July 28 It's an odd thing. The weaker democracy gets, the louder the shouts you hear about how democracy is the "will of the majority", or some such.
Well, what majority? That's one question to ask. Why that one rather than another one we might concoct? That's another. Can this logic stand some scrutiny? Are there numbers that can help? That's what I wanted to explore. My Mint column for June 20: The majority and the promise of democracy, https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/the-promise-of-democracy-examining-the-concept-of-majority-in-india-11688058214142.html Thoughts welcome, as ever. yours, dilip PS: Yes, please do support the making of the film Voices of Deoli. The campaign needs to reach its target by August10 - just 13 days away! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/voicesofdeoli/voices-of-deoli --- The majority and the promise of democracy Trade secret: I am just over 6 feet tall. Now I haven't conducted a study of heights in the population myself. Nor do I know of one that's out there. But just going by what I see around me, I know my height makes me part of a minority. That is, the majority of Indians are less than 6 feet tall. In fact, I feel safe in saying the majority of Indians have been less than 6 feet tall for pretty much all our history, going back as many thousands of years as you like. Another trade secret: I am a man. In this case, there is plenty of data out there - example, our regular decadal Censuses until we didn't do the last one, in 2021. The Census data shows that my gender makes me part of a majority in this country. The 2011 Census, for example, showed that there 943 females for every 1000 males in India. In fact, I feel safe in saying the majority of Indians have been male for ... well, at least much of our Independent history, going back to 1947. What's my point? The idea of a "majority", and what that implies in a democracy. Plenty of people will nod their heads sagely at the idea that democracy means that the majority's will, or interests, must prevail. There's some truth in that. But as with a lot of things, it bears some examination. Right off the bat, it might suggest this question: which majority? For example, why not the majority that's shorter than 6 feet? That is, why should policies and development not be driven by the interests of the country's shorties? For one thing, that might mean that doors need not be higher than 6 feet. Standing room in buses and trains, likewise. You get the idea. Such features will be a serious disadvantage to Indians like me, and even worse for those taller than me. But not to most Indians, who will pass through those doors, or stand in our buses, without any problems. The majority, after all. Isn't that the promise of democracy? And in fact, something like this does actually happen. Doors in buildings are rarely more than about 6.5 feet tall. Buses top out below even that much. Yet there are Indians - a minority, of course - who are too tall for those doors, too tall to stand comfortably in those buses. In other words, doors and buses are designed for the great majority that can use those without problems. Again, the promise of democracy, right? The doors will just about allow us 6-footers entry, but not 6.5-footers. There's something, I'd suggest, to think about here. I don't know real figures, but if I had to guess, I'd say 99% of the population of India is shorter than 6.5 feet tall. That can't be very far off the mark. So clearly, we are completely ok with measures that suit this overwhelming majority. Nobody, not even the tiny tall minority, would seriously complain about this. Nobody even pays it much attention. In fact, if there ever was a demand to accommodate the tallest among us everywhere around us, I think it would attract some strange looks. Then again, there's a growing and widely-accepted recognition that we must accommodate the disabled - make public facilities disabled-friendly, that is. Why should this be, when disabled people who would benefit are, again, a tiny minority in this country? Well, it should be. Because, yet again, that's the promise of democracy. But let's take another majority. Males, I mean. The numbers I cited above translate into a 51.5% - 48.5% male majority in India. That's a pretty slim margin for us men, pretty close to equal actually. That's why, for example, bathroom facilities are generally equally distributed between women and men across this land. I realize women might take issue with that claim. After all, we have all been in situations where it is much harder for a woman than a man to relieve herself. Still, at least in theory, we make equal arrangements for each sex. And yet, women actually do form a minority in India - just 48.5% of the population, remember? Men are the majority. So why shouldn't the interests of men alone drive our democracy? Since they are the majority, why care about the interests and needs of others? That is, why not dispense with such facilities as: toilets for women, ladies' special trains, athletic competitions for women alone ... you get the idea. And dispense with them not because we recognize women as equal to men and thus in need of no special treatment, but because men are the majority, period. The promise of democracy, right? Yet of course, most of you (the majority?) would scoff at this, and rightly so. One argument you might make is that we don't discriminate on the basis of gender, and therefore the male majority doesn't amount to anything. Another argument might be that the difference between the male and female populations is so small as to be negligible. Again, the male majority doesn't amount to anything. In this case, democracy is not about the majority; in fact, the word "majority" doesn't really apply. Odd, because we've seen that it does indeed apply with people shorter than 6.5 feet. It's for that 99% majority, after all, that we design buses and doors and such like. Not for people taller than that. So here's the question for a column about numbers: is there a point somewhere between 50% and 99% that democracy does become the servant of a majority? Well, perhaps you think these explorations of height and gender majorities are just facetious. They are not. And that's because by now, perhaps you know where I'm going with all this. Hindus make up about 80% of India - a significant majority. Therefore there's an argument to be made, and plenty of people do make it, that it is Hindu interests that should drive the functioning of Indian democracy. Is that the promise of democracy? You may nod your head, you may not. But I'll offer you one more way to consider all this. Whatever your particular majority is, it hardly matters. Instead, what does matter in a democracy is that you - yes, you - are heard; that every voice is heard. And from that cacophony of voices that are heard, the idea of a democratic majority emerges. Certainly that's the ideal. But striving for that ideal is, in my book, the real promise of democracy. -- My book with Joy Ma: "The Deoliwallahs" Twitter: @DeathEndsFun Death Ends Fun: http://dcubed.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dilip's essays" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dilips-essays+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dilips-essays/CAEiMe8pSjf%3DuqHhJHM5kGGEkVf6GbEa6RnxF2EubvFGgMJQvsg%40mail.gmail.com.