President’s Blog
Seventy two years of the Indian Republic have unequivocally proved that the Westminster model of a republic and democracy has deprived the people of political power and has thoroughly marginalised them in the current political process.
Source of image: https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Worlds-largest-strike-stops-India:-250-million-workers-out-against-Modi-48969.html
On January 26, we will be celebrating the 73rd instance of the Republic Day, a day when the Indian Constitution declared the country as a republic and a sovereign democracy.
According to popular definition, a republic is a country where supreme power is held by the people. A democracy is where people have a central role in running the affairs of the country.
Today’s India can neither be called a republic nor a democracy if we go by the true meaning of these terms. Today, supreme power resides in the hands of a small coterie of ministers who work for the richest sections of Indian society. Democracy has been reduced to conducting elections periodically with people having the right to vote and nothing else. They neither have control over their elected representatives nor do they have any role in running the affairs of the country.
Whenever the stark marginalisation of people from political power is voiced forcefully then the spokespersons of the ruling elite come up with romantic versions of the glory of ancient republics and the concept of democracy in India’s distant past.
At the Democracy Summit held in December 2021, Prime Minister Modi said in his speech that ‘this very democratic spirit and ethos had made ancient India one of the most prosperous. Centuries of colonial rule could not suppress the democratic spirit of the Indian people. It again found full expression with India’s independence, and led to an unparalleled story in democratic nation-building over the last 75 years’.
The PM further elaborated at the Summit that ‘Democracy is not only of the people, by the people, for the people but also with the people, within the people’.
Notwithstanding this embellishment to Lincoln’s words, this is a tall claim in the current political process where elected representatives of the people remain unaccountable. People have no role except on polling day. Their aspirations are regularly crushed by draconian laws. The general body of citizens are marginalised from decision-making on all matters of concern to society.
Does the current parliamentary system and the process of multi-party representative democracy represent a further development of the “democratic spirit and ethos of ancient India” as the PM claims? The answer, though agonisingly bitter, would be a loud ‘NO’.
This is not the first time that the PM has talked about the glory of our ancient democratic past. To name at least one earlier instance, the PM lauded the constitution of the village assembly of Uttaramerur, during the ground-breaking ceremony for the new parliament.
In another instance, Justice Abdul Nazeer, while speaking on the ‘Decolonisation of the Indian legal System’ argued for a revival of the teachings outlined in the legal treatises of Manu, Kautilya, Yajnavalkya, and others.
While drafting the Indian Constitution, members of the Constituent Assembly, who represented only a small fraction of the Indian population, argued on these issues. Several members professed that the rich Indian experience, at least 2600 years long, of building republics and democratic systems should not be ignored.
But as Subhash Kashyap, the Constitutional expert put it, ‘Founding fathers of the Indian Constitution were fascinated by British Parliamentary institutions and aspired to have the same for themselves in India. They said goodbye to British rule, but embraced the colonial model of governance’.
While claiming to represent the interests of all sections of people of the entire country, the makers of the Indian Constitution hid the fact it was not in the interest of the new Indian rulers in power to do away with the outmoded colonial system. They placed faith in the Westminster system of democracy which suited the mercantile classes of Europe of the 17th century to overthrow the monarchy and retain power in their hands. They retained the legal framework of English laws which were used to subjugate the people of Britain as well as those in the colonies. The new rulers, who were a minority, were convinced that only by retaining the colonial model of rule they would be able to prevent the legitimate transition of power into the hands of people at the time of independence.
This is the reason why the PM’s words contradicted reality when he asserted in the Summit that ‘It (democratic nation-building) is a story of unprecedented socio-economic inclusion in all spheres. It is a story of constant improvements in health, education, and human well-being at an un-imaginable scale. The India story has one clear message to the world. That democracy can deliver, that democracy has delivered, and that democracy will continue to deliver’.
What the PM spoke in the Summit hardly reflects ground realities in a nation reeling under repeated shocks of demonetisation, black laws such as AFSPA, UAPA and the CAA and a consummate insensibility of the ruling elite to the plight of kisans, workers, dalits and women. The PM’s words belied reality when he asserted that ‘It (democratic nation-building) is a story of unprecedented socio-economic inclusion in all spheres. It is a story of constant improvements in health, education, and human well-being at an un-imaginable scale. The India story has one clear message to the world. That democracy can deliver, that democracy has delivered, and that democracy will continue to deliver’.
Seventy two years of the Indian Republic have unequivocally proved that the Westminster model of a republic and democracy has deprived the people of political power and has thoroughly marginalised them in the current political process.
What is the alternative to this state of affairs?
The British colonialists set about doing what Macaulay believed when he said, ‘I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage’.
It is true that a nation’s historical, cultural and spiritual heritage is its backbone. We cannot develop our thought systems on borrowed Euro-centric thoughts. We have to transform the current political process based on this heritage. At the same time, just harking back to our rich ancient heritage, glorifying it and attributing it to a particular religion would be nothing short of religious and national chauvinism. The gana sanghas, the ancient republics, of the Lichchavis and Shakyas were advanced political systems 2600 years back. The Uttaramerur inscriptions detailed the democratic process which was advanced for that period, 1000 years back. They cannot be transplanted as is in today’s democratic system and political process. But they do set a benchmark for transforming the current Indian republic and democracy, which has regressed from the conceptions and practice prevailing several centuries back in the Indian subcontinent.
In view of all the historical experience of the pre- as well as the British period, and of the last 72 years of the Republic, the times are calling for a new beginning that vests authority in the people, that borrows from the best traditions of the past and creates a truly glorious future for the peoples of India. It has become imperative today to work towards a political process, a system of democracy and a form of government that are in tune with the aspirations of a modern world. In this system, sovereignty will reside in the hands of people. They will be both the ruler and the ruled. Such a situation will be a source of inspiration for peoples all over the world who today are coming forward with their problems and seeking solutions.
