Violence—Antithesis of Democracy | UPSC Mains Essay Preparation PDF Download

Violence—Antithesis of Democracy

structure

(1) Opening    —    Quote Gandhi, Nehru

(2) Body    —    Democracy is based upon justice, equality and freedom.

    —    It can only be ensured by understanding, debate and discussion and adjustment.

    —    Violence removes individual’s initiative, courage, resourcefulness and creativity.

   —    With violence, only the strong will be enjoying and weak would be pushed towards the wall. No equality.

  —    Violence destroys social fabric, economic structure and political institutions.

    —    No elections worth its name if fear remains.

    —    People’s sovereignty lost.

(3) Closing    —    Violence only leads to dictatorship

Democracy, according to Gandhiji, is one in which a prince and a pauper have equal rights. Nehruji remarked that freedom can be ensured only in a democracy. As the classic definition of democracy by Lincoln says—Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. All these explanations imply one thing—that democracy is the rule of the people. These people have equality of opportunities and facilities in all spheres of life. Understanding and adjustment govern their social and other relations. Equality, justice and freedom are the hallmarks of democracy.

Democracy in usual connotation is related only to the political sphere. Actually, democracy is, in the words of Nehruji, essentially a scheme of values and standards in life. It is a state of mind and describes our attitude towards others. Since democracy is people-oriented, whatever is sought to be done in it has one goal—welfare of all. And who is a better judge than the people themselves of what is good to them. This implies that democracy involves discussions, deliberations, argumentation and debates among the people before any decision is taken by consensus or at least by majority. All this shows that for democracy to succeed people must be disciplined, mature and peace loving.

Violence is the work of indiscipline and immaturity. It is resorted to by those who are mentally weak and are unable to argue their point of view well. As a cynic remarked, ‘When you have good arguments, bang your points and when your have none, bang the table’. The advocates and practitioners of violence do the same. They loot, maim and kill others to terrorise them into submission. Their objective is what cannot be achieved through ballot must be snatched by bullet. How can such a philosophy which is opposed to the very concept of people’s rule have any place in a democracy? Surely, violence is antithesis to democracy.

In a democracy, people are given power to choose their rulers. They take decision on the basis of what they think would be best for the society. But to be meaningful, elections must be free and fair. Ballot cast under the shadow of gun cannot reflect the true feelings of the people. Booth capturing, intimidating voters, killing opponents are various means by which votaries of violence try to gag the election process. The result is that democracy is reduced only on paper, and in practice, it is the gun power that rules.

In any nation, there are number of groups of people—some are numerical majority and some majority. In a true democracy there has to be no distinction between the majority and the minority. Only when each person chooses freely and independently, can real democracy be said to be at work. However, violence which is based upon sheer muscle power can push the weak and the minorities towards the wall. They will be intimidated and pressurised. The rule then becomes one of majority dictatorship. But with a large minority being subdued, stability and peace can never be ensured. Freedom is indivisible and when some of us are kept mental prisoners [like ghetto syndrome], how can we call ourselves free? And without freedom, what meaning does democracy have?

Violence fractures social relations, disrupts the economy and harms political institutions. When a upper caste leader publicly claims to have cast ballots for the weaker castes and prevented them from expressing their choice, and justifies this action on historical grounds, can we say that democracy has permeated our social structure? Have we freed our mind from prejudices and filled it with democratic instincts? The answer is an emphatic no.

For democracy to succeed, not only political freedom but economic freedom and meeting basic needs of the people is a must. ‘A vote to a hungry stomach’ is a useless concept because vote can be sold to satisfy hunger. And violence creates hunger by damaging economy. It prevents prosperity from taking roots. And if we think that democracy can be sustained by half naked beggars, we are living in a dreamland.

If we want our political institutions to gain legitimacy, everyone should be made a part of it and this can be achieved only in an environment free from fear and violence. By perpetrating violence on a section, we cannot even dream of democracy but only a dictatorship if not of one man then of one group.