To Thrive As A Democracy, India Needs Consensus-Builders – Not Dabangs

India does not need Dabang leaders. India needs consensus-builders. The country faced the danger of losing its democratic moorings whenever it was led by Dabang leaders except for Jawahar Lal Nehru. Nehru, as the prime minister with an absolute majority in Parliament, was the only leader who was truly democratic, believed in the independence of institutions and was eager to accommodate differing views within the party and outside. I never had any doubt about the fact that if India is a democracy today, It is because of him. No other leader in the country — except, of course, Gandhi — was so immensely popular and if he wanted, he could have easily turned into a dictator. He had so much respect for the Opposition that when the country was at war, and there was a demand that the government should call Parliament to discuss China issue, he allowed for that happen, and faced scathing attacks in the House. He did not hide behind the excuse that such a debate would demoralise the army, as was claimed many times in the recent past. But after him, Dabang leaders could not emulate his example.

Since June 4, 2024, when the Lok Sabha results were announced, the country can feel the return of democratic ethos and one can breathe democracy upto an extent. The Narendra Modi government has had to step back on three important issues. The government withdrew the broadcast media draft, sent the Waqf Board bill to a select committee of joint parliament and the lateral entry advertisement for recruitment in the central government was rolled back. This is the same government that did not believe in taking back any of its decisions between 2014 to 2024, except a few. This has been made possible because the Modi government does not have a majority of its own in the Lok Sabha unlike earlier. Change was imminent because the nature of the government has changed. The Modi government is a coalition government. To run for five years, this government could afford to ignore the Opposition but it has to listen to different voices of its allies, has to take decisions after consulting alliance partners. That does not make Modi government weak but unfortunately, in our country coalition governments are called weak and the perception is created by advocates of centralising forces that under coalition governments the country is not safe.

The reality is that the country was in danger, when it was led by “Dabang” leaders. Under Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi, the country was about to lose its democratic character, parliamentary and cabinet system was circumvented to being a one-person rule, the ruling party and topmost Constitutional posts were reduced to rubber stamps, the backbone of the institutions were broken; bureaucracy, judiciary and media were greatly compromised. The leader was powerful but the system that had the responsibility to lead the country was weakened beyond recognition. The prime minister was powerful but the whole paraphernalia of governance was weak. Every institution found itself alienated and powerless. These institutions were discharging their duties, not the way they wanted or should, but the way they were dictated to. This was the most unhealthy way to run a government. And it was this kind of an unhealthy growth which led to the imposition of Emergency in the country in 1975. It was for this same reason that the minorities were targeted unhindered since 2014 and no institution stood up to challenge this menace. Imagine what will happen if one organ of the human being grows and the other organs shrink beyond recognition? Such a human being can be anything but healthy and won’t survive long. Then how can the state and the country survive with such a lopsided and unhealthy growth?

Strong leaders always create myths around themselves to consolidate and centralise power. And one of the myths in the Indian context is that a strong leader is needed to run a country of such vast diversity; that coalition governments cannot take tough decisions. This is an authoritarian argument. The reality is that two of the most crucial decisions since 1991 were taken by coalition governments led by so called weak prime ministers. The first decision was to unleash economic reforms that paved the way for India’s economic growth and if India today is one of the leading economies in the world, it was because of the initiative taken by prime minister P V Narasimha Rao. He took the bold decision of appointing Manmohan Singh as the finance minister to tighten the nuts and bolts of the economy, to open the market and let the licence permit Raj die. The Rao led congress did not have a majority in the parliament, and yet it could hold elections in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir and fought the worst form of terrorism. India progressed because every arm of the state contributed in the growth of the country and the system was not mortgaged to the whims of one leader.

Manmohan Singh took the bold decision to have a nuclear deal with USA when he was the prime minister. His government was supported by more than a dozen parties and the Congress had only 145 MPs in Lok Sabha. He did not succumb to the pressures of Left parties, whose support was crucial for the survival of the government. The country during Manmohan’s time had the best GDP numbers ever which the Modi government could not repeat despite having a majority of its own. Before Manmohan Singh, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government boldly faced Pakistan’s incursion in Kargil and defeated the forces of evil. His was also a coalition government. Neither did Vajpayee dither, nor was the lack of majority by the ruling BJP in the Lok Sabha a handicap for the government while taking tough decisions. Under the Vajpayee government, economic growth was also not hindered. The reforms continued.

No doubt, all three governments were faced with tremendous pressures from several quarters but these pressures were constructive and creative, helped the government to take the whole country into confidence, build consensus and arrive at the best decision for the country. The decision-making process might have been a bit slow but the process minimised the danger of wrong decisions. Under Indira Gandhi and Modi, one person was taking all the decisions and, there was no effort to build a consensus.

Let’s not forget that India is a vast land mass with infinite diversity. Almost every state has its own identity and is proud of its rich culture and tradition, has its own cultural icons and historical figures. These sub-nationalities are bound by a delicately poised democratic thread from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. If the centre tries to ignore these sub-nationalities and bulldoze its cultural and political preference, then these sub-nationalities are bound to feel threatened and insecure and will retaliate. And that can lead to disaster. Dabang leaders with enormous power are prisoners of their habits and tend to bulldoze their preferences and ignore subtleties of diversity. That creates tension between centre and state, between meta-nationality and sub-nationalities. In the last ten years every state which is governed by the opposition has majorly complained that centre and their agents in the state ie, the governors, have greatly interfered in the process of governance in the state. Several states have knocked at the door of Supreme Court too. This is not a healthy sign.

Let’s hope that the process will halt now; that instead of the logic of the Dabang leader, the grammar of coalition politics will guide the governance at the centre. If that happens, then the equilibrium of the country will regain its centre. India can’t afford a Dabang, but needs a consensus-builder if democracy has to survive and thrive.

The writer is Co-Founder, SatyaHindi.com, and author of Hindu Rashtra. He tweets at @ashutosh83B