Bangalore turn in dismal voting records? While people in severaly troubled areas turn out in droves to vote? Do they have more faith in democracy than people in cities? Are urbanites more cynical? Everyone likes to believe his or her country city is different and somehow better. That his city is different simply because it has a different soul, a different ethos, dances to a tune of its own and makes its own music, and all of that somehow, intangibly makes it better. But a distinct apathy by people in these cities, noticeable in lack of protest towards poor governance, poor infrastructure and lack of willingness to participate in democracy(and not just by voting), by those who have the most power to do something about it, to make a difference, simply because they are privileged in so many ways, makes me believe no city is different, Mumbai from Bangalore to Delhi, and that each city suffers from the apathy of its own people. If these educated powerful urbanites do not want to make a difference, do the people who suffer under the yoke of terror, poverty and myriad other problems stand a better chance?
Yes, most government officials shun public debates, our institutions are badly screwed up, and our politicians may be corrupt, and it may very well be impossible for us to pariticipate in our own government, but I cannot help but agree with Sagarika Ghose when she said “One magnificent old man knew about inclusion. If he had been alive, he would have walked to Gadchiroli in his loincloth and sat on a fast for peace and justice for both Naxal and cop”.