India: Fully or partly democratic

In 1947, the British Empire transferred an area of 365,000 square miles and a population of about 82 million to the Indian National Congress. The Indian rulers of Baroda, Gwalior, Alwar, Cooch Behar, Bikaner, Jaipur, Kapurtala, Mysore, etc. had merged with about 300,000 square miles of land area and a population of 87 million people. This India excludes the State of Nizam (parts of present Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra), Kashmir and Goa (a Portuguese colony).

During the British Raj, the rulers of princely states had no option but to drain their revenues to support Britain's imperial adventures in China, South Africa, France and Afghanistan, among others. And at times of peace on the visits of Viceroys and Princes. Besides, they were notorious for their lavish lifestyles and some stooped so low as to fight over dancing girls.

With the rise of Bolsheviks in Russia, with Irish rebellion at its height in 1915 and with massive and uncontrollable reformist movement in the kingdoms, the rulers sensed the need to safeguard vast personal assets instead of kingdoms. These rulers who once refused enactment of laws guaranteeing elementary and fundamental rights of citizenship (such as rights of association, free speech, free press and security of person and property) merged with India in exchange for privy purses, even before the formal adoption of the Constitution.

The British had successfully brainwashed the elite as to the superiority of the western culture, English language and lifestyle. Anything Indian was "native" (a derogatory reference to the locals).

After 1947, everybody joined Congress (those who opposed and also those who favored the British and princely states), including the princes themselves. When the British left, the key positions once occupied by the British were filled with the people who were wealthy and well connected. With the legislature, judiciary and administration supporting the elite coupled with rampant corruption all over the country, a colonial and/or feudal system of governing remained more or less intact.

Even today, in many parts of rural India, a majority of the police officers who file a First Information Report (FIR) even for grave and cognizable offenses such as rape, culpable homicide, murder, do so only after consulting the local landlords and FIRs are quite often in favor of the interests of the landlords. So is the case for the disbursement of loans from banks and other financial institutions.

Having the cost benefit analyses of farming, the illiterate peasant cannot keep account of his borrowings, interest rates and repayments and worse still does not know on what document he is affixing his thumb impression.

With his interest reduced to harmonious survival with the local landlords, to the peasant and the people like him, the landlord's advice becomes more precious than the political manifesto, if any, of a political party and they wouldn't mind voting according to his advice.

When I am personally familiar with this India, can I accept that India is fully democratic? When I know that ancient Rajniti, the classical art of government that says first there is praja, the people and any form of government is only to serve the people, can I blame the people?

D. PRABHAKAR

Jakarta