THE INDIAN SCENE
PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA
I
The
outstanding event in January–March (1972) quarter was the holding of general
elections to the Vidhan Sabhas
of sixteen States and two
It
will not be inappropriate in this connection to refer to a few statistics to
bring out the magnitude of the victory won by the Congress and the debacle
suffered by other parties. The table below gives the number and percentage of
seats won by the contending parties, and the
percentage of votes polled by them.
No. of seats Percentage
of Percentage of
won
seats
won votes polled
Congress (R) 1881 71.36 44.67
Congress (0) 86 3.26 4.61
Jan Sangh 100 3.34 7.87
Swatantra
16 0.61 1.11
Socialist 57 2.61 2.57
C. P. I. 109 4.14 3.58
C. P. M. 34 1.29 4.38
Other Parties 134 5.08 11.00
Independents 219 8.31 20.21
Total 2636 100.00 100.00
The
magnitude of the victory of the Congress is shown by the fact that while it won
71.36 per cent of the seats, all other parties and independents put together
won only 28.64 per cent of the seats. Their debacle may be said to have been
complete. In eleven of the Assemblies the Congress won a two-thirds majority.
In Madhya Pradesh it has a three-fourths majority. All this has enabled it to
form governments without the need to enter into coalitions with other parties.
It
is worthwhile noting in this context that the parties of the Right as well as
those of the Left suffered a crushing defeat. The Swatantra
has been repudiated by the states like
The
Congress (0) is also considered to be a party of the Right.
What
is true of the Rightists is equally true of the Leftists. The Socialists won
only 57 in 1972 as against 183 in 1967 and even in
Though from the point of view of
seats won, the Congress occupies a commanding position. The same is not
true from the point of view of the percentage of votes cast in its favour. Only 44.67 of the voters who voted in the ejections
of 1972 supported the party. This shows that it has the support of only a
minority of the active and politically conscious electorate–that part of the
electorate which takes the trouble to participate in elections. A majority of
them, 55.33 per cent, are against the Congress and therefore against the
policies and programmes of the party. In our system
of elections to the Lok Sabha
and Vidhan Sabhas (and not
to the Rajya Sabha or the
Legislative Councils in States) we borrowed the British system of single-member
constituencies in which a candidate who gets the largest number of votes cast
and not a majority of votes cast is declared to be the winner. It is because of
this that there is no correspondence between the percentage
of votes cast for a party in the state or country as a whole and the number of
seats it wins. The only remedy for this is the proportional system of
representation adopted in almost all democracies on the continent of
We
have now to account for the extraordinary victory secured by the Congress.
There were both positive and negative factors which contributed to it. Among
the positive ones priority of place should be given to the charismatic
leadership of Srimathi Indira
Gandhi, the Prime Minister. It is no exaggeration to say that the victory of
the Congress is mostly due to her and that people voted for the Congress
because they considered it to be a vote for her. In 1967 there were serious
doubts about her capacity for leadership. By the time of the mid-term elections
to Lok Sabha in 1971 these
doubts were completely removed. The unprecedented courage she showed in putting
out of power the other leaders who competed with her and the skill which she
displayed in bringing victory to the candidate of her choice for the Presidentship of India attracted to her the admiration of
large sections of the people. The boldness with which she nationalised
the banks and put an end to the privileges of the princely order convinced many
that she was determined on putting into effect the Socialist policies for which
the Congress stood in theory from the days of its Avadi
session. The conviction grew that Congress was no longer a party of status
quo but a party which was bent on bringing about all the needed social
changes. It was in this way that she built up her leadership from 1967 and by
1971 she was the only leader who commanded a national stature. All others were
sectional or group leaders. In her capacity for taking decisions she showed
that she was even superior to her father who was also a charismatic leader of a
rare type.
The
second positive factor was the victory that she brought to the country in the
war with
A
third factor which attracted the people to her party was the
election manifesto which promised that if returned to power the Congress would
take all measures necessary to eradicate poverty, to solve the problem of
unemployment and to remove disparities between the rich and the poor. Of
course, similar manifestos were issued in the past and little came out of them,
but in 1972 the people, as has already been pointed out, believed that under
the dynamic and radical leadership of the Prime Minister the Congress would not
be content with mere verbal socialism but would take necessary action for the
purpose. Other parties also issued manifestos which were more radical in
content but from the experience of those parties while in power between 1967
and 1972 the electorate concluded that they would do little to put their promises
into practice.
Finally,
the measures which the Prime Minister took before the elections to form ad
hoc committees in different states to conduct the election work of the
Congress, to replace Chief Ministers, who were in a position to defy her
because of their local standing and influence, by Chief Ministers of her own
choice, to reconstitute the Councils of Ministers with representatives of Harijans, Tribals and other weaker sections of society
brought considerable dividends to the party in the elections. Some of the Chief
Ministers belonged to the minority communities who had long been suppressed.
This, along with the large representation given to the weaker sections in the
councils, convinced these sections that if the Congress won the elections power
would be more equitably distributed among the different communities and that
there would be an end to the dominant position which landlord communities like Reddys and Kammas in Andhra and Vokkaligars and Lingayats in Mysore had all along enjoyed. This conviction got further
strengthened when in selecting candidates for election the Prime Minister and
the Congress Parliamentary Committee under her direction chose large numbers
from the weaker sections including women. Next to her charismatic leadership it
is this strategy which she adopted to break the monopoly of power wielded in
the post-independence period by the land-owning castes that worked
substantially in favour of the Congress. There has
been the criticism that all this smacks of dictatorship. But one should not
forget that elections are a kind of war, though non-violent, for winning power
and that victory in such a war, as in all wars, depends on concentration of
authority in a single commander-in-chief.
Both
the Prime Minister and the Congress were also criticised
for placing before the electorate national issues like Indo-Pakistan war,
Socialism and so on, instead of local issues, which alone were relevant during
elections to State Assemblies. There is some justification for this kind of
criticism but we should remember that the electorate is not as yet in a
position to distinguish between national and local issues and that moreover the
distinction between them is not clear cut–socialism, removal of inequalities,
ceiling on land holdings and urban property and relief of unemployment are as
much local as national issues.
Among
the negative factors which contributed to the victory of the Congress was the
people’s loss of confidence in Opposition parties. These parties were voted to
power in several states in 1967 but the coalition ministries they formed did
not prove to be stable. Several states consequently came under President’s rule
which meant the elimination of democracy in the state so long as such rule
continued. There was also nothing to show that these parties learnt a lesson
from their failings in 1967-72 and that they were prepared to work together on
the basis of an agreed common programme. Even the attempt at a common front
which they organised to fight Lok
Sabha elections in 1971 was not repeated during the
Assembly elections. In this situation the electorate seems to have felt that no
purpose would be served by voting for opposition parties in large numbers.
Apart
from this factor of a general character there were also special reasons why Jan
Sangh, for instance, lost support in Hindi-speaking
areas or C. P. M. in Bengal. Hindu communalism which was the main plank of Jan Sangh lost much of its force owing to developments in Bangla Desh. In West Bengal the
C. P. M. became completely isolated because of the encouragement which it gave
to violence while in power in that state and also because of the indifference
which it showed to Bangla Desh
issue and the refugee problem–issues which had a wide popular appeal. Many of
its traditional supporters, it is said, have lost faith in elections. This may
account for its debacle to some extent. In the case of Muslims also it is said
that communalism has not the same hold over them now as it had in 1967. The
fact that Congress won in many constituencies in Assam and elsewhere, where
Muslims constituted a majority of voters, shows that once again, as during the
years 1950-1962, they have become pro-Congress and believe that their
interests, as well as the interests of secularism, are closely bound up with
the continuance of Congress in power.
The
consequences of the thumping victory obtained by the Congress are partly good
and partly harmful. Among the good consequences is the stability of State
Government which it ensures during the next four to five years. All cabinets
will be one-party Congress ones. With the huge strength that the party commands
in every Assembly there is no danger of defectors trying to meddle with
cabinets. Stable cabinets will be in a position to concentrate attention on
matters of policy. Decision-making will become easier in homogeneous than in
coalition cabinets.
With
Opposition parties considerably weakened Congress Governments will be in a
position to fulfil their election promises. They will
have the majorities needed for the purpose. For any failure to implement their programmes they will have to blame themselves and not other
parties.
There
will be greater harmony between the Centre and the
States as the same party rules in both of them. When non-Congress Governments
were in power in some of the states after the fourth general election tensions
between the Centre and the States became inevitable
and some State Governments as in Kerala and West
Bengal systematically adopted a policy of confrontation towards the Centre. There will be no occasion for such a situation in
the following four to five years. The Centre will be
in a position to get the acceptance of states for any policy it embarks upon in
the interests of the nation. If it is really serious about its socialistic programmes it will meet with no obstruction from states.
There
is, however, a dark side to this rosy picture. The danger of one-party
domination becoming a veiled dictatorship is clear. There is no escape from
this when opposition parties are weak and feel frustrated. With monolithicism overtaking the Congress–as is the case
now–there will be little scope for internal criticism. Warnings have already
been issued by the High Command against such criticism.
It
has been the considered view of the makers of our Constitution that in this
land of extreme diversity a federal system of government is most appropriate.
The Constitution therefore provided for state autonomy by conferring on State
Governments exclusive power on subjects like Law and Order, Agriculture,
Co-operation, Industries, Education and so on. When the same highly centralised party like the Congress rules over both the Centre and the states the autonomy of the states
practically disappears and State Governments and legislatures become mere
rubber-stamps for implementing the policies dictated to them by the Centre. They cease to take any responsibility themselves.
Very few states, for example, are anxious to shape ceiling legislation in accordance
with local needs. They prefer to delegate the power to the Central Government.
If this procedure continues the advantages we expect from a federal set-up will
disappear. When Chief Ministers, other ministers, and members of legislatures
are nominated by the Prime Minister as is the case now, there is no question of
state autonomy being maintained.
The
huge majorities which the Congress secured in Lok Sabha and in state legislatures has also resulted in the
members of those bodies losing all interest in their work. On many occasions
there is no quorum for carrying on business. The question hour has become dull.
Weak Opposition parties are unable to criticise
governmental policies in an effective manner. Legislatures have ceased to be
forums for discussing public issues. The majority of legislators have become
functionless. It is no wonder that the question is raised in certain quarters
whether any useful purpose is served by legislatures with their present-day
strength and whether there is not a case for reducing it.
It
is the lesson drawn from the working of democracy in most countries of the
world that a strong Opposition is necessary for the purpose. It is unfortunate
that such an Opposition has not so far come into existence in our country. With
Congress, the ruling party, having become extremely radical there is need for a
real Conservative Party which is for orderly and slow change, which is opposed
to totalitarian policies and which safeguards minimum property rights and the
values of individual freedom. It is time that the Opposition parties in the
country which believe in the right kind of conservatism come together and build
a real Conservative Party. No one need be ashamed of being a conservative. Let
no one forget that Edmund Burke, one of the greatest of political thinkers, is
the father of modern conservatism.
26-5-’72