news details |
|
|
| Beginning frameworks of Indian State | | | Dr. Rajkumar Singh
Independent India has been a large scale experiment in democracy. Unlike many other nations that gained independence from colonial rule but descended into dictatorships and military rule, India has opted democracy despite its size and diversity. Earlier our people were mobilised for freedom struggle and we won freedom but they were not mobilised for democratic governance. Only the elite were oriented in democratic governance. In contrast, in the West, representative democracy was evolved over a period of time and the people grew with the system for which they had struggled over centuries. After a long struggle only they got Parliamentary democracy and franchise for the citizens. But in India, democracy and franchise were given all of a sudden; people were not prepared to take up the challenges. They were not mobilised for governance or participation in governance. The famous scholar Lord Acton, after a profound examination of historical processes came to the conclusion that the fate of every democracy, of every government based on the sovereignty of the people, depends on the choice it makes between these opposite principles: absolute power on the one hand, and on the other the restraints of legality and the authority of tradition. It must stand or fall according to its choice, whether to give the supremacy to the law or to the will of the people; whether to constitute a moral association maintained by duty or physical one kept together by force. The picture of Indian republic which the preamble envisages is democratic not only from the political but also from social standpoint.
Confusions on parliamentary system
At the time the Constitution was framed, many considered Parliament to be an alien institution unsuited to India. The member of the Constituent Assembly who moaned that instead of the music of veena and sitar the constitution was blaring forth the “music of a British band”. In fact our constitution makers were constrained not to follow the advice of Lord Bryce who said’, do not give to a people institutions for which it is unripe in the simple faith that the tool will give skill to the workman’s hand’. In regard to the universal adult franchise, the founding fathers knew full well that the majority of the population was poor and illiterate and vulnerable to influences like caste, community, bribery and intimidation. Had all the weaker sections been denied the right to vote, democracy would have lost in meaning. But contrary to this was a reality that our electorate at the time was largely illiterate and not in a position to take an objective or critical view of the promises and performances of different political parties. Just as it is not enough to import the latest technology if a country lacks the scientific temper and skills to harness it, so the parliamentary system too can become arid if members of Parliament, on both sides of the political divide, continue to display a lack of democratic temper. To some extent even Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was doubtful about the men who were engaged in the task and while piloting the Constitutional Bill he said, ‘I feel that, however good the Constitution may be it is sure to turn out bad if those called upon to work it happen to be bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, if those who are called upon to work it happen to be good lot, it will turn out to be good.’ Sachchidananda Sinha, the Provisional Chairman of the Constitution also laid emphasis on people’s role in making the constitutional provisions a success, ‘that it all may perish in a hour by the folly corruption or negligence of its only keepers, the people.’
Mismatch with Indian society
As a result due to mismatch between adopted parliamentary democracy and overall actual position of Indian society democracy is never treated as a culture. From the beginning democracy in India began to revolve around elections and electoral politics. Our politics had not moved beyond elections. This tendency provided opportunity to keep an individual as a leader for many decades in the political system and in the party structure in the feudal mode. This enabled them to act as a ruler and not as leaders. The initiated electoral politics looks at people as always voters or beneficiaries. Others look at people as dole receivers. Consequently people have been reduced as an object or subjects or receivers of benefits. The Constitution is not a structure of fossils like a coral reef and is not intended merely to enable politicians to play their unending game of power. In fact democracy should enable the society to achieve development. But in India democracy survives at the cost of development. Rajni Kothari lays out the empirical basis of why India remained democratic : first, by analysing elements of Indian tradition that are democratic; second, by showing how the leaders of India’s anti-colonial struggle operated and institutionalised a democratic polity in the first few decades after independence; and third, by reviewing recent strains and stress, as well as new possibilities and prospects.
Frameworks of the system
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term ‘State’ which includes the Government (Executive) and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Since the process of decolonisation the institution of state has emerged as an important focus of study among political scientists and political economists. Different interpretations and theories offered to analyse the nature and role of the state in newly independent countries. Often the two major approaches – Liberal and Marxist interpreted the nature of postcolonial state according to their respective position to the state. While Marxists interpret the state as an instrument of class domination and an executive committee for managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie, the liberal approach considered the state as an instrument of modernisation – socio – economic, political and cultural. The process of modernisation in the West was the outcome of Industrial Revolution but in developing countries, it was the product of decolonisation. The prime motive of the overall modernisation process was to recover from the underdevelopment created by colonialism. Hence the postcolonial state focused all developmental efforts towards the fulfilment of the objective of modernisation – through an effective process of national reconstruction – reconstruction of their ideologies, culture, administration, economy, social norms and education structure. The state as the chief political institution, actively engaged in the process of institution building – institutions like political parties, legislative bodies, bureaucracy and system of election based on universal adult franchise. Political system, when understood as the state, is characterised by an ensemble of institutional patterns and political organisations. The state is distinguished from other organisations in society by its capacity to monopolise the legitimate use of violence within a given territory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
