The 2009 elections were considered a landmark in several ways. Once the
results came in the collective sigh of relief from a large majority of the
Indian population was audible across the length and breadth of the country.
The prospect of a stable government at the Centre after the months-long
prognostication of fractured coalitions based on Third and Fourth Fronts
with any number of other strange combinations thrown in for good measure was
indeed a welcome relief. Quite possibly the dread of unholy alliances
without any pretense to good government had conveyed itself to the
electorate. While welcoming the results there is a need to examine as to how
this landmark election that paved the way for governance stability came
about. To recapitulate a few aspects:
-The conduct of elections for an electorate of 700 million voters,
400 million of which were exercising their franchise can be deemed to be
remarkable by any reckoning.
-In many respects the exercise can be said to have been unique,
practically almost impossible to replicate on this scale elsewhere.
-Since T.N. Seshan became the Chief Election Commissioner about 15
years ago and showed the power that inhered in the Election Commission (EC)
under the Constitution the EC has grown from strength to strength. Of
course, such was the unfettered authority that Mr. Seshan vested in himself
that an alarmed government had to appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided
to make the Commission a 3-member body. Nevertheless the EC since the Seshan
days has developed institutional vigour. It has won the respect of the
electorate for holding 'freer & fairer' elections, even the grudging respect
of the political parties.
·By now such is the stature of the Election Commission that
political parties that were ruling the roost as part of UPA-I government
(i.e., the first UPA government from 2004 to 2009) and have got decimated
this time around have meekly accepted the people's verdict. Nobody has
seriously made the charge of 'rigging'. This has to be compared with the
turmoil in Iran after the latest presidential election and the unrest that
follows election results in many other countries, not excluding the USA and
the controversy in Florida that brought Mr. George W. Bush to the White
House in January 2001.
·It is thus a fitting tribute to the maturing of India democracy and
the respect that the Election Commission has earned for itself within the
country and around the world.
·Since it has become one of the strongest pillars of Indian
democracy it has to be seen to that the government ensures that Election
Commissioners are persons of exceptional merit and intellectual honesty.
·Therefore, the new government should follow the time-hallowed
practice of selecting the best persons of irreproachable character and
probity in consultation with the leader of the opposition.
·Similarly, retired Election Commissioners must not be given plum
government positions for at least 10 years after retiring. In fact, such
should be the strength of character of the Election Commissioners that even
if offered tempting post-retirement sinecures, they should refuse.
Unfortunately, this has not happened.
·In the 2009 elections - both at the centre and for the state
assemblies that went to vote - the results have been termed as a 'watershed'
by most political analysts and commentators.
But how did this result that brought a 'collective sigh of relief' across
the length and breadth of the country come about. If one were to examine the
composition of the 400 million or so voters who cast their votes it would
be seen that the large majority of them, possibly over 80 percent, were from
among the weaker segments of society, the lower middle class, the
semi-destitute and most of them below the poverty line (BPL voters). As a
guess based on inputs gleaned from the media it can be assumed that the
depressed classes - the have-nots of society - generally turned out in full
strength or very large numbers to cast their vote. The same unfortunately
cannot be said about the middle class - the more affluent sections, the
haves. Their voting percentage seldom exceeds 25 percent on an average;
actually it may be lower. From the foregoing analysis one comes to the
ineluctable conclusion that the so-called unlettered backwards constitute
the backbone of Indian democracy, physically by their sheer mass as well as
for their commitment to democracy. They are rooted in India's soil. Their
better-off upper crust brethren are more part of the new market-capitalised
global fraternity that leaves much the heaviest foot-print on the fast
depleting resources of the planet. It is the former who, yet again,
displayed the rare wisdom to give India governance stability not only at the
Centre, but practically in all the states where assembly elections were
simultaneously held. Is there a lesson in this, which both the government
and India's wealth producers should take note of.
Now after the self- congratulatory bouquets it behooves us to discern the
dark clouds on the horizon. The elections were staggered over a period of
several weeks. Why was that necessary? Of late it has become almost
mandatory to deploy central paramilitary forces in fairly large numbers to
ensure that there is no booth capturing or voter intimidation. The
geographical spread of the country and the remoteness of some of the areas
make it very difficult, if not impossible, to deploy paramilitary forces and
independent election observers in requisite numbers simultaneously all over
the country. This mode of conduct of elections at the national level has
come to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. Why should that be the
case? In a manner of speaking isn't it only a step away from conducting
national elections under the aegis of the Army?
The reason is that throughout the country, almost without exception, there
is misgiving about the competence, impartiality or neutrality of the state
law and order and governance machineries. It is a severe indictment of the
local police and bureaucracy. Many chief ministers go out of the way to
appoint partisan police officers and civil servants in certain
constituencies prior to the elections. In fact, such was the ire of one of
the chief ministers in the recent elections that several police officers and
district magistrates were summarily transferred, as a punishment, where the
chief minister's party lost. In other words they were made to pay for not
having sufficiently interfered with the conduct of free and fair elections.
Even after this outrageous action, completely lacking in even elementary
governance finesse, the CM got away with it without the Governor, the High
Court or the Centre asking for an explanation. Ultimately the Supreme Court
appears to have asked for an explanation based on a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL). In sum, the constitutional authorities that justifiably
could have intervened chose to look the other way. Why, because the conduct
of practically every political party leaves much to be desired.
Criminalisation of the Polity
Inevitably one is faced with the grim reality that the political parties -
practically one and all - have contributed solidly to the criminalization of
the polity. They have started giving tickets - approved at the highest
levels of the concerned parties - to known criminals, notorious for their
gangsterism, voter intimidation and even elimination of troublesome
opponents. Their cases continue to languish in the courts for years, even
decades. It would not be wrong to say that the political parties have joined
hands to usher in 'robust gangsterism' into the political process -
pre-election, during elections and post-election. The Election Commission as
well as the Judiciary appear to have become listless bystanders of this mass
rape of democracy.
What are the consequences of this seeming indifference on the part of those
who have the power under the Constitution to set matters right. According to
some studies, as compared to the year 2004, the number of MPs with criminal
records has gone up. In the 2004 Lok Sabha, there were 128 MPs out of which
55 had serious criminal records and now there are 153 MPs with 74 having
serious criminal charges against them. Thus, there is an increase of about
17.2 per cent in MPs with criminal records and 30.9 percent increase in the
numbers of MPs with serious criminal records. Both the Congress and the BJP
are studded with 43 and 41 such MPs respectively .Out of these, Uttar
Pradesh has maximum MPs with criminal cases (total of 31 out of which 22
have serious charges against them). Maharashtra is second with 23 MPs having
criminal cases out of which 9 have serious cases against them. It is
followed by Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The criminalization of
politics has become an extremely big concern. Even the numbers of MPs with
serious criminal cases has gone up. The biggest reason for this seems to be
the undemocratic and autocratic selection and nomination of candidates by
political parties. Money and muscle power has become the electoral dharma of
the political parties, the two largest among them, so-called main national
parties, turning out to be the biggest agents for the criminalization of the
polity and, by extension the entire process of governance. To put it another
way, they are steeped in adharma.
In India most people understand the meaning of the word dharma. Very simply
it can be explained as: "Dharma means every ideal which we can propose to
ourselves and the law of its working out". Of course, in this country the
Karmic consequences of adharma are fairly well understood by most people,
although the lust for power and short-term gains makes them lose sight of
where their true interests should lie. Democracies work on traditions and
conventions; however, a parliament with as many as 25 percent MPs with
criminal backgrounds will certainly not be one that respects ethics,
morality and democratic norms. It then becomes self-evident that 'adharma'
has crept into the DNA of the new parliament, as was the case in the earlier
parliament. As to how much of the 'adharma' creeps into government
functioning will depend almost solely on the authority of the Prime Minister
and his 'desire' or ability to express that authority seeing that many of
his ministers have a background that puts them in the 'unsavory' category.
To amplify, in the previous government, in coalition UPA-I, the Prime
Minister's office, whatever anyone may say, lacked true authority. He was
'appointed' by the party leader as were several of his cabinet colleagues
who did not show sufficient deference to him as should be the case in any
cabinet system. This time around victory of the Congress Party is
attributable to a considerable degree to Dr. Manmohan Singh himself. The
nation has vested Dr.Manmohan Singh with a stature and authority that would
be the envy of many leaders. The mandate is his, in the first instance, to
restore "dharma". The rest will automatically follow. It needs to be
reiterated that in 2009 the Prime Ministership was not bequeathed to
Dr.Manmohan Singh as it was in 2004. He is now the Prime Minister of India
due to the assertion of the national will. The mandate is his as much as
that of his party. From here on, the failure to raise the moral and ethical
standard of the government will be directly at his doorstep.
In the light of the forgoing the first 'order of the day' for the PM should
be to work towards the amendment of the Representation of People Act to
exclude criminals from becoming legislators. A simple amendment to the
affect that: "anyone against whom a court of law - not the prosecution or
the executive - has framed criminal charges would be ineligible'. For no
matter how improved the government functioning, the stench of criminality
and, by extension, corruption from the legislative bodies pervades the land.
Their numbers - of legislators with criminal backgrounds - has become so
large that taking into account the state assemblies their combined strength
exceeds the strength of any single political party. Taking the argument a
step further, should a rallying cry go out for all legislators with criminal
backgrounds to unite in casting their vote in the electoral college for the
election of the next President or Vice President, they could materially
affect the outcome. So pervasive is the corrupting influence of legislators
with criminal backgrounds, more so in the state assemblies where
'collectively' their numbers might at some stage give them a simple majority
in the legislature, that it is one of the biggest threats to national
security. This threat being from "within" the system becomes even more
insidious. If not 'yet' at the centre to the same extent, in the states the
criminal- politician-bureaucrat nexus has become so entrenched that even
when elements from the underworld, suspected as being amenable to
infiltration from outsiders with anti-national motivation, are identified,
the state police either feels helpless to act against them or puts their
cases on the back burner because they have become too powerful to be
proceeded against. Many such examples have surfaced from time to time in the
national media. In the regional media journalists are routinely intimidated
and even eliminated.
It should be understood that in many of the states the inroads made by
anti-social and anti-national elements into the state government
organisations are so deep that good governance has become virtually
non-existent for large segments of the population. It is perhaps the single
most contributory factor to the rise of 'naxalism' and 'maoism' in many
districts of India. Who then is responsible for this state of affairs? To a
man the blame for it rests almost entirely with the political parties and
their fatal embrace with the criminal elements that they have taken to their
bosoms. In the case of some regional parties the leaders of the political
parties themselves have several cases against them. They have become chief
ministers and home ministers, in charge of police and state intelligence
forces. The rot is already too deep. There was a case, several years ago
where a legislator with several criminal cases, including murder, against
him was being strongly recommended for becoming the Home Minister or
Minister of State for Home at the centre.
By now it should have become clear that in several states of the union a
point has been reached that the damage is almost beyond repair. Occasionally
judicial intervention keeps the system from completely going under. Remedial
action by the Centre to restore good governance and the rule of law is
nowhere in sight. Again the reason is that the two major national parties,
the Congress and the BJP are themselves hopelessly complicit in the unholy
nexus mentioned earlier on. Just make a tally of the number of people with
criminal backgrounds to whom these two parties have given tickets for the
Lok Sabha election 2009; add to that the tickets given for elections to
state legislatures, the figures become much too high. They can no longer shy
away from their role in the spread of corruption and decline in governance
and law order across the country.
Amidst this dismal narration the ordinary, largely unlettered Indian voter,
thanks to the impartial conduct of elections by the Election Commission has
given the country another chance with a decisive mandate for stability and
good governance to get rid of the corroding influences that have crept into
the political parties and the legislatures. It is to be noted that while the
numbers of legislators with criminal backgrounds may have gone up, some of
the most notorious and entrenched mafia-like dons in UP and Bihar, after
decades of ruling the roost through terror and voter intimidation, have had
their comeuppance in the 2009 elections; almost entirely due to the sagacity
of the voter and the tough no-nonsense approach of the Election Commission.
The voters have not only given a stable governing majority at the Centre,
they have repeated the pattern in all the state assemblies where elections
were held.
To sum up this part of the presentation it can be said that the "foremost"
duty of the Prime Minister and his government is to enact the necessary
legislation to bring in an enabling environment for the expression of good
government, restoration of law and order for the common man and the rooting
out of corruption. The situation today is that even the most laudable
programmes of the government do not reach the beneficiaries because the
instrumentalities of the state for delivering the benefits at the end of the
chain have been thoroughly corrupted or blunted. No doubt there are plenty
of civil servants and police officers who remain uncorrupted. It is they who
are carrying on the business of governance and have prevented the system
from complete collapse. Their numbers, however, are fast dwindling.
In the light of the above the foremost legislative priority before the
Manmohan Singh government should be:-
· Amendment to the RPA as explained earlier.
· Completing the Police Reforms as ordained by the Supreme Court;
and setting up of the National Judicial Council and the Judicial
Accountability Council.
· Ensuring that key institutions like the Election Commission the CBI
and the Central Vigilance Commission remain totally insulated from political
interference. Only the Prime Minister is in a position to ensure the agenda
outlined above. He must act swiftly and decisively to reassure the public
that he means business.
All the legislative exercises mentioned above should be followed through
on overriding priority. In any case, they should stand implemented, latest
by 31 December 2009 - in the year of the mandate that revived the hope of
Indians that the country could be well on the way to good governance and
inclusive growth for all - the former being a prerequisite for the latter.
National Security
In the last part, the presentation goes into an aspect of National
Security that is on occasion subtly, even surreptitiously, undermined
without the public at large, or even the coalition members, being aware that
decisions being taken on behalf of the government in the field of foreign
affairs were being made without reference to the rest of the cabinet or
ministers of the coalition partners. In the two cases cited below they were
made, more on the spur of the moment, violating the principle of collective
responsibility of the party heading the coalition, or the coalition
partners. In short, not enough evaluation was carried out as to their
long-term ramification for the country. What is worse they were not even
brought before the CCS for clearance.
The first item relates to the unilateral abrogation of the 1972 ABM Treaty
by George W. Bush not long after coming to the White House. Of course the
new president rejected many other protocols leading to consternation around
the world. It would be recalled that the ABM Treaty between the USA and
Soviet Union (later on Russia as the successor state) was the linchpin of
the global security architecture after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. Besides keeping a check on the billions of
dollars being poured into Star Wars technologies, the Treaty essentially
prevented an open militarization of space.
The whole world - East and West -
favoured the Treaty, India more so than others for reasons that would
generally be well known. Nevertheless, almost immediately after the
announcement being made in Washington, the MEA endorsed it whole-heartedly,
taking the US media and the world by surprise at the speed at which India's
long-held position was overturned. Similar dismay was expressed in the
Indian press. A cartoonist even showed the US flag flying on MEA vehicles.
Needless to say, that neither the Cabinet nor the CCS and CCPA were
consulted before the declaration from New Delhi. The coalition partners
remained totally oblivious till much later. There was a suggestion by one of
the commentators that somebody was personally trying to curry favour with
the new US administration. Whatever be the case, it lowered India's image in
the eyes of the world.
The second instance is more recent. One fine day in 2007
practically the entire media in India as well as foreign policy veterans
were shocked to learn that the previous day India had voted against Iran at
the IAEA board meeting in Vienna. The amazement in Iran was palpable at
every street corner. The reason being that since the visit of the foreign
minister Sardar Swaran Singh to Tehran, followed by the visit of Smt. Indira
Gandhi in 1974 relations between Iran and India had improved considerably.
After that memorable opening the two countries started moving together in
the economic field and India's views carried weight in Tehran, as would be
confirmed by diplomats posted to that country from that time onward. Besides
the obvious energy security provided by a close neighbour in the region the
two countries had been cooperating in Afghanistan along with Russia. India's
connectivity to Central Asia through the only country whose assistance was
available received a boost. Geopolitically it was crucial for India to
remain friendly with Iran. Regardless as to how India felt about Iran's
quest for advanced nuclear technologies prior to the Vienna vote or
post-facto after the deed was done, India's geo-strategic imperative for a
friendly Iran can hardly be denied. India could have abstained, in spite of
the US pressure. After the casting of the negative vote relations between
the two countries have taken a downturn. The Iranian government,
irrespective of the hue, no longer trusts India. The image of the country of
India's size has also taken a hard knock. India cannot be trusted to take an
independent stand was the feeling that swept the region, the pat on the back
from the Western world and USA notwithstanding. However, without going into
the long-term consequences of that fateful decision the fact remains that it
was again not a collegiate decision. The Cabinet, CCS, CCPA or the coalition
partners were not consulted. Had these entities been consulted it can be
stated with reasonable certainty that the collective decision would have
been to abstain rather than cast a negative vote against Iran in Vienna
under pressure from the Americans.
By hindsight the consensus would be that both were hasty and wrong
decisions. However, in raising this issue the aim is not merely to discuss
the correctness of the decisions or otherwise. The point being highlighted
is that due process was not followed and due diligence was not carried out
by experts, even in-house experts. The basis of the conduct of government in
a coalition or even a single party government is the concept of collective
responsibility of the cabinet. Not only in the field of foreign policy, even
in the case of decisions that constitute drastic departure from existing
policies, the reference to the CCS and the CCPA, where applicable, has to be
mandatory. This principle should become sacrosanct. The principle of
collective responsibility where critical issues are at stake must become
inviolable hereafter. It should invariably be the collegium that should
weigh and collectively decide on such very weighty matters.
In both the coalition governments, the NDA government headed by Mr. Vajpayee
and UPA I, headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh the collegium was given the go-by,
sometimes even the PM was given the go-by. This elementary principle of
governance which is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy must never be
allowed to be violated with impurity in UPA II and all government that
follows.
Concluding Remarks
Governments in the past have shown a strong penchant for shying away from
reforms that enhance transparency, curb corruption at the higher levels of
government or other legislative measures that would improve accountability.
Some of the most urgent measures like amendment to the RPA, Police reforms
and strengthening of the independence of the CBI, CVC and allied
investigative agencies have been spelled out. The personnel deficiencies of
many of these agencies have also to be made up on top priority. The other
burning issues before the government, again in order of priority, relate to
the setting up of the National Judicial Commission and the administrative
reforms recommended by the Moily Committee.
The government of Dr. Manmohan Singh should not hesitate to
bring in the above-mentioned reforms at the earliest. The combined strength
of the Congress and BJP comes up to 322; with just one or two of the major
allies they are in a position to drum up a two-third majority for enacting
the type of legislation that could take the country to the front ranks of
well governed nations. The voters have spoken. The ball is squarely in the
court of Dr. Manmohan Singh.
---------------------------------------------------------
*Based on the talk delivered at the India International Centre on 16 June
2009 by Maj.Gen (rtd) Vinod Saighal, Convenor MRGG - Movement for
Restoration of Good Government. The talk was chaired by Dr. Kavita Sharma,
Director IIC.