Stresses of Indian Democracy

DR. P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
Vice-Chancellor, Bombay University

The grave problem of the stresses of Indian democracy posed by the eruption, in recent times, of subversive and undemocratic trends and tendencies in the country, is causing serious concern to all wise citizens, and it is essential that there should be a full and frank debate on this problem, if democracy has to survive stresses and to take firm root in our country.

Let me begin by emphasizing the fact that the structure of government constructed by the Indian Constitution, though federal in the sense that legislative powers are distributed between the Union and the different sub-constituent States, is not federal in the traditional or technical sense. Dr. Ambedkar described the Indian Constitution as a federal constitution, inasmuch as it establishes, what may be called, a dual polity which consists of the Union at the Centre and the States at the periphery, each endowed with foreign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution. He, however, took the precaution to add that the Constitution had deliberately avoided the tight mould of federalism in which the American Constitution was caught, and could be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. Our Constitution has made specific provisions of a radical character, which empower the Union Government to deal with the problem posed by any serious challenge to the observance of the Constitution in the governance of the States, or to the unity and integrity of India.

For the first 17 years after the Constitution was adopted, the Union Government and the State governments belonged to the Congress party, and its high command was their guide,
philosopher and friend. Besides, this was substantially the era of Nehru’s charisma, and notwithstanding the federal form of the government, in substance, India was governed as though it was a State. This, no doubt, helped to stabilize democracy; but the manner in which one party rule was conducted in all the States and at the Centre did not assist the development of healthy and proper federal conventions.

It will be recalled that soon after Nehru’s death, for about two years before the fourth general election was held, the public life in the country was rudely disturbed by the eruption of violence in different cities, not excluding university campuses. It then appeared that the opposition parties did not hope to succeed in obtaining political power by ballot and became frustrated, angry and in some instances showed traces of irresponsibility. Continuous exercise of power developed complacence in the minds of the party in power, and whispers of corruption in high places became very current. Public at large was dissatisfied with the grave disparity between promises made by politicians and their actual performance and a crisis of character overtook the whole community. In the result, friends of India began to fear and her enemies began to hope that the fourth general election would be the last general election that Indian democracy will witness.

In fact, however, the fourth general election disclosed that a large mass of our illiterate and semi-literate voters exercised remarkable political judgment and more than half of India was lost to the Congress and began to be governed by United Front. This development raised the fond hope in the minds of all democrats in this country unattached to any political party that as result of the working of the Congress and the United Front governments in different States, polarization of parties on rational economic lines would take place and a new era in India’s democracy would begin. Many people thought that the fourth general election, far from being the last general election, was in fact the first true general election in which the votes exercised their political choice in a vigorous manner.

The working of the United Front governments, however, disclosed that anti-Congressism, which alone seemed to be their binding force, was not enough to sustain the governance of the States from day to day for a long time. Fissures soon began to appear and public controversies were carried on by the constituents of the United Front governments themselves. If only the United Front governments can succeed in governing their respective States on the commonly agreed minimum socio-economic programme, it would still assist the development of true democratic traditions in his country. But it is essential that all political parties must treat political power not as an end in itself, but as a means to bring about a socio-economic revolution.

The first stress of Indian democracy arises primarily from the fact that defection and crossing of the floor has become very common. Except for members who stand for election as independents, all other elected members owe a loyalty to the party on whose ticket they were elected. Defection is, in my judgment, undemocratic, unethical, and has a tendency of subverting the faith of the public in democracy itself.

All political parties have been verbally condemning defections; but I think it would be legitimate to say that each political party is playing the game, and defections have led, in some cases, to the formation of minority governments, which is totally undemocratic. In some States, President’s rule has been introduced, and the process of democracy has thereby been suspended. These developments have created in the minds of the public at large, complete indifference and apathy to politics and absolute lack of faith in politicians, their promises and their words.

Besides, we cannot ignore the fact that the continuous rise in the cost of living and the economic depression from which the country at large has suffered for some years, also cause frustration and anger in the minds of common men and women, and that is a stress which the Indian democracy faces today. This stress may not be articulate today; but when it grows in dimensions, it is not unlikely to explode in violence. And this poses a grave potential danger to the safety of our democracy.

As a result of the political instability which seems to emerge from the current unhealthy, undemocratic trends several subversive forces are raising their ugly head in the public life of India. Regionalism, religionism, linguism, casteism and communalism, which are entirely inconsistent with the secular democracy which the Constitution has built up for India, are becoming more and more articulate and are showing signs of disturbing the public life of the country. Chauvinism, which, according to the dictionary, means: bellicose patriotism or Jingoism, is taking different forms. The narrow loyalty to a citizen’s region or religion or language is understandable and cannot be eliminated from public life. But loyalty to caste and community is ununderstandable and must be treated as a very grave danger to democracy. Even the loyalty to the region, language or religion needs to be subordinated to the primary loyalty to India. Otherwise, different regions will begin to feel, subconsciously in the first instance and articulately later that they are subnations, and federalism, as conceived by the constitution-makers, will lose to have any meaning or significance. It is my hope and belief that these subversive trends are a passing phase. I believe that in course of time, sooner rather than later, all political parties will realise the danger involved in the eruption of these subversive trends and tendencies. I do not think that there is any need to make any radical change in the provisions of the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitution are elastic enough to admit of the development of healthy federal traditions. The Union Government in its dealings with non-Congress governments must be wise, patient, tolerant, understanding, sympathetic, but firm. The Union Government must scrupulously avoid giving rise to a legitimate apprehension in the minds of non-Congress governments that it is interested in putting an end to their rule and replacing their rule either by the President’s rule or by some sort of made-up coalition. On the other hand, non-Congress governments as well as Congress governments in the States must recognise that in dealing with the problems of their regions, the unity and integrity of India must never be overlooked. All political parties owe allegiance to the Constitution and are equally committed to democracy, the rule of law and the establishment of socio-economic justice. In their approach to the problem of socio-economic justice, they may differ; but the difference is one of emphasis, of pace, or of methodology. That being so, it would be easy for all political parties to realise the danger which Indian democracy is facing today and to evolve healthy, democratic traditions which will combat the narrow subversive trends and tendencies and make democracy safe, in this country.

I am clearly of opinion that the task of fighting these narrow chauvinistic tendencies must be undertaken primarily by the intellectuals who are not committed to any political party, but who passionately believe in the basic postulates of Indian democracy. Indian democracy believes in the rule of law, in the achievement of socio-economic justice by the operation of law, in secularism, in social equality and in economic justice. Unless, these postulates become a part of the faith and belief in each one’s mind, and are reflected in our individual and collective lives, the stresses which Indian democracy is facing today will continue to disturb all wise men. In that sense, Indian democracy is passing through a difficult phase. At this hour it is for the intellectuals of this country to educate public opinion and carry on a dialogue with political power. If such a dialogue is carried on vigorously, articulately and ceaselessly, it will create a climate which itself will help to conquer the present unhealthy trends which have posed stresses to Indian democracy. I firmly believe that progressive, revolutionary ideas are mighty weapons and if the intellectual community is dedicated to the task of spreading these progressive, revolutionary ideas, it would not be difficult for Indian democracy to withstand the stress which it faces today. The call of the hour is addressed to each one of us, and each one of us must make up his or her mind that whatever be our differences on any issue–social, economic, political or religious–we must never forget that we are Indians first, Indians second and Indians last. We must never forget that we are committed to democracy and to the rule of law and that our primary loyalty must be to the unity and integrity of India. I am a great optimist and though the stresses from which Indian democracy seems to suffer sometimes disturb and even frighten me. I am always prayerfully hoping that this passing phase will soon disappear and we will have democratic institutions functioning in this country in a healthy and progressive manner.

–By courtesy, All India Radio