Reading the situational tea leaves and constantly questioning the “powers that be” is key to ensuring that the exercise of democracy is not derailed down some dark alley. Rarely have established democracies suddenly reverted to a sudden generalization of majoritarianism (an example of an imperfect democracy). Early signs are big and need to be called out in time, especially if they are related to institutions of checks and balances. Even seemingly innocuous signs in ordinary times acquire a sinister connotation, when the background is filled with repeated compromises and leniency from the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter.
A case in point is the foreboding (in hindsight) but initially undeniable signs in the early years of General Zia-ul Haq’s military dictatorship in Pakistan. After promising to uphold the spirit of democracy and the Pakistani constitution, he later wrote a very different story. The re-envisioning of history secretly began with the reinterpretation of words and the national motto of Mohammad Ali Jinnah – Unity (Ittehad), Faith (Yaqeen), Order (Nazm). Religion-inspired General Zia was to slip in subtle changes, rearranging the order according to his perceived priorities – faith, unity, order.
Historians insist that Jinnah’s faith, or “Yaquin” was related to the “Idea of Pakistan”, while General Zia reinterpreted it in terms of religious faith, as assumed in any majoritarian or puritanical regime.
Soon, even the relatively liberal organization of the Pakistani army changed from a fairly standard motto of “Unity, Faith, Discipline” to “Iman (Faith), Taqwa (Piousness) and Jihad fi Sabilillah (Holy War in the Way of Allah)”. Conceptually, this would mandate the Pakistani military to fight a “holy war in the path of Allah” (as religious extremists and terrorists also claim), and not just the constitutional and restricted task of protecting the country’s territorial integrity. What can be seen is semantic nitpicking that often metastasizes religiosity and revisionism into legalism – the dire consequences of the dark years of General Zia’s insertion of his exclusionary and partisan agenda are still playing out in Pakistan today, and it is a genie, once cast out. Very difficult to put back in the bottle.
It was a similar case of inherently inflammatory semantics when then-US President George W. Bush invoked a “crusade” to contextualize his war on terror in his “War on Terror” speech shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The Middle East region remembers the vague gossip of a “crusade” as a war waged by the Christian West against the Arab Muslims to seize the Holy Land from the Muslims. In further characterization of the war as a “civilizational war,” Samuel P. There were shades of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations narrative that portrayed the “other” Middle East as barbaric, violent, and backward, while conveniently “short-changing the West’s murky and manipulative past.” In conjuring such a situation, in the first place. The political legitimacy of such entitled Orientalism has been perfected in art by Donald Trump’s even more divisive rhetoric, and this does not bode well for trust or healing. However, American society and the media are still completely independent and open to questioning the “powers that be” when they feel that the leadership is sanctifying its spirit to the detriment of its sacred constitutional values.
It is against this backdrop that the three instances of potential partisanship affecting India’s backbone – the supposedly apolitical institutions of the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the armed forces – have raised eyebrows. Recently, some bureaucrats in southern states felt bold enough to start a WhatsApp group, called incredulously “Mallu Hindu Officers”, suggesting a religion-based criteria for service that clearly transcends such divisions. They were called out by the state government for misbehaving with government officials, a deafening silence to the rest of the country, because the ostracized officials belonged to the “other” community and had dared to boycott them. And the despicable act, perhaps the reaction would have been more dramatic.
Likewise, a judge of the High Court has threatened the public’s trust in the judiciary by making some statements in support of the Uniform Civil Code and by making shameless and unorganized comments about the minority community. When he too was finally pulled up by the Supreme Court, it was only after the Chief Minister of the same state gave “cover fire” that “those who speak the truth are threatened with impeachment”. As politicians do their best to distort the environment with partisan or exclusivist goals, the tendency of those who expect constitutional fairness to be upheld is deeply disappointing.
The “sword arm of the nation” also had its own unpleasant moment when the portrait of its chief’s office (associated with India’s great military victory in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971) was replaced by a “karam kshetra” (work area). ) Chanakya, the image of Garuda and the depiction of Krishna driving Arjuna’s chariot from the Mahabharata, combined with modern military capabilities. It may be a tempest in a teacup that wall paintings don’t necessarily define an organization’s culture or ethos – but it would be equally foolish to assume that it has no relevance to the preferred political winds. Given the current background and events that give rise to such questions, it is relevant to introspect if there is indeed a slide in revisionism and all institutions of checks or balances under the partisan guise of “correcting” history. After all, asking questions can often be the most patriotic thing to do.