E-Paper
Recommitting to India’s core values
75 years since it gained independence, how has India fared when it is judged against its own republican ideals ?
A republic is not a monarchy. If the head of State is elected, rather than elevated by virtue of birth, the technical definition of a Republic is met. But what distinguishes the Republic of India from other republics, including the one to its north (People’s Republic of China) and to its west (Islamic Republic of Pakistan), is the fact that it is a democratic republic.
A democratic republic has an abiding political commitment to a fundamental principle: Sovereignty rests with citizens and only with citizens, not with the Crown, not with a foreign empire, not with a political party, not with a despot, not with the army, and not even with a democratically elected, supremely popular leader.
A democratic republic translates this principle through a Constitution that creates both popular and independent institutions: Popularly elected institutions ensure that people’s sovereign will is reflected in the exercise of power through representatives; independent institutions ensure that this power is not exercised arbitrarily by the same representatives, and is subject to checks and balances, laws and rules.
A democratic republic is invested in nurturing republican values: Of equality, so that all citizens, irrespective of their ethnic, religious, caste, class, and gender identities, have the same rights, and are not subject to discrimination, even as there is a conscious effort to create opportunities for those who have been historically disadvantaged.
Of liberty, so that all citizens can exercise the freedom of speech, of thought, of assembly, of association, of religion, of practicing their vocation, and lead lives the way they want to, subject to limited reasonable restrictions. Of fraternity, where citizens find ways to relate to each other, develop empathy, and see themselves, voluntarily, as a collective.
And of justice, in its broadest sense, where citizens have protection, through the rule of law, against both the excesses of the State and that of fellow citizens, and where there is the State’s helping hand to enable them to battle socioeconomic hurdles and live a life of dignity.
On this day, 73 years ago, India embraced this vision of a democratic republic, based on work done by members of the Constituent Assembly. By any parameter, this was a remarkably ambitious enterprise. But it was even more ambitious given the context.
India had just emerged from two centuries of oppressive colonial rule where people were seen as subjects, not citizens, and they had neither exercised freedom nor self-rule. Yet, the Constitution granted universal adult franchise on Day 1, and ensured all citizens could vote; all citizens were also free, equally free, and their fundamental rights were legally protected.
India had never had a unified, modern political and administrative State governing over the entire territory that constituted the country’s post-Independence borders. Yet, the Constitution envisaged a State apparatus that would secure citizens, ensure order, protect rights and enable socioeconomic justice across the incredibly diverse landscape.
India had just undergone a violent Partition with tremendous human suffering, there was a political fracture based on religion, and anger and bitterness permeated the mood. Yet, the drafters of the Constitution ensured that equal rights for all citizens and a non-discriminatory and non-denominational State were integral ideas to the constitutional compact.
Indian society had never known equality, given its deeply hierarchical and stratified nature due to caste. Yet, the Constitution banned untouchability and ensured that each citizen enjoyed the same rights with those who had suffered one of the worst forms of indignity known to human civilisation being given extra room to create a level-playing field.
When judged against its own republican ideals, how has India fared?
The democratic republic gets its highest score when it comes to protecting the idea of popular sovereignty. As post-colonial republics, from Asia to Africa, fell under the sway of military regimes or authoritarian despots, turned into ethnocracies or fragmented, not only did India stay united, it stayed democratic.
Every five years, since 1951, except for the brief interregnum of the Emergency, India’s citizens got to choose their representatives for Parliament; at regular intervals, they also elected their representatives for state legislatures and local bodies.
There can be a debate on the distortions in the electoral system, or whether the first-past-the-post system accurately reflects the will of the people. There can also be a debate on the urgent reforms India’s electoral system needs. But it is undeniable that elections have largely been free and fair; the electoral system has popular sanction and legitimacy; and there has always been peaceful transfer of power, indicating that all warring sides in the battlefield of Indian democracy abide by the rules of the game, which cannot be said about advanced democracies, including the United States, anymore.
If you do not like a government, Indian democracy offers you enough political space to set up or join a party, make a political argument, electorally mobilise a constituency, and defeat the incumbent. And this is true of this particular moment in India’s democratic evolution too.
Where India gets a mixed score is in quality and performance of its republican institutions.
India’s legislature, executive and judiciary have broadly stayed true to their functions, and independent institutions have made the Indian system resilient over the decades.
But, in terms of separation of powers, there is a design flaw. In a parliamentary democracy, citizens elect representatives. These representatives then chose their leaders in the House. The political force which commands a majority of representatives in the legislature then gets to constitute the executive branch of the government. So the executive springs from the legislature, but is also accountable to it.
There is a delicate balance here. Members of the legislature are meant to make laws, and keep an eye on the political executive, even if they are political colleagues from the same side of the aisle. Members of the political executive, who constitute the council of ministers, are meant to help frame laws, but their primary task is in executing the law and providing day-to-day governance, while carefully abiding by the diktats of the House.
And the judiciary is meant to stay completely, fiercely independent, keeping an eye on both legislative and executive actions to see if it conforms to constitutional test.
In India, ever since 1950, the executive has been the most powerful of the three branches. When political power is somewhat diffuse, then the legislature can perform its role of holding the executive accountable, or the judiciary can stay immune to the larger political ecosystem.
When political power is concentrated, then the legislature pales in relation to the executive. This, in turn, is due to the nature of Indian political parties (none of which are truly democratic; members of parliament are beholden to party bosses) and draconian laws (which prohibit a parliamentarian from exercising independent judgment).
The judiciary, too, with all due respect, gets a tad too influenced in the face of an excessively powerful executive. And this is true of all other institutions, from the armed forces to the Election Commission, from the Reserve Bank to the Finance Commission. Their professionalism and autonomy is often inversely proportional to the might of the political executive of the day.
This institutional dynamic is not unique to the current moment in Indian politics, but it is amplified because of the fact that India has the most powerful political executive in close to five decades. India needs a more healthy balance between its institutions.
Where India has made progress, but still has a long way to go, is in the realm of deepening republican values. The big picture, of course, is that compared to 1950, primordial identities matter less and Indians across castes, religions, and gender are less bound by structural barriers. Affirmative action has helped, constitutional protections have helped, and the public sector, market forces, education and urbanisation have all played a role in enhancing incomes, reducing poverty and creating opportunities.
Indians today are also more free to exercise their individual freedom and make choices. There is also greater interaction between individuals from diverse regions, communities, castes and religions than there ever was in Indian history, aided by media and connectivity.
Yet, behind this story of progress is a moment of pessimism. The most underrated of republican values is the idea of fraternity. State-encouraged and media-amplified religious majoritarianism has caused a rupture in Hindu-Muslim ties; new media have deepened polarisation and made civil conversation between contending points of view hard; the us versus them political binary is now extended to every social sphere.
Back in 2018, political scientist Devesh Kapur, writing in Seminar Magazine, warned about the “fragility of fraternity”; it has grown even more fragile since. Indians today are also, arguably, less free than they have been in recent decades, especially if they are opposed to the regime of the day.
And the test of liberty is whether a dissenter is truly free. Draconian laws and the clampdown on civil liberties has hurt India’s liberal democratic record and triggered uncomfortable questions at home and abroad. India today also faces an acute challenge of growing economic inequality, a trend exacerbated by the pandemic. And whether you get justice is often a function of your identity, income bracket, political standing and views.
But given what a leap India has made in these seven decades, it is entirely possible that India will be able to overcome its current challenges – and recommit to the republican idea of popular sovereignty, the republican architecture of popular and accountable institutions, and republican values of equality, liberty, fraternity and justice.
That would be the finest tribute to those who created a modern constitutional compact for a free India and its free citizens.
