……he that laboureth right for love of Me

Shall finally attain! But, if in this

Thy faint heart fails, bring Me thy failure!

–THE SONG CELESTIAL

INDEPENDENT INDIA: A DEMOCRACY

BY V. LINGAMURTY, M.A.

(Lecturer, Maharaja College, Vizianagaram)

“The emergence of India as an Independent Republic marks the close of an era of dependence and subjection and the beginning of an epoch of freedom and democracy. For the first time, in the annals of our country, a democratic Constitution is being drafted on the Indian soil by the representatives of the Indian people. The new Constitution is not only for the people, but also of the people and by the people. On the 9th of December, 1946, a never-to-be-forgotten day in our history, the Constituent Assembly had its opening session and took “the first of the last steps to freedom”.

The new Constitution, which is still on the anvil, is democratic in its structure and outlook. What then is the general structure of our new body-politic? It is necessary to note that the Government of India Act, 1935, is taken as the basis by the fathers of our Constitution. So the main principles of the Act of 1935 form the foundation on which the new constitutional edifice is built. There is nothing derogatory in this, for there are certain principles in the Act of 1935, which are eminently suited to India. The most noteworthy feature of the new Constitution is that it favours a federal type of Government. A federal system is purely an internal constitutional arrangement and is compatible with Autocracy or Democracy or Communism. But it has been an established principle in Political Science that federalism is best suited to a country having centripetal and centrifugal forces. Even after the separation of Burma and Pakistan, and even after the transfer of populations which is being conducted amid scenes too horrible even to imagine, there will still be divergent and conflicting interests and minorities to be safeguarded in India. For such a country the federal form of Government is considered to be the best type, for we can have unity without a deadening uniformity, and free association without suppression.

One of the essential requirements of a federal Government is division of Governmental powers. The sphere of the Central Government and that of the Provinces is determined in the Constitution itself. One of the methods which this is done is by drawing three lists of subjects,–one list containing the powers of the Central Government, another the powers of the Provinces, and a third known as the ‘concurrent list’ consisting of subjects in respect of which both the Central and Provincial Governments can legislate. Whenever a conflict arises over a subject in the ‘concurrent list’ between the Union Government and the Provincial Government, the view of the former prevails. In whatever way the lists may be drawn up, and whatever the amount of care taken in the framing of the Constitution, it is impossible to exhaust all the conceivable subjects. So there will always be the residual powers. As it was the intention of the Congress to have a strong Centre, it wanted to vest the residual powers with the Central Government, while the Muslim League, jealous of provincial rights, wanted to give them to the Provinces. These differences among the Indian representatives at the Second Round Table Conference were, as usual, exploited by the British, and, according to the Act of 1935, residual powers were vested in the Governor-General. The white man shouldered the burden.

But now the Congress ideal is achieved by the creation of a strong Centre. According to the new Constitution, the residual powers will be given to the Union Government. In addition, it will exercise varied administrative and financial powers. It is also given the power to create new units or to alter their boundaries. But, in so altering the provincial boundaries, the Central Government must consult the legislature of the Province concerned. Moreover, the Federal Government may entrust the work to administration of Federal subjects to Provincial officers, and it will also have the right to give the necessary directions to a Provincial Government for the proper enforcement of its rules. Above all, in allocating the financial resources, the Central Government is very much strengthened, for all the lucrative sources of revenue are given to it. In this matter, the Canadian and Australian example has been followed: there, the Royal Commission appointed by the Constituent Assembly recommended that taxing power should reside in the Dominion and that national adjustment grants should be made to the different Provinces. The strengthening of the Centre is, of course, in accordance with sound political principles After all, the party can enjoy freedom only if the whole is strong. That is why, in every country decentralization is accompanied by integration of authority. Even in a Federation like the U.S.A., the units, which were once jealous of their power, are now willing to strengthen the Centre. Thus the establishment of a strong Centre is justified by current political thought and the practice in Modern Democracies.

While monarchy and party-dictatorship have been the usual forms Government in autocratic States, Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary Governments are in consonance with a Democratic State. A noteworthy democratic feature in the new Constitution is that a Parliamentary Government is given to India. It has been the view of some in our country that a stable Executive is better than the Parliamentary Executive for a politically backward country like India. In a system of Parliamentary Executive, the parties inside and outside the legislature may make capital out of popular ignorance and lethargy and subvert the Executive. So much so, the Executive may become the slave of the legislature. This cannot be better illustrated than by referring to the ugly happenings which led to the fall of Mr. Prakasam’s Ministry in our own Province. But if the people remain politically dull and lethargic, Democratic Government of any type–Parliamentary or non-Parliamentary–is bound to be a failure. So, why should we throw into the dustbin of history a type of Government with which we have been familiar? Ever since 1921 there has been a gradual development of Parliamentary institutions and responsible Government in our country. We have been habituated to it. Moreover, it has been a grand success in Great Britain and the Dominions. The Fourth French Republic has again adopted it. No wonder that a Parliamentary Executive, having such a brilliant record, is considered to be the best for our country.

In several respects the new Constitution is out and out a democratic one. The Indian National Congress, which functioned as the voice of India, has been a champion of Democracy and an enemy of Fascism and Imperialism. It always stood for the right of self-determination, adult suffix age and other democratic rights. It needs little illustration to point out that Mahatma Gandhi, the architect of Modern India, and Pandit Nehru, India’s man of destiny, are ardent democrats and sworn enemies of Fascism. As early as March 1936, when the so-called Western Democracies admired Mussolini, Pandit Nehru, then he visited Italy, refused a pressing invitation from Mussolini to see him. Again in 1938, he declined an invitation of the Nazi Government to visit Germany, but instead he visited Czechoslovakia. Thus Pandit Nehru definitely proved himself to be a foe of Fascism even when it was in its heyday of power. This champion of Democracy and peoples’ rights moved the eloquent and high-spirited’ resolution in the Constituent Assembly declaring India a Sovereign Republic. Though some members of the Constituent Assembly considered the resolution as hasty, in view of the States having a monarchical Government, Nehru’s resolution was carried. Thus, according to the new Constitution, India is declared a Republic i.e., a State having a Government of the people and by the people. Will it conflict in any way with her status as a Dominion? This may cause some headache to constitutional experts. But one does not cut his head to cure his headache, Rather, he should find a way out. In this connection, it is instructive to note the words of the late Prof. A. B. Keith who said: “If no place can be found in a British Commonwealth for Republics, then the enduring character of the Commonwealth may well be doubted.” Due to change of circumstances, a change may also come in the conception of their Commonwealth, so that Republics may find a place in it.

The most remarkable phenomenon in the history of democracy in the past century has been the steady evolution of the suffrage from a narrow and unequal system to one which is now virtually universal and equal. In all Modern Democracies the long movement for universal suffrage has today triumphed. The Indian National Congress, which always fought for democratic rights, has been a staunch supporter of adult suffrage, and as early as 1928 the Nehru Committee adopted it. It was suggested to the Simon Commission which, however, ruled it out as impracticable. The result was that, according to the Act of 1935, only 14 per cent of the total population of what was British India have the right of franchise. Thus the so-called popular legislatures are representative, not of all people but only of a few. But the fathers of our Constitution have taken a long step towards the establishment of democratic freedom by the introduction of adult suffrage. All people not less than 21 years will have the right of franchise. Thus, as India emerges as a full-fledged Democracy, adult suffrage is introduced in all direct elections. Political liberty and political equality are at last conceded to the people of our country.

An equally important democratic feature in the new Constitution is the abolition of the fateful communal electorates and the formation of joint electorates. Ever since 1909, the Muslims have had the right to elect the representatives exclusively by the members of their own community. This right was extended to the Sikhs in 1919, and when the British Government in 1932 tried to extend to the ‘scheduled castes’, Gandhiji came to the rescue of the Hindus by deciding to ‘fast unto death’. It needs little argument to point out the defects in the system of communal electorates, for it is palpably reactionary and undemocratic. It is reactionary, for the members chosen on a communal basis will always think in terms of their communities but not of the nation. It has been the greatest impediment in the way of healthy political development of the nation and its progress towards responsible Government. As the authors of the Montage Chelmsford-Chelmsford Rep remarked: “The history of self- Government among the nations who developed it and spread it through the world, is decisively against the admission by the State of any divided allegiance, against the State’s arranging its members in any way which encourages them to think of themselves primarily as citizens of any smaller unit than itself.” In fact, the development of the fateful idea of Pakistan and its fruition today have been the direct results of separate electorates. The system of separate electorates is as undemocratic as it is unprogressive. Under it, the Choice of the voter is restricted and narrowed to his own community: he will not have the liberty to choose the person he likes best. According to the new Constitution, true to the principles of Democracy, members for the federal as well as provincial legislatures will be elected from joint electorates.

A democratic Constitution has become synonymous with a written and a rigid Constitution, for the fundamental principles which govern the State cannot be left to the hazards of a chance majority in the legislature. So, since the 18th century, written constitutions have become popular and today almost all countries have written constitutions. Countries having an unwritten Constitution, like Great Britain, possess written elements. A democratic Constitution is made not only written, but also rigid to avoid the unlimited authority of Parliament. The Constitution of the Indian Republic is a written and a rigid Constitution. A separate procedure, different from that followed in passing statute law, must be followed to bring about an amendment to the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution may be suggested by either House of the Federal Legislature. It must be passed in both the Houses by two-thirds of the members present. Then it must be ratified by half the Provinces. Finally, it must receive the assent of the Rashtrapati or President. From this procedure, which has to be adopted in passing a constituent law, one can see that our Constitution is not made as rigid as the American Constitution. The procedure for amendment is made reasonably accessible, without being too easy of access. But, after all, to quote the oft-repeated words of Prof. Lowell, the distinction between rigid and flexible constitutions is one of degree rather than of kind, and the necessary changes can be brought about by various other means. Our new-born Constitution, like other rigid constitutions in the world, must keep pace with the times by the growth of customs, conventions and judicial interpretations. A Constitution drafted today will not be suited for all time. “For the real Constitution in any country is like the photograph of an individual: no matter how good a likeness it may be today, it will not be a good likeness ten years or even five years later. The general features of the individual, as of a Government, may remain unaltered, but the picture is no longer true to life.”

The Constitution of Independent India, like any other democratic Constitution, will be a charter of the people’s freedom. Ever since the Declaration of Rights in the American Constitution, it has become common to incorporate them in the constitutions of different countries. The Fundamental Rights incorporated in our Constitution, which establish equality between all, irrespective of religion, race, caste or sex, are enforceable by law. In this respect, they are based on the Irish model and differ from those in the Constitution of the U. S. S. R. The Indian polity is based on the twin principles of liberty and equality, the watchwords of Democracy. The individual is made the end, and the social and political regulations a means. The decision of the Constitution makers regarding the legal abolition of untouchability “will rank with much historic events as the rise of Buddhism or the protest of Luther.”

But the scheme of Fundamental Rights is not without its limitations. Some rights such as the right to work, or the right to public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness etc., are not cognizable by any court. One is led to think that the grave economic inequalities in out side the country may continue in future, and as Pandit Nehru himself remarked, (in commenting on the Declaration of the Rights of Man drafted by a Committee of eminent British political thinkers with H. G. Wells as Chairman: The Hindu, April 15, 1946), “any Declaration of the Rights of Man will be ineffective under capitalism and imperialism.” The withholding of economic liberty from the people makes the Constitution a bourgeoisie Constitution. But it must be noted that, though the above-mentioned rights are not cognizable by any court, it will be the endeavour of the Government to implement them in practice. The makers of the Constitution made an omission in not enumerating the Fundamental Duties of Man. The incorporation of Fundamental Duties along with the Fundamental Right of Man, as is done in the Constitution of the U. S. S. R. will have great significance, for it would mean that there can be no rights in the absent of functions. He who discharges his duties only can enjoy rights. As Gandhiji remarked: “I suggest the right way. Begin with a charter of Duties of Man, and I promise that the Rights will follow as spring follows winter.”

Thus India is at last being given a democratic Constitution. But freedom is not a thing which can be deposited in a written Constitution or in any Declaration of Rights. The people must have the alertness and vision to protect their rights and liberties, for “where there is no vision the people perish”. A parchment roll in which the rights of the people may be enumerated can never be a guarantee of their freedom. If the people remain lethargic and ignorant, even within the framework of the Constitution, dictatorship may arise. Did not Mussolini and Hitler become dictators by constitutional means? The success of the Indian Democracy depends on the political sagacity and democratic tendencies of the people. The structure is erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity. It future depends upon the new social and economic order that has to emerge.

Back