THE 40th anniversary of the declaration of an “internal emergency” by prime minister Indira Gandhi on June 26, 1975 sparked off a furious debate as to whether its recurrence is possible now. There are two reasons for this. One is that, like Indira Gandhi, Narendra Modi not only commands a massive majority in parliament but also has a cabinet of servitors. The other is that, like her again, he has captured the party machine. As in 1975, India has a one-man regime today.
To consider the possibility of a recurrence one must first examine the constitutional ‘mechanisms’ which made it possible then. There was a supine president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, a close friend of the family; a submissive cabinet; a demoralised civil service; a Supreme Court packed with favourites; and Congress held sway in most of the states. Indira Gandhi first got the president’s signature on the proclamation of emergency with ease and next secured the cabinet’s endorsement.
In 2015, the cabinet is as supine as it was in 1975, and the constitutional amendment of 1979, which requires the cabinet’s prior approval for a proclamation of emergency to be conveyed to the president in writing, is of no help. However, the prime minister has in President Pranab Mukherjee a veteran politician with a long career in Congress and a mind of his own. Modi is none too keen on wooing him. He skipped two iftar parties hosted by the president, an act of lese-majesty. The Supreme Court is independent. The civil service is a mixed bag. The non-BJP states are run by powerful chief ministers.
The massive arrests, press censorship and denial of civil liberties of 1975 will be difficult to replicate. But is that not too narrow a view of the collapse of democratic governance? History has witnessed countries which had all the paraphernalia of a democratic constitution in form but with the life and vigour of a democratic political process diluted significantly, if not snuffed out altogether.
As in 1975, India has a one-man regime today.
The architect of India’s constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, warned the constituent assembly on Dec 4, 1948: “It is perfectly possible to pervert the constitution, without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution. Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it…. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is undemocratic.”
That is precisely what democrats should worry about: the debasement of the democratic process. Policymaking now resides exclusively in the prime minister’s office. Modi has reached out to the secretaries in the ministries over the heads of ministers. On June 4, 2014, less than a fortnight after he took the oath of office as prime minister, he held a meeting with around 50 secretaries. His message was that in case of a ‘conflict’ between them and a minister, the matter should be brought to his notice immediately for a ‘resolution’. “You can meet me at any time. You can contact me on email or ring me up.”
The constitution mandates the council of ministers’ collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha. It is the council which tenders advice to the president and to which the president returns that advice for its reconsideration. Once reaffirmed, the advice binds the president. This arrangement, at the very heart of the parliamentary system, is subverted if ministers are reduced to ciphers. Amidst it all, the media is politically divided, with a large section acting as Modi’s public relations officers. There is no democratic accountability for huge, multiple scams.
Walter Lippmann described the conditions for the success of democracy with deep insight. Addressing the University of Rochester on June 15, 1936, the respected political columnist said that one reason why democracy “has worked in America is that outside the government and outside the party system, there have existed independent institutions and independent men. Foremost among the independent institutions has been the judiciary … the free churches, the free press, the free universities, and, no less important to the preservation of democracy, free men with sufficient secured property of their own … not dependent upon the will of elected or appointed officials.” Modi has undermined such institutions.
But, as an eminent jurist remarked, “Laws and constitutions are but the paper safeguards of liberty. A people must have above all, the will to be free”. In 2015 the people, though politically divided, are more aware of their rights than ever before.
The last words belong to Qateel Shifai: Dunya men Qateel usse munafiq nahi koi/Jo zulm to sehta hai baghawat nahi karta. (There is no greater hypocrite, Qateel, in the world than he/ Who suffers oppression and does not rebel.)
End of democracy - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
To consider the possibility of a recurrence one must first examine the constitutional ‘mechanisms’ which made it possible then. There was a supine president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, a close friend of the family; a submissive cabinet; a demoralised civil service; a Supreme Court packed with favourites; and Congress held sway in most of the states. Indira Gandhi first got the president’s signature on the proclamation of emergency with ease and next secured the cabinet’s endorsement.
In 2015, the cabinet is as supine as it was in 1975, and the constitutional amendment of 1979, which requires the cabinet’s prior approval for a proclamation of emergency to be conveyed to the president in writing, is of no help. However, the prime minister has in President Pranab Mukherjee a veteran politician with a long career in Congress and a mind of his own. Modi is none too keen on wooing him. He skipped two iftar parties hosted by the president, an act of lese-majesty. The Supreme Court is independent. The civil service is a mixed bag. The non-BJP states are run by powerful chief ministers.
The massive arrests, press censorship and denial of civil liberties of 1975 will be difficult to replicate. But is that not too narrow a view of the collapse of democratic governance? History has witnessed countries which had all the paraphernalia of a democratic constitution in form but with the life and vigour of a democratic political process diluted significantly, if not snuffed out altogether.
As in 1975, India has a one-man regime today.
The architect of India’s constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, warned the constituent assembly on Dec 4, 1948: “It is perfectly possible to pervert the constitution, without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution. Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it…. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is undemocratic.”
That is precisely what democrats should worry about: the debasement of the democratic process. Policymaking now resides exclusively in the prime minister’s office. Modi has reached out to the secretaries in the ministries over the heads of ministers. On June 4, 2014, less than a fortnight after he took the oath of office as prime minister, he held a meeting with around 50 secretaries. His message was that in case of a ‘conflict’ between them and a minister, the matter should be brought to his notice immediately for a ‘resolution’. “You can meet me at any time. You can contact me on email or ring me up.”
The constitution mandates the council of ministers’ collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha. It is the council which tenders advice to the president and to which the president returns that advice for its reconsideration. Once reaffirmed, the advice binds the president. This arrangement, at the very heart of the parliamentary system, is subverted if ministers are reduced to ciphers. Amidst it all, the media is politically divided, with a large section acting as Modi’s public relations officers. There is no democratic accountability for huge, multiple scams.
Walter Lippmann described the conditions for the success of democracy with deep insight. Addressing the University of Rochester on June 15, 1936, the respected political columnist said that one reason why democracy “has worked in America is that outside the government and outside the party system, there have existed independent institutions and independent men. Foremost among the independent institutions has been the judiciary … the free churches, the free press, the free universities, and, no less important to the preservation of democracy, free men with sufficient secured property of their own … not dependent upon the will of elected or appointed officials.” Modi has undermined such institutions.
But, as an eminent jurist remarked, “Laws and constitutions are but the paper safeguards of liberty. A people must have above all, the will to be free”. In 2015 the people, though politically divided, are more aware of their rights than ever before.
The last words belong to Qateel Shifai: Dunya men Qateel usse munafiq nahi koi/Jo zulm to sehta hai baghawat nahi karta. (There is no greater hypocrite, Qateel, in the world than he/ Who suffers oppression and does not rebel.)
End of democracy - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
