Asha-Madison, Chingari and the Center for South Asia at UW-Madison co-organized a discussion series, titled Eye On India, on the current social, political and economical scenario in India after 50 years of independence from British rule. Topics included Indo-Pak friction on Kashmir, the role of Indian diaspora, the rise of communalism and casteism, the status of women and the impact of economic liberalization.

Here is a publicity poster for the series, here is a schedule of "the discussions (courtesy Chingari), and below, we provide a transcript of the first discussion (Elections'98) based on notes taken by Asha volunteers (note: it is not a complete or accurate transcript).

ELECTIONS '98 : EVOLVING FACES OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY
Thursday 19 March 1998, 7:30-9:30 pm
336 Ingraham Hall, UW-Madison
An open discussion session led by UW panelists covering various aspects of the recent elections in India including the current outcome,coalition governments, religious fundamentalism, dynastic politics, and political agendas.

Panelists:

• Dr Joe Elder, Center for South Asia, UW-Madison.
• Dr V. N. Rao, Dept. of South Asian Studies, UW-Madison.
• Dr Shanti Kumar, Dept. of Communication Arts, UW-Madison.

Prof. Elder started by summarizing the results of th e elections, and discussed the common national agenda drafted by the BJP and its allies. Quoting from news reports, Prof Elder said that the BJP gained from the OBCs, the rural sections, the highly educated sections, and the lowest income sections. He also mentioned that there was a swing towards the BJP among the undecided voters just before the election. He believed that the BJP also gained from the "backlash against the party in power" which is a common occurence in the Indian elections. It suffered reverses for the same reason in Rajasthan and Maharashtra where the BJP is in power.

Prof. V. Narayana Rao drew the distinction between the earlier strong majority governments and the current hung parliaments. He analyzed that in the recent past more people among the poorer sections of the society, the dalits, and the uneducated are voting. Hence new leaders like Kanshi Ram, Mulay am Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad Yadav, considered illiterate by the educated people, with whom the above-mentioned sections identify easily are comi ng to power. The strong Congress governments during Nehru's and Indira G andhi's time followed nationalistic policies which did not have a popular mandate. Their policies may be progressive but it is against democracy t o follow policies that lack the popular mandate. The local people identi fy themselves with the regional parties and feel that their problems are addressed better by them. Thus the era of coalition governments in which regional parties play a major role are going to be the norm for sometime to come.

Prof. Rao discussed two important events that happen ed immediately after the elections.

1. The formation of the coalition government led by the BJP. Though the BJP is the single largest party, it did not get the required majority which, according to Prof. Rao, indicates that the BJP's BRAND OF Hinduism is not accepted by the majority of the people. Moreove r, the BJP's brand of Hinduism is so far from that followed by the majori ty thus effectively reducing Hinduism to a minority!. The result of the e lection makes this point loud and clear.
2. Sonia Gandhi accepting the presidency of the Con gress Parliamentary party. In fact, Sonia Gandhi's whirlwind campaign was believed to have improved the performance of the Congress party which sh ows that the Indian people have accepted Sonia as a "bahu".

In a democracy like India where no particular caste or a linguistic group is a majority, casteism and regionalism are support ed by the people. They are not detrimental as claimed by many people. Peo ple tend to vote for parties which they believe will voice their problems and maximize benefits for them. Thus the regional parties gain in power. Every party gets its share in the government thus effecting a balance of power. The major national parties have to learn and adjust their modus operandi.

Prof. Rao focussed on the drama enacted by the AIADM K supremo Jayalalitha when she changed her position thrice in two days. S he initially supported the BJP, then publicly criticized it, and then joi ned the BJP-led government! When the BJP refused to accommodate the crank y Subramaniam Swamy in the government as the finance minister she refused to support the BJP government. To get the desperately needed support fro m the AIADMK, the BJP accommodated all its demands in the common national agenda. And the AIADMK claims to have upheld the Dravidian interests! Th is drama, according to Prof. Rao, is a classic political move to maximize benefits.

Dr. Shantikumar analyzed current Indian politics within the framework of fundamentalism and secularism. He presented the Indian (English) media's viewpoint of fundamentalism as the core problem of Indian secular democracy and its tacit hope that the "evil" BJP government would fall soon and be replaced by a more "secular" Congress-Dal coalition. He countered the media's portrayal of fundamentalism as the essential disease of Indian politics with an argument that reflected Ashish Nandy's (citation?) thesis that it is in fact secularism, or rather its misapprehension by mainstream society, that is the central problem of Indian democracy today. The speaker outlined the European model of secularism which is essentially a refusal of religion and irrationality, and an assertion of science and rationality. In this model statecraft and political science are viewed as rational discplines where the only significant role religion has to play is by its absence. In the early stages of post-Independence India adopted this brand of secularism with a twist: all religions were to be treated equally. It was a compromise between the sharp dualistic nature of the European model and the equally divisive fundmentalistic fervor. It was a decision born out of the realization that secularism is difficult to restrict to intellectuals, and in a diverse country like India of the need to address religion as part of the political process. Mr. Shantikumar noted that during the past fifty years of independent India there has been a small (but powerful) section of the middle class that has gone one step beyond the European model of secularism to propose a notion of "ultrasecularism" as the sole arbitrater of religions and any progress of the nation is to be made through such secular statecraft. The speaker further contended that paradoxically this extreme view of secularism is the very source of fundamentalism. The rise of BJP is a reaction to this ultrasecularism in the hope of convincing people that the nation needs to address the erosion of Indian values by reverting back to a non-existent notion of "Hindutva" in ancient India. By its violent marginalization of religions, the secular agenda has given rise to a fundamentalism which is an instrumental misappropriation of secularism. The speaker concluded that he sees the need for us to recognize that fundamentalism is the byproduct of the ills of secularism and we would be better served to address this malaise rather than merely target its symptom.

Discussion involving the audience:

We tried to record as many questi ons as possible. We still missed many questions. More importantly, this part is still being pieced together.

Q: Most of the educated middle class is high-caste. Hence the consequent support to the BJP, which is perceived as a high-cas te party, from this section of the society. But how do we explain the low -caste Hindutva advocators in states like UP and Bihar?

VNR: ...

Q: How do we explain the absence of economic issues in the election campaign? At least economic issues did not play a major role in any party's campaign. How can this be explained?

VNR: People make conscious decisions to maximize th eir benefits when they vote. Which candidate or party has the clout to ma ximize the benefits for their region. To a large extent, the economic iss ues were unspelt in party manifestos. The BJP played the Swadeshi card bu t it did not provide the details. If, by Swadeshi, they meant nuancing th e liberalization policy to ??? then it is good. It could just be a polit ical move.

SK: Economic issues are tightly coupled with the cas te and religious dynamics of each region. Voters make decisions according ly. Hence details about economic policies are not spelt in detail by poli tical parties.

Q: Why did the BJP raise the issue about the threat to national security when there was no apparent necessity?

VNR: It is probably to create a hysteria. Similar ca rd was played by Indira Gandhi earlier. Discourse by Vajpayee on national security and an announcement that India is keeping the nuclear option op en was unnecessary at a time when the Indo-Pak dialogue was about to star t. We need to be vigilant against the BJP trying to create a hysteria.

Q: Something related to the World Bank policies ? it s culture-blind policy 85. Swadeshi is a western concept. Traditionally , India has been a trading nation. How can a supposedly nationalist party like the BJP tow the Swadeshi line?

VNR: Discussion about Swadeshi..

Shanti: "Swadeshi" is not entirely a western concept. It always existed at the village level. Gandhiji appropriated this co ncept in his call for use of swadeshi goods during the non-cooperation mo vement.

Q: During this discussion we are led to believe that the electorate favours regional parties resulting in hung parliaments an d coalition governments. But coalition governments do not usually last t heir full term of five years as seen in the past. The electorate may not like elections again in a very short duration. Do you think they prefer to back the strong national parties again which have provided stable gove rnments lasting their full term?

VNR: Coalitions are more answerable to regional nece ssities. Thus people get the feeling of being "listened to". Governments with big majorities in the past have ignored the popular the mandate. Mor eover, each group in the coalition acts as a check to others from acting only for their own self interests. Thus there is a balance of power and w e get a cleaner, more responsible government. Hence coalitions may still be preferred.

Shanti: Is stability a concern of the voter?

This web site requires stylesheets! Click here for more information.