I have written on this blog before about Sepia Mutiny’s posts on Ramachandra Guha’s book India After Gandhi. Having read the book myself, I think it makes a number of perceptive and informative points in its 700+ pages.
Towards the beginning of the book, he goes into detail on the process of drafting the Indian constitution. This is something that often isn’t referred to in general commentary or history books. But the drafting of a constitution is often a significant event in a country’s history and can lay the foundations for what comes afterwards. The Indian Constituent Assembly devoted a great deal of effort to drafting the constitution. The democratic, federal and secular nature of the state was agreed by this body. It also recognised the disadvantaged position of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and so established the principle of reserved seats and affirmative action for them.
The leading figure in drafting the constitution was Dr B.R. Ambedkhar. He was from a Dalit background and shared with the Congress leadership a desire to ensure equality before the law under the new constitution. He was also firmly secularist, given that Hindu custom had confined the Dalits to menial roles and to social exclusion. He himself later became a Buddhist and founded his own party, prior to his death in 1956.
Another interesting aspect of the early history of independent India is the integration of the 500+ former princely states into India. The Home Minister, Sardar Patel, was instrumental in this. The process – with a few exceptions such as Hydrabad and Kashmir, was generally handled quickly and peacefully. This was crucial in trying to build a nation that consisted of many separate jurisdictions.
The commitment of Jawahalal Nehru to democracy was far greater than many leaders of other newly-independent states. He was committed to democratic norms and, in 1952, India underwent what some called the ‘greatest gamble in history’ by holding its first universal suffrage elections for the national Parliament. These elections, like the other parliamentary elections during Nehru’s lifetime, were won by Congress. However, other parties won a significant minority of seats and so there was a lively opposition in Parliament.
The democratic system – as well as the rule of law and the high degree of freedom of the press and freedom of organisation – enabled the development of political consciousness among greater and greater numbers of the population. It is something to bear in mind that, in the 1940s and 1950s, politics in the Indian subcontinent was often the affair of a small number of educated people. The majority of people were not informed and did not play a big role in political affairs. Political power was held by remote officials and ministers. Also, the state was more or less non-existent in some rural and remote areas – especially in the north-east.
As political consciousness grew the quietism of earlier eras disappeared. People started demonstrating, campaigning, organising and asserting their rights. It is this which shapes many of the political developments in India’s post-independence history. The growth of ethno-linguistic and regionalist movements is what led to the redrawing of state boundaries. Nehru was personally opposed to linguistic states. However, being a democrat and recognising that denying people their demands for linguistic states could cause the growth of separatism, he and the Congress leadership bowed to pressure from below. The old colonial provincial and state boundaries were replaced by those which more closely reflected linguistic boundaries.
The growth of political awareness among disadvantaged castes was also notable. Previously, custom had meant that many of them had accepted a subordinate position. The advent of a constitution enshrining human rights and a system of ‘one person, one vote’ meant people realised they had the power to challenge the repressive old ways and ensure their dignity and rights. The Dalits mobilised in various ways and a Dalit party now plays a role in the government of India’s most populous state (Uttar Pradesh). Other castes (known as ‘Other Backward Castes’) who had been disadvantaged vis a vis Brahmins and other ‘forward’ castes also organised themselves. The Mandal Commission recommended reservations of public-sector jobs for applications from these OBC categories. This was a demand they organised and demonstrated about. Regionalist parties have often had a strong OBC basis – such as is the case with Yadev’s party in Bihar.
The book goes into detail on how the Congress went from being an internally democratic organisation to one run in a more centralised and autocratic style. Indira Gandhi split the party when she fell out with the party bigwigs. Power became more personalised.
However, democracy had sunk roots into Indian soil. Even after the Emergency, people retained their wish to have a democratic system and the ability to vote out governments they disagreed with. The moment the Emergency was lifted, people organised for the elections afterwards. The defeat of Congress in 1977 and the peaceful handover of power showed how power could change at the Centre without the use of violence or unconstitutional methods.
Congress, having sunk in the public estimation from the days of the Indian independence struggle, went into relative decline. This has meant more unstable coalition governments. However, although this may weaken the ability of the state to make quick decisions and to implement them, it is a sign of democracy working. As more groups have gained political consciousness, they have formed their own parties to fight for their interests. This means there is a movement from a dominant-party system to a multi-party one. India now has a multi-party system because that is what the voters want. The voters have the option to vote for the major parties or for minor, local, regionalist and caste ones. The fact they often do suggests that they represent the genuine fears and concerns of many voters.
Guha points out that many outside commentators have been pessimistic about India. Many Western writers thought that India would descend into dictatorship or into civil war, anarchy and balkanisation. They have been proved wrong. India stands in marked contrast to her regional rivals – Pakistan and China – by having a democratic and secular state. This has been buffeted by internal and external crises but has remained viable.
The experience of India in accommodating regionalist, ethnic and linguistic tensions as well as religious ones in a poor country within the framework of a free, democratic basic order is an encouraging one. It is a good example for other countries which have had more unhappy pasts to follow if possible.
technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley
No comments:
Post a Comment