The Indian constitution and its loopholes

By G.S. Edwin

COLRUBATORE, Tamil Nadu (JP): When India achieved independence on Aug. 15, 1947 it was an occasion of great joy and celebration.

Every Indian, however humble and lowly, tasted of freedom and the gift of hope.

However, the passage of 50 years has produced two Indias; one occupied by 650 million poor and downtrodden people and the other by richer high-flyers.

In Delhi, for a mere four-month course in fashion management, which costs US$6,000 -- a great fortune in India with a per capita income of US$360, 1,000 applications are received for 80 seats.

Given this scenario, the government is both lethargic and confused about facing India's 50th year of independence.

The situation India confronts today did not just happen. It may have been caused by an omission of the architects of the Indian constitution.

In 1948 India made a quantum leap; coming from centuries of foreign subjugation to national sovereignty. Even with that novel political manna, elections were a foreign import.

The power of elections was unknown in India's experience. It should have been introduced through a grassroots political process like electing village government.

But the 1950 Constitution, which bypassed realities in India, failed to do this. So the voter was left to his own devices.

This was rectified in 1992. But the impetus was lost, with grave consequences not unlike a mariner losing his compass in a gale-tossed sea.

In a false start, 90 percent of the Indian population, novices who voted mechanically with full trust in the Anglicized Indian political elite, and then waited for good things to happen to them.

But then democracy erupted like a burst dam, sweeping away familiar landmarks. As social philosopher Nirmal Choudhry had predicted, the power of the Anglicized Indians disappeared and woes multiplied. A new trenchant situation arose.

"All ambitious Indians regarded political power as a means of getting rich quickly. Those who have remained poor are now a rancorous rabble," said the philosopher.

As time passed this situation became entrenched. Many more ambitious Indians emerged on the political scene. Corruption, using political power, became innate. This became too much for the courts and they have ceased to be effective. They only serve as a moral deterrent. Therefore, to arrest corruption an unorthodox summary supplement is needed. As it is the people who are hurt by corruption they should have the power to punish those who practice corruption.

If a minister is defeated ignominiously, it would be natural to assume that he was not defeated but was disgraced for corruption. He should therefore be jailed for eight to 10 years. No appeals should be allowed as there should be no court higher than the people's court. This summary justice, in conjunction with the courts, could control corruption and cleanse public life.

Next, the "rabble" which was once pitied has come full circle, like power running amuck. It has powerfully resurrected the caste factor and brazenly wedded it to political power.

It is this ominous development that has fragmented the polity and has destroyed political stability. The government of Inder Kumar Gujral is a motley coalition of 13 incessantly warring political parties. Gujral himself has said, "I am not weak but helpless". People also view him as the "bottled wimp".

The genie-caste is out of the bottle and can't be put back. Only its influence can be mitigated where possible. Caste with a free run in state elections cannot be stopped. However, its impact on central elections could be much reduced.

Presently, central and state elections are held at the same time. This means the central election has become accustomed to riding on the back of caste-ridden state elections. As a result, the central election has gained no prestige, nor griped the imagination of the voter. Besides, this diminishes the paramount position of the center in the scheme of governance, as per the constitution.

Here again the constitution makers have erred by giving the same tenure of five years to central and state governments. This has necessitated holding simultaneous elections. If the central election is to be accorded its due importance and protected from the caste factor it should not be held at the same time as state elections. It should be held separately.

The only way of doing this would be to amend the constitution to give a tenure of four years to state governments. This would change the pattern of elections. Both elections could not be held simultaneously. The central election would be cut from the coattails of the state elections and therefore the caste factor.

A central election thus separated would in due course create its own base, facilitate a buildup of all Indian parties and leadership; pave the way to coalesce federal polity around policies and programs and facilitate the growth of a two-party system at the center.

Central constituencies are too big to be influenced by caste: 650,000 voters against an average of 100,000 in a state constituency, especially if there was no state election to stir up the caste factor.

Moreover, state parties enjoy the taste of local power and have really no interest in central elections. Presently they jump in because the same wave propels both the elections.

So that it could be made doubly sure that the caste factor was kept out of central elections, the representation of the People's Act 1951 could be amended so as not to allow a resident in a central constituency to contest in his home constituency.

Making outsiders contest would eliminate both state parties and the caste factor from central elections. It would be a justifiable measure in the sense that a member of parliament is a delegate, from his constituency, not its representative.

These measures would produce clean politics, free from money- power, and develop the yearned for two-party system of government at the center, a prerequisite for stability, clear mandate and a see-through legitimacy.

Such a government in Delhi would be the pride of India and something overdue. Without such a government there can be no economic progress.

If such a government continues to elude India, then it would be better to go along with Choudhry: "There is nothing to exult, only fear the gift of independence from white men."