TMC Implosion and the Distortion of Democratic Mandates

The turmoil in the Trinamool Congress after the election in West Bengal, leading to a rebellion by a large number of its MLAs and MPs, is perhaps not a surprising phenomenon in Indian politics. But the fact that a party with a 40.8 per cent vote share lost so badly in terms of seats and is breaking up as a consequence is a disturbing electoral absurdity. The BJP, which managed to get 207 seats out of 294, had a vote share of only 45.84 per cent. The editorial (‘In TMC’s implosion, a broader warning’, IE, June 11) does not address this absurdity that distorts Indian electoral democracy. It simply asks opposition parties a question: What do you stand for? Well, it is easy to ask this and similar questions. But the presumption that secularism has a scarred history and “cries of Constitution-in-danger don’t strike sparks on the ground” is perhaps not grounded in a deeper understanding of Indian realities. The problem is that we tend to hastily construct a theory on the basis of a partial truth that flashes before our eyes at a particular moment.

Secularism is not scarred as the editorial claims. It is a powerful truth of India. It may be that politicians could not make the people feel the power of this truth. The Constitution-makers did not make secularism the central pillar of the Constitution as a fad. They realised that a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country with an excessive dose of religiosity can exist in the long run as an emotionally united and well-integrated nation only when the state has no religion and does not promote any particular religion. Theocracy can only lead the nation to disintegration, and patriotic Indians would never allow that to happen. Of course, the political class with progressive pretensions has failed to sensitise the public to the danger of a theocratic India slowly emerging from the numbness of opposition politics today. Theocracy can not only generate prolonged religious and ethnic conflicts but debilitating social conflicts, too. Secularism is the only idea that can cement the country’s emotional unity, which was an article of faith for Gandhiji.

The editorial brings in a certain levity by the use of the words “cries of Constitution-in-danger”. The lack of seriousness often displayed by the media on such grave issues has clouded society’s perspective. Changing the Constitution lock, stock and barrel is not an impossibility if one correctly reads the prevailing political trends. It is true that the opposition parties are struggling to answer the question, “What do you stand for?” But then, who can answer the question, “What does the rest of India stand for?”

There are no options before India except adhering to the path of secularism. It may have become a pejorative term in today’s political environment, but it is a powerful safety valve for a society that has unfathomable contradictions and tensions. Therefore, instead of asking the political parties in the Opposition what they stand for, the media, the intelligentsia and the people in general would do well to ask themselves what they stand for. How long can the people of India run away from that question?

The writer is former secretary general, Lok Sabha