The Elections and After

Both Indian and foreign observers have expressed the view–and rightly also–that the elections to Lok Sabha held in March last brought about a peaceful revolution in the country. We have to understand clearly in what this revolution consisted. It does not consist in a mere change in the party in power and office. The Congress which has been continuously in power at the Centre suffered a crushing defeat and for the first time in the thirty years history of free India a non-Congress Government–that of the Janata Party–under the leadership of Morarji Desai has assumed power. There is nothing revolutionary about this. It is what is normally expected of elections in a democracy. The fact that though six elections were held from 1952, it was only in 1977 that such a change was brought about does not also constitute a revolution. Even in mature democracies like those of Britain and the United States, we find the same party being returned to office continuously from one election to another for long periods of time. We may also note that the Congress spell was broken even in our country when after the elections of 1967 the Congress held office for sometime as a minority party depending upon the D. M. K. and the C. P. I., for continuing in office, and when in eight States Congress lost its majority, and non-Congress governments were formed. Thus a mere change in party in office does not constitute a revolution. No one referred to the changes between 1967 and 1972 as revolutionary in character.

Consequently when we look at the elections of 1977, and refer to them as revolutionary in their outcome, it should be for some other specific reason. The modern era in the history of the world is spoken of by historians as an era of revolutions. These revolutions have been of two kinds. In one category we have revolutions for achieving freedom from foreign rule. The first of such revolutions was the War of American Independence in which the people of the thirteen British Colonies, in what subsequently became the United States, fought to get rid of British rule and achieve freedom. They set an example to other colonial dependencies, and territories subject to other kinds of alien rule–to the people of Central and South America, to Balkan people’s subject to the Sultan of Turkey, to the people of Italy, and above all to the peoples of Asia and Africa subject to Western imperialism. We ourselves followed that example and carried on a struggle from 1920 to 1945 under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and finally achieved freedom in 1947. By so doing we ourselves became the inspirers of similar revolutions in other parts of Asia and in Africa.

The second category of revolutions consists of those whose purpose was to put an end to despotism and establish a democratic system of government. The first among them was the French Revolution of 1789 which in the name of Fundamental Human Rights and of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity overthrew the monarchical regime and established a democratic government in its place. The revolution which led to the overthrow of the czar’s despotic rule in Russia in 1917 belongs to this category, though it was not followed by the setting up of a democratic system as term is ordinarily understood. A common feature of these revolutions is the overthrow of despotism.

The elections of 1977 resulted in a revolution which falls into the second category.

When our country became free in 1947 our Founding Fathers set up a democratic system of government through the Constitution framed with great deliberation by eminent jurists. Along with the democratic system they also set up a Federal Type of Government. Both democracy and federalism stand for governments with limited authority. Constitutional government does not merely mean a government which is based on a written constitution. Even autocratic governments have a constitution. It is only when a constitution provides for limitations on the authority of government that it is entitled to be called a constitutional government. Our Constitution is of this character. Besides providing for a democratic system, based on adult suffrage, free and fair elections once in five years and other features which are usually associated with democracy, it has created governments with limited authority both at the centre and in the states. It does this by maintaining a balance between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Each serves as a sort of check on the others and prevents any one institution from exercising unlimited authority. Judicial review of the laws enacted by the Central and State legislatures and of any orders that might be issued by the Central and State Governments is an integral part of the system of limited government enshrined in our Constitution. Besides this, citizens have been guaranteed a number of fundamental rights–rights to freedom of speech, to freedom of association, of holding public meetings, freedom to move from place to place, freedom of person, equality before law, etc. Any limitations placed on these rights by legislatures or executives are subject to judicial review. Federalism which leaves to States a field of autonomy freed from the Centre is also another characteristic of limited government. No government whether at the Centre or in the States is permitted to do anything in excess of the limits imposed on them by the federal system. Balance between the three institutions of government, judicial review, fundamental rights of citizens and federalism should be regarded as the basic features of our Constitution. They all have one common objective–the exercise of only limited authority by governments and the prevention of any kind of despotism coming into existence.

Something contrary to all this began to happen from 1971 onwards; and this reached its climax in the Emergency declared in June 1975. The steps taken during the 19 months of Emergency to make fundamental changes in the Constitution substituted personal dictatorship for democracy and limited government.

What happened from 1971 onwards was the gradual concentration of all political authority in the person holding the office of Prime Minister. It has been the convention for the Prime Minister to consult the Cabinet before arriving at governmental decisions. But this convention disappeared gradually. The Prime Minister arrived at decisions and only announced them formally at the meetings of the Cabinet. There arose in due course a coterie of an inner circle of advisers chosen by the Prime Minister outside the Cabinet and her decisions came to be based and not on their advice and on that of the Cabinet. They owed no responsibilities to Parliament like the Cabinet. This is the first step in the establishment of an authoritarian system. It is now known that even the declaration of Emergency in June, 1975, was her own decision taken on the advice of the coterie and not after consultation with the cabinet. So great was her personal ascendancy that no Cabinet Minister had the courage toquestion her authority. As a result of the elections to State Assemblies in 1972 all State Governments, with the exception of two or three, came under the control of the Congress. But the State Congress parties lost all autonomy. The same was the case with the Congress party as a whole. The President of the Congress was her nominee as also the members of the Working Committee. Inner democracy within the Congress disappeared. The Chief Ministers of States were all nominated by her in all the States where the Congress had a majority. They held office at her pleasure. Bahuguna who was sent by her to become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh told the public recently the way in which she made him Chief Minister and later removed him from office. Under these circumstances state autonomy guaranteed by the federal nature of the Constitution ceased to have any meaning. The elected Provincial Congress Committees ceased to exist and their place was taken by Ad Hoc Committees nominated by the Congress President at her behest. Later the principle of the equality of all citizens in the eye of law was abandoned and the electoral law was so changed as to place beyond the jurisdiction of judiciary the question of the validity of election to Parliament of any person who, after election, might happen to hold the office of Prime Minister. There was thus one electoral law for the ordinary citizen and another for the Prime Minister. It is a matter of common knowledge that it was the judgment of the Allahabad High Court declaring invalid the election of Srimati Indira Gandhi to Parliament from the Rai Bareily Constituency in Uttar Pradesh that provoked her to place this electoral law on the statute book.

This was immediately followed by the declaration of Emergency to prevent internal threat to peace and order. What happened to the 19 months of Emergency was far worse than what happened in the worst days of British Rule. Nearly one-and-half lakhs of people were thrown into prison without any charges being framed against them and without any formal trial. Among them were universally respected leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Vajpayee, Asoka Metha and several others. Not only members of the Opposition parties but also of the Congress itself who were suspected of being disloyal to the Prime Minister–members of A. I. C. C., and P. C. C.–met the same fate. Complete censorship was exercised over the Press. All freedoms were taken away. Several organizations were banned–some political and some religious and cultural. It is an elementary principle of democracy that the mere fact that a general election voted a particular party to power does not give it the arbitrary authority to use the power in any way it likes. Public opinion has to assert itself to prevent the arbitrary exercise of authority. But in the name of Emergency all scope and opportunities for the expression of public opinion were closed.

The Emergency was used to place the Maintenance of Internal Safety Act (MISA) on the statute book. It has no parallel in the history of legislation in Post-Independence India. We have to go to the days of British rule to find a parallel to it. It was similar to the Defence of India Act passed during the two World Wars and to Rowlatt Act against which Mahatma Gandhi organised an All-India Satyagraha in 1919. It was worse than these two Acts in many ways. It was directed not only against smugglers, and black-marketeers but against even honest citizens whose loyalty to the Government was suspected.

Above all, the Emergency was used to enact the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution which gave to Parliament the Sovereign right to change the Constitution in any way and to any extent it liked, to change its basic features and deprive the courts of questioning the validity of such amendments. Other restrictions were placed on the judiciary. The exercise of arbitrary power by the executive–the Prime Minister, the de facto executive–was given constitutional validity. So also were the restrictions on Fundamental Rights and the Right to Freedom of Association. It provided for constitutional dictatorship–as if any dictatorship can be constitutional in the real sense of the term “Constitution” as referred to above. Our political system ceased to be democratic and unlimited authority of the Prime Minister took the place of Government with limited authority.

This is a clear abuse of the Article in the Constitution which empowers the President to declare an Emergency. The purpose for which it has to be used is a limited purpose–to restore order when it is disrupted and when ordinary law cannot deal with it. But Emergency has been used by the Congress Government to change the basic structure of the Constitution and to set up a permanent political system dictatorial in character.

There are some who defend Emergency on the ground that it has restored discipline, put an end to student unrest, to labour strikes and lock-outs, and to give effect to the Prime Minister’s Twenty-point Programme and to her son’s Five-point Programme. But these defenders forget that it was the weakness on the part of police authorities and disregard for the rule of law among persons in authority–elected as well as non-elected–that were responsible for the state of indiscipline in the pre-Emergency days. The police were denied the legitimate authority due to them as a result of undue interference by ministers in office. No declaration of Emergency was needed to restore discipline or to enforce the Twenty-point or the Five-point Programme. All this could have been done under the ordinary law.

All sorts of excesses were committed by the authorities in the name of Emergency. Compulsory sterilisation which most attracted public attention was only one of them. The tortures to which persons taken into custody were put to formed another category of excesses. Compulsory retirement of officials without framing any charges against them was another kind of excess. Examples of this character can be multiplied. All these are the characteristics of dictatorial rule, and the country became subject to such a rule during the Emergency. The Constitution was so changed that dictatorial rule could be continued even after Emergency was lifted.

The elections of 1977 gave an opportunity to the people to get rid of dictatorship and restore the democratic system of government. It is in this sense that they brought about a revolution. This is the real significance of the elections. India was acclaimed till few years ago as the largest democracy in the world. By what happened in consequence of the nineteen months of Emergency, it became the largest dictatorship in the world. The election reestablished the claim of India to be regarded as the largest democracy.

By freeing all those imprisoned in the name of Emergency and under MISA, by removing the censorship on the Press, by removing the restrictions placed by the previous Government on the publication of the proceedings of Parliament by newspapers, and the opportunity given to the leader of the Opposition, and other members of the Opposition party to broadcast on A.I.R. show how much the new Government values the principles of democracy–personal liberty and freedom of expression–not only in theory but also in practice. But democracy in which we have all along understood it cannot be fully restored unless the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution is repealed. Can the Janata Government do this? It may get with some difficulty the support of a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha as several other parties have expressed their willingness to co-operate with it, but it does not command a majority of this kind in the Rajya Sabha. And unless there is a change in the composition of the State Assemblies which are now dominated by the Congress party, it may not be able to set the support of half the number of States which is needed to repeal the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution.

It will be in the best interests of democracy in the country if the Congress party co-operates with the Janata party in repealing this amendment. The Congress says that it is as much wedded to democracy as any other party. The proposal of the Janata Government to repeal the 42nd Amendment gives an opportunity to the Congress to undo the undemocratic character arising out of its 42nd Amendment at a time when almost all the Opposition leaders were in prison and to show its faith in democracy and give to the party in power the constructive co-operation which its leader in Lok Sabha had promised. It is to be hoped that the Congress party will not be swayed by considerations of prestige.

The purpose of the present article is limited. Its only purpose is to tell the readers what it is in the opinion of the writer that gives a revolutionary character to the recent elections to Lok Sabha. There are other issues which arise out of these elections which are of crucial importance to the economic development of the country. Another opportunity will be taken to deal with them.
30-4-1977

P. S. Subsequent to the writing of the article elections to ten of the State Assemblies took place and the people voted the Janata party to power in seven of them. In Punjab the Akali-Janata coalition has come to power. In West Bengal there is a fair prospect of the CPM leftist front co-operating with the        Janata Centre in all important matters, and the All-India Anna D. M. K. of Tamil Nadu may also co-operate with it. There is now a fair chance of the Janata securing the support of half the number of States for any changes in the Constitution which it proposes to make.