It is axiomatic in democratic countries that every individual eligible to vote should be able to exercise that right unhindered. However as one recent account by the BBC indicates, this is not always the case. India just went through another national election where mass numbers of people out of an eligible electorate of roughly 714 million people exercised this right. However in the small village of Dharhara, located in the relatively underdeveloped state of Bihar, the 900 or so villagers eligible to vote opted to boycott going to the polling station to protest the lack of development in their village. One person however defied this boycott.
Tinish Kumar, it appears from the BBC article, lives in the state capital, Patna. However he is still registered to vote in Dharhara, where his parents continue to reside. Kumar drove three hours on his motorcycle from Patna to Dharhara to exercise his right to vote. [1] However when villagers realized that Kumar intended to vote, they forced their way into his parents' house and threatened violence against Kumar should he carry out his plan to vote and defy the boycott. Kumar's mother, Usha Sinha, a member of the village committee contacted a local elected representative as well as the police who did nothing in response to the threatened actions. In her view, "Casting a vote is an individual right and exercising it is everybody's prerogative."
On voting day, Kumar went to vote. Outside the polling station people were gathered to physically stop him if necessary. Undaunted, Kumar stated: "They tried to prevent me using all sorts of pressure but I just ran out to the booth and cast my ballot." This act of defiance toward the dictates of the village did not come without some response. An emergency meeting of the village was called. Kumar's family came to find out that the decision of the village collective was to ostracize the family and to impose a hefty fine of Rs. 15,000 (although it is unclear if the fine was to be imposed on the family collectively or on Tinish Kumar specifically). However as Tinish's father states, no one has yet come seeking that the family pay the fine. Notwithstanding the villagers' tactics, the parents stand by their son's decision. Sinha states: "Why should I fear and succumb to their social pressure? My son has not committed a crime. I feel proud of him for daring to cast his vote."
This account illustrates two interesting forms of resistance exercised, one by Tinish Kumar by exercising his right to vote, and the other by the villagers by attempting to enforce a boycott in protest of the lack of socio-economic development in the village. Starting with the former, Kumar's act of voting was completely legal vis-a-vis the laws of the national and state governments. However, and perhaps obvious to students of legal pluralism, the norms of a particular locality, whether understood as the dictates of the local government (however loosely defined) or of the collective will of the villagers, can effectively, even if illegally, trump those of the state or national government.[2] Thus, Kumar's exercise of his right to vote was nevertheless an act of resistance against the "local law" of the village, enforced by social pressure, threats of violence and followed up through a collective punishment on the family, even though it was only the son who ended up defying the boycott.
The second act of resistance in this narrative was by the villagers who sought to enforce the boycott and prevent Kumar from legally voting. In this case, the attempt to prevent Kumar from voting was an exercise in illegal conduct, as was the imposition of a fine (even asssuming the decision was rendered by a competent and legally recognized body). Yet if one looks at the reasons, behind the boycott, the failure of the state to provide a proper drainage system, any roads, electricity or a health care facility, one can understand the frustration the villagers were experiencing with the inadequacies of democracy and the failure of state and national authorities to provide such amenities and infrastructure. Their illegal conduct was in a sense in furtherance of their basic socio-economic rights and justice. Demonstrating their displeasure by boycotting was eminently legal but those who did not agree with the decision to boycott certainly was not. The coercion and the attempt to stop Kumar from voting was in a sense also an act of resistance against the state and national governments that have failed the village in not providing development assistance - the resistance was aimed at undermining any mechanism which gave legitimacy to the state's nonfeasance - namely participation in the electoral process, from which the state derives its mandate to govern.
This episode demonstrates multiple and complex layers of dominance and resistance - the interplay between dominant forces and those resisting does not fit within simple binary categories. In one respect, the village collective is the dominant player(s) in Dharhara, against which Tinish Kumar must exert his resistance and his state-based right to vote. From the villagers' perspective (or perhaps rather a majority thereof), the state is the dominant power that has failed to provide the villagers with needed amenities. Viewed from their perspective at least, Kumar legitimizes the state that has failed the village by participating in the election. Furthermore, as Kumar does not appear to reside in the village, but in the state capital, the villagers might see him as a former villager-turned-agent of the state. Thus the village collective acts as both resister against the state on one hand (in opposition to its nonfeasance) by attempting to enforce a boycott, and as dominant oppressor of the individual rights of a voter to exercise his right to vote.
[1] It should be noted that a three hour drive on some highways or roads in India may not reflect a lengthy distance per se, but may epitomize the poor state of road conditions in particular parts of the country.
[2] That social pressures (supported at times by local officials) can exert an immense toll in impacting on individual conduct (as much as or in substantial measure with the norms of the state) has been recognized by scholars and even courts. See for example, Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, 530 U.S. 290, 311-313 (2000), decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Sources Consulted:
BBC News, "India's marathon poll concludes" May 13, 2009. Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8045567.stm
Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, 530 U.S. 290, 311-313 (2000).
Amarnath Tewary, "Lone Indian Voter Defies Mob" BBC News, May 15, 2009. Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8050308.stm
Tinish Kumar, it appears from the BBC article, lives in the state capital, Patna. However he is still registered to vote in Dharhara, where his parents continue to reside. Kumar drove three hours on his motorcycle from Patna to Dharhara to exercise his right to vote. [1] However when villagers realized that Kumar intended to vote, they forced their way into his parents' house and threatened violence against Kumar should he carry out his plan to vote and defy the boycott. Kumar's mother, Usha Sinha, a member of the village committee contacted a local elected representative as well as the police who did nothing in response to the threatened actions. In her view, "Casting a vote is an individual right and exercising it is everybody's prerogative."
On voting day, Kumar went to vote. Outside the polling station people were gathered to physically stop him if necessary. Undaunted, Kumar stated: "They tried to prevent me using all sorts of pressure but I just ran out to the booth and cast my ballot." This act of defiance toward the dictates of the village did not come without some response. An emergency meeting of the village was called. Kumar's family came to find out that the decision of the village collective was to ostracize the family and to impose a hefty fine of Rs. 15,000 (although it is unclear if the fine was to be imposed on the family collectively or on Tinish Kumar specifically). However as Tinish's father states, no one has yet come seeking that the family pay the fine. Notwithstanding the villagers' tactics, the parents stand by their son's decision. Sinha states: "Why should I fear and succumb to their social pressure? My son has not committed a crime. I feel proud of him for daring to cast his vote."
This account illustrates two interesting forms of resistance exercised, one by Tinish Kumar by exercising his right to vote, and the other by the villagers by attempting to enforce a boycott in protest of the lack of socio-economic development in the village. Starting with the former, Kumar's act of voting was completely legal vis-a-vis the laws of the national and state governments. However, and perhaps obvious to students of legal pluralism, the norms of a particular locality, whether understood as the dictates of the local government (however loosely defined) or of the collective will of the villagers, can effectively, even if illegally, trump those of the state or national government.[2] Thus, Kumar's exercise of his right to vote was nevertheless an act of resistance against the "local law" of the village, enforced by social pressure, threats of violence and followed up through a collective punishment on the family, even though it was only the son who ended up defying the boycott.
The second act of resistance in this narrative was by the villagers who sought to enforce the boycott and prevent Kumar from legally voting. In this case, the attempt to prevent Kumar from voting was an exercise in illegal conduct, as was the imposition of a fine (even asssuming the decision was rendered by a competent and legally recognized body). Yet if one looks at the reasons, behind the boycott, the failure of the state to provide a proper drainage system, any roads, electricity or a health care facility, one can understand the frustration the villagers were experiencing with the inadequacies of democracy and the failure of state and national authorities to provide such amenities and infrastructure. Their illegal conduct was in a sense in furtherance of their basic socio-economic rights and justice. Demonstrating their displeasure by boycotting was eminently legal but those who did not agree with the decision to boycott certainly was not. The coercion and the attempt to stop Kumar from voting was in a sense also an act of resistance against the state and national governments that have failed the village in not providing development assistance - the resistance was aimed at undermining any mechanism which gave legitimacy to the state's nonfeasance - namely participation in the electoral process, from which the state derives its mandate to govern.
This episode demonstrates multiple and complex layers of dominance and resistance - the interplay between dominant forces and those resisting does not fit within simple binary categories. In one respect, the village collective is the dominant player(s) in Dharhara, against which Tinish Kumar must exert his resistance and his state-based right to vote. From the villagers' perspective (or perhaps rather a majority thereof), the state is the dominant power that has failed to provide the villagers with needed amenities. Viewed from their perspective at least, Kumar legitimizes the state that has failed the village by participating in the election. Furthermore, as Kumar does not appear to reside in the village, but in the state capital, the villagers might see him as a former villager-turned-agent of the state. Thus the village collective acts as both resister against the state on one hand (in opposition to its nonfeasance) by attempting to enforce a boycott, and as dominant oppressor of the individual rights of a voter to exercise his right to vote.
[1] It should be noted that a three hour drive on some highways or roads in India may not reflect a lengthy distance per se, but may epitomize the poor state of road conditions in particular parts of the country.
[2] That social pressures (supported at times by local officials) can exert an immense toll in impacting on individual conduct (as much as or in substantial measure with the norms of the state) has been recognized by scholars and even courts. See for example, Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, 530 U.S. 290, 311-313 (2000), decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Sources Consulted:
BBC News, "India's marathon poll concludes" May 13, 2009. Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8045567.stm
Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, 530 U.S. 290, 311-313 (2000).
Amarnath Tewary, "Lone Indian Voter Defies Mob" BBC News, May 15, 2009. Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8050308.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment