Post-Jantar Mantar, can we expect transformation from an autocratic system to a democratic one?

By Ram Puniyani* 

The multiple protests at Jantar Mantar have shaken our body politic to no end. While the Cockroach Janta Party precipitated the series of protests, the underlying resistance to government suppression has been deeply painful for society. Although the protests appeared to be centred on paper leaks, serious lapses in the social and political system provided the foundation for the protests to assume the form they did. The reported orders for pellet guns and firearms brought an element of total revulsion. The issue became so serious that the ruling government’s major leaders, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, did not dare to attend Parliament’s session. Instead, they hid behind the make-believe façade of the Opposition supposedly preventing discussion in the House.

The protests had three broad and somewhat distinct poles: the Cockroaches, the Left-oriented youth, and Congress-led protests. Their outcome was remarkable. The atmosphere of fear created by the regime—which has been best described as an “elected autocracy”—had long been used to suppress protests and criticism of government policies by labelling dissenters “anti-national” and employing state power against them whenever possible. Human-rights activists have been suppressed by all means available. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, being in jail for over six years without trial, represent a case study of the state of human rights in India. The arrests of activists and intellectuals in the Bhima Koregaon case are another reflection of the same tendency. The institutional death of Fr. Stan Swamy demonstrates the cruelty of the system.

After the protests, the pall of inhibition seems to have been lifted. Protests by what is being called Gen Alpha are spreading to different places. While the Godi media remains largely unchanged, social media platforms—Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook—seem to have moved forward in their role as mirrors of society.

The regime initially responded by labelling the entire spectacle as being sponsored by “anti-nationals,” terrorists and other familiar epithets used by authoritarian regimes. But the intensity of the protests was such that the RSS, the parent organisation of the BJP, along with the Bajrang Dal and others, changed its language and attempted to present itself as a champion of the right to protest. Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief, went to the extent of organising a meeting with around 2,000 Gen Z participants and speaking to them about the virtues of democracy.

Interestingly, during this meeting, someone asked him why the RSS had not hoisted the tricolour for 52 years after Independence. He diverted the question by recounting an incident related to the tricolour at an Indian National Congress convention and thereby managed to avoid the uncomfortable question. Fortunately, there was no one in the audience to ask him why the RSS had burnt an effigy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. His followers are nevertheless celebrating the meeting as a great example of democracy.

His followers have also invoked the idea of the “grammar of anarchy” to describe protests that can upset the applecart of the ruling dispensation. One recalls that, until now, major protests against government policies have generally been suppressed, ignored or bypassed by the RSS family.

The farmers’ movement was largely ignored. Nearly 600 farmers lost their lives before the government withdrew the three farm laws, largely for electoral reasons. The case of the Shaheen Bagh protests is even more painful. The protests were ignored and demonised, while communal violence was orchestrated in a manner that helped divert attention from the movement. One also recalls the JNU protests, which were suppressed and demonised through the “tukde-tukde gang” narrative, alongside attempts to change the character of the university and turn it into a right-wing institution.

The ideology of the RSS, centred on the idea of a Hindu Rashtra, has little place for democratic ethos, in which dialogue with dissenters is the norm rather than something undertaken only when it becomes unavoidable—as appears to be the case with Bhagwat’s recent approach. The very concept of nationalism based on religion is at odds with the democratic ethos. The RSS opposed the democratic Constitution from its beginning, emerging as it did from the feudal remnants of colonial society, and continues to emphasise hierarchy at different levels.

While caste and gender hierarchies have received considerable attention, economic hierarchy has become increasingly manifest, particularly through what critics see as open support for crony capitalists and the upper layers of society during the last twelve years. Expecting a democratic ethos from such an ideology, or from those upholding this form of nationalism, therefore remains deeply problematic.

Can we expect democratic resistance and a transformation from an autocratic system to a democratic one—one that upholds the Indian Constitution and the values of secularism, democracy and inclusive nationalism?

At present, the erosion of democratic institutions and the restoration of democratic norms in society appear to be major challenges that need to be confronted. The protests that began at Jantar Mantar have gripped the country because the basic problems of ordinary people have been suppressed for too long. While many winds of fresh air are blowing, the deeper rot brought about by Hindu nationalism runs much deeper. Hatred against Muslims and Christians has become fairly well rooted.

The penetration of RSS workers and influence into institutions is also a serious concern, as seen, according to critics, in the Election Commission, the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the bureaucracy, the police, and, of course, universities and educational institutions. These trends can be reversed, but doing so will require a long process of recovering the pluralistic Indian culture that developed through diverse layers of communities living and interacting with one another in relative harmony. As Jawaharlal Nehru described it, this layered civilisation was central to the idea of India. It reached an admirable expression during the freedom movement, but has been deeply undermined by a century of RSS activity that has spread widely and penetrated deeply.

It is therefore a matter of great relief that these protests have helped dissipate the atmosphere of fear. They may, in time, help bind Indians together in the way the freedom movement once did. The question we face now is how to restore political power to parties committed to the Indian Constitution. While appreciating the present atmosphere, in which people can once again breathe more freely, the larger challenge remains that of confronting the communal capture of the state.

The next step is extremely difficult but crucial if we are to restore the “Idea of India” that emerged from the freedom movement. We need to salute the youth who have broken through an atmosphere of inhibition and, at the same time, think seriously about what needs to be done at the electoral level.

---

*Political commentator