If, as Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad says, "Everything and its opposite is true in India," then this must be the case too with his article. I find myself questioning his central assumption about the lack of political engagement in a polity as diverse as India, where levels of voter registration, turnout and political discourse put many established democracies to shame. I would love to see some comparative figures. Where is the evidence for this lack of engagement? Don't we in the west wring our hands about levels of political apathy and disengagement too? Isn't the perceived disconnect between politics and people supposed to be a global trend?
One indicator of levels of political engagement is the health of the press. Even a cursory glance at the major Indian news websites—national and regional; English-language and vernacular—shows that the lead stories are nearly always political. If there is such a level of apathy, why would the readership—largely middle-class—take such an interest? That said, there is some truth in Ram-Prasad's argument that the most politically "active in India are those who are poor without being destitute… because it is their lives that are most likely to be transformed by state action." But this group of people will aspire to be middle class too, and why should we believe that their conscience will switch off once they are able to afford Swatch watches, television or jeans?
The main flaw in Ram-Prasad's argument is his failure to define India's middle classes. The fact that his attempts—unconvincingly reduced to consumer-related indices that confuse aspiration with consumption—fail to do so merely proves that it is futile to try to wish a homogenous entity into existence in a country so diverse as India. An Indian middle class will be as diverse as India. Jaya Mary (and Raghunath and Lakshmi) may well be "very real" people, but are they middle class? We know that they have aspirations for their children's future, but is that the defining trait of the middle class?
Moreover, the country's political leadership is determined not to get carried away with fashionable talk of a globally resurgent India. In 2004, the BJP miscalculated its general election message, focusing on "India shining" and a perceived mood of the emergent middle class. It lost. In his remarks on 15th August (India's 60th birthday), the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, made efforts to play down the good news of India's economic success precisely because of the fact that 28 per cent of India's population remains below the poverty line.
The fragmentation of Indian politics and the attendant rise of regional and caste-based parties has more to do with the natural evolution of Indian democracy and less to do with what Ram-Prasad calls the "dysfunctional Indian state that cannot realise the social purpose that the idea of national citizenship is meant to provide." A bald assertion that there is "perennial worry over Muslim economic progress" begs the question: by whom? I find it hard to accept the reduction of an evolving and complex polity to a simple class vs caste discussion. Ram-Prasad concludes by having Lakshmi ask, "Can this be all there is to life?", and admits that "there can indeed be more." To anyone wishing to understand what more might be going on, I recommend three excellent recently published books: David Davidar's "The Solitude of Emperors," Maria Misra's "Vishnu's Crowded Temple" and Ramachandra Guha's "India After Gandhi." Davidar's novel and the two histories build up a much clearer picture of what India's middle class are thinking, where they have emerged from, and where they—and India—might be headed.
Bookmark this page with: |
