Affirmation of Diversity through Political Contract

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued in his famous book Leviathan that all humans are driven by two and only two impulses: fear of death and desire for power. If left unchecked, human beings would act on these impulses and live violent, brutish, inhumane, and solitary lives.

Living in a society, which is diverse, complex and multi faceted is quite tricky and complicated at a time. Every member in the society must understand the nature of diversity and heterogeneity in it. Mutual respect and tolerance are the keys of successful co-existence in such diversity. The absence of these features would only lead to chaos and anarchy. Violence and anger would dominate the nature of relation among its members. Various bloody conflicts throughout human history are clear examples of this phenomenon. The tendency of each and every member in the society to resort to certain forceful method of personal assertion to achieve his/her intention only aggravates the matter. And to use the words of Thomas Hobbes, this situation is known as the “state of nature” which is brutish, solitary, violent and anarchist.

To avoid this unfortunate situation, according to Hobbes, all members in the society must collectively participate in the social contract that will guarantee the security and community. Hobbes did not care what form this single rule might take, whether a monarch or a dictator, as long as the society is kept together. This Hobbesian social contract could not be revised and if people attempt to regain some measure of sovereignty or power that has been lost in the contract, society will fall into violent chaos.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), however, radically revised Hobbes' social contract. He proposed that the people agreed to cede authority to some group in order to gain the benefits of community and safety. If those in power refused to guarantee community and safety, the governed were free to disobey and establish a new political contract. While Hobbes believed in absolute rule, Rousseau believed that absolute rule was a perversion of the original intent of the primordial social contract. In his two famous works, The Social Contract and the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau argued that modern human society is built on an imperfect social contract, because it fosters inequality and servitude. Thus there is a great need for a rebuilding of the social contract from the ground up in order to ensure equality and freedom.

To ensure this equality and freedom, all members in the society must accept the fact that human being is different in nature and diversity is natural. Acceptance of this kind of political contract that observes equality and freedom of individuals is in line with the concept of political pluralism in which diversity of human nature is celebrated as an utmost consequence of humanity. Political pluralism is the manifestation of the concept of unity in diversity. The aim of political pluralism is being ultimate in diversity.

Unfortunately, not all members in the society fully accept this fact and chose to stay away from it. At a time, they have their own concept and wish to implement it believing that their concept is more superior to the one agreed upon by the general populace. As a result clash of interest becomes unavoidable, a return to a Hobbesian state of nature. A lot of contemporary history of human relation, especially in a diverse, complex and multi faceted society, reflects this situation.

Let’s take a brief look at the history of violence in India to reflect this phenomenon.

India is a diverse, complex and multi faceted country. But it is very unfortunate that from the very first day of Indian independent in August 1947, violence between different communities is not an uncommon phenomenon. The bloody Partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947 saw millions of innocent people killed mercilessly. The rejection of the concept of an independent India as the home for all Indians regardless of their creed, color, sex, caste or any other distinctive social affiliation and the assertion that India or Hindustan is the promised land for certain group of people belonging to certain creed and race group led to this tragedy. It is very unfortunate that such a Mahabharat should have taken place in human history just to satisfy the greed and lust of certain personalities.

Fast forward, this bloody tragedy in the 1947 was repeated in a secular, democratic and independent India meant for all Indians regardless of their creed, color, sex, caste or any other distinctive social affiliation. There were bloody clashes in the early 1990s and early 2000. The main reason is the same: India is meant for a certain group of people belonging to certain creed and race group. People outside of this group must go, expelled or be punished if they insist on staying and living in India. Once again, the victims in these clashes were innocent lives, trapped between the conflicting factions.

This tragic cycle of humanitarian tragedy, however, does not belong to India alone. Diverse, complex and multi faceted societies around the globe experience this tragedy at one point of their national history. It is not uncommon in these kinds of societies to have clashes of interest involving different groups in their societies. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, just to name a few, have had their own version of communal tragedy at one point of their national history. This phenomenon is unfortunate but it really has occurred, not once but repeatedly.

One thing should be noted here, however, that even though there was some kind of cycle of humanitarian tragedy in the form of communal conflict and clash of interest in these societies, they remain united as an entity. The diversity in these societies does not somehow hinder their desire to remain united. They are united in diversity.

However, I have a little doubt that this ‘myth’ of unity in diversity will remain forever. The fact that there is now a continuing pressure from certain groups in these societies to abhor diversity and to enforce uniformity is quite an irony. The fundamentalist groups in the majority community in these diverse societies seem to prefer the idea of uniformity instead of unity in diversity. And if they succeed in their propaganda of uniformity, it would a tragic end for the idea of political pluralism, the idea of unity in diversity.

How do we preserve this idea of unity in diversity amidst the increasing pressures of those groups who advocate uniformity? Isn’t there any method or concept that might be used to save innocent lives from this situation?

In the beginning of this article, I quoted Thomas Hobbes’ description of the state of nature: brutish, solitary, violent and anarchist. Driven by fear and lust of power, it is natural for any human being to satisfy his/her personal desire regardless of any objection and contradictory reaction from others.

The ambitious, egoistic desire of human being reflect those groups of people who advocate uniformity amidst diversity and the rejection and objection of others perfectly describe the natural diversity of human beings. They have diverse interests yet they feel vulnerable at a time. This clash of interests can be described as the state of nature, which is unfortunate but not unavoidable. It can be prevented through a social contract, which will guarantee the freedom, equality, security as well as the community of the members in the contract.

According to Rousseau’s concept of social contract, the participants are allowed to enjoy security and community without losing his/her liberty and individuality. The contract is not an absolute contract as the one proposed by Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau’s concept of social contract is more flexible in nature and it can be revised from time to time. The contract also ensures equality and freedom of the participants while at the same time the participants enjoy security and community.

This kind of social contract, I assume, will guarantee the diversity of a pluralistic society. The contract acts as a platform for political pluralism to achieve unity in diversity. Rousseau’s social contract allows the participants to define the shared values that will preserve the diversity of its participants while at the same time they can enjoy the benefit of protection from the contract.

But what are these shared values in this contract anyway? How do these men come to an agreement of these shared values when they are egoistic and greedy?

The shared values vary from one community to the other. But I believe that all of us agree that there is one common universal value that is acceptable, regardless of our creed, sex, race, caste or any other distinctive social affiliation. Moreover, even though men are egoistic and greedy in nature, but they also have that natural instinct as a social being in which the rational thought works to the service of their fellow beings. So it is not an improbability for them to actually act and think rationally for the benefit of his/her fellow beings and sacrifice their personal greed.

Let’s take for an example democracy as one social value that we all share.

Broadly speaking, in democracy, all members have interests that are affected by collective decisions. Everyone is capable of reaching a view about what the best of least bad decision would be, both for themselves and for the association or society as a whole. The best decisions over the long run will be ones where all such views have been publicly aired and debated. And where debate and discussion fail to produce a single agreed outcome, decisions should be taken by a vote of all participating members. Finally, the principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ reflects a wider conception that all persons are of equal worth.

If we can agree that democracy is the minimal common shared value, we can create a common platform for the political contract to accommodate the diversity in the society with the help of other factors like secularism, social justice as well as humanitarianism. This common platform will act as the middle path or the core value of interaction between individuals that will accommodate the diversity of interests in the society. It will balance the pulls and pressures from the diverse elements in the society. It is on the basis of such common platform that regardless of countless conflicts, a communally divided country like India is capable to stay united. The social contract signed by the Indian people in the form of its national Constitution has acted as the catalyst in preserving the unity of India’s diverse society. Moreover, this agreement has permitted the resolution of conflicts more peacefully.

In conclusion, human being is diverse in nature. They are also greedy, egoistic and always ambitious to achieve his/her goals regardless of rejection or objection from others. Driven by two impulses of fear of death and desire for power, human beings can sometimes act as destructive force when he/she must live in a society. The clash of interest between individuals in such a society leads into what we can describe as the Hobbesian state of nature: brutish, solitary, violent, and anarchist.

To avoid being in this kind of state of nature in perpetuity, human beings must realize that they have to accept their natural diversity. They must also formulate some kind of shared values that will act as a common platform of interaction between individuals that will accommodate the diversity of interest. They must formulate some kind of a social contract, a Rousseauan concept of social contract, in which they will be guaranteed safety, security and community without losing their liberty and equality. This kind of contract will preserve political pluralism in which there is an affirmation of diversity in the interests and beliefs of the citizenry.

Political pluralism is a participatory type of government in which the politics of the country are defined by the needs and wants of many. Political pluralism is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In a politically pluralistic society there is no majority or minority and the basic ideas of government are seen through the ideas of individuals and groups to ensure that all the needs and wants of society are taken care of. Thus in a politically pluralistic society tolerance and mutual respect for divergent thinking tends to develop easily as a way to accommodate the differences in aspiration. The experience of the Indian people who live under such type of contract is worth noted as a reflection of this affirmation of diversity.

From Mole Hill to Oil Slick: Story of Two Singhs

In the past few weeks, Indian politics have been full of surprises and controversies. With the Parliament is in session, the Monsoon Session, both the ruling and opposition parties are given headache and are on their backs during this period by their own respective party member. While Jaswant Singh, the ex-Indian Foreign Minister (FM) under the NDA, started the mole controversy, the oil slick or the Volcker controversy involves the current UPA government, its ex-FM K. Natwar Singh. Apart from this similarity of being an ex-FM, there are even more similarities between the two Singhs.

They both claim to have descended from minor royal lineage; they are both distinguished by a style that can best be described as sanctimonious, long-winded and self-righteous. They have no mass base politically and have depended on the largesse of their leaders or parties to prop up their political fortunes. Both are political lightweights, who now are creating news that is best described as making a mountain out of a molehill, or rather an oil slick.

Let’s start with the mole controversy before sliding into the slippery oil slick.

The mole controversy came up when the ex-Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, released his book, A Call to Honour, last July. In his supposed to be a tell all book, Jaswant Singh claims that since the early 1990s, when the Congress Party was in power, the Indian nuclear program has been under the watchful eyes of Uncle Sam. He claims that an agent was present in the PMO who then leaked India’s nuclear secrets to the US. He even claims that this mole is still there in the PMO. Singh’s claim of a mole in the PMO has incensed the Congress Party thus forcing PM Manmohan Singh to ask clarification about this mole in his office.

However, having been pressed to name the mole in the PMO, Jaswant Singh has said he did not have a definite name about the US mole in the government when Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister. He did not have the names or any clues about the claim he made in his book. And because of this seemingly miscalculated political maneuver for personal gains, his Bharatiya Janata Party has distanced itself from the issue.

Singh’s inability to give names or clues to the request of clarification from the PMO has raised question on his claim about spy in Narasimha Rao’s government. Does Jaswant Singh really know anything about the mole? And if so, will that revelation embarrass the UPA government? So far there is no answers to these questions.

The story of the second Singh, K. Natwar Singh of the Congress Party, is slightly different from the first Singh. Natwar Singh’s controversy is about misuse of authority given to him by his party for personal gains. The oil slick controversy came up in November 2005 when the independent Volcker Committee on UN’s Oil for Food program for Iraq released its report in which several Indian companies, individuals as well as an India political party, the Congress Party, were named as the non-contractual beneficiaries of the program and have paid kickbacks to the then Iraqi government to procure the right to import oil from Iraq thus violating the program meant for helping Iraqis from sufferings from the economic sanctions. Natwar Singh and the Indian Congress Party denied this report thus the subsequent establishment of Pathak Committee to probe the scam.

The result: Pathak Inquiry Authority indicts Natwar and Jagat for helping persons close to them bag three Iraqi oil contracts whereas it gives clean chit to the Congress Party.

As leader of the Congress delegation to Iraq in 2001, Natwar Singh had misused his official position for furthering the commercial interests of his son Jagat Singh’s cousin Andaleeb Sehgal for his company Hamdaan Exports. Apart from including Jagat and Andaleeb as members of the delegation without the consent of the Party leader, he wrote letters to the Iraqi government requesting them a favor to give oil contract to Andaleeb. Convinced that Natwar’s request was from the Party, the Iraqi government agreed to issue the contract to the Hamdaan Exports.

Facing this mole and oil controversies, the governing Congress party appears more than ready to handle the issues. Even though the UPA government is worried that adverse political fallout may cast a shadow on the Indo-US nuclear deal but it determines to challenge Jaswant to prove and name the spy in the government and it is ready for a debate in the Parliament. Being cornered and singled out by the Congress Party and distanced by his own party, Jaswant seems to be in a maze to give an answer. His mistimed political attack to the Congress Party seems to snowball and hit back harder than the outcome he had expected.

As for the fate of the second Singh, even though the Pathak Committee found that no money from the oil contract yet to be found in Natwar or his son Jagat, but his defiant to challenge his own party by issuing a privilege notice to the PMO for the leak of the Pathak Committee report before being tabled in the Parliament has given enough reason for the Congress Party to issue disciplinary action to Natwar. Congress Party suspended Natwar Singh from his primary membership of the Congress Party for misusing post and issued a lengthy showcause notice as to why he should not be expelled for his several acts of omission, including bringing “disrepute” to the party. He has been given two weeks to reply.

Summing up the story of two Singhs, any political misadventure could result in political downfall. In a democratic society like India, there are rules in the game of politics that must be followed by all the players. Any failure to follow the rules can be too costly as has been proven by the Singhs.

A Left Hand Drive?

Last week, Assembly elections were held in several parts of India. From Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Pondichery to Kerala elections were held to elect new State governments. And apart from Assam and Pondichery, the Congress Party lost the elections. The Left won big in West Bengal and Kerala while in Tamil Nadu, even though the DMK unseated the incumbent Jayalalithaa’s AIADMK thus a return of the veteran Karunanidhi as the most powerful person in Tamil Nadu, the Left also increased its share of votes.

For the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government led by the Congress Party in the Center, the big wins by its allies gave some mix feelings. First, the win would mean the strengthening of the UPA government in the Center. It strengthens the position of the secular forces. At the same time, it also indicates the credible success of the UPA government in the Center. People voted for reforms and the UPA represents this spirit.

Secondly, the win by these allies sent a very strong message to the Congress Party that their allies can no longer be ignored in formulating and implementing government policies. The Congress-led UPA government would now have to stick to the CMP (Common Minimum Program) or else a deviation from it would mean an earthquake to the government. Sitaram Yechury, a politburo member of the CPI (M), echoed this second message through his confident comment in the post-elections that “the Left’s influence on the UPA alliance is bound to increase.”

A Left hand drive?

Since the establishment of the UPA government in New Delhi in 2004, the Left parties have been playing a crucial role. With a significant number of MPs in the Parliament, the Left gave an outside support to the Congress-led government on the basis of a CMP thus creating a majority power in the Parliament. Outside support means that the Left parties will not join and be a part of the government but will guarantee the majority of the alliance in the Parliament. This also means that if the Left parties decide to pull out its outside support in any given time, the UPA government would lose the majority number thus the break up of the government. As long as the CMP is adhered to, there would not be any likelihood of this scenario.

But the question now is how far the win by the Congress allies in the Assembly elections at the cost of the Congress Party would affect the unity in, and the functioning of, the UPA? Would this mean that the UPA would switch into a Left hand drive? Or would there be no effect on the UPA? Because even though the Congress Party is the single biggest party in the alliance but the support of the Left parties is crucial to keep the majority in the Parliament.

The most likely answer to these questions is that the Left parties, and the DMK of Tamil Nadu as a part of the alliance in the Center, would have more say on the formulation of new policies in the Center but at the same time the urgency to keep the communal forces out of power would mean the possibility of breaking out at the minimum. It strengthens the UPA while effecting some bargaining power in the decision making process. The Congress can no longer ignore their voices and strict adherent to the CMP would be observed to keep the alliance intact.

The negative response shown by the stock market immediately after the victory remark by the Left leader, however, should not be seen as a bad omen. It was just a sudden jolt with no long-term effect. Because even though the Left won big in these states, but reform was the promise in the elections. The Left in these states like Buddhadep Bhattacharya of West Bengal was a reform minded leader who does not shy away from liberalism, pro-capitalism and industry-friendly policies. The reforms promised by the UPA government would not be much affected by this new development.

Finally, the Assembly elections in these states can be seen as wake up calls for the Congress Party. Because even though the leadership in the Center in the form of Sonia Gandhi enjoys relative number of support, but locally, it is lacking of charismatic leaders capable of reinventing the grand old party. The elections in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal next year should become a matter of concern for the Congress leadership. Failure by the Congress Party to retain power in last three states above would mean a dwindling influence of the Party in the national politics and the emerging domination and influence of regional forces. Furthermore, the possible lost of the Congress in these up coming elections would also mean an irreversible Left hand drive in the Center.

Sonia Gandhi and Morality in Politics

Two years ago, Sonia Gandhi, the president of Congress Party, made a national and international headline when she shockingly declined to be crowned as the prime minister of India after she successfully led her party and its coalitions partners to win the general elections. Her decision has made her an enigma in Indian politics: a successful politician no doubt but one clearly different from the rest of the tribe in India.

For the second time in less than two years, Mrs. Gandhi, 59, has caught everyone off guard as she resigned her Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) post after coming under political cloud and tried to recapture the moral high ground in an arena where power is seen as the only driving force. In that dramatic announcement she made at her 10 Janpath residence, New Delhi, the mother of two, born in Italy but now completely an Indian at heart, proved once again that she is not and will never be another run of the mill politician.

If the reason of her refusal to accept the post of Prime Minister of India in 2004 was her ‘inner voice’, Mrs. Gandhi’s decision to resign from the Lok Sabha was said to be the ‘correct decision’ she thought she must take to avoid any controversy and disruption to the functioning of the government. Both the decisions were taken on the basis of moral ground, and not due to any political pressure. Her decision to be different from the rest of the pack is interesting to scrutinize.

When Sonia Gandhi decided to take the plunge into politics in 1998 to take the responsibility of reviving the ailing Congress Party, she was considered by many, her own party men as well as by the opposition, as an outsider and a novice in every sense of the term.

With her personal background as an Italian who happened to be married with a member of the Gandhi family, Rajiv Gandhi, and the fact that far from its stature as India's dominant political entity, the Congress Party then had just 140 members in the 545-seat Lok Sabha, many had considered her move as a scenario where few would have dared to take a step forward. But she did it and proved everyone wrong about her decision to join politics.

If Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi's father, was India's first prime minister for 17 years, Indira Gandhi held the post in two spells for 16 years. Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia's husband, was prime minister for five years. Sonia Gandhi was nothing compared to them.

She knew few political players by face or even name, she was considered aloof and cold, she did not emit the typical politician-friendliness, her command over Hindi was poor and she lacked original ideas – or so felt most people. And one thing that differentiates her from the previous three Gandhi: there was no one to fall back upon at the time she decided to plunge into politics.

However, contrary to the background she had and the shaky beginning when she entered politics, she matured rapidly. She had clearly understood the very many complexities of the game in a very short period of six years. Thus, not only was she successfully revived and rebuilt the Congress Party but she also brought the Party to where it belongs: the center of power in Indian politics.

Under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, the Congress Party and its coalition partners won the general elections held in May 2004, defeating the successful coalition government of the BJP’s National Democratic Alliance. With the win and the success enjoyed by the Congress Party, many had expected that Sonia Gandhi would take the responsibility to lead the Congress-led coalition government in New Delhi. But she had a different plan and came up with a shocking decision of renouncing the job, saying she was listening to the voice of her conscience.

In her words, she joined politics to save the legacy of the Congress Party and to build a new order in India. Her decision had sent a shock wave throughout the country, and even become a headline in national and international news. Now, two years later, Mrs. Gandhi has dealt another political blow to the BJP as it tried to take off her sheen by accusing her of holding, against Indian parliamentary rules, an ‘office of profit’ while being a Member of Parliament.

The moral ground on which she entered politics has once again resurfaced to capture the imagination of the many. In the land of Mahatma Gandhi in which political renunciation is highly respected, Sonia Gandhi’s decisions to refuse being crowned as the Indian prime minister two years ago and to resign from the Lok Sabha post recently showed that she is different from the rest of the pack and her actions would certainly bring an impact to the future nature of politics in India.

Politicization of Terror by the BJP

The recent terror attack in a temple in the holy city of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh has resulted in a very different reaction from the Opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Instead of joining the voice of preserving communal harmony and tolerance that immediately spread throughout the country across political groupings and ideologies, the BJP attacked the government as being soft and indulged in the appeasement politics towards the Muslim community.

In its most defiant manner the BJP disrupted both the Houses in the Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and along with other rightwing Hindu groups like the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, it called for the UP bandh (closure of all activities in the state of Uttar Pradesh) in the very next day after the attack.

If these reactions are not enough to show the immaturity and the opportunistic tendency of the leaderships in the party that only recently ruled India for 5 years, the BJP’s Opposition leader in the Lok Sabha and ex-Deputy PM L.K. Advani has announced a twin yatra (long march) as a mode of protest towards the attack. Advani and the current BJP president, Rajnath Singh, will lead these yatras.

If history is not easy to forget, in the early 1990s Indian politics was dominated by communal forces in which a yatra led by Advani had culminated in the destruction of an old mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Cashing in on the strong wave of communal sentiment, the BJP and its allies succeeded in grabbing the power in the Center and ruled the country from the late 1990s and until in the early years of 2000s. And ever since the Ayodhya incident took place, Indian politics changed forever.

It is in the backdrop of this history that the current leaderships in the BJP tried once again to meddle in the dark water. The attack on Varanasi was justified by the party as an attack against Hinduism and thus necessary for all Hindus to retaliate. This perception clearly shows the communal mindset of the party.

Changes in the Society

India in the 1990s and in 2000s is two different societies. If communal sentiment is very much easy to manipulate in the 1990s, India in 2000s is more mature and has different priorities. Hiccups of communal violence somehow occurred in 2000s but the most part of the new century has shown the maturity of a new community.

There is one very important factor that led to the dramatic change in the Indian society: the opening up of the Indian market. The different approach adopted by the Indian government towards the international market through liberalization of Indian market and economy in the later half of the 1990s contributed a lot to the change that occurred in the society.

The open market policy has created new chances and opportunities to India and Indian people to improve their economic condition as well as a chance to have a different view and understanding of its politics. The new policy has transformed the country into a new agenda of growth, development, globalization, and self-assurance. The new India does not want to be distracted by claims made in the name of medieval passions anymore. The exposure to the international reality has changed their perspectives. The Indian citizen — whatever his faith — no longer subscribes to the grammar of religious animosity as they once did in the previous period.

This is the reality that has probably escaped from the BJP leaders' attention. They seem to be ignorant to the changes that have occurred in the society. The new and the old BJP leaders seem to have learnt no lesson from the Gujarat riots in 2002. "India Shining" turned its back on the BJP and the NDA because the country disapproved of Narendra Modi's deliberate and calculated Muslim-bashing. The hard lesson of defeat in 2004’s general elections seemed to have passed through an empty head.

The current efforts by the BJP leaderships and its allies to re-ignite communal passion for their political gains will fail to materialize. The changed reality in the Indian society will not permit this kind of politicization of people’s suffering to occur. The immediate positive responses shown by the different communities in Varanasi are positive indications to the maturity of the population in response to the attack that aimed at disrupting the communal harmony between communities.

The politicization of the recent attack in Varanasi by the BJP in order to regain its diminishing influence is an ashamed act and seems to be heading towards failure. India is moving and it is different. The Indian civil society has got the measure of pretenders who seek to assume the mantle of savior of this or that "community." The men-made humanitarian calamities in Ayodhya, Mumbai or Gujarat have woken up the conscience of the people. If the different communities in Varanasi are capable of preserving the communal harmony in the city, the whole Indian community should be able to do the same to preserve the unity of India. The diversity should become an asset and not a liability of a failure. The politicians and political parties should also understand this value of diversity as an asset to keep the nation intact instead of disintegrating it into factions for sake of their lust of power.