What is distracting about the country's democratic process is the suspicion that no matter what the electoral verdict, governance remains in the hands of a small elite. It is this group that manipulates parochial issues
As the stage is set for the world’s largest electoral extravaganza, one cannot help but wonder whether the game is worth the expense, chaos and manipulation. George Bernard Shaw’s definition that “democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few” might suggest we have the worst of all worlds — election by the incompetent many followed by appointment by the corrupt few. The problem, as someone pointed out, is that doubts about democracy disappear when you look at the alternatives.
One alternative I came upon recently in AG Noorani’s magisterial tome, The Destruction of Hyderabad, was proposed by the British lawyer and politician, Walter Monckton, who was a friend of Edward VIII and Sir Winston Churchill, and constitutional adviser to Mir Osman Ali Khan, the last reigning Nizam of Hyderabad. “It is a mistake to assume that the only satisfactory method of Government for the whole of India is responsible Government on the model of Western democracy” he wrote in 1946. Being a constitutional lawyer, Noorani mentions this in tones dripping disapproval. But Monckton felt the Nizam’s plan to involve Hindus and Muslims in his executive council would give “a chance to build up a strong, democractic, predominantly elected administrative machine from the bottom, from the village panchayats and the local and district boards and taluqs.” If “vigorously encouraged”, this “particularly Indian” organisation could create “a firm and reliable element of internal stability in the testing times” that lay ahead for Hyderabad and its ruler.
Of course, the Nizam’s attempt to promote panchayati raj was denounced as trampling on the rights of the people. But when West Bengal’s left Front Government introduced the same grassroots institutions, it was hailed as the saviour of the masses. A significant reason for this double standard is that the london School of Economics philosophy which permeates our thinking condemns monarchy as tyrannical and the left as representing the people. The Americans adopted a presidential Constitution because they misinterpreted the enormous power George III exercised through his cronies during their War of Independence. They even originally planned to designate their chief executive lord High Protector of the United States of America. Thanks to the lSE, we knew better. When a Constituent Assembly member suggested enumerating the President’s rights and duties, Jawaharlal Nehru explained that would damage the dignity of someone who was the equivalent of the British monarch. In theory, India’s President should enjoy all the powers of the British king or queen. In practice, he should refrain from exercising them just like Britain’s sovereign.
Well, that didn’t last too long. Nehru’s daughter thought it necessary to codify the President’s powers. Even so, Rajiv Gandhi complained of the difficulty of convincing Zail Singh in Hindi that the constitutional assertion that the Government held office during “the pleasure of the President” didn’t mean quite that.
Despite India’s pride in the world’s first democratic republic in Vaishali, the parliamentary system is an alien import. I have childhood memories of our servants asking as independence approached whether Nehru or Gandhi would replace George VI as the new king. Voters have become sophisticated since then, but as Bal Thackeray put it, “In India, people don’t cast their vote, they vote their caste.” Had it not been so, the BJP would not have denied Barmer to Mr Jaswant Singh and given it to a turncoat Congressman, Mr Sona Ram Chaudhary, whose Jat community dominates the constituency.
The internationally respected Mr Singh says Barmer is in the desert where everyone is equally affected if there is a famine and no one thinks of sectarian divides. The tragedy is that 67 years of electoral interaction have strengthened instead of weakening the power of ancient loyalties. This was again evident in the recent spat between Ms Yashodhara Raje Scindia, Madhya Pradesh’s Minister for Commerce, Industries and Employment, and Mr Jai Bhan Singh Pawaiya, the BJP candidate from Guna, over Rani lakshmi Bai of Jhansi’s death in 1857. like caste, feudal loyalties are stronger than modern politics.
The issues that matter are naturally different here from Europe or America. Indira Gandhi’s historic defeat in 1977 was not because her Emergency dispensation abused the Constitution, trampled on human rights or abridged Press freedom. The populace turned against her because of that one word “nasbandi”. It doesn’t detract from the validity of our democratic process that people respond to different calls. What does — or can do — is the suspicion that no matter what the electoral verdict, governance remains in the hands of a small elite. This is not uniquely Indian. President Dwight Eisenhower deplored the power that what he called “the military-industrial complex” exercised in the US. Everyone save loyal Indians recognised that in befriending Mahatma Gandhi before Independence, GD Birla was astutely buying insurance for the post-independence years. It is no secret that the Government ensured that Hindustan Motors’ Ambassador car enjoyed a monopoly for many years until Sanjay Gandhi came along.
Another industrial house is said to be as powerful now as the Birlas were. It doesn’t play the moral card as Birlas did with Gandhiji, but it has vast wealth and has repeatedly been singled out for trying to influence the outcome of election after election. It is suspected of persuading successive Governments to enact laws that promote its own business interests and of backing business-friendly candidates. Money power plays a decisive role. As Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee told a parliamentary inquiry committee, every Indian legislator starts his career with the lie of the false election return he submits. No matter what the ceiling, candidates will spend more.
Singapore’s veteran leader lee Kuan Yew says he is “not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best” form of Government. “We practise it because that’s what the British bequeathed us.” It’s a historical accident for all Commonwealth countries. But while many have abolished or trimmed it, India has retained it in almost original form. It may not produce “a Government which is honest, effective and efficient” which is lee’s most important demand, but it does produce a Government that people trust. And it does make for consensual decisions. Both are necessary for stability in a multi-polar country. Both will remain elusive if a tunnel vision focuses only on caste and community instead of taking an inclusive view of the reality of multi-cultural, multi-religious India.