India and democracy
The New York based Freedom House has reportedly said that India is a partly free country and The Jakarta Post has allowed it to appear twice (Dec. 23 and Dec. 31, 1996). Calling India partly free, for which there is no reason, is a glaring misinterpretation of facts. Anyway Freedom House is no oracle.
The freedom and democratic contents of the Indian federal constitution are impeccable, indeed, comparable in all respects with those of the American constitution.
It upholds the democratic ideal: Innate human dignity and worth make all humans equal and freedom a birthright. Accordingly, all conceivable human rights: political (freedom of speech, expression, assembly, movement); social (all equal before law); economic (rights to property, work and collective bargain); and religious (full freedom) are enshrined in the constitution and installed as God in a temple.
Universal adult franchise and free-and-fair elections make all of them real.
India has all the institutional underpinnings a democracy has to protect freedom from any encroachment: A stern judiciary fiercely independent and famous for it. It jumps into the fray too when needed. Under the inviolable premise that public office is a trust and, hence, patronage would be tantamount to violation of rights, the courts have slapped deterrent awards on delinquents who had abused their offices.
These fines were also ordered to be collected, mercilessly, as arrears of land revenue, through summary attachment of properties. A watchful and active judiciary in India is evidence that full freedom exists and is enjoyed; and it is visible, unless someone chooses not to see. Put differently, unless India is fully free such judiciary would be out of place and synch.
Audit, Election Commission and Minorities Commission, constitute the next tier. They have their independence guaranteed by the constitution. It is something empty. They have the right to place their annual reports on the table of the House. The government cannot interfere with this, nor influence it.
India has a free and fearless press. Press licenses cannot be revoked; only libel and sedition laws can be invoked against them. Rajiv Gandhi, a former prime minister of India, when asked by an American reporter about the freedom of press in India, replied: "Worse than in your country." He meant that India's determination to uphold freedom and democracy has given it the stamina to put up not only with press thrashings but also its trashings.
The executive branch of the government obeys the judiciary implicitly and accepts all over constitutional restraints for the simple reason that it stands demonstrably for freedom. This makes the government a friend and custodian of freedom.
The Freedom House report is also grossly unfair. It has chosen in its wisdom to compare India with Russia, where democracy is only four years old and which does not pay wages to its workers; or, gives them cabbages in lieu of wages. With Colombia, more known for its drug cartels than for its political system; and with Malaysia, a country with a handful of people, 16 million, as against India's 900 million.
Besides miscarriage writ large, Freedom House bona fides do not seem reassuring. Obviously, it does not seem concerned with the right to life, the litmus test of being free. Right under its nose, in 1996, 972 murders were committed in New York, just one town in America. What does that make Freedom House, a prince turned a frog, or a nosey, busybody to be shrugged off?, "for they know not what they do."
G.S. EDWIN
Jakarta