Abstract
Remembering Shri Rabi Ray is to recall the role of an outstanding public figure and a parliamentarian who endeavoured to build the Indian democracy and a nation which is equitable, fair, and just. He was one of those from that generation who was simple, honest, and modest in personal life, and concerned with the marginalised sections and committed to democratic and socialist convictions. As Speaker of the Lok Sabha, he set a role model. It is sad that this was only a passing phase, and their rich legacy has been squandered by the succeeding generation of the political class. That period remains as a happy memory.
Democracy, in one sense, has come to be considered as a form of governance. In a broader sense, it is a way of life. As a form of governance, the power is not supposed to be centralised; it is distributed across several institutions providing checks and balances. For liberal democracy, the electoral process has come to be considered a crucial parameter, with the assumption that the source of sovereign power lies with the people. It is a civilizational advance. Compared to earlier political systems, which claimed to deriving the power from the divine. Modern democracies are accountable to the people. The overall power architecture is delineated through a written Constitution, which defines the limits within which rulers are supposed to wield power. In a way, it is a compact between the people and the rulers. In that sense, the Indian Constitution is a well-intentioned document.
Over the last eight decades, it has undergone striking changes and reflected several notable shifts. The larger political economy, rather than moving towards the constitutional vision of a welfare state, drastically altered the role of the state as a transformer of the socio-economic order. The neo-liberal model of development emphasises growth, which is unequalizing. This model is a reversal of the vision, and its location is outside the constitutional framework. Enforcement of this model invariably needs a more authoritarian regime, as the people and their welfare are no longer the reference point of governance. As a consequence, the constitutional architecture is gradually getting ruptured.
Democracy as a way of life is a larger philosophical and sociological question. It is concerned with the structure of relationships among human beings. Equality, liberty, and fraternity are as much political as societal challenges. At the inauguration of the Indian Constitution, Dr Ambedkar observed that democracy was merely dressing up over an undemocratic society. It is precisely for this reason that the Indian state was mandated to bring about transformation.
The state, in essence, is a structured form of power. In a crude sense, it is an institutionalised violence. The very purpose of the state is to maintain order. The question is: how does power, which is in essence pitted against freedom, bring about a democratic society? The constitutional vision was to create not only a democratic society but also an egalitarian, participative, and harmonious socio-economic order. It is this paradox that haunted India, and as a result, society remained extremely fragmented.
Indian society is not only economically divided in terms of distribution of power and property, but also socially authoritarian and hierarchical. Brahminism not only maintained it but reinforced this. Yet, society did not remain static—continuous battles, both peaceful and militant, have been taking place. Caste is a striking feature of social order. This order is passing through certain changes. Every caste is challenging the dominance of the caste above, which has the potential to democratize society. But simultaneously, every caste is consolidating its dominance over those below. We are witnessing both democratizing impulses and authoritarian consolidation. The middle castes hold the key at this point in time. The whole debate on OBCs is part of this dynamic. Historically, if the OBCs develop solidarity with the more marginalized, Indian democracy will flourish. But if they move closer to the upper castes and classes, there is the danger that the political class may rupture whatever advantages we have of liberal democracy.
As authoritarian forces gain momentum, the model of development has shifted from a welfare-centric to a growth-centric approach, which is inherently unequalising. Widening inequalities are visible to the naked eye and highlighted by economists and social scientists, who are deeply concerned about the poorer sections. The Indian Constitution, through Articles 38 and 39, promises the reduction of inequalities in income, status, opportunities, and facilities. It also promises that the means of production should not be concentrated and wealth should not become detrimental to the common good.
This combination of Brahminical forces and neo-liberal economic forces poses a formidable challenge to democratic forces. Technological breakthroughs, sadly, are creating conditions more favourable to authoritarian and undemocratic forces. The expansion of print and, particularly, the electronic media instead of opening more democratic spaces, has been captured by corporate interests, leading to the shrinkage of democratic spaces. This has led to the emergence of a post-truth culture, with misinformation and lies masquerading as truth.
The masses, in Paulo Freire’s words, are in semi-intransitive conditions. They are no longer in a state of innocence, nor have they reached critical consciousness to understand the underlying direction of motion of society. It is at this stage that political manipulations, politics by other means, dominate. The historical challenge confronting Indian democracy is how much democratic political energy is required for society to cross the bridge from semi-intransitive to critical consciousness.
Indian society is undoubtedly undergoing a transition. The increasing use of brutal force is dialectically an indicator of growing democratic consciousness. There is relentless resistance: militant tribal struggles to protect mineral resources from the state-corporate nexus, Dalit movements resisting caste dominance, continuously drawing inspiration from Dr BR Ambedkar. The women’s movements today demanding dignity, self-respect, and equality. Patriarchy on trial. Political class is increasingly recognizing women as an important factor in political process. Minorities are seeking secular alliances for their own rights and farmers unions demonstrated their power in successfully resisting corporatization of agrarian sector. Civil liberties and democratic rights movements stand by these struggles. Today, Indian society stands at a crossroads: while forces of dominance are frightening, the resistance is very promising. Indian polity slipped into a semi-fascist phase. Whether the civil society will succeed in containing it or we have to pass through full blooded fascism is a major challenge to the Indian society.
Lohia Academy or the vision of Lohia reminds that India needs seven revolutions to create a democratic society. This lecture, in honour of Rabi Ray—a practicing democrat—is indeed a Ray of Hope.
Prof. Haragopal, formerly with University of Hyderabad.
(The Rabi Ray Birth Centenary Lecture was given by distinguished Professor and noted Human Rights Defender Prof. G. Hargopal on November 26, 2025 at Budha Mandir Auditorium, Bhubaneswar on the invitation of Rabi Ray Birth Centenary Committee and Lohia Academy. Here we publish the abstract of his lecture for the public. The video of his lecture will come on Samadrusti TV youtube channel. )
Comments
0 comments
