debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (03/09/85)
> > Here is a letter from an American-born professor who was in India > at the time of the last elections. You all might find it of interest. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > India and the U S > > Sir, - As a political scientist - with the University of Washington - > on my first visit to India, I have been amazed to witness at first > hand, the virility and maturity of Indian democracy in the general > elections. ... Give me a break! Does this guy have any idea of what factors influence joe villager's vote? Weighty non-issues such as the candidate's religion, caste, community, mother tongue, and whether or not he pees facing the wind are all important factors; thugs passing for "student leaders" are at their persuasive best (count how many candidates died in pre-election violence these recent assembly elections); and booth-capturing is common enough to merit but passing mention in newspapers (yes, the last parliamentary elections were remarkably free of this, but that, to me, speaks of good organization, not necessarily of political maturity). As an Indian, I'm proud of the fact that India is the world's largest democracy, and a functioning democracy at that, despite all its poverty. But it irks me that Indira Gandhi's defeat in the 1977 elections is seen by some pundits as some sort of victory of Democracy and The Forces of Light over Tyranny and The Forces of Darkness: she lost because nasbandhi wasn't a hit with the people ... but you don't have to look at profound ideologies for that, people can become surprisingly recalcitrant when threatened with forcible sterilization! Mrs. G. actually did pretty well in the South, where Sanjay Gandhi's N-point programmes hadn't been quite so harshly implemented. I'm especially flabbergasted at talk of "political maturity" when political nonentities like Amitabh Bachhan win landslide victories over veterans like H N Bahuguna and Chandra Sekhar. Whither maturity when the only factors that matter are a celluloid reality and caste and party stickers? -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray CSNet: debray@sbcs
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/11/85)
> > > > Here is a letter from an American-born professor who was in India > > at the time of the last elections. You all might find it of interest. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > India and the U S > > > > Sir, - As a political scientist - with the University of Washington - > > on my first visit to India, I have been amazed to witness at first > > hand, the virility and maturity of Indian democracy in the general > > elections. ... > > Give me a break! Does this guy have any idea of what factors influence joe > villager's vote? Weighty non-issues such as the candidate's religion, caste, > community, mother tongue, and whether or not he pees facing the wind are > all important factors; thugs passing for "student leaders" are at their > persuasive best (count how many candidates died in pre-election violence > these recent assembly elections); and booth-capturing is common enough to > merit but passing mention in newspapers (yes, the last parliamentary > elections were remarkably free of this, but that, to me, speaks of good > organization, not necessarily of political maturity). > > As an Indian, I'm proud of the fact that India is the world's largest > democracy, and a functioning democracy at that, despite all its poverty. > But it irks me that Indira Gandhi's defeat in the 1977 elections is seen by > some pundits as some sort of victory of Democracy and The Forces of Light > over Tyranny and The Forces of Darkness: she lost because nasbandhi wasn't > a hit with the people ... but you don't have to look at profound ideologies > for that, people can become surprisingly recalcitrant when threatened with > forcible sterilization! Mrs. G. actually did pretty well in the > South, where Sanjay Gandhi's N-point programmes hadn't been quite so > harshly implemented. > > I'm especially flabbergasted at talk of "political maturity" when political > nonentities like Amitabh Bachhan win landslide victories over veterans like > H N Bahuguna and Chandra Sekhar. Whither maturity when the only factors > that matter are a celluloid reality and caste and party stickers? > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook > > uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray > CSNet: debray@sbcs Does it occur to you that every one of your arguments applies equally well to this country and Reagan? Lots of Americans feel Reagan lacks "political maturity", and that his forte is that he is able to create an illusory "TV reality" much like the "celluloid reality" that you speak of. But that is no reason to say that this country is not democratic! What about the reaction here to Jesse Jackson's candidacy? Were you not flabbergasted at the racist reactions that were so overt at times? How about the reaction to Gerry Ferraro? Do you doubt that many did not vote for her simply because she was a woman? Were you then equally flabbergasted coming from India where we have no such biases? Are you not aware that a Roman Catholic running for president here starts with a severe handicap because most of the voting public is Protestant? Other societies may not have a caste system like ours does, but that is not to say that bigotry and bias are absent. In our country, political stakes are much higher than here because there is so much less to go around, and we lack the resources to get everything right. Do you seriously believe that thugs in this country would NOT capture voting booths if they thought they could get away with it? Is the attitude of thugs an index of "political maturity"? Or, are you suggesting that the actions of thugs in India has the sanction of the voting masses? Sure, Mrs. G did well in many parts of India in '77. But that is because people don't always vote for Freedom and the Higher Truth; there are always other exigencies. Many Americans may not have liked the fact that Reagan imposed restrictions on the press in Grenada and that he wants to run lie-detector tests on government officials, but they still probably voted for him, simply because they thought he had what was most needed at that point. The point of a democracy is simply that the people have the CHOICE of electing whom THEY want, whether or not it jibes well with your (or anybody else's point of view). Besides, "political maturity" can only be judged in the context of a specific environment: A lot of people think this country has a very immature voting population; besides, they have biases against Catholics, women and minorities. But would you say that the vitality in the democracy is illusory? Does it make you clamour for a "break"?
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/12/85)
> > I'm especially flabbergasted at talk of "political maturity" when political > nonentities like Amitabh Bachhan win landslide victories over veterans like > H N Bahuguna and Chandra Sekhar. Whither maturity when the only factors > that matter are a celluloid reality and caste and party stickers? > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook > > uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray > CSNet: debray@sbcs Right on, Saumya Debray !! You are hereby classified as a Type 3 Indian by our friend Ravi @ Wisconsin. I agree with you, but I cringed a lot when you mention H. N. Bahuguna as a veteran. Given the choice to me, I would have been quite lost. Bahuguna is a veteran alright : at every dirty game that exists in politics in India. It was my great 'fortune' to be living next to a gentleman in Lucknow, U.P. who was known as one of the most dangerous anti-social elements in the city. He controlled practically all of the liquor , tire and bussing business in the city, openly bragged (to the neighbors, including me) of having killed 7 of his business and other opponents. And he happened to be Bahuguna's personal henchman during his term as Chief Minister of UP. His access to Bahuguna was direct, and the stories that I have heard from him about the kind of violent games played in UP politics were the reason I felt thrilled no end when I learnt Amitabh Bachhan had defeated him. So now we'll have violent games on celluloid. Wow, what a choice ! Incidentally, I have kept tabs on this neighbor of mine. He was shot about two years back by the brother of a guy whom he had killed. He survived, though. I am told, currently he is a strong supporter of Cong(I), has the current chief minister in his pocket, is a millionare and was recently honored as Model Citizen of Lucknow by the local merchants. Kulbir Arora
sk@duke.UUCP (Sanjaya Kumar) (03/12/85)
>> >> Here is a letter from an American-born professor who was in India >> at the time of the last elections. You all might find it of interest. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> India and the U S >> >> Sir, - As a political scientist - with the University of Washington - >> on my first visit to India, I have been amazed to witness at first >> hand, the virility and maturity of Indian democracy in the general >> elections. ... > >Give me a break! Does this guy have any idea of what factors influence joe >villager's vote? Weighty non-issues such as the candidate's religion, caste, >community, mother tongue, and whether or not he pees facing the wind are >all important factors; Who is to say which issues are weighty and which are not?For an Indian villager, hounded by the upper castes to give up his 3 acres, or forced to walk 20 miles for the nearest water supply other than the upper caste well, maybe the caste of the candidate he supports is far more important than the "weighty" issue of whether Rajiv supports Reagan's plan for a Star Wars defence system or not. Even in a western democracy such as Canada the mother-tongue of a candidate may influence his chances for being elected. Why not in India ? >But it irks me that Indira Gandhi's defeat in the 1977 elections is seen by >some pundits as some sort of victory of Democracy and The Forces of Light >over Tyranny and The Forces of Darkness: she lost because nasbandhi wasn't >a hit with the people ... but you don't have to look at profound ideologies >for that, people can become surprisingly recalcitrant when threatened with >forcible sterilization! Mrs. G. actually did pretty well in the >South, where Sanjay Gandhi's N-point programmes hadn't been quite so >harshly implemented. > People didn't like what she had done and she hadn't delivered what she had promised, so they voted her out. Isn't that the essence of Democracy? I for one, don't need any profound ideology to see that. And if it is perceived as a "victory of Democracy ...", well, it was. >I'm especially flabbergasted at talk of "political maturity" when political >nonentities like Amitabh Bachhan win landslide victories over veterans like >H N Bahuguna and Chandra Sekhar. Whither maturity when the only factors >that matter are a celluloid reality and caste and party stickers? >Saumya Debray >SUNY at Stony Brook > Why does a lawyer-turned-politician deserve one's vote more than a film-actor? Mr Bahuguna has, at one time or another, been a member of just about every political party in India except the Communists before forming one of his own. Given a choice between him and Mr Bachhan, I would certainly have voted for Mr Bachhan. At the very least, you can be sure he won't be bribed, and maybe he will bring some extra attention (and therfore funds) to your district. After all, if the (presumably) "politically mature" people of North Carolina voted Sen. Jesse Helms into office, I'd Rather (pun intended) be politically immature anytime ! Sanjaya Kumar Duke University Durham, NC
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (03/12/85)
>> [My article claiming that the Indian populace is not very mature politically, despite what is claimed.] > > Does it occur to you that every one of your arguments applies equally well > to this country and Reagan? Rather irrelevant, isn't it? I was talking about India. > But that is no reason to say that this country is not democratic! No, and I don't recall saying that India wasn't democratic either. In fact, a paragraph from my original article begins: >> As an Indian, I'm proud of the fact that India is the world's largest >> democracy, and a functioning democracy at that, despite all its poverty. > What about the reaction here to Jesse Jackson's candidacy? Were you > not flabbergasted at the racist reactions that were so overt at times? To be honest, I was. But again, I don't see how relevant that is. One big gripe I have about the Indian voter is his tendency to deify leaders. That happened with Indira Gandhi and MGR, and may very well have been a factor in the landslide victories of screen personalities like Amitabh Bachchan and Vyjayantimala (don't tell me about Reagan, he was governor of California for a long time before he came to Washington DC. What was Vyjanantimala doing before being elected to parliament - putting makeup on before a shooting session?!). The problem here is that since gods are by definition benevolent, these people can get away with a lot of shady doings with nary a spot on the escutcheon. It's only in extreme circumstances, as with Mrs. G in 1977, that the image tarnishes, and even then often only temporarily. This leads to a false perception of reality, which to me doesn't smack of political maturity at all. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray CSNet: debray@sbcs
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/12/85)
> > > > Right on, Saumya Debray !! You are hereby classified as a Type 3 Indian by > our friend Ravi @ Wisconsin. > .... etc....... > [ Kulbir S. Arora ] Could we have less ad-hominem discussions please? Things invariably tend to get out of hand once someone starts this sort of thing.
prem@eagle.UUCP (Swami Devanbu) (03/12/85)
> I'm especially flabbergasted at talk of "political maturity" when political > nonentities like Amitabh Bachhan win landslide victories over veterans like > H N Bahuguna and Chandra Sekhar. Whither maturity when the only factors > that matter are a <<celluloid reality>> and caste and party stickers? > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook True, true, Sri Debray. I am also hopelessly underwhelmed when the world's most powerful democracy elects a former movie actor (who falls asleep at defence policy cabinet meetings, and is prompted by his wife at press briefings) as president. And don't tell me that his opponents were not seasoned, well qualified politicians. Arey Yaar. The US deserves much praise for the vitality of its democracy. Yet its voting public is not invulnerable to a well orchestrated, well-funded, comprehensive media blitz that carefully builds personality cult around an accomplished show man. And what Reagan can do, does Amitabh not have the talent to pull off ...? And who can fault him, or his voters for it ? Both India and the US have fallen prey (in love ?) with the silver (phospor ?) screen. So blame the coterie that controls the media and obfuscates the minds of the people. Don't blame the public.
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/12/85)
> > > > Give me a break! Does this guy have any idea of what factors influence joe > > villager's vote? Weighty non-issues such as the candidate's religion, > > ................... > > I'm especially flabbergasted at talk of "political maturity" when political > > nonentities like Amitabh Bachhan win landslide victories over veterans like > > H N Bahuguna and Chandra Sekhar. Whither maturity when the only factors > > that matter are a celluloid reality and caste and party stickers? > > -- > > Saumya Debray > > SUNY at Stony Brook > > > > uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray > > CSNet: debray@sbcs > > > Does it occur to you that every one of your arguments applies equally well > to this country and Reagan? Lots of Americans feel Reagan lacks "political > maturity", and that his forte is that he is able to create an illusory "TV > .......... Ravi, the trouble with your argumentation method is you ASSUME stances which haven't been stated. I will not defend Saumya Debray, I am sure he can do an excellent job of it himself. However, WHAT ON EARTH MADE YOU ASSUME THAT HE IMPLIED U.S. IS BETTER THAN INDIA ? That is a fabrication of your own mind and your entire argument is based on that !! As I understood it, all that Saumya Debray said was that democracy in India is still infantile, the masses have yet to totally comprehend their rights and responsibilities, and that verbose praises of such a situation are quite meaningless. Where was he comparing with the U.S. ? Maybe I'm wrong....let's wait and see what Saumya has to say about this. Anyway, since you started comparing the U.S. and Indian democracies, let me take issue with you on some of your observations. You talk about the american electorate being as prejudiced as the indian one. Again, that's the incorrect dimension for comparison. Give me one human being without biases and prejudices. All of us, within the confines of our homes have our pet prejudices, opinions whatever. The question is how do we let these biases affect the way we function in a society ? There is a difference between the situation of a protestant father refusing to let his daughter marry ,say a Catholic; and the situation of that same protestant refusing to hire a Catholic for his company. The former situation is not a crime by law one way or the other as long as the father and daughter settle the issue within the confines of their home. The latter situation is a crime by law and punishable. Distinguishing between these two situations, accepting them and conducting oneself within this framework is the duty of all aware citizens of a democracy. The very fact that we are a society assumes we have accepted the fact we cannot function alone, we will accept differences which do not impede co-existence and reject ones that do. Using this dimension, there is no question that the U.S, democracy is functioning better than the Indian one. That is not surprising and neither is it an indictment of the Indian situation. Our constitutions have much in common, but we're just about 40 years old whereas the U.S. democracy has over two centuries logged in. As a matter of fact, the parallels between early american history and India today are remarkable. The kind of narrow-mindedness pointed out by Saumya Debray existed in the U.S. during the nineteenth century. I am quite optimistic about the way the Indian democracy is evolving. However, it'll help us to look at what's WRONG today, rather than be jingoistic about ourselves. Whatever the prejudices of an American, more often than not, his decisions outside of his home are based on functionality rather than race, religion caste etc. That isn't true of an Indian. But we're getting there. In the meantime, does it not behove us to be introspective (in the true Eastern spirit) rather than be jingoistic and slogan-shouting ?? Kulbir Arora
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (03/13/85)
crystal!ravi: > Could we have less ad-hominem discussions please? Things invariably tend to > get out of hand once someone starts this sort of thing. A motion heartily seconded! -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray CSNet: debray@sbcs
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/14/85)
> > > > > > > Right on, Saumya Debray !! You are hereby classified as a Type 3 Indian by > > our friend Ravi @ Wisconsin. > > Could we have less ad-hominem discussions please? Things invariably tend to > get out of hand once someone starts this sort of thing. I couldn't resist that ! I agree, though, that such things should be avoided. My apologies. Kulbir Arora
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/14/85)
> >> [My article claiming that the Indian populace is not very mature > politically, despite what is claimed.] > > > > Does it occur to you that every one of your arguments applies equally well > > to this country and Reagan? > > Rather irrelevant, isn't it? I was talking about India. No it is not. It makes the point that what may be perceived as a fault in the Indian system (and often presented as such), is really more or less a property of the system we call "democracy". When people are given the right to freedom, they will tend to do as they please. To ensure that people's rights are not infringed either by the government or by anti-social elements not only presents hard ethical/moral questions, it is also requires tremendous resources. (Just compare the equipment of the average American police to that of the Indian police, or the resources spent here on the legal system to that spent back home.) A lot of the problems back home arise from lack of resources, not out of faults with the system or the electorate. It is unfair to sneer at the problems in India's democracy; one is also invariably sneering at India's poverty. > One big gripe I have about the Indian voter is his tendency to deify > leaders. That happened with Indira Gandhi and MGR, and may very well have > been a factor in the landslide victories of screen personalities like > Amitabh Bachchan and Vyjayantimala (don't tell me about Reagan, he was > governor of California for a long time before he came to Washington DC. > What was Vyjanantimala doing before being elected to parliament - putting > makeup on before a shooting session?!). The problem here is that since > gods are by definition benevolent, these people can get away with a lot of > shady doings with nary a spot on the escutcheon. It's only in extreme > circumstances, as with Mrs. G in 1977, that the image tarnishes, and even > then often only temporarily. This leads to a false perception of reality, > which to me doesn't smack of political maturity at all. > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook Reagan wasn't born governor of California; he was a B-grade actor who was elected to political office at some point. The point, again, is surely not engage in a discussion of which system is "better" (I think we have agreed that all systems have their faults, and that American democracy is no "better" than any other, including our own). Every population that is given the privelege of a free ballot can be both inspired as well as asinine. The issue under discussion is our attitude. Americans take a more positive attitude: When a B-grade actor attains the highest political office in the land, they see a renewal of the promise of opportunity, that anyone may acheive anything here. (They call it the fulfilment of the American Dream.) Why do we take a different attitude? We laugh at ourselves, and call the voting population idiots! Also, the "vitality" of a democracy must be judged not by whether the choice of the electorate meets our criteria; it must be judged by the extent and vigour of the electorate's involvement with the democratic process. By this criterion, I submit that our democracy has far more "vitality" than the democracy here does!
prasad@cavell.UUCP (Prasad Srirangapatna) (03/15/85)
> > > > > > Sir, - As a political scientist - with the University of Washington - > > > on my first visit to India, I have been amazed to witness at first > > > hand, the virility and maturity of Indian democracy in the general > > > elections. ... > > > > Give me a break! Does this guy have any idea of what factors influence joe > > villager's vote? Weighty non-issues such as the candidate's religion, caste, > > community, mother tongue, and whether or not he pees facing the wind are > > all important factors; thugs passing for "student leaders" are at their > > persuasive best (count how many candidates died in pre-election violence > > these recent assembly elections); and booth-capturing is common enough to > > merit but passing mention in newspapers (yes, the last parliamentary > > elections were remarkably free of this, but that, to me, speaks of good > > organization, not necessarily of political maturity). > > > Does it occur to you that every one of your arguments applies equally well > to this country and Reagan? Lots of Americans feel Reagan lacks "political > maturity", and that his forte is that he is able to create an illusory "TV > reality" much like the "celluloid reality" that you speak of. But that is > no reason to say that this country is not democratic! What about the reaction > here to Jesse Jackson's candidacy? Were you not flabbergasted at the racist *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Sub: Indian Politics and Democracy It has become a cliche to claim that India is the most populous democracy in the world and to seek to show how much it has in common with that other great liberal democracy - the United States of America. On a superficial level it is, of course, perfectly possible to defend or deny this postulate depending upon one's inclinations. In its favour, India has a reprsentative parliament, an elected leader, an egalitarian constitution and elections every five years. And so does the U.S. Conclusion: two model democracies! On the other hand, we also have a largely illiterate and gullible electorate, self-serving politicians, a corrupt bureaucracy and an unproductive & mismanaged economy. If the U.S. cannot be faulted on any of these counts it has other damning attributes - street crime, violence and drug abuse etc. Evidence enough to conclude the hollowness of the democratic premise! More rationally speaking, however, it is short sighted to make judgements based on the symbolics trappings or otherwise of a political system. Election rhetoric, for example, can often be inane and designed to appeal to or appease emotional issues. But it should not be taken as a measure of how effective a democracy or how enlightened an electorate. It is sometimes meaningless to compare India to the U.S. given the vastly different socio-economic environments and to insist that what works in one set up should also work in the other. Ours is a relatively young democracy and it needs time to evolve and mature, and we need to adapt it to our socio-economic environment. There are, however, some constants. I believe that a true democracy is characterized by: 1. A real and perceived balance of power between the Executive and Legislative wings of the government. 2. An independent Judiciary. 3. A free press and broadcast media. 4. A honest and non-partisan bureaucracy. Present day Indian democracy leaves much to be desired on all four counts. Let us hope that the new leadership brings a refreshing and much-needed change in style to the country's political scene. 14 March 1985 S. Narayana Prasad prasad@cavell.UUCP
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/16/85)
> > Does it occur to you that every one of your arguments applies equally well > > to this country and Reagan? > > Rather irrelevant, isn't it? I was talking about India. > I think you're not addressing the issue here: either you can talk about democracy in a relative sense by comparing the US version and the Indian (assuming familiarity with both); or you can discuss democracy in the abstract. If you're doing the latter, you've come up against a fact of life: the world is not perfect. A perfect democracy will only work in a situation where all voters are perfect, unbiased, aware, fair, thoughtful, etc. But there is not one society in the world where this is true; in fact it is probably impossible for humans to be ideal democrats. So if you can sway the masses, you win elections. The conclusion might then be, as I've read somewhere, "Democracy is too important to be left to the people" :-) > shady doings with nary a spot on the escutcheon. It's only in extreme > circumstances, as with Mrs. G in 1977, that the image tarnishes, and even > then often only temporarily. This leads to a false perception of reality, The reason why Mrs. Gandhi came back to power is interesting: you had asserted previously that she lost in '77 because of compulsory sterilization. Why did the Janata party lose so badly so soon after? They werent sterilizing anybody. I think the reason they lost is that they were obvious incompetents. And if the people can make value judgements like that, I think they have a degree of political savvy. Might not be up to the standards of the well-educated, but adequate nonetheless. By the way, the average Indian voter's illiteracy does not disadvantage him much. How many average US voters do you know who get their political opinions by reading and not by watching slickly produced television commercials? -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (03/16/85)
Judging from some of the responses I've seen to my original article, it
seems that I hadn't expressed myself as clearly as I ought to have. Rather
than go into a line-by-line refutation of a line-by-line refutation of my
article, therefore, I'll simply try to define what I mean by the phrase
"political maturity", and see how this applies to India; I'll then briefly
touch upon (i) the relevance of this to Indian democracy, and (ii) the
relevance of the political maturity of the American voter to that of the
Indian voter.
Assume that in an election, the voter's choice is based on his perception
of the effect, on his well-being, of the electoral victory of the various
candidates. Then, I take the phrase "political maturity" to be indicative
of the extent to which this perception tallies with reality.
It's a fact that in Indian politics, factors like religion, caste and
language play a very important role (what are the chances, do you think, of
a Bengali MP being elected from Assam?). One of the responses to my
article tried to defend this by saying that because of the oppression of
the lower castes by the higher, a Harijan might be justified in voting on
the basis of the candidates' caste. My contention is that whatever the
historical facts might be, broad generalizations such as "SCs will look
after my interests", or "Brahmins will oppress me", are inapplicable to
individuals. I know -- and I'm sure you do, too -- of enough exceptions,
either way, to make such generalizations meaningless in specific
situations. Therefore, when a person votes for a candidate because the
candidate belongs to a particular caste, speaks a particular language,
practises a particular religion, or prefers spaghetti to lasagna, rather
than his attitudes, stands on specific issues of concern to the electorate
and capacity to better their quality of life, he makes a choice based on
perceptions that may not accurately reflect reality. For this reason, I
feel that the Indian voter is politically immature.
I've been complaining about how film stars have been getting elected, and
how that might be indicative of political immaturity. Here again, I feel,
votes are given on the basis of the actor's screen personality, which,
however wonderful, may not be reflective of reality. I feel, rather, that
politicians should have to work their way up, demonstrating competence and
the ability to deliver at lower levels (district, state) before being sent
up to the national arena.
A couple of postings have pointed out that India is a democracy. Since I
haven't seen anyone disagree with this, mentioning it again and again seems
redundant. Note that "democracy" simply refers to the ability of the
people to choose who should govern them; it makes no mention of whether
the people so chosen are well suited to the task, which is what "political
maturity" refers to. Ravi says that by criticizing the maturity of our
voters, "we laugh at ourselves, and call the voting population idiots!". I
respectfully submit that this criticism is in no way meant to demean or
ridicule; rather, it is meant as an attempt to pinpoint weaknesses that
we can then try to set about rectifying.
Finally, let me touch upon the relevance of the political maturity of the
American voter to that of his Indian counterpart (Kulbir has already done a
good job here, so I'll keep it brief). If we accept my definition of
political maturity above, then it seems obvious that whether or not the
American voter has an accurate perception of political reality is not
related in any way to whether or not the Indian voter has such a
perception. For this reason, I'm going to dismiss responses of the form,
"Gee, look at these silly Americans, they've elected this deaf old retired
actor as their president", as irrelevant. Such responses can, at best,
conclude that "the Indian voter is as mature as the American voter" -- but
since the question of relative maturity doesn't concern me, I see no reason
to address it here.
--
Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook
uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray
CSNet: debray@sbcsravi@crystal.UUCP (03/19/85)
> Assume that in an election, the voter's choice is based on his perception > of the effect, on his well-being, of the electoral victory of the various > candidates. Then, I take the phrase "political maturity" to be indicative > of the extent to which this perception tallies with reality. A voter can only go by what his perceptions of a candidate are. (People here voted for Reagan based on what their perceptions of him didn't they?) If you are saying that the Indian voter is not as SOPHISTICATED as the voter here (in the sense of the humourous posting by Sanjaya), then my answer would be that sophistication of that sort is rather irrelevent: The Indian voter is certainly as ASTUTE as any other in the world. I do believe that he/she has a good feeling for what is needed, and given the right choice of candidates, the electorate in India is just as capable of making the correct decision as any other in the world. > It's a fact that in Indian politics, factors like religion, caste and > language play a very important role (what are the chances, do you think, of > a Bengali MP being elected from Assam?). History and experience teaches us that except in an entirely homogeneous population, differences such as these do influence decisions. Bigotry and parochialism are not the prerogative of any one population. Look at the problems between the French- and English-speakers in Canada. The point has also been made during this discussion that even in the USA (where the electorate is very literate and relatively homogeneous), many issues having nothing to do with a candidate's competence (issues like whether the presidential candidate is a black or the running-mate is a southerner, or a woman) turn out to be very important. To ask the same question you asked above, what do you think are the chances of someone who is Buddhist (or Jewish) being elected as president of the USA? I think the complaint here is simpy that India is not Utopia. That shouldn't bother you: No place is (remember: Ou = no, Topos = place?). > situations. Therefore, when a person votes for a candidate because the > candidate belongs to a particular caste, speaks a particular language, > practises a particular religion, or prefers spaghetti to lasagna, rather > than his attitudes, stands on specific issues of concern to the electorate > and capacity to better their quality of life, he makes a choice based on > perceptions that may not accurately reflect reality. For this reason, I > feel that the Indian voter is politically immature. I hope you are not implying that all (or even most) Indian voters vote based on such criteria. There are certainly voters all over the world who will cast their ballots in favour of someone for reasons that we might consider suspect. Every system (as has been repeatedly pointed out) has its weaknesses. So if your argument is that the Indian system has some too, we are all in agreement. But why make the drawbacks the centre of all attention: It not only misrepresents the realities of Indian democracy, it also weakens the thrust of your own argument. > however wonderful, may not be reflective of reality. I feel, rather, that > politicians should have to work their way up, demonstrating competence and > the ability to deliver at lower levels (district, state) before being sent > up to the national arena. I don't think anyone will dispute that; unfortunately, that is never how politics (or anything else, for that matter) works. Image and personality turn out to be as important as any other factor (which is why, for instance, candidates interviewing even for purely research-type jobs wear suits). In politics, image can be everything. Just see how far Gary Hart got by cultivating a Kennedy-like image. And don't tell me about demonstrating competence: A very sophisticated and literate electorate just re-elected an actor who (as president!) thought he could recall nuclear missiles after ordering them on their way! That may not be how politics ought to work, but that's simply the way it does. > maturity" refers to. Ravi says that by criticizing the maturity of our > voters, "we laugh at ourselves, and call the voting population idiots!". I > respectfully submit that this criticism is in no way meant to demean or > ridicule; rather, it is meant as an attempt to pinpoint weaknesses that > we can then try to set about rectifying. Self-criticism can be very constructive, and one must cultivate a capacity for meaningful self-criticism. And the problems with Indian democracy may be very frustrating to us because we perceive ourselves as being above the level of thinking that is responsible for the problems. We are also embarrassed by them. I therefore suspect that our reactions are often coloured by a subtler emotion: We are often angry at India for causing us this embarrassment. We seek to dissociate ourselves from this embarrassment by a simple and deliberate expedient: We join those who we think are laughing at us, point our finger at others and pretend to laugh with those we perceive as laughing at us. Indeed, I suspect that this attitude arises from a subtle undermining of our self-esteem -- yet another legacy of our colonial heritage! That was the significance of what I said in my earlier posting about the Americans having a positive attitude (B-grade actor being president seen as renewal of the promise of opportunity). Americans realize too, that their system has its drawbacks. But they are not unreasonably, unforgivingly critical of it. A positive self-image is very important. Let us try to cultivate one too!
ambekar@fortune.UUCP (Vinay R. Ambekar) (03/20/85)
In article <174@sbcs.UUCP> debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) writes: >Amitabh Bachchan and Vyjayantimala (don't tell me about Reagan, he was >governor of California for a long time before he came to Washington DC. >What was Vyjanantimala doing before being elected to parliament - putting >makeup on before a shooting session?!). The problem here is that since Amithbh and Vyjayantimala were elected to the Parliment as you have correctly stated. They were not elected President or Prime Minister. So why this reference to Reagan? -- -- Vinay R.Ambekar Fortune Systems, 101 Twin Dolphin Dr, Redwood City, California ...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!ambekar ......!fortune!kcsl!vinay ......!fortune!tiger!vinay (415)594-2488
ambekar@fortune.UUCP (Vinay R. Ambekar) (03/21/85)
In article <380@cavell.UUCP> prasad@cavell.UUCP (Prasad Srirangapatna) writes: >3. A free press and broadcast media. What makes you think that the press is not free in India? -- -- Vinay R.Ambekar Fortune Systems, 101 Twin Dolphin Dr, Redwood City, California ...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!ambekar ......!fortune!kcsl!vinay ......!fortune!tiger!vinay (415)594-2488
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/21/85)
> Assume that in an election, the voter's choice is based on his perception > of the effect, on his well-being, of the electoral victory of the various > candidates. Then, I take the phrase "political maturity" to be indicative > of the extent to which this perception tallies with reality. > I'm glad that you have clearly defined your postulate. However, it seems to me that accepting this definition leads to certain odd conclusions. For instance, Kerala has an extremely communalized political climate: there are parties that cater specifically to the various large communities -- Nairs and Ezhavas (large Hindu groups), Muslims and Syrian Christians. (There are also plenty of non-communal, 'regular' parties!) People vote for Candidate X knowing quite well that if he/she is elected, he/she is going to favor certain groups (they say so more or less openly). And if elected, X usually does exactly as advertised: nepotism, support for pork-barrels etc. run rife. In this case, "perception does tally with reality". But is it an example of "political maturity"? I think, on the contrary, a cynical, self-serving and dangerous breakdown of democracy is what this is. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.