{ முகநூல் கருத்துக்கள்}{ட்விட்டர் கருத்துக்கள்}

On May 8th, 2006, Tamil Nadu will go to the polls to elect its 13th assembly. About 46 million people are eligible to vote and they would be voting for a government that would govern their lives for next five years. We would be knowing the outcome on the 11th of May.

Over the years, people have realised democracy - despite its shortcomings - is the best way to manage the affairs of a nation, most certainly the affairs of a nation as large and complex as India. A nation of billion plus people, India is not a homogeneous country. If you apply the 'Language filter', there are those who speak Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Bengali and so on. If you apply the 'Religion filter', there are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and so on. If you apply the 'community/caste filter', there are Dalits, Brahmins, Yadavs and so on. If you apply the 'Economic filter', there are the upper class, middle class, lower class and so on. Then there are pressure groups - like that of trade unionists, pensioners and so on. Democracy gives an opportunity for all these groups to advance their own interest in a peaceful manner within the large framework called the Constitution.

People - by and large - do not vote as individuals. They vote as a group. The group could be Tamils (for the welfare of tamil speaking people), Muslims (for the welfare of those practising Islam), middle class (for the advancement of economic welfare). In a democracy, elections are the primary means by which peacefully a government is chosen - a government that would advance the interests of majority of the groups - without compromising the essence of the Constitution and at the same time - by being fair to other groups as well. As long as the intent is to advance one's own cause - accommodating the wishes of others to the greatest extent - it is the best possible and a fair exercise.

Sometimes we hear voices that say we shouldn't be voting as tamils or as muslims or as backward castes, but we should think of ourselves as Indians and vote. Though it sounds very lofty, the underlying argument behind this is ill-founded. Democracy and elections are means by which an individual/groups can peacefully aspire to attain things that are dear and important to them. These goals may not be in total sync with the goals of other groups, but a truly democratic nation would understand - that sometimes things we may want - may not be attainable because a majority of people do not like it. It is give and take, you get some, you dont get some. This is the only way you can keep running a modern democratic country peacefully.

Upcoming elections in Tamil Nadu present us with two major choices - one is the ADMK alliance led by ADMK (which is in power). The other choice is the DMK alliance - which has parties like Congress and the Communists behind it. What are we going to be voting for? On all the major issues (like corruption, nepotism, investments, populism), both these alliances are more-or-less the same. The difference is - if any - very subtle and in making a decision as huge as whom to vote for, not worth considering at all.

So - based on what can we decide? As Muslims, as Tamils and as Indians, the choices before us are these: Is it between the corrupt and the not-corrupt? No, both are corrupt. Is it between the morally clean and the unclean? No, both are steeped in degrading culture. Is it between the one that can improve the economy and the other that cannot? No, Tamil Nadu has its own positive dynamics - thanks to its geographic location, thanks to its talent pool, thanks to its bureaucracy. Despite (whatever be) the government, Tamil Nadu will continue its advance. Is it against nepotism? No, if Ms.Jayalalitha has large influence of Mrs.Sasikala's family, Mr.Karunanidhi need to answer for the large influence of his own family. Then, what it really is?

It actually boils down to personalities, the democratic culture and the future of minorities in the all-India context. Even here, one must point out, the scenario is muddled - with both the parties having dirtied their hands. Of these issues, you can set aside as comparatively minor the fact that ADMK has reduced itself to a one-woman show endangering its long term future and stability of democratic institutions. You can also set aside the fact that autocratic tendency is more pronounced in the case of Ms.Jayalalitha than in the case of Mr.Karunanidhi.

The deciding factor as for as Muslims are concerned (and a contributing factor to the Majority community - given that a happy minority community is in the interest of the wider Society) should be the future of minorities. On more than one occasion, Ms.Jayalalitha has shown that her natural inclination is towards the Hindutva ideology. Many have argued Ms.Jayalalitha is a politician, not an idealogue. They say if need be - for legal, political or personal reasons - she would act against Hindutva forces - like she did in the case of Kanchi Shankaracharya. This is an interesting point - which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Yet it remains a serious concern and many are not willing to give the benefit of doubt to her.

Finally- in the overall context - with Congress aligning with DMK and a current central government being lead by the Congress - the national factor need also be considered. The next elections to the lower house of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) is due by 2009. It is very unlikely ADMK would be able to tie up with Congress - given that Ms.Jayalalitha had expressed her dislike for Mrs.Sonia Gandhi in no uncertain terms. It is also very unlikely ADMK will oppose the BJP and stand on its own in the national elections. Directly or indirectly, ADMK would most certainly like to tie up with the BJP (the much-promised third front comprising Samajwadi Party and the Communists remains a distant dream). Given this factor, any strengthening of the ADMK alliance may not be good in the long term. Though this is a state election, given everything else is equal (corruption, nepotism etc), our choice has to be primarily guided by this larger, national picture.