Great Lessons To Be Learned From Modi’s Defeat In Bihar

0
456

By Sawraj Singh

Everyone should learn lessons from Nitish Kumar’s resounding victory in Bihar. The election in Bihar had become very crucial and important. It not only became a mandate on Prime Minister Modi’s and the BJP’s policies, but on the direction India should take. The first lesson is that India is a multinational and multicultural country. Each state represents a different cultural entity and is like a small nation. Whenever a contest will be perceived as a contest between the people of the state (Bihari) versus outsiders (Bahari), then the people are likely to tilt in the direction of the state.

In Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa is seen primarily as the leader of the Tamils. She was even sent to jail on the charges of corruption. However, the Tamils united behind her. She had to be given her position and status back by the Center. Mamata Banerjee is perceived as a leader of the Bengalis and that is the main source of her strength. The Shiv Sena is primarily seen as a regional party by the Marathas. No wonder, even though it is an ally of the BJP, yet it is very happy over Nitish Kumar’s victory in which it sees a victory of a regional party over the center. The concept of a strong center is alien to the Indian situation. This concept was developed by the British colonialists for their conveniences and for the subjugation of India. The unity in India cannot be enforced by a strong center, but should be based upon the principle of unity in diversity. The different states in India are like flowers in a garland. Each flower represents a cultural entity and they are held together by the common thread of a common civilization.

The Indian conditions are more suitable for the philosophy of tolerance and pluralism rather than a single and monolithic approach. The eastern religions, unlike the Judeo-Semitic religions, are based upon the principles of pluralism and tolerance. The head of the department of Jainism in the Punjabi University, Patiala presented a paper on my book Toward a Global Perspective. When I wrote the book, I did not have any deep knowledge of Jainism. However, he felt that I had written a book on the philosophy of Jainism. I got my inspiration to write the book from Sri Guru Granth Sahib. All of the religions which evolved in India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, are tolerant and pluralistic. Fanaticism, radicalism, and fundamentalism are not compatible with their philosophy. Whenever someone tries to follow those trends, they end up violating the spirit of these religions.

The majority of people in India are still leaning toward liberalism. However, the eastern liberalism is different than western liberalism. The latter is based upon egalitarianism, where there is no respect for age, status, of achievement. Under liberalism, the West actually promotes extreme individualism. The eastern liberalism is based upon paying proper respect and recognizing someone’s experience and achievement such as age, education, or social status. This approach promotes collectivism because it promotes order in the society as opposed to the western tendency toward anarchy. Eastern liberalism is compatible with tolerance, whereas the western liberalism, by inciting extreme individualism and ultra-egalitarianism, actually breeds intolerance.

This is the right time that Prime Minister Modi and the BJP seriously reconsider their policies. In spite of their tall claims of Indianness, they have not grasped the essence of the Indian philosophy and values. Secularism, based upon the concepts of pluralism and tolerance, is the essence of Indian philosophy. If a leader or a party is perceived to be violating these principles, they cannot expect much support from the Indian people. The election in Bihar mainly became a contest between tolerance and intolerance and between pluralism and monolithism. It was also perceived as a contest between uniformity and diversity. The BJP tried to impose Modi’s model of development, whereas Nitish Kumar represented a model of development which was more suitable for Bihar’s conditions.

Modi’s model of development seems more of a western capitalist model of development rather than the indigenous model. Similarly, in spite of Modi’s big claims and appearance of Indianness, he and his close associates seem to be missing the essence of the Indian experience and traditions that age is synonymous with experience and deserves respect. They practically ignored and sidelined the senior and experienced leaders in the party. In this aspect, they are closer to western egalitarianism rather than the Indian approach.

India should adopt a model of development which is based on our own concrete conditions and on the accumulative experience of our own people. The western capitalist model is not suitable for us. Similarly, the two-party western democratic system is unsuitable for a diverse country like India. India needs a third front in which the regional parties can preserve their independent identity as well as unite on the basis of policies of secularism and non-alignment. We sincerely hope that like Bihar, U.P. will also help with the emergence of a third alternative. Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav should follow the example of Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav.

Dr. Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is the Chairman of the Washington State Network for Human Rights and Chairman of the Central Washington Coalition for Social Justice. He can be reached at [email protected].