A distinct feature of constitutional democracy is the impartial rule of law as opposed to high-handed rule by some individuals. For example, in constitutional democracy like United States, the President cannot rule by whims and wishes. He must exercise his executive power within the limit of what the Constitution spells out. He must seek the approval of the Congress in all matters of legislations. Furthermore, the Judiciary acts to place legal restriction on him so that all his acts are within the constitutional bounds. In the case of British constitutional law, the Parliament is empowered with legislative sovereignty. The members of either House may discuss all matters of national concerns and criticize the conduct of Ministers. As the British constitutional expert De Lolme puts it, the “Parliament can do everything except make a woman a man and a man a woman.”
Now what about our Indian system of constitutional democracy?
Independent India was meant to be a constitutional democracy in which the people exercise rulership through their own representatives. As such a political party should remain in power only so long as it enjoys the confidence of the people, and not merely enjoys the confidence of their fellow politicians in the Parliament or state Assembly. But unfortunately, today our elected politicians have become our real rulers. Some have done this by manipulating the Constitution so as to enhance their political power which has at times turned free citizens into voiceless subjects.
Any political party or coalition that comes to power at the Centre seems too eager to make some amendments of the Constitution. Although most of the amendments already made are praiseworthy, oftentimes some politicians have brought in amendments simply to enhance their political power. Thus, the Indian Constitution has had close to 100 amendments in the last 50 years while in country like America there were only 10 amendments or so in the last 250 years.
Although the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not make any law which would take away or abridge the Fundamental Rights of its citizens, our Indian politicians have often resorted to imposing Emergencies to suspend the Rights of the citizens so they cannot fight back. For example, Mrs. Gandhi caused to declare Internal Emergency in the country and locked up 676 political opponents in Jail and about 1,50,000 people were detained under the MISA and the DIR from all over the country in the mid-1970s. Another arbitrary suspension of the Fundamental Rights was the imposition of ASPA in Nagaland since 1958. Here the Fundamental Rights of the Naga civilians and several other people groups have been curtailed in the name of national security. If these basic human rights must be suspended, it should be short-lived and group-specific, and not made to cover an entire civil population of a region for over half a century. But then our Indian politicians don’t really seem to care much about the rights and freedom of the common people.
Now what about the rights and powers of the President? Granted, the President is expected to perform his duties on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers. But it is also true that there is really no specific provision mentioned in the Constitution that the advices of the Ministers would be binding upon him. As the Constitution head, this is his prerogative--to accept or reject such advice as he sees fit. After all, his sworn duty is to protect the Constitution, and not necessarily to protect the political interest of the Prime Minister. And although both Nehru and Mrs. Gandhi had done much in promoting secularism, modernism, minority rights and national unity, they also had caused the Presidents to be mere figure-heads who could not make independent judgments. Even the Presidential powers during Emergencies were often dictated by the Prime Ministers. Often it appears as if the Presidents held office during the “pleasure” of the Prime Minister when the reverse should have been the case according to the Constitution. This was especially true of Presidents such as V.V. Giri, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and Zail Singh. Likewise, many governors took their cue from the successive Presidents and acted much like “puppets” of the Congress Prime Ministers.
Parliament was supposed to have supremacy over the Executive. But as Vajpayee once said, the Parliament “instead of exerting itself as the highest legislative body representing sovereignty of the Indian people has been reduced to a mere rubber-stamp to serve the ends of the majority party.” It is the Executive which determines what shall be discussed, when it shall be discussed, how long the discussion shall take, and what the decision shall be. Then decisions are taken through a naked display of force by the majority party rather than on the basis of reason, logic and facts. After all, most of our MPs seem to be in the House primarily to promote the interest of their own political parties rather than to serve the nation, thereby putting partisanship over patriotism. Or more likely, many are simply maneuvering something for themselves or their cousins. Sadly, this is the state of our Parliament.
The Judiciary is meant to be independent, impartial and fearless. But it, too, has been practically usurped by the Executive. By promulgating Emergency, the Executive had on occasions took away the powers of the Judiciary. In the mid-70s, twenty-two Judges of High Courts were shifted from one state to another. Even the Chief Justices were almost expected to play by the rules of the Prime Minister, otherwise they risked being removed from office. For example, the appointments of A.N. Ray and M.H. Beg as Chief Justices of India were made superseding other senior Judges. And today, the situation has not changed much as attempts are still made to terrify the Judiciary and subjugate it to the whims and vagaries of political leadership.
There is also an erosion of India’s federal polity. First, the Centre has encroached upon the autonomy of the states in many respects: Mrs. Gandhi, for instance, removed even Chief Ministers and dissolved state Assemblies whenever she saw opportunity to strengthen her grip of power at the Centre. This domineering weight of the Congress Party leadership can still be felt very much almost everywhere in India. Hence, many Chief Ministers who are of the Congress Party still act like their loyalty to their “bosses” at the Centre takes precedence over the people who elected them. Second, the Centre has often usurped the states’ rights for the maintenance of law and order. It practically decides whenever and wherever it wants to station its para-military forces (CRP and BSF) in the states. Third, the Centre has taken over several other subjects in the state Legislative and Concurrent Lists. It has come to monopolize the control of trade and commerce in many states. And as the states are made to depend on the Planning Commission and the Finance Commission to determine most of what they can do or get in terms of funds, it has unsurprisingly caused the states to be subservient to the Centre. Thus, to the degree that the Centre has become more powerful, to that extent have the states become weaker.
Even at the state-level governments, many of our politicians do not follow the principles of constitutional democracy. Although they may outwardly observe the “letter” of the Constitution, they seem least concerned about keeping the “spirit” of this sacred document. For instance, they will work on getting their numbers right just to stay in power, but often they use the politics of defection and unprincipled alliances. They are more on control than on cooperation, more on partisan approach than on common interests, more on power than on service.
Concluding Thoughts:
1. Indian politics has beco me very faulty. What India needs is to ensure that the Constitution is truly a democratic instrument so as to restore the rule of the people as in all constitutional democracies.
2. The Congress Party has moved power centripetally, toward Delhi, away from the states, away from the people. This needs to be reversed.
3. India is still unable to forge a viable opposition to the Congress (I) at national level. Communist Party could not do it; Janata Party tried it without success. It is now time for all non-Congress parties to find a common political ideology so as to serve as one formidable force against the rule of the Congress Party.
Now what about our Indian system of constitutional democracy?
Independent India was meant to be a constitutional democracy in which the people exercise rulership through their own representatives. As such a political party should remain in power only so long as it enjoys the confidence of the people, and not merely enjoys the confidence of their fellow politicians in the Parliament or state Assembly. But unfortunately, today our elected politicians have become our real rulers. Some have done this by manipulating the Constitution so as to enhance their political power which has at times turned free citizens into voiceless subjects.
Any political party or coalition that comes to power at the Centre seems too eager to make some amendments of the Constitution. Although most of the amendments already made are praiseworthy, oftentimes some politicians have brought in amendments simply to enhance their political power. Thus, the Indian Constitution has had close to 100 amendments in the last 50 years while in country like America there were only 10 amendments or so in the last 250 years.
Although the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not make any law which would take away or abridge the Fundamental Rights of its citizens, our Indian politicians have often resorted to imposing Emergencies to suspend the Rights of the citizens so they cannot fight back. For example, Mrs. Gandhi caused to declare Internal Emergency in the country and locked up 676 political opponents in Jail and about 1,50,000 people were detained under the MISA and the DIR from all over the country in the mid-1970s. Another arbitrary suspension of the Fundamental Rights was the imposition of ASPA in Nagaland since 1958. Here the Fundamental Rights of the Naga civilians and several other people groups have been curtailed in the name of national security. If these basic human rights must be suspended, it should be short-lived and group-specific, and not made to cover an entire civil population of a region for over half a century. But then our Indian politicians don’t really seem to care much about the rights and freedom of the common people.
Now what about the rights and powers of the President? Granted, the President is expected to perform his duties on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers. But it is also true that there is really no specific provision mentioned in the Constitution that the advices of the Ministers would be binding upon him. As the Constitution head, this is his prerogative--to accept or reject such advice as he sees fit. After all, his sworn duty is to protect the Constitution, and not necessarily to protect the political interest of the Prime Minister. And although both Nehru and Mrs. Gandhi had done much in promoting secularism, modernism, minority rights and national unity, they also had caused the Presidents to be mere figure-heads who could not make independent judgments. Even the Presidential powers during Emergencies were often dictated by the Prime Ministers. Often it appears as if the Presidents held office during the “pleasure” of the Prime Minister when the reverse should have been the case according to the Constitution. This was especially true of Presidents such as V.V. Giri, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and Zail Singh. Likewise, many governors took their cue from the successive Presidents and acted much like “puppets” of the Congress Prime Ministers.
Parliament was supposed to have supremacy over the Executive. But as Vajpayee once said, the Parliament “instead of exerting itself as the highest legislative body representing sovereignty of the Indian people has been reduced to a mere rubber-stamp to serve the ends of the majority party.” It is the Executive which determines what shall be discussed, when it shall be discussed, how long the discussion shall take, and what the decision shall be. Then decisions are taken through a naked display of force by the majority party rather than on the basis of reason, logic and facts. After all, most of our MPs seem to be in the House primarily to promote the interest of their own political parties rather than to serve the nation, thereby putting partisanship over patriotism. Or more likely, many are simply maneuvering something for themselves or their cousins. Sadly, this is the state of our Parliament.
The Judiciary is meant to be independent, impartial and fearless. But it, too, has been practically usurped by the Executive. By promulgating Emergency, the Executive had on occasions took away the powers of the Judiciary. In the mid-70s, twenty-two Judges of High Courts were shifted from one state to another. Even the Chief Justices were almost expected to play by the rules of the Prime Minister, otherwise they risked being removed from office. For example, the appointments of A.N. Ray and M.H. Beg as Chief Justices of India were made superseding other senior Judges. And today, the situation has not changed much as attempts are still made to terrify the Judiciary and subjugate it to the whims and vagaries of political leadership.
There is also an erosion of India’s federal polity. First, the Centre has encroached upon the autonomy of the states in many respects: Mrs. Gandhi, for instance, removed even Chief Ministers and dissolved state Assemblies whenever she saw opportunity to strengthen her grip of power at the Centre. This domineering weight of the Congress Party leadership can still be felt very much almost everywhere in India. Hence, many Chief Ministers who are of the Congress Party still act like their loyalty to their “bosses” at the Centre takes precedence over the people who elected them. Second, the Centre has often usurped the states’ rights for the maintenance of law and order. It practically decides whenever and wherever it wants to station its para-military forces (CRP and BSF) in the states. Third, the Centre has taken over several other subjects in the state Legislative and Concurrent Lists. It has come to monopolize the control of trade and commerce in many states. And as the states are made to depend on the Planning Commission and the Finance Commission to determine most of what they can do or get in terms of funds, it has unsurprisingly caused the states to be subservient to the Centre. Thus, to the degree that the Centre has become more powerful, to that extent have the states become weaker.
Even at the state-level governments, many of our politicians do not follow the principles of constitutional democracy. Although they may outwardly observe the “letter” of the Constitution, they seem least concerned about keeping the “spirit” of this sacred document. For instance, they will work on getting their numbers right just to stay in power, but often they use the politics of defection and unprincipled alliances. They are more on control than on cooperation, more on partisan approach than on common interests, more on power than on service.
Concluding Thoughts:
1. Indian politics has beco me very faulty. What India needs is to ensure that the Constitution is truly a democratic instrument so as to restore the rule of the people as in all constitutional democracies.
2. The Congress Party has moved power centripetally, toward Delhi, away from the states, away from the people. This needs to be reversed.
3. India is still unable to forge a viable opposition to the Congress (I) at national level. Communist Party could not do it; Janata Party tried it without success. It is now time for all non-Congress parties to find a common political ideology so as to serve as one formidable force against the rule of the Congress Party.
