JOIN USOur autocratic public institutions
Democracy has rightly been celebrated as the central concept around which to organise modern society. It is designed to engage diverse people together to build consensus for a meaningful, cooperative life. The Constitution of India has emerged as a fascinating document that not only valorizes democracy but also proposes policy directives to ensure that decision-making processes and State institutions substantively support social diversity. However, the public institutions in India remain detached from democratic values and perform merely its functional and procedural aspects. The possibility of bringing public institutions closer to the diverse population to make it more participative with the inclusion of Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan communities has never been a prime objective of the ruling classes.
The report by the Standing Committee of the Law Ministry, recently tabled in parliament, shows that almost 80 per cent of High Court judges belong to the upper caste strata. The socially marginalised caste groups have a minimal presence in the High Courts, and much the same can be said about the Supreme Court and the District Courts. However, it has not had much salience in public discussions as these institutions of high power are often accepted as the natural places for the social elites only. The others are not to seek participation in them.
The claim for representation is a necessary attribute of democracy. It is antithetical to democratic principles that the major institutions of power are exclusively controlled by a niche social group. For very long, the political, economic, cultural and social institutions have been governed under the hegemonic dictates of the social elites while the other social groups stayed passive and subservient to this system. Though the State promises to uphold the reservation policy for the Scheduled Castes (SC) and the Scheduled Tribes (ST) in political and educational institutions, it is a hard fact that their representation in government jobs and educational institutions has never crossed the 9 per cent mark. Interestingly, a big share of SC/ST reservation is filled mainly in the lower ‘C’ grade jobs, whereas the implementation of reservation to fill powerful positions (Grade A and B) is negligible.
In the case of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) representation, it is worse than that of the ST. The Central Universities (CU) are the stark examples of how the social elites retain their power over the institutions. On paper, for the SC and ST, the reservation policy in central universities in faculty positions was applied in 1996, and in 2006, the 27 per cent quota for the OBC was added. However, in both cases, there is a visible non-implementation of the policy. The UGC data on premier universities like JNU, University of Delhi, BHU, Allahabad University, etc., shows that there was not a single professor under OBC quota till January 2020. Similar discrimination is visible towards the SC/ST candidates as their representation at the rank of professor is miniscule.
The anti-reservation proponents challenge these facts on the ‘merit’ argument. It is argued that a majority of the powerful institutions today are dominated by the social elites because the other caste groups are ‘non-meritorious’ as they lack the basic skills and talent required for the job. Though the SC/ST/OBC candidates often apply under the reservation quota, they are often ‘not found suitable’ in the selection process.
There are other powerful spheres of public life like business, media, fashion and sports where again the representation of Dalits, Adivasis and the Backward Classes is negligible. These sectors are overtly dominated by the rich upper castes whereas the other social groups operate in peripheral spaces. For example, the cinema industry claims to serve the cultural interest of the general masses, but on ground, the characters and artists related to the Dalit-Bahujan-Adivasi groups are almost absent from the silver screen. Similarly, the Indian cricket team in its composition hardly shows much social diversity. And there is no doubt that big businesses are even today dominated by the Bania caste.
Historically, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have been the ruling elites of this nation. The traditional religious texts also suggest that the Shudra and ati-Shudra castes (Bahujan-Dalit) are born to serve the interests of the ruling elites. Since the time of the Buddhist revolution, such oppressive arrangement of the humans under the regressive Brahminical social order has been challenged and the Vedic Brahminical values attacked by many radical saints, thinkers and social reformers, bringing about social reforms periodically. Most importantly, Ambedkar’s fierce critique of Hinduism was based on the assessment that Hinduism justifies inequalities and hierarchies between humans on the basis of caste identities. As a solution, he proposed that the annihilation of Hindu religious texts is a must as they legitimise caste as the organising principle of society. Though these great minds wished to organise the nation on the democratic principles of fraternity and equality, caste continues to haunt modern society every day.
The ruling upper caste elites treat democracy as a set of procedural directives (such as periodic elections, formation of political party, civil society, etc) but not as an ethical obligation to organise a cooperative social and economic life. Though it is visible that crucial non-political spectrums of power are hegemonised and dominated by the social elites, there are no attempts to ensure substantive participation by the marginalised groups. Such exclusive control exercised by upper caste elites over major economic assets, public institutions and civil society has made India’s power spectrum almost autocratic, alienating the socially marginalised groups, treating them merely as passive recipients.
The values of social justice empower democracy meaningfully, making it a representative space for major stakeholders. The perpetual alienation of a vast majority to avail the profits of modern institutions, their lack of representation in crucial spaces of power, and the absence of any substantive policy initiatives by the State to reform all this has made democracy a failed institutional value in India. If this is not corrected, the deprived and marginalised communities may in desperation take radical steps to correct historical wrongs.
(The writer teaches at the Centre for Political Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)