The occurrence of the "Bahubali" (strongman/don) in Indian politics is frequently described as a system of compromise rather than one governed strictly by rules.
Share
In India, the operational dynamics of both public and private sectors often function through a mechanism of "compromise" or informal agreements, frequently circumventing stringent rule-based systems.
Educational institutions are managed through compromise, government offices operate on compromise, and local administration is conducted through compromise. Citizens in both urban and rural settings navigate their lives through compromise under the influence of Bahubalis. It is evident that in the governance of India, the term "compromise" is ubiquitous. This "system of compromise" is propelled by various factors, including bureaucratic intricacies, pervasive corruption, and cultural inclinations towards relationship-oriented results rather than strict protocols. The deep-rooted corruption within the bureaucracy and political framework, often referred to as a "collusive" system, permits the evasion of laws, fostering a "compromise" atmosphere where regulations are applied selectively, typically benefiting those in power.
The occurrence of the "Bahubali" (strongman/don) in Indian politics, especially in regions such as West Bengal, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, is frequently described as a system of compromise rather than one governed strictly by rules. The public often accepts the "Bahubali" phenomenon, making a moral concession: "He may have a criminal history, but he accomplishes tasks," particularly in areas where the state's infrastructure is lacking. Bahubalis foster a Robin Hood persona by delivering prompt, often extra-legal justice, resolving disputes, and redistributing wealth (frequently acquired through illicit means) to their communities, thereby engendering loyalty. Within their constituencies, the formal rule of law is often replaced by their personal preferences, complicating the process for citizens to file complaints (FIRs) against them, as they enjoy support from influential politicians. Bahubalis, who typically possess criminal histories, operate by exploiting fear, financial resources, and physical strength to attain political legitimacy, establishing a "situationship" where they function as alternative authorities instead of adhering to established legal frameworks.
Political parties, both at the national and regional levels, align themselves with these individuals to secure seats, viewing them as vital and pragmatic options rather than burdens. Political parties frequently compromise their principles to nominate Bahubalis, as these candidates provide their own financial backing (money power) and possess the capacity to sway voters through intimidation or local influence (muscle power). Voters often back Bahubalis due to the perception that they are efficient providers of "swift justice" in a state where the formal legal system is regarded as sluggish, inaccessible, or biased. This situation results in a moral compromise, where a candidate's criminal history is disregarded because they are seen as capable of "getting things done." Even high-level judicial interventions in India are sometimes perceived not as strict applications of the rule of law, but rather as "messy compromises" intended to address deeply rooted social conflicts.
A deficiency in a rule-based system significantly obstructs economic advancement. In the absence of certainty, predictability, and consistent laws, investment becomes perilous, diminishing productivity and stifling long-term growth. The compromise system creates a moral hazard, where borrowers, including willful defaulters, anticipate lenient settlements, thereby undermining repayment discipline. Despite the shift towards digitalisation, the transition from a relationship-driven/compromise system to a genuinely rule-based system continues to pose a challenge. An uncritical dependence on a compromise system as a replacement for rule-based adjudication threatens to "silence the truth" and turn justice into a negotiable commodity. When a compromise entails unethical concessions—such as resolving criminal cases through pay-offs or permitting fraudulent accounts to evade punishment—it is deemed a "rotten compromise" that undermines morality and public trust.
In order to uphold a rigorous, uncompromising rule-based system, it is essential to guarantee that each decision is a direct, logical outcome of established "If-Then" rules
MK Sinha is a retired Professor of Economics at Nagaland University, Lumami.