The struggle for independence in India was primarily about access to democratic spaces for all who are citizens of the country. That democratic space is embodied by 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. And yet, it is access to that very space that governments in India – both central and state – have continued to erode.

Related Links
Govt Arrest Leader Opposing POSCO
'Suspected Maoists' Arrest Sparks Debate
Another Social Rights Activist Imprisoned Without Bail
Who Controls Hindu Terrorist Groups

India has never been a perfect democracy – and perhaps there is no perfect democracy. In the past, access to democratic spaces for all citizens was limited by conflicting interests, vote bank politics, and problems of law and order. It was true that 'muscle-men' and special interest groups often limited how people accessed their right to public participation and policy making – however, the existence of muscle-men and the power they wielded was owing to inefficacy of the government.

However, in the last decade, it seems that governments have made policy decisions to limit access to that space. This is not the result of inefficacy of governments – in fact, governments are efficiently acting to limit public participation especially for those who provide dissident voices to government policies. And they have done so in public – almost as if they are making an example of how dissident voices will be put down.

It is not clear when this trend began, but it is strong today. The methods in which governments have dealt with those opposing POSCO, projects in Nandigram and Singur, policies in Chattisgarh, are all examples. The implications are quite significant for the democracy of the country.

For one, it implies that the policies of those in power cannot be questioned. The space for dialogue and for non-violent dissidence is being squeezed. This has resulted in a growing trend of violent opposition. Dynamics of opposing perspectives is being played out through violent methods by those in extreme positions rather than those who can engage in constructive conversations. The space for negotiations and evolution of policies that address opposing sets of concern is disappearing. The most important aspect of a democracy - not majoritarianism but the ethos that one needs to truly listen to multiple concerns and needs - has already disappeared.

At the same time, the state continues to engage in active repression. Those who present opposing view points or actively and non-violently oppose implementation of policies are being labeled as terrorists, or naxalites, or sympathisers and arrested without bail or recourse to justice. They are being tried in the media. On the other hand, extremist groups are presenting a case that the only way to oppose state violence and implementation of statist policies is through violence as well.

This also gives more reason to bureaucrats to beat up those who question their operations. Thus, NREGA activists or those organizing social audits into funding of government programs of right to employment or right to food have been arrested ad-hoc by bureaucrats. RTI activists continue to be intimidated by bureaucrats – that is not even newsworthy. In the recent past, Jharkhand police arrested members of NREGA activists who were organizing social audits asking whether government funds have been appropriately distributed. Of course, the fact that thousand of crores of Rupees of scams have played themselves out in every state – funded by NREGA – is neither actionable nor relevant! By labeling anyone who is a threat as a naxalite, the bureaucracy has been quite effective in ensuring that their projects related to personal aggrandization of wealth continues unabated. In addition, processes for accountability of the bureaucracy to the democratic set-up – which was marginally effective in any case – is being rendered unviable.

More concerning is that such action by the government is increasingly creating a culture of intolerance. At the level of communities, there is increasing buy-in to the belief that those who are not with me are my enemies and it is OK to violently attack them. While caste, gender or community based violence has existed in pockets or has emerged during specific times, there almost seems to be an umbrella acceptance of violence against those who look or behave differently. It seems OK that people wearing different kinds of clothes can be beaten up in Mumbai. It seems OK that the CM of Delhi – a woman – can get away with saying that women who dress differently could be violently attacked and it is the fault of the women. It seems OK for people to beat up those who choose other ways (which are harmless as such) of having fun - for example, in pubs in Bangalore. It seems OK to beat up people who disagree with you. The space for respectful disagreement is gone.

Thus, the democratic space shrinks in three ways

• continual reduction in public participation in policy making, especially in opposing government proposals

• continued restriction in accountability of public institutions

• significant reduction in community spaces for public discourse and diversity

In their thrust for greater GDP and achievement of economic super power status, government agencies seem to be unaware that there is increasing Talibanization of society – perhaps not in purely religious terms but in terms of 'my way or death'.

No one is left untouched. Not those who are religious, nor those who are middle class, nor those who are poor, nor those who are urban, nor those who are rural, nor those who celebrate valentine's day, nor those who go to pubs, nor those who finding alcohol and drinking distasteful, nor professionals, nor those who live in the poorest slums. There is no question that people are beginning to see this and are concerned - the pink chaddi campaign showed us that.

Can we begin to talk about this in our community spaces? Can we begin to celebrate our diversity? Can we reclaim these democratic spaces?