India backslides on global democracy indexes and exhibits resistance to internal party democracy, starkly contrasting with the political culture of the UK

In 1936, Dr BR Ambedkar wrote an undelivered speech, Annihilation of Caste, where he forewarned, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.” This sharp but sage observation was well before the Constitution of India was formally framed and adopted under his leadership. Eighty-eight years since the speech that was considered too controversial to be delivered, the issues of caste, constitutional impropriety and his controversial but astute insistence that “Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on India soil which is essentially undemocratic” resonates loud and clear with the proceedings (rather, regressions) in the ensuing Lok Sabha elections.

Amongst the most invoked, galvanising and feared concerns in the ongoing election pitch are still, caste and religion. Beyond the trumpeting label of ‘world’s largest democracy’ which we proudly accept and acknowledge, is the damning backsliding on various Democracy ‘indexes’ - which we equally readily slam as vested, unfair, or even ‘anti-national’. An unmistakably think-skinned spirit and hypersensitivity about the unflattering reportage abounds, which does not help build credentials of a mature, confident and progressive democracy. The ‘mother of democracy’ simply cannot be selectively entertaining of all praise and simultaneously small-spirited against criticism.

However, beyond the multiple and well-known afflictions like dynastic tendencies, majoritarianism, ethnic-casteist-regional assertions, muscle power, money power et al, lies yet another serious curse of the complete lack of, or even any pretence of an ‘internal democracy’ in any political party, national or regional. We seem to be partaking in the exercise of democracy with a rather regrettable set of undemocratic parties.

Beyond the obvious threats of the ‘carrot-and-stick’ nature (with murmurs of the infamous ‘washing machine’ phenomenon) that may have made many opposition politicians jump ships - there is yet another loud concern expressed of unapproachability, remaining essentially unheard, or even of inaccessibility attributed to political leadership that leads to members to leave political parties for greener pastures. All Indian political parties have their exclusive leadership cocooned, isolated and protected from lesser leaders - this seemingly helps build leadership aura, mystique and even fear of the respective ‘high commands’. The top leadership is only for taking the ‘final call’ and all others must robotically comply with the same, as described in the uniquely Indian expression of subservience, “as disciplined soldiers of the party”. Such obsequious and diktat-filled frameworks are more suggestive of autocracies rather than participative democracies.

This suffocating, intolerant and illiberal normalcy of Indian political culture is in stark contrast to that of its progenitor, British-Westminster politics. In the UK, there have always been divisions within party ranks (on issues), expressed ambition for top roles and public expression of dissenting positions e.g., Brexit.

All these individualistic or non-conformist positions do not warrant the automatic expulsion or diminishment of an individual from party ranks. The ruling Conservative Party has many active and known ‘camps’ that may or may not agree with the policies and decisions of their Partyman as the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. It has always been so with divides amongst social liberals and social democrats, modernisers and traditionalists and Brexiteers of various sides and shades etc., Therefore, even though the Conservative Party has ruled uninterrupted since 2010 (then by David Cameron), it has since had five different Prime Ministers i.e., David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and now, Rishi Sunak. Even now the jostling within the Tories continues with apparently Boris Johnson planning a comeback to David Cameron having staged a dramatic comeback as the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, under Rishi Sunak!

It is the same concept of ‘internal democracy’ that has seen a similar leadership change in the principal opposition party i.e., the Labour Party. Since 2010 under Gordon Brown, it has seen a constant change in leadership Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn to now Sir Keir Starmer. Each of these individual leaders has reflected the topical preference of the party cadres and leaders. Now with Keir Starmer sure to get elected as the Prime Minister of the UK, he couldn’t be more unlike his party predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, both in person and policies. Starmer continues to consult both the former Labour Prime Minister i.e., Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, though neither has any outsized political relevance.

In short, there are no permanent Gods in British political parties, unlike the Indian context where a few individuals rule the roost without getting subjected to any internal challenge, questioning or change. The rules and circumstances for leadership can be made to change overnight to suit certain individuals or dynasties which essentially seek to perpetuate the leadership composition, that has existed for years.

As Winston Churchill once said, “The opposition occupies the benches in front of you, but the enemy sits behind you” implying in his party ranks - that such internal competition can never be a sign of weakness but of ensuring that only one with the most competitive, compelling and winning credentials leads the party.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal)