The Second Spanish Republic and the India of 2014

“¡Viva la República!”, must have been often heard in the Spain of around a century ago before those proud shouts were silenced in 1939. The Second Spanish Republic lasted for only eight years, but some four times longer than the First, and it captured the imagination of the intellectuals of Europe, many of whom who were ready to risk their lives. Yesterday, as the largest electoral exercise in human history came to an end, and the votes revealed a comprehensive defeat for the political party controlling the present Indian government, many of those who had fought in Spain then must have rejoiced, for 1.25 billion of their brethren can declare themselves to be a Republic. In theory, they have long been one, but after the recently routed Indian National Congress obligingly provided the first Prime Minister of the modern Indian state, it went on to make his daughter Prime Minister, followed by her younger son, only because the elder one died prematurely in an accident, followed by his widow at the helm of affairs – and then that widow’s son was to have become Prime Minister, till someone came along, or, better put, some hundreds of millions of voters came along, and ended that ambition. For now, that is. Perhaps the declaration of the Republic is premature, but we cannot look too far ahead.

The future Prime Minister of India has an unprecedented popular mandate, for someone not part of the Indian National Congress. For all the positive things about him, he remains linked to the horrific incidents of murder in 2002, the aftermaths of which have polarized many sections of civil society. The discourse seems to not always consider two germane issues. To start with, Mr. Modi had an inimical central government, an independent Supreme Court and a media – at least some of it not on his side – hungry for sensationalist news stories who would not have hesitated in destroying him. And all that for more than a decade. He survived that – presumably because they could not find evidence to convict? Now, absence of evidence is certainly not proof of innocence, but the civilized view is that one does not need to prove innocence.

Also, the lands that are India today are with violence, pettiness and oppression ingrained. One hears rumors of people wrongly arrested, harassed by police, humiliated, attacked, killed, raped, defrauded, robbed, expelled, mutilated, imprisoned illegally, abducted, discriminated against etc. etc. – because of religion, caste, gender, sexuality, skin color, tribal and linguistic identity, weakness, poverty etc.. In this context, we all have blood on our hands. If the horrific incident of 2002 was the only thing we had on our collective conscience, then this would be quite another India, and the elections might have been different. Or have we forgotten the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984? The political incompetence that lead to soldiers dying in 1962? Bhagalpur with the police pouring acid into the eyes of “dodgy” men, less than half a century ago? And all the women burnt alive because they failed to cough up cash to their in-laws? The cities and villages of India need monuments to horror, otherwise we forget too easily.

This is no apologia, as I am not for a party, or a race, or a religion, or a caste, or a God, or a man, or a country.
 
And the biggest crime perhaps is the denial of opportunity to so many hundreds of millions of human beings to better their lot, because of the greed of a few.

Mr. Modi may not be without blemishes, but where shall we find the lantern-seller who shall equip us to find the ideal man? The historical sense must make us be wary of too much power being reposed in one person, and the masses incessantly chanting his name must cause slight uneasiness, but Mr. Modi has arrived – let us hope that the public trust has been well-placed, and let us wish him all the very best. After all, he is to now lead 1.25 billion people. And never let down our guard against anything that encroaches upon personal liberty or human dignity.