[Politics] State and Social Conflicts
Ranjith
State and Social Conflicts:
State is both a source and a remedy for social conflict. Being a legitimate authority, it can exercise power and coercion. It can help in reducing the inequalities by way of good governance and can also help in setting up mechanisms of conflict resolution. State is also a medium of social change as patronage can help some groups to improve their status. However, policies of the state can also harm the interests of some social groups or could be resented by some people. Further, democracy is always fraught with fear of turning into the dictatorship of the majority or of certain large chunks of voters. This would lead to alienation of other groups.
The Indian state was born in 1947 after the British left India. Important features of Indian state can be seen in the preamble of the Constitution which states the country to be a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic. It also pledges to provide its people JUSTICE, social, economic and political; Liberty of expression, thought, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.
A plain reading of the preamble would indicate that the founding fathers had expected the country to be socialist. The term in general sense implies an equitable distribution of resources. As the society at the time of independence was basically feudal with gross social and economic inequalities, this meant taking away some of the resources and privileges from the well offs and giving it to the deprived. This would obviously be resented by those who controlled these resources and increase in social conflict. Similarly, social inequalities had also to be removed which also required the deprived are empowered. This would again cause resentment among some groups. The State was also required to be secular. It is well known that Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders were not in favour of partition which was forced by Muslim League. This led to demands from the Hindu groups for similar type of state in India. Adoption of a secular mode caused resentment among these groups and again became a cause of conflict.
Hence, given the conditions at the time of independence, social conflicts were inherent in these conditions and it fell upon the Indian state to remove these differences and forge a cultural and social unity in the country. Despite best efforts of the state, the conflicts have refused to lie down and started expressing themselves. Expression of discontent came in various forms.
o First was in the form of voting pattern of castes and communities which started voting on sectarian lines. This resulted in political parties indulging in vote bank politics and catering to castes and communities. While a positive aspect of this development was that the deprived classes found their voice, the negative aspect was that on social front it strengthened the divisions on caste and communal basis. As this became the primary criterion for winning elections, other desirable requisites were ignored giving rise to a number of problems in electoral politics.
o Second form of the expression was in the form of social movements which started during the 1970s and are still continuing. Movements have taken place for a number of causes, and many of them have been successful.
o Third form of expression was in the form of insurgency and violent conflicts which arose in various parts of the country. Hence, success of Indian state in resolving social conflicts can at best be said to be partial.
Pasted from <http://www.halfmantr.com/display-national-issues/1265-state-and-social-conflicts>