http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266655
There was nothing inevitable about India becoming a democracy. At Independence, even before the partition massacres took place, the nation was falling apart. The Quit India movement had left large parts of the north ungovernable, and civil power was breaking down across the country. The armed forces were about to be divided between India and Pakistan and the most senior Indian officer, Gen K.M. Cariappa, told the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, it might be a good idea to have a short spell of military rule. Fortunately, this idea was rejected, and India did not go the way of some of its neighbours, where politicians share power uneasily with the armed forces.
The new government directly inherited less than half of the Indian empire's original landmass. The northeast and the northwest became Pakistan, leaving six complete provinces (Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Bihar, the United Provinces and Central Provinces) which had been under direct colonial rule, and the partitioned remnants of three others (Punjab, Bengal and Assam). The princely rulers, whose states covered more than a third of the empire, were now in theory free to do as they liked. Some had private armies, while the larger kingdoms, like Kashmir and Hyderabad—which had a government income equal to that of Belgium—thought they might stand alone.
|
The British had never shown much interest in what form of government India might have after Independence. When voting took place for local assemblies before 1947, it was hedged by property, communal and gender qualifications. Now there was wide-ranging debate about the ideal form of governance. Should India have an executive presidency, like the United States? If it were to become a parliamentary democracy, was it safe to extend the vote to hundreds of millions of illiterate people? How, asked a delegate from Orissa, should they avoid the "evil tradition" of nepotism? Some wanted a Gandhian constitution, in which village republics would be the primary political unit, with an 'All-India Panchayat' supervising only customs, defence, the currency and plans for economic development.
Suffragette country France saw women voting only by 1944. India started off like that.
Getty Images (From Outlook, August 23, 2010)
As law minister and chairman of the drafting committee, Dr B.R. Ambedkar was adamant that power should be balanced between a strong Centre and the regions, and that India would have a single integrated judiciary which would be distinct from the executive. Having suffered persecution as a Mahar when he was a child, he had no faith in village justice. "Subject to the maintenance of the republican form of government," he said, "each state in the US is free to make its own constitution, whereas the constitution of the Indian union and of the states is a single frame from which neither can get out and within which they must work." Thanks to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the princely states became an integral part of the new nation.
|
India was to be a secular, democratic republic, with strong reformist instincts. The list of new rights was substantial. The citizens of free India (previously they had been 'subjects' of the British crown) could not be turned away from a shop, hotel, public well, ghat or water tank on the grounds of sex, race, caste, place of birth or religion. At the stroke of a pen, untouchability was abolished. Every citizen had the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to assemble peaceably.
A new Hindu civil code—pushed through Parliament at Nehru's insistence in the 1950s—transformed orthodox society, opening up opportunities for women that would have been inconceivable in earlier times. In some parts of the country, the traditional injustices would barely change at all, but the law was now on the side of a modern, progressive interpretation of individual human rights.
The sort of tribalism that beset many new nations after independence was specifically refuted. It did not escape the makers of the Constitution that other countries, like Turkey, were seeking to promote unity by preventing minorities from using separate languages. The range of options available to the parents of the Constitution was enormous, and there was nothing inevitable about the final result. In France, women had only won the right to vote in 1944. Even in the US, the land of the free, racial segregation was still in place and African-Americans faced legally mandated discrimination. Religious tolerance and democracy were by no means to be expected.
The fact the vote had been given freely to hundreds of millions of Indians—women and men, rich and poor, high caste and casteless—inspired Arabs, Africans, east Asians and others who were still under colonial rule. Who was to say that decisions had to be taken on your behalf by others? Why could the voiceless not produce their own representatives, who could give expression to their aspirations and fears?
***
So far, so idealistic: it is not hard to look at the subcontinent over the last six decades and find occasions when the dreams of the founders have fallen short. Whether it is in the persistence of extreme poverty and social inequality, the use of force by the state against its own people, the failure of mass education or in bureaucratic and political corruption, India has manifest failings. But, equally, most of the good things that have happened since Independence stem from the expansive liberal vision embodied in the documents that were laid down after Independence. As Ambedkar told his fellow parliamentarians: "If things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile."
What's the difference? Not the rupee garland, but the very fact that she's there
The social and political transformation that has allowed someone from a background like Mayawati's to become chief minister of the nation's largest state could not have been imagined, much less have happened, at any point in the last 4,000 years of Indian history. The principle of upward mobility is now taken for granted in most parts of the country. As well as the super-rich who command the headlines, countless millions of Indian families have prospered in recent decades. It is no longer impractical to think of owning your own phone, or scooter, or car, or apartment.
|
In much of the world, the vivid public criticism found on the streets and on television would be impossible. When the Delhi High Court decriminalised homosexuality in 2009 by overturning a 150-year-old British law punishing "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal", it did so by invoking the Constitution's emphasis on inclusiveness and stating that "those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised."
New political parties have thrived in recent decades, representing caste or regional interests in a process of democratic diffusion that stems from the choices made in the 1940s. Ironically, even as this has happened, the two largest parties have become more restrictive. The BJP is in a muddle, chasing its own tail and ignoring the social changes that have taken place since it lost power at theCentre in 2004, turning to the Sangh instead of to its own potential voters. The Congress practises a degree of tacit self-censorship that would have been anathema to the makers of the Constitution. The kind of discussions that regularly occurred between Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad—arguing over ideas and possibilities for national improvement—would now be seen as rank disloyalty. Even as democracy has become entrenched, membership of a political family is now accepted as the standard mechanism of advancement in New Delhi.
The more serious or lasting inadequacy is the way in which the discussion of national values is today hemmed in by the barriers of 20th century ideology. Much of India's public discussion concerning possible progress circles around rigid assumptions about political identity. 'Secularism' is presumed to come from the left; 'religion' is presumed to come from the right. Activists are deemed to be 'pro-people' or 'pro-government'—as if the two were eternally fated to be mutually exclusive. Those who are economically secure begrudge others the principle of aspiring to social mobility, as if it might serve a greater common good for everyone to remain poor.
Progressive social change is boxed in by assumptions and special interest groups, and by an intellectual straitjacket about what is or is not acceptable. It is a directive principle of the Constitution that the state should "endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India", but the possibility that the nation might (like other secular democracies) benefit from having a universal civil code is often refuted because the policy is linked to the bjp, and therefore deemed to be "non-secular". Few national politicians would dare to take a creative position in the many areas where change is obviously needed—for example in regard to Kashmir, where it is apparent the repressive status quo has been leading to disaster for a decade.
|
Followers of ideological orthodoxies such as Hindutva or Communism are presumed to be representative simply because they subscribe to an easily identifiable political tradition, even if they have no perceptible link to reality. A while ago, I was having dinner with an eminent Communist, and found he had sent for his cook from his home town by train for the evening—a journey of around 48 hours—rather than risk having the food at his party spoilt by a replacement chef.
Rapid but uneven economic progress will continue to alter the nation whichever politicians are in power in New Delhi, so long as there is money to be made. But for India to reclaim its position as a beacon of aspiration to the rest of the world, like in the 1950s, public debate needs to open up. The era directly before and after Independence was notable for its intellectual liveliness and curiosity, and for the willingness to look at age-old problems in an altogether fresh way. The integration of temples and bathing tanks, the adjustment of ancient Hindu conventions or the breaking of cultural restrictions like purdah—which Gandhi called "a vicious and brutal custom"—were moves that came out of a wider reconsideration.
The makers of the Constitution did not believe they had all the answers, but they sought to create an instrument for transformation. It might be possible to create something new by returning to the fairly recent past, and by looking again at the open-mindedness of the great names who are now set in stone. The freedom movement and the Constitution it gave rise to were—ultimately—about ideas and dreams.
(Patrick French's new book India: A Portrait will be published by Penguin next year.)
Authors: Patrick French
Tags: Constitution|Voting|Democracy|Independence Day
Section: National
Subsection: Essays
Places: India
| The Mobile Republic | |
Sports Bowler, Shooter, Runner, Dodger While cricketers get the riches, PSU patronage enables other sportspersons to cast off their rags |
 Debate Must We Dream Of India In English?Our misguided faith in this 'Globish-Inglish' hides a vile elitism |
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment