Gyanotsuk: What strikes me the most about comments about India is that everyone but Indians have very appreciative thoughts towards Indian democracy. The former are appreciative of Indian democracy because since it was able to survive so far even when two of the strongest communist nations were so close to India, even when India had close ties with Russia (and erstwhile USSR), even when India has so many ethnic groups and languages and even when neighboring countries in India are struggling to keep themselves democratic.
An American once said "To me India is a miracle - less than 20% of world population is Muslims and we have such a big problem at our hands while in India more than 25% of the population in is Muslims.
Another American social scientist had quoted "all over the world democracies grow best when surrounded by democracies while Indian neighbors have been non-democratic for years. Its a miracle."
Is it then just a problem of bird's eye view that these foreigners do not share the pessimism of the country's own people denouncing the government? Are these people taking a holistic view and not really concerned about problems existing at the grassroots level? Is this the nature of the humans to be not satisfied in the very environ they dwell? or this attitude increasingly Indian?
Guru: In one one of the essays of Albert Einstein I read his views on America and her people. He shared that Americans are the kind of people who value co-operation among individuals and better functioning of society more than meeting the individual ends. I, having lived in India, realize that people are more concerned about the opposite. Thus, an American will show more civic sense than an Indian. He would be more concerned about a dirty neighborhood and probably wouldn't want to add to the scum. Americans are more concerned about their troops dying in Iraq when it has been just 2-3 years since they are there. Many Americans have held demonstrations against troops being sent to Iraq, troops being increased in Iraq. India has been fighting a similar battle in Kashmir for 2 decades. Not even an eye bat for the people dying there. I think that Indians, thus, focus more on what they get from the democracy rather than what the society is getting from being democratic.
Gyanotsuk: What does an Indian expect from his government that it is not able to deliver? Does this need vary from one ethnic group from another? Do these needs overlap between various ethnic groups?
Guru: An Indian expects pretty much the same things from his government as any other citizen of the world would from their respective government. He expects prosperity, maintenance of law, order and justice, corruption free services and utilization of taxes, freedom in all aspects of the life and accomplishments to feel proud about the nation. These needs are common across the ethnic groups. The real problem of Indian democracy lies in more number of people chasing smaller services potential and number of goods. Under these circumstances the economics doesn't favor equal treatment to all giving rise to corruption. Politicians take advantage of this fact and make these services and goods available to their own vote banks. This gives rise to despair, conflicts and finally to dissatisfaction of some of such groups.
Gyaotsuk: What are the needs of society from the democracy?
Guru: Democracy is a way of society. An individual or his wishes do not matter in this system. It is the collective needs which are addressed in this system. Every society looks for its development - scientific, economic and cultural. For this development it is required for a society to live in a harmonious and peaceful environment. For development of people belonging to all financial background it needs a system of social and economic justice. For the scientific. financial and cultural development it needs freedom in all the spheres of life. Democracy seeks to meet these expectations of the society.
Gyanotsuk: By delineating these needs of the society and the individual, you have hinted that what is visible to an observer is what society goes through in democracy. In the broader perspective what happens as a whole in the country is what matters. The general well being of the society in India is far better than the fate of the other countries. But what an individual experiences is not this holistic experience but very personal one. The experience of Indian individual is not commendable and praise worthy. Is the Indian individual then wrong in complaining about the government?
Guru: Except economic matters of the country, individual is wrong in every aspect to complain about anything in democracy because it is of his own making what he is going through. His bad experiences are the sum total of the habits of the fellow countrymen and his choice of not doing anything about it. If law and order of the country is not maintained it is because people have found a way to commit the crime and get away with it. If freedom of any kind is compromised this is because an individual doesn't stand up to his rights. If corruption mars the government processes this is because people have not voted for the person who is against it.
Guru: Democracy can only function efficiently if people are aware of the well being of the society. By society here I do not mean the whole country. By society I mean the very people we associate with - our neighbors, our city. If we are proud to be associated with the place. are aware and proud of the accomplishments of our cities, villages etc, we will work towards its development, treat injustice against it as a personal insult. In US, the society have established such a structure in sports. People are so passionate about their local sports team that school and college level sports is very popular in the country. They treat their local school team as their own and associate with their ups and downs. India as we know, there is no promise of support from the people even when nation is represented at the international level. There is absolutely nothing which binds an Indian individual to the society he lives in.
It is amply clear that social structures of Indian democracy is very strong and commended by one and all. The individual part of the democracy, unfortunately, is not so passionate about it. This individual part is not so noticeable for international observers and the holistic part is not so apparent to the national observers. Here lies the root cause of the difference in the two views.
Guru: An Indian expects pretty much the same things from his government as any other citizen of the world would from their respective government. He expects prosperity, maintenance of law, order and justice, corruption free services and utilization of taxes, freedom in all aspects of the life and accomplishments to feel proud about the nation. These needs are common across the ethnic groups. The real problem of Indian democracy lies in more number of people chasing smaller services potential and number of goods. Under these circumstances the economics doesn't favor equal treatment to all giving rise to corruption. Politicians take advantage of this fact and make these services and goods available to their own vote banks. This gives rise to despair, conflicts and finally to dissatisfaction of some of such groups.
Gyaotsuk: What are the needs of society from the democracy?
Guru: Democracy is a way of society. An individual or his wishes do not matter in this system. It is the collective needs which are addressed in this system. Every society looks for its development - scientific, economic and cultural. For this development it is required for a society to live in a harmonious and peaceful environment. For development of people belonging to all financial background it needs a system of social and economic justice. For the scientific. financial and cultural development it needs freedom in all the spheres of life. Democracy seeks to meet these expectations of the society.
Gyanotsuk: By delineating these needs of the society and the individual, you have hinted that what is visible to an observer is what society goes through in democracy. In the broader perspective what happens as a whole in the country is what matters. The general well being of the society in India is far better than the fate of the other countries. But what an individual experiences is not this holistic experience but very personal one. The experience of Indian individual is not commendable and praise worthy. Is the Indian individual then wrong in complaining about the government?
Guru: Except economic matters of the country, individual is wrong in every aspect to complain about anything in democracy because it is of his own making what he is going through. His bad experiences are the sum total of the habits of the fellow countrymen and his choice of not doing anything about it. If law and order of the country is not maintained it is because people have found a way to commit the crime and get away with it. If freedom of any kind is compromised this is because an individual doesn't stand up to his rights. If corruption mars the government processes this is because people have not voted for the person who is against it.
Guru: Democracy can only function efficiently if people are aware of the well being of the society. By society here I do not mean the whole country. By society I mean the very people we associate with - our neighbors, our city. If we are proud to be associated with the place. are aware and proud of the accomplishments of our cities, villages etc, we will work towards its development, treat injustice against it as a personal insult. In US, the society have established such a structure in sports. People are so passionate about their local sports team that school and college level sports is very popular in the country. They treat their local school team as their own and associate with their ups and downs. India as we know, there is no promise of support from the people even when nation is represented at the international level. There is absolutely nothing which binds an Indian individual to the society he lives in.
It is amply clear that social structures of Indian democracy is very strong and commended by one and all. The individual part of the democracy, unfortunately, is not so passionate about it. This individual part is not so noticeable for international observers and the holistic part is not so apparent to the national observers. Here lies the root cause of the difference in the two views.
