When Abraham Lincoln said that “democracy is for the people, by the people, to the people,” he must not have thought how modern democracies would shape themselves in the future ahead. Democracy, as a concept, was introduced to the world primarily out of the French Revolution. With time, nations around the globe fought to gain Independence from the powers that were ruling them and went on to adopt different systems of governance.
India, after a long struggle for freedom that involved both peace and bloodshed, gained its independence from the colonial power and adopted a federal form of democracy. Countries like Pakistan, China who also gained independence in the same year, or a year up and down, chose other forms of governance. Pakistan leaned towards a military dictatorship from democracy whereas China adopted a communist form of governance.
Dissent In Indian Democracy
Indians should be proud of their rich cultural diversity and its democracy that makes us shine at a global platform. The fact that India has continued to keep intact its fundamentals of democracy is what makes this nation unique. Citizens continue to choose their leaders by the right to vote the constitution of India gives to them without any discrimination.
One of the most important pillars of democracy is dissent. The Indian holds a rich history of dissent since its inception. Time and again, this dissent has given many leaders to the nation. Even when a government has full majority in the Parliament, this weapon of dissent with the citizens is a way for them to get their voices heard to the rulers. Whether it was Mrs Indira Gandhi, the only women prime minister of the nation to date, or Mr Narendra Modi, both of them have had to face this dissent during their tenure.
However, the trend that has been observed in the last 4-5 years is a matter of concern for those who believe in Indian democracy. Many new terms have been coined in this period. People’s mandate has always been considered supreme in Indian democracy, however, the pinching truth is that a section of the society driven by their agenda were the ones who started this name-calling. They coined terms for all those who voted for a party that is presently at power in the centre in India as “Bhakts”.
The term denotes the frustration of the group who never wanted a person/party to rule this nation. The counter to this term by those who were termed as “Bhakts” came out with a word that is not just broke the modesty of the democracy but was wrong in all sense addressing them as “Anti-nationals”. No one gives any right to any individual of the society to question someone’s patriotism for the motherland, as patriotism is a sense which may or may not be expressed and its expression varies from person to person. It is the constitutional right of every citizen of the nation to criticize the government at points where they sense that government is wrong. However, in the past 5-6 years, support and criticism both have become a part of the agenda and baseless.
A group/part/section of the society has been infected by the deadly virus of Selective Criticism. This virus has got down to their nerves this badly that for the sake of selective criticism they at times choose to stand even against the nation. The case could be explained well in the present context as, a group being all silent on the acts of Tablighi jamaat members, but, they were all vocal on the gatherings outside any temple or any other place. The silence of this selective criticism gang on the incidents of violence with the medical team and police personnel highlighted their nature of criticism. As an individual when they are all vocal about the atrocities on a particular religion, their complete silence when the same is done with someone with different religion makes their criticism a subject to agenda and criticism. I firmly agree that in the past few years there has been an attempt to play with the social fabric of the country cannot of justified in all sense. As an individual and a true nation lover, I am concerned about the lockdown the people of Jammu and Kashmir but when I see an individual posting on a social media platform cursing the government for the troubles of citizens in the northernmost state of India and their deliberate choice of the word of “Kashmir” rather them “Jammu and Kashmir” makes their concern questionable. The misguided path on which people infected with the virus of selective criticism are on makes them believe that all the violence, riots, calamities and disasters are the result of the past 5 years only, in the same way, a misguided and misinformed section of the society believes that all the development has been done in the past 5 years only. Both the groups are wrong and any act done by them cannot be justified in any way. When one chooses to remain all silent on the barbaric deaths of two saints at Palghar, Maharashtra and were all vocal and boiled up on the heinous act of death of Akhlaq Ahmed then this sort of criticism is an equally concerning a threat to the social fabric in the same when the other group chooses to remain silent and celebrating the second one.
We as individuals of a nation that has 9 practicing religion, more than 19,500 languages spoken as mother tongue over 1000 of cuisines and a multiple cultures yet believing in the mantra of “Unity in Diversity” in our constitution have been given fundamental duties along with the rights we enjoy as citizens. The only parameter that can truly judge our love for the land can be our approach towards our responsibilities to this nation. It is upon us to keep the thread of unity intact to maintain peace and harmony and with all the existing challenges that are in front of us to protect the social fabric of our nation the virus of ” Selective Criticism” is one such threat to this diverse nation. There is a wall built by patriots who are concerned about the social fabric of the country and it prevents extremists from both the side to ruin the peace and harmony of the nation. The day people who have made this wall write back or speak out to the thoughts of the selective criticism, the wall falls. Therefore the next time when anyone chooses to be vocal on the agenda that suits him and silent on the other they must think whether they are contributing to breaking the wall or not.