Amit
Singh, Independent researcher
evolutionyog@gmail.com
‘Diversity’
is the word describes India in its true sense. With diverse and huge population
comes a peculiar ‘strong ethnic ties or ethnic divisions. Due to the linguistic
and regional heterogeneity of the population, the constitutional system of the
India was made partly federal. Indian political system which was centered on
major language groups later suffered the tyranny of the majority and had to
adapt to the very strong pressure of the larger language group. After first post election, the electoral
system was adapted to serve the interest of the majority populations of the
Hindu. In such system, it was nearly impossible for Muslims to organize their
own political parties and to get representation in legislatures (Vanhanen
2004). They were able to get representation through some major parties. In
addition, tribal groups and the Dalits had faced same dilemma. They have
constitutional safeguards, but, because of the British made/influenced
electoral system, it has been difficult for them to get a representation in
legislatures through their own parties except some minor development in recent
political scenario.
The
Indian party system is more or less based on the caste system; political
parties tend to support their ethnic affiliations thus creating an ‘ethnic
rift’ in society. This rift in society often takes the forms of ethnic and
communal conflict. Further aggravating the situation, parties take caste
divisions into account while nominating candidates for elections, in particular,
some parties nominate their own caste groups. This has resulted in the
emergence of the regional parties formed on the basis of the ‘ethnic nepotism
(Vanhanen 2004). Against this background, Caste and other ethnic interests
becomes the principal catalyst in the Indian politics. In response to this situation, Indian
democratic institutional structure has evolved and is struggling hard to
accommodate various ethnic and minority strivings.
Many
aspects of the Indian political system become adapted to the requirement of the
ethnic groups, but not sufficiently in all matters and in all parts of the
country, which indicates it has not been possible to solve all ethnic conflicts
through democratic institutions, or that democratic institutions are not
sufficiently adapted to the requirement of the ethnic rift (Ibid). Example of the such failure are apparent in
the ongoing ethnic conflict in the various parts of India; violent separatist
movements of Muslims in Kashmir, naxalite movement in the different parts of
the country; occasional communal violence between Hindu and Muslim and to a
lesser degree with other religious groups (Christians and Sikh), too;
territorial conflicts between language groups (Movement against Hindi in South
India); and continual conflict between caste groups, particularly between Hindu
and untouchables but also between the upper caste and the other backward castes
(Ibid). Not to mention occasional outburst of Shiv Sena and Maharastra
Navnirrman Sena against north Indians, runs the risk of dividing the people on
the lines of the geographical regions.
Though
India’s federal system is struggling to mitigate the ethnic conflict to some
extent, however, militancy in Kashmir and seven sister’s states has remained as
an unsolved problem.
In
order to be more accommodative and conciliatory, Indian political system needs
to be made more suitable to ethnic aspirations. The federal system can be strengthened
and be made flexible. More autonomy can be extended to the various ethnic
groups. The tribal state of Assam would need extensive forms of autonomy. In
addition, there is a need to establish an autonomous territorial unit within
states for tribal, linguistic, and religious minority. Along with it, electoral
system needs to made proportional to the population of the ethnic groups; it
could serve the needs of an ethnically heterogeneous society better than the
present system. Ethnic conflicts cannot be completely eliminated; however,
conflict can be mitigated by providing effective institutional canal for the
expression of ethnic demands and competition (Lijphart 1996, Bachal 1997 cited
in Vanhanen 2004). Electoral system by providing better representation, can
bridge the increasing divide among various ethnic groups. In addition, more
channels for the fearless expression of
the repressed ethnic and minority sentiments needs to be created, because only
electing the political candidate do not often guarantees the desired
development and progress of the ethnic community as have been seen in cases
of U.P. and Bihar. Inherent conflict ingrained in Indian electoral
system/democracy/society, if do not redress on time, India, sooner or later,
runs the risk of disintegrating on the lines of ethnicity.
Reference
Vanhanen
Tatu 2004, ‘Problems of Democracy in
Ethnically Divided South Asian Countries’, paper presented at 18th
European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, Sweden.
No comments:
Post a Comment