We're All (Still) Socialists in India

Though Indian politicians talk a lot about reform, they are good at spending tax payers money, mostly because they are socialists. Every political party in India should swear allegiance to socialism, according to the 42nd amendment to constitution.There are around 50 parties represented in the parliament, but people of India do not have much of a choice as there is no liberal political party. The petition filed by Sanjiv Agarwal is a case in point. The petition was withdrawn on the grounds that no political part has opposed the insertion of the word 'Socialism".Political parties should take up this cause, writes Barun Mitra in The wall Street Journal.

India's politicians love to talk about "reform," but if the recent past is any indication, most of them like spending money more. There's the $22 billion annual bill for food and fertilizer subsidies; the billions spent every year on the rural employment guarantee scheme; plentiful government-subsidized loans; and on, and on. The lack of debate over the virtues of these wasteful policies is striking in the world's most vibrant democracy. A big reason is because all Indian politicians are—officially—socialists.

That's not a typo. During the height of Indira Gandhi's Emergency Rule in 1976, policy makers passed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which added the words "socialist" and "secular" to the preamble. Then in 1989, the Representation of People Act, the law which governs elections and political parties, was amended to make it mandatory for all political parties seeking registration with the Election Commission to affirm not only the general constitution but also socialism. Since then all political parties have sworn to socialism without any hesitation, without bothering to define what it means.

These are more than just semantics. Political parties are plentiful in India, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, and there are no avowedly liberal political parties. The "socialist" pledge, as it turns out, has created a serious legal anomaly and a damaging precedent.

Look no further than the recent case of Sanjiv Agarwal, the head of the Good Governance India Foundation in Calcutta. In 2007, Mr. Agarwal, whose nongovernment organization fights for property rights and the rule of law, filed a public-interest petition to the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the 42nd Amendment and the relevant section of the Representation of People Act. The petition argued both provisions violated the basic premise of democracy and political freedom enshrined in the Constitution.

Two years later, the Election Commission filed a response and acknowledged that the 1989 law required all parties to affirm their loyalty to socialism. In other words, although the word "socialism" was included in the Constitution through the political and constitutional process, it cannot be opposed and removed by the very same process. The Government of India did not file a reply.

When the petition was first heard by the Supreme Court in January 2008, Mr. Agarwal's lawyer pointed out that the anomaly in the election law had been questioned in 1995 by the Swatantra Party Maharashtra, a small political party located in Maharashtra State. Unfortunately the Mumbai High Court still has not heard the petition—even though 15 years have passed since its filing.

Mr. Agarwal couldn't legally substantiate the details of the old case, and the judges on the bench observed that while it was a valid point, it was also an "academic" one, since no political party in the country had actually opposed it. So the petition was withdrawn on July 12.

The fight isn't over, however. The Supreme Court did not reject the petition outright. Instead, the three-judge bench implied the court would prefer to deal with it when a political party actually is aggrieved, or refused registration because of its refusal to affirm socialist beliefs. The Court's statement also implies there is merit in Mr. Agarwal's arguments.

As it should: India's founders debated the question of socialism at length in 1949. The chairman of the constitutional drafting committee, B.R. Ambedkar, said: "What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether."

Fixing India's foray into socialism will take time. None of the serious political parties engaged in the electoral fray in the past 20 years has objected to the socialism clause, including nominally conservative parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena. All see great political benefits from large public-spending programs that cement political patronage, even if those policies ultimately create more dependence, higher unemployment and lower future economic growth.

Yet India is changing slowly but surely since the "big bang" economic reform of the early 1990s. Today, the economy is poised to enter into a 10% annual GDP growth phase. Foreign multinationals have purchased two of the biggest Indian pharmaceutical companies at record prices, and rather than raising fear, many Indians feel proud that Indian assets could fetch such high values in the global marketplace. The recent auction of third-generation telecommunication spectrum raised a phenomenal $20 billion.

All political parties need to take up this cause. If the political space is legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too—and then the electorate may inevitably follow. India's free-market liberals then might find their rightful place in the political mosaic of the country. Just as India's diversity has sustained her democracy, political diversity will only strengthen the foundation of the republic.

Supreme Injustice!

The judges of the Indian Supreme court felt that the insertion of socialism in the constitution, though important is only an academic issue,and the petition challenging it, should be withdrawn. Only socialist parties can be registered with India's Election Commission.The Swatantra party of S V Raju failed to swear by Socialism they had no option but to take the issue to the court, writes Manuwant Choudhary in Indiavikalp.

India’s Supreme Court falters once again….this time on a petition challenging the oath of allegiance by political parties to the word `socialism’…recently the petition had to be withdrawn as the judges felt that while it was an important issue it was only of `academic’ interest presently and that they would hear the case as and when the time came.

In effect what this means is that the world’s largest democracy is not a democracy…since only socialist political parties can be registered with India’s Election Commission and hence only they can contest elections. A liberal cannot have a political party.

The petition was filed by Good Governance Foundation India and individually by Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal and their lawyer was constitutional expert Fali Nariman.

So I called up Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal to find out his understanding of the Supreme Court view and he said, “There are two aspects. One is that our case was not thrown out at the first instance and we were heard. The Supreme Court also recognized that the issue we were raising was an important one but that it was only of `academic’ interest right now. I am happy with this part of the view but the Supreme Court goes on to say that we will hear it when the time comes. God forbid but I fear that when the time comes it may be too late…a despot will do what he wants in such a scenario…”

There are again two interpretations to this court view …one is that the judges want liberals to first form a political party and seek registration and when they are denied registration they can come back to it and file a fresh appeal. The second part is more serious in that the present view means that citizens and NGOs who file public interest petitions have no bona-fide to do so vis-à-vis democracy and that only a political party who has been denied registration has a cause of action.

This latter view worries me ….but Mr. Agarwal says, “Its one interpretation but who can question the highest court in the land? The Supreme Court in India is not as great as western courts but its still better than Africa or many Asian courts. Although I do not agree with their view that a citizen cannot question the preamble.”

Mr. Agarwal has challenged both the 42nd and 44th amendments to India’s constitution. “By introducing the word socialism to the constitution and then by quietly removing private property from a citizens fundamental rights our politicians have destroyed the very constitution we gave ourselves at independence. You see whats happening in Bengal it is the small farmers who are suffering because their land is being taken over by the State and given to private industry.”

He said, “At least I have succeeded in raising the issue.”

My own association with this campaign goes longer…as a student at St. Paul’s School Darjeeling I came across an interview of Mr. Minoo Masani in Imprint magazine. A photograph of Mr. Masani sitting on Marine Drive looking at the sea and a para saying…`I have always swum against the tide…’ caught my attention. I said to myself if I ever go to Bombay I would like to meet this man…

Living away from the heat and dust of the plains amidst the majestic Himalayas with the sun rise and sunset over Kanchenjunga one would normally forget the mess India was in…but coming from backward Bihar I always felt education is worthless if one cannot bring about any change.

So while most of my colleagues aimed to go to America I had a different dream…my dream was to find a link to India’s past..to its greatness…to Mahatma Gandhi.

Chance took me to Bombay and as a student of history at St. Xavier’s College I was assigned a history project. I picked up a telephone directory and searched for Mr. Minoo Masani, found a number and called. The voice at the other end said, “Yes, this is Masani speaking”. I introduced myself and asked for an appointment as I wanted to interview him.

Mr. Masani, “Whats the issue?”

I replied, “Economic Policies of Jawahar Lal Nehru.”

Mr. Masani, “Disastrous. Come and see me tomorrow at 10 a.m..”

I recall three of going to the Army & Navy Building 15 minutes before 10 and Mr. Masani spoke extempore for more than an hour and it was an education that one cannot get at India’s best educational institutions.

My association with liberals begins and my years in Bombay working with a youth association and then accidently walking up a rickety stairs at Kala Ghoda and discovering a Swatantra Party office…

Its only later that I met Mr.S.V. Raju and 15 years ago when Mr. Raju and others tried to register the Swatantra Party Maharashtra they were faced with a roadblock…they were asked to swear by socialism and which Mr. Raju rightly refused. So going to court was the only option which the party did.

I remember in those early days calling oneself a liberal was not yet fashionable and in fact there were very few liberal NGOs although we believed that India’s people are by and large liberal and if a credible liberal party is offered to the Indian people..Indians would vote for it.

But as things stand the Bombay High Court has not heard the case even once in 15 years! The Swatantra Party lawyer is now a judge of the Bombay High Court!

Another brave attempt was made by the veteran Shetkari Sangathana leader Mr. Sharad Joshi who appealed to Mr.T.N. Seshan, the then Election Commissioner of India, to at least give him a common symbol to contest but Mr. Seshan refused and said he would only get that if he swore allegiance to a socialist constitution.

Mr. Joshi refused and fielded some 180 or more candidates all contesting as independents with different symbols. Two won the elections.

Mr. Joshi is now a Rajya Sabha member and he has placed a private member bill challenging this very clause that makes it mandatory for political parties to swear by the socialist constitution.

This Supreme Court view in effect means, `Where is the party?"

For the past five years I have been speaking to liberals individually to form a party but the response has been poor. There are many many more liberals in India today than there were 15 years ago..most run successful NGOs...but at best they are competitive and at worst self-centred ..happy to run NGOs instead of running India. Liberals lack unity.

If India fails I would blame us liberals.