Re-write it now

By Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Re-write it now

  

The Republic Day, which has just gone by, is remarkable primarily because it marks the birth of a republic that few believed could be viable, considering its frightening diversity, and the long history of communal conflict.
Not everyone who doubted India to become a nation was like Winston Churchill, the unreformed imperialist, who famously said: "India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the equator". Even Rabindranath Tagore, the author of India's national anthem, wasn't certain about the career of India as a sovereign nation. What was indeed most baffling was the task of managing such diversity-of having 21 scheduled languages, cradling four major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism), and having men and women as varying in skin pigments as Africans and Caucasians and as much different in affluence levels as the world itself.

Has India accomplished with distinction the task of managing diversities? The answer is yes and no. It is exemplary how India has, in the span of a century (century is not an eternity in the history of a nation as America also took that long, between her independence and the civil war, to become the USA in the true sense), transformed herself from a 'people' to a 'nation'. There has been a general acceptance of the Indian nation state by all linguistic, communal and ethnic groups, except, perhaps, in a few pockets of recalcitrance; like the so-called "Maoists" who have turned extortion into a profession in some parts of the country. Similarly, Islamic fundamentalists, who are given to misinterpret the Holy Book to suit their convenience, are clearly not in harmony with a free nation and a secular constitution. Nor has a section of the Hindu establishment shown any tolerance to the idea of keeping religion away from governance. But all this is no more than a fringe phenomenon. The basic thrust of the Constitution, which is inclusive, democratic and secular, has fortunately found a national consensus over the years.

However, the cost for this consensus has been steep. It is fraught with political conflict and competitive populism. Interestingly, the 'hyper-federalism' on display, especially in the last ten years, is hardly due to any flaw in the Constitution. It is the result of a fractured polity. In this respect, the fate of the two successive UPA governments has been particularly unfortunate. In the 2004-09 term, when the national and global economies were awash with cheap money, the Union Government still did not dare undertake any substantial reform measure as the CPI(M), mistakenly considered formidable at that time, was a coalition partner till 2008. Communists are ideologically opposed to helping private businesses to prosper and lowering subsidies-steps they curse as "neoliberal reforms". This anachronistic ideology made UPA paint itself into a corner for nearly its entire first term. However, Congress too committed to welfare much more than what the state could afford; it went on a suicidal ego trip, thinking that the party would spend its way to attain absolute majority and would thus put an end to its dependence on coalition.

The after effects of wasteful subsidies were disastrous. As the rich economies contracted, India was left in the grip of a long spell of growth slowdown and inflation from which it has not yet recovered. During UPA-2 beginning from 2009, some of the new coalition partners, notably Trinamool Congress of Mamata Banerjee, took the Union Government for granted. Mamata began making impossible demands with an implicit threat that if these were not met she'd not hesitate to walk away. She did in fact walk away, and, for survival, UPA had to use such cabs for hire as the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bahujan Samaj Party of Mayawati. It was a dangerous drive, full of compromises with corruption, nepotism, casteism, communalism and disregard for rule of law.

Central authority kept eroding at all levels. UPA constituent DMK politically thrives on its extra-territorial affinity with the Tamil people of Sri Lanka. So UPA had to sacrifice its national interest by alienating the strategically important island neighbour. On the contrary, Mamata Banerjee, during her tenure as a coalition partner, exercised her proneness to bully and threaten, and prevented the government from signing an agreement with Bangladesh to share the water of the river Teesta which was presumed to reduce the availability of water for irrigation in North Bengal. With so much trouble at home, UPA became a lame duck from the very beginning. The optimism that India evoked in the early years of the century was lost, and the world's attention shifted back to China.

With the "confidence" in the head

of the government becoming negotiable,

the Constitution now faces an existential crisis.

The Centre has weakened not because our Constitution is federal. In fact, the Indian Constitution is more unitary than federal. But the Constitution was based on the presumption that the "confidence of the (Lower) House" for the Prime Minister must grow out of genuine national interest, and it should never be equated with petty self-interests like it became since the past few years, such as postponing or shelving a string of anti-corruption investigations. With the “confidence” in the head of the government becoming negotiable, the Constitution now faces an existential crisis. By following the Westminster model of democracy, as India does, can it ever hope to get a stable Centre? If it doesn’t, can it indeed hope to take the bold policy initiatives that are necessary for India to join the league of nations that have been able to turn the corner in the recent past?

There is no doubt that for a country as diverse and populous as India, the chief executive needs to be directly elected by the people, and not indirectly by leaving the job to bargaining among members of the Lower House. Like the US President, he should be placed beyond the range of politicking and machinations of MPs, being subject only to impeachment if he proves a disaster. Otherwise, the buck stops at his desk. It is a compulsion of India’s size and plurality of culture that it must switch to a democratic presidential system. The sooner the better.   

(The author is National Editor

of Lokmat group and

based at Delhi)