Only an irresponsible populace will allow a nanny state

DeMo, GST, mandatory Aadhaar, not to mention beef ban, pre-censorship of movies, and compulsory patriotism — are we living in a nanny state? This was the topic of a house-full debate at the National Centre for the Performing Arts (NCPA) on November 16, the opening night of Tata Literature Live! in Mumbai. The lit fest, directed by the irrepressible and ageless Anil Dharker, attracted swelling crowds at both its venues — NCPA and Prithvi Theatre.

I, myself, joined the lists with Shashi Tharoor, Chandan Mitra, and Sunil Alagh. Consummately moderated by Vir Sanghvi, the debate drew a spirited response from the house. The team arguing for the motion won by a show of hands. Not surprising, given the presence of India’s most charming ‘rock star’ politician for the proposition. As Sunil Alagh, who spoke against, said, all Tharoor has to do is to say “I…” and ladies of all ages swoon. As if to prove the point, Tharoor waved to the audience to say, “Hi” (instead of “I”) to resounding applause.

But the issue of the nanny state is too serious to be reduced to a political slugfest. What is at stake are fundamental questions concerning who we are and how we wish to be governed. On May 14, 2014, just 12 days before he was sworn in as India’s 14th Prime Minister, Narendra Modi famously promised “Minimum government but maximum governance.” Our PM, who enjoys an 88 per cent popularity rating, according to the recent Pew survey, acknowledged that we were living in a nanny state. But has his government actually lived up to his promise of minimum government, maximum governance? I am not so sure. Far from retracting its tentacles, the government seems all-pervasive in controlling the citizenry.

The charge of running a nanny state cannot, however, be levelled against one political party. The previous Congress-led governments subjected us to a bigger, some would say wickeder, form of nanny sarkar. They over-managed the economy through pseudo-socialism, the notorious license-permit-quota Raj, crony capitalism, and endemic, almost compulsive, corruption. When it came to civil society, they promoted pseudo-secularism, divisive identity politics, and minority-appeasement to encourage entitlement instead of empowerment, connivance instead of competence, convenience instead of competition. 

Earlier, we inherited a despotic government from the British, which we modified into our paternalistic, socialistic, nanny state. The discourse of the fickle, unreliable, irrational, sentimental, and child-like Indian masses, deeply entrenched in the psyche of our British imperial masters, propped up the white-man’s burden and civilizing mission of colonialism, legitimising the worst form of exploitation and expropriation. Nehru, often called the last Englishman to rule India, turned this terrible legacy into a command and control economy. It kept the people not only poverty-stricken but dependent on the state for hand-outs and subsidies. For decades it was the Ambassador-and-Premier Padmini model of India’s mixed, or missed, economy.

Though the BJP set about in earnest to change the narrative, their understanding of power also appears to be more often coercive than facilitative. For many in the ruling dispensation, to capture power means to impose our will on others. Isn’t this somewhat negative and harmful, rather than a positive and progressive notion of power and a mistaken idea of the purpose of the state? 

Modern democracies are based on social contract, not the divine rights of kings, nor the despotism of dictators or the totalitarianism of one party. That is why our Constitution boldly proclaimed that “we the people” have constituted ourselves into a “Sovereign Democratic Republic.”

The Constitution promises justice, liberty, and equality, but, unfortunately, these have been diluted, what with the interjection of “Socialist, Secular” into the preamble during our worst nanny-phase, Indira Gandhi’s Emergency.

What many don’t know is that our Constitution is also full of contradictions. What it gives with the right hand it takes away with the left. The result? A colossal identity crisis in both citizen and state. Incidentally, this secular holy book itself has many nanny diktats, including injunctions against beef and alcohol.

The people ought to be sovereign, not the state. Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of swaraj too envisaged a society of highly evolved individuals. Swaraj and sarvodaya require self-reliance, not dependence on leaders, political parties, and governments. But the nanny state would rather turn us into “sheeple,” preoccupied and diverted with mega events and pronouncements of grand schemes, rather than engaged participants in our own governance.

We should not, however, absolve ourselves from our own unthinking complicity in the present state of affairs. We like to blame our politicians, but don’t we love to see our leaders and the state in familial, if not familiar, terms? Thus, we have a Didi state in West Bengal, and some time back, a Behenji state in UP and an Amma state in Tamil Nadu. Even Delhi, is less an aam aadmi sarkar than “Mamu Raj,” run according to the capers and caprices of a Tuglaq-like maverick.

The author is a poet and professor at JNU. Views expressed are personal.