How Democratic is Democratic India?
Lalit
K Kaul
India is a democratic country because we
have Parliamentary Democracy. We are a democratic Nation because Parliament
embodies “the Will of the People" that manifests through their elected
representatives who are supposed to carry their aspirations- social,
economical, religious and political- to the “Temple of Democracy" for finding
their resolution through debates, laced with logical reasoning, among the people's
representatives from all political parties. As logic would have it, at the end
of electioneering, voting and declaration of election results, those elected to
the Parliament are Indian people's representatives and not of their individual
political outfits, but that's not how it works out in the Parliament.
The Whip and Freedom of Expression/Speech:
It's one thing to get a Bill passed in both
the houses of Parliament and another to have a democratic content in its
proceedings leading to enactment of the Bill. Passage of a Bill introduced by
the ruling party is a number game, and becomes void of any democratic content,
once a whip is issued to all its MPs to vote in favour of the Bill.
One can get away with anything that one
may speak within the walls of a Parliament because that level of immunity from
law of the land is provided to every parliamentarian; in most of the cases such
speeches/comments would attract some clause of IPC, outside the Parliament and
Assembly. That's unlimited freedom of expression. Yet, this freedom to state a
point of view in context of the introduced Bill is taken away from each and
every MP by issuing a party Whip that MPs should vote on party lines.
Freedom of Speech/Expression is meaningless
in absence of this Freedom to have an Opinion; because only when one has an
opinion on an matter- social, economical, religious and political- this freedom
to express can/may be utilized to express that opinion uninhibitedly. Therefore,
the very act of issuing a Whip is to strangle a very natural human instinct/attribute
– opinion making.
It's nigh impossible to believe/accept a
thesis that all the MPs of a political outfit have one & only one opinion
on the introduced Bill that's going to become a law, if passed; but if indeed the
difference of opinion is truly non- existent among the MPs of a political outfit,
then it doesn't portend well for Indian democracy because Parliament is not
supposed to house herds of sheep obeying the command of herdsman.
And, if, indeed, they are like herd of
sheep then the Parliament need not house them because herdsman can directly
take decisions unilaterally and make laws without legislating on them. That
makes the Parliament infructuous which indeed it remains in view of the party
Whip.
Lot of noise is made about freedom of
expression and people (outside Parliament/Assemblies) make full use of it as do
the highly polarized Media. Such exercises can be termed as one’s ‘past time'
for, it doesn't matter what people think about enactment of a certain Law in
the Parliament while their representatives’ opinion was stifled by virtue of a
Whip.
Do MPs truly represent people?
No, not really. The electorate doesn't
vote for a MP or MLA candidate of a political outfit. They vote for the party's
leader.
During Smt. Indira Gandhi years, the
Congress party won majority in Parliament and State Assemblies not because the
contestants were popular among the electorate (exceptions are always there),
but that Indira ji was leading them. People voted for Mrs. Gandhi and in 1977
they voted against her for Congress to experience humiliating defeat in the general
elections.
Similarly, the NDA was born because Sri A
B Vajpayee had a political stature and standing that made leaders of other
political outfits to join BJP. People voted for Sri A B Vajpayee and not for
BJP and, like during Indira ji days, it never mattered who were contestants in
various constituencies from where BJP fought elections. Replace Sri Vajpayee
with Sri L K Advani, NDA wouldn't have been born. Sri Advani led NDA election
campaign twice, 2004 and 2009, but people didn't vote for him and NDA lost the general
elections.
Then in 2014, came “Maut Ka Saudagar"
on to the central stage to lead NDA and people voted for Sri Narendra D Modi as
PM candidate and BJP for first time won majority in the Parliament, on its own.
Rest is the history. Political commentators/analysts, economists of different
shades and others may agree or disagree with his government's policies; may
even question the Indian military on their missions; people voted him back to
power with much bigger numbers in favour of BJP. So, it is Modi ji at the helm
and whoever contests, a majority of them are bound to win; the unknown faces.
Had Indira ji shifted to CPM, CPM would
have swept the polls; today, if Modi ji joins Congress, it will sweep the
polls; BJP will disappear into an oblivion like Congress got on to the crutches
post assassination of Indira ji; Rajiv Gandhi having won on the dead body of
his mother and his government and governance turned out to be a huge scandal in
that for the first time in the history of independent India, a PM had been
directly charged with corrupt ways.
Popular saying is: let a 4-legged donkey
contest under Modi ji's leadership, the chances of donkey winning may not be
slim!
Is Parliament a non-representative
body?
Obviously Yes. The “people's representatives”
from the ruling party side are disallowed to vote for or against the Bill based
on their opinion; not allowed to question certain points related to it; and the
Opposition is always pre-determined to oppose everything and anything that the ruling
party may introduce for legislation. In such a scenario how do people get
represented in the whole process of passing/ blocking the proposed Bill.
The passage of 3 Agri Bills in the
Parliament followed by their unilateral withdrawal by an address to the people
of India; without going back to the Parliament and follow due process for their
withdrawal, not only undermined the stature of the Parliament, but also
rendered a fatal blow to the democratic content within the Parliament. It also exemplified
undemocratic way of functioning.
No Democracy Within Parliament! How would
it be Outside?
In a system where democracy begins and
ends with casting of vote in elections, is by no definition of the term a
Democratic Set-up.
People are informed through annual budget about,
how the economy would grow; increase or decrease in defense budget, if any; investments
in health and education sector; transportation and aviation sector, et al. A
vast majority from among the MPs, belonging to all political outfits, don't
have any clue about the economics or defense preparedness or, for that matter,
anything that concerns ordinary citizens- their vote bank.
How much of a feedback/information is
collected from “people's representatives” regarding requirements of their
constituencies is not known, as it's never made public. What's known though is
that the Finance ministry has a meeting or two with FICCI & ASSOCHAM,
before finalizing the budget; in such meetings their requirements are noted down
because they are supposed to create jobs, but more than that are to do large
scale election funding. All political outfits are funded depending upon their
chances to be in the future government.
It's an oligarchy at the helm that decides
the fate/future of 135 crore people. What kind of an economic model is being
pursued since decades now, is poignantly betrayed by the fact that 80 crore
people are to be provided basic needs of life free of cost (as per Modi ji's
statement). That corona vaccination had to be provided free, is a political gimmick
or it's about accepting the harsh reality that people don't have purchasing power.
Feeding 80 crores free may be a remarkable act of charity and human compassion,
but it's a hard slap on the self respect and dignity of such hapless people
whom the entrenched economic model disallows to make sufficient earnings
enabling them to take independent decisions at their level and that too
democratically in consultation with their family members.
A street dog/ a pet before irrigating a
place goes around sniffing before finalizing the same. Same process this dog
repeats for adding fertilizer to the soil. So does a bird, which flies from
tree to tree and from house to house to fix a suitable place for its nest,
before building the same. All this implies that the Mother Nature has ingrained
every living being with the instinct of 1) selecting/determining a few options,
2) deciding to choose one from among them and 3) implementing the chosen
option.
To select a few samples and then choose
one from them to put into use for day-to-day life, is the democratic right of
all living beings as ordained. The Indian democratic set up has succeeded in
robbing a very large section of the society of that democratic exercise. The
government shall decide upon gas connection and number of them in a family;
size of the toilets and their numbers in a household; and indeed, the floor
area for a house, because all these are to be given free as a display of human
compassion and the ones who have been robbed of their enterprise have no say in
such acquisitions that are going to be an inseparable part of their day-to-day
life. This is not only undemocratic, but more than that it's about making a
human life as undignified as it can, perhaps, get.
Distributing free, robs this individual of
the happiness/satisfaction that one draws from buying it on one's own strength
and at one's own discretion.
To deprive humans of such freedoms and
democratic functioning which even animals and birds enjoy, is the greatest scar
on Indian democratic set-up. How that scar can be healed is a Question that needs
to be answered, perhaps, by designing a democratic set-up which affords every
individual opportunities to contribute to the development and growth of Indian
society by employing their knowledge base without being discriminated against by
labeling them as backward, superstitious and unscientific.
