REPUBLIC AT 75 INDIAS DEMOCRACY HAS STUMBLED BUT IT HAS WORKED

The Article 1 of the Constitution of India, adopted exactly 75 years ago on 26 January 1950, carries words that symbolise our path of a civilisational evolution: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” That was a compromise arrived at one of the final meetings of the Constituent Assembly which framed the Indian Constitution, between those who wanted the soon-to-be independent country named either as ‘India’ or ‘Bharat.’ That understanding s at the core of Indian democracy which has grown from strength to strength despite  tremendous odds and adversity. The Constituent Assembly, which consisted some of the best and brightest Indian minds, functioned seamlessly through a tumultuous period of partition into India and Pakistan. The Assembly which consisted of 389 members was reduced to 299 members after the partition, as some of them chose to identify themselves with Pakistan. But, the Constituent Assembly never lost its focus and completed its task in two years, 11 months and 17 days, coming up with what is widely recognised as one of the finest written constitution in the world.

ADOPTING PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

After a long and hard debate, India decided to adopt a parliamentary democracy based on the British model rather than the Presidential system of democracy as followed by the United States of America. They both had their pros and cons, but it was felt that for a country with diverse castes, ethnicities, languages and religionsa parliamentary system would be much better suited. Since 1952, when the first general elections were held, 18 parliamentary elections have been held so far – but for the aberration of an ‘internal emergency’ for 21 months between 1975 and 1977 – and the people of India have shown tremendous faith in its electoral process, though the elected representatives have failed to live up to their expectations. The rapid deterioration in the quality of administration and the kind of people getting elected, the all-pervasive corruption, the growing nexus between bureaucrats and politicians in looting the public exchequer, the failure of the courts to expeditiously bring them to book and instil a sense of fear and responsibility among them, the sky-rocketing levels of expenditure in elections with little or no accountability and increasing tendency towards politicians promoting their own progeny to positions of power to the exclusion of others....all indicate that as William Shakespeare prophetically wrote in his play ‘Hamlet’ that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!”. But the fact that elections are held regularly in a country of 1.45 billion now, and that the common people haven’t yet lost hope makes us believe that it is not all that gloomy out there.

 

SHRINKING DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT

Let’s consider the functioning of our Parliament and the state Assemblies to understand the depths we have sunk to. The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024), was the second term of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. During its five-year-term, there were only 274 sittings, averaging just 55 days per year – the lowest in parliamentary history. There were 206 instances of MPs being suspended across both houses due to “serious misconduct,” and in the Lok Sabha, the  Question Hour functioned for roughly 60% of the time and only 24% of the questions listed for oral responses were answered by the ministers. The figures were no different for the Rajya Sabha. It was a criminal waste considering that the parliament secretariat spends an enormous a parliamentary system would be much better suited. Since 1952, when the first general elections were held, 18 parliamentary elections have been held so far – but for the aberration of an ‘internal emergency’ for 21 months between 1975 and 1977 – and the people of India have shown tremendous faith in its electoral process, though the elected representatives have failed to live up to their expectations. The rapid deterioration in the quality of administration and the kind of people getting elected, the all-pervasive corruption, the growing nexus between bureaucrats and politicians in looting the public exchequer, the failure of the courts to expeditiously bring them to book and instil a sense of fear and responsibility among them, the sky-rocketing levels of expenditure in elections with little or no accountability and increasing tendency towards politicians promoting their own progeny to positions of power to the exclusion of others....all indicate that as William Shakespeare prophetically wrote in his play ‘Hamlet’ that  Something is rotten In the state of Denmark!”. But the fact that elections are held regularly in a country of 1.45 billion now, and that the common people haven’t yet lost hope makes us believe that it is not all that gloomy out there.

SHRINKING DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT

Let’s consider the functioning of our Parliament and the state Assemblies to understand the depths we have sunk to. The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024), was the second term of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. During its five-year-term, there were only 274 sittings, averaging just 55 days per year – the lowest in parliamentary history. There were 206 instances of MPs being suspended across both houses due to “serious misconduct,” and in the Lok Sabha, the Question Hour functioned for roughly 60% of the time and only 24% of the questions listed for oral responses were answered by the ministers. The figures were no different for the Rajya Sabha. It was a criminal waste considering that the parliament secretariat spends an enormous Constitution, arbitrary and whimsical actions such as imposition of emergency, dismissal of duly elected state governments are behind us as our institutions such as the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have begun to assert themselves. We the people have to be eternally grateful to the far-sighted makers of our Constitution and Dr B R Amberdar, who, as the chairman of the Drafting Committee was instrumental in guiding it in the right direction.

AMBEDKAR, THE STAR THAT SHONE

Dr Ambedkar’s scholarship, vision and mastery over the drafting of the laws shine through repeatedly in the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly. The rights to be conferred on the minorities were among of the hotly debated subjects, especially in the backdrop of the partition, whose wounds were still fresh. Ambedkar’s thinking was loud and clear. He said: “It is wrong for the majority (community) to deny the existence of the minorities. It is equally wrong for the minorities to perpetuate themselves. To those who have developed fanaticism against minority protection, I would like to say two things. One is that minorities are an explosive force which, if it erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the state. The history of Europe bears ample and appalling testimony to this fact. The second factor is that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the hands of the majority. It is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against the minorities.” Dr Ambedkar’s also explained why the Indian Constitution, unlike its American counterpart, preferred to make India a “Union of States” and not a “Federation of States.” In his concluding remarks in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, he explained that India having conceived of a strong Central government had mitigated the possibility of any state seceding from the Union, whereas America, having chosen to be a Federation of states had to wage a civil war to establish that the states had no right to secession.

PITFALLS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

There has been some debate in the country on whether we should move to a “Presidential model of government” to overcome the legislative and bureaucratic delays in implementing the policy decisions and avoid the “chaos” that the two chambers of Parliament have begun to witness. They point out that the American executive is a parliamentary executive and it is not dependent for its existence upon a majority in the Congress. The British system that India follows is a parliamentary executive dependent upon majority in the parliament and therefore, the government has no option but to resign the moment it loses the confidence of the majority of members. There is no doubt that in the given circumstances, considering the diversity of our country and the existence of a plethora of political parties to represent their causes, the parliamentary system headed by a “democratically-elected” prime minister is more suited to our genius than a Presidential system where one individual has the “power” to go haywire. ith the coming of Donald Trump as the US president for a second term are we not witnessing the unfolding of a “megalomaniac regime” of one man, which India can certainly do without?     

DISCLAIMER: 

The views expressed in the Article above are RAMAKRISHNA UPADHYA  views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy: RAMAKRISHNA UPADHYA  and  Spade A Spade-2025  FEBRUARUY