The will of the people is at the heart of democracy. But it is also true that political forces can mobilize society in ways that flout its essential values. This is when democracies run the risk of turning into majoritarian excesses. The history of our neighborhood is dotted with such examples. Countries that decided to stake their future on a single identity defined by religion or language, and excluded anything that was inevitably holding up social conflict with them. There were a flurry of lawsuits in Indian courts challenging the status of mosques such as the Gyanvapi Mosque in Banaras and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura, and also next to the Qutub Minar in Delhi – on the argument that they were once temples, we could in the street reach the same point. Arguably, we began this journey in the 1990s, when the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya became the center of a movement that pushed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) into the race for power. Hindutva politics has since tried to turn India into a majoritarian form. In doing so, it has flipped the Overton window, of the range of ideas acceptable to society, and allowed what was once unimaginable or secretive to gain public support. In recent years several states have enacted laws that curtail basic freedoms—to marry anyone or adopt another religion—in the name of protecting the majority from the shadowy enemies of “love jihad” and demographic aggression. For. New claims at mosque sites have set the stage for a further trial.
Some argue that the electoral support for the BJP and the silence on the disputed structure among most of its rival parties is a reflection of popular will on these matters. Yet, if so, and we have no way of checking, then democracy is not just about the will of the people. It is installed on a set of non-negotiable. These create a national agreement for harmony and peace which includes rights of minorities, equality before the law, freedom to practice any religion and right to live without any discrimination. In the West, utopian dreams of ‘direct democracy’ were fueled by the reality that, like an auto-immune disease, it could increase the freedoms granted. For example, in 2009, Swiss voters voted to ban the minarets from city views, possibly out of fear of Islamic propaganda. Democratic processes need to be mediated by leaders and institutions committed to the freedoms needed in an open society and aware of the various alternatives that cannot be pushed into the Procrustean mold.
In the case of India, the arbitrators should draw a line and make it clear that the injustices of history cannot be used to undo the present, regardless of popular sentiment. This responsibility rests with the judiciary, the main body entrusted with maintaining our Constitution, especially the Supreme Court. In its 2019 judgment, which awarded the site of the demolished Babri Masjid to a temple on grounds of prolonged occupation by Hindus, our apex court had called the 1992 demolition “criminal” and referred to the Places of Worship Act, 1991. did. Which all other sites must retain their religious character as of 15 August 1947. If equality of all religions was the guiding principle of this law, then the need to prevent the past from discord was its practical argument. Unfortunately, the sophistication law’s time limit on specifics has led us down a path of litigation that can fuel obsession, drag other sites into contention and worsen a breakdown that hasn’t lost its ability to fix. needed. This is to remove us from danger to the judiciary.