If I had been young, more audacious and scholarly, I would have written these lines myself. But since I am none of the above, I shall unhesitatingly borrow these from one who is all of these three and probably wouldn’t mind my hiding behind her to argue with the honourable Supreme Court of India. It is over the order last Thursday by a two-judge bench upholding Haryana’s law that sets a complex—but popular, at least among urban elites—educational, economic and social criteria for eligibility to contest Panchayat elections. The nub of Their Lordships’ argument: that the power to vote, universal adult franchise, is a fundamental right and inviolable, but that to be elected to an office isn’t. It is, on the other hand, like a privilege (my choice of word) and legislatures can determine who deserves it.
In this particular case, this is limited to basic education, or rather literacy, absence of indebtedness (with qualifications) and some norms of social hygiene, such as whether you have a toilet in your home or defecate in the open—by preference or compulsion-- like nearly 60 per cent of fellow Indians. The judges have used a very significant line that is persuasive yet contestable: “It is only education which gives a human being the power to discriminate between right and wrong, good or bad.”
Now, is the definition of education a college degree, an IQ test, a scaled-down CAT equivalent for those aspiring to be a panch or sarpanch? Evidence on a link between scholarship and quality of governance is complicated. This judgement sanctifies a law passed by a BJP government and widely backed by its supporters among “educated” urban elites who believe Dr Manmohan Singh ran the worst government in India’s history and the current one is the best. Tempting now to ask how that checks out with formal education/wisdom logic. But let us not even go there.
Who is to decide who is educated enough with the “power to discriminate between right and wrong, good or bad” is a highly subjective determination to be made top-down, as in the elected members of a state assembly deciding minimum qualifications for a panchayat when nobody has as yet laid down any such for them. So, if you are a totally illiterate Haryanvi today, as 25 per cent of us in my home-state are, you can get elected to the state assembly and then make laws to disenfranchise your own types from the panchayat. No such restrictions apply to the Lok Sabha as well. Of the current 543 in the Lok Sabha, 16 listed themselves as under-matriculate. This is below the criteria the Haryana assembly has now laid down for panchayats.
Some of us who dared question the Anna Hazard movement’s elitism, like having Nobel and Magsaysay prize winners nominated to the Jan Lokpal panel, said it would disenfranchise our still massive underclass. I had noted particularly the stirring speech that JD-U’s Sharad Yadav made, defending his parliament and asking if, without the institution of our democracy, somebody called Pakori Lal could be sitting there. Pakori Lal represented Robertsganj from Uttar Pradesh for the SP and was in the under-matriculate category.
Since this is a Supreme Court order, its implications could, if I may be allowed a malapropism, percolate upwards. So will there be no more Pakori Lals? To have the best educated represent us is a wonderful idea. However, democracy is not a pre-defined state of perfection but an endless fight for it. The British, when allowing some adult franchise in India in 1935, put such minimum qualifications, that only 3.5 crore, or 20 per cent of the then adult population, had the right to vote--just a sixth of them women. Ambedkar’s wonderful Constitution junked all these.
The result is 65 years of almost uninterrupted democracy, our greatest joy despite its many embarrassing imperfections. Pakistan continued with the same elitist notion of who deserved to be elected and you can see how much good it did. It’s a fantasy Pakistani elites keep revisiting. Pervez Musharraf brought in graduation as minimum qualification for contesting in 2002 but, playing to the clergy, also said Madrassa sanads (diplomas) were equally good. This was dropped as proper elections followed after his departure. Similarly, Pakistan has experimented with barring those owing money to banks from contesting, with indifferent results.
In the latest order upholding the Haryana law which also bars those with unpaid loans to cooperative institutions and to electricity utility companies, the Supreme Court observes that all elections are expensive affairs. Therefore it is a sound presumption that one who is contesting for office should pay back her loans first or should not even think of public office. Fine moral argument. But wouldn’t you rather make it first with champion defaulter Vijay Mallya in Rajya Sabha and then go to a Dalit woman who borrowed to buy a buffalo that then died prematurely of anthrax?
This law is an insult to Haryanvis by a political class that has failed them. It is the richest large state in India in terms of per capita incomes, but has shameful social indicators, beginning with the lowest gender ratio, a criminal 879. Its literacy rate, particularly among the women, is abysmal. It is a land of widespread female infanticide, ruled by Khap Panchayats that no top elected leader dares to question, and where sundry babas declare themselves gods and run their vast empires, occasionally from jail, as with that Rampal Maharaj fellow from Hisar.
A rich state has failed to provide you the basics of literacy and hygiene and would now disenfranchise you for it. To me, once again, it is a reminder of that great “Sala main toh sahib ban gaya” Dilip Kumar song in Sagina (Tapan Sinha, 1974) and particularly the line: “tum langoti wala na badla hai na badlega, tum sub kala log ki kismat hum saala badlega” (you loin-cloth types haven’t changed and won’t, but now, watch how I turn your fortunes). I am conscious of the dangers of getting carried away, but this is the mindset you may have sanctified, Your Lordships, with the best of intentions, of course.
I said early on I was going to steal the lines from a younger, more audacious and scholarly person and hide behind her. She is Arpita Phukan Biswas, a brilliant sociologist and PhD scholar at IIT-Powai. In a series of tweets this morning (@Arpitapb) she raised questions on this judgment, like only education giving us the power of discriminating between good and bad, and administrative skill being a pre-requisite for public representation and. She used the hashtag #Trumpaway. Now will I be so reckless as to suggest this order reflects a Donald Trump view of society? I’d rather hide behind her and say that she said so.
Twitter: @ShekharGupta
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
