Why Tahrir Square is not Possible in India?

It would be an understatement to suggest that the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt have profound implications for the theory and practice of democracy. Commitment to democracy has assumed dramatically different connotations both in terms of adherence by national governments and support of the international community. Removal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is only the short term result of the 18 day uprising, the long term outcome including the conception and growth of democratic norms shall emerge with time. However, the apparent ‘success’ of the uprising has fired the imagination of the people not only in autocratic regimes but in functional democracies as well. One such instance is that of India. Social and mainstream media in India has suggested the possibility of emulating Egypt type uprising in India to challenge the corruption and inefficiency of the Government. Many observers have even drawn parallels between the Tahrir uprising and public protests in Srinagar in the summer of 2010. Though Egypt like uprising is unlikely in India, yearnings for such ‘revolution’ shall remain strong among the Indian populace.

Popular protests in India have a long history. India achieved independence through a mass uprising engineered by Mahatma Gandhi and facilitated by political leadership of the Indian National Congress. After Independence, issues like banning cow slaughter, opposition to introduction of Hindi as the Official Language, support for creating linguistic states, appeals for withdrawal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act and protests against implementing Mandal Commission recommendations have taken the form of public protests against the Government. Such protests emerge from the existence of democratic freedoms rather than a lack of it. People have the right to voice concerns and oppose official policies in a democracy. These and many other protests have taken the form of opposition to specific government policies rather than against the Constitution which enshrines the structure of the government. The protests are not against how the government is formed or the degree of authority that the government officials exercise; these are against specific decisions. Government policies cannot satisfy all expectations of its populace and a democracy like India allows the dissatisfied to express their views. Though such protests shall continue it is naïve to expect that these aim to over throw the constitutional system in India.

Revolutions that demand structural changes in the way political authority is constituted and exercised require public solidarity; something which may not be possible in India given its  diversity. One only needs to read Sunil Khilnani’s book Idea of India to understand the multiple layers of Indianness. The multiple and overlapping identities make it difficult for a critical mass of Indians to unite behind a revolutionary idea. Take the example of recent inflation. Citing the example of economic hardship in the Middle East countries, analysts have hinted at the possibility of a popular uprising in India over increase in food prices. Sporadic protests notwithstanding, the issue of price rise cannot instigate a popular uprising in India. The urban rich might detest price rise but will not jeopardize their business and professions by participating in public demonstrations. Likewise television anchors, newspaper editors and bloggers might oppose corruption in the Government but this unlikely to develop into a national revolution. In a country where a large proportion of the population does not pay taxes it is improbable to witness a popular uprising against corruption in the government.

Khilnani succinctly captures the diversity and its impact on political possibilities in India by stating that, “Urban economic inequalities and social diversities have given rise to politically devised communities of religion and caste. These proudly particularistic groups rarely ask the state to accord universal rights and provisions for better treatment for all; instead, they insist on privileges and protections to be given exclusively to their own community, while others are neglected.” Most of the public protests in India have focussed on sectarian interests and have rarely raised national demands.

Moreover, India is a functioning democracy. People have the opportunity to determine who shall govern them through periodic elections. Indian citizens may be dissatisfied with government functioning but are not discontent with the democratic freedoms that they enjoy. The lack of such discontent and prevalence of widespread democracy further weakens the possibility of a revolution.

Even though a nation-wide revolution is unlikely, the desire for popular uprising shall remain strong among the Indian citizens. Common people experience a sense of pride upon achieving radical political changes. American Revolution, French Revolutions, Tiananmen Square uprising, Velvet Revolution, Jasmine Revolution are specimens of how common people cherish political struggles. Despite having a vibrant democracy the people of India has not witnessed a revolution. The mass uprising that led to wrestling independence from the British was inspired, coordinated and actualized by a minority of anglicized elite Indians. Mahatma Gandhi’s presence did make the freedom struggle a mass movement but most of its leaders were intellectuals and lawyers educated in Western Universities. The Constituent Assembly that framed India’s Constitution was not wholly representative. The only peoples’ movement in India where the entire country was mobilized was the freedom struggle, where the people demanded overthrow of British rule. The movement had no agenda with regard to the future government of the country. Thus the peoples’ involvement in shaping their political futures was at best indirect. The people of India have participated in a ‘national’ movement for independence but never in a political movement for determining how the Government should be structured. This lack of experience in initiating and participating in a political movement/revolution propels the Indian psyche to desire for a popular uprising. Events like the Tahrir protests rekindle the desire for popular protests but the absence of other facilitating factors (discussed above) restrict its realization.

What prevents a popular uprising in India is not the absence of democratic freedoms but the existence of diversity made possible by a well functioning democracy. While several groups make demands everyday at the heart of India’s Capital in Jantar Mantar, their fellow countrymen who do not identify with the protestors continue with their normal lives. Democracies like India allow space to voice disagreements without causing disruptions thereby raising the threshold of a nation-wide revolution. For those who suggest Egypt like revolution in India ignore the absence of even structural democracy in Egypt for several decades. India’s democracy, with all its shortfalls, remains its strongest bulwark against a national revolution.