Recently when the French parliament prepared a draft of the Religious Rights Bill, it was prompted by two years of debate and multiple terrorist blasts that killed more than 200 people in the past eight years. The practice of religion within the French constitution’s right to free expression was particularly difficult to define, for it tried to balance both — the traditions of Islamic practice and the government’s ability to intervene in potential threats to public safety. The carefully worded document was vetted by legislators and Islamic scholars and was the subject of a vociferous public debate, now awaiting ratification.Serious debate is a crying need in a country where everyone talks but no one listens. More often than not, most decisions in India on public legislation and public works are taken behind closed doors, or not taken at all. And by people who have either vested interests or no interest. Look at two recent events.Earlier when riots broke out in several Indian cities, including Delhi, over Indian citizenship and many died, there were accusations that the police had encouraged mobs; yet there was no inquiry, no investigation into the role of the police or local politicians, or indeed how to ensure future public safety. The matter was merely treated as a public riot. By contrast, after several African-American men were killed by police officers across the US, local and federal government officials immediately began a debate on whether to replace the police with a private neighbourhood protection force. Unlike the Delhi riots, it was too important an issue to be just swept under the rug.There has been similarly no discussion on the Central Vista project, despite its historic and iconic status. Treated like a domestic family affair, it is as if all choices of design and construction have been made at the family dining table — without the slightest regard for public debate or consultation. This is not unusual for a government that chooses to inform the public only when convenient.Public works of monumental scale abroad are accorded an altogether different approach. In 2019, after the Notre Dame Cathedral fire in Paris, the French government wasted no time in issuing a call for an international architectural competition to redesign the building’s burnt roof. There could be no better acknowledgement that the structure belonged to the world and an open competition was the most public form of debate. The work was won by Chinese architects. Would an open competition ever be considered for the Central Vista project?The Indian government relies on secrecy as its most expedient tool to keep the public guessing. Check out state or central government websites for any useful data, and you’d be surprised to hit anything of relevance. Almost all sites are a shameless promotion of local projects — roads built, institutes inaugurated, a new bridge on an old river. If you require information on rural school numbers in Bihar, or the number of new wells dug in Rajasthan, it’s best to seek help from local NGOs, or file a petition under the Right to Information Act.
Part of this awkward iron curtain on information and debate comes from the government’s implicit view that most people in India are incapable of comprehending complex issues. They can operate a voting machine because symbols like a broom or a cricket bat can be easily identified. But ask them questions on the merits of a new parliament building, or the new farm bills, the vast majority are either ignorant or incapable, or both. One could argue that when even MPs don’t deal intelligently with national issues how could you expect ordinary citizens to have a view, say on drug abuse in Punjab? Or take a stand on abortion?It eventually boils down to a matter of leadership. If you watch the debates on the German or Mexican parliaments, or other democracies, arguments will be presented with spitfire accuracy and informed rebuttals, without the lazy buffoonery or the petulant exchanges of the Indian parliament, where MPs throw personal jibes — and sometimes microphones — at each other. Does this kind of childish debate need a new Rs 800-crore building?Without debate, information or communication, the distance between government and people becomes increasingly unbridgeable. So much so, that it then falls on the Khan Market going citizens of Lutyens’ Delhi, or the Cuffe Parade shopping lot of Mumbai to present any semblance of an opposing view. It may fall on the government to be more open, and to increase both, the quality of Indian education and the level of parliamentary debate, so that more informed groups from all over India can participate in its public arguments. That way, in future — besides Lutyens’ Delhi — voices can also be heard from Nungambakkam’s Chennai and Hazratgunj’s Lucknow.
