A deleterious spirit of binary positions is at the heart of former US President George Bush’s infamous allusion “either with us or with them”. Implicit in that overtly simplistic statement was the reading of situations as only black or white. No space for context, perspective, or nuance necessitated recognising complex situations with varied shades of underlying greys. The second problem with such binary framing is the arrogant assumption that one side is always right, and therefore, the other is always wrong. In old civilisational lands like the Indian subcontinent (or even the Biblical lands of Levant e.g., Syria) that are given to vivid societal diversities and imagined wounds, binary judgements can be fatal.
Like the ancient lands of the Indian subcontinent, Syrian history dates back to the Eblan civilisation of the 3rd millennium BC. Virtually at the cusp of three continents i.e., Asia, Europe, and Africa, it has seen relentless ravages, raids, and violent uprisings that have ensured diversities of faith, ethnicities, sects, and opinions, that have remained violently irreconcilable. It has taken a combination of many inadequate and often unsavoury approaches in the Levant region like parliamentary monarchy (e.g. Jordan), confessionalism or proportional consociationalism (e.g. Lebanon), or a form of strongman autocracy (e.g. Syria), to ensure governance. Each of these models of governance has had its failings, but somehow the Levant region persisted as nation-states. Perhaps the most illiberal and intolerant of the three Levantine models of governance was the Syrian dictatorship – till the recent Bashar al-Assad regime.
Unbeknownst to many, Syrian swathes have been mired in brutal power struggles right throughout modern history, with at least 11 recorded coup d’etat attempts since 1949. This air of internal insecurities and external interferences has bred a virtual police state culture that sought to curb any dissent or contrarian opinions. However, since 1971, the Syrian ‘State’ demonstrated unprecedented paranoia and authoritarianism, as the leadership coincidentally fell on an individual (later family) i.e. Hafez al-Assad, from a minority Shiite Alawite denomination – a situation that is always fraught with query and discontent, given that the majority (Sunnis) would prefer to have their own in leadership positions. This situationally led to the deliberate patronisation, valourisation, and appeasement of the minority Shiite Alawites, in almost all sensitive posts pertaining to security and economy. The exclusion of the majority denomination bore its own set of violent frustrations that was to lead to the implosion of Syria, and ultimately to the ouster of the Assad regime, after over 53 years of family rule.
Such sectarian or religion-based politics are similar to the passions in the equally ancient and wounded lands of the Indian subcontinent, which too is given to tensions based on religions, sects, ethnicities, or even castes. Since independence, the political leadership of most Indian parties too was in the hands of the ‘forward classes’ to the inevitable denial of many. The mandal-isation of Indian politics in the 1990s then unleashed its changes in the Indian political landscape, as those who were numerically dominant, but not so from the leadership positions, started flexing their numbers, electorally. Many parties espousing the cause of a varied set of ‘backwards’ mushroomed to posit their respective concerns, collectively.
When religion feeds nationalism
Today, yet another permutation and combination has triumphantly emerged with the ensuing attempt at consolidating and asserting the collective strength of the majority religious denomination (against ostensible ‘historical appeasement’ of religious minorities), that has unleashed its own set of electoral gratifications, polarisations, and dissonances. It has successfully subsumed the disparate divisions within the majority religion with strident slogans like baatenge toh kaatenge (divided we fall), to usher in the strain of majoritarianism. A parallel conflation of this majoritarian lever with the notion of nationhood has armed its political appeal towards the dangerous turf of hyper-nationalism. The resultant narrative of ‘us-versus-them’ has put all those who do not fit the majoritarian template, onto ‘othering’ possibilities.
Ironically, these set-pieces of identity politics are in line with the majoritarian, amoral, and genealogical ‘Idea of Pakistan’ or the ‘land of the pure’ – with the only difference being of the majoritarian religions involved, on either side of the Line of Control. The consequences of pandering to majoritarian religiosity (instead of secularism as underpinned in the constitutional and foundational ‘Idea of India’) can be gauged by looking at the prevailing state of affairs in Pakistan.
If appeasement (of a minority sect to the exclusion of the majority) destroyed Syria, it is majoritarianism (conflating a religion to the idea of a nation) that has singularly devastated Pakistan. Swerving either side is to play with reckless fire, especially in lands that are given to so much societal diversity. This is where the proverbial centrist path (howsoever indecisive and ‘unmuscular’ as it has been made out to be) has merit in navigating a land given to raw history that can be conveniently cherry-picked to either allay fears or lead to further fearmongering. Even with many missteps (e.g., the Emergency) and shortcomings, India’s democracy persisted with an overall inclusive approach irrespective of the changing dispensations from the Congress, Janata Party, Janata Dal, BJP (Atal Bihari Vajpayee governments) or coalitions thereof, till about a decade ago.
History (both ancient and modern) is instructive that it is neither appeasement nor majoritarianism, but a more conscientious, accommodative, and liberal co-option of diversities, that can only sustain and be progressive in the long run. Democracy has a natural means of autocorrecting itself, but the remedy never is in swerving hard to the side of appeasement or majoritarianism. Also, the solution to ills of either appeasement or majoritarianism, is never the binary other. Syria and Pakistan (both examples of extremes i.e., appeasement or majoritarianism) are case studies on the inevitable consequences – hence the need to protect and strengthen the institutions of checks-and-measures that disallow hard turns, either side. It is pertinent to question if such institutions are truly independent and empowered to disallow a Syria or Pakistan.
(The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)