Font size: 
Skeptics who would counter the above argument use terms like "democracy" and "rule of law" as hallmarks to portray India as a stable nation, but that conclusion depends upon one's definition of democracy and rule of law. If democracy is a means by which criminals retain their authority through elections marred by violence and corruption, this definition is only applicable to a few countries, including India. Today more than 70 percent of India's politicians have a tainted image. Their names are synonymous with crime, corruption and ineptitude.
As for the rule of law, it is known in India today more by its absence. Institutions that should protect and preserve the rule of law in the country have a reputation for being its most conspicuous violators. Take, for example, the courts and the prosecution and policing systems. Like their counterparts in the alleged democratic process, those who serve in these institutions have a tainted reputation for corrupt, nepotistic and inefficient practices.
What is left are the people of this huge country. Out of an estimated population of 1.2 billion people, almost 70 percent still live in conditions that belie a life worth living. The remaining 30 percent have established their domain over the majority of the population through corrupt and shoddy practices. Moreover, they work to keep India in the same rut which they have created for the country to tread in year after year.
Look at the pattern of economic growth in India, for instance. Who benefits from this growth? If India, as it is often showcased, is just a few metropolitan cities, then India is, indeed, in a relentless rate of rapid economic growth. But if one looks beyond the geographical landscape of these metropolitan areas, the picture of India becomes grim.
India's villages are still ruled by local feudal lords according to caste hierarchies and other partisan interests. If the soul of India is in its villages, as Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, then that soul is still enslaved.
In many states in India, caste is replaced by politics. The state of West Bengal offers a typical illustration. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has ruled that state for decades. Ideally, West Bengal should by now be a citadel of individual and collective rights under democratic and socialist governance and institutions. Unfortunately, in West Bengal today communism and socialism have gone mad.
The Communist Party is rooted in local committees throughout the state. The secretary of a local committee is, for all practical purposes, a criminal who can decide even the finite nuances of a person's life. Those who oppose the local committee secretary cannot live peacefully. Although in theory there is a political opposition in the state, it is also devoid of any merit and is not trusted by ordinary people. Every state institution in West Bengal, including the courts, reflects the cancer of a czarist communism that has eaten its way into the institutions, taking away their independence and efficiency.
Communism, as it is practiced in West Bengal, is replaced by fundamentalist Hinduism in states like Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat. The parties that have come to power in these states have enforced a veil of silence upon ordinary people by brute force. A person must either be a Hindu, following the practice of Hinduism as it is promoted and propagated by the ruling political parties, or has to keep silent. These states have spared no resources in arming their factions with weapons on the pretext of propagating their religious beliefs. Even worse is the condition of lower caste communities and other minorities in these states.
While isolation and silence is enforced upon communities in some states by their own governments, it is the central government that is responsible for isolating communities in states like Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states. In the Northeast, for example, local communities are ruled by fear. To grant impunity to law enforcement officers deployed in this region, the government has sanctioned the unwarranted use of force. It is difficult for any community to feel part of a larger country when the armed forces of the country are deployed to silence them. This region has lost more people to acts committed by and against the state than they lost prior to 1947 when India gained its independence from Britain.
In a functioning democracy the justice system is of great importance. The courts are supposed to be the place where disputes can be decided impartially. In India, however, based on people's experience, the courts are unreliable.
The chief justice of India admitted in a recent statement that there are 25.9 million cases awaiting a decision in the country. Among these, various high courts have 9.8 million cases, and the Supreme Court itself has about 43,000 cases pending. Assuming that not a single new case is filed for the next few years, the Supreme Court itself will take several years to clear this huge backlog. A person thus cannot expect speedy justice.
With the administration and law enforcement agencies not functioning properly, it is no wonder that people are increasingly taking up arms, having found that communicating with the government by any other means is meaningless. Thus society is polarized between those who oppose and those who fight back; the only other option is to leave the country.
This is the India of today. Sixty years ago Indians asked the British to quit India. Now they are doing so themselves. To live with dignity and enjoy relative freedom, one has to quit India! With this massive exodus, what will be left behind a few years from now will be a violently charged and polarized society.
What could prevent this violent polarization from occurring? The intention of this column is not to suggest answers for issues that have deep-rooted causes, but to at least provoke a discussion that can eventually lead to answers. The resolution of any issue begins with a discussion, and that is precisely what is lacking in India today.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
