http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/battle-for-democracy/articleshow/58485801.cms
Sidharth Kuncalienker thinks some things were better under Portuguese dictatorship. At last week's launch of historian Celsa Pinto's excellent books on Panaji, the capital city's recently re-elected MLA complained that the 19th century Corte de Oiteiro (Cortin) passageway cut into Altinho hill would probably be "prevented by the NGT (National Green Tribunal)" in our own times. According to him, the spectacular 17th century bridge-causeway linking Ribandar to Panaji would today be stymied by CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) rules. He bemoaned that colonial police had a free hand, but when he prompted city cops to reprimand young daredevils, it resulted in complaints of human rights violations. Comments such as these by Kuncalienker have become commonplace, reflecting broad trends that extend past Goa to the rest of India and to many countries in the West. In all these places, a strong backlash has emerged against liberal democratic principles, which have shored up the global consensus that held throughout the 20th century. Everywhere the space for dialogue and dissent is rapidly shrinking to insignificance, as politicians routinely deploy the threat of mob violence. Even as hard-won institutional checks and balances come under severe assault, independent watchdogs are attacked if they delay or deter corporate or government agendas. In Goa, there is nothing to choose between any political entity with regard to the erosion of independent institutions. All recent governments persistently sought to undermine the writ of law, evade impact of inconvenient legislation, and shut down critical voices from civil society and non-governmental organizations. Across party lines, the state's political leadership colluded to allow thousands of violations of CRZ and other land use norms, and consistently derided the lonely and courageous work of activists, who continue to question illegal devastation of Goa's natural assets. It has been a steady grinding down of plural voices and forces, to the point where the state's elected officials can now blithely criticize the last bastions of democracy's defences. It is small consolation that things are even worse in the rest of India, where crudely conceived majoritarian legislative impulses are now proliferating. In Gujarat, chief minister Vijay Rupani says he wants to ensure "a vegetarian state" even as 40% of his constituents eat meat. In highly diverse Assam — conspicuously flaunting the unambiguous recommendations of multiple commissions — the new state administration has imposed compulsory study of Sanskrit in all government schools. Stark, jingoistic hyper-nationalism has become a tool of convenience where any protests anywhere in India — including those by armed forces veterans — are routinely maligned for being "anti-national." India's rightward shift away from liberal democratic principles closely mirrors nearly identical movements in Russia, Turkey, the USA and several European countries. In Hungary, prime minister Viktor Orban is particularly straightforward, declaring "liberal democratic states can't remain globally competitive." He legislated against constitutional guarantees of expression, judicial independence, and religious freedom. Much the same happened in Poland, where strongman Jaroslaw Kaczynski hobbled the country's independent constitutional tribunal, and subverted state media into propaganda outlets. Democracy is close to 250 years old in USA, where robust checks and balances have proven relatively adequate to short-term political manipulations. Twice already, courts overturned the Donald Trump administration's orders for something like a "Muslim ban" on travellers. The new president's attempt to withdraw his predecessor's 'Obamacare' failed spectacularly. But there is now open warfare between the belligerent president and his judiciary, the state department's diplomatic corps, as well as most of the media. Total victory for Trump may be unlikely, but the new administration has already succeeded in laying the foundations for the removal of long standing liberal democratic norms. The closest analogies to what is happening in Modi's India (and to some extent in Parrikar's Goa) have played out in Russia under Vladimir Putin, and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both leaders flaunt uncannily indistinguishable platforms to Modi's BJP — an end to coalition gridlock, capacity to deliver on unprecedented economic growth, and projected strength overseas. Like Modi, Putin and Erdogan fetishize "the mother country", both subtly and overtly forcing acquiescence to a narrow conception of nationalism that emphasizes religious and socio-cultural homogeneity. Another arresting similarity with contemporary India is the constant reliance on "enemies within" to stir up political bases. There is much more shared between Putin and Erdogan, with considerable relevance to what is unfolding in India, and thus Goa. Both Russia and Turkey failed to deliver on sustainable economic development for most citizens. Instead, they witnessed the rise of all-powerful oligarchs and unfettered corporate entities that worked together to further undermine the rule of law, while government agendas run rampant without oversight. In India — especially Goa — the tide has not entirely turned. Citizens are not yet entirely voiceless or powerless. Contrary to Kuncalienker's slurs, it is precisely institutions like NGT and legislation like CRZ that hold the balance.