Indian Democracy Reality and Myth PDF

Indian Democracy: reality or myth?
Author(s): Soli J. Sorabjee

Source: India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2 (AUTUMN 2006), pp. 83-96
Published by: India International Centre
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23005873 .
Accessed: 06/09/2014 03:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
India International Centre is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to India
International Centre Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sat, 6 Sep 2014 03:03:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Soli
J.
Sorabjee
Indian
Democracy: reality
or
myth?*
I
I
selected the
present topic
for the lecture because V.M.Tarkunde
had an
abiding
faith in
democracy
and
firmly
believed in the
importance
of
adhering
to democratic values.
No
political
term has been abused so
indiscriminately
as
'democracy'.
It is
amusing
to notice
patently
totalitarian
regimes
flaunting
the democratic label. I do not
propose
to
indulge
in semantics
and
regale you
with various definitions of
democracy,
because I have
in mind T.S. Eliot's
quip
that 'when a term has become so
universally
sanctified as
"democracy"
I
begin
to wonder whether it means
anything,
in
meaning
too
many things'.
Etymologically, democracy
means the
power
of the
people.
Government of the
people, by
the
people,
for the
people,
is the
sovereign
definition of
democracy.
Even if
democracy
cannot be
precisely
and
comprehensively
defined we can
recognize
it
by
some
of its essential features in action.
Regular,
fair and free elections are the fundamental unmistakable
indicia of
democracy.
The foundation of
democracy
is that
people
have
the
right
to vote
freely
and
fearlessly
and thus rule
through
their
elected
representatives.
Churchill,
in felicitous
language,
said: 'At the
bottom of all tributes
paid
to
democracy
is the little
man,
walking
into a little
booth,
with a little
pencil, making
a little
cross,
on a little
bit of
paper.'
Justice
Hugo
L. Black of the United States
Supreme
Court
articulated a central tenet of democratic
governance
when he said:
*
Delivered at the India International Centre on 25
July
2006,
as the First V.M. Tarkunde
Memorial Lecture
84 / India International Centre
Quarterly
'No
right
is more
precious
in a free
country
than that of
having
a
voice in the election of those who make the laws under which we
must live.'
Let us turn now to the
ground
realities. The undeniable fact is
that
corruption
and criminalization have bedevilled the
process
of
free and fair elections. The
power
and
tyranny
of wealth combined
with muscle force have subverted the
system.
In some
parts
of the
country, democracy
is treated as a harlot to be
picked up
in the street
by
a man with an AK-47. There are blatant and
pervasive
breaches of
the law
prescribing
a
ceiling
on election
expenses.
Potential lawmakers
begin
their
political
careers as unashamed lawbreakers. The limits of
election
expenditure prescribed
are
meaningless
and almost never
adhered to. Political
parties,
which have a fair share of the criminal
elements,
handle enormous
funds,
believed to be unaccounted illicit
money,
collected
ostensibly
for
meeting party
and electoral
expenditure.
Electoral
compulsions
for funds become the foundation
of the
super
structure of
corruption.
As a
result,
it becomes difficult
for the
good
and the honest to contest elections and
gain entry
into
Parliament and the state
legislatures.
Election laws at
present
in force
permit persons
with colourful
criminal
backgrounds
to contest elections. The recommendations of
the National Commission to Review the
Working
of the Constitution
(NCRWC),
and also of the Law Commission that
persons against
whom
charges
have been framed
by
a court of law should be
disqualified
from
contesting
elections have not at all been heeded.
For this all
political parties
have to bear their
proportionate
share of
blame. The
consequence
is the
disgusting spectacle
of
history
sheeters
and criminals in Parliament and state
legislatures,
and
worse,
also in
the Cabinet
making
laws and
ruling
us and our children.
Barring
honourable
exceptions,
the
prime
motivation of these
elected
representatives
of the
peoplethe supposed
servants of the
peopleis
to
recoup
the
illegally
incurred election
expenses.
The
notion of
rendering
service to the nation
appears strange
and is alien
to their
thinking.
Thus,
money power
and criminal elements have
thoroughly
criminalized
politics
and have contributed to the
pervasive
degeneration
of standards in
political
and also in
public
life. This is
reflected in the
shoddy quality
of
governance
and of the
governing
processes.
Sou J. Sorabjee / 85
Again, barring
a few
exceptions,
we have
legislators
who
apparently
answer the
description given by
Sri Aurobindo who
referred to the
average politician
in words which have
striking
relevance
today:
...he does not
represent
the soul of a
people
or its
aspirations.
What he does
usually represent
is all the
average pettiness,
selfishness,
egoism, self-deception
that is about him and these he
represents
well
enough
as well as a
great
deal of mental
incompetence, timidity
and
pretence.
Great issues often come to
him for
decision,
but he does not deal with them
greatly; high
words and noble ideas are on his
lips,
but
they
become
rapidly
the
claptrap
of a
Party.
In view of this state of
affairs,
one wonders whether what we have is
democracy
or
mobocracy
in action. Whatever the
nomenclature,
this
makes a
mockery
of
democracy
and leads
people
to conclude that
democracy
in India is a
glorified myth.
If
democracy
is to be made a
reality,
the
cleansing
of
public
life is
absolutely imperative.
A
beginning
should be made with the law
relating
to defections which cries out for an
urgent change.
Defection
is the worst form of
political immorality.
A defector commits a breach
of faith with the electorate. Defection in
any
form must not be
countenanced nor
permitted,
be it
by
a
merger
of
political parties
or
other
stratagems.
A defector should be debarred from
holding any
ministerial
post
or
any public
office,
thereby removing
a
strong
incentive for defection.
Moreover,
the
question
of
disqualification
of
a member on account of his
alleged
defection should not be decided
by
the
Speaker. My personal experience
has shown that
Speakers
of
some State Assemblies do not
display
the
requisite impartiality
and
independence expected
of them.
Let me
give you
an
amusing example.
I was briefed in a matter
where the issue involved was the
disqualification
of a member on
account of his
joining
another
political party. During
the conference I
enquired
about the various
persons
in
my
chambers. One of them
turned out to be the
Speaker
whose order was
being questioned
before
the Court. I asked
him,
'Mr.
Speaker, why
are
you
here in the
conference?' He
replied
with
gusto,
'Sir,
I am on the Chief Minister's
side,
am on
your
side.' I had to
politely
but
firmly
tell
him,
'Mr.
Speaker, you
are not
supposed
to be on the side of
anyone.'
I
whispered
to
my instructing
advocate,
Praveen
Parekh,
in
Gujarati
that he
may
ask the
Speaker
to leave
my
chambers,
which he did. The
Speaker
Quarterly
was furious and
complained
to the Chief Minister that
'Sorabjee
insulted me and did not take
my
assistance in the matter.' So much
for his
independence
and
impartiality!
I believe that the convention that a
person
on
being
elected as a
Speaker
should sever his
political
ties with the
party
to which he
previously belonged
should be made a
legal requirement.
Besides,
in
view of the
experience
of the
working
of the tenth Schedule in the
Constitution,
which deals with
defections,
an amendment is
necessary
to
provide
that the
power
to decide
questions
of
disqualification
on
the
ground
of
defection,
should be entrusted to the Election
Commission instead of the Chairman or
Speaker
of the House
concerned as at
present.
That was one of the recommendations of the
NCWRC. It has been
ignored
once more.
II
I
now turn to the lack of
representational legitimacy.
The
multiplicity
of
political parties,
combined with our Westminster
model based on the
first-past-the-post system
results in a
majority
of
legislators getting
elected on a
minority
vote.
They usually
win
by
obtaining
less than 50
per
cent of the votes
cast,
that
is,
with more
votes cast
against
them than in their favour. There are states where 85
per
cent to 90
per
cent of the
legislators
have won on a
minority
vote.
At the national
level,
in the last three Lok Sabha
elections,
the
proportion
of MPs who have won on a
minority
vote is over 67
per
cent on an
average.
In extreme
cases,
some candidates have won even
on the basis of 13
per
cent of the votes
polled.
Thus Parliament and
the state
legislatures, owing
to the inherent weaknesses of the first
past-the-post
electoral
system,
have not
acquired
a true
representative
character. The thirteenth Lok Sabha
represented only
27.9
per
cent of
the total electorate. This low
representative
character of the
legislatures,
even after more than
fifty years
of
independence,
casts
serious doubt about the
reality
of
democracy.
Another serious
problem
in the
functioning
of
democracy
is voter
apathy owing
to a
deep
disenchantment with the
working
of the
institutions of
democracy. People
seem almost to have
resigned
to
what
they
consider their inevitable fate. This attitude of fatalism
coupled
with
cynicism
is detrimental to
democracy,
and is also
partly
responsible
for the fact that
corrupt
and undesirable
persons get
elected
SOU J. SORABJEE / 87
and rule us and the future
generations.
The
right
to
vote,
of
making
the little cross on the little bit of
paper
is a
precious right
and must be
exercised with a full sense of
responsibility.
Votes should not be cast
on the basis of the
religion
or caste or
lineage
of the
candidate,
but on
his or her individual merit.
Casting
votes for candidates with a
colourful criminal record is a
sacrilege,
an affront to honest
law-abiding
people.
Indeed,
it is the citizens' ethical
obligation
to
reject
such
candidates.
It is
forgotten
that a citizen's
obligation
in a
democracy
is not
discharged by
the exercise of franchise once in five
years
and thereafter
retiring
in
passivity
and not
taking any
interest in the
working
of the
government
and
enforcing
its
accountability. Accountability
is to be
enforced not
merely
at the time of
elections,
but
during
the life of the
government
in
power.
Otherwise,
democracy
becomes
merely
a
ritualistic exercise in
voting
and not a continuous
process
of
government by
the
people.
M.N.
Roy
believed that to make
democracy
effective,
people
should exercise this
right
not
periodically,
but from
day
to
day.
This is a rather tall order.
However,
what
Roy
wanted to
emphasize
was that an alert and active
citizenry
is essential to ensure
the successful
functioning
of
participatory democracy
and
making
it
a
reality.
I would be
presenting
a
lop-sided picture
if I did not mention
some
positive developments,
one of which is the
widening
of the
democratic base with the formation of elected
panchayati raj
institutions. Another
significant
feature is that
representation
in the
legislatures
has become more
egalitarian.
The
composition
of
Parliament and the state
legislatures,
in terms of the width of social
representation
is
moving
in the
right
direction. The
seventy-third
and
seventy-fourth
amendments to the Constitution
ensuring
the
reservation of one-third of seats for women in elections to
village
panchayats
and
municipalities
have
provided
a welcome
impetus
to
democracy.
The recent
entry
in Parliament of
young, intelligent
and
dedicated
persons
is another
encouraging development.
The most
heartening
feature is the
willingness
to abide
by
the
electoral verdict after a free and fair election. No
government
in India
has
hung
on to
power
after the electorate has
rejected
it. There has
been an
orderly
succession after
every
electoral verdict. This is a vital
distinctive feature of
democracy
which
distinguishes
it from a
dictatorship.
Quarterly
Our
founding
fathers were aware of the vast
disparities
in wealth
and income of our
people.
Their
anxiety
that the
operation
of the
economic
system
does not result in the concentration of wealth is
reflected in Directive
Principle
39(c)
of the
Constitution,
namely,
'that
the
operation
of the economic
system
does not result in the
concentration of wealth and means of
production
to the common
detriment'. While
winding up
the debate in the Constituent
Assembly
on 25 November
1949,
before the Constitution was
finally adopted,
Dr. Ambedkar
pointed
out the
perils
of what he described as a life of
contradictions in these memorable words:
On 26th
January,
1950,
we are
going
to enter into a life of
contradictions. In
politics
we will have
equality
and in social and
economic life we will have
inequality.
In
politics
we will be
recognising
the
principle
of one man one vote and one vote one
value. In our social and economic
life,
we shall
by
reason of our
social and economic
structure,
continue to
deny
the
principle
of
one man one value. How
long
shall we continue to
deny equality
in our social and economic life? If we continue to
deny
it for
long,
we will do so
only by putting
our
political democracy
in
peril.
We
must remove this contradiction at the earliest
possible
moment
else those who suffer from
inequality
will blow
up
the structure
of
democracy
which this Constituent
Assembly
has so
laboriously
built
up.
Wide
disparities
in wealth and income
persist, nay
have
increased,
and
may
be accentuated in the wake of
unregulated
globalization.
The
anguished question posed by
Dr. Ambedkar
continues to haunt us. His
warning
has been
ignored.
How
long
shall
we dither in
getting
rid of this life of contradictions?
In an article
published
in
July
1974 in the Radical
Humanist,
Tarkunde advocated the
'adoption
of income
policies
and taxation
laws which would contain
disparities
of income and wealth within
comparatively
narrow limits'. It was his
strong
belief that
'equality
requires
that "fair shares" in the national
product
should be available
to all and that excessive
disparities
of income and wealth should be
prevented' [emphasis
added].
Regrettably,
the sordid
phenomenon
of the concentration of
wealth in the hands of a few families and industrial houses whilst the
majority
of our
people
can
hardly
eke out a decent existence still
persists.
Motor cars like the
Lamborghini
and Rolls
Royce,
each valued
at between Rs. 2 and 4
crores,
have been
imported
and have been
Soli J. Sorabjee / 89
rapidly picked up by
some
persons overflowing
with unbounded
wealth. I do not resent their
wealth,
but am distressed that thanks to
the hideous
working
of our
system
the common
person
cannot afford
to
buy
and
possess
even an auto. We are witness to the
disgusting
spectacle
of lakhs of
rupees being spent by
some
plutocrats
on social
occasions like
weddings
with
pomp
and
splendour
in
sharp
contrast
to the conditions of the
majority
of the
people living
across the street
in
dingy dwellings
and in
unhealthy surroundings.
Is this
democracy
or
plutocracy? Why,
then,
are we
surprised
that Naxalites are
gaining
ground?
I am
surprised
that there are not more Naxalites when we
have
provided
a fertile soil for their
proliferation.
At the end of
fifty years, despite
the
growth
record,
the
backlog
of
poverty
in our
country
is enormous and human
deprivations
are
immense. We must remember that
poverty
is a
potent
violator of
human
rights.
To
many
the taste of
democracy
is bitter because its
fullness is denied to them. 'We can have
democracy
or we can have
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.'
This was not said
by
a die-hard
Marxist,
but the
great
American
judge
and
jurist,
Louis Brandeis.
Securing
economic and social
justice
is a
moral
imperative
for
any democracy.
Failure to do so results in
disillusionment with
democracy
and leads to
emergence
and ultimate
acceptance
of authoritarian
regimes.
Social
justice,
which is reflected
in the Preamble to our
Constitution,
and is the
signature
tune of our
Constitution,
is still a distant dream. And without social
justice
democracy
cannot be a
reality:
it is a fashionable
myth.
Ill
I
would now like to address another feature of our democratic
polity.
In one of his
essays,
Arthur M.
Schlesinger
Jr.
has
pointed
out
theiperils
of hero
worship: namely,
the surrender of
decision,
the
unquestioning
submission to
leadership,
the
prostration
of the
average person
before the Great Man or Woman and how these are
fatal to human
dignity. Roy,
too,
deprecated
the cult of hero
worship
which is endemic in our
country,
and where the
personality
cult is
ever
flourishing.
There is
nothing wrong
in
admiring
our leaders as
heroes and heroines.
However,
the risk is that in the
process
there is a
tendency
to entrust such
persons
with vast
powers
and
uncritically
Quarterly
accept
the exercise of these
powers by
them without
insisting
on
accountability.
Dr. Ambedkar was aware of these
lurking dangers.
In the
Constituent
Assembly
he underlined the
importance
of
observing
the
caution which
John
Stuart Mill had uttered to all who are interested
in the maintenance of
democracy, namely,
'not to
lay
their liberties at
the feet of even a
great
man,
or to trust him with
powers
which enable
him to subvert their institutions'. There is
nothing wrong
in
being
grateful
to
great
leaders who have rendered
life-long
services to the
country.
But there are limits to
gratitude.
As has been well said
by
the
Irish
patriot
Daniel
O'Connell,
'No man can be
grateful
at the cost of
his
honour,
no woman can be
grateful
at the cost of her
chastity
and
no nation can be
grateful
at the cost of its
liberty.'
Dr. Ambedkar
emphasized
that this caution is far more
necessary
in the case of India
than in the case of
any
other
country
because:
... in
India,
Bhakti or what
may
be called the
path
of devotion or
hero
worship, plays
a
part
in its
politics unequalled
in
magnitude,
by
the
part
it
plays
in the
politics
of
any
other
country
in the world.
Bhakti in
religion may
be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in
politics,
Bhakti or hero
worship
is a sure road to
degradation
and
to eventual
dictatorship.
These words have a
prophetic ring.
We did not heed them to our
cost and had to suffer the
imposition
of the
spurious
June
1975
emergency
which was foisted on the
country by
a
powerful
charismatic
leader. The
slogan
'India is Indira and Indira is India' was chanted ad
nauseam in the
sycophantic
hero
worship
of the leader. We
paid
the
price. Democracy
suffered a
temporary
demise in our
country
from
June
1975 till March 1977 when it was restored. We must be on our
guard
that this
phenomenon,
which is fatal to human
dignity
and
eventually
leads to
dictatorship,
does not recur. We have had
enough
of
dynastic
rule.
In one of his
writings
Tarkunde
perceptively pointed
out that:
...the reason
why
authoritarianism
appears
to be
always
round
the corner in India is that the
majority
of the
people
in the
country
continue to hanker for a saviour who will lift them from the mire
of
poverty
and
provide
them with the means for a decent human
existence. The attitude
they
have in
politics
is similar to the attitude
they
have in
religious
affairs. It is not an accident that there are
numerous
holy pretenders
in India with
large followings.
Soli J. Sorabjee/ 91
Democracy
has wider moral
implications
than mere
majoritarianism.
A crude statistical view of
democracy gives
a
distorted
picture.
A real
democracy
is one in which the exercise of the
power
of the
many
is conditional on
respect
for the
rights
of the few
and
especially
of the minorities. Pluralism is the soul of
democracy.
The
right
to dissent is the hallmark of a
democracy,
indeed its
very
essence. In a real
democracy
the dissenter must feel at home and
ought
not to be
nervously looking
over his shoulder
fearing captivity
or
bodily
harm,
or economic and social sanctions for his
unconventional or critical views. There should be freedom to
express
the
thought
we hate. Freedom of
speech
has no
meaning
if there is no
freedom after
speech.
The
reality
of
democracy
is to be measured
by
the extent of freedom and accommodation it
extends,
in the words of
our
Supreme
Court in its celebrated decision in S.
Rangarajan:
.. .not
merely
to ideas that are
accepted
but those that
offend,
shock
or disturb the State or
any
sector of the
population
because such
are the demands of the
pluralism,
tolerance and broadmindedness
without which there is no democratic
society.
In
my opinion,
of all the threats to our
democracy
the
gravest
is
the rise of fanaticism and intolerance all
round,
which has assumed
menacing proportions.
In a free democratic
society
tolerance is vital
especially
in
large
and
complex
societies
comprising people
with
varied beliefs and interests. An intolerant
society
does not brook
dissent. An authoritarian
regime
cannot tolerate the
expression
of ideas
which
challenge
its doctrines and
ideology
in the form of
writings,
plays,
music or
paintings.
Intolerance is
utterly incompatible
with
democratic values.
The rise of intolerance all round is
alarming.
It is not confined to
any particular political party
or
group
or sect.
Any
criticism of Madame
Sonia Gandhi and her
style
of
functioning by any Congress person
is
visited with
unpleasant consequences.
You will recall that Sharad
Pawar and
Sangma,
when
they
were members of the
Congress party,
had
proposed
that a
person
of non-Indian
origin
should be
ineligible
to hold
high
offices under our Constitution
including
that of the
prime
minister. The
proposal
was
obviously designed
to
preclude
Sonia
Gandhi from
becoming
the
prime
minister of India. This led to a
frightening
outburst of
anger
in the
Congress. Effigies
of Pawar and
Sangma
were
burnt,
and if
they
had attended the
Congress Working
Quarterly
Committee,
which was to be held at that
time,
they
would have been
lynched.
No one can criticize the
supremo,
Bal
Thackeray,
without
incurring
the wrath of the Shiv Sainiks. It is
depressing
that we have
reached a
stage
where even the moderate
expression
of a different
point
of view is met with
hostility.
Of
late,
there have been vociferous
demands for bans. The
banning
itch has become infectious. Sikhs are
offended
by
certain words in the title of a
film;
Christians want the
film Da Vinci Code banned because
they
find it hurtful. No one dare
write an authentic and critical
biography
of a revered
religious
or
political
leader. The American
author, Laine,
who wrote a
biography
of
Shivaji
in which there were
unpalatable
remarks about
Shivaji
was
sought
to be
prosecuted,
and there was a ridiculous demand for his
extradition.
Worse,
the
prestigious
Bhandarkar Institute at Pune where
Laine had worked and done some research was vandalized
by bigots
and invaluable
manuscripts
were
destroyed.
This was fascism at its
worst and a fatal blow to our
democracy.
The Taliban was emulated.
Take the recent instance of intolerance
displayed
towards the
actor Aamir Khan. One
may disagree
with his views or his
lending
support
to the Narmada Bachao Aandolan movement and criticize
him
severely.
However,
to burn his
posters
and to
prohibit
the
screening
of his films and
subject
him in
Gujarat
to social and economic
sanctions is the
height
of intolerance. This attitude is
totally
antithetical
to our Indian
psyche
and tradition. Our
Supreme
Court,
speaking
through
Justice
Chinnappa Reddy
in the
Jehova's
Witnesses'
case,
has
rightly
reminded us that: 'Our tradition teaches
tolerance;
our
philosophy preaches
tolerance;
our Constitution
practises
tolerance.
Let none dilute it.'
It must be realized that intolerance has a
chilling, inhibiting
effect
on freedom of
thought
and discussion. In the absence of
tolerance,
healthy
and
vigorous
debate and frank discussion are no
longer
possible.
The
consequence
is that dissent dries
up;
when that
happens
democracy
loses its essence and
reality.
There is an
urgent
need to
combat intolerance and the
deadly
threat it
poses
to the democratic
fabric of our nation with all our
might.
The
practice
of tolerance in
our
multireligious,
multicultural nation must be
regarded
as a
fundamental
duty
of
every
citizen,
and must be
actively encouraged
and
performed
if we are to make our
pluralist democracy
a
living,
robust
reality.
Soli J. Sorabjee / 93
IV
The
collapse
of the criminal
justice system
is a
tragic indisputable
fact. The
judicial system
has not been able to meet even the
modest
expectations
of the
society.
Its
delays
and costs are
frustrating,
its
processes
slow and uncertain.
People
are
pushed
to
seek recourse to
extra-legal
methods for relief. Trial
systems,
both on
the civil and criminal
side,
have broken down. Access to
justice
is not
a
reality;
it has become a cruel
slogan.
After this dismal
picture,
it
may
well
be concluded that
democracy
has withered
away
in our
country
and there can be
only
one answer to the
question posed
in the title of this talk.
However,
that is not so because even
though
the firmament is dark and
depressing,
there are
rays
of
hope,
there is a silver
lining.
There is no
dearth of
criticism,
at times
virulent,
and often ill-informed about our
judiciary.
Yet,
paradoxically,
it is the institution of an
independent
judiciary
which has
prevented
the
collapse
of
democracy
and made it
a
reality.
It has done so
by steadfastly upholding
the Rule of Law
which sustains
democracy. Accountability
is the sine
qua
non of
democracy.
Our
judiciary
has enforced the
accountability
of the
holders and wielders of
power
on several occasions. It has acted on
the dictum that 'however
high you may
be the law is above
you'
and
has done so
irrespective
of the status of
any person
or
authority.
Recently,
a minister in the Maharashtra Cabinet was sentenced to one
month's
imprisonment
for
committing
a breach of a
Supreme
Court
order
passed
for
protection
of environment.
Another
judicial
contribution is the
development
of Public
Interest
Litigation (PIL).
The occasional aberrations and abuse of PIL
should not blind us to the fact
that,
thanks to
PIL,
numerous under
trial
prisoners languishing
in
jails
for
inordinately long periods
have
been
released;
persons
treated like serfs and held in
bondage
have
secured their freedom and have been
rehabilitated;
inmates of care
homes and mental
asylums
have been restored their
humanity;
and
the condition of workers in stone
quarries
and
young
children
working
in hazardous
occupations
has
undergone
a
humanizing change.
Women who are the victims of sexual harassment have secured relief.
Juristic
activism in the arena of environmental and
ecological
issues
and
accountability
in the use of hazardous
technology
has been made
possible
and has
yielded salutary
results. Fundamental
rights
have
become
living
realities,
to some
extent,
for at least some
indigent,
Quarterly
disadvantaged
and
exploited segments
of Indian
humanity.
The most
heartening
feature is that courts have started
taking
human
suffering
seriously
and are
responding
to it with
sensitivity.
A free and
independent press
also enforces
accountability by
exposing
malfeasance and
lapses
in administration and thus functions
as an instrument of democratic control
by enabling
citizens to call
upon
their rulers to account for their actions.
Furthermore,
the
press
gives
voice to the
voiceless,
hope
to the
hopeless
and the
exploited
segments
of our
society
whose
plight
is unknown till the
press brings
it to our notice.
No doubt the
press
acts
irresponsibly
at
times,
indulges
in
sensationalism and
unjustifiably
violates the
privacy
of individuals.
Yet,
no human institution is
perfect.
Demands for
stringent
restrictions
on the
press
are unwarranted. In the words of Madison: 'It is better to
leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant
growth,
than,
by
pruning
them
away, injure
the
vigour
of those
yielding
the
proper
fruits.'
It is
my
firm belief
that,
but for an
independent judiciary
and a
free
press, democracy
would have
disappeared
from our midst
long
ago.
What makes our
democracy
a
reality
is the adherence to the Rule
of Law
by
our
judiciary,
and the enforcement of
accountability
of the
wielders of
power by
the
judiciary
and a free
press.
It is these
institutions which have
given strength
to our
democracy
and sustained
it. It should be our endeavour to
strengthen
these institutions and
remove anomalies and
shortcomings,
if
any,
in their
functioning
rather
than weaken these institutions.
V
The
real
problem,
the
deep
malaise lies in the fact that there is a
collapse
of values in
public
life.
Unfortunately,
we live in times
when there are no men and women to match our
Himalayan
peaks,
when our
political system
has more
criminals,
fixers and
hypocrites per capita
than at
any
time in our
history.
There is a crisis
of confidence. There is a crisis of
leadership.
The foremost
requirement
is the restoration of confidence in the institutions of
democracy.
This
needs a
strong
and
enlightened
national
leadership
that is able to
cope
with
emergent problems boldly
and
decisively.
Sou J. Sorabjee / 95
Let us not
forget
the
elementary
truth that the effectiveness of
democracy
rests not
only upon knowledge
and
judgment,
but
upon
character,
a
commodity
in short
supply
Louis Brandeis
rightly
reminds
us that
'democracy
in
any sphere
is a serious
undertaking.
It is more
difficult to maintain than to achieve. ... Success in
any
democratic
undertaking
must
proceed
from the individual'. It is
only
the
morally
mature and sensitive individual who will be determined to do
away
with
slums,
eliminate the
ever-growing
cancer of
corruption
and
help
lift the load from the
poverty
stricken. The
prime
need is to
bring
about a revolution in the mindset of the
people.
We need
persons
whom
Roy
calls 'detached
individuals;
spiritually
free individuals'.
We need in our
public
life
persons
like Tarkunde who did not
hanker after fame and fortune. His
top-most priorities
were the welfare
of the nation and the
protection
of the human
rights
of our
people
and,
in
particular,
the
rights
of the minorities. He was keen that
minorities
enjoyed
the full
plenitude
of the fundamental
rights
guaranteed
to them under our Constitution and that
they
should not
labour under
any feeling
of
insecurity
and discrimination. He
possessed
in abundant measure that rare and
lovely virtuecourage
which was
visibly displayed during
the dark
days
of the
Emergency
when
many lawyers
were
reluctant,
or
afraid,
to take
up
cases of the
victims of
illegal
detentions under MISA. I can
only
lament with the
poet
Wordsworth and
say:
Tarkunde,
'thou shouldst have been
living
at this
hour,
the Nation hath need of thee'. I shall
always
remember
my
close association with him
during
that
time,
and also his advice
and
guidance.
It was his
persuasion
to which I
yielded
and
accepted
the offer of the
post
of the
Attorney
General for India in
1998,
which I
had
previously
declined. Tarkunde was
always toiling tirelessly day
and
night
for the dissemination of humanist values of
freedom,
rationalism and secular
morality.
When I think of
Tarkunde,
I am
reminded of the verse:
The
heights of great
men reached and
kept,
Were not attained
by
sudden
flight,
But
they,
while their
companions slept,
Were
toiling upwards
in the
night.
Friends,
after 56
years
the
lofty
aims and
aspirations
and the
pledges
of our
Founding
Fathers have not been fulfilled. Yet there is
no room for
despondency
or fatalism. Let us resolve
today
to redeem
the unfulfilled
pledges
of our
Founding
Fathers. I know that this
may
Quarterly
appear Utopian
and that the task is
stupendous.
But the stakes too are
stupendous:
the survival of
democracy
in our land. Therefore in the
Tarkunde
spirit
let us undertake
cheerfully
and undaunted the
journey
on that
bumpy
and difficult road with miles to
go, always
remembering
that we have
promises
and
pledges
to
keep
before we
go
to
sleep.

Indian Democracy Reality and Myth PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Indian Democracy Reality and Myth PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Indian Democracy: reality or myth?

Author(s): Soli J. Sorabjee

Anda mungkin juga menyukai