Of voting and making it compulsory

                               Democracy’s clichéd definition is—of the people, by the people and for the people. Each preposition is equally important so as to form a coherent democratic structure. As one would have observed, the definition begins with a crucial aspect—“of”, which means that any democracy is formed by a set of people who decide their own elected representatives.

                            An important and unavoidable reason why democracy in India isn’t exactly “successful” as it is presented to be is because of enormous corruption that has entered the Indian political scenario. Most candidates are bought; votes and voters are bought, while bribes and materials are given to potential voters to woo them. Experts, democracy-lovers and activists have all unanimously agreed how the situation may improve if the elections become more participatory. More are the number of people who participate in the formation of the government, less are the chances of corrupt, unworthy candidates to win or even stand for the elections.

                           More often than not, elections and election results are wrongly perceived and interpreted. If candidate A has won by ‘x’ number of votes, it does not necessarily mean that he represents the majority of his voters. The disparity between the population and the population that actually votes in our country is so huge that it is too easy to fall prey to such false claims.

                           Let us first examine the reasons why one must vote (compulsorily or otherwise). Ideally, as a citizen of your own country, one is expected to vote and participate in the formation of the government; it is an opportunity given to every eligible Indian that one mustn’t miss if he/she wishes to see a particular set of people ruling the country. The fact that you vote is living proof that you, as an individual, participated in the formation of a democracy as huge as India. But, more often than not, this doesn’t work as a sufficient reason to urge voters to come and exercise what is their fundamental duty as a citizen. One needs to be above 18 years of age in our country to be able to vote. But, how many of us actually take that extra effort to get out of the house and vote for our desired candidate? Going by most election statistical figures, average voter turn-out in most Indian states is not more than 60 per cent. Given our population, these figures are a shame. The reason given by most educated voters, who do not have ignorance or lack of knowledge about the voting procedure as their excuse, is—that they do not believe their one vote can make any difference, or that there aren’t worthy enough candidates who deserve their vote. A counter to this is the concept of “Negative Vote” that was in the discussion forum not too long ago. To exercise a Negative vote would be like clicking on the “None of the above” option. It would, then, mean that the voter has expressed his/her dissatisfaction with all the candidates. However, this is not a plausible solution, precisely because it works in the favour of the candidates. Even if one were to give a “negative vote”, it doesn’t help the situation in any way as one among the given set of candidates would still win, with or without the voter’s vote.

                           Amidst all this arises a central question that has long been discussed and debated upon: should voting be made compulsory? Since the voter turnout is just about satisfactory, shouldn’t we ensure that there are more voters who exercise their rights? And one obvious way to do that is by making the entire exercise mandatory. Going strictly by the definition and demands of a democratic structure, making anything compulsory negates the very purpose of democracy, as an institution. Making something compulsory brings in the element of coercion and that borders around tyranny—the exact opposite of democracy. However, on the other hand, a set of experts believe there is no other way to ensure that everyone votes and once that is taken care of, one can hope for a less corrupt, more equal and a more desirable government. I, personally, do not believe that making voting compulsory is the right way to achieve this. While the intention may be strong and truly right, the procedure is indeed questionable. If I’m compelled to vote, I’m robbed of my own free will, essentially.

                           Voter registration and attendance at a polling booth has been compulsory in counties like Australia since the 1920s. This is why Australia has one of the highest voter turnouts in the world.  South American countries like Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela also have made sections of the voting procedure compulsory. But the plan has simply backfired. Venezuela does not have an impressive voting percentage to boast of; nor does the Netherlands, Mexico or even Greece. Merely making something compulsory doesn’t solve the problem. It’s better to have a 60 per cent turnout when we know that the people who voted did so voluntarily, out of their own free will and choice, than a 99 per cent turnout when we know that more than half of that astronomical figure voted out of compulsion and reluctance rather than willingness and choice.  

Of familes-joint and not-so-joint

When I look back in time, I recall listening to folk songs sung by my grandmother.

I recall her making the spiciest pickles I’ve ever had in my life.

I recall bribing my aunt with hugs and kisses not to tell Ma that I broke her ear-rings, so she could replace it with new ones.

I recall coaxing my uncle to get Pau Bhaji for dinner when dad refused to buy citing health reasons I never understood.

I recall playing Holi with my cousins on days when it wasn’t even the festival. All we needed was a few colours, water and each other. The rest was taken for.

So, why am I recalling them all of a sudden, out of the blue?

Well, these scattered thoughts are a consequence of the latest TOI report that Delhi is now witnessing the disappearnce of exended families now. And, I couldn’t stop myself from ranting about it.

An obvious and primary reason for joint families increasingly turning towards the nuclear fashion is a world of cut-throat competition and the elusive search for power, job and monetary security. In the pursuit of assuring these securities to one’s own immediate family (self, spouse and children), we have become so self-absorbed, self-obsessed and self-centered that to stay and sustain a joint family simply seems too much to ask for. It is not a question of which is right or wrong, which is better but a question of why. Why are families breaking down? Why can’t two families stay together in peace and harmony anymore? What has changed in the way we lead our lives that has resulted in this flux?

Maternal, paternal and/or fraternal feuds have become too common and unavoidable to be given another chance. The concept of adjustment and compromise has long been boycotted. This is also because couples are already adjusting and compromising enough amongst themselves in order to look at the larger framework. The fact that number of divorces in India has increased is a different matter all together (though related in many ways in terms of the “adjustment” and “compromise” bit). Delhi is also the divorce capital of India with more than 13, 000 pending cases in court.

Perhaps Delhi should be lauded for being the national capital, rape capital, divorce capital, and now, nuclear family capital of India. According to the report, there are hardly any extended families left. Interestingly, these families that have now become smaller and nuclear were all once a part of a joint family at one point of their lives. The man who lives, today, with his wife and only son in a three bedroom apartment on a posh lane in Greater Kailash, probably once lived in the dingy lanes of Karol Bagh in a house that was crumbling due to the constant noise, commotion and voices in his house. And this noise doesn’t necessarily denote a cause for worry. A flat/apartment that houses more than 5 people is bound to make noises due to the sheer fact that there are a certain number of people all living together under the same roof. But what they do under the roof is what has changed over the years.

It is also noteworthy to mention here that Delhi, largely, has a fluctuating population, like most other metropolitan cities. The city is shaped by migrating people that gives Delhi its cosmopolitan colour. One needs to look at the report in this crucial context. If more than half of the people of Delhi already comprise of students, college-goers, men and women from other places in this city in search of work, employment or education, what population are we anyways looking at? What remains is a much smaller number, who have decided to continue to live in the city, at the cost of breaking up ties with their respective extended families.

Who knows what the years to come will indicate? Perhaps, no more marriages ten years from now. I'll heave a sigh of relief for that, at least.

Of honour and shyness

 Picture courtesy Google Images

Bookanakere Siddalingappa Yeddyurappa. Can you even pronounce that? And yet the man with the tongue-twister name has been hogging the limelight like the winning breed of dog everyone suddenly wants to own after having won the Dog Show. Perhaps, we mustn’t draw a comparison between BSY (I’d rather stick to the abbreviation for space and spelling concerns) and a dog. For one, the latter is termed as “faithful”. To be fair, BSY isn’t faithful; BSY is a shy man.

Let us humbly acknowledge his endless love for his sons and daughters and sons-in-law. Who else will put his chair under scrutiny at the cost of acquiring vast lands for his near and dear ones?  Apparently his chair is equally dear to him. So BSY re-wrote the history of Karnataka politics and accepted the post of the most corrupt Chief Minister the state had ever seen. Of course, BSY wouldn’t say that directly. He’s a very shy man. But, what do you think he means when he says: “I’m innocent”. Well, of course he’s innocent. How innocently he de-notified those lands that were a property of the government.  All in the name of his loved ones. Oh, what selflessness!

BSY seems to like company of like-minded people. This is clear from the fact that he is not alone in his corrupt endeavors. All his bought party workers have sworn for their lives that they’ll support him. Of course, in the process, they also earn a little bit of money from here and there. However, what is that in contrast to the pool of money BSY is drowning in? But BSY is a shy man. He’s a man of integrity. He’ll sink in his pool of cash but won’t let anybody else enter it. Oh, what concern!

As long as he stuffs his workers’ a.k.a. servants’ pockets with currency, why should he worry? Worrying is not even good for a man of his age, which is not getting any less with the passage of time. But he must remember to add an extra few crores in those pockets. For what, you ask? Oh c’mon! Do you really believe organizing a strike in a state as large as Karnataka is a joke? It requires 3P’s:  paisa, patience and planning. And it requires the guts to cause a loss of almost Rs. 2000 crores to an entire state. But, BSY is a shy man. He’s too reserved to acknowledge the same. Oh, what modesty!

If one wishes to visit the circus out of nostalgic curiosity or childhood compulsion, one need not travel all the way to Mumbai. Or even Rampur, for that matter. You get to watch the “Live” version of the hullaballoo on almost all news channels. BSY manages to hold the eyes of the public and continues to be the media’s best bet when it comes to “news”.  What would the Press do, if it were not for him? But BSY is a shy man. He’ll shout his lungs out in the Assembly, watch his party members tear each others’ shirts like hooligans let loose out of an asylum, and yet maintain a nonchalant distance from the action. Oh, what humility!

Shakespeare’s Brutus was an honorable man. Who cares? It’s the new age of coyness. And no one can beat BSY on that! The poor guy fears witchcraft from the Opposition. Clearly, the Opposition has no heart for an altruistic man. Tsk tsk!