Democracy arrested

The architecture of the Indian Constitution is based on the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity, as espoused in the French Revolution; on the concept of the rule of the people, by the people and for the people, as articulated by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address; and on the format of parliamentary democracy as developed in Britain, the mother of democracy.

Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution, while urging its adoption by the Constituent Assembly, stated, “However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad if those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot.” We need to ask ourselves whether our generation has lived up to the hopes of the founding fathers of our Constitution. The answer is an emphatic no. We have been persistently debasing our democracy.
Parliamentary, or presidential, democracy is at variance with people’s democracy. The latter provides for one-party rule and for the supremacy of the party over government functioning. We got a close glimpse of that during the visit of Khrushchev and Bulganin to India in 1955. The first secretary of the Soviet Communist Party mattered more than the Soviet PM. A similar equation has developed in India. The distinction required in a parliamentary democracy between the government and the ruling party has been obliterated. Self-glorifying advertisements at tax-payers’ expense are put out with pictures of the party president and PM. The former now often inaugurates major government projects. This does not happen in any parliamentary democracy, nor did it happen earlier in India. Those who advocate keeping the PM above the jurisdiction of the Lokpal are not bothered about the PM being made to play second fiddle to the party president. Like the politburo in a Communist state, we now have an extra-constitutional body in the National Advisory Council, a super-Cabinet for formulating government policy.
Dynastic rule is anathema in a democracy, but this prevails at the Centre and has been avidly adopted by regional parties in states. So far, the BJP and the Left parties have not followed suit. Jawaharlal Nehru was initially hesitant in promoting his daughter in politics but towards the end he made her party president, setting her on course to become PM. However, he did not project her as his successor. Indira Gandhi had no inhibitions. She openly projected one son as her successor and, on his tragic death, her other son was made heir-apparent. That tradition continues. Sanjay Gandhi inaugurated the Anglo-Sikh War Memorial at Ferozepore, at a function organised by the government, with much fanfare. The present crown prince inaugurated the Guru Tegh Bahadur Memorial at a Delhi government function. The courtiers hailed the first crown prince as a man of genius, comparing him with Vivekananda and Emperor Akbar. They are doing the same now with the current heir apparent.
We have also been creating a new feudalism under the garb of promoting youth in politics. The progeny of old loyalists have been inducted in government. A feudal outlook has permeated our public life. Everyone wants a flag and red light on his car. In the colonial period only the Viceroy, the governors of provinces and senior military commanders were so authorised. This practice is still followed in Western democracies. Our bureaucracy is shedding its neutral character and getting increasingly committed. The “lick up and kick down” approach is now in vogue. The common man visiting government offices encounters the arrogance of power.
Vote-bank politics is rampant, with little consideration for probity and national security. In the Nehru era, iftar parties at public expense were not held. Now it has become common practice for people in power to do so. If the state has to fund a religious function or subsidise a pilgrimage, let it be for all religions, not just one. Illegal migration from Bangladesh is being promoted to build vote banks without considering national security or a state’s demographic structure. For a PM to assert that a particular religious community should be the first priority for his government violates the spirit of the Constitution. The poor, irrespective of community, should be the government’s first concern. And now we have the monstrosity of the Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, drafted by the National Advisory Council. It violates the fundamental principle of equality enshrined in our Constitution which is the bedrock of our legal system. The murderer has to be tried under the Indian Penal Code on the basis of his crime, and not whether he is from the majority or minority community. Communal riots in our country are almost always confined to a district or a city. The Gujarat, anti-Sikh and post-Ayodhya riots were exceptions. There are many districts in which the majority in that state is in a minority. Thus the yardstick for this atrocious bill should have been the district, and not the state. If the administration is not effective in dealing with communal violence, it should be made effective instead of enacting a new law promoting divisiveness and violating natural justice.
The most debilitating factor today is the rampant corruption. Such corruption, involving the highest echelons of government, has never taken place in the history of any worthy democracy. Having succeeded in brazening it out in the Bofors affair, the bizarre attempts of the government to do so again in these numerous scams are counter-productive. There is now a national upsurge against corruption. JP led a crusade against corruption and for the restoration of democracy. He succeeded but the leaders he installed in power squabbled among themselves and fell prey to the same evil. V.P. Singh used the Bofors card to come to power but his short tenure was futile. Corruption during these two movements was peanuts compared to that today. Anna Hazare’s movement has generated a national upsurge which needs to be channelled through constitutional means, or else it may become a loose cannon. The Indian people must act to ensure this, or else our debased democracy may become a lost democracy.

S.K. Sinha, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.