The Gujarat court directs mock e-voting before the actual poll. It is to ensure that the process of online voting is 100 per cent full-proof.The Congress leaders have claimed in their PIL that e-voting system to be implemented through recent amendments in the BPMC Act is in violation of fundamental rights granted by the Constitution, reports The Times Of India.
Read the whole article:
AHMEDABAD: In connection with introduction of e-voting or online voting system during coming civic body elections, Gujarat High Court has advised the state government to go for a trial mock election before actual election to ensure that the process of online voting is 100 per cent full-proof.
When the hearing came up on the PIL filed by Congressmen raising doubts on efficacy of the new mode of casting vote, a bench headed by Chief Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya observed that the experimentation should not be done during the election process. In case of any trouble in casting vote through internet or mobile phone, the entire exercise of conducting election will suffer. Therefore, if the authorities want to experiment to see that the system functions in proper manner, it has to be much before the actual election.
The Congress leaders have claimed in their PIL that e-voting system to be implemented through recent amendments in the BPMC Act is in violation of fundamental rights granted by the Constitution. Hence the authorities should be restricted from allowing citizens to cast their votes online through mobile or internet.
The PIL has also claimed that online voting system could infringe the element of secrecy maintained in electoral process. It has been contended that free and fair elections as well as secrecy of ballet is granted as fundamental rights in Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution.
However, in the registration process of e-voter, a person is given biometric card and a password. While casting a vote, there will be no control of election commission, and there are chances of coercion and influencing the voters, the petition stated.
The petition has also contended that there is no provision to verify the voting done online. Moreover, secrecy cannot be maintained in e-voting as the services of a private service provider will be availed in this process. There is also no safety contemplated in e-voting so far as identity of voter is concerned, because the voter was expected to cast his vote from either home or cyber cafe or from mobile. In this situation, it was difficult to find out true identity of the voter and there were chances of dummy voters participating in electoral process.
Further hearing on this issue has been kept on August 27.
Read the article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, August 20, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
The grammar of anarchy
Who can say how the people of India and their political parties will behave? A bad constitution can work well, if the people involved are good, and a good constitution will turn out to be bad if the people working on it are bad. An excerpt of the concluding speech B R Ambedkar delivered as Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee on the floor of the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949. It is our contribution on the occasion of the forthcoming 63rd anniversary of India's Independence-Published in the August 2010 edition of Pragati.
As much defence as could be offered to the Constitution has been offered by my friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr T T Krishnamachari, I shall not therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.
The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say ‘no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalise or socialise all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the State.
No right to bind succeeding generations
These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:
“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”
In another place, he has said:
“The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;”
I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution…I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.
The danger of divisive politics
[But] my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their king. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput kings were fighting the battle on the side of Mughul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realisation of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.
The importance of constitutional methods
On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.
It is not that India did not know what is democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments—for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments—but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern times…Although these rules of parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India—where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new—there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The politics of pedestals
The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given 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 power which enable him to subvert their institutions.” There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, 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. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For 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.
Social democracy
The third thing we must do is 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. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.
We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of 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 live this life of contradictions? 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 which this Assembly has to laboriously built up.
The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve.
To build a nation
I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal. The realisation of this goal is going to be very difficult…The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.
These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realisation in the down-trodden classes must not be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the realisation of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.
I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.?
As much defence as could be offered to the Constitution has been offered by my friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr T T Krishnamachari, I shall not therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.
The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say ‘no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalise or socialise all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the State.
No right to bind succeeding generations
These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:
“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”
In another place, he has said:
“The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;”
I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution…I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.
The danger of divisive politics
[But] my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their king. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput kings were fighting the battle on the side of Mughul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realisation of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.
The importance of constitutional methods
On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.
It is not that India did not know what is democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments—for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments—but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern times…Although these rules of parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India—where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new—there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The politics of pedestals
The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given 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 power which enable him to subvert their institutions.” There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, 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. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For 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.
Social democracy
The third thing we must do is 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. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.
We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of 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 live this life of contradictions? 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 which this Assembly has to laboriously built up.
The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve.
To build a nation
I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal. The realisation of this goal is going to be very difficult…The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.
These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realisation in the down-trodden classes must not be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the realisation of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.
I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.?
A time to Party! and part with socialism
Political ideologies are simple tools by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take. In a true democracy, different political ideals have to compete to win the support of the people. The authors of the Indian Constitution had specifically debated and rejected the idea of binding the country to socialism. Yet, the Preamble to the Constitution was amended in 1976, and the election law in 1989, requiring all political parties to affirm to the Constitution, and to socialism. Now, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are valid questions on the issue of socialism, though academic, at this point in time. So it is a time to form a Party, and part with socialism! , writes Barun Mitra in Pragati.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that questioned the validity of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, which among many other things, added the terms “socialist, secular” to qualify the democratic republic in the Preamble. The amendment dates back to 1976, to the dark days of Emergency. Later, the Representation of the People Act, the law governing political parties and elections, was further amended to include the section 29A, making it mandatory for all political parties in India to affirm to “socialism” if they were to be registered by the Election Commission of India for the purpose of participating in the electoral process.
The courts always dismiss petitions before them once they pronounce a particular judgment. In this case, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “academic” question raised in the petition, but felt that since no political party has so far objected to it, there are perhaps no really aggrieved parties. So it allowed the petitioner to “withdraw” the petition. This withdrawal, however, means that the Court has not ruled against the issue, but considers it to be valid, and has kept it open for a future occasion.
The champions of individual freedom in economic and political spheres have long bemoaned the fact that there is no political platform in India that truly reflects their aspirations. No doubt there are liberals of different shades in almost all political parties, but still there are no avowedly liberal political parties.
Political parties are plentiful, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. They represent a diverse range of interests: national, state, regional or local. They claim to represent varied sections of society based on national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, caste, and other identities. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, as all parties are bound by socialism if they are to participate in electoral politics. Incidentally, independent candidates are not required to affirm to socialism, and if elected have only to take oath to uphold the Constitution. One of the reasons for this limited range of political options in the largest and the most vibrant democracy in the world, is the law that requires affirmation to socialism.
By legally restricting the political ideology to “socialism”, a couple of serious anomalies have been created. Having introduced “socialism” through the political and constitutional process, it is now being implied that “socialism” cannot be opposed and removed by the very same constitutional process. How can one mount a political campaign calling for the removal of “socialism” in the election law or in the Constitution, after having affirmed to “socialism” as a political ideal?
Secondly, what does socialism mean? The Constitution does not define it. The judges hearing the PIL commented that the meaning could vary. But could “socialism” include feudalism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism (national socialism), communism, capitalism, and everything else? If it does have such a wide range of meanings, why have it at all? The judiciary spends a lot of effort on interpreting the law by trying to precisely define the words in it. Justice would come to an end if words were given such variable meanings.
The Supreme Court has seen this as an “academic” exercise. But the impact of “socialism” in the Constitution and in the election law raises questions about possible violation of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and basic structure doctrine. If democracy is among the sacrosanct elements articulated in the judgments on basic structure, then what good is democracy where political discourse is limited exclusively to one political ideology?
Political ideologies matter in shaping public opinion and policies. The stated goal of all political action may be to improve general welfare; but, it is the ideology that provides the vision, and determines the direction and nature of the policies that are designed. Policy decisions whether to nationalise an industry or economic sector, or to privatise it, are shaped much more by political ideologies, than by hard core technical analysis of the merits of the proposed policy measures. In a democracy, people and leaders are not experts in all fields. Political ideologies come as a simple tool by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take, and the merits of specific public policies.
There is no functioning democracy in the world which restrains the space for peacefully competing political ideologies, except perhaps Germany, where there is some restriction on propagation of Nazi ideology. In every major democracy, the political ideology that is most successful in reflecting the aspirations of the large number of people at any given time, changes the political dynamics during elections. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, the fortunes of political leaders and their parties have swung with the popular perception of the political ideologies of the time. This is what makes democracy such a potent political tool, and ensures the political survival of the society through the various competing ideologies.
The Constituent Assembly had deliberated at length on this very question of “socialism” in 1949. Even while acknowledging that there are many provisions in the Constitution that are socialistic in nature, the constitution makers had decided not to tie the hands of the future generations to a particular political idea. No less a person than Dr B R Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee had then said,“What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised 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 …”If democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution, then restricting it to on political ideology, is clearly a violation of the basic feature doctrine. What would be a democracy, where political parties are not free to fly their particular ideologies, and compete with each other in an attempt to peacefully persuade the citizens to one vision or another?
Swatantra Party Maharashtra—the inheritors of the mantle of the Swatantra Party, founded by stalwarts like C Rajagopalachari, Minoo Masani and others in 1959—had written to the Election Commission of India in 1994, noting their opposition to the ideas of socialism, and their inability to affirm to socialist ideals. The Commission had replied by pointing at the amendment to the section 29A of the Representation of the People Act which mandates affirmation to socialism. It thus acknowledged that its role is to implement the law as it stands, not to change or reinterpret it.
By acknowledging the “academic” nature of the question in the PIL, the Supreme Court has actually opened a door for the political liberals to come out of the woodwork. Now is the time for the liberals to come together and form a political party, with the sole objective of registering their opposition to the affirmation to socialist ideal. After forming the political party, an application to the Election Commission for registration needs to be filed, even though it is likely to be rejected for not meeting the legal requirement. That would enable the party to go to the Supreme Court and seek redressal of a legitimate and real grievance.
Liberals may not yet be a political force to have an electoral impact in India, but by forming a party with this narrow objective, can leave a permanent imprint on the political future of democratic republic of India. This is a not an exclusively liberal cause, though, and it is open to all shades of political opinion. If one ideology enjoys legal sanction today, then tomorrow another could very easily be banned. Putting democracy in a straitjacket will signal the end of political freedom.
All are welcome to the Party of the free and the brave! If the political space can be legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too, and then the electoral space will inevitably follow.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that questioned the validity of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, which among many other things, added the terms “socialist, secular” to qualify the democratic republic in the Preamble. The amendment dates back to 1976, to the dark days of Emergency. Later, the Representation of the People Act, the law governing political parties and elections, was further amended to include the section 29A, making it mandatory for all political parties in India to affirm to “socialism” if they were to be registered by the Election Commission of India for the purpose of participating in the electoral process.
The courts always dismiss petitions before them once they pronounce a particular judgment. In this case, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “academic” question raised in the petition, but felt that since no political party has so far objected to it, there are perhaps no really aggrieved parties. So it allowed the petitioner to “withdraw” the petition. This withdrawal, however, means that the Court has not ruled against the issue, but considers it to be valid, and has kept it open for a future occasion.
The champions of individual freedom in economic and political spheres have long bemoaned the fact that there is no political platform in India that truly reflects their aspirations. No doubt there are liberals of different shades in almost all political parties, but still there are no avowedly liberal political parties.
Political parties are plentiful, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. They represent a diverse range of interests: national, state, regional or local. They claim to represent varied sections of society based on national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, caste, and other identities. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, as all parties are bound by socialism if they are to participate in electoral politics. Incidentally, independent candidates are not required to affirm to socialism, and if elected have only to take oath to uphold the Constitution. One of the reasons for this limited range of political options in the largest and the most vibrant democracy in the world, is the law that requires affirmation to socialism.
By legally restricting the political ideology to “socialism”, a couple of serious anomalies have been created. Having introduced “socialism” through the political and constitutional process, it is now being implied that “socialism” cannot be opposed and removed by the very same constitutional process. How can one mount a political campaign calling for the removal of “socialism” in the election law or in the Constitution, after having affirmed to “socialism” as a political ideal?
Secondly, what does socialism mean? The Constitution does not define it. The judges hearing the PIL commented that the meaning could vary. But could “socialism” include feudalism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism (national socialism), communism, capitalism, and everything else? If it does have such a wide range of meanings, why have it at all? The judiciary spends a lot of effort on interpreting the law by trying to precisely define the words in it. Justice would come to an end if words were given such variable meanings.
The Supreme Court has seen this as an “academic” exercise. But the impact of “socialism” in the Constitution and in the election law raises questions about possible violation of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and basic structure doctrine. If democracy is among the sacrosanct elements articulated in the judgments on basic structure, then what good is democracy where political discourse is limited exclusively to one political ideology?
Political ideologies matter in shaping public opinion and policies. The stated goal of all political action may be to improve general welfare; but, it is the ideology that provides the vision, and determines the direction and nature of the policies that are designed. Policy decisions whether to nationalise an industry or economic sector, or to privatise it, are shaped much more by political ideologies, than by hard core technical analysis of the merits of the proposed policy measures. In a democracy, people and leaders are not experts in all fields. Political ideologies come as a simple tool by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take, and the merits of specific public policies.
There is no functioning democracy in the world which restrains the space for peacefully competing political ideologies, except perhaps Germany, where there is some restriction on propagation of Nazi ideology. In every major democracy, the political ideology that is most successful in reflecting the aspirations of the large number of people at any given time, changes the political dynamics during elections. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, the fortunes of political leaders and their parties have swung with the popular perception of the political ideologies of the time. This is what makes democracy such a potent political tool, and ensures the political survival of the society through the various competing ideologies.
The Constituent Assembly had deliberated at length on this very question of “socialism” in 1949. Even while acknowledging that there are many provisions in the Constitution that are socialistic in nature, the constitution makers had decided not to tie the hands of the future generations to a particular political idea. No less a person than Dr B R Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee had then said,“What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised 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 …”If democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution, then restricting it to on political ideology, is clearly a violation of the basic feature doctrine. What would be a democracy, where political parties are not free to fly their particular ideologies, and compete with each other in an attempt to peacefully persuade the citizens to one vision or another?
Swatantra Party Maharashtra—the inheritors of the mantle of the Swatantra Party, founded by stalwarts like C Rajagopalachari, Minoo Masani and others in 1959—had written to the Election Commission of India in 1994, noting their opposition to the ideas of socialism, and their inability to affirm to socialist ideals. The Commission had replied by pointing at the amendment to the section 29A of the Representation of the People Act which mandates affirmation to socialism. It thus acknowledged that its role is to implement the law as it stands, not to change or reinterpret it.
By acknowledging the “academic” nature of the question in the PIL, the Supreme Court has actually opened a door for the political liberals to come out of the woodwork. Now is the time for the liberals to come together and form a political party, with the sole objective of registering their opposition to the affirmation to socialist ideal. After forming the political party, an application to the Election Commission for registration needs to be filed, even though it is likely to be rejected for not meeting the legal requirement. That would enable the party to go to the Supreme Court and seek redressal of a legitimate and real grievance.
Liberals may not yet be a political force to have an electoral impact in India, but by forming a party with this narrow objective, can leave a permanent imprint on the political future of democratic republic of India. This is a not an exclusively liberal cause, though, and it is open to all shades of political opinion. If one ideology enjoys legal sanction today, then tomorrow another could very easily be banned. Putting democracy in a straitjacket will signal the end of political freedom.
All are welcome to the Party of the free and the brave! If the political space can be legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too, and then the electoral space will inevitably follow.
Monday, July 26, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, July 23, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, July 19, 2010
We, of the Preamble
No one objects to socialism if it is about equity concerns. But, it makes sense to oppose it if it means public ownership of means of production. State and the public are not synonymous. Amending the constituion makes sense in certain circumstances, but not always. The insertion of the worsd Socialist is not an acasdemic question. Sharasd Joshi refused to register his political party as of the clause, writes Bibek Debroy in The Indian Express.
Excerpts:
"If socialism is about equity concerns, no one will object, though there can be debates about whether that equity should be on inputs (access to health, education, credit and so on) or outcomes (incomes). But if socialism is interpreted as public ownership of means of production, as it often is, there is every reason to object. Economists typically classify means of production as land (natural resources is a broader concept), labour, capital and entrepreneurship. While there is no reason to equate public ownership with state ownership, de facto, that equation is the norm. Both theoretically and empirically, public ownership of means of production like land, labour and capital is inefficient, especially if combined with monopoly. And no one has yet figured out how the state can be entrepreneurial. "
"Today’s Constitution is not the one we inherited in 1950. The Constitution is a living document, there is no reason for it to be cast in stone. There is a process for amending the Constitution. But that doesn’t necessarily mean every amendment to the Constitution has been desirable. "
"The Preamble to the Constitution now makes India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. That wasn’t the original Preamble. Socialist and secular were added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Let’s focus on the socialist part. First, every constitutional expert says since 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati case) the basic structure can’t be changed. But isn’t this a change in basic structure? Second, one might argue the Preamble isn’t really law, it isn’t enforceable in a court. Therefore, it doesn’t change the basic structure. However, that’s only half true. In that same case (Kesavananda Bharati), the Supreme Court held the Preamble is important in interpreting law. Third, if the Preamble was unimportant, what was the need to amend it? There are several other provisions in the Constitution (including Directive Principles) to drive goals of equity. "
"Fourth, it is not that framers of the Constitution were unfamiliar with the concept of “socialism”. It was consciously kept out, for very cogent reasons. In Constituent Assembly debates, Dr Ambedkar was prescient in opposing such an amendment (to the draft)"
"Fifth, from late-’60s to mid-’70s, several undesirable changes were introduced in economic policy and laws. The 42nd Amendment is part of that. If we are changing other elements, why not the Preamble?"
"But for the Preamble, we wouldn’t have had Section 29-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted in 1989, specifically Clause (5), requiring the political party to abide by “principles of socialism”. This would have been understandable in 1976. In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall collapsed (effectively, so did the Soviet system), this socialism bit in Clause (5) probably got inserted without a great deal of thought, because of the other elements of Section 29-A. Hence, a political party has to be “socialist” for it to be registered."
"The NGO Good Governance Foundation rightly challenged this — that is, challenged both amended Preamble and Section 29-A(5). In 2008, the Supreme Court ducked. It allowed the challenge to Section 29-A(5), but not the Preamble. Now, on the challenge to Section 29-A(5), the Supreme Court has ducked again, calling the issue “academic and hypothetical”. Why is it academic and hypothetical? Because no registered political party has refused to swear allegiance to socialism? And because the Election Commission (EC) hasn’t so far refused registration to a proposed political party on grounds of non-adherence to socialism. Let that situation crop up, and then we (the Supreme Court) shall see. "
"Sharad Joshi (Shetkari Sangathana) once told me he refused to register a proper political party because of this offensive clause. Therefore, we do have a problem."
...
Excerpts:
"If socialism is about equity concerns, no one will object, though there can be debates about whether that equity should be on inputs (access to health, education, credit and so on) or outcomes (incomes). But if socialism is interpreted as public ownership of means of production, as it often is, there is every reason to object. Economists typically classify means of production as land (natural resources is a broader concept), labour, capital and entrepreneurship. While there is no reason to equate public ownership with state ownership, de facto, that equation is the norm. Both theoretically and empirically, public ownership of means of production like land, labour and capital is inefficient, especially if combined with monopoly. And no one has yet figured out how the state can be entrepreneurial. "
"Today’s Constitution is not the one we inherited in 1950. The Constitution is a living document, there is no reason for it to be cast in stone. There is a process for amending the Constitution. But that doesn’t necessarily mean every amendment to the Constitution has been desirable. "
"The Preamble to the Constitution now makes India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. That wasn’t the original Preamble. Socialist and secular were added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Let’s focus on the socialist part. First, every constitutional expert says since 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati case) the basic structure can’t be changed. But isn’t this a change in basic structure? Second, one might argue the Preamble isn’t really law, it isn’t enforceable in a court. Therefore, it doesn’t change the basic structure. However, that’s only half true. In that same case (Kesavananda Bharati), the Supreme Court held the Preamble is important in interpreting law. Third, if the Preamble was unimportant, what was the need to amend it? There are several other provisions in the Constitution (including Directive Principles) to drive goals of equity. "
"Fourth, it is not that framers of the Constitution were unfamiliar with the concept of “socialism”. It was consciously kept out, for very cogent reasons. In Constituent Assembly debates, Dr Ambedkar was prescient in opposing such an amendment (to the draft)"
"Fifth, from late-’60s to mid-’70s, several undesirable changes were introduced in economic policy and laws. The 42nd Amendment is part of that. If we are changing other elements, why not the Preamble?"
"But for the Preamble, we wouldn’t have had Section 29-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted in 1989, specifically Clause (5), requiring the political party to abide by “principles of socialism”. This would have been understandable in 1976. In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall collapsed (effectively, so did the Soviet system), this socialism bit in Clause (5) probably got inserted without a great deal of thought, because of the other elements of Section 29-A. Hence, a political party has to be “socialist” for it to be registered."
"The NGO Good Governance Foundation rightly challenged this — that is, challenged both amended Preamble and Section 29-A(5). In 2008, the Supreme Court ducked. It allowed the challenge to Section 29-A(5), but not the Preamble. Now, on the challenge to Section 29-A(5), the Supreme Court has ducked again, calling the issue “academic and hypothetical”. Why is it academic and hypothetical? Because no registered political party has refused to swear allegiance to socialism? And because the Election Commission (EC) hasn’t so far refused registration to a proposed political party on grounds of non-adherence to socialism. Let that situation crop up, and then we (the Supreme Court) shall see. "
"Sharad Joshi (Shetkari Sangathana) once told me he refused to register a proper political party because of this offensive clause. Therefore, we do have a problem."
...
Friday, July 16, 2010
A democracy can’t have a fixed ideology
Sanjiv Agarwal's article titled "A democracy can’t have a fixed ideology" was published in The Economic Times on 16th July 2010.
Excerpts:
The largest multi-party democracy in the world cannot have a fixed ideology of the state. That is the view taken by founding fathers of the Indian Constitution. There were debates in the constituent assembly on whether the word ‘socialist’ should be included in the preamble.
...
Our founding fathers were great social democrats. They could not bind future generations to one ideology even if it was their own. What went wrong then? What was the need to put the socialist tag on India by later politicians? The question is open. How does it matter? Well, it does, because it is about our Constitution. We may become an Orwellian Animal Farm if we don’t care about it. The 42nd amendment provision that inserted the word socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that though it was an important question, it would be looked into as and when the situation demanded.
As the situation stands today, talking against socialism could be high treason and it takes only a despotic ruler to do the rest. History is proof of that. The present situation is that every political party in India swears by socialism before being allowed to register. That takes away space for ideas and opinions. Worst of all, it legitimises curbs on essential freedoms. For example, the fundamental right to property was eliminated in the 44th amendment of 1978. No one noticed because we were already a socialist country! The safety belt that saved us from being taken over by the state was lost. That is why it should matter.
Excerpts:
The largest multi-party democracy in the world cannot have a fixed ideology of the state. That is the view taken by founding fathers of the Indian Constitution. There were debates in the constituent assembly on whether the word ‘socialist’ should be included in the preamble.
...
Our founding fathers were great social democrats. They could not bind future generations to one ideology even if it was their own. What went wrong then? What was the need to put the socialist tag on India by later politicians? The question is open. How does it matter? Well, it does, because it is about our Constitution. We may become an Orwellian Animal Farm if we don’t care about it. The 42nd amendment provision that inserted the word socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that though it was an important question, it would be looked into as and when the situation demanded.
As the situation stands today, talking against socialism could be high treason and it takes only a despotic ruler to do the rest. History is proof of that. The present situation is that every political party in India swears by socialism before being allowed to register. That takes away space for ideas and opinions. Worst of all, it legitimises curbs on essential freedoms. For example, the fundamental right to property was eliminated in the 44th amendment of 1978. No one noticed because we were already a socialist country! The safety belt that saved us from being taken over by the state was lost. That is why it should matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
