|
Panjim 2nd Feb, 2005. At 5.40 p.m. vote of confidence was won by the
BJP government which had apparently been rendered into minority after the
resignation of four MLAs. Yet, in a more than prompt response, the Congress
governor dismissed the BJP government at 6.10 p.m. without even hearing out both
the sides and a new Congress government was hastily sworn in at 11.30 in the
night. Under the Indian Constitution and also as per the established norms of
democracy, the Governor has no powers to annul the ruling of the Speaker and
judiciary is the sole forum before which an appeal can be made against the
Speaker’s ruling. But an outrageous assault on the Constitution was committed
and democracy was murdered.
Murder of democracy is nothing new
to the Indian polity. It has been happening time and again in the Congress party
and, through it, in India. It is an irony that India, which boasts of being the
largest democracy in the world, in the most part of its fifty plus years of
Independence has been ruled by a party which has never had much respect or
understanding of democracy.
In the year 1938 Subhas Chandra Bose
was unanimously elected President of the Congress and re-elected the following
year. But owing to his differences with Mahatma Gandhi he was made to resign his
Presidency in April 1939. The democratically elected leadership of the party
budged under the pressure of a powerful lobby within the party and democracy was
murdered.
In the year 1946 when Independence
was around the corner the choice of Congress president became crucial since it
was certain that the Viceroy would invite him or her to head the interim
government. Twelve of the fifteen Pradesh Congress Committees proposed the
name of Sardar Patel; not one of them sent up the name of Jawaharlal Nehru, not
even his native United Provinces. It was at this point that Mahatma Gandhi made
his last decisive intervention in the affairs of the nation. He asked Acharya
Kripalani, who was the choice of the United Provinces Pradesh Congress
Committee, to circulate a note to the Congress Working Committee asking
that body to nominate Nehru. Gandhi gave more weight to the name proposed by the
Congress Working Committee and Sardar Patel, the choice of the people, failed to
become prime minister. Democratic ideals quietly bowed out to make place for one
man’s fancy and democracy was murdered.
In the year 1975 the Congress party
was in power. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha's (Allahabad High Court) verdict on
June 12, 1975, declared the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election to the
Lok Sabha as void. Justice V R Krishna Iyer, then a vacation judge in the
Supreme Court, decided on Indira Gandhi's appeal. On June 24, Justice Krishna
Iyer gave a conditional stay allowing her to remain a member of Parliament, but
disallowing her to take part in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha. Indira Gandhi,
acting fast, declared Emergency on June 26, 1975 and democracy was murdered.
In the year 1984 when Indira Gandhi
was killed by her body guards, her son Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as the Prime
minister within 24 hours. In sharp contrast to democratic norms which require
the party to elect experienced and capable Prime Ministerial candidate in case
of such crisis, just like a son of a king who automatically succeeds his father
in a monarchy, the less experienced son of the Prime Minister was chosen over
the more experienced and capable veteran members of the Congress party and
democracy was murdered.
Even today the most senior and
experienced members of the Congress party lie prostate at the feet of the
“bahu” of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and are busy impressing Rahul Gandhi, the
heir apparent and, going by the Congress party tradition, their next Prime
Ministerial candidate.
Democracy is an age old Indian
institution. Centuries before the west rose to civilized life, the
principalities in the Indian nation were ruled by democratically elected sabhas
and samitis. But a servile party which falls to knees and cringes in front of
its master - a foreigner alien to Indian culture, history and traditions, cannot
be expected to respect and keep up the noble Indian traditions. A party which
has been ruled by one anglicized, westernized dynasty for more than fifty years
in the fashion of a monarchy cannot be expected to uphold democratic values.
It is sad that the Indian public,
used to slavery for thousand years, has been electing such a party to power time
and again. More shocking is the fact that the Indian intelligentsia and the
media which claim to be modern, broad-minded and balanced, instead of exposing
the serious short-comings of the leading political party, have been misleading
the common public by glorifying the royal family and its heirs.
In 1996, the BJP emerged as the
single largest party in the General Elections and was asked by the President of
India to form a government. But most of the other political parties, with the
avowed objective of preventing BJP from coming to power, combined together so
that the BJP could not muster even a bare majority on the floor of the Lok Sabha,
and subsequently a coalition of 13 parties, with diametrically opposing
ideologies, under the banner of United Front, formed the Government. In other
words, neither the largest nor the second-largest party could form a government.
Such mockery of democracy has since then been repeated in some state assembly
elections as well.
The breakdown of democracy in Goa is
more serious than any of the instances sighted above as it was executed by the
government itself. Except for the declaration of emergency by the Prime Minister
in 1975, all the incidents of murder and mockery of democracy since Independence
were either executed within the Congress Party or were technically not
unconstitutional. The emergency and the Goa case are two instances of breakdown
of the constitutional machinery which were officially given shape by the
government. In this regard the Goa episode stands at par with the declaration of
emergency. It is a matter of grave concern and should sound alarm amongst all
classes of society in all the states of the Indian Union. It is not a problem or
a crisis faced by one political party or one particular state. It is a crisis of
democracy as an institution in the political history of the Indian nation.
It is indeed alarming that such a
crucial breakdown of democratic system within the country failed to invoke a
critical response from the Indian intelligentsia and media. Overshadowed by the
assembly elections in three states, the Goa episode passed off as yet another
political upheaval. The Goa episode could not secure adequate coverage on the
television and print media or invite severe criticism and condemnation. Eager to
see the BJP – the so-called “communal” party - defeated, the “secular”
intellectuals and media persons missed the larger picture, the real issue –
the defeat of democracy. The undemocratic Congress party, of course, celebrated
their victory, also seen as the heralding of a series of similar dismissals,
constitutional or unconstitutional, of other state governments where the main
opposition party BJP is in power. Apart from the BJP, which was the aggrieved
party, no political party, social or political activists, non-government
organizations, intellectuals or elite raised their voice against the
unconstitutional act of the governor of Goa. It seems as if the Goa episode
concerned only the interests of one political party or state. We have failed to
view it in the larger perspective. We have failed to see it as what it truly is
– the murder of democracy.
Jaundiced by sham secularism, we are
conditioned to perceive every event in the light of the ongoing secularism
versus communalism battle. We invariably tend to give the same treatment to
issues of national interest which are beyond divisive, communal, party politics.
Our prejudice and bias against particular ideology or party prevents us from
acting in favour of the nation in the hour of need. We, as a nation, cannot
afford to make such a costly mistake. We cannot allow conflicting ideologies to
divide us when democracy is endangered. We must learn to differentiate national
issues from political issues. It is time we rise up to the occasion, rise above
political and ideological differences and take all possible measures to protect
our democracy. The stakes are high and if we falter, there is a heavy price to
be paid.
|