Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads two organisations, the Institute of Islamic Studies and the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such issues as Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.

For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

(Secular Perspective, May 1-15, 1999)

        Today what is happening in our country has raised many questions about democratic form of governance also. The way coalition politics has created political instability today and various big and small parties are indulging in different combinations as per their own perceived interests. Because of this many people feel that politicians are totally unscrupulous and to promote their own interests do not care for the country. This is by and large true but politicians in a democratic polity have their own compulsions also. We would like to throw some light on democracy and its problems particularly from regional and minority perspective. 

        No doubt democracy is the best form of governance so far and particularly in modern times. Wherever there is dictatorship or monarchy, people there are aspiring for democratic form of government. Ideally speaking the power in democracy lies with the people and no government can rule without the consent of people. But such a form of governance also creates many complex problems and also provides opportunities to the ruling classes to manipulate situations in their favour.

        The first requirement of success of democracy is well informed public opinion. In the ideal situation the public should not only be hundred percent literate but also well informed about all the problems facing the country. But it is hardly so. Let alone in India even in highly developed countries like USA the people are not well informed about the problem and vested interests manipulate public opinion through media. The media, therefore, plays a very vital role. The media is often controlled by powerful vested interests (with honourable exceptions, of course) and hence the role of media is also far from healthy for a clean democracy and properly informed public opinion. The regional press, be it the Shah Bano movement, or Ramjanambhoomi movement or communal riots situation, plays openly partisan role and if any thing aggravates the situation further. Many communal riots would not have taken place but for the false stories deliberately planted in regional news papers.

        Today the drama of the coalition government at the centre brings to the fore another important aspect of democracy in a country like India. India, as is well-known, is a country with a bewildering diversity, ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural. No single party can represent this diversity. The Congress could rule at the Centre as well as in the states for few years after independence as it strode like a giant because of its prestige it acquired during freedom struggle and also leadership of giants like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaher Lal Nehru. Also, during freedom struggle the regional parties did not emerge for many complex reasons not to be analysed here. But the Congress could enjoy this prestige only for a limited period.

        In 1967 the Congress lost power in some states like U.P. and Samyukta Vidhayak Dal Government ( a coalition of number of political parties) won elections. It was, in fact, the beginning of the coalition politics in India. Also, it was the first expression of anti-Congressism  which assumed greater momentum over a period of time. By late sixties democracy had acquired sufficient roots in Indian political soil and regional aspirations began to acquire greater dynamism. At one time states like Tamil Nadu were also ruled by Congress. But it was during this period (i.e. 1967) that the Tamil party under the leadership of Anna Durai captured power. 

        Similarly during early eighties when a chief minister of Andhra Pradesh was summarily dismissed by the Congress high command that the regional pride of the Andhra was deeply hurt and N.T.Rama Rao established Telugu Desam which soon swept the elections in Andhra Pradesh. In Assam, the problem of Bangla Deshi infiltration acquired serious proportions in late seventies and the Assam Students Union began to agitate. It acquired great prestige and took the shape of political party (AGP) and ultimately captured power.

        In U.P. and Bihar deepening of democracy led to politics based more and more on caste as the castes, particularly lower castes, became conscious of their rights under democracy and these caste leaders began to demand greater share in power and jobs. Kanshi Ram who used to conduct training camps for the Dalit officers felt insufficiency of this measure and jumped into politics forming his own political party which is now known as Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). The backward castes also exerted ever greater pressure for just share in power and jobs and V.P.Singh became their Messiah and implemented the Mandal Commission in August 1990. This led to the formation of Samajwadi Party in U.P. and Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar representing the interests of backward class Hindus like Yadavs on one hand, and, of minorities, particularly Muslims, on the other.

        Thus it will be seen that the bewildering diversity of Indian society essentially led to bewildering number of political parties. In a mature democracy the real social situation is bound to be reflected in its political structure too. The politics of coalition is here to stay, as many other leaders like V.P.Singh have also asserted. In a country like India with a democratic history of more than fifty years it would not be realistic to expect two party rule in India like the United States of America or U.K. 

        But what adds to our woes is the split in regional parties too on the basis of ego clashes. Thus the Tamil party split into two and the Congress in Tamil Nadu also split. Similarly the Janata Dal which represented the backward class Hindu interests split into several groups because of ego clashes. These splits within splits are the real bane of our democracy. Such splits lead to multiplicity of parties without reflecting the social situation in India. Such splits far from reflecting real social situation harm our political health. The present crisis at the Centre should be seen in this perspective.

        The political parties should reflect the aspirations of the people they represent. It is the very logic of democracy. But splits on the basis of personal aspirations of leaders themselves should be prevented. Now the Samata Party and BJP are also likely to split on the basis of personal grievances. With such splits the interests of voters suffer, on one hand, and, that of the country, on the other. It must be borne in mind that a real democracy should find balance between stability and interests of the voters.

        The parties like the BJP talks of Hindu interests whereas it represents the interests of upper caste Hindus and that too of Hindi heartland rather than entire country. The Hindu upper castes have very different aspirations and political perceptions than what the parties like the BJP think. No wonder than that the BJP could not penetrate deeper in the South. The regional factors override the caste factor. But the caste interests have their own dynamics in southern regions and caste based parties have come into existence particularly in Tamil Nadu. Thus there is clash between regionalism and casteism and this adds to multiplicity of parties in one region. 

        Another important problem of democracy in country like India is tokenism of the political parties towards certain sections like religious minorities. In this process the interests of minorities suffers most. The Congress being a secular party claimed to have represented the interests of religious minorities like the Muslims and Christians. But the Congress leadership never did anything substantial for them. It was nothing more than tokenism. For example in independent India Muslims and Christians never got proper political representation in either state assemblies or in Parliament. The Muslim population in India is about 13-14 per cent (according to last census it was 12.12%) but Muslim representation never exceeded 7-8 per cent in any Lok Sabha. Generally it does not exceed 4-5% in most of the Lok Sabhas. In fact Jinnah ultimately demanded Pakistan because the then Congress leadership was not ready to give Muslims 33.33 per cent representation in Parliament (though Muslim population was around 27% at that time) to protect their interests. But in independent India Muslims have been grossly under represented. Seemingly there is no remedy for the situation unless the political parties themselves decide to sponsor more candidates from minorities.

        The Scheduled Caste and  Scheduled Tribes would have been even more under represented had there been no reservation for them in the Constitution. The Backward class Hindus also found greater representation in assemblies and parliament only after formation of political parties representing their interests. It is also interesting to note that the parties representing weaker sections of society split more often than the parties representing upper caste and upper class interests. Thus parties like the Congress and BJP have not split as often as parties like say Janata Dal which had primarily come into existence as a coalition of weaker sections of society. The upper caste and upper class interests are more stable and calculative and much less emotional. The weaker sections, on the other hand, including religious minorities, tend to be much more emotional and lack strong and stable interests. Thus split in such parties are easier and subject to manipulations by upper class interests. 

        From this it also becomes clear that a coalition government is ultimately more representative of interests of different sections of society that a government formed by a single or two major parties. Such governments by major national parties will be more representative of upper class interests. And if nation consists of people belonging to different classes, different regions, different linguistic, cultural and religious groups, coalition government will be much more representative of entire country. It should also be noted that stability tends to benefit the upper classes more than the weaker sections of society. Coalition government, on the other hand, keeps major national parties like the BJP or the Congress dependent on smaller parties representing interests of weaker sections of society. Though stability is highly desirable for good governance it should not be at the cost of interests of weaker sections of the country. A balance thus has to be found between stability and interests of the weaker sections of society. This can certainly be ensured by properly constituted coalition government not based on opportunism  but on interests of different sections of the society fulfilling their aspirations. Such governments will be stable and also ensure justice for weaker sections of society including religious minorities.