Should and can all religions, genders and communities be represented in the Cabinet?

I just read a piece “Yes, We are Indians but we are also more” by Abhinandan Sekhri of Newslaundry, where he very eloquently argues for inclusion of all religions, genders and communities in the Cabinet.

To put it succinctly, Mr Sekhri argued that no matter however much human beings want to, it is impossible for them to think of all sections of the population. It is because of our socialisation that we cannot look beyond our limited viewpoint. He has given examples of his experiences with his crew while he was producing a show, work in panchayats, and a few from the United States of America.

In my opinion, while coming to this conclusion, Mr Sekhri makes two assumptions:

1. People cannot make effective inclusive policies, no matter how sincere they are because of their limited point of view.
2. If all communities, religions and genders are included it will lead to better policies.

I see a few chinks in both the arguments.

The first assumption can be nullified by giving a few examples that show how inclusive policies can be formulated without having representation from all categories in the cabinet.

I will give a few examples from polity, not from other fields as I feel they will be more relevant:

1. Constituent Assembly had only 9 women but it penned article 326 through which India became one of the first countries to give voting rights to women. All gender-based discriminations were legally removed through articles 14 and article 15.
2. India was facing highly polarised times, partition had just taken place. Constituent Assembly had 33 Muslim representatives out of 299 members, but none of the 18 committees including minorities was headed by a Muslim. Still the Constitution gave special rights to safeguard minorities.

All castes were not represented in the Constituent Assembly but the Assembly decided to grant reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Untouchability was criminalised. Caste reservation had come through “Poona Pact”, but tribes were still not represented in the assembly.

It’s not always that people can’t think beyond their narrow horizon. Constituent Assembly which was called Brahmin-dominated, lawyer-lacking and unrepresentative of India’s diversity made policies which have held the nation together till now.

So how do politicians incorporate different viewpoints?

1. The government has different mechanisms of consulting different groups before making policies. There is the National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for SCs and STs, various NGOs, standing committees, citizen groups whose view points are taken before a policy is made.
2. Views of the public are also invited for making policies. The advent of Internet has made it even easier.
3. Public pressure does lead to better policies. Examples include Protection of Civil Rights Act, Hindu Code Bills and Manual Scavenging Act. Hindu Code Bills came at a time when there was substantial opposition to them from the majority.

The second assumption which Mr. Sekhri has made is that inclusion of all groups will result in better policies. I am not saying inclusion will lead to worse policies. In fact, it may lead to better policies; but a causal relationship cannot be drawn that it shall lead to better policies.

Why can’t a causal relationship be drawn? For this we have to go a little deeper. Let us see how “inclusion” can come about.

Inclusion

Inclusion in the cabinet can be done in three ways; through reservation, voluntary inclusion by the party and usage of proportional representation method for voting.

Let’s analyse these ways of providing inclusion.

Reservations

One argument against reservation is regarding those among reserved categories getting these positions. It is only elites from these sections who are far away from the ground reality who gain political power. Taking Uttar Pradesh or Bihar’s example, it is argued that in these states lower castes have mobilised politically, and have attained political mobility. It might seem lower castes have acquired power and become better off, but nothing can be further from the truth. “TK Oommen”, noted sociologist has explained this through concepts of “power reservoir” and “power exerciser”. He says that caste may have become a power reservoir but it’s the elites in these castes who remain power exercisers. Caste politics in these states have not led to any gains for the lower castes, rather caste divisions have sharpened.

The second argument against reservation is how do we give reservations and to whom do give reservations. Let’s for now ignore the constitutional position that religion-based reservations cannot be given. Since we want maximum inclusion, viewpoints of everyone should be included to ensure inclusion of maximum categories and viewpoints.

Let’s say I make a public announcement, “All those who feel they are a different category and will have a different point of view in the cabinet, please step forward.”

What do I see? Different religions; Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and of course we have atheists too. Different classes; upper, middle, lower, and different groupings in these classes as well. Different family sizes: joint, nuclear and singles. Even tribals have formed their own groupings; Santhals, Bhils, Mundas, Gonds say they are not homogenous, and only they can make policies for themselves. Similarly, different castes have also stepped forward. I can’t even count their number. There are so many other categories I can’t even comprehend.

Bad experiment! Everyone please step back. I guess it will be very difficult to include all the sections in the cabinet and those left out will not be very happy. According to me it’s a question as to how this actually can be done.

Voluntary accommodation

Second way to get inclusion is voluntary accommodation by the party. Still the problem of which group to include remains unanswered. If this is also resolved, the fundamental question is why should people make way for others in the cabinet? Shouldn’t it be on the basis of merit, ability and suitability? Other members of the party will resist it. The cries of voluntary inclusion are close to the Utopian view, comparable to “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”

Proportional representation

Third way to provide inclusion is have proportional representation method for voting. But there are many arguments against this method.

First is its complexity, which makes it highly difficult for an average citizen to understand. For e.g. a Buddhist living in Punjab wanting to vote for a Buddhist has to go through a list of thousands of candidates who have put in their names for elections to look for his candidate. It will be administratively impossible.

Second is how will the government be formed? Proportional representation will lead to highly fractured mandate. To make up 50% of the strength of the Lok Sabha, highly opportunist coalition partnerships will emerge. It might lead to policy paralysis.

But whom do politicians work for?

Politicians who might have a narrow viewpoint, still end up making inclusive policies. We saw how constitutional makers were inclusive, and much legislation was drawn in the last 67 years which have been very inclusive. Why is it so?

The answer is “accountability”. Politicians are accountable to people. They have to go back to people asking for votes. Even if the voters of a category consist of only 10% of the population, politicians just cannot ignore them. Their exercise is highly utilitarian. For e.g. when Prime minister Modi visited Madison square garden, many USA senators and congressmen came along; I guess to make efforts to connect with Indian Diaspora which just is 1% of the population of USA.

Another assumption

Mr. Sekhri made another assumption in his piece. This assumption is unrelated to his main idea. He writes “Putting the two together my default setting is – slightly sexist, foul-mouthed Hindu male. Hey! I should automatically get entry into a Modi-bhakts online troll team”.

His assumption that sexist, foul-mouthed Hindu male = member of Modi-bhakt online troll team can be nullified by presenting tweets of many sexist, foul mouthed Hindu male supporting all parties including Congress and AAP.  But that’s not the main point of the piece. Is it?