Thailand is no stranger to political turmoil; its hub, Bangkok, is run by its wealthy, who have written political upheavals into its modern history. Military governments have flirted with civilian governments, a courtship of mutual understanding: should Bangkok and therefore the army and king be displeased, a temporary halt to democracy will follow.

Such is the situation in which ordinary Thais find themselves today. Unease between the ruling party and the Bangkok elite has been brewing since Thaksin Shinawatra’s ill-fated civilian government. It has now culminated in the overthrow of the soft-spoken technocrat, Thaksin’s brother-in-law Wongsawat. Anti-government protesters had occupied Government House for four months; but it was not until protesters swarmed Bangkok’s international airports, grabbing international attention, that the establishment moved. A swift exchange of civilian government to a potential government of military men had been planned. Thus Bangkok’s entitled removed the politicians they despised, including Wongsawat, last week; the PM had been voted in with a 71 per cent majority in 2006.

Similarly, the government of Thaksin (the villain in Bangkok’s plot) too had been voted in and re-elected with vast support from the populous, under-developed and substantially poorer countryside. If figures were to make a mandate legitimate, Thaksin had a glowing record — GDP and household incomes increased, poverty decreased, and rural reforms made the countryside generally better off.

But Thailand suffers from one unfortunate trap in politics — constantly changing constitutions. The constitution under which Thaksin was allowed to operate found him guilty of tax evasion; and no blind eye could be turned as the economic interests of the old elite were jeopardised through the sale of a prominent telecom firm. This same constitution ousted another politician — for hosting his own cookery show. Constitutions change till the Bangkok elite get what they want.

And it will happen again: in a bid to ensure that power should not once again return to Thaksin and his supporters, the elite, through those of them that are protesting, have pushed for constitutional reform that would ultimately disenfranchise the rural North and under-developed South. Through back-door political manoeuvring the Bangkok elite would and can ensure a panel be chosen which would be given the authority to elect representatives to government on behalf of the rest of the country. Bangkok would retain the right to vote; the rest of Thailand’s 50 million would not.

Last Wednesday night I watched live images from Bangkok’s airport, knowing what lay behind them. Then, Bombay happened and for three days we watched it burn.

And after, our politicians were pilloried. Celebrities, political commentators and the like are arguing for a complete revamp of the political system. Were the voices as loud when terrorist attacks hit Delhi, Jaipur and Ahmedabad this year? This understanding is what is missing: demonstrations for peace, and candle-lit ceremonies honouring those lost is a way to grieve; but the business of politics goes much deeper. Politics might seem uncaring: but politics in our country has to care about the thousands of lives saved by polio eradication in Maharashtra’s hinterland as much as lives at risk from sea-borne terrorism in Mumbai. That those with wealth have the power to change that does not mean they should.

It is a common conception that if the wealthy will, they can alter the functioning of society. Material wealth can coerce political change. The view travelling around is that since politicians have failed, the elite should bring about the required change. Is this not what’s happening in Bangkok, causing its chaos?

The Bombay attacks may appear as first as though they were targeted at a sub-set, the elite, which can broadly be equated to the elite in Thailand. Taj does represent a stratum of Bombay — those who indulge in a quick coffee at Shamiana, or lazy lunch at Wasabi, or an afternoon of pampering at the Jiva Spa. However, lush hotels were not the sole targets. Colaba itself is home to people from all walks of life — it’s representative both of India and those who visit us from abroad. The top-down change the protesters demand will not, cannot be broadly representative. Yes, our system has its drawbacks, but politicians have been elected to represent India as a whole. The political class is not merely a manifestation of the elite. And if it were, how would India be different from Bangkok?

alia.allana@expressindia.com