ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

One for all, and all for one

Once again, the intractable issue of reserving seats in Parliament for women is in the news. The noisy scenes in the Lok Sabha may have dealt a temporary setback to the proponents of the matter, but it hasn't died down by any means. While the political parties take a brief hiatus from keeping the issue centrestage, let's shake up the foundation and see how strong the arguments are. Also, while the flavour of the month is reservation for women, it is quite appropriate that we examine the premise behind all reservations, not just the one issue that now confronts us.

In the debate over separate representation for particular groups in our Parliament and legislative assemblies, several competing considerations are well represented. The guarantee of adult franchise, along with representative and accountable government, lies on one side. Ranged against these are the opportunity to infuse creativity in government, and the ability to draw on the resources of talented individuals from outside the political arena regardless of their origins. Each of these sides, both for and against, represents a genuine interest of every citizen and the task at hand is to reconcile them.

Is it necessary to reform our electoral procedures and constitutional provisions so that all of our interests are served adequately? In answering this poser, let us ask the questions and answer them without references to particular groups or communities. The honesty of our efforts to reform our government rests on our willingness to abide by normative principles that apply equally. If you agree with nothing I say in here, I urge you at least to consider the alternatives you have in similar light, that they be not tainted by the prejudices or preferences of specific groups. In short, no -isms or anti-isms.

Let's say there are only two competing ideologies, and not a plethora of them to confuse the issue. And let us further assume that these two ideologies are represented by their respective political champions. Men and women, upper castes and lower castes, Hindus and non-Hindus, we can call this split any way we like, but bound by my no -isms premise, I'll simply call them B and A.

The argument for reservation runs like this -- government is dominated by Bs, therefore seats need to be set aside for A. The underlying premise is that B will not serve the interests of A, this is precisely why A must itself be able to send representatives to the People's House. On the face of it, this might seem acceptable. After all, if B does nothing to enable the progress of individuals from the A group, it is reasonable to suppose that the way around such obstacles if for the As to elect a member from amongst themselves instead. But here, we encounter the obvious counter - will such representatives, elected by A specifically to serve its interests, act to undermine B's interests?

Reverting to using particular identities might polarise specific groups more identifiably, but the question remains the same. Will women elected to Parliament on the basis of their gender act against the interests of men? Will minorities in Parliament look out only for the interests of their particular community, or will they serve the nation as Indians? What is the basis, for example, for the Anglo-Indian seats in Parliament? Is it reasonable to ask whether members elected from constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are required to nevertheless serve the interests of all the residents of their constituencies, or is that too much to ask?

I realise that these are not novel questions, and have been raised in opposition to reservations often in the past. Unfortunately, since we remained focused on reservations themselves, the parallel questions were often left shelved. So, it has been easy to throw the questions back by labeling those who ask them bigoted votaries of zamindari or something equally despicable. And perhaps there is some truth in it. Is it merely convenient for particular groups to pose these questions as obstacles? What about the other side?

For example, is it not reasonable to expect that any upper castes that now determine national policies ought to serve the interests of lower caste people as well? Is eliminating private upper caste armies not an obligation of high-caste legislators too? We are too ready to accept that a particular group will not do anything to help others; instead we ought to demand that those who have perpetuated the need for reservation rectify their behaviour and become answerable to the entire population, not just the interest groups that voted them in or keep them in power. Our willingness to forgive legislators who overlook this is the real cause for concern, for they are only too willing to exploit this trait.

Serving the constituency that brings a particular party to power cannot include attacks on others. In a true republic, the constitution requires that no particular interest can be served in violation of the rights of others. Without that rider, we might find that Hitler's Third Reich was elected with an enormous mandate to do the very things that made the Nazis so despicable. The pogroms in Russia were not exactly opposed by the vast majority of ethnic Russians who made up the numerical majority, but clearly a moral minority. It is unacceptable that the political agenda of ruling groups and parties be allowed to express itself without the proper consideration of the interests of those who did not bring them to power. Without this, the opposition may well sit at home.

I have no problem with having half the seats in Parliament be incidentally filled by women, an eighth by Muslims, and a few percent by other minorities, or mostly by lower castes. If Parliament were ever to adequately mirror the face of our nation, our democracy will then have reached shining heights. But requiring such proportionate representation a priori is as flawed as it gets. In doing so, we can never escape the noose of separate interests and identities.

We must want a society where Muslims will gather in the streets to urge Kashmiris to affirm their identity with India, any common identity that Kashmiris seek with Muslims is just as readily found amongst our own people as across the border. Why do we not see it fit to encourage our own Muslims to lead the efforts at integration, why must the majority be seen as the only group with the legitimacy to lead? And so it is with caste -- I want a society where Brahmins and other upper castes will stand up and demand that our priests be drawn from all castes; for too long, the onus of killing the caste system has rested with those who suffer from it. why must the powerful be seen as the only people with the capability to engineer positive changes?

If we readily accept that such a society is unlikely to come about, and find the solution in further aggravating the divisions, we may learn too late in the day that we have erred irredeemably. We should never accept the notion that people unlike ourselves automatically make poor representatives of our interests, or that those like ourselves are justified in not adequately representing the interests of others. The real solution is to demand that every single member of the houses of our government be as answerable to the rights of every single Indian citizen. Indeed, this is what the law requires!

Forget reservation, demand instead that pro-Hindu parties adequately represent minority needs and concerns, that the Muslim League be answerable to non-Muslims as well, and that the Akali Dal be answerable to non-Sikh voters just as much as to Sikhs. Ask that Tamil and Kannadiga politicians recognise their obligations to protect the interests of people living on the other side of the fence that now appears to separate them. And that our overwhelmingly male government be required nevertheless to safeguard the interests of every woman in the country.

Government is not like the Republic Day parade, where a float for every identity is beamed out to the entire nation. There is only one platform in government, which is equally that of every citizen. As such, every one of us should be a cherished part of the action on board. Without this premise, the float will turn to flotsam.

How Readers responded to Ashwin Mahesh's recent columns

Ashwin Mahesh