Faux ‘muscularity’ disallows inclusivity

Striking a balance between dissent and consent is crucial to preserving the diversity of India

The prevailing political atmosphere of faux ‘muscularity’ disallows potential opportunities for thawing relations. This creates a particularly suffocating sense of normalcy in a land known for its diversity and deeply perceived wounds. While this postulated stridency against free expressions may be effective in winning electoral support and optics as it is founded on majoritarian preferences, it hinders the natural ventilation afforded by participative democracy.

Importantly, the audacious experiment of ‘India’ is built on pluralism and unity-in-diversity rather than on absolute conformity and the insistence of majoritarian tenets. With its unparalleled diversities of religions, ethnicities, cultures, languages, topographies, sects, castes, inequitable economic strata, et al., governance in India necessitates co-option, outreach, and inclusivist instincts. India was fortunate that its founding leaders recognised, albeit with occasional missteps, the importance of diversity and worked towards assimilating various princely ‘states’ and regions with the wholesome assurances of the ‘Idea of India’. It was not a seamless integration, and it bore many genealogical faultlines that tested the patience of ‘India’ with secessionist movements, such as those in the North-East region and Jammu and Kashmir. 

But unlike many famed (and failed) counterinsurgency experts like Israel or Russia, India remains among the very few countries that have successfully ended secessionist movements—Punjab or Mizoram being examples. In almost all instances of ending secessionist movements, negotiations, compromise, and assimilation of the disillusioned factions were key components until they pledged allegiance to the Indian Constitution. This was evident in Punjab, where various factions of Akalis were reconciled, and in Mizoram, where even the leader of the insurgency, Laldenga, became the chief minister. Today, Mizoram stands as a peaceful and progressive state in the North-East region, even though its local majority religion is a national minority. Unfortunately, while Punjab has mostly been peaceful, occasional tensions persist, aided by a combination of vested interests abroad and domestic political manoeuvring (as happened in the late 1970s).

The case of the sitting Member of Parliament from Sangrur in Punjab, Simranjit Singh Mann, exemplifies the challenges of accommodating divergent viewpoints within the national mainstream. The man who started his adult life by proudly wearing the ‘Uniform’ of the Indian Police Service later became disaffected with the sovereign and was jailed. He then championed the secessionist cause, though he intermittently chose the democratic way of expressing his viewpoint by becoming a Member of Parliament. He held certain positions that were clearly disagreeable and even inimical to the interests of the nation, but the inclusive constitutional spirit still demanded that the sovereign try and afford him the opportunity to seek redress within the generous contours of its Constitution. He won again in the bye-election of 2022 and continued putting forth a point of view that was often unacceptable, but it is still important to listen to the same, as it bears societal concerns and wounds that must be addressed.

There are certain grievances that he champions that could possibly be alleviated, and that can only augur well for the faith and progress of the citizenry. Similarly, there are things that may not (and should not) be accepted, but the natural course of give-and-take may accrue from his side too. Simranjit Singh Mann has taken his oath by the Indian Constitution to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India as part of his swearing-in as an MP, and that itself is a positive starting point. There is simply no alternative to constant engagement, and that is a hard lesson that often gets forgotten, especially when the nation is in the throes of misplaced jingoism that is based on ‘othering’ those who do not conform to a templatized existence, like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan.

The emergence of yet another secessionist leader, Amrit Pal Singh, must be viewed through a similar lens, not necessarily in agreement with his views, but with the hope that he will ultimately repose trust in the mellifluous ‘Idea of India’. Implicit in his decision to participate in Lok Sabha elections is the possibility of him reneging from the path of secessionism in favour of finding a solution within the constitutional framework for his fears and aspirations, as should be the case. It matters less as to which partisan flag he ultimately subscribes to (or contests as an independent), which constituency he stands for, whether he wins or not—that is for political parties and the electorate to decide. What matters is that the supremacy of the Constitution of India is accepted and that a remedy is sought within its remit.

Does India still have that pluralistic aspiration in the corridors of power, or does it believe, as Chairman Mao mistakenly thought, that ‘power flows from the barrel of the gun’? Beyond the braggadocio of ‘muscularity’, can dissent ever be ironed out by denialism, diminishment, or pointing the gun? Even Israel, which has had a secessionist movement dating back to 1945, is still mired in a bloody vortex of unending violence, 80 years after its independence. The sagacious former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was brave (not weak) and wise (not foolish) when he propounded ‘Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat, Kashmiriyat’ (Humanity, Democracy, and Kashmiri Culturality) as the way forward. It entailed a deliberate outreach with the olive branch of democracy and not the ‘muscular’ binaries of us versus them.

Lastly, societal co-option and inclusion do not mean lowering the militaristic guard or compromising on security imperatives. It only means that a composite approach entailing socio-economic, cultural, historical, administrative, political, and security approaches is warranted that does make anyone more or less than the other. The noble, moral, and inclusive ‘Idea of India’ is a difficult but thoroughly fulfilling and progressive path, and it is much easier to posture ‘muscularity’ and ‘othering’—the choice is always available, and history is instructive on the long-term benefits and merits of inclusivity, assuaging, and democracy.