Democratic discourse?

Societies tend to be naturally chaotic as different groups strive for supremacy over other groups. So, from time immemorial, it has been the endeavour of all sensible societies to prevent descent into the chaos that waits round the next corner, and to convert this energy into something constructive. Different methods have been tried, and the lesson that stands out the most is that societies that engage in reasoned discourse to sort out problems do better than those that don't. The Indian ethos has tended to favour debate (tark-vitark) as the most efficient form of settling knotty issues. Indeed, regardless of the form of government that India has had - kings, emperors, foreign rulers, popularly elected - things have been at their best when the rulers have governed with the help of such debate and discourse. It is not a coincidence that rulers who sought to stifle debate or avoid it have usually done the people and the country great dis-service.

It is therefore alarming to see that this basic truth is being ignored by politicians, who form the current ruling set. Not only are they abandoning civilised discourse, they are also resorting to violence, in action and speech. On the Sethusamudram issue, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, Mr Karunanidhi, used intemperate language to describe Lord Ram (calling him a drunkard). A BJP MP, Vedanti, was quoted as responding by saying that Mr Karunanidhi should be beheaded and his tongue cut out (a comment that he subsequently tried to explain away and then denied having made). The response from the DMK was to attack the BJP office in Chennai. Many were injured.

Earlier, the Prime Minister was not allowed to speak in Parliament to explain his position on the nuclear deal with the US. In the entire monsoon session of Parliament that ended prematurely because of repeated adjournments, there wasn't a single day when the business of the house could be completed. The Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha had only 17 sittings during the 32 days that Parliament was technically in session. The Lok Sabha lost 40 per cent of its time and the Rajya Sabha 49 per cent. The question hour could not be held on eight days in the Lok Sabha and seven days in the Rajya Sabha. There were 380 starred questions but only 75 or so could be answered. Little wonder, then, that the Speaker grumbled, "It is extremely disturbing that the highest forum in this country has almost come to a standstill, which has raised questions about the utility of our system of parliamentary democracy and about its future." The MPs shed crocodile tears but were otherwise unrepentant.

It is dangerous to assume that business will continue as usual while the institutions of governance erode from within and get reduced to empty shells, and when public discourse descends to the level of saying that the Prime Minister should have a bullet put through his head. Institutions have to be nurtured if they are to function properly, and those at the helm have to act with restraint, decency and a sense of responsibility. Governance in India is already a euphemism; there is a growing danger that it might become an oxymoron.