According to Natasha Lindstaedt, author of the book: ‘Democratic Decay and Authoritarian Resurgence and others (2021)’
Authoritarian populism
“One of the biggest drivers of autocratisation was authoritarian populist leadership. Authoritarian populism is a style of leadership that uses anti-elitist and highly divisive nativist rhetoric to garner political support. The leader then uses this support as a pretext to undermine democratic institutions.”
Relatedly, Marlies Glasius in his article entitled: ‘What authoritarianism is...and is not: a practice perspective (2018) published in the Journal of International Affairs has observed:
Marlies Glasius (2018) has highlighted three main problems with current conceptualizations of authoritarianism: they constitute a negative or residual category, focus excessively on elections, and assume that authoritarianism is necessarily a state-level phenomenon.
Such ‘regime classifications’ in the opinion of Marlies Glasius (2018), Professor of International Relations at the University of Amsterdam: could not help researchers comment intelligently on public concerns that politicians like President Rodrigo Duterte, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Prime Minister Viktor Orban or President Donald Trump were essentially ‘authoritarian’ leaders.
Incidentally, the same author, namely: Marlies Glasius in her introduction to her article in the Journal of International Affairs has expressed:
“No reader of political commentary in recent years could fail to notice a concern, perhaps even a panic, about a global tide of authoritarianism that may now be affecting even established democracies.”
Further, in an Article authored by Suvojit Chattopadhyay (2017) titled: ‘Non-Authoritarian States Can Practise Everyday Authoritarianism Too’ which appeared by the Indian independent news site The Wire (2017) which had cautioned Americans that India under the rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) exemplified how ‘a non-authoritarian state could practise everyday acts of authoritarianism’.
According to Paul S Adler et al. (2022) in the Research Article titled: ‘Authoritarianism, Populism, and the Global Retreat of Democracy: A Curated Discussion’ published in the Journal of Management Inquiry:
“In a number of newer democracies, like Brazil and India, populist leaders with authoritarian tendencies are winning elections over more liberal contenders and eroding the institutional underpinnings of democracy.”
The clincher to the state of affairs developing in the Indian polity would be worthy of receipt of heightened prudence, with respect to the present Union Government mulling the decision to table a Parliamentary Bill on implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the monsoon session of Parliament.
The Bill would be expected to be sent to the parliamentary standing committee which would then hear views of various stakeholders on the UCC, which pertained to the ‘Public Notice’ issued by the Law Commission of India on 14th June, 2023, which had invited expression of opinions from various stakeholders on the Uniform Civil Code, under the subject ‘Review of Personal Laws’.
And while the endeavours of the Union Government would be in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy at Article 44 of the Constitution of India: “44. The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
This idealistic endeavour would have to be concurrently reconciled with the concept of ‘Unity in Diversity’ prevalent in the Country.
Unity in Diversity
Sonia Balhara (2020) from the Sushant University, Gurugram: “The term unity in diversity relates to the state of togetherness or integrity despite the presence of infinite diversity. Unity in diversity is based on the concept where the individual has variations in physical qualities, skin colour, castes, creed, cultural and religious traditions, etc. are not seen as a dispute. Rather, these differences are viewed upon as varieties that improve the society and the nation as a whole.”
Historical Perspective
Portuguese Colonial Rule
In 1867, Portugal enacted a Portuguese civil code and in 1869 it was extended to Portugal’s overseas provinces (that included Goa).
While it would be reasonable to presume that the intention of Portuguese Monarchy in extending the application of the 1867 Code to the Indo-Portuguese colonies of Goa, Daman and Diu was to ensure that the law governing its colonies would be consistent in their application before the monarchy.
British Empire
Excerpted from Prof BN Pande’s speech delivered on July 29, 1977 to the Indian Upper House, the Rajya Sabha:
“In 1857, the ‘Great Mutiny’ broke out in which the Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. This shocked the British government so much that after suppressing the Mutiny, they decided to start the policy of divide and rule.”
According to eminent Jurist Markandey Katju in his Article dated: Saturday, 01st June, 2013 titled: ‘The Truth about Pakistan’: “All communal riots began after 1857, artificially engineered by the British authorities. The British collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Hindus. This communal poison was injected into our body politic year after year and decade after decade.”
Post Independence
The BJP claims that Hindutva being at its ethos which represents ‘cultural nationalism’ and its conception of ‘Indian nationhood’.
Therefore, it now remains to be seen as to how the government would reconcile the historical divide between the different cultures that were propagated by the British Empire under the ‘Divide and Rule policy’ while it endeavours to carry forward its ethos of creating a ‘Hindutva’ state as it prepares to table a Parliamentary Bill on the Uniform Civil Code thus attempting to govern all the personal laws under a singular code.
