Posts
“The
best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average
voter.” ― Winston
S. Churchill
This
morsel of Churchillian wisdom is the closest we can get to an accurate
description of India’s democracy today. Six and a half decades is a long time
for democracy to establish itself firmly in the country. Yet can we, without
dithering, assert ourselves to be a democracy by, for and of the people?
India
is surrounded by countries united by a single religious or linguistic identity;
the Bengalis in Bangladesh, the Buddhists in Myanmar, the Sinhalese in Sri
Lanka, the Hindus in Nepal or the Muslims in Pakistan - each of these
countries’ national identity overlaps with that of its citizens. However, India
remains a sui generis amalgamation of
religion, language and culture. Despite, over 80 per cent of the Indian population
being Hindu, and being home to the third largest population of Muslims in the
world, no religion is supreme [1]. Out of the 22 scheduled languages
in India, Hindi and its dialects are spoken by over 422 million people, yet
India doesn't go by the tag of a Hindi speaking nation [2]. It is
almost impossible to characterize India as anything but a Secular Democratic
Republic.
Nations
have been known to organize themselves around linguistic or religious identities
since time immemorial. France is a French speaking nation, Iran is an Islamic
Republic and Argentina recognizes Roman Catholicism as the official religion. The
very fact that few, if any nations with demography as diverse as India’s have
known to exist, was reason enough for some to portend its disintegration even
before it was born. In as far back as 1888, John Strachey, a civil servant in
British India wrote that India could never exist as a united body, comprising
provinces as distinct as Punjab and Madras, yet it did [3].
During
the demand for language based reorganization of states in the nineteen fifties,
or during the leadership uncertainty in the aftermath of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s
death, western intellectuals were always at hand, presaging the impending demise
of India. In 1967, the first national
election after Nehru’s death, Neville Maxwell of The Times of London went
as far as to call it ‘the fourth – and surely last – general election’ and
‘India a failed democratic experiment’ [4].
As
facts stand today, all predictions of balkanization of India have proven to be
wrong. Under the pluralistic and democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution
a multi-racial, multi-lingual and a poly-religious Indian society has thrived. A
major credit for this goes to the fraternity of Constitution makers and the leadership
thereafter that ensured primacy of institutions over personality cults. Nehru
was known to be a stickler for parliamentary rules and procedures, and one never
to interfere with the functioning of bureaucracy.
In
his magisterial tome ‘India after Gandhi’, historian Ramchandra Guha makes an
anecdotal reference to a cartoon by K. Shankar Pillai that compared Nehru’s
loquaciousness to the Niagara Falls [5]. Far from taking offence,
Nehru encouraged Shankar’s satirical take on events of the day, as he believed dissent
was the elixir of democracy. Contrast this to the recent incident when a
Jadavpur University professor was incarcerated by the Mamata Banerjee led
Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal for posting a cartoon of the
Bengal leader on a social media platform [6-7]. Such treatment of free expression ill
behooves a mature democracy like ours. Politics
then, was as competitive as it is today, but decency in public discourse never
became its casualty.
Democracy under Siege: Institutional Degeneration
The
nature of Indian Democracy has changed over the years; from an institution
based constitutional democracy, we have transformed into a vote appealing
populist democracy. In this process, Political Parties, Judiciary and the Press
- erstwhile pillars of constitutional democracy - have become increasingly
impotent in carrying forward their constitutional mandate.
S.No
|
Political Party
|
Party Leader
|
Leader Since
|
1
|
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
|
J. Jayalalithaa
|
1987
|
2
|
All India Trinamool Congress
|
Mamata Banerjee
|
1997
|
3
|
Bahujan Samaj Party
|
Mayawati
|
2003
|
4
|
Bharatiya Janata Party
|
Amit Shah
|
2014
|
5
|
Biju Janata Dal
|
Naveen Patnaik
|
1997
|
6
|
Communist Party of India (M)
|
Prakash Karat
|
2005
|
7
|
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
|
M.Karunanidhi
|
1969
|
8
|
Indian National Congress
|
Sonia Gandhi
|
1998
|
9
|
Janata Dal (United)
|
Sharad Yadav
|
2006
|
10
|
Nationalist Congress Party
|
Sharad Pawar
|
1999
|
11
|
Rashtriya Janata Dal
|
Lalu Prasad Yadav
|
1997
|
12
|
Samajwadi Party
|
Mulayam Yadav
|
1992
|
13
|
Shiromani Akali Dal
|
Sukhbir Badal
|
2008
|
14
|
Shiv Sena
|
Uddhav Thackeray
|
2004
|
15
|
Telugu Desam Party
|
Chandrababu Naidu
|
1995
|
Table 1: 15 Major
Political Parties in India that represent over 85% of the current Lok Sabha
members, Mean Leadership Tenure: 16 years.
The
predominant role played by the Congress Party in India’s independence struggle
ensured that post independence; it was country’s natural choice for governance.
Within its fold, the party contained ideologies and people so diverse that it
was often the Government and the Opposition within itself. This democratic
ecumenism came under severe attack under the reign of Indira Gandhi. As a
result, a culture of competitive-sycophancy supplanted inner party democracy in
the Congress Party. Far from eschewing this trend, other major political
parties of the country have perfected the art of dynastic control over
politics. Table 1 lists political parties and their leaders; it is interesting
to note that the mean age for which the leaders or their immediate family
members have presided over the parties is a long 16 years.
In
the current system, political ideology has become a matter of political
convenience; it can be easily bartered for electoral gains. Erstwhile political
rivals Lalu Yadav and Nitish Kumar have become convenient allies [8].
The renowned socialist politician Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party
recently celebrated his 75th Birthday in a manner best befitting a
rich oligarch [9]. While the southern state of Tamil Nadu is seeing
a live replay of the Indian epic Ramayana,
where King Bharat ruled over Ayodhya with his elder brother Ram’s slippers
occupying the throne. Similarly, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O. Paneer Selvam has
refused to occupy the seat reserved for the Chief Minister in the State
Legislature in deference to his predecessor and party leader J. Jayalalitha,
who was disqualified from the legislature after conviction in a disproportionate
assets case [10]. Such servility has made a mockery of democracy in
the country. Political parties are often the first point of interaction that a
citizen has with democracy, but sadly the leadership pipeline of these
institutions are constipated at the very top, depriving people of an
opportunity to become decision makers.
Equally,
if not more, deplorable is the situation of the Judiciary. Though active and
vigilant in keeping the executive and legislature from exceeding their
constitutional mandate, the Judiciary is under huge strain in dispensing its
primary duties - that of being the arbitrator of Justice. The recent conviction
of 4 accused in the murder of former Union Minister L.N Mishra, took 39 years
for the courts to reach a verdict [11]. With such tardy pace of justice, it takes a Pangloss to
hope for resolution of 31.3 million cases pending in courts [12]. The rot in the judicial system is such that a lawful
recourse is often seen as a dilatory tactic by the culprits. Eminent Jurist
Nani Palkhiwala once observed ‘the progress of a civil suit in our courts of
law is the closest thing to eternity we can experience!’ [13]. When
such institutions fail to deliver justice, people are bound to resort to
extra-constitutional means for justice, which will eventually lead to a in breakdown
social order.
The
credibility of the Press, a venerated institution, is increasingly coming under
question. Investigations into the 2G spectrum scam revealed how top editors
have become a liaison between corporate interests and governments. In the book “Occupy: Class War, Rebellion and
Solidarity”, Noam Chomsky talks about a paradox expounded by political
philosopher David Hume. Hume says that despite all power being in the hands of
the governed, they are unable to overthrow their masters. He reasons
that ‘in all societies, the most
brutal, the most free, the governed can be controlled by control of opinion’
[14]. The most brutal may resort to violence while the free societies
like ours ceaselessly spin out propaganda to keep the hoi polloi in a state of
perpetual derangement. Most large media houses in the country today are owned
by large business houses or wily politicians, thus bringing into question the independence
of media today.
Popular
protests have become a regular feature of the Indian democracy. More so they
are hailed as a mark of a vibrant democracy, which is indeed true, if we were
to compare ourselves with autocratic regimes. But for a democracy street or
armed protests are an unnerving sign of failure. In his address to the constituent assembly,
on the penultimate day of its proceedings, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned that there
was no place for popular protests in a democracy. In independent India, he
said, Satyagraha was ‘nothing but grammar of anarchy and the sooner it is
abandoned, the better for us’ [15]. Such an advice was not out of
order, for methods for redress were now available within the constitutional
framework. The popular anti-corruption crusade led by Anna Hazare, was in fact
a mirror of people’s frustration with inefficient institutions like legislatures
and Courts - the very edifice of our democracy. The movement’s key demand - to
establish the Lokpal’s office as a constitutional body; free of any form of
governmental control speaks volumes of the distrust people have with
institutions that fall within government’s purview.
A
national consensus 2.0 must first recognize that India has strayed on the path
of cronyism. Then we must incorporate lessons learnt over the past 65 years and
debate new templates to reinvigorate democratic institutions in the country.
Will state funding of elections be successful in controlling corruption and
encouraging popular participation in elections? Can a crowd funded media model
break the monopoly of elites over public opinion? Will an ‘adversarial’ form of
judicial system serve us better than the current ‘inquisitorial’ one?
Above
all, is the question - How to take these debates from centers of academic discourse
to the hustings?
References
[1] Census
of India, Data on religion, 2011
[2] Census
of India, Data on Language, 2011
[3] Ramchandra Guha, India after Gandhi, Page 767
[4] Neville
Maxwell, ‘India’s Disintegrating Democracy’, in three parts, The Times, 26 and
27 January and 10 February 1967
[5] Ramchandra Guha, India after Gandhi, Page 506
[6] Hindustan
Times, ‘Professor arrested for poking fun at Mamata’, Kolkata, April 13,
2012
[8] M I Khan, ‘In
reunion after 23 years, Nitish, Lalu hug, share 'chai', rediff.com, August 11,
2014
[9] Niha Masih, ‘Fireworks, 75-Foot-Long Cake Mark Leader Mulayam
Singh Yadav's Birthday’, ndtv.com, November
22, 2014
[10] ‘It's Jayalalithaa who runs govt, Panneerselvam tells
assembly’, Times of India,
Four convicted
for 1975 murder of LN Mishra’, Times of India,
Justice has a mountain to climb, of 31.3 million pending cases’, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, September 04, 2014
[13]
Dr.Jayaprakash Narayan, ‘Judicial Reforms – Need of the Hour’, Loksatta.org
[15] Ramchandra Guha, India after Gandhi,
Page 121
No comments:
Post a Comment