|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
BLURB Religion, caste, and State are key words
in understanding India's failure to mature into a full-blooded democracy.
There is all-round failure of Indian State, in particular its executive
and legislative wings. Judiciary still retains some credibility. Millions
of Indians still look to it for succour. But given its lackadaisical
style of functioning, and slow grind, it has also belied people's
expectations. The use of caste in politics, and the depravity and depredations of India's political class reflecting the aberrations and absurdities of caste-based politics continue to undermine and slow down India's transformation into a full-blooded democracy. The State's failure to see the education system in perspective and strengthen it from primary to tertiary levels, and the entry of private entrepreneurs into the education sector in a big way have already driven the system haywire. The recent decision of introducing reservation in higher education is likely to add to the problems of Indian education and to the confusion and frustration of the youth across the entire social spectrum. Such and several other important issues which are indeed of nation's concern have been discussed in the book.
At the time of India's Independence about two-fifth of the Indian Territory and one-fourth of its population were under indirect rule in some 600 Native States headed by Princes, the most useful allies for the colonial government. The articulation of the aspirations of the people of the princely states for transition from autocracy to democracy, and of British India for liberation from colonial rule, the related struggles which were central to the freedom movement, the formation of the Independent Indian Union by integrating the princely states with British India, all are part of India's recent history. In this context, Ouwerkerk's account of Travancore's denouement before it joined the Indian Union (on this more in Part 1), and the 'Kerala phenomenon',1 should make the readers Janus-faced. That is, looking backward at the long agitation for full responsible government, and looking forward wondering whatever happened to the envisaged democratic governance, and how to work for it at least from now on. To the question why the expected transition to democracy is slow even fifty five years after India's adoption of a vibrant Constitution at least three answers are possible. The first answer is though the popular movements for India's independence in different parts of the country threw up leaders their democratic idealism did not survive them. That justifies the oft-made claim that despite the nation-building efforts of the first two decades after Independence when many of the leaders of the freedom movement were in the helm of affairs, the working of the Indian Constitution in the subsequent years has reduced Indian democracy to a fledgling sham. The second answer is partly reminiscent of the following observations
by Winston Churchill: 2 The foundation of the democratic idea is that one man is as good as another, or better Is it democracy to have indirect election - four or five men in a room, we were told, choosing the delegates of a great Province? The hon. Member takes us to task as to whether we believe in it. I ask him the kind of democracy he is voting for. Is it democracy to spatchcock into the midst of your central elected chamber one-third of the representation of the stewards and bailiffs of the hereditary Princes, who are autocrats? The hon. Member had really better go to the Liberal Summer School without delay and brush up his fundamentals, or else he will run a very grave risk of forfeiting his deposit. We may not agree with Churchill whom we condemned as racist and imperialist when he said that independence would plunge India into chaos and ruin because Indians were unfit to rule themselves. All the same, it is necessary to separate the person from his ideas, inasmuch as at least four of the issues Churchill raised are still relevant to the political situation in India. These are (a) whether democracy believes in parliamentary institutions - for even at the best of times and even in the best of democratic nations, democracy survives only through the rhetoric of expectations; (b) whether caste is reconcilable with democracy; (c) whether the idea of 60,000,000 untouchables [now a much larger number] is reconcilable with any sort of democratic system; and (d) whether it is democracy to 'spatchcock' into the midst of a central elected chamber one-third of the representation of the stewards and bailiffs of the hereditary Princes, who are autocrats, a phenomenon, which still prevails, though not exactly as Churchill said. Though (b) and (c) may appear overlapping, they are qualitatively different. The reference of (b) is to a rigidly caste-based hierarchical society. That of (c) is to the worst victims of this society whom Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, architect of the Indian Constitution, treated as a helpless minority placing them in the context of the tyranny of the majority, that is, the rest of the Hindus. The third answer to India's slow democratic transition is related
to the diffusion of constitutional morality. Of this Ambedkar wrote
(Government of Maharashtra 1994, Vol. 13: 61-2, 1210): That explains the long and perspicacious debates in the Constituent
Assembly on majorities and minorities, and the cautious and well thought
out Preamble - the soul - of the Constitution: The intolerant, sectarian, rabid Hindutva, which has of late been stalking the political and public domains claiming to be the sole custodian of the Indian nation, is the result of the failure to implement the solution proposed by the Constituent Assembly. In fact, today the major threat to India's development as a full-blooded democracy is this monster working through the politics of the Sangh Parivar and its political outfit BJP, whose political machinations might have put even Joseph Geobbels31 to shame. The 'Problem', presented to the theme Uncertain Futures, in the November 2002 issue of the monthly journal Seminar, succinctly summed up the BJP's persistent threat to India's democratic culture and governance. As its observations fit well into a number of articles in this book, it is reproduced here: Evidently, despite having survived for over three years, a sharp contrast of its earlier innings of 13 days and 13 months respectively, the ruling coalition continues to be marked by tensions with episodic crises rocking its shaky foundations. Recurrent stories of an apparent rift between the two top leaders, increasingly assertive role of the sundry organizations of the Sangh Parivar and the need to turn a blind eye to the perfidies of the allies have ensured a veritable collapse of even the common minimum agenda for governance, forget more complex policy initiatives towards restoring peace in insurgency areas or ensuring greater harmony in the region The task of forging a consensus - on policies, institutions and mechanisms - has been made more difficult by the BJP's aggressive social agenda; its foregrounding of Hindutva and cultural nationalism has added to the insecurities of our many minorities, the most recent example of which is the continuing mismanagement of riot-affected Gujarat Despite dozens of official and non-official reports on Gujarat 2002, few of those allegedly responsible have been charge-sheeted and convicted. Chief Minister Modi's Gaurav Yatra, matched unfortunately by the rhetoric of the opposition, has deepened the climate of insecurity The overtly anti-minority, anti-Dalit sentiment is slowly, but steadily, acquiring anti-outsider undertones causing many professionals to relocate. That this is happening in a state perceived as well run, welcoming and investor friendly, all for ostensible short-run gains, remains a sad reflection on our democratic culture. (Pp. 12-13) Here again, it is important to recall Ambedkar's observations (Government of Maharashtra 1994, Vol. 13: 62-3): In this country both the minorities and the majorities have followed
a wrong path. It is wrong for the majorities to deny the existence
of minorities. It is equally wrong for the minorities to perpetuate
themselves. A situation must be found which will serve a double-purpose.
It must recognise the existence of the minorities to start with. It
must also be such that it will enable majorities and minorities to
merge some day into one. The solution proposed in the Constituent
Assembly is to be welcomed because it is a solution, which serves
this two-fold purpose. It is for the majority to realize its duty
not to discriminate against minorities. Whether the minorities will
continue or vanish must depend upon this habit of the majority. The
moment the majority loses the habit of discriminating against the
minority, the minorities can have no ground to exist. They will vanish.
If the BJP succeeded to power at the Centre and in some states it is through the 'incremental politics' of the Sangh Parivar, and the use of Ayodhya for political mobilization to capture state power. When the BJP eventually managed to capture power at the Centre, proving the worst fears of all discerning and secular-minded citizens, it unabashedly used state power as part of a grand strategy to concretise its majoritarian communal agenda of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. Though the BJP has been out of power at the centre after the general elections held in 2004, and the Congress-led UPA government with Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister has brought in some democratic semblance to governance, as the principal Opposition and as a communal political outfit the BJP is still a major evil to reckon with. In some sense, the framers of the Constitution were realistic enough to acknowledge that the transformation of a centuries old unjust social order of aristocracy and social rank, privileged high castes and despised low castes, Brahminic priesthood and intellectual hegemony, and so on, into an egalitarian society through rule of law and integrating the heterogeneous ensemble of myriad caste groups and multiple religious communities into one society with individual citizens as its unit as against social groups in the past, would be a long haul. As the religious minorities were latecomers on the social scene, Manu could not have ostracized them. So, the beginning of the understanding of the subversion of India's democratic governance should be with Hindutva's political manoeuvres of Manu's misdeeds. Part 2 begins with this, and goes into the menace of Hindutva, which
has among other things, put Rama on trial after the demolition of
the Babri Masjid, unleashed Nazi-type purge in different parts of
the country, the worst form of which was in Gujarat, soon spreading
the communal venom to states like Tamil Nadu, till recently known
for communal harmony, where as though to outwit and outbid the trickster
Narendra Modi in Gujarat, Chief Minister, J. Jayalalithaa, 4 went
in for an overkill by enacting an anti-conversion legislation, much
against the will of the people. The article on Mother Teresa is also relevant in the context of religion
and politics. For, in the ultimate analysis, superstition, obscurantism
and irrationality, whether among Hindus, Christians, or Muslims, are
major causes of social tension and inter-caste and inter-communal
intolerance. These observations go well with those of Ambedkar in his speech of
25 November 1949 on his motion for the adoption of the Constitution
(Government of Maharashtra 1994, Vol. 13: 1217): It would have been impossible to abolish caste as an institution, which has survived for about 3,000 years, by legislation and at a stroke. So, as a testimony to constitutional pragmatism, the mandate was to ignore it in public life, make its socially outrageous, stigmatic, and seemingly discriminatory aspects illegal, and allow it to have a natural, albeit slow, death. Far from ensuring this, the state in Independent India as the upholder and defender of the constitutional values has encouraged the existence, persistence and exploitation of caste. If what M.N. Srinivas said in the 1950s that with the coming of democracy (read the introduction of universal adult franchise), caste got a new lease of life, is being said now with greater vehemence, it is because of the very use of caste for vote-bank politics which among others, prompted the Vanniyars, the largest caste in Tamil Nadu, to demand a separate state. The New Sunday Express in its introduction to my article 'Vanniyar
Vampire' eloquently dealt with caste as a persisting social menace
and a stumbling block to secularism and national unity: The Bahujan Samaj Party, Laloo Prasad Yadav's Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Kerala Congress are avowedly caste-based formations, like Dr Ramdoss' Vanniyar Sangham, to cite only a few instances. Even the major all-India parties, for all their protestations of a 'secular' outlook on caste, are aware of the strong caste loyalties at work; candidates are often decided on the basis of the caste composition of the constituency concerned. We're Brahmins, Rajputs, Vanniyars, Vokkaligas, Kurmis and Reddys first; linguistic and other affiliations come later. This is a damning comment on our failure to transcend caste loyalties, despite the best efforts of the makers of modern India to eradicate the evils of caste. But what should concern us even more - despite the fact that politicians cutting across the political spectrum have closed ranks to oppose Ramdoss' call - is the possibility of demands being made to break up India along caste lines. It is fortunate that nobody else has done so, so far; the creation of Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand was done on administrative grounds, not caste. Even the movement for a separate Telengana in Andhra Pradesh was inspired by other issues. What is worrying about Ramdoss' call for bifurcation of Tamil Nadu
is that it could open the floodgates to similar demands by other castes.
Forty-six years ago, the nation was reorganised along linguistic lines
with disastrous results; we cannot afford a reprise along caste lines.
With the electors, the overwhelming majority of whom have yet to
learn what democratic governance is, voting their castes in the periodic
elections; with most of those elected from among them who make up
the legislature (Parliament and Assemblies) also lacking knowledge
of what democracy is; with sections of the so elected comprising the
Executive; it is only logical to infer that the Executive not only
carries all the imperfections and inadequacies of the Legislature,
but more importantly also confounds them with the articulation of
the perfidies of power. More often than not, the Executive is obdurate
and obtrusive, through among other things, its excesses, inertia,
ineptitude, and intellectual and moral turpitude; and betrays its
constitutional mandate to govern democratically. Though it is in this context they turn for succour to the judiciary - the most important organ of Indian democracy - and the judiciary is expected to democratise the executive and its governance, it has been more in the nature of the god that failed. The judiciary is a complex institution and not merely courts, judges and judgments. So placing it in perspective should mean critiquing the quality of the Bar and Bench, judicial processes, administrative set up, judgments, interface between litigants and lawyers, lawyers and judges, courts and politics, courts and corruption; understanding and prompting introspection about the judiciary, judicial psyche, judicial activism, the judiciary's ever-expanding interface with the executive, the chaotic proliferation and prolongation of litigation; and so on. As the lawyers, as a class, have their associations, one may wonder if it is not time for the litigants as a class, irrespective of on which side they are, to form their associations to take on both the Bar and Bench in a collective and organised manner. Though I do not agree with Arun Shourie's ideological postures, and his fabrications such as on Ambedkar and the role of Christian missionaries in India, which he has peddled for serious scholarly works, as I did in the case of Churchill I separate the person from his text. My reference is to Shourie's documentation of the state of Indian judiciary with great eloquence, particularly in the context of issues concerning misuse of law, judicial delay, judicial inaction, verdicts unalloyed by contexts and facts, law in book v. law in action, 'passing files', judicial spins and jigsaws, blinkered vision of the judiciary, which is not even aware of its own enormous responsibility; more so, when its writ runs through the length and breadth of the country, and so on. To place the discussion in Part 4, on law and society, in perspective, it will not be out of place to draw upon some of his observations: 51 While the courts often give sweeping directions - ones that get bold headlines, ones that raise hope among citizens - they do not as often follow these up to see whether the Executive has carried them out. An important function of the courts is to proclaim ideals before society, to stretch the Executive so that it puts in the maximum possible effort. But it should be equally evident that if (a) rulings - or laws - are so far ahead of reality; or (b) if courts having decreed a remedy, do not follow up to ensure that it is being adhered to; they run the risk of compounding cynicism - about courts, about laws, about the Rule of Law. (P. 15) a. A feature that strikes one as one sits listening to arguments in a court, as it does when one reads judgments, is that judges consider each issue as an issue in itself - isolated from the context of society, often independently of the consequences that it requires little imagination to see will follow from it. Furthermore, different principles, different encapsulations of a principle impress themselves upon the judges on different occasions In judgment after judgment one comes across a determined effort to not let facts come in the way of the verdict After all, judgments are replete with perorations. It is not that they adhere solely to matters legal: discourses on social philosophy, on sociology, on India's history - rather, the dominant versions of these - are commonplace. Indeed, sometimes it seems that the particular case is the occasion that the judge has been waiting for to deliver himself of opinions on some subject: so little in the judgment turns on the oration. (Pp. 239, 252) b. The judgments - for instance, those mandating equality, those
striking down disciplinary proceedings because some ingredient of
natural justice has not been complied with fully - are not being delivered
in a vacuum. They are being delivered in times when rights mongering
and grievance mongering have become the staples of public discourse.
They are being delivered at a time when public life is in the hands
of a weak political class. This combination has lethal consequences.
(Pp. 239, 319) Copyright ©2006 Dr. P. Radhakrishnan. |
||||||||||||
|
Copyright
© 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com
Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |