Representing the under-represented

If you are reading this, there is a high probability that you fall in the category of substantially-represented population. This entry will talk about people who don't get to read stuff online. India, as it stands today, managed to achieve political democracy but haven't achieved her social democracy yet. Among very few nations on the globe, she managed to held 12 consecutive general elections after independence (from whites), which indicates that the political democracy has being achieved at some level. Read on to see why according to me, we failed to achieve social democracy.

We live in a country where recognition and history has always been crooked. Numerous examples: Rajiv Gandhi being recognized as a person who initiated the economic reforms as against to P V Narsimha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh; M K Gandhi's sagacity has being ignored or rather not recognized enough when he chose B R Ambedkar to be a part of the first cabinet as the law minister and head of drafting committee of a mammoth Indian constitution, even when Ambedkar had been very critical of Gandhi's approach towards the natives of India - Dalits and Advasis.

We live in a country where majority are fundamentalist and if they are called so, they don't like it. They will die for the ideas they believe in, which can be good or bad, but the problem lies in the part where they don't want to listen to the other story or argument. Worst thing is that they are very open to conflicts which will cause through such ideologies. I could not agree more when Nandan Nilekani says "Such 'Ideas of Conflict' is eating India from inside". We are yet to reach a point where we get over the 'Ideas of Conflict' and transform it in to the 'Ideas of Positive Social Change' and/or 'Ideas of Anticipation' and/or 'Ideas of Open Society' and/or 'Ideas of Emancipation'.

This is hurting India.

In contemporary India, Ambedkar's legacy prevails and deepens more stronger than any other leader for the very fact that the magnitude of impact his policies created is unmatched by any other policy that was ever materialized in India. He had warned India of following three things on 26th Jan, 1950. I am quoting him
"Abandon the bloody methods of revolution. There can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us" (Non-violence and follow-the-law approach!!)
"There was nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness." (Treating Men as Gods, Bhakti and devotion must have limits, which sadly cannot be judged true in India.)
"Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy"

I define social democracy as a society where the whole nation surge ahead and prosper and not just a limited set of people. India has a long way to go to achieve social democracy.The main reason behind it is the under representation of vast number of socially and economically backward people in main-stream media and decision making bodies in private/public industries and other important national-level entities. Moreover, the involvement of only affluent and middle class Indians in the process of globalization have widened the gap between poor and riches of India. What good is the change unless it benefits all sections of society. We need a radical transformation of ideas-causing-conflict to ideas-creating-better-future.

I will elaborate upon what I mean by transforming from 'Ideas of Conflict' to 'Ideas of Positive Change'. Consider a extra hot topic of casteism in India. Frankly, most of the problems India has can be traced down to it. Now, many Indians (mostly from urban India) might feel that not talking about it is a solution. Many Indian (mostly people who has seen the effects of caste-conflict in real) might feel that talking about it is a step in a right direction. Well, I am not to judge what is right. All I see is the fumigation infecting good minds of India in unproductive social quarrels and we are stuck in 'Ideas of Conflicts'. I do not have a silver bullet for it's transformation to 'Ideas of Positive Change', but I definitely feel that the substantially-represented Indians must act as mediocre-visionaries for what an amazing platform has already been set in India in terms of successful political democracy. This substantially-represented Indians must come forward to represent the under-represented Indians.

The question is, can we act as visionaries, like the leaders of 1947 with different interests who came together to build the nation, to carry the burdens of poverty stricken Indians.