Real politics and Indian politics

@Gulshan

I cannot find any logical correlation between ex-rulers becoming members of his 'Swatantra Pary' and his so-called promotion of aristocracy! Nehru too had ex-ruler in his cabinet and several members of the erstwhile royal families but I fail to understand how did it translate to supporting either monarchy or aristocracy!As to your comments on the existence of Rajya Sabha and upper houses of the assemblies I don't concur with your views that these do any balancing in our system.In fact these have outlived their usefulness and many states have rightly done away with them.West Bengal assembly has no upper house for your information.Only politicans who have no mass base and to be rewarded for their loyalty to political leadership manage to win nominations and become members in it .In fact there is already a strong debate in Great Britain to abolish House of Lords!

As to your views on defection especially in Indian context I do agree that most of the cases which we call defections are in plain terms 'horse trading' of the worst kind.Defection as a concept stands at much higher plane.Even Sir William Gladstone and Winston Churchil were known to have crossed the floor.Let us agree that here the motive behind such acts assumes greater significance and importance.In India majority of such acts come under 'horse trading' as the party deserters fall prey to lure of money or other materialistic consideration!

The Rajya Sabha and upper houses in states were intended as balancing act so as to give representation to eminent persons from different walks of life who would not contest general elections. This provision also like others has been misused. This is another matter.


Inclusion of a few ex rulers by Nehru has no comparison with Swatantra Party that was a feudal and princely organization supported and patronized by Raja Gopalachari.

While there may be some genuine change of mind and one may defect to another party, most cases are of horse trading. Moreover, a member of parliament has been elected on a particular party ticket. This is sheer dishonesty to change party. In these cases, even if there is change of heart, a member must not be allowed to retain his seat after changing party. If the plea of genuine defection and tat too on mass scale is accepted, this will lead to mockery of multi party political system where the leaders and parties are circus players and voters simply jokers.

I wish to bring another aspect of Indian political system- division of authority between legislature, executive and judiciary. Press is considered as forth estate. These are supreme in their own area. It is expected that no wing should encroach upon another. The division of authority between these wings ensures smooth functioning of our system. But we often find encroachment of executive power by judiciary through 'judicial activism'. similarly, executive interferes with judiciary. Freedom of Press is also endangered often. I feel that the scheme of allotting funds for local area development through members of parliament and M.L.A.s- a scheme introduced by Late Shri Narsimha Rao, also goes against the scheme of distribution of authority between legislature and executive. Moreover, this has also resulted in corruption. The legislators time and attention are diverted from their real job i.e. legislation and monitoring public policies and issues.

However, ultimately, this is a matter of national character. Press and media, the fourth estate has a greater responsibility in building public opinion against vote bank politics and other black spots in our political system.

Gulshan,

You have not answered my main question which was how the presence of ex-rulers in his party could make Rajaji a proponent of aristocracy when the truth was that a minuscule number of ex-rulers followed him in his party and it was not the other way round! Rajaji was not their follower!In fact your frequent refrain in projecting Rajaji as such such almost makes it a repetition of a section of Congressmen's allegation in those days on similar lines which was grossly untrue and devoid of substance.A cursory glance at the line-up of these ex-rulers in these two parties would clearly establish the fact that the ex-rulers overwhelmingly outnumbered the ones in the Swatantra Party for obvious reasons.The Congress Party was one in power and better placed to serve the interest of royalty which in fact,it did by appointing a good number of them in various governmental positions.It would be equally unrealistic to expect them all to join a party which was the target of the Nehru government and his government tried all means to politically finish it by spreading canards like the one you mentioned.It's important to note that privy purse issue was not decided at that time and exrulers literally danced to the tune of Nehru and not Rajaji.Let me give you the names of some of the importantant functionaries of that party who both had character and integrity to serve the cause of a party whose leader Rajaji had an unblemished record of public service- Minoo Masani,K.M.Munshi,Sardar Patel's son Dahyabhai Patel,H.M.Patel,J.M.Prabhu just to name a few!

As to your contention that bi-cameralism was intended to serve the so-called purpose of balancing,may I say that it never served that and in majority of democracies in the world such a house is absent and in most of our states it is absent desirably!

The princes in the Swatantra party patronized by Rajaji had an object to govern the nation in their own right and style unlike those in congress who worked under Congress leadership that largely believed in the direction of socialism, democracy and secularism. The princes were also citizens of India and they were rightly expected to involve themselves in national mainstream. The congress under Nehru leadership did not give any leading and guiding role to princes.

Bicameralism was a balancing act although this might not have served the purpose well. This was to balance the domination of representatives in Lok Sabha who were elected by 'illiterate and uneducated masses' whom Rajaji would deny the voting right and thereby create aristocracy. Pt Nehru gave power to all people unconditionally.

Let us discuss another aspect of Indian political system. We are a large country with huge population and regional diversity. We could have either unitary system like Britain or a Federal system. In view of diversity, unitary system was not feasible. Federalism would be against national unity. Hence, our system is quasi federal. The constitution has divided powers between Union and states. There is Union list, state list and concurrent list. There is a happy balance of power between Union and states. It is necessary to review this arrangement from time to time and vest more powers with states consistent with national integrity and need for diversification.

As all state activities are primarily for people mostly living in villages, Panchayats need be given more power. If our people can run local bodies properly, we may expect to participate better role in national and state politics as well and rid the nation of vote bank politics.

@Gulshan

As the topic is real politics and Indian politics I would confine myself to the events leading to our adoption of democracy and its working over the past few decades and the possible solution to the problems created by malfuntioning of it.I think touching the constitutional provisons in regard to distribution of powers and et al would broaden the scope of discussion to divert our attention from the core subject.Against you allusion to Rajaji's Swatantra's party espousal of princely causes I have searched for material to find substance in it but I have not come across any.So I believe it is your subjective opinion and until and unless you produce substantive evidence I would treat as your subjective opinion to which you are rightly entitled and I have no further comments to make only to add that in Rajaji India had a leader whose views were respected by even Gandhiji and in his long political career he managed to keep it spotlessly clean.To Gandhiji he was a rationalist par excellence!
As for your opinion on bicameralism ,the Indian experience is that upper house is an unnecessary adjunct and a drain on public exchequer and I strongly believe the sooner it is given a decent burial the better!Although opinions may always vary!Most of the democracies have discarded it and almost 90% of our state assemblies too have been doing it for enough good reasons!

Now I would devote my next lines to how attempts on the part of Nehru government on building up a monolithic power structure through Congress and its ramifications on prevention of emergence multi-party dmeocracy in India.As I indicated that in the intial days of our democracy the Congress Party sought a kind of dividends on its investment in bringing freedom for the country.And adulation of Nehru grew dangerously with the exit of stalwarts like Sardar Patel and others from the scene and old leaders also started leaving being suffocated by this personality cult which later manifested itself in more uglier forms and still continuing.Nehru under his pesudo-socialist raj created an intermediate class consisting of self-serving politicians,businessmen who filled the coffers of the Conggress Party in return for license and other favors!Contractors had a field day cornerning most of the our 5-Year Plan money.Any criticism of Nehru government by the leaders whose contribution to the attainment of freedom was no less invited ridicule and business houses were discouraged to make any donation to opposition parties to the point that G.D.Birla once openly declared that Swatantra Party was not a good political party to do business with!In the later years of Nehru raj the flashes of impatience with democracy were also evident.I would deal with the political scenario emerging after Nehru's death and Indira Gandhi's emergence in the political horizon and her contribution to the debasement of Indian politics in my next post!

I agree with chinmoy that Rajaji was an outstanding personality and his views were respected. There is always divergence of opinion. This is normal in a democracy. I also feel that Bicameral system has failed. The intention was good but the provision has been misused by sending defeated leaders and unworthy to the upper houses. I have no objection to abolition of upper house but I hold that these were well intended.

It is also true that Congress enjoyed monopoly of power initially owing to involvement in freedom struggle. In fact, there were no opposition parties worth name. This was natural just after independence and could not be wished away. But it cannot be denied that Pt Nehru gave a proper direction to the nation. He is rightly called Architect of the nation. everyone has some drawbacks and possibly, he also suffered from some. Nobody is perfect- even Nehru. But his magnificent role in building nation, his role in foreign policy and implementation of five year plans cannot be ignored. He added glory to nation in international affairs by following policy of non alignment. The three leaders- Nehru, Nasser and Tito were very significant force in world.

The deterioration in Indian politics has been felt more after demise of Nehru. Division on basis of caste and region are now uglier. It is for enlightened citizens particularly media- the fourth estate to play active role in this regard.

I feel that this discussion is confined to only two individuals- Chinmoy and Gulshan. Group discussion is between a number of members- desirably five or more. I request some other members also to give their valuable views.

Poor participation in this GD is somewhat disheartening but the only bright aspect is that it has managed to have more than 150 hits!

chinmoymukherjee wrote:
[quote]Poor participation in this GD is somewhat disheartening but the only bright aspect is that it has managed to have more than 150 hits![/quote]

Apparently other members are enjoying the debate between two participants. The two members have already expressed most of their views. Hope others will also make some contribution in the last two days.

I was watching and enjoying the real debate between you two.Eventhough the GD was less with participation the hit count indicates that all members are reading them well.

The Panchayath Raj elections in Kerala had over one week ago.Almost all results also published.I noticed many strange alliance and contests in many wards.

In Kerala there is only two fronts.CPI(M) lead Left Democratic Front (LDF) and Congress(I) lead United Democratic Front (UDF).Since many expected persons didn't get candidature they jumped to other side and competed.Where their political views gone then?How will they justify their stand so far ?Is that the real politics ? Will it happen in other countries?

CPI(M) and Congress(I) are the direct hitting parties in many constituencies.Surprisingly they united in one of the Panchayaths in my district to defeat Indian Union Muslim League(IUML) candidates while in all near by panchayaths Congress(I) is hand in hand with IUML.If a state leader of either of these parties speak in a political meeting held in this panchayath and its nearby panchayat how will he justify this strange alliance? So that is Indian politics!!

Even children will feel shame on hearing the political news coming on these days.

What has happened in Kerala is relective of the state of affairs in the country.In India ideological considerations always figure nowhere on the part of most of the candidates in the choice of parties! In West Bengal where the Left has been in power for the last 34 years and is currently engaged in a very bitter and vilolent battle to survive there is witnessing large scale swiching of loyalties form CPM to Trinamul at the grassroot levels!

But that shifting when a party thins is just for leadership.We have to recognise such persons and excile them from politics for ever.Here one party denies ticket which is exploited by the opposite party.In that adjustment a real member who was working for his party for a long period loses his/her chance while the new comer enjoys all the benefits.What do you think on this?

@Abid

As I intend to cover all the important events sequentially which I have tried in part and once that is completed, I am sure, it would be perfectly clear whcy such things are happening.If I have to answer your question in brief,it's the complete absensce of both moral and political values among the leaders of our political parties and with passage of each day ,these have been hitting new lows!Neither they are evolving new healthy practices nor are they following the good old ones.Bankruptcy is total and ominous for Indian democracy! If all the political parties agree to follow a convention of not allowing any opportunistic immoral elements to enter their parties the problem you have mentioned can be very effectively tackled!

To pick up the thread from where I left in covering some of significant events which greatly influenced and shaped the politics of our country.My earlier posts dealt with Nehru days and years and now I want to cover the most important decades which I personally believe were the momentous years as Indian democracy faced the most serious challenge and survived in its own heroic way!

When Nehru left the political scene of the country he never thought of promoting any dynasty of his own and in fact the country found a worthy and capable leader in late Shastriji and his slogan'Jai Jawan,Jai Kissan' only reflects the kind of philosophical and pragmatic thought that ruled his minds.Unfortunately his tragic and untimely end robbed the country of the services of a far-sighted leader.Which death also marked the beginning of a political era which witnessed several interesting developments.Declining popularity of Congress Party, the formation of a Non-Congress Government in UP led by late Charan Singh,emergence of Indira Gandhi as a choice of the Syndicate, bitter feud breaking out between the two and ultimate parting of ways and division of the oldest political organization of the country!Let me continue in my next post.

Chinmoy has rightly stated that Nehru did not want dynastic role. He was a true democrat. In fact, after demise, Lal Bahadur Shastri took over. Indira Gandhi had her own merit and we cannot say that she was elevated to Prime Ministerial job only because of her family link. But things differed after her death. Rajiv Gandhi was quickly place in Prime Minister's chair whereas Indira Gandhi had to wait for formal election by her parliamentary group and in the meanwhile Gulzari Lal Nanda was caretaker Prime Minister. In fact, all democratic traditions were demolished by Indira Gandhi. she declared emergency just because she was unseated from her parliamentary seat consequent on adverse court decision. This shows her contempt for judiciary and parliamentary/ democratic traditions. Indira Gandhi is to congress what Aurangzeb was to Mogul empire. The slogans raised by Dev Kant Barua- Indira is India- still remins us of the days of emergency. This type of slogan was not raised even in Hitler's Germany

Most opposition party emerged from disintegration of congress. The BJP (former Jan Sangh outfit) emerged as a strong organization on communal agenda after demolishing Babri Mosque. But that party had to forge a coalition and could not carry on communal agenda owing to coalition politics..

Presently, there are three parties/ groups at central level. Congress, BJP and Left. Despite all drawbacks, congress is a stabilization force. Strong congress means united India. However, Post Nehru congress is not entirely secular. The massacre of Sikhs in 1984 establishes communal color of congress. In Gujarat, Congress leadership consists of RSS activists. If BJP is saffron, Congress is yellow. Bjp is a Hindutva party and congress is soft Hindutva organization. Congress can change itself like chameleon to suit the actual conditions. Staying in power is now only aim of congress. Same is true of BJP.

The two party system consists mainly of Congress and BJP at the centre. The Left either supports united front of other parties also backed by Congress or Congress led Government. The regional parties aim to remian in power. so, they ally with Congress or BJP for remaining in power. Mamata Banerjee was a minister in BJP led NDA as well as Congress led UPA. Thus ther is total opportunism at the centre. At state level, there is unlimited opportunism. We have seen this recently in Karnataka. Abid has rightly pointed out the sheer opportunism of various parties in Kerala.

We may just hope that enlightened citizens and journalists will take efforts to educate people to enable them to play positive role for honest and ethical politics.

As Gulshan has covered some of the important events in the late-seventies and eighties and I would deal with certain salient features of them.The critical appreciation of this phase of Indian politics is necessary to find the causes of deviations which we witness today.As I already mentioned in one of early posts that Mrs.Gandhi had a complex personality of her own.Looking at the circumstances under which some veteran leaders of the Congress Party who formed themselves into a group which was also known as Syndicate chose her for the post of prime ministership of the country.Some political analysts sensed a dark design on the part of this Old Brigade to do some back-seat driving through this arrangment and Mrs Gandhi took due note of this and started demolishing this old order of Congress first by projecting them as a group of people of retrograde and antiquated ideas.Her "Garibi Hatao" slogan and banks nationalization had to be understood in this context.Then came the Presidential election and she chose this event to force showdown with the party veterans. She engineered a split in the party and ensured the victory of V.V.Giri over the party nominee N.Sanjeeva Reddy.Perhaps the high point of her career was India's decisive victory over Pakistan in 1971 which enabled her to eastablished her rule firmly which fetched her fame of a fabulous kind.Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee likened her to Mother Durga!

This phase of her sowed the seeds of dictatorial ambitions in her.She was always suspicipus of popularity of any leader throwing any challenge to her leadership.Promotion of mediocrity and sychopancy were the salient features of her rule during this period.The concept of 'committed bureaucracy' and 'committed judiciary' was dangerouly propogated and practised.Things reached such a point that J.P. Narayan who never cared for any public office came out to launch a vigorous movement throughout the country against her rule which ulimately led to clamping of emergency marking the lowest point in her career.What she and her youngest did in the name of emergency should be an eye-opener to all.Whatever one might say about the wisdom of Indian electorate,they did exhibit in ample measure in the ensuing elections and she was dethroned from power and a motley group of political parties under the banner of "Janta Party' captured power for the first time in Independent India.I would deal with it in my next post.

The formation of Janta Party was a unique experiment in India politics .From the very outset it was clear that ideological conflicts and contradictions would make it
impossible to survive.In its a little over two-years' existence the government formed by it under former veteran Congress leader Morarji Desai kept itself more busy in
addressing the inner squabbles among the constituents than solving the basic issues which confronted the nation.It was no wonder that the government fell like a house of cards paving the return of Indra Gandhi and she did return by winning the next elections.She returned as a different person but not a reformed one.Within the very first few months of her tenure she lost her youngest son who died under very tragic circumstances.Late Sanjay Gandhi who became an extra constitutional authority during the emergengy and was being groomed as her successor thus left the India political scene on a tragic note! His departure also left a very big problem for her in executing
her dynastic ambitions.She was known to be suffering from an acute insecurity complex as she did not trust any congress leader and search for her successor was confined to her family and thus began another diastrous attempt to groom her elder son late Rajiv Gandhi for the job.Her tragic assassination brought an end to a very controversial chapter in Indian poltics.Although she was immensely popular not only in India but elsewhere too,but her negative legacies on Indian democracy are being pursued more vigorously than ever before.Appointment of party sychophants to the post of governors who act as pointsmen for the party,polticization of bureaucray and personality cult are the ones which are being pursued more brazenly than ever before!
Promotion of families is her contribution to Indian politics which is nothing but subversion of Indian democracy and all we have to remain vigilant to eliminate this serious flaw in Indian democracy!

The discussion is coming to close. Let me summarize. After partition, India opted parliamentary democratic system, quasi federal structure consisting of states and union and division of functions between Executive, legislature and judiciary. The biggest challenge was the numerous princely states. Under direction of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, the princely states were merged with Indian Union.

For first few decades, Congress had absolute majority in entire country. However, certain non congress leaders- Rajaji of Swatantra Party, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee of Bhartiya Jan Sangh (now in new avatar of BJP), Minoo Masani, Dr. Lohia, Jai Prakash Narayan also contributed to healthy development of our political system. Communist Party of India was besides Congress only organization that existed prior to independence. The Communists also played their role in raising common peoples problems in parliament and organizing workers and farmers outside parliament.

After Death of Pt Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri took over. He gave the slogan- Jai Jawan Jai Kissan, which is relevant even today. His death was unfortunate and untimely. Indira Gandhi succeeded him. We witnessed formation of Bangla Desh (Earlier East Pakistan), Emergency and formation of Janata Party Government under Morarji Desai. Indira Gandhi returned to power after short spell of power by Janata Party.

Congress got weaker after death of Indira Gandhi. we witnessed Babri Mosque demolition that resulted from communal frenzy. BJP and allies (NDA) came to power in an emotion charged environment. The era of one party rule ended. The caste based parties and regional organizations strengthened. Presently, there are broadly two parties- Congress and BJP- that form government at centre in coalition with other parties. The other parties are unstable. Some of them can ally with any. Left parties support either Congress or other non BJP- non Congress party but they do not themselves participate in Government.

Corruption in public life is akin to cancer and is destroying our system. There are virtually no moral standards. The executive and judiciary also overlap each others functions. We need to tackle corruption and ensure that all wings of our system, Legislature, Judiciary, Executive and also Press, the fourth estate function within their limits honestly keeping in view genuine public interest and not encroach upon others authority. We need to check vote bank politics. Independent citizens and media have greater responsibility. The recent elections in Bihar indicate that people are rising above caste and voting on performance. Let us hope for the best. We shall rise to the top. Our people have immense energy and potential to make India a great nation.

As the discussion has entered almost into its last lap I would like to dovote this post only on the events of eighties and nineties which had left profound impact on the polity of our nation which still remains very much fractured on caste and creed running counter to the very essence of what India stands for 'Unity in Diversity'.I would particularly mention the rise of communal politics in India ,religious fundamentalism and BJP's emergence as the dominant political force in the horizon and various permutations and combinations in opposition parties' efforts to form government at the centre and Congress's declining fortunes at the hustings.

Although Rajiv Gandhi rode a sympathy wave to score a landslide victory his relative inexperience and immaturity led to loss of this goodwill in no time.He was instrumental in reviving the contentious Ram Mandir issue which the BJP seized to capture state power subsequently.Similarly V.P.Singh's espousal of Mandal issue caused further division in Indian society and a large part of the late eighties and early nineties kept the nation busy wasting its vital energies and resources in keeping ourselves together!I would conclude in my next post.

As you might have all observed that in all my posts prior to this,I have tried to highlight all th seamy aspects of our democratic system and it working over all these decades.It has to be accepted that this system has worked well enough but not to our satisfaction mainly because of the fact that those who have been entrusted with the job have miserably failed in their jobs but the system has not failed us!There are enough danger signals the system has generated and it for the people of India to read these danger signals and act effectively to arrest this fallling trend. Gulshan has emphasised the fact that the enlightened sections of our society to take lead in retrieving the system from th hands of corrupt,immoral and criminal elements among the politicians.The task is a formidable one but no impossible.

Unless we have a very good idea of the magnitude of the hurdles lying before us ,talk of finding solution to this problem would sound hollow and purely academic!The government on its own appointed committees on criminilization of politics and electoral reforms.What actions have the government taken?It is interesting to note that the same MPs who could be so uniquely unanimous in passing bills to raise their salaries and perks are divided on taking drastic steps to reform our electoral system.Why can't we have a right to recall an MP if his service record justifies it?
All these darkly point to conspiratorial silence on the part of our elected representatives to thrive in present situations.

However,I am an optimist and would continue to harbor optimism on this count.I have great hopes in our youth and it's their duty to raise their voice to free the system from some fatal flaws which not only undermines the democratic ethos but endangers the future of the country and that of them.With these words I come to conclude my views on this topic .Thanks you all!

OK Friends that is the end of this real neck to neck fight.Let us now wait for the result to be declared.Once again thanks for all members who very keenly observed the fight between two super masters of GD forum as well as the Boddunan Family.