Why India should not be like this only

However, democracy is much more than an unnees-bees ka khel. When the election was for the country’s highest constitutional office, the criteria for selecting the candidate ought to have conformed to the highest ideals of our Constitution and the stiffest ethical standards of democracy. Instead, as proved by the subsequent murky disclosures about Pratibha Patil, the UPA selected her on the basis of the “least common moral denominator”. (I have borrowed the term from an excellent blog — offstumped.nationalinterest.in — that states: “When public conscience is reduced to a moral vacuum, politics becomes a bottomless pit inhabited by politicians aspiring for the least common moral denominator.”) In other words, the criterion applied by the UPA chairperson for the candidate’s selection was: “Am I not entitled to having my loyal person in Rashtrapati Bhawan?”

It is this syndrome — “Shouldn’t we have our man, or woman, in this or that post?” — that is rapidly corroding our democracy. And the syndrome is operating at all levels of governance. Shouldn’t we have our man in the Election Commission? Our persons in the higher judiciary? Our speaker in Parliament, who can be relied upon to gag the voice of the Opposition? Our man to head the CBI, who can be depended upon to do our bidding — be it in the Quattrocchi matter or the Jalagon murder case? And shouldn’t we have as prime minister a person who is willing to be unassertive, indeed submissive? It is this perverse mindset that has determined the choice of the new Rashtrapati.

Devaluation of democratic institutions is the first step towards destruction of democracy. Recall that the Constitution could be vandalised during the Emergency (1975-77) only because Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister, had applied the criterion of “we must have our man in the Supreme Court”. She installed a compliant A.N. Ray as the chief justice, superceding three senior and competent judges, all of whom resigned in protest. Recall also how the Emergency proclamation itself was signed by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, a rubber-stamp president who was aptly caricatured by cartoonist Abu Abraham as dutifully signing Indira Gandhi’s undemocratic ordinances from his bathtub.

The eclipse of democracy during the Emergency was not a natural occurrence. It was made possible by the deliberate dismantlement of several political and constitutional safeguards. The Congress party had been reduced to a fiefdom of one family, so that no questions could be asked from within. The situation is no different today. Once again, the party has been made incapable of questioning any decision of Sonia Gandhi.

The we-must-have-our-persons-in-key-offices mindset is now operating at the state and district levels, too. It has become routine for chief ministers and ministers to want their men in the babudom. Hence, every time a new government takes over, the “transfers-and-postings industry” gets a big boost. Even the judiciary is not immune to pressures and allurements. The clout of moneybags in the electoral process at every level, from the highest to the lowest, is too glaring to be missed by anybody. All this is severely eroding the spirit of democracy and weakening the quality of governance in India.

This is not to suggest that the situation in India is as bad as in Bangladesh or Pakistan. The democratic culture in our country is indeed very strong. Our democratic institutions still function with a fair degree of independence. Our judiciary is still quite assertive. Our media, as demonstrated by its courageous role during the run-up to the presidential election, values its freedom. Above all, our armed forces know what is expected – and what is not expected – of them.

All this is no doubt a source of comfort. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. When the moral edifice of democracy is sought to be dismantled, brick by brick, by those for whom perpetuation of power in the hands of The Dynasty is more important than anything else, it is foolish to ignore the danger signals ahead.