Consider The Word "Legitimacy"

Writes Tavleen Singh in her Sunday column:

...wherever I go these days I meet people who say they are sick and tired of Dr Manmohan Singh. An India Today poll recently confirmed that his ratings are as low as they have ever been. This is because he is seen as a timid, weak man who is unable to say or do anything until he has permission from 10 Janpath. Everyone knew when he took the job that he was our first Prime Minister to be appointed and not elected and for a while it seemed as if he could pull it off. But, now this awkward arrangement has created the unfortunate and insidious impression that the Government of India is unable to do anything at all.

I daresay it is not as simple as that. This is a "crisis of legitimacy" - nothing less. All over the country, from the stone-throwers of Srinagar to the tribals of our jungles, all the way to our urban elites - the overall impression is that there is something seriously "illegitimate" about the Government of India. Before considering what might be done about this, let us first consider the meaning of the word "legitimate" - and how States acquire legitimacy.

A State is organized force and violence - and nothing else. If it wishes to remain legitimate in the eyes of the subject population, it must always ensure that its commands are "just"; that is, all its force and violence are used for legitimate purposes, and those who are at the receiving end of its Big Stick are seen to deserve it. In other words, the State must stand for certain "good" things - like Justice. If the violent acts of the State are widely perceived to be just, then this State can continue doing what it does, because it effectively "dominates" the whole of society. Indeed, no State - which is a structure of domination - can continue if its commands are seen as unjust, as "illegitimate." Why a State?: even a parent cannot dominate his kids if his commands are perceived to be unjust and illegitimate.

What were Chacha's commands? He asked us to pay the "education cess." He taxed us. We paid. He then set up various schemes by which this money would be spent - on completely idiotic things like ditch-digging. In the meantime, he tried to misuse Legislation to "protect" US companies, and not the citizenry, in case of nuclear accidents. He is trying to enslave us all with biometric ID cards - this, while Property titles do not exist. In Niyamgiri, the State is culpable in the attempt to steal tribal Property and hand it over to a multinational mining company. In all the Maoist badlands, numbering five or six states, the State Police has lost complete legitimacy because of past atrocities. Ditto in Srinagar. And, instead of doing something about this, the cops are trying to harass the rest of us - snooping on BlackBerry etc. Meanwhile, no zebra crossings exist in New Delhi. In the meanwhile, every city and every town is a HELL-HOLE. How can such a State "dominate" a huge mass of people? How can it demand taxes? How can it command loyalty to the regime?

In primitive times, there were rulers who dominated their subjects using military might. Along with this naked force, they employed a subtler tactic - appeals to the "irrational," by equating the State with God. The Pharaohs of Egypt were such. Further, legitimacy was always "clientelistic" - keeping some key officials happy.

In modern times, the domination-legitimacy dynamic has become much more sophisticated, and States use "legal" means to rule - the Rule of Law. And instead of irrational appeals to God, the vote is projected as a means by which the subject (erroneously) believes that he himself is his ruler. Legitimacy now is more "functional" than "clientelistic" - with the State performing useful functions well. In Germany, for example, I met many, many people who don't mind paying taxes "because of the roads."

How has the CONgress attempted to secure legitimacy for its regime? If you look deep, you will find that their appeals are like those of the Pharaohs of Egypt - there is the appeal to the "irrational," that someone from the Dynasty must rule; and then there are all the clients. From Farookh Abdullah to the IAS and IPS - all are clients. As are all the cronies.

What can be done about it? I think all the states that make up the federation must each think of its own future. The Centre must fold. This is precisely what happened when the Mughal Empire collapsed, and a ditty of the time went:

Poor old Shah Alam,
He rules from Delhi to Palam.

However, I do plan to tackle the subject of State legitimacy in depth over the next few days. Stay tuned.