Writing in another time, when the British empire was not near collapse, and when the new idea of communism that arose in Russia was yet to mesmerise a generation of British writers and intellectuals, i.e. when the self-confidence of the Briton was intact, E.M. Forster expressed a large thought that was not in service of empire.
If I have to choose between betraying my friend and betraying my country, God give me strength to betray my country, said the English writer whose A Passage to India is justly regarded as a classic.
If Forster’s famous novel is any indication of his thinking, then his idea of friendship would cut across frontiers of race, religion, class, or colour. This meant that commitments of solidarity and heart-felt sympathy could not be limited by such bounds, and had to be universal in character in order to have meaning.
So when the writer prayed for strength to betray his country if needed, he was not entertaining traitorous thoughts. All he was doing was avoiding yielding to the idea of narrow nationalism of any variety. Through the idea of friendship, he was seeking to explore a greater human ideal or theme.
This was humanist thought simply expressed, not unlike a Sufi song. In their own ways, Gandhi and Tagore, and Nehru and Mandela, spoke of the same thing. Three of these, it needs to be remembered, were outright politicians though they were also stalwart thinkers and writers. Rabindranath Tagore was a great poet-writer and artist who did not retire to the caves for inspiration but kept the company of politicians, such as Gandhi and Nehru, who expressed large ideas of politics to unite their people.
In the light of historical evidence of a half century or more, we can see that societies and countries, especially ancient societies and countries such as India which are replete with community diversities, suffer in their nation-building efforts, and therefore also in their effort to drive their economy forward, when they deviate from humanist universalism and get into the alleyways of chauvinism of one kind or another. Such deviation is typically attended by narrow loyalty-building, or pandering to such unworthy sentiments for reasons of electoral politics.
Regrettably, this has been the case in this country for some years. The result has been fierce infighting within the social system, involving different sections of society. This is frequently accompanied by socially sanctioned community violence against individuals or communities seen as rivals, or public institutions and symbols of the state. Mutual mistrust among sections of the people — along the lines of caste, religion or region — becomes a regular feature of life in such circumstances.
Acceptance of these attitudes inimical to social advance is sought to be promoted through the framing of issues in terms of identity politics alone. We should recall that dividing the country into identity blocks and framing differentiated policy for each with a view to perpetuating social animus and division was a part of the colonial agenda (not just in India) and was broadly given the name of “divide and rule” by its opponents.
It was the diligent implementation of such an agenda that led to the Partition of India supervised by British colonialists as the final act in their retreat from the subcontinent. The carrying forward of the same agenda in the post-colonial era can only testify to the short-sightedness of the leaders of our day.
When “small politics” on these lines plays out, the nation does not gain. Those belonging to historically deprived identity categories remain sufferers or gain only marginally. Usually, it is their leaders who make significant gains in terms of wealth, access to power, and negotiating positions within the political universe, and seek to transfer these benefits chiefly to their family. National elan suffers as a consequence.
The expansion of the national economy leads in such situations to attempts to corner benefits by anyone with clout, typically provincial satraps in states, who are often products of identity politics. It doesn’t stop there. Virtual robber baronies have been created in state after state. The rule of law is subverted in order to facilitate loot from the treasury, or dispensing of favours to those who are in a position offer substantial kickbacks in diverse ways.
This is the allegation against Jagan Mohan Reddy and his late father Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, B.S. Yeddyurappa in Karnataka and a host of leading politicians of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Tamil Nadu. When chieftains produced through processes linked to identity politics of caste, region and religion cross a certain threshold of power, they begin to challenge the national Centre, often through the false invocation of their constitutional due under the mandated scheme of Centre-state relations.
West Bengal and Gujarat are particular examples of this trend. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, through accretion of enormous power by crafty exploitation of the communal Hindu card and through efficient servicing of the interests of big industry at the expense of social indices and the poor, even shows signs of having outgrown his party. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has propagated regional victimhood to entrench herself and undermine civil society. In these sorts of cases, the first casualty is democracy. It is replaced by populism and demagoguery.
Interestingly, of late the accretion of power by strong regional politicians fattened on identity politics has been sought to be endorsed by some as the building of a “state-nation” in contradistinction to the earlier idea of “nation-state”. But this does not rescue the identity syndrome from being “small politics” and its practitioners small-time politicians.
Big idea politics faded with the first generation of national leaders who successfully gave us a growth rate of 3.5 per cent after a half century of negative growth in the last phase of colonial rule, and national unity and purpose besides. That outlook is under distinct threat today. The pity is that the Congress, the Left and the BJP have also become servants of “small politics” for election gains.