OUR REPUBLIC

By N. MADHAVA RAU

(Retired Dewan of Mysore)

The attainment of Indian Independence was a gradual process, which was finalised by the formal establishment of a Republic on the 26th January 1950. The anniversary of that event is perhaps the most important red-letter day in the nation’s secular calendar. In celebrating it,¹ we naturally ask ourselves this epochal event was brought about, what is its significance, how far are the ideals and hopes behind it being realised.

In presenting to the Constituent Assembly “the first budget of a free and independent India” in 1947, the then Finance Minister remarked that “we have secured freedom from foreign yoke, mainly through the operation of world events and partly through a unique act of enlightened self-abrogation on behalf of the erstwhile rulers of the country.” This observation was resented, particularly by the members of the Congress party, who felt that it was through their sacrifices and sufferings and the martyrdom of some of their comrades that Independence had been won. It is understood that a special committee has been appointed to write an authentic history of the Indian freedom movement. Whatever may be the conclusions of that committee, it is clear that the attainment of India’s independence must be a case of divided honours. It cannot be denied that the Indian Congress bore the brunt of the struggle. Swaraj was conceived by Mahatma Gandhi not as a free gift of the British Nation but as a ratification (almost automatic) by the British Parliament of the Wishes of the Indian people as expressed through their freely chosen representatives. This demand, first made in 1922, for what virtually amounted to a Constituent Assembly, became thereafter a plank of the official Congress programme and reached fulfillment in a quarter of a century.

The exact role played by the Congress in the Civil Disobedience movement of 1942 is still a matter of controversy. The movement was, as we know, put down quickly and for the time being effectively, but it proved to be the last turning point in India’s road to complete freedom.

We recall today with gratitude and admiration the vision, the courage and the sacrifice of several generations of patriots who contributed to this result, and more particularly the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi whose dynamic leadership helped to compress into a couple of decades a struggle which might have otherwise filed a very long and painful chapter of Indian history.

At the same time, we cannot honestly withhold our need of praise for British statesmanship. It is true that Britain’s response to Indian political demands was always somewhat tardy and grudging. There were always Britishers, particularly among those who held high administrative positions in India, who discounted India’s competence for self-government and deprecated every move, however modest, towards constitutional advance as premature and dangerous. But for nearly a century the makers of British policy at the highest level rarely questioned India’s right to govern herself ultimately or Britain’s moral obligation to guide her towards that goal. Three famous passages from the speeches of British statesmen are often quoted in this connection and it may not be superfluous to repeat them on this occasion.

Macaulay declared in 1832:

“It may be that the public mind in India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system, that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come, I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history.”

The celebrated pledge of August 1917 ran as follows:

“The policy of His Majesty’s Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.”

Referring to the despatch of the Cabinet Mission to India in 1916, Prime Minister Attlee said:

“My colleagues are going to India with the intention of using their utmost endeavours to help her to attain her freedom as speedily and fully as possible. What form of Government is to replace the present regime is for India to decide; but our desire is to help her to set up forthwith the machinery for making that decision....

“I hope that the Indian people may elect to remain within the British Commonwealth. I am certain that she will find great advantage in doing so…..

“But if she does so elect, it must be by her own free will. The British Commonwealth and Empire is not bound together by chains of external compulsion. It is a free association of free peoples. If, on the other hand, she elects for independence, in our view she has a right to do so. It will be for us to help to make the transition as smooth and easy as possible.”

Macaulay’s observation was in the nature of a political reflection–a sort of prophecy. Lloyd George’s declaration purported to be a solemn pledge. Attlee’s statement was an irrevocable offer of self-government to this country, without any strings attached to it.

The establishment of the League of Nations alter the first World War and of the United Nations Organisation in connection with the second, with the doctrine of the right of national self-determination as their corner stone, influenced in no small measure the scope and pace of Political developments in India.

For the freedom struggle, the Muslim League too contributed its quota of stalwarts, but, towards the end of the journey, they preferred to part company with their fellow travellers and insisted on the creation of Pakistan, with a separate Constituent Assembly of its own. Their reasons for this decision are thus stated in a resolution passed by the Subjects Committee of the League in the course of its negotiations with the Cabinet Mission.

“Whereas in this vast sub-continent of India a hundred million Muslims are the adherents of a faith which regulates every department of their life (educational, social, economic and political) whose code is not confined merely to spiritual doctrines and tenets and ceremonies, and which stands in sharp contrast to the exclusive nature of Hindu Dharma and Philosophy which has fostered and maintained for thousands of years a rigid Caste System resulting in the degradation of 60 million human beings to the position of untouchables, creation of unnatural barriers between man and man and superimposition of social and economic inequalities on a large body of the people of this country, and which threatens to reduce Muslims, Christians and other minorities to the status of irredeemable helots, socially and economically;

“Whereas the Hindu Caste System is a direct negation of nationalism, equality, democracy and all the noble ideals that Islam stands for;

“Whereas the different historical backgrounds; traditions, cultures and social and economic orders of the Hindus and Muslims have made impossible the evolution of a single Indian nation inspired by common aspirations and ideals, and whereas after centuries they still remain two distinct major nations, etc.”

In an attempt to obviate Partition at any cost, various proposals were made by the Cabinet Mission to meet the view-point of the Muslim League. And with the hope that the League might ultimately be induced to reconsider its attitude, the Constituent Assembly met on the appointed date and started its work of framing a Constitution for the whole of India. But the continued and determined absence of the Muslim League representatives from the Assembly, and the occurrence of communal disturbances in different parts of the country, made it evident that no progress was possible unless the Muslim League demands for separate State were conceded. This was done and Pakistan cam into existence.

Although Partition is much to be deplored for various reasons, although it led to much suffering of the minorities on both sides of the border and raised particularly for India (Bharat) grave administrative and financial difficulties in connection with the relief and rehabilitation of millions of displaced persons, it cannot, in the long view, be considered an unmixed evil. India (that is Bharat) was enabled to frame a proper Constitution, instead of trying to patch up or underpin the crazy structure devised by the Cabinet Mission. Its administration has been spared the stresses and strains that a polity based on composite Legislatures and coalition Governments at the Centre would have inevitably imposed.

The Indian Constitution, like the Constitutions of several other countries, not only deals with the structure and operation of the machinery of Government, but purports to indicate, in broad outline, the political creed and ideals of the Nation. What are these ideals? They are epitomised, in symbolical form, in our National Emblem and the National Flag. The former is a replica of the magnificent lion capital at Sarnath near Banaras, which consists of a stone column crowned by a group of four lions sitting back to back on a circular abacus. The abacus is girdled by four animal figures in relief (a bull, a horse, an elephant and a lion) broken up by 24 spoked wheels. The abacus rests on a lotus in full bloom with sixteen petals opened out. The four lions are emblems of power. The animal figures are facing the four quarters of the Universe. The lotus is the fountain-head of life and creative inspiration. The wheel is the wheel of law–Dharma Chakra. The motto in Devanagari script means, ‘Truth alone triumphs.’

The National Flag contains three horizontal bands in white, saffron and green, with an Asoka wheel (reminiscent also of the spinning wheel of the Congress) in blue across one of the bands. The symbolism of the flag is thus explained:

“The white in the centre is the white of the sun’s rays; white represents light, purity, truth which is synonymous with Ahimsa. Saffron means courage and sacrifice, and embodies tile spirit of renunciation. Green stands for faith and strength. The wheel, so far as it represents the Charka (spinning Wheel) stands for the welfare of the masses. As the Asokan wheel (Dharma Chakra) it is the symbol of universal law, of the unending process of change and progress.”

Apart from the National Flag, the President of the Indian Republic, as the Head of the State and the fountain of all executive authority, has a separate flag. This flag shows–in each of 4 rectangular compartments–the State crest, an elephant, a pair of scales and a lotus bowl. The State crest, i.e., the Asokan capital, represents unity, equality and fraternity. The Elephant (copied from Ajanta frescoes) stands for patience and strength; the pair of scales (from the Red Fort, Delhi) signifies justice and economy, and the bowl is the symbol of prosperity and plenty.

I have taken the above account almost verbatim from a publication issued by the Ministry of External Affairs in connection with the celebration of the Republic Day in January 1950. Some of the high principles and ideals (adding up to a formidable total) enabled in the symbolism of our National Flag and Emblem find explicit mention in the text of the Indian Constitution and clearly underlie its provisions. The Preamble of the Constitution, Part III dealing with Fundamental Rights, and Part IV dealing with Directive Principles of State Policy form a triology comprising a declaration of faith; a charter of freedom, and a code of politico-social ethics. It has been said that “legal monuments generally contain in an inextricable confusion at least two contradictory types of rules; rules which are a simple restatement of an existing custom, and rules which are enacted for the very purpose of reversing existing customs and which, in terms of social reality should be read as we read the negative of a snapshot; white for black and black for white.” It is true that the constitutional provisions in question cannot altogether escape this criticism. But it is necessary to remember that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are justiciable. In framing laws relating to such matters as preventive detention of persons without trial, control of the Public Press and acquisition of property for public purposes, the greatest care is taken by legislative bodies to see that constitutional restrictions and safeguards are not overstepped. And the Judiciary of the country has shown its readiness to remedy any invasion of these rights by the Legislatures or the Executive. The effect of judicial, decisions may, of course, be neutralised by the amendment of the Constitution,–a process which has so far proved all too easy because of the large and obedient majority that the Government can command in the Houses of the Central Legislature. But this state of things cannot endure for ever, and, so far as one can see, the time is not far distant when the availability of Judicial review may become an even more effective deterrent, than it now is, to hasty or arbitrary action prejudicing the people’s Fundamental Rights.

It is evident, however, that judicial protection cannot be omnipotent. There is a well-known maxim that “the Constitution runs against Governments only”. If the Central Government or any State Government or any Legislature infringes constitutional rights, there is a remedy. But if the injury is inflicted by social groups which are powerful but juridically unidentifiable, the matter becomes one of social conscience. Slavery was abolished many years ago in the U.S.A., but social life still bears the taint of racial discrimination pronouncedly in some of the States, less apparently in others. The Indian Constitution declares that “untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.” The members of the scheduled classes complain that in spite of this imperative provision, their people, especially in the rural parts, are still labouring under various disabilities. Most of their leaders, however, are honest enough to admit that the treatment of the scheduled classes has greatly improved of late. If the Intentions of the Constitution are not yet fully translated into a social reality, time and increasing self-confidence on the part of the scheduled classes themselves may be trusted to bring about a clear approximation between them.

The Directive Principles of State Policy enunciated in Part IV of the Constitution are not enforceable rules of law. But the Principles are said to be nevertheless fundamental, and it is laid down that it shall be the duty of the States to apply these principles in making laws. Some of the directions embody principles of real importance; others are a repetition of doctrines which had acquired adventitious vogue in party campaigns in pre-Independence days. Some are of a concrete character; others give expression to vague though noble aspirations. But they all serve one common purpose, namely, that of directing attention to the goal of a welfare State.

Although devoid of legal validity, these directions have not been allowed to remain a dead letter. Such of them as could be implemented by the issue of legislative fiats, such as Prohibition and prevention of cow slaughter, have received fairly prompt attention in some States. A serious endeavour is being made, though as yet on a limited scale, to provide free and compulsory education for children. Industrial and fiscal policies are being orientated, keeping in view the injunction that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be distributed so as to subserve the common good and that wealth and means of production should not be unduly concentrated.

While, thus, something is being done to put into effect the relatively easy and, for the most part, negative items of the programme, its arduous and constructive portions have not been tackled to any significant extent. Constructive work includes the provision of adequate means of livelihood to all citizens and raising their standard of living, which require financial sources, expert assistance, trained workers etc. It is no doubt slow work but it is somewhat surprising that it should have taken all these years to prepare a plan for commencing it. I share with many people the feeling of relief that some plan has emerged at last, and that there is likely to be an end to haphazard activity and vague idealism. If the Plan signifies no more than a return to realism, it should be welcomed.

The real value of the Plan lies in the fact that it seeks to direct attention to selected projects and objectives which could be undertaken without running the risk of serious disappointment. It rightly accords priority to the production of food and other basic requirements of the country. On the negative side, which is not less important, it constitutes a much needed warning to the Central and State Governments not to bite off more than they can chew, not to dissipate limited resources on schemes which, however desirable or attractive, are beyond our present means or can have only a marginal utility.

If good government is no substitute for self-government, it is also true that self-government is no substitute for good government. We want both. They are not incompatible. What is more, we have them, too, in a certain measure.

The administrative machinery is adequate for the essential tasks of governance, which vary little with changes in the political system. It is true that some of the officials have yet to adjust themselves to new conditions and to cultivate a greater objectivity of outlook. Those entrusted with responsible tasks of economic administration have to be specially trained or, in exceptional cases, specially recruited. But, by and large, the core of a suitable public service exists already in most of the States.

At the same time, the politicians who have risen to power are, in many cases, men experienced in public affairs and the ways of representative Government. They have shown that they can rise above the slogans and pre-possessions of the days when they were inevitably in an unvarying opposition, and that they can shoulder responsibilities of office not only with enthusiasm but also with caution.

The elements that make for good government are there. But there are also some signals of danger. The public services are not fully shielded from improper political influences. In the absence of an established convention, the relations between the political Executive and the permanent services are a matter of personal equation. The temptation to interfere with the proper work of the permanent official, which is strong in the professional politician, is not always tempered by lack of official authority. On the other hand, the circumstances also encourage officials that way to play at politics. A scheming public servant is just as odious as a political knight-errant. They are equally a menace to good administration and healthy public life. The cobbler should stick to his last.

In its report for the year 1947 issued on the eve of the Partition of India, the Reserve Bank observed: “The most urgent and serious problem of the two countries (India and Pakistan) as soon as they settle down to the real job of governance is that of the all-pervading corruption which is destroying the vitals of public life generally and the administrative machine in particular.” Seeing that the same criticism is still being repeated in responsible quarters, it does not look as if much has been done to put down this evil.

The multiplication of jobs and increase of establishments on various pretexts is supposed to be a characteristic failing of bureaucracy. But it is apt to be intensified rather than moderated under the influence of popular legislatures. J.S. Mill wrote of the bureaucracy-ridden nations of Europe:

“The multiplication of public employments was always popular in these nations who would rather pay higher taxes than diminish by the smallest fraction the individual chances of a place for themselves or their relatives, and among whom a cry for retrenchment never means abolition of offices but the reduction of the salaries of those which are too considerable for the ordinary citizen to have any chance of being appointed to them.”

At the same time, political leaders have to reward important members both of the faithful and potentially dissident groups. The result is the proliferation of departments and an increase in the number of salaried appointments on the one hand, and the creation of a large number of Boards, Committees etc., whose members receive some sort of honoraria on the other.

These tendencies could be checked, though partially perhaps, if there were strong Opposition parties in the legislatures and a vigilant and vocal public opinion in the country. These have yet to develop.

Meanwhile, thanks to the favourable factors already mentioned, we have been able to maintain national security, preserve law and order, and make tangible progress along certain lines, in spite of grave difficulties.

Some of our friends tell us that republican States (including Kapilavasthu to which Lord Buddha belonged) existed in parts of ancient India, centuries before Christ, that later, the traditions of Parliamentary Government were developed and preserved for long periods in the Buddhist Assemblies, and that the Village Panchayats, which functioned until comparatively recent times, were virtually republics in miniature. The slenderness of the evidence need not make us reluctant to accept the pleasant conclusion that the republican spirit is immanent in our national genius.

I do not know whether it was due to a turn of national atavism or not, but it is a fact that ever since representative institutions were introduced in our country, though in an inchoate form, some sixty or seventy years ago, our public men have shown a truly remarkable aptitude for Parliamentary debate and a perfect understanding of the functioning of representative institutions. The expansion of the legislative bodies, and the increase of their powers under successive schemes of political reforms, have helped to mould political techniques in our country on British patterns. At the same time those of our public men who were appointed Members of Councilor Ministers administered public affairs not only with ability but with an outlook approximating to that of Ministers under a system of fully responsible Government.

It is true that forms and modes of procedure do not constitute democracy. Nor are able politicians and Ministers the only elements needed for its successful working. The development of political consciousness in the community is the most essential prerequisite. The people must realise that, in the conduct of the Nation’s affairs, the ultimate power and equally the responsibility is theirs. Education, time and experience are needed for all this to be achieved in full measure. But our people are naturally imbued with a political sense, which enabled them to pass with credit the crucial test of a country-wide General Election under the system of universal adult suffrage. Our advance towards democratic maturity need not, therefore, be an unduly slow process.

The Asokan wheel which forms a part of our National Emblem signifies, as I have already said, change and progress. Its revolutions are to be counted, not in minutes, but in cycles. So that, if it has turned ever so little in the right direction, the direction of progress, during the short period of our Independence, we have cause for present satisfaction and ground for hope for the future.

¹ At the Indian Institute of Culture, Bangalore, on January 26, 1953.

Back