The Indian Express

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “gatekeeping” as “the activity of trying to control who gets resources, power, opportunities, and who does not” (emphasis added). While gatekeeping may apply to any number of contexts, it is typically used in the context of ideological tribalism where members of the in-group of an ideology are enabled, and members of the out-group are actively impeded.

Here I use “ideology” in the broadest possible sense, which includes identities and worldviews. Perhaps, tribalism is an evolutionary trait, and therefore, gatekeeping is to be expected more often than not, notwithstanding claims of civilisation and celebration of the diversity of thought. This is particularly true in the non-state realm, where gatekeepers of ideas change with time depending on changing attitudes of society, fluctuating fortunes, and state patronage. Tribalism is equally true of the state apparatus, specifically of the legislature and the executive, even in a democracy governed by a constitution. After all, ideological tribalism and gatekeeping are to be expected in corridors of power. So why should the logic be any different when it comes to constitutional organs?

Read the full article