It’s not just the politicians…
India is the only country in South Asia where democracy has survived in its classical form. It got disfigured in Pakistan because the military, not the elected government, has the last word. In Bangladesh, the perpetual boycott by the opposition, this time by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), has lessened parliament’s credibility and, in Sri Lanka, the confused opposition has affected its representative character. Nepal is yet to settle down to face the basic norms of parliamentary democracy.
Unfortunately, the political parties in India have come to believe that stalling parliament is the best way of expressing their opposition to a government legislation or action. The Congress party did it in the late 90s and early 2000 when the BJP was in power. The BJP has adopted the same methods today. The Congress is repenting over what it did then as the BJP would do if and when it came to power. Not allowing parliament to function has somehow become part of their political strategies.
Since the proceedings of both houses are watched throughout the country, the non-functioning of parliament is having its effect, which is generally negative. Many wonder the utility of parliament and some suggest the Presidential form of government prevailing in the US and France. The worst fallout is the mood of uncertainty that is sweeping the country.
I do not want to make politicians a whipping boy for India going downhill. They may be more to blame than others like the judiciary, the government and the media. Everyone is naked in the bath. The point to find out is why a nation which has largely followed democratic methods, since 1950 when the constitution was adopted, is turning violent in its action and the language that people use.
A slap on the face of Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar remains as unacceptable as was the shoe thrown at Home Minister P Chidambaram. Both are violent expressions which neither the constitution nor the country’s ethos allow. The ‘Shining India’ suddenly appears to be receding into shadows. The economy continues to register a slowdown and the governance is practically non-existent. No official wants to take any decision, much less quickly. HRD Minister Kapil Sibal rationalises that officials are afraid because they would be taken to task if the decision turned out to be wrong.
If I were to point out one lapse, I would say that politics or, for that matter, every segment of the society has shed morality. The realisation that some things are not done or that wrong methods are not employed is not there any more. Therefore, no political party has any compunction in doing anything to get what it wants, through peaceful methods if possible or the use of violence, if necessary.
Had the rot been confined only to the politicians the nation might have saved its equilibrium. Every activity has been affected. The media, puffed up by a sense of self-righteousness, has deteriorated to the extent that you can publish anything on any page in the news columns by giving a price (paid news). But this does not call for any control over the media. Jawaharlal Nehru said: “I would have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or a regulated press.”
The judiciary, thumping its back for independence, can be generally “managed” according to eminent lawyers and former judges. It is an open secret that the clients know which judge has what type of predilection and the price involved. Cases are accordingly preferred before a particular bench. Some judgments astound you and they suggest that there is something that does not meet the eye. No one criticises the judges fearing the contempt laws. Thus the veneer of respectability stays.
The bureaucracy which runs the administration is so divided hierarchically that the right hand does not know what the left is doing. Joint secretaries and above cannot be touched without the permission of ministers who are mostly corrupt. The Supreme Court gave a judgment to stop the practice, called single directive, but parliament restored it. An appeal against the new law is awaiting the court’s verdict. All parties know from their experience how handy these joint secretaries and secretaries are.
Take the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in retail. Ministers and bureaucrats decided on the step, worked out on the details and announced its introduction to India without consulting anyone outside the government. The pronouncement was made when parliament was in session, not in any house, but through a press statement. Rightly, all parties, including the Congress’s ruling allies, were up in arms. The PM consented to have an all-party meeting to explain the FDI in retail but this was like adding insult to the injury. Nothing came out of it. Why couldn’t the meeting be convened earlier even if the government was determined not to brook any opposition? And how does the government’s prestige suffer if the FDI takes precedence over discussion on price rise or the black money? What havoc the FDI in retail would cause is another story.
A senior Congress minister’s remark that “Where is India going?’ is pertinent. But his party is more responsible than the opposition because it is ruling the country. The minister, used by the party to sort out knotty problems, will concede that a consensus is the only way to govern. The ruling Congress has to lessen the distance from the opposition. When the rightist BJP and the leftist Communists are on the same page, there is something wrong in Manmohan Singh’s policies.
The stalled parliament is not a good precedent for the neighbouring countries where the democratic system is already under sufferance. New Delhi feels good when the countries in South Asia applaud it for certain steps. How would the common man on the streets of Lahore, Dhaka, Colombo and Kathmandu be feeling when he sees that parliament in the largest democracy in the world does not function day after day.
The writer is a senior Indian journalist.