Avoid measurnig the new lok Sabha through the prism of caste, religion or regional composition
The 16th lok Sabha is unlike any preceding lok Sabha, in many ways, small and big. That however, is another story. The important thing is that the way of looking at the lok Sabha certainly seems to be in the need for some change.
It is not going to come easy because the mental constructs of analysis have been ingrained over decades of practice. No easy answers are possible. A word in explanation will help focus on the argument.
It is natural to look at the composition of the lok Sabha or even the Union Cabinet and ask whether there is anyone from one’s own sub-caste, caste, religion, region or State.
However, everything which is natural and understandable does not necessarily become the right, suo motu. The manner in which the issues are formulated and debated also go a long in making for positivism.
The trouble is further compounded when identity politics is carried by the hot air balloon of prejudices and popular rhetoric. In other words, when prejudices for or against a situation, aided by the gift of the gab, raise decibels of noise which are not only capable of drowning other voices but also create a false impression of huge base, then the danger and the damage are compounded.
It also prevents the birth and growth of alternate paradigms, which may help the growth of a more robust nation. For decades, the Congress practiced tokenism in sensitive matters of religion, caste and more. Questions such as, how many minorities are in the Cabinet, or how may followers of religion X, Y and Z are in the Cabinet, or, what is the caste equation in the Cabinet have no place. And similar investigations of this type are essentially divisive constructs, even if drummed up in the name of inclusiveness.
The matter doesn’t end there. Banal divisive constructs, carried by prejudiced rhetoric, becomes more subtle and less pertinent depending upon whose cause the commentator wishes to serve.
UPA2 had no Minister from Bihar. It didn’t seem to bother anyone, not even the Biharis. Of the two Bihar MPs who were popularly elected, one was installed as the Speaker of the lok Sabha and the other was packed off as a Governor. Somebody could have been included from the Rajya Sabha from Bihar in the Union Cabinet but it didn’t happen.
Now, suddenly with the new BJP-led NDA Government coming to power, commentary is flourishing on who has not been included and who should have been included in the Modi administration.
If no minister from a particular State has made it to the Cabinet, and that is considered important, there are ways of handling it in a democratic system. Similarly, to keep asking how many minorities are there or what is the nature of the regional composition, queers the pitch of public discourse.
It cannot be a flaw to have a view at Cabinet formation which transcends these stereotypes.
The new Prime Minister, like all Prime Ministers, has his hands full with contentious issues, problems and the realities of a power game. But surely, if he attempts to pole vault through all this in his own style, and gets lampooned in the process, then others have a question to answer.
The question is of responding to perennial demands for change; exasperation with the banalities of the prevailing system and yet when faced with the option of moving things forward, having a compulsive urge to going back to business as usual.
Whether one likes Mr Modi or not, the issues at hand are bigger than any individual or even a collection of individuals. The threatening inefficiencies of the banking system, the atmospherics of a tehsil office where chaos is tolerated like the inevitable sweat; the quasi trained drivers at the wheels of heavy vehicles tearing down the road, may not get the headlines like statements on Article 370, but the corrosiveness is huge and affects everyone across caste, creed, religion and region.
We have put up with much of this with incredible inanity and with patience that cannot be explained. We now have an option to set things right. It is the future of all of us, which stands at a crossroads. We owe ourselves a chance.