As threats to India’s security from outside and within become deadlier, it is time to acknowledge that this country can withstand these threats only because of its secular democratic governing framework.

The 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai and the tragedy that unfolded in the aftermath of the gruesome ordeal might have scarred the national psyche but it had one result that was both heartwarming and affirmative in spirit. The empathy that poured into the metropolis as an entire nation rallied round ‘Bombay’ was spontaneous and unconditional. As numerous candlelight vigils and a furious and anguished public campaign in the blogosphere testified, Mumbaikars and other Indians were struggling to come to terms with this brazen assault on their city and their sense of safety. But remarkably, there was no attempt this time to find scapegoats, or to take out their frustration on minority groups.

Most of the ire expressed by angry citizens was directed at politicians and parties, holding them responsible for the failure to perform basic public duties as providing security and protection. What the response to the 26/11 tragedy has brought out is this — as a younger generation in India comes of age, it is less inclined to take refuge in old stereotypes. An earlier generation was brought up on a narrative which unfolded in a post-Independence India. This discourse had a worldview that drew heavily from the immediate historical circumstances in which Pakistan was the principal enemy and as a derivative of that context, Indian Muslims were seen as alien to the national mainstream.

The reluctance to buy into the old narratives or to pin blame on the usual suspects is a refreshing indication that the new generation in India expects not only its institutions to deliver but the political system too. Unlike even a decade ago, in the aftermath of Mumbai, the targets of public ire were politicians and not Muslims or other minority groups. This indicated that ordinary Indians were becoming increasingly frustrated with the failure of the political system to deliver on the most crucial issues of livelihood, security and justice and now required a higher standard of institutional accountability.

With the election process shortly to begin, the political parties would have to recognise that there is intensifying critical scrutiny of their performance and their claims. It is at times such as these, that it is important for politicians and parties to reclaim moral authority and credibility as they ask for people’s votes. Much of the cynicism and ridiculing of the major parties that is evident in the Indian public arena emanates from the perception that at times of national crisis, these parties, including the Congress and the BJP, have tended to place their own political interests above the national interest. Serious issues relating to national security have been trivialised in the public sphere when these become part of the rhetorical sparring between political parties. The endless verbal skirmishes over highly sensitive issues such as whether Mohammed Afzal, convicted in the December 2001 attack on Parliament, should be hanged or which party is "softer" on terrorism have had a debilitating impact on the way politics and the political system are being perceived in the country.

This is something that a mature and successful democracy like India can ill afford. The most authentic aspect of the Indian democratic system is that it is based on a highly credible electoral process which has ensured that political power remains in the hands of elected representatives of the people. This has allowed millions of Indians to feel empowered and in control of their own destinies. Most Indians, regardless of their economic status, retain faith in the electoral system and believe that politicians and parties are ultimately accountable to them.

So severely has the moral authority of political parties been eroded that the judiciary and other institutions of the state are now widely perceived as more likely to defend the national or public interest than the parties or their leaders. If it were not for the Supreme Court’s intervention at the behest of agonised human rights activists seeking justice for the hundreds of victims of the ghastly post-Godhra pogrom in Gujarat in 2002, the perpetrators of these bestial crimes might not have been so diligently pursued and brought to book.

It is an astonishing failure on the part of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) which views itself as the standard bearer of secular nationalism not to have taken the lead in initiating exemplary action against the perpetrators of the crimes in Gujarat. Given that in the 2004 elections the National Democratic Alliance was defeated and its allies hastened to exit that front, identifying the Gujarat riots as a major reason for the debacle, the Congress had an opportunity to reposition itself as a guardian of India’s essential democratic values and to regain moral authority.

By 2004, the Modi administration stood isolated and deeply discredited by the pervasive sense of disgust at the 2002 happenings. The expectations especially among Muslims were that the Congress-led UPA would publicly acknowledge the serious damage that the Gujarat pogrom had done to that community and not allow that episode to fade into history without the guilty being punished and it being made clear that such serious violations of the Constitution would never be countenanced again.

Human rights and civil society activists were looking to the new administration to demonstrate that happenings such as the Gujarat riots would not be tolerated in a state committed to a democratic framework anchored to the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitutional scheme. With Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution specifically defining as fundamental rights, the principle of equality before the law, equal protection of the laws and equal rights for every Indian citizen regardless of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, it was indeed a constitutionally mandated responsibility to ensure that these basic rights would not be violated with impunity.

The failure to explain how the Gujarat developments and the earlier demolition of the Babri Masjid have assaulted the basic spirit of the Indian Constitution shows an incomplete understanding on the part of the Congress party and its allies of the conceptual linkage between secularism and democracy. In the original conception of the Constitution, secularism was viewed as a cornerstone that along with democracy would provide the framework on which would hang an entire set of fundamental rights.

Until this confusion over the real meaning of secularism as a governing doctrine is sorted out, it will be impossible to ensure that the national discourse prioritises the issues of real concern such as development and governance. The rise of a deadly form of Islamist terrorism in the subcontinent that has a narrative deliberately woven around the suffering of the Indian Muslims particularly after the ascendancy of Hindu majoritarian nationalism, is a challenge that severely tests the political capacities of the Indian state, as the terror attacks in Mumbai last year showed.

The time has come for the Congress, the BJP and other parties to affirm that the consensus that has prevailed over the decades on the character of India’s democratic governing structure must not be unravelled. As elections draw near, the major parties must eschew the temptation of using strategies that rely on communal polarisation that will endanger internal security. Once again parties and politicians are seen as failing the nation as other institutions appear to come to its rescue. With the BJP implicitly defending its Pilibhit candidate Varun Gandhi whose provocative and violent remarks against the Muslim community landed him in jail, it was the Election Commission which put its foot down and filed criminal cases against him under the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of People’s Act.

The EC’s intervention prevented the situation from getting out of hand but the relief that flowed from that timely reassertion of the rule of law was soon dissipated in the public wrangling between the BJP and the Mayawati government in Uttar Pradesh over the invoking of the National Security Act (NSA) against Mr. Gandhi. The BJP which was initially embarrassed by the tenor and import of Varun Gandhi’s hate speech had at one point sought to distance itself from him. But it found in the imposition of the NSA an ideal opportunity to reposition itself on the side of the errant Nehru-Gandhi scion, thereby implicitly signalling its adherence to the Hindu nationalist agenda.

There is an urgent need for political parties, regardless of their ideological orientation, to recognise that times have changed. As threats to India’s security from outside and within become deadlier, it is time to acknowledge that this country can withstand these threats only because of its secular democratic governing framework. The gamut of rights that the Indian citizen is constitutionally entitled to is what inspires the faith of millions of ordinary Indians in the idea of India as a nation and a state. If faith in politics and politicians is to be renewed, parties and leaders must ensure that they are seen as committed to this democratic vision.