|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/05/07
Solving India's Diversity Dilemma: Culture, Constitution, & Nehru
by George C. Thomas
Democracy and multi-ethnic societies do not enjoy a simple relationship. Democracy has the ability to empower minorities and promote equality, but it can just as easily exacerbate divisions. When voting tends to take place along ethnic lines, majority rule can result in the subjugation of the minority voice. Not only does this foster an unequal society, it also has the potential to destabilize the entire state. The cohesion of an ethnic majority may cause other ethnic groups to forge a union-an act of temporary convenience that rarely lasts. In another unfavorable outcome, the losing ethnic group might refuse to accept the entire democratic process, throwing out the baby with the bath-water. These potential "democratic" outcomes would only intensify inter-ethnic conflicts and provoke minority demands for self-determination and territorial secession. History has shown that this initial path often ends with the collapse of the state.
That democracy works in India is, therefore, somewhat of an enigma. Political cleavages crosscut by language, religion, and caste make India a highly complex and multi-ethnic society. India is a state divided by eighteen official languages, some 180 minor languages, virtually all the major religions of the world, five castes, over 3,000 sub-castes, and several tribal populations. 1 Nevertheless, democracy and diversity continue to coexist in India despite the odds. As a testament to its resilience, India's democracy has survived even though countries with far fewer ethnic divisions have had far more checkered histories.
India owes its democratic government to the principles of acceptance espoused by its political forefathers and embodied in the Indian constitution. This spirit of tolerance has endured in Indian politics and given rise to societal checks and balances and democratic institutions beyond elections. India provides an example of the power of democratic norms and the resilience of the democratic process.
The fate of Pakistan illustrates the perils of multi-ethnic democracy that India has successfully avoided. Following the partition of British India in 1947, Pakistan emerged as two non-contiguous Muslim majority regions: East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Under this configuration, the population of East Pakistan consisted of Bengalis, and they outnumbered the population of West Pakistan at that time, which was comprised of Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis, Pashtuns, and Mohajirs (Muslim immigrants from India). Such a division made a democratic constitution difficult to devise.2 Unwilling to cede power to the more populous East, Pakistani military dictators ruled the state from the West. When democratic elections took place in Pakistan in 1971 after more than a decade of West Pakistani military dictatorships, the voting occurred exclusively along linguistic and geographical lines; the West voted for West Pakistani candidates and the East for Eastern candidates. In the end, Bengali East Pakistan outvoted predominantly Punjabi West Pakistan and obtained the majority of seats in parliament. The West Pakistani military dictatorship was supposed to give way to the "democratic" East Pakistani rule over the entire state. When West Pakistan rejected the result, however, East Pakistan declared independence. A civil war ensued and the result was the disintegration of the state. Today, East Pakistan is now the independent state of Bangladesh, and democracy has continued to evade both Pakistan and Bangladesh to differing degrees.
George C. Thomas is the Allis Chalmers Distinguished Professor of International Affairs at Marquette University.