Democracy in India - Fusion and Confusion.

Note: The article discusses only the cultural aspects of Indians with respect to Democracy.

One often hears Indians complaining about their Government, Politicians behaving like Kings, and lament about why India is not progressing fast towards being on par with Western democracies, and like western democracies.

While yes there is much scope for such aspects, there are certain cultural aspects which make India not very amenable to a democracy of the kind you see in the West.

China has adopted communism but the Chinese psyche is highly capitalistic. They hence adapted. India too has adapted in forming its own version of Democracy but the psychological foundations of being prepared for such a form of government are seldom discussed or thought about.

This article seeks to explore these aspects

The nature of India’s culture:

India is a culturally and historically a Cyclic and Hierarchical society. Many roots of Indian behaviours stem from it’s predominant ‘religion’ - ‘Hinduism’.

‘Hinduism’ is neither a religion nor is it an ‘ism’ and the word ‘Hindu’ is a misnomer.

The very fact that I made the statement ‘India’s predominant religion - Hinduism’ is testament to the extent of distortion that has occurred over time, since the arrival of western powers in India and India’s absorption of their cultures and gradual amnesia of their own.

An ‘ism’ is distinctive practice, system or philosophy. ‘Hinduism’ however is a collection of varying practices and philosophies albeit towards the same goal.

The original, forgotten name of ‘Hinduism’ is ‘Sanatana Dharma’, which means ‘The eternal way of conduct in accordance with Nature’.It is not a religion but a ‘Way of Life which harmonises with Nature’.Inherent in this is the idea that every human has her or his own freedom to choose the path to liberation in accordance with their nature.

The word ‘Hindu’ was first used by ancient Persians who found it hard to pronounce the letter ’S’.Hence the river Sindh was called ‘Hind’ and those that lived beyond were called ‘Hindus’.

Hindu is thus a geographic term.

When the British arrived, they, bound by the singular ideology of Christianity, found it hard to comprehend the varying practices and Philosophies in India and gave it a collective name - ‘Hinduism’.

Survival of the fittest, Nature and Hinduism:

Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) is quite in tune with some aspects of the notion of 'Survival of the fittest' - thought in this context, it is not merely for survival but for achievement.

Herbert Spencer first used the phase 'Survival of the fittest' , after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species,

It is no surprise that India was the land of Kings. The strong and capable became Kings and founded Kingdoms and Empires and the hierarchy of respect was strongly rooted in Indian society from time immemorial.

The Indian psyche even today is deeply rooted in this hierarchy of respect and the notions of ‘equality’ which came in from the West are much in conflict with this psyche.

It is no surprise that the notion of Democracy did not arise in India. 

In a land steeped in Hierarchy and an ideology that is in accordance with ‘Nature’, respect for the capable and powerful was the order of the day and there was no room for according power to a commoner to ‘choose’ a leader.

This however does not mean that authoritarianism was encouraged. On the contrary, the rules of Dharma (Righteous Conduct) very clearly specified the duties of leaders towards their subjects.

For instance, an ancient rule states that a everyone shall make way for a King. But the King shall make way for the elderly, sick and the disabled.

Every Indian would celebrate if this ancient law was practised today.

Indian Kings and leaders of yore were judged on their humane and just governance of their kingdoms. 

Ram, considered an incarnation of God, was the ideal and his reign, known as ‘Ram Rajya’ or 'Rule of Ram', symbolises ideal governance based on moral values and justice.

The Origins of 'Democracy':

In ancient Greece and Rome, primitive tribalism principles were adopted to counter tyranny.

There was fear of the rulers becoming tyrants and democracy, or rule of the people was the answer to counter the likes of Caligula and Nero.

In India, there was strict expectation by the people, that their leaders follow the path of ‘Dharma’ or accordance with Nature and rule wisely and humanely. Thus there was never an overwhelming need for democracy. In addition, the acceptance of natural selection was inherent.

History is replete with the stories of noble kings in India, be it Krishnadevaraya, Shivaji, Pratap or Ashok who turned from a conquerer to the most fervent Buddhist.

While there were dynasties, tyranny was rare and the capable could become 'Kings'.

This is another reason why Indians accepted invaders as rulers too.

India was invaded by the Greeks, Sakas. Turks, Moghuls and others and all were assimilated and many became Kings and emperors.

It was not until the mid 19th century that movements arose in India against the British. And the first movement, which the British call the ‘Sepoy mutiny’ and India call ‘The first war of independence’, was triggered not due to political reasons but by the belief that cartridges in the British army, composed of Indian soldiers were being greased by Cow and Pig fat - a very religious reason. The sepoys believed that biting these cartridges would be contrary to their religious beliefs. They did not rebel against 'External rule'.

India becomes the World's largest Democracy:

The British through the ‘English Education Act’ in 1832, sowed the seeds for the westernisation of India and Indians began to get enamoured of the material achievements and administrative skills of the west.

The leaders of what was to become modern India, were mostly western educated.

For such Indian leaders in the early 20th century, ‘Democracy’ was the way to bring India together as a nation. The big conflict between ideologies was evident in the relationship between the two biggest figures in India’s independence movement - Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who became India’s first Prime Minister.

Gandhi wanted India to retain her roots. A system of socialism based on the autonomy of it’s villages and for religious studies to be included in school curriculums.

Nehru wanted India to be modelled on the British system with no room for any religious studies.

The eradication of Kings and Kingdoms:

On gaining independence, Indian leaders took its first unwitting axe to the tree of its ancient beliefs and stripped all kings of their power and kingdoms. Kings became symbols of ancient India and nothing more. Democracy was introduced.

But how amenable are Indians to Democracy? And how did democracy evolve in India?

Millennia of culture cannot be eradicated by words on paper and humans are adept at self delusion.

While there was mass emancipation of those held down by distorted versions of the Caste system and the eradication by law of many social evils that time had converted from relevance at a point in time to inhumanity, Indians were psychologically ill prepared for democracy and still are.

This is evident in the fact that many democratically elected leaders even today, behave and are treated like ‘Kings’.

And many Indians complain about it over tea. since these leaders are not followers of ‘Dharma’ and are not truly concerned about the welfare of their people and do not make way for the elderly, sick or disabled. 

The 'Avatar' Syndrome:

India is perhaps the only land on earth where temples have been built to living humans such as celebrities and politicians.

There are ‘Gods’ of Sports and India of course is the land of ‘Godmen’

Historically, this intensely spiritual land has produced numerous truly spiritual individuals.

While several lands have had their share or holy men and women, India is the only land where humans can get the status of gods. 

The reason behind this lies in Hinduism again. The picture depicted above shows the 10 Avatars of the God 'Vishnu' in the current era.

In Hinduism, God incarnates on earth in human form again and again over the ages, in order to give direction to humankind. This incarnation is called an 'Avatar'.

In Hindu Cosmology, the Universe is created and dissolved every 3.114 Trillion years. There are many sub cycles in this but the relevant point is that God can appear in human form 360 Million times approximately!

In the smallest cycle of partial destruction and restoration, which lasts 4.3 million years, God can appear around 10 times in human form and this form in his ‘Avatars’.

Over the ages the spiritual knowledge and discriminating ability of Indians has deteriorated, but the 'Avatar syndrome' remains, thus the tendency to elevate high profile humans to the status of gods.

In a land that has lived and breathed the 'Avatar syndrome' for Millenia, it is difficult to absorb the ‘equality’ notions of the West which are integral to democracy.

This is another instance of Indians being psychologically ill equipped for Democracy. An argument may be made that change can be brought about and yes while this is happening, it is not easy to eradicate millennia of thought processes.

India Assimilates:

India assimilates external influences easily and rapidly. This is because Indians do not operate on Aristotelean Binary Logic which is exclusive, but on a unique system of Logic which combines Binary, Fuzzy and Multi Valued Logic, which makes them inclusive.

India adopted Western democracy and made its own version of it.

Where else in the world has even Communism been democratised but India? Yes, in some states in India, the ruling parties are communist but they are bound by the constitution.

India also adopted a multi party system and not a two party system. This also stems from the root psyche of Sanatana Dharma - accordance with Nature and multiple choice and the Indian mind being not predominantly governed by 'Binary Logic'.

Thus democracy in India is very much different in operation from that of the West.

This causes much conflict in the minds of Indians who often compare the two. They wonder why Leaders have become nothing short of Kings and blame India and Indians in general without knowing why this is so. And while Indians complain about this, in practice they generally fall back on the hierarchy system, consciously or sub consciously,

Western Style Debates - How suited are they to Indians?:

In traditional India, Debates have occurred not to decide a winner or loser but to form a consensus and to co-exist in harmony. Polarisation has never been the game.

In the dichotomous West, debates are always to win or lose.

One often finds ‘Debates’ on Indian media where several people are invited and everyone of them shouts over the other drowning each others voices and views.

And several Indians compare this behaviour to those in the West and complain again. But what causes Indians to behave this way?

First, according to the Richard Lewis Model, Indians are multi active and their communication with each other like Latinos, tends to overlap.

However, Indians are also very hierarchical by nature. Respect is for superiors. 

During peer to peer communication, the speech of Indians overlaps. Figure below:

(A and B are two individuals communication with each other and the dark bars represent their speech - notice the overlap showed by dotted lines)

But while communicating with superiors, and foreigners (Whom they tend to consider superior), their speech has gaps which resembles that of the Richard Lewis Model ‘Reactives’. Figure below:

(Here A is the superior. The blue bars represent a pause or thinking gap - this is usually due to fear of not giving the right answer to authority)

Usually in TV ‘debates’, the participants consider each other as peers and tend not to respect each other.

If there is a presence of accepted Authority in the debate, you will notice how the tone and speech pauses change.

India is also a very densely populated country with high levels of noise pollution and the tendency to be loud exists in several people even when it is not necessary although this only justifies the volume :).

Finally...:

Having said this, yes it is true that having adopted Democracy and Debates, Indians participating must observe the basic rules of communication and exchange of ideas in a polite and inclusive manner and if India is to succeed as a 'Democracy' then it is as Darwin said, necessary to adapt. How easy or hard this is, only time will tell.

It is the tendency of Indians to rue their democracy in most internal conversations, but Indians will do well to understand why Democracy of the sort in the West is hard to establish in India due to cultural behavioural reasons.