The Foundations,Resilience and Spirit of Democratic Institutions

Abstract

In this modified lecture on the spirit of democracy and the importance of the constitution as a radical document, the author engages with the manner in which the struggle for independence resulted in the imagination of India as a sovereign, democratic and secular republic. Because this history is being systematically erased to create an alternate singular narrative of nationalism that is against the core constitutional values, there is a need to revisit the foundational values and emotions that gave rise to the democratic institutions and ensure that these processes are put to work through informed, organised and active citizen participation, keeping in view principles of equality and social justice. Active citizenship is indeed a powerful transformative force to expand and deepen democracy. The article details the reasons why the spirit of a democratic culture among citizens from the level of gram panchayats and municipalities to the district, state and national levels has the capacity to expose and resist the construction of Hindu nationalist hegemony, its falsity and authoritarianism.

Introduction

In this article, the author would like to focus on how the Indian nation was imagined at the time of independence, which was integral to India’s democracy and which is so contrary to the imagination of what constitutes the Indian nation that is emerging today.

India was imagined as a secular democratic nation based on values of individual rights, equality and social justice at the time of independence. A liberal democratic framework, combined with the guiding principles of social democracy, provided the values for governance as well as the conduct of civil society. The institutions of parliament, executive and judiciary, the federal structure and local bodies, and freedom of speech, thought and expression were intended to give concrete meanings to such an imagination of the Indian nation. ¹ These values, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, played a hegemonic role in giving legitimacy to the Indian state.

After 70 years of independence, we are witness to the emergence of a counterhegemony being built on the imagination of India as a majoritarian ‘Hindu Rashtra’. The founding principles of such an imagination are solidifying the Hindu majority on communal basis, fuelling hatred against the minorities, especially Muslims, as the enemy, and creating legitimacy for the same. Inevitably, this involves engineering profound changes in the institutional framework, structure and culture of politics.

Thus, India today is at the cusp of this tension between the hegemony (‘predominance by consent’) of the liberal democratic framework through which the Indian state exercises its political, intellectual and moral role of leadership, on the one hand, and the counter-hegemonic idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra playing on the sentiments of aggressive nationalism, on the other hand.

Foundations of India’s Democracy

The Constitution of India is a product of long-drawn India’s nationalist movement of all classes, rich and poor, including women, peasants, youth, workers, dalits and adivasis, and its enlightened leaders Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Patel and so many other stalwarts and freedom fighters across all regions, of all hues and shades, including Gandhians, socialists, communists, moderates and extremists (except loyalists and communalists). They were unanimous in their opinion that an Indian nation meant a nation that stood for values of democracy, secularism, respect for diversity across all regions and religions, equality, liberty, freedom and social justice. It is this legacy that formed the imagination of India as a nation that stood for

1. 1.

secularism, respecting diversity and democracy; ²

2.

universal suffrage and adult franchise;

3.

fundamental rights with emphasis on equity and social justice—a core element of modern democracy where all humans are equal, enjoy equal opportunities, and are entitled to equal treatment before the law;

4.

free press and association, free and active citizens to hold government accountable, a free media;

5.

institutions of the legislature, executive and judiciary with checks and balances, permitted to operate within their sphere of influence with the knowledge and consent of the other two and in a relationship of mutual respect.

The Constitution of India is, thus, an ethical statement that defines the Indian nation and gives meaning to the programmatic and moral content of India’s nationhood. To move closer to the intentions that were set by those who framed the idea of India, the author will engage with Nehru’s secularism, Ambedkar’s need for social democracy and Gandhi’s famous talisman to indicate the mood of the times and the imagination of an India.

Secularism is one of the core values enshrined in the Constitution of India and integral to India’s nationalism. At the very onset, Nehru warned against an insidious form of nationalism that makes the majority think of itself as the entire nation. He highlighted the need for the integration of diverse groups of people and said it was the obligation of the majority to safeguard the interests of minorities. To quote Nehru,

The peril to India’s democracy is indeed communalism. The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled me with horror and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always, it seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests… If any person raises his hand to strike down another on the ground of religion, I shall fight him till the last breath of my life, both as the head of the government and from the outside.

It is in this spirit that the fundamental right in Article 25 (1) guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion.

Further, as Ambedkar stated,

we must not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. 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 or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy itself.

And Gandhi’s talisman,

I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man/woman whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him/her?

All three strongly felt that failure to adhere to these basic democratic principles would result invariably in injustice, tyranny and oppression, as well as violation of individual freedom and the rule of law. Using these guideposts, we tried to create institutions that prioritised democratic values instead of developmental outcomes. During this time, while the developed countries boasting of an evolved economy had built their nations following a sequential model of development—characterised by economic plunder within their own societies and colonised areas, ravaging the lives of thousands of workers, peasants, women and children, forcing them to hunger and starvation, servitude and bondage—India was trying to create ethical foundations for its nationhood. The constitution, in some form, was a radical document that gave primacy to the rights of the individual, democracy and redistributive justice. All other agendas, such as economic growth and development, were to follow these principles.

State and Relative Autonomy

The challenges faced by the Indian state soon after independence in its nation-building task were immense. A devastated economy, a lack of capital, a food shortage ³ and humongous poverty, along with the burden of refugees, communal tensions and the integration of diverse states and regions, were huge challenges. The country was famine-ridden, with a life expectancy around 30 years. Over 80% of the people were illiterate. The per capita income, the agricultural output and the foodgrains output had all been continuously shrinking for the previous three decades of independence. Over 90% of India’s capital, machinery and even basic tools had to be imported from abroad.

Charged by nationalist fervour, the state played a critical role in reconciling the path of economic development with political democracy. The state was neither the stooge of the capitalist class nor a continuation of the colonial regime, as understood by some contemporary left-wing practitioners. The state was relatively autonomous and independent of any specific class interest to secure the cohesion of society as a whole. To become a self-reliant and independent economy—an essential component of sovereignty—the state assigned itself a strategic role in economic development by making long-term investments in building much-needed infrastructure. ⁴ It also invested in scientific agricultural research, irrigation and electric power project, institutes of science and technology, ⁵ universities and centres of excellence, in addition to encouraging institutions of arts, language and culture. This was combined with a conscious effort to reach out to the poor through radical land reforms, which included the Zamindari Abolition Act and weakening the economic and political power of the traditionally landed classes. Additionally, the tenancy abolition and regulation acts helped to outlaw tenancy altogether and, to some degree, tried to regulate rents to give some modicum of security to the tenants. In response to the working-class movement and to protect of workers’ rights, several labour laws were enacted. ⁶ It was also a period when most services in health, education, transportation, railways and communication were considered as public goods that should be accessible to all citizens either free of cost or at highly subsidised rates.

In a way, the state played a critical role as a mediator in reconciling economic development with political and social democracy. There was a pervasive consensus on this path of development and democracy in India, which was designated as the ‘mixed economy’ or non-capitalist path of development. The institutional framework as provided by the Constitution of India was the vehicle for the accomplishment of the goals that India enshrined in the Preamble.

Democracy and Legitimacy Through Electoral Politics

The electoral process based on universal adult franchise, electing representatives of their constituencies to the parliament and the respective state assemblies, was unique at the time, giving meaning to the phrase ‘We the People’. It was of mammoth proportions, giving representation to millions of Indian citizens as mandated by the Constitution of India, with a shared vision and values that constituted the Indian nation.

Over a period of time, however, the representative function of the legislatures became weaker. The political parties, their party functionaries and their leaders began to lose touch with their constituencies. The voices of the constituents, especially the poor, had no institutional mechanism to reach their elected representatives. In fact, their voices were heard mainly through the power of popular movements and the physical and mental sacrifice of thousands who participated in protests and demonstrations outside the framework of formal institutions. These struggles were captured through the free press and their support. It was only after a persuasive campaign was launched and social pressure was built that the political elite got into action. Some of the best legislation has been through such a long struggle. ⁷

While there were no sturdy institutional procedures for the voices of the people to be heard, thanks to the democratic foundations of the nation, there was a scope for non-institutional forms of action and responsiveness, and spaces were present for voices that were raised, either through freedom of speech and associated rights. A couple of victories through policies, laws and judgements were more acts of individual leadership than by well-oiled systemic framework. Further, there was no concerted effort to rectify the parliamentary democracy, resulting in weakening the constitutional framework.

Ideally, these voices that were raised should have been crystallised through a debate and discussion captured by the gram panchayats and zilla parishads. The ideal process was that the voices of the marginalised, through these local governing bodies, would inform the respective political parties, through which the legislators of respective parties would take stands. This way, policies and laws are formulated based on institutionalised processes of democracy. Unfortunately, this was not the manner in which policies were formulated. There was neither the capacity nor the inclination in the institutions to listen to the ground and engage with their constituencies. In actuality, there was no democratisation of the legislature or the political parties. The aspect of representative politics through elections got diluted to be replaced by electoral populism. Elections in India did not result in representative democracy but gradually led to majoritarian democracy.

The process of conducting elections served to provide legitimacy to the state’s ability to govern, especially given the high rates of participation of the poor in the electoral process and their relentless hope and faith in the system—there is ample evidence that compared to the middle class, the working class’ commitment to voting is greater. People mattered to the extent that they continued to exercise their franchise and give legitimacy to the state.

The process of democratisation of public institutions as envisaged was compromised over time, compelling an interrogation of the manner in which all public institutions functioned in India. There are questions we must ask: Do all citizens have equal access? Have all public institutions (including parliament, executive and judiciary) been inclusive and democratised? Is distributive justice rendered with adequate investments in public goods? Do our citizens enjoy their rights of all citizens to live a life with dignity? The answers to these questions give us an indication of the state of our nation, made more precarious by the shift in the nature of our democratic politics.

Shift in Culture of Politics and Aggressive Majoritarian Nationalism

With the formation of the NDA government since 2014, an apparent shift in the ideological narrative has taken over Indian politics, leading to majoritarian and aggressive nationalism. This narrative is based on a conscious strategy of building pride in Hindu nationalism, whose existence depends on hatred towards minorities and demonising them. It encourages a political culture of intolerance, hate, campaigns, vigilantism and violence towards minorities by a diverse group of organised groups representing shades of Hindutva ideology. The fact that they have a monopoly to use armed force and do so without impunity makes them sovereign groups. In this narrative, it is not just the minorities but also all those who question the current regime—the intellectuals, activists, advocates, journalists, stand-up comedians and ‘urban naxals’—are anti-nationals and deemed as enemies. It is unapologetic about curtailment of freedom and incarcerates those who dissent and raise their voice against injustice. Questioning the government is considered as an affront to its leader and automatically becomes anti-national.

Clearly, this imagination of nationalism has nothing but contempt for liberal political culture and its democratic institutions that emphasises individual rights, equality and social justice. It breeds on mythology, distortion and falsification of history, reification of symbols of Hindu religion and its rituals and builds on the angst of the people regarding how tormented the Hindu majority is. It implores them to rise above, restore their lost glory and transform India ‘into an ethnocratic state based on the utopia of a fantasised Hindu community that recovers its pristine identity’. ⁸

More importantly, consent and legitimacy are generated through the ideological framework of Hindu nationalism, its carefully constructed culture, history and religion and a seamless erosion of the liberal democratic framework. The institutional framework of parliamentary democracy as envisaged in the Constitution of India is no longer relevant under the changed circumstances. Indeed, the constitution, its laws and its provisions become instruments to violate the very constitution and its essential principles.

It must be recognised that such a counter-hegemonic narrative has its origins even before independence under the leadership of Golwalkar, who put forward the concept of a cultural nation called ‘Hindu Rashtra’, Savarkar, who developed the Hindu nationalist political ideology of Hindutva and Hegdewar, who founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Their imagination of the Indian nation has been patiently harnessed over time, waiting for this defining moment.

Conclusion

Today, liberals are alarmed at the rapid growth of majoritarianism. They are at a loss to offer explanations for its success in capturing the hearts and minds of millions of people, gaining their loyalty and confidence and how it has become part of India’s political culture. They are troubled by the fact that the majoritarian political culture has gained legitimacy and has acquired consent through its success in elections and manipulative politics in forming the government. They are helpless witnesses to the prognosis of ‘death of the first republic’ based on constitutional values and the emergence of ‘electoral authoritarianism’ based on Hindu nationalism, paving the way for fascism.

Because of ‘this feeling of helplessness’, it is important, now more than ever, to reaffirm our faith in the Constitution of India and its preamble, which is the essence of the Indian nation. An important component of what constitutes a nation is the ‘feeling’ that we have as citizens belonging to the Indian State. More than anything, it is an emotional appeal linking the citizen to the state with a dream and vision for the country. It is more than a source of pride for our country when it wins gold medals in various fields of competitions, such as sports, film awards, arts and culture, university and research, or while sending a spacecraft to the moon. The struggle for independence in India resulted in the crystallisation of the imagination of the Indian nation as a sovereign, democratic, secular republic. It is this political imagination that is expressed through the Constitution of India that should give us pride in being an Indian.

The struggle for independence in India resulted in the crystallisation of the imagination of the Indian nation as a sovereign, democratic, secular republic. This is indeed revolutionary in spirit. However, it was seldom acknowledged that the freedom movement in India was a revolutionary movement that fought for democracy, secularism and justice. Even as the Russian, Chinese, French and American movements were characterised as revolutionary, there has never been an effort to celebrate India’s non-violent revolution. There is a need for concerted effort to internalise the significance of India’s nationalist movement and its role in shaping the Indian nation.

Unfortunately, there is very little knowledge about the Indian nationalist movement as an unparalleled mass movement that culminated in independence from British imperialism. It was this 100-years freedom movement that shaped how we imagined India as a nation, which had four components: (a) secularism, (b) democracy, (c) pro-poor socialism and (d) sovereignty. Since the nation was a product of the liberation struggle of diverse sections of people, secular democracy means a celebration of diversity—that all communities, religions, languages and regions are equal. It does not and has never meant the homogenisation of only one language or one religion as being necessary for bringing people together. It also meant freedom of speech association and press, which allowed for active citizen participation. Democracy also meant equality and non-discrimination on any basis, protection of rights of all its citizens and ensuring social justice to the last person. All these aspects were deemed foundational to building a strong, self-reliant, independent and sovereign state.

The fault lay in all hues of political parties as well as civil society, which includes left liberals, communists, socialists, social democrats, intellectuals, policymakers and educationists who have been taking democracy and its institutions for granted. Practicing democracy is likened to excelling in sports, music or gaining expertise in any craft. Citizen participation at the local level on local issues is the beginning of the deepening of democracy. It is not enough to work only on setting up democratic institutions such as the municipalities of gram panchayats or the local wards. These institutions and processes must be put to work through informed and organised, active citizen participation, keeping in view principles of equality and social justice. Active citizenship is indeed a powerful transformative force to expand and deepen democracy. Democracy matures only while in use, and at each step, new challenges emerge to be resolved.

In the process, it is hoped that the capacities of the system are built to adhere to the democratic spirit. This is a slow and patient process, but there are no shortcuts. It is this spirit of a democratic culture among citizens from the level of gram panchayats and municipalities to the district, state and national levels that exposes the construction of Hindu nationalist hegemony, its falsity, authoritarianism and its peril to India’s democracy. This is eminently possible and doable, given the heroic actions against all odds by the defenders of human rights.