So now we have it. While “Independence Day” was releasing in cinema halls across the country, the Brexits were celebrating their very own Independence Day on the 24th June, the day the results were declared. By now we know that the financial markets across the globe (except for America) crashed. Political analysts were left gasping for breath, and right wing nationalists were rubbing their hands in glee.
Scotland has already declared its intention of having a second referendum on “independence” from the UK. They opted to remain in the EU, but want to opt out of the UK. Our very own Kejriwalji has set the ball rolling for a referendum on full-fledged Statehood for Delhi, as has the sabre rattling for a plebiscite in Kashmir.
Defying all economic arguments, “expert advice” and prognosis, the people of the UK chose differently. They were swayed largely by emotions; and a migrant phobia that was cleverly converted into right wing nationalism. Even the assassin of first time British MP, Jo Cox, shouted “Britain first” while attacking her. Back home another nationalist zealot, Nathuram Godse was similarly motivated to kill the Father of the Nation. Even today ultra-nationalists want to deify him. Such persons believe that shouting “Bharat mata ki Jai” is the ultimate proof of nationalism. How different are they from “Britain First”, or “America First” as espoused by the Trumpet? Migrant phobia and ultra-nationalism are here to stay.
The migrant or “outsider” phobia has been exacerbated by the Middle East crisis, and the cruelty of the ISIS. This has resulted in millions of migrants/ refugees seeking greener pastures in the safe havens of Europe. Unfortunately, Islamic based terror attacks only add fuel to the phobia. On the other hand a friend sent me a photograph of over one-lakh air-conditioned tents in Saudi Arabia, meant for housing Haj pilgrims. This Hindu nationalist wondered why these tents could not be used for housing the refugees (mostly Muslim)? Would not such a humanitarian act be far more pleasing to the God above? A cogent argument.
Within our own country we find several States that are increasingly resenting the “outsider”. All trade and commerce, including the lucrative tea gardens, in the North Eastern States are owned or controlled by Marwaris or Bengalis. Between 1961 and 2001 the Christian population of Goa dropped from 36% to 27%, enough to set the alarm bells ringing. Perhaps it was in anticipation of such “predations” that the Constitution of India has protectionist laws for various States. We often hear of Article 370 for the State of J&K. Nobody talks of the special provisions for Maharashtra and Gujarat in Article 371; or those of Articles 371 A – H for various States like Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal. There are also laws to prevent the sale of land belonging to vulnerable sections like the Scheduled Castes.
So there is a need to protect weaker sections of society.
A referendum, as the word itself suggests, is the act of referring an issue to others, usually the affected party. A conundrum is when the answer raises more questions than it resolves, as seems to be the case with Brexit. A plebiscite, as sought in Kashmir, literally means the “decree of the people”, not just an opinion. Sensing this, David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK, graciously offered to quit.
However, there can also be inherent dangers in such a process, because public opinion can easily be swayed by emotions. Probably the worst error in judgment in human history is when Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea, asked the people to choose between Jesus the Nazarene and Jesus Barabbas. The latter was a nationalist zealot who had killed for his beliefs, not unlike the assassins of Gandhiji and Jo Cox.
The frenzied mob chose to free Barabbas, and asked for Jesus to be crucified. That’s history. But then, from apparent evil there comes forth good. Let us wish the same for the Brexit conundrum.
There is the classic question that has to be answered with a Yes or No. Here it is; “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A Yes would imply that one had been beating one’s wife all along, while a No would indicate that one was still at it! Either way the referendee loses. This is the danger with all Black and White type of answers. They don’t account for the grey areas.
Truly speaking, the Brexit Referendum should have had a third option, other than Remain or Leave. It should have been Review – an option that there were some things in the EU that needed to be reviewed, or reconsidered; especially policies related to migration and employment. Just as we have preferential or protective options in our Constitution for various States or sections of society, the UK could very well have sought protective, selective or discretionary clauses to be inserted in the EU charter.
There can never be a “one size fits all”. Had such a third option existed I am inclined to believe that the result of the referendum would have been very different. Neither camp has one. Britain has been polarized socially and now faces political fragmentation.
It could learn a lesson or two from India’s unity in diversity. We could also learn some lessons from this referendum. There is much talk of globalization. Industry favours it, but blue collar workers feel threatened. Our Prime Minister could perhaps be renamed as Global Minister, for all his globetrotting. Ironically, his foreign forays have, so far, come to naught; especially with our fire breathing neighbours China and Pakistan. He would do well to heed the advice of Acharya Vinobha Bhave, “Think Global, act Local”. This should be the focal point of our development agenda.
If we do not pay heed to local aspirations, especially of the poor and disadvantaged, we run the risk of an Indexit, with several States clamouring for their own independence.
Not that it would be a solution. It would just be another conundrum, like the once “Great” Britain now faces. What a face off, with bloodied noses on both sides of the English Channel.
* The writer is a Kanpur based social activist