The Rediff Special /Atal Behari Vajpayee
Fifty years later: What hope for India?
Former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee reflected on India's future when he
delivered the 13th Desraj Chowdhary Memorial Lecture in Delhi recently. This is what he had to say:
Next year India will celebrate its 50th anniversary of Independence. The entire country is eagerly looking forward to that proud and historic landmark. Both in official circles and among the broad masses of people, thinking and planning has already started on how to mark the golden jubilee of India's freedom. Although it may not always be visible and audible on the surface, the whole nation is today astir with debate on what we have achieved or failed to achieve in the past 50 years and why, on balance, our accomplishments fall woefully short of both our expectations and
our doubtless potential.
The debate is welcome. It must be broad and deep and free and honest. It must touch up on all aspects of your national experience -- historical, social, political, economic, cultural, educational and even spiritual.
Let there be an unsparing, albeit non-recriminative, and constructive clash; clash between ideas and ideologies. Let us show the courage to question and examine and explore everything -- and every historical figure, however high or revered. Let us do so with an open mind and with a willingness to accept the good thoughts from every quarter, not being prejudiced or blinded by our own blinkers or other's labels.
Such a debate will be undoubtedly useful and productive. As our
ancient rishis said, Vaade vaade jayate tatvabodhah
(Learning of the Truth is facilitated by a free and continuous
debate). This, I believe, is the best way of commemorating the
50th anniversary of India's Independence.
In this lecture, I wish to contribute my humble mite to this debate
by presenting my thoughts and concerns about one crucial sphere
of our five decades of national experience: And that is, what we
have achieved and failed to achieve in the sphere of democracy.
Let me make my intention clear. I want to provoke a serious debate
on this issue, believing as I do that the present system of parliamentary
democracy has failed to deliver the goods and that the time has
come to introduce deep-going systemic changes in our structures
of governance.
If the majority of our population is deprived of both power (in
the real sense of democratic empowerment at all levels, especially
for the poor and the socially downtrodden) and fruits of socio-economic
progress, is not obvious that we need to take a re-look at our
framework of governance?
The ills of the present system of parliamentary democracy, which
we fashioned after the British model nearly five decades ago,
are becoming evident with each passing day.
Let me enumerate some of them:
Neither Parliament, nor the state Vidhan Sabhas, are doing
with any degree of competence or commitment what they are primarily
meant to do: Legislative function. Their inability and apparent
unwillingness to perform this function is due to a number of known
reasons. Barring exceptions, those who get elected to these apex
democratic institutions are neither trained, formally or informally,
in law-making nor do they seem to have an inclination to develop
the necessary knowledge and competence in their profession.
The second, equally important, function of the elected representatives
is to reflect public opinions in Parliament and the state legislatures
by debating matters of vital public importance, and thereby influence
the policies and actions of the executive. Sadly, however, serious
debate has ceased to take place in our elective bodies, which have
come to resemble akharas (arenas for fighting bouts) where noisy
confrontation is the norm.
The individuals in society who are genuinely interested in serving
the electorate and performing legislative functions are finding
it increasingly difficult to succeed in today's electoral system.
The reason is obvious: Notwithstanding the recent welcome changes
introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr T N Seshan,
and his colleagues, the electoral system has been almost totally
subverted by money power, muscle power, and vote bank considerations
of castes and communities.
As a result, although casteism and communalism
may be weakening in social life, the same are being aided and
abetted by the electoral process. The net result is that elections
are not entirely free and fair; they are not reflecting the true
will and aspirations of the people.
Criminalisation of politics is having a direct bearing on the
composition and functioning of the legislature as well as the executive.
Those in power frequently use it either to shield criminals who
support them or to falsely implicate their adversaries in criminal
cases out of political enmity. There is, therefore, an urgent
need to evolve an all-party consensus on who is to be considered
a person with a criminal record and also how to deal with the menace
of criminalisation.
The natural inclination of today's MPs and MLAs is to get
involved in the executive function -- and that too without accountability
and much capability. The exceedingly high premium placed on capturing
power by any fair or foul means is because of the elected representatives's
conviction that power is the passport to personal prosperity.
Corruption in the governing structures has, therefore, corroded
the very core of elective democracy.
The certainty of scope of corruption in the governing structures
has in turn heightened opportunism and unscrupulousness among apolitical
parties, causing them to marry, and divorce, one another at will.
Such opportunistic alliances and coalitions often lack the popular
mandate even in the numerical sense of the term. Yet they capture,
and survive in, power due to inherent systemic flaws. Multi-party
system is the soul of democracy, but opportunistic power-seekers
have perverted it by developing a vested interest in political
fragmentation.
The most glaring example is the present thirteen-party
United Front farce, in which the United Front itself has no majority
of its own and whose prime minister belongs to a party which has
only 54 members in the Lok Sabha! Some of the constituents of
the United Front have only four members, yet they have two ministers
in the Union Cabinet!
Political parties winning or losing power in elections is
a natural happening in a democracy. This, however, did not destabilise
governance itself, because India rightly boasted of having a great
asset in its permanent but non-political and impartial civil service.
Sadly, the rot has set in here too. Casteism, corruption and politicisation
have sapped the integrity and efficacy of our system of civil
service.
The manifestos, policies and programmes of the political parties
have lost their meaning in the present system of governance due
to lack of accountability.
|
