The Dangers of Majoritarianism

Consider this : You are from a religion X, living in a Y-dominated neighbourhood with a not-so-enlightened population (I’m tempted to call them ‘idiots’, but let’s skip that for the sake of political correctness). The Y community’s place of worship keeps buzzing with insanely loud loudspeakers for a large part of the day, making it impossible for you to attend a phone call even within your own house. Now, you can’t go and object, as the matter would assume religious proportions, and you being from a minority community, might face social boycott (at best), or lynching , at worst (depending on the degree of majoritarianism). Where does your liberty go ? Crashing out of your window ( or your body, whichever the case be) . You can’t take legal action as well, because of the tussles and the impending ostracization. Not everyone has the privilege of emigrating, and even if one does, why should he/she have to leave their land because of someone else’s stupidity and disregard for others’ liberty ? (X and Y can be anything, feel free to assume)

Jawaharlal Nehru often finds himself at the target of the IT Cell . The reasons are diverse — sometimes, because he is “actually ” from a Muslim lineage (as if ‘Ghar Wapasi’ was a thing, then) ; sometimes, because he was a “weak leader” who lost PoK (because he took the matter to the UN and wanted the people to have a ‘right to self-determinaton’ ) and Aksai Chin (because he trusted China and got stabbed in the back) . Nevertheless, he was a Statesman, and was spot-on in his opinions on the dangers of Majoritarianism.

“ The Communalism of the Majority is more dangerous than the communalism of the minority, as the former wears the garb of Nationalism ”. — Nehru

While stating this, I must make it very obvious that this phenomenon is not unique to India, although India appears to be treading down this path. Nationalism, as a concept, becomes problematic when it starts assuming jingoistic proportions. It becomes even more dangerous when it becomes exclusive — when a country’s own people are viewed with suspicion because they don’t have similar fictional/metaphysical views as most of the people.

Majoritarian Politics is divisive — it drives a wedge between the neighbours, and builds walls among friends. The question of a thing being right or wrong takes the backseat — the perpetrator (or rather, his/her identity) becomes important . It creates an environment hostile for the minorities to live in. Communal riots are an end-result, or a part of such political setup.

One would argue — “But we just want to protect the unity and integrity of the country, and hence, we are ‘weeding out’ the dangers . ” The sad reality is — the communal targeting only weakens the unity of the country. It creates, quite ironically, the internal security issues. Nations aren’t built by the land-masses, but by its citizens. If the citizens have a sense of grievance, and their problems are sidelined, under a majoritarian regime, it leads to a sense of betrayal, and democracy loses it legitimate authority. It leads to ‘othering’ , and has dangerous consequences for the nation/state as a whole.

If we consider some of the separatist movements across the world, we’ll find that they share one thing in common — the fear of being overwhelmed by the majority. Such movements had and have emerged in India and in the other countries, too. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. This happens when the democratic measures available get exhausted, in vain. We need to understand why this happens — “ Let’s say, a legislation is passed in the country, and one of the states has an objection to it . The state is small and politically insignificant, so the government chooses to ignore it. Now in the next general elections, the same government is re-elected at the national level. What would the popular sentiment in that state be, given the fact that the state is already demographically different ? That’s left for the readers to decide .

That’s why the concept of Pluralism becomes very important. Pluralism is essential, especially in a heterogeneous society, to sustain a healthy social fabric. Fundamentalism and Majoritarianism is a dangerous path to tread on , for it has no end. Once you have attained religious homogeneity, other lines of differences arise. Rather than alienating the minorities, it’s imperative that they are made to feel included. Some steps in that direction might come across as ‘appeasement’, but it must be understood that minorities are a particularly vulnerable group and need special privileges to compensate for the inherent disadvantage that they are already at. At the same time, perpetrators shouldn’t be spared just because they are from a minority community. However, we do need a sound system, where no one is targeted because of their identity, without sufficient evidence regarding the same.

P.S. : I’m aware of the privilege I have , for writing this article, due to my identity. An author with a different identity would easily get the uncalled-for labels.