Delineating the contours of indian polity
Saumitra Mohan
Just when you thought everything in this country was going right, the political upheaval created by the website Tehelka.com seems to have sent everything into tizzy. Even the feel-good factor created by the Finance Minister's New Delhi Budget seems to have evaporated if trends at the bourses suggest anything. And again the prophets of doom have started bawling, screaming blue murder over the systemic degeneration, which has set in this country. And they say that Tehelka epiphany and economic downturn are nothing but symptomatic of the overall crisis afflicting this country.

Things like corruption, nepotism, communalism, linguistic fanaticism, terrorism, infra-nationalism, secessionism and all other such cognate problems go on to show that unless something is done urgently, the very survival of this country is doubtful. But wait, do our intelligentsia and think tanks really need to get so down in the dumps. Well, like Dr. Pangloss, the overoptimistic fictional character in Voltaire's classical work, 'Candide', I don't think so. Undoubtedly, measures need to be taken to stem the creeping rot, but there is nothing so untoward or unnatural with the overall scenario as to shadow this country's very existence.

When India commenced its odyssey as a state-nation way back in 1947, there were many naysayers believing that a country as diverse and huge as India would disintegrate sooner than later. Leading the juggernaut was Selig Harrison who predicted India's balkanization, but India hurtled on tiding over many crises which inter alia included offensive designs on her territories by the hostile neighbours and rise of authoritarian tendencies reflected in the imposition of emergency on June 26th, 1975. But a nascent nation fought back and was back on the rails with a reinvigorated desire to survive despite all odds. The people who were relentless in pouring vitriol on the parliamentary democracy of the country were on the back foot now. These gentlemen believed that an illiterate, indigent and gargantuan India needed an iron hand to be ruled effectively rather than a kid-gloved democracy. But they definitely seems to have been overwhelmed by amnesia because the very fact that they enjoyed the right to freely spout such nostrums from the rarefied rostrums was because of the democracy and once they were stripped of the same rights, they realized the importance of democracy and were quick to demand status quo ante.

In fact, while vetting something as important as a country's development and survival, one should keep into mind her capacities, constraints, liabilities, strengths and assets while simultaneously trying to avoid odious comparisons. So, while talking about India's developmental march from state-nation to nation-state, one should not compare its status with the First World countries like the United States and the United Kingdom though they should always be held as a beacon, as a milestone to be achieved, at least, in some respects.

So, when India earned her freedom on that fateful day of 15th August, 1947, she had not only inherited an emaciated economy from her colonial rulers, her social fabric was also in tatters. A country with a very low industrial base, a huge population with very poor social and physical infrastructure and an agriculturally dependent country was still trying to delineate the contours of her identity. And she was not alone. There were scores of other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and Americas who had just won their freedom from imperial thralldom and were on the same developmental scale as India. And when compared with these countries, India appears to be a clear winner.

As these countries scurried forward in the developmental rat race, many of them fell by the wayside compromising the very principles, values and ideals they had cherished during their struggle for independence. So, when military take-overs, coup d'etat and authoritarianism seemed to be the order of the day, India continued as an island of hope where democracy, howsoever boisterous and unruly, continued to flourish and was successful in escaping the occasional sparks flying in the air. It not only successfully overcame the emergency monster, but was also able to overcome the Hindu rate of economic growth charting an independent course of economic development in the choppy waters of the Cold War days.

Yesterday what appeared to be an 'area of darkness' derided as a land of beggars and snake-charmers and seemed more like a pack of cards about to collapse any moment has been able to keep its flock together even though those casting an evil eye on its ended with a black eye and lots of eggs on their face. So, despite her defiance of those at the top of the international pecking order and notwithstanding her attempts to breach the nuclear monopoly, today she is a country which is avidly courted by all and sundry. India is not only the largest democracy in the world with the second largest populace to her credit, she is the third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, has the second largest army, third largest pool of techno-scientific manpower, fourth largest air force, a huge market with 350 million consumers with effective purchasing power, ninth largest industrial power, third largest English-knowing population, has a well-entrenched legal system so crucial to the functioning of a market economy and more importantly, has a conscientious civil society.

One may argue that after all these assets, why India still seems to be leading a hand-to mouth existence. If the picture is really so rosy, what do things like terrorism, secessionism, communalism, fundamentalism, et at insinuate at. One, of course, does not deny the threats these problems pose to the Indian polity, but they are not of such a magnitude as to endanger the very survival of the system. Rather than carping about the failure to successfully deal with these problems, it would be worth its while to find out the reasons behind those problems and proffer solutions therefor.

In fact, India hardly existed as a state before 1947 not to speak of its existence as a nation-state. Even though there was always an idea of India, but she did not exist as a reality armed with the trappings of an independent and sovereign state. But an idea of India was always there, so Jawaharlal Nehru did not have to invent an India, he merely discovered it as the title of his celebrated book, 'The Discovery of India' itself reveals. Against her colonial background which underdeveloped her more than it developed and against her meagre resources and myriad constraints, if India has still managed to survive in one piece for more than five decades, that it itself is an achievement.

The problems which look so minatory do so because of this very fact, i.e., India's survival as a democratic state for over half a century. The very functioning of a democratic system quite naturally unleashed the democratic forces that now seem to have got so out of control as to threaten the very system. The competitive party politics which form the very pith and substance of an open, liberal-democratic system has in all these years mobilized the teeming millions of this country and this mobilization has been accompanied by a deinstitutionalization process which has only worsened the problem further.

The problem of deinstitutionalization has been noted and comprehensively discussed by the political scientists for quite some time which include people like Atul Kohli, Rajni Kothari, Sudipta Kaviraj, Partho Chatterjee, Paul Brass, Robert Stern and others. These scholars have noted as to how the political class in this country led by the Nehru-Gandhi family has been constantly chipping away at the various institutions of the system. The party system, bureaucracy, police, parliament, panchayati raj system, judiciary and all other such institutions which should have been there for the smooth functioning of the system and to carry forward the developmental agenda, have all ended up emasculated at the altar of the political Moloch.

The institutions whose better functioning could have added to the strength of the leadership in the resolution of the sundry problems facing this society, their weakening only reinforces and aggravates those problems and leave us with no strength to deal with those problems. In their bid to harvest rich electoral dividends, the political class has not only compromised on the very democratic ethos which inform our constitutional structure, but they have also mobilized electorates on all those parochial and primordial grounds, which if stressed beyond a point could turn into the veritable Frankenstein's Monster which eventually devoured its own creator.

But the employment of narrow identities provide very convenient grounds for predicating politics in a society where different sections and regions are on different scales of development and where owing to corruption and such other reasons including the deinstitutionalization of the system, leadership finds it difficult to attend to the real issues. Here, primordial identities and iniquitous developmental process provide easy fodder for the political machine. Ethical degeneration further removes those pangs of conscience which could have acted as a barrier to such petty politics. Also, the very fact that our society is still very backward in more sense of the term, rooted deeply in its primeval identities and is not educated (the national literacy level still hovers around 70 per cent if a recent survey is to be believed) and aware enough as not to be preyed upon by the populism of the reckless politicians.

But as discussed above, there is nothing to be very despondent about. A country as huge and as diverse as ours, is bound to have many teething troubles before it competes its journey from a state nation to a nation state. India has always been a civilisation entity and has never existed as a state. As I pointed out earlier, even though the idea of Bharat howsoever abstract was always there, it was only in 1947 that India as a state was born and since then been trying assiduously to transmogrify itself into a nation state. Its constitution was accordingly tailored to attain this end and by the hindsight one can say that it has stood us in good stead despite its various flaws. The kind of flexibility and adaptability it has shown to keep up with the times has only helped India's ontological problems to a great extent. India was fortunate enough, at least vis-à-vis her many time twins, to have a visionary leadership to start with, which was relatively committed enough to provide a solid foundation to the infant Indian State and their prolonged presence only helped the matters.

One feels that today slowly but steadily the Indian state is consolidating itself and the various problems it seems to be swamped with will go with time and the signs thereof are there for all to see. Over five decades of democratic existence has given birth to a lively civil society which spurred by the demonstration effect in the age of information and communication boom is spoiling for more. The revolution of rising expectation has been taking on various hues and expressing itself in such forms as the increasing assertions of the civil society aided by the instrumentalities of public interest litigations, activism by various non-governmental organizations, conscientious societal leadership exemplified by such people as Anna Hazare T.N. Sheshan, Alphonse and G.R. Khairnar.

The homeostatic checks and balance mechanism has been slowly evolving and has prevented any particular interest or force to rule the roost in a manner as to threaten the flourishing of other interests or forces. And in a highly inegalitarian and hierarchised society like ours when the state fails in its duty, the people would naturally be left to their own resource. And in a competitive democratic political system, identity politics come very handy as that is the only resource people have in a system where heads count. By pooling their numerical strength, they try to compete with others in the political market place simultaneously trying for more value allocations in their favour. Scape-goating other communities or groups is only one of the many strategies employed by them to advance their interests and things like communalism and regionalism are the outcomes of such politics.

One strongly feels that the panchayati raj institutions aimed at the decentralization of power would eventually see the percolation of power to the grass root and would lead to people developing a stake in the system and once this happens, Indian political system would no longer be a hostage to the whims and fancies of the crooked politicians. After all, some one has rightly said that you can fool some people all the time, all the people for some time, but you can definitely not fool all the people all the time. The point is that there are so many interests operating in the society, that none would like to be left behind and in that scramble for power and increased share of the national pie, all operate in a way to check and balance each other. The Tehelka and many other such sting operations are only one of many such expressions.

And despite the instances of terrorism, secessionism, communalism, et al, the national integration seems to be steadily consolidating. There are many signs to that effect. The very fact that today the Indians all over the country enjoy the game of cricket and root for the Team India proves the fact that the 'imagined community' that Benedict Anderson talked of has slowly been evolving. Pokharan-II led to the same pan-Indian rejoicing. Kargil further corroborated this. And if there was any scruple left, the overwhelming response to the Gujarat earthquake removed that.
Our political class may be very irresponsible, reckless and unscrupulous, but when it comes to national integration, it has not compromised. One remembers very vividly as to how the United Front Government led by I.K. Gujaral did not yield to the sinister demand made by the then Congress leadership to drop Dravida Munnetra Kazagham as an ally as a pre-condition for continued support to his Government. The Congress demanded so because the Jain Commission investigating into the assassination of the former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had criticized the people of Tamil Nadu for their alleged role in the assassination. If conceded, it would have gone down in history as stigmatizing an entire community and, thus, creating enough ground for disaffection. The Government fell, but it saved the nation from alienating a section of the Indian citizenry. All these are nothing but various expressions of a growing nation.

The apprehensions about growing religious fundamentalism in Indian society, despite being justified, would not be more than that. It is, as pointed out earlier, but an exercise symptomatic of competitive party politics where sans effective issues for popular mobilization, the political class tends to fall back on easy resource for electoral mobilization, howsoever unethical and unscrupulous that might be. And people answer to such calls because that appears to them to be the only hope or salvation amid the overall scenario of gloom and doom and also as the only way to ameliorate their condition. Once a basic equity is achieved in resource allocation and once our human resources get educationally and cognitively enriched, there would be little scope for such parochial politics.

One hopes that in a better developed and more egalitarian Indian society, caste, religion, language, et al would at best be only one of the various factors in politics and would not dominate the political skullduggery the way they do now. A section of the intelligentsia has also been apprehensive about the growing stature of such right-wing organisations as the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). But the point is what one could do about it? Can one think of banning such organizations or their style of politics? Certainly not, more so in a democracy like ours. Banning or stigmatizing them would only aggravate the problems further. As someone rightly said about someone that it is better to have him in and spite out rather that have him out and spit in. So, our attempt should be at finding ways to restore them to the system. The massive RSS membership, if positively channelled, could prove to be a great national asset. Also, if its membership starts reflecting all the constituent units of Indian population, then it would be all the better and one more step in our nation building exercise, but for that it would need to reinvent itself.

Notwithstanding all those apprehensions about BJP, it has greatly modified the content and style of its politics as it learnt only too well that with a confrontationist politics which excludes a major section of the Indian society, it could not hope to go very far. The way Indian society has become polarized lately, no political party can hope to form a government on its own accord. And for the BJP, none would touch it even with a bargepole until it diluted its ideology and extremist political style. The BJP has been slowly inching towards the centre of the ideological spectrum and has emerged as the second largest national party in the country after the Indian National Congress. It also shows as to how the party system has been evolving in this country.

Having only one dominant political party could create its own problems as happened in the hey days of the Congress Raj. It could not only get complacent about the overall developmental project, but could also start developing a sense of invincibility which could make it irresponsible and autocratic enough as to endanger the very survival of the system. Here, one would quickly like to add that the bloated fear about the loss of the era of stable government is also unfounded. Stability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for socio-politico-economic development of the country.

And asked to choose between stability and responsibility, one would readily plump for the latter. A government with an absolute majority could become autocratic and conduct itself in an irresponsible way, but the constrains of a coalition government force it to behave responsibly. And that is what should matter more. And the multifarious forces would always be there to make it behave itself. Also, as long as there is a consensus on basic policies, instability should not be worrying. Since 1991, several governments have taken their turns at the Centre, but the basic policy has remained the same. Despite, all the rhetoric against the liberalization and privatization of the Indian economy, none has been able to reverse it.

So, every though the Indian nation state has been slowly emerging, consolidating and strengthening itself through the bumpy electoral politics in world's largest democracy, one would like to enter several caveats here. We not only need our leadership to behave more responsibly than they have so far, playing ducks and drakes with the many opportunities provided. A dedicated, committed and responsible leadership with a vision is what this country sorely needs rather than just a nuclear muscle power. A leadership that fattens and grows at the expense of its people, which dwarfs its own people and erodes their capacities, would eventually discover that with pygmies (in terms of capacities) dotting the length and breadth of the country, it can't make the country great. So, even while we liberalize and globalize our economy realizing a minimal state in the process, the same should not result in the complete withdrawal of the state from the social sectors. That is one lesson that we should learn from not only the developed countries, but also from our East Asian brethren whose developmental achievements have been predicated on a healthy and educationally enriched human resources.

A democratic system runs on the principle of majority and a government that neglects this majority could not afford to rule longer and, thus, the sustainability of a polity which nixes the interests of the predominant majority also remains doubtful. Ergo, if liberalisation-privatisation-globalisation policy package has to continue, the Government has to cater to the basic needs of the predominant majority, otherwise the inegalitarianism which is said to be resulting since 1991 would finally not only reverse the entire process, but would also create fertile ground for social tension. The Government, therefore, does not only need to spend massively in the social sector as the private sector can not be expected to venture out there though they can be made to share the responsibility in various ways. The latter would not mind shouldering such a responsibility as a rich human resource and an affluent society are preconditions to its own sustained growth as the latter provides and creates the demands so crucial to it. The Government has also to see that it does not yield to the various forces within and without the country to withdraw from the social sector as it would do so at its own peril.

Also, our leadership has to do something about the institutional revival in the country and this has to be done in co-operation with the intelligentsia, media and the civil society. If all of them act in tandem, we would soon be living in a developed India, an India in keeping with the ideals, values and principles enshrined in our Constitution, an India all of us have cherished and yearned to live in.

(1998)