Whither Indian Democracy?

As the Indian democracy reaches the age of sixty, it is instructive to evaluate if retirement age applies to this paradigm as well! Over the years, this nation has witnessed its democratic system pass through many different experiences - being nurtured during its infancy, being challenged in its youth and winning the respect of the world as it matured. In a changing international context from the post World War scenario to a New World order, with an internal situation that has seen the macabre days of partition to the most inglorious recent religious riots, a democracy owned by a billion celebrates a day on which it would turn sixty years young!

Not many would have imagined that the Indian democracy would not be a case of infant mortality. Many doomsayers were sure that it would go up with the fumes in the funeral pyre of Mr. Nehru. Even the famed Judiciary stood numb as right to life was denied to the free Indian citizen by Ms. Gandhi. When all was destined to be lost, the illiterate Indian went into to the polling booth and returned with an indelible mark, symbolizing the triumph of grit over apprehensions about the democratic fibre of the nation.

The principal strength of the Indian democracy seems to be its past. Immediately after independence Jawaharlal Nehru became the first servant of the Indian nation. So unchallenged was his authority, especially after the demise of Sardar Patel, that he could have so easily turned into a dictator. Even when he led the nation on a path based on his personal convictions, he succeeded in instilling democratic credentials in the way the infant nation’s politics functioned. The respect he gave to Parliamentary procedure and the manner in which he treated the opposing voice in the Parliament provided the climate in which the system could gradually find its feet. His patronage for Indian democracy was so pronounced that it was apprehended upon his demise that a succession war would ensue and engulf the nation in a bitter acrimonious struggle. It was not to be. The strength of the leader was to be seen in the institution that he built. Indian democracy held on despite Nehru’s demise.

Is it not ironical that the biggest challenge to Indian democracy came from the daughter and grand son of the very same person who had imparted Indian democratic system its strength? 1976 saw an emergency imposed on the nation. For the first time and hopefully for the last time, the national system was as far as it could be from the people’s heart, as the Constitution would allow it to be. In those dark days of tyranny, even the Indian Judiciary failed the silent hope of the millions, when it held that even the most basic right could be held suspended by a coterie with a joke for a democratic mandate. The Indian democracy and the freedom that the common man enjoyed in this nation were at their lowest ebb. And then, with the legal luminaries succumbing to the Executive diktat, the humble illiterate farmer voted out the Government, making it amply clear that Indian democracy had gained enough strength to withstand abduction by a few.

Democracy in India is now not just a determination by the people of their elected representatives. It is now designed as a system in which people would govern themselves. Ironically, this expansion of the canvass of Indian democracy is again credited to the very same family. Constitutional sanction was given to three more levels of Government. The Gram Sabhas were to the most potent of all institutions. The number of players in the developmental administration of India increased exponentially. As Churchill once remarked, the panacea for the ills of democracy is more of democracy. Over the years the Indian democracy has reached a situation where the number of benefactors, even in the pessimistic view that only politically elected representatives benefit from the system, are so many. The subversion of the system is less probable to that extent!

Gone are the days when the Judiciary held that the right to life and liberty are things that we could do with out if the Executive so decides. In the present scenario Indian democracy has certain inviolable elements which have been very well ingrained in the system. Democracy is no longer defined in India as amenable according to the whims and fancies of the electorate over a short period of time. The legal system that has evolved over the generations has made the Constitutional provisions unassailable by fits of a mob majority. The strength of the judicial pillar of our nation has become a safeguard against the evils that could be thrust upon us.

So also, the growth of media in our nation has improved the strength of the democratic set up in India. It has brought about greater transparency in the functioning of the Government and it is now serving as a better feed back about the functioning of the servant to the real masters – We the People. It is not just the technological growth of the media that holds out hope for Indian democracy. The multitude of media houses that have come up in our nation and the many eminent journalists whose fame rests on their neutrality predicts good days up ahead.

The seshaned Election Commission has grown to be a strength for the Indian democratic exercise. Since those days, the tone and tenor has changed in the Nirvachan Bhavan and the Election Commission has managed to etch out an identity of its own in the Indian democratic context. The body is today known for its impartiality and efficiency.

Credit is due to the various leaders who have been at the helm of affairs that they never tried anything silly to maintain themselves in power (with some inglorious exceptions). And even more credit is due to the average citizen in communicating clearly to those at the apex that republic nature of the nation is non-negotiable. The way repeated elections have been conducted at the expiry of the popular mandate and the successful manner in which the power has transferred according to the election results is certainly a matter of credit, for which the democratic credentials of the Indian bureaucracy and the Indian military also needs to be saluted.

So is it safe for to open the champagne bottle and celebrate the sixty years we have lived as a democracy? Perhaps this is just one drop of guard that we cannot afford. Despite all its strength, there are still many areas of concern that needs to be discussed, debated and sorted out. We would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we refuse to see these signs!

India has 16% of the world population and Uttar Pradesh has 16% of India’s population. Cradle for most of India’s Prime Ministers, this state has of late developed distinctive characteristics which are not restricted to this state alone, but is perhaps most starkly observable in the political scenario of this state. Arun Jaitley recent remarked that there were only three issues in the elections in Uttar Pradesh – caste, caste and caste! In other states, the factor might be different. But the danger is not the factor itself- be it caste, religion, language or ethnicity. The problem is that the critical factor in the election is not factors which are critical for the average Indian citizen. The average Indian citizen is troubled more by poverty and corruption rather than any of these make believe factors. The sad fact is that there are not too many political outfits or political leaders who can successfully identify themselves with these real issues of the people. The proxy issues keep out the real issues; and this is not in the interest of the common man.

The advantage of the “inconsequential” factors for the political parties is that these are factors on which people can be excited and mobilized en masse with ease. It does not take the effort of keeping a close eye on the processes that lead us to being a poor and corruption ridden nation. It does not involve the patient education of the citizens about the dangers of the systemic issues that are bogging them down. Yes, it does have the negative fallout of costing lives every time there is a riot. It does have the problem of engaging the mental space when we should in fact be concerned about other issues which are substantial. Allow this factor to succeed and this is going to cost the nation dearly. The issue is that when one party is successful with the game, all of our options are busy in playing the same game that there are not too many options for the average unorganized citizen and his family!

Here is where Media could have played a critical role. Despite their engaging our attention for so long over the course of the day, not too many feel responsible for exposing these systemic issues. P. Sainath recently remarked that the media is no longer concentrating on processes; it is too engaged with events. The memory span of the citizen is short and in a mad rush to catch the eye balls the media has turned event-hunters than process analysers. The media relishes in exposing the fault of the Government through a particular event that has happened, but seldom takes the pain of communicating the procedural problems involved in the set up which has caused the negative event. The point is not that the media should stop criticizing the Government. The point is that it should do it and it should go further and identify, expose and analyse the causal factors and bring out suggestions for change! Here the media has the problem of having to stop the channel change button being pressed on the remote!

Earlier in this essay it was remarked that the growth of the Indian Judiciary as a pillar of hope is an element of strength to the democratic system as envisaged in the Constitution. Here again, some recent developments portend some possible threats to the system laid down by the Constitution. In an effort to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has laid down a system for the selection of judges which has cut them off from their tenuous connection with the real masters- We the People. Criticised by many including the legal luminaries like Justice VR Krishna Iyer, the judgment in the SCARA case has now mutilated the process of consultation envisaged in the Constitution. Consultation, concurrence and compliance are three different words and one cannot stand in to mean any other. Yes, there is the procedure of impeachment. But the manner in which this instrument has functioned over the years does not offer much hope. And yes, if the present ‘subversion’ of the Constitutional provision remains unchallenged, there is no guarantee that there won’t be another one!

It is great that the Indian democracy has been successfully held up by the illiterate masses. Now, it is not such a great thing to stay there and hope for this miracle to happen again and again. We need to educate ourselves. The safeguard against the possible threats can only be found in a free, informed and active population. There is enough to be done to keep us all engaged all of our life. In such a scenario, if one is not part of the solution, it is a given that she or he is part of the problem!

The growth of modern technology has indeed made the spread of education better. The digital divide does exist, but it is undeniable that technology and resources has now made it possible for people to be better aware. The success of Indian democracy in future will hugely depend on how the human resource of this nation is able to raise itself to face the challenge of the new economic and political scenario. For all its strengths and weaknesses, this is where the future of the Indian democracy hinges. Go to the interior tribal villages of India. If you have a healthy little girl child coming out of the school with a smile on her face and a mind sharper than yesterday, we should be on the right track!