A Debate on Democracy

This post is in reference to the recent move by the Parliament overruling the Supreme Court and deciding to stop demolition of illegal structures in Delhi for a period of one year.

I was appalled to hear the Cabinet Minister for Urban Development declare on national TV that when a majority of people is found breaking the law then we must question the basis of that law itself- or something to that effect.

I found this statement particularly disconcerting for three reasons. First, who decides majority and in which reference set? What is the purpose of having elected representatives and a judiciary, if everything is to be decided on the basis of numbers? And finally what sort of a precedent is the Parliament setting by this step?

First who decides majority. I don’t think the traders in Delhi who have unscrupulously gone about defacing the city for decades are in any form of majority in the city- perhaps in certain pockets of Chandni Chowk (and I know what a nightmare it used to be), Moti Nagar and Punjabi Bagh. Just that the trading community in Delhi is all-powerful and have mega clout when it comes to all things important. Whoever has lived in the city (and I have for the first 17 odd years of my life) is witness to the rampant mockery and the scant respect that this particular community has shown for the law of the land in order to pursue their economic greed. Needless to say they have been helped along by an unbelievably corrupt state administration. However, at this point of this essay I am not going to debate the rights and the wrongs of the case. Simply put, to say that they are a majority and their interests cannot be compromised, even if they have been on the wrong side of the law for decades, is such a travesty of justice and of any sense of right and wrong. I mean if you want to determine majority, rely on census statistics. If you want to establish a vote bank, do as you please. Do not challenge our sensibilities.

Next, the issue of having an elected body of representatives. I feel that while every democracy functions through a body of elected representatives, and they are expected to legislate according to the will of the majority, it is a tacit understanding that such a body will possess a vision which will steer the country towards development and progress by exercising its powers even if it is against perceived short –term majority interests. It seems that’s no longer the case in the world’s most populous democracy. And if the majority argument is to be applied uniformly, then first you should pass a legislation overruling reservations, because as a principle, reservation is for minorities and if the subject is put to a national consensus a majority of the population would oppose it. On the other hand, if the reserved categories form a majority in this land, then they have no right to demand the same.

Finally, what sort of a precedent are the Executive and the Parliament setting by passing such a bill. Can we assume that going forward if a section of the population which considers themselves to be a majority can take to the streets and just demand whatever they want- right or wrong? Can numbers justify any wrong doing? Just because a wrong has been prevalent for long enough, it doesn’t make it right. And it gives no government any authority legitimize decades of wrong doing. If yes, why have the police, why the judiciary and why at all the Parliament? Just let people muster a majority, take to the streets, come and cry on national TV, and do as they please, and just be a bully. How different is it from the days in our schools when a big fat “lala” fucker would flex his muscles and come and warn the rest to stay away from that new hot chick on campus? And just because something wrong is going on for decades, why should the Parliament just legitimize it by a ruling? I mean if your justification is loss of livelihood for thousands, then for the same reason shouldn’t we just exist alongside slums, no road widening projects, no environmental laws etc. etc. Just do the wrong, but make sure you do it for long enough, and that you get enough people in the boat, and then make sure that when the law comes calling you have a sickly looking wife, mother and kids to put in front of a TV camera to make a livelihood case out of it. And oh yes, all this assumes that you are Mr. Moneybags to begin with.

I think I should add here that I am not against public demonstrations, and taking to the streets. Hey, I am a Bengali- its in my blood (Inquilab Zindabad!). But I do possess a deep sense of right and wrong. And this time I think the people are wrong in trying to arm-twist the government into passing such legislation.

Other disturbing things… Docs got bashed up on the streets of Bombay. What a pity. Sometimes I feel bad for these people. They have a thankless job- and they cannot even protest. But the way they have held fort in this entire campaign is worthy of praise. All the roads that lead to the lane on which I live have been blocked off indefinitely for repairs. All except one. And that is a one way in the wrong direction. I think our state administration sucks big time. And I think we should not be paying taxes, rather be paid by the government to live in this country. But to quote GNR- “Who gives a fuck about your problem anyway, T.O.?”

And among other things this weekend I had plenty of time to think about what’s happening and what’s not in my life. Basically, I realized that there is too little to ponder and 48 hours is too long a time for it. Most people my age have wives, a few children. Housing problems, fights with spouses, hospital bills, weekend shopping lists, cars to fix. I have no wife to appease, no known kids, been living in the same house for 4 years and don’t intend to move unless thrown out, a recently attested near perfect health (Thank God for that!). I do no shopping though I did try this time around, my car just rots downstairs- just a calm peaceful quiet existence- a slient bubble floating 0n a sea of noise. That’s it.