The last week’s incidents have provoked a few questions in my mind and I started finding my own answers to some of those.
One such question was why hasn’t India turned into another Pakistan? Nations across the world, today, do not seem to hold both these nations as equals on many fronts. India has raced ahead, while Pakistan is lagging behind. After all not long ago, these two nations were in fact one nation. What has happened so drastic that one nation is held in a better perception while the other is slowly getting to be known as the terrorist hub of the world.
Why didn’t India ever have a dictator, while Pakistan seems to alternate between a weak democracy and a dictator? Yes, India did have emergency during 1977, but then democracy returned to supremacy by throwing out - arguably one of the strongest and greatest leaders of this nation - Indira Gandhi. Even, she couldn’t pull this off for too long.
McClelland’s theory says that need for power is one of the motivating factors and I have no reason to believe that leaders in India were not as power thirsty as their Pakistani counterparts. Then why is it that Indian leaders sought this power seeking journey through a process of elections, while those on the other side of the border resorted to usurpation. Is it that there is something so Indian that none of them even try to usurp power in India through force? I don’t think so, after all, in 60 years we wouldn’t find such a dramatic change. The answers probably lie elsewhere, probably the opportunity never exists in India – and the fact that India was never ruled by a dictator is a harbinger to the fact that India has never – even remotely – resemble Pakistan in the last 60 years.
The reason for many of those questions in my mind is probably what is often touted as India’s greatest problems. It is its huge population and the problem of its heterogeneity - the constant strife between all those heterogeneous groups trying to establish supremacy over each other. It is difficult to find one face that appeals to all in India. No proof is more worthy than the fact that when Rajiv Gandhi, riding the wave of Indira Gandhi’s assassination had swept the electorate only to find great resistance from a literally unknown party TDP in Andhra Pradesh. A regional party emerged as the single largest opposition in the Lok Sabha. Seems strange but therein lies the strength of a pluralist India. Although the Hindu population might be the clear majority in numbers, this very majority is further divided into as many sections as one can imagine. Even to have one face representing all of this majority is an uphill task. That explains why, India after the 1980s, barring the Rajiv Gandhi’s government has always elected a coalition at the center. Even in India’s states, this trend seems to be catching up with both pre and post election alliances. In the wake of the recent Mumbai blasts I found many comments posted on the internet that India should be ruled by a dictator for some time. While I do not find it a possibility at all, for argument’s sake I don’t think it would be better than the current form that we have. We have an example right next door, do we need more evidence as to which is better?
Judicial activism in India is also to be given its due. The fact that legislature actually doesn’t sit above the judiciary is yet another reason. The “fourth estate” (while most of us may want to bring in comments on TRP and media getting out of hand etc...) has also played its part. In fact the media has been given enough freedom and that doesn’t make the job of any usurper any easier! I can go on and on and find as many reasons. That was going away from the crux of this article though.
India, thankfully hasn’t become a Pakistan because there was never a chance. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment