Unrest & democracy

CANDIDATES SEEKING EMPLOYMENT at a job fair in Hyderabad. A file picture. There are, admittedly, schemes to provide employment, but the general consensus is that these are hardly enough. - A. MAHESH KUMAR/AP

If the ruling coalition does not respond to people's demands, India will also go the way of Tunisia or Egypt.

OVER the past few weeks Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan have witnessed outbursts of violent protests by the people of those countries. These protests have not been organised in any large pre-planned manner. What brought the protesters together was a shared anger at the indifference of rulers to decades of unemployment and stagnation. It was particularly intense in Tunisia where President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had to flee, and in Egypt. The point in this essay, however, has little to do with West Asian politics. It is really surprising that while the main causes for unrest in these countries are undeniably present here in India unemployment and a sharp rise in prices, especially of food and we have in addition numerous political organisations that would, given a chance, organise large-scale protests centred on these issues, there is no such violence or unrest in the country.

One can recall the State-wide violence and anger in 1965 in West Bengal owing mainly to the scarcity of foodgrains, large-scale unemployment and the fact that little action to tackle these was discernible. This led to the end of the long Congress rule in the State. True, there was President's rule for a few years, but that cannot, strictly speaking, be counted as a period when the Congress was in power.

There was the popular movement by Jayaprakash Narayan, but it was basically a personal attack on Indira Gandhi following the Allahabad High Court judgment against her election in 1971. It did not have the attributes of a revolution, which the agitations in Tunisia and Egypt most certainly had.

This is, however, not meant to be an enquiry into agitations in the country and their causes, but something else. Given the existence of what appear to be the causes for unrest in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries, why is nothing happening in countries in South and South-East Asia? Specifically, why not in this country?

There is widespread poverty; estimates vary but around 25 per cent of the population is below the poverty line as defined by the government of India, which would mean about 300 million people living on just enough to keep them at subsistence level. There is unemployment; some estimates put the rate as very high, while others maintain it is around 5 per cent. But translated into absolute terms, the figure is still a very large one. There are, admittedly, schemes to provide employment, but the general consensus is that these are hardly enough.

So why is India not exploding into violent protests of the kind seen in Tunisia? Why are the main political parties in the Opposition focussing on other issues and not considering taking even those issues to the streets? If there is any political action, it is in the form of a big rally of people where leaders make impassioned speeches and everyone then goes home.

The answer seems to lie in the fact that there is some kind of democracy that exists here, a kind that is, on the whole, robust, and one that is supported by an active and very watchful press and television news networks. We have recently seen an election in Bihar where people indicated in unmistakable terms their determination to seek development rather than play the totally irrelevant game of caste one-upmanship.

Our country does have unrest, but it is in specific areas, fuelled by Maoists who have fed the general anger among tribal people and others at perceived neglect, a lack of development in fact, of exploitation in its name. But that is not just limited to some areas, it has assumed a political and, in places, grim dimension and the security forces appear to have been able to contain them, more or less.

Elections are due to be held in two large States Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in a few months. Again, people will be able to pass judgment on those who have ruled the States so far. In other words, people are able to make their opinions known, and that process has, over the years, become accepted as being impartial, and not manipulated or capable of manipulation, which, incidentally, is one main cause of the rage in Egypt.

There are certainly huge areas where much needs to be done water supply, education, health clinics and hospitals, good all-weather roads and major highways and expressways, which are essential to move the goods being produced. But while the Opposition and the media keep an eye on the manner in which these deficiencies are being handled, the authorities are doing, let it be said, a fair amount to change things. What is more, people have become aware of them but not in all areas, to be sure. That is where the media and political groups are playing a sterling role in exposing shortcomings.

On the whole, though, things are happening, and the authorities are responding to felt needs and demands. The all-pervasive corruption is, of course, still there, vitiating the rate of development, deterring what would have been even greater investment in the country. But it, too, is being tackled, even though the pace is slow and the effort at times curiously limited.

These and other failings have not brought credit to the ruling United Progressive Alliance-II. There is a sense of disappointment, even among those who wish it well. The general perception seems to be that much more could have been done if only the government had been more decisive.

But the roots of democracy seem to have gone deep enough in this country to make persistent shortcomings in governance something for which ruling parties or groups will pay by being thrown out of office by democratic means. That is clearly the difference, and one for which we need to be grateful.

But while being grateful, we cannot by any means be complacent. The very processes that keep our democratic polity in place can also be responsible for encouraging forces to subvert it, should that become a preferred alternative to people at large. The line between the two is not a very sharply defined one; it would be prudent for the ruling coalition to realise that. It has to deliver and it has to respond to demands to deliver. If it does not realise that, and comforts itself with the belief that it has large police forces at its disposal, the country will almost certainly go the way of Tunisia and Egypt.

The times will sweep them aside, and the country will reshape its future, its structure and vision. For everybody's sake, one can only hope that it will not take us further towards anarchy and chaos and that the present system does prevail in the end. It depends on those in power now and those in the Opposition.