I do not have any experience in nation-building; however, 35 years of my existence, has taught me that nation and family home are very much alike. A democratic nation state is bound by the borders that make up the country, and the family home is bound by the contours of the structure that makes up the house or the modern-day apartments. A family home is made up of members of the family, tied to each other by a bond-of-blood, who reside in the house and contribute in making it a ‘home’.
A nation, similarly, is made up of a large mix of people of different genders, races, colours, religions, classes, castes, professions, physical and mental attributes, ideological inclinations et al, playing their role in nation-building, connected by the feeling of belonging, sanctified by the contract–the Constitution.
Underlining this arrangement is the promise that each will be heard and concerns shall be addressed to the extent these do not affect any other group adversely.
How Decisions Are Made in a Functional Family
In a traditional family based on the patriarchal or matriarchal systems that may be followed and in the modern nuclear families, there exists a ‘decision maker’ for matters that affect the family. It may be the same individual, group of individuals or different individuals for different issues.
This ‘decision maker’ may be preordained or mutually agreed within the family or identified or negotiated, basis the internal and external dynamics governing the family. A family generally faces the task of taking decisions in matters involving ‘emotion’ and also ‘reason’. In a family, the ‘decision maker’ is tasked to find a sound balance between reason, logic, emotion and foresight. It is desirable that while taking a decision, the interest of every member of the family, the young, the old, the emotional, the logical, the rational/liberal, the conservative, the brash, the civil and the not-so-civil members, are considered alike.
The decision that s/he takes as the ‘decision maker’ charts the course of the family not just in respect of the decision that is taken, but also the family unit’s future – that is, whether the family home would continue to evolve and last, while holding on to its blood-bond, as time progresses.
Necessarily in an ideal family most of the times, the decision that such a family member takes, is after hearing everyone, and if someone is left out and/or adversely affected by such a decision, in a rational situation, the decision is recalled.
Irrespective of the premise (emotion or reason) on which a decision is made, the ‘decision maker’ of a family honours and tries to address and assuage the concerns of the family member who may be affected by the decision.
If India is ‘Home’, Why is the State Not Acting Like a Family Elder?
A democratic nation State necessarily acts very much like the family home – but is guided by the Constitution which provides a more robust, rational and stronger bond than that of the blood. The leadership of a democratic state is expected to ensure, that not only is the Constitution adhered to in ‘letter’ but also in the ‘spirit’.
Unfortunately, today, the Indian State’s present-day leadership refuses to acknowledge the existence of legitimate concerns and also the existence of persons who will be affected by its decision on NPR, NRC and CAA (read with CAA 2003).
One wonders if the Indian State’s leadership also believes that the ‘collateral cost’ arising from the NPR and NRC read with CAA (and CAA of 2003) is a ‘necessary and legitimate cost’ that needs to be borne? I would like to believe for India’s sake that this is not the case!
When seen from this prism, in today’s context, the challenge for the opponents of NPR, NRC and CAA, is that the ‘power’ to take a decision on the repealing and withdrawal of NPR, NRC and CAA vests solely with the group that has been a proponent of NPR, NRC and CAA. The opponents of NPR, NRC and CAA have but only the option of reaching out to India’s larger population, the court of democracy, by creating awareness.
Is the ‘Family Elder’ of the Indian State not Abdicating Responsibility?
The Indian State’s present-day leadership suffers from an inexplicable inability to shed its ideological objectives, in the instant case, given the ‘collateral cost’ involved in implementing NPR, NRC and CAA (read with CAA 2003). The notification of January 10, 2019, bringing into effect the provisions of CAA, is evidence of the State leadership’s preference to its ideology over the concerns being expressed by India as a democratic-nation.
This is nothing but an equivalent to ‘abdication of responsibility’ by a ‘decision-maker’ of a family-home when faced with opposition in relation to a decision that s/he has taken. From my personal experience, I can say abdication of such nature will be unpardonable by future generations.
I salute the spirit of the Young India, minorities and women who, despite being aware of the Indian democratic nation State’s propensity for ‘intolerance’ as a means to silence alternate perspectives, have dared to initiate the conversation around NPR, NRC and CAA.
Dialogue and healthy debate are fodder for the making of great democratic nation States. I pray that this conversation that has been initiated by them sees its logical and rational conclusion – with the Indian State’s leadership displaying the wisdom, pragmaticism and inclusiveness of the ‘decision maker’ of a family home .
I hope they exhibit the same openness as is displayed by the opponents of NPR, NRC and CAA (read with CAA 2003), and without approaching this issue as a “deal” that has to be won at all costs!
(Mohammed Abid Hussain works at a law firm based out of New Delhi. This is a blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)