Lok raj without lok laj is a hollow democracy

THE popular but much-mocked Devi Lal, former Deputy Prime Minister of India, once said, "Lok raj lok laj se chalta hai." He was one of the tallest farmer leaders of the country, with an incomparable connect with the people, especially in rural areas. He both regaled and riled people with his rusticity. But this article is not about him; it is about what he famously said. For those in power in a democracy, it is an axiom summed up in the word 'laj', for which there is no exact equivalent in the English language.

What is lok laj?

Lok raj is simple to understand, for it is the power that the people exercise in an elected democracy. It is the power, the right to elect people, that the Constitution provides and protects. Lok laj, on the other hand, doesn't emanate from the Constitution; it emanates from the character of a society that is reflected in individual behaviour and its normative response to individual conduct.

I recently wrote about the growing incidence of crime and no punishment (The Tribune, March 12), a disturbing trend witnessed in our system, which doesn't bode well for an orderly society. A crime is established on the basis of evidence; the ingenuity of legal arguments help courts determine an illegality or dismiss it. Societies, however, have long existed before the legal system came into being, or was codified. Laws change faster than social mores. Order in a society has been the outcome of compliance with the law as well as the observance of common ethics.

Take, for instance, the dictum Satyamev Jayate (truth always triumphs), an exhortation to speak the truth. Whether it triumphs or not in these days and times is a different matter. It is a human value propagated in every society and in most families. However, except for perjury, not speaking the truth is not illegal. While perjury could be punished by law, how do we deal with falsehood? How do we deal with those who publicly speak untruth?

We have seen many recent examples where the utterances of the BJP’s elected representatives have offended common sensibility. A minister in Madhya Pradesh referred to a lady army officer briefing the media during Op Sindoor as a "sister" of those who killed innocent tourists. The government chose her as part of an impactful communication strategy, a woman army officer belonging to a minority community, the face of a system delivering justice to the victims of an inconceivably ghastly act. By inventing a fraternal bond between her and the terrorists based on a common religion, the minister displayed a perverse mind, the kind you need to carry forward a nefarious communal agenda.

The Supreme Court has set up an SIT to probe his conduct, but that was necessitated because he wasn't chastised by his own organisation. Nor was he genuinely chastened by his own conscience, his clever expression of regret notwithstanding. No leader of his political party reprimanded him publicly; nor did his organisation take him to task for the reprehensible comment.

Moreover, what can be a more heartbreaking and pathetic example of this crass insensitivity than the utterances of the Haryana BJP MP who accused the unfortunate women who suffered the loss of their husbands during the Pahalgam massacre, of lack of “courage” and “training” to fight the terrorists? Is he suggesting that the state is vanishing and law enforcement should be an individual responsibility? The law cannot punish him for what he said because there has been no violation of the law; also, his party leadership might exhibit “broad shoulders” and “tolerance”. But should he not be publicly castigated and made to pay by his party?

In both cases, a brazen abandoning of Lok Laj is clear, by both politicians and their party leadership. That amounts to a social approval of their conduct, allowing them to live without guilt even if the law were to punish them. Remember the garlanding of those convicted of rape in Gujarat? It did not amount to a pardon; it only meant an endorsement of their character, unmindful of the egregious crime they had been convicted for.

That is the power of social acceptance; it can also be the pressure of social disapproval. Society functions and relationships survive because of dar (fear), lihaaj (consideration or deference) and sharam (shame). An ordinary citizen fears the law; a normal human being accommodates others not necessarily because they are right but out of deference to their age, relationship, status or circumstances; and most of us avoid doing something that will leave us shamefaced.

None of these is governed by any law and, yet, they are effective in influencing human behaviour. The absence of these could lead to a major breakdown in social relationships, behavioural norms and decorum.

In the aftermath of the revulsion and anger caused by the Pahalgam massacre and the frenzy of Op Sindoor, the following was more than once said with some emphasis:

‘Vinay na maanat jaladhi jad, gaye teeni din beeti.

Bole Ram sakop tab, bhay binu hoyi na preeti.’

What was being conveyed by the author is that fear is a prerequisite for respect. It follows, therefore, that the politicians mentioned above have no fear of law and, hence, no respect for it either. Society is allowing them to continue with their utter disregard for lok laj by its studied silence.

The other face of this unabashed insensitivity is the manner in which another BJP representative said the Chief Justice of India was responsible for civil wars in the country. He was not just accusing the CJI, he was holding him responsible. I am not sure what message the SC conveyed by condoning his insolent statements by referring to its own "broad shoulders", but the political leadership certainly betrayed its complicity by its reticence.

As if this mockery of the rule of law wasn't enough, we saw the speed with which an eminent professor of Ashoka University was arrested for posting a tweet that was harmless in content and without insidious intent, except that it hurt those with open wounds and closed minds.

We seem to live in an environment where propaganda based on half-truths and a gross exaggeration of reality is encouraged. and malicious public statements made to incite animosity in society or cause hurt are overlooked.

Perhaps Lok Raj these days doesn’t really need Lok Laj.

Ashok Lavasa is former Election Commissioner of India.