For a majority of power-hungry politicians, people, progress, prosperity and peace are on the back-burner. Survival in politics and gaining power is the only consideration. All of this must stop
When India was gasping under the excesses of Emergency imposed by a democratically elected Prime Minister, everyone knew it was a consequence of two separate decisions taken by two individuals in widely contrasting perceptions of one’s duties to the profession and accountability to the people and the Constitution of India. The first one of these was based on values, commitment to profession and determination to the principles of delivering justice.
Justice Jagmohan lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court went ahead to perform his duty, notwithstanding all possible pressures to which he might have probably been subjected to. He went ahead with the judicious performance of his duty, undeterred by any other consideration. He declared the election of Indira Gandhi to the lok Sabha null and void, thus effectively unseating her from the position of the Prime Minister of India.
Indians felt proud of the independence of the judiciary. People rejoiced, felt elated on being citizens of a vibrant functional democracy. This elation, however, was only short-lived. The response of the incumbent Prime Minister was totally unexpected — rather shocking — from a person holding such a high Constitutional position.
A really bold decision was expected as she (Indira Gandhi) had given ample evidence of courage, determination and decision-making traits earlier, particularly during the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Her response indicated abundance of fear, apprehensions, lack of self-confidence and adherence to principles and values. She could not shun power even for an interregnum of few weeks, fight her case and return back triumphantly!
Probably there was acute lack of trust in her colleagues. The choice before her was crystal clear: To stick to democratic practices and traditions and create a niche in history as a courageous and morally strong person. This could have established her statesmanship. It could have also enhanced the strength of the pillars of democracy — judiciary, legislature and executive — and set an example for the future. That was not to be.
Indira Gandhi, with all the experience gained earlier in her battle with the Syndicate, could not envision the verdict of history and chose the undemocratic path of circumventing the Court judgement. She imposed Emergency without consulting her Cabinet. And what a Cabinet it wasIJ It approved the imposition post-facto, with the sole exception of Sardar Swaran Singh; put their signatures on the dotted lines before taking their bed-tea! What followed next was the arrest of all prominent Opposition leaders, their tortures, a widespread sense of fear amongst citizens. It could befit only a tyrant or dictator.
None had cast Indira Gandhi in that mould before the imposition of Emergency. The Indian democracy after Emergency. With changing times, morals, ethics, accountability and values appear to be meant only for occasional preaching and everyone knows these are not meant to be practiced. In the Indian political scenario, hope surfaced when JP movement rattled the establishment. Those in the seat of power were thrashed severely in the General Election of 1977 by the common man.
Unfortunately, there was not much time for the people to rejoice. JP movement was let down by those who came to power in his name, but could not live up to the expectations of the people because of personal egos and unwillingness to live a value-based public life. They paved the way for the triumphant return of Indira Gandhi to the helm within three years. Several young followers of JP, who remained in politics, came to positions of power, looked after only their own welfare and their family. What an irony that contrary to the firm belief of JP, his followers strengthened caste-based politics in India just to win elections. Could these unethical election victories be counted as their successIJ
History would remember the widespread and contagious response to the JP movement in the hope of clean electoral politics and empathetic governance. This was the first such instance that generated hope and saw its decimation within 36 months. Another followed soon after. It was the case of Rajiv Gandhi coming to power with an unprecedented majority in the lok Sabha in 1985.
The initial impression he created was that of a sober, professionally equipped, likeable young person genuinely interested in modernising India. From village Chaupal to India International Centre, people often remarked that at least for the next two decades, there was no chance of anyone replacing him. The sheen was lost within two years. He was unseated in the next election in 1991. One could also recall the rise and fall of the Assam Gan Parishad that emerged out of a student movement, run and conducted from university hostels.
Their main plank was to prevent politically-supported influx of Bangladeshis in India in huge numbers. They gained sympathy and support across the nation. These young persons won the election and moved right from their hostel rooms to the official residences of the Chief Minister and Ministers. Any democratic set-up could be proud of such a happening. It generated high hopes amongst all, particularly the young persons throughout India. This experiment also failed. In all these three cases, the main culprits were inexperience, insensitive personal relations, clash of individual ego, lack of trust and definitely the lure of corruption and unethical practices once the glamour and glitz of power took over.
The latest example before the people, particularly first-time voters of 2019, is that of the Anna Hazare movement. What a beginning and what an end. It was a sight to see hordes of young persons from all over the country rushing to the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi. Their faces were full of hope, expectation and aspiration. People were in desperate need of a leadership that would stick to democratic principles and values, would honestly and sincerely think of the downtrodden and deprived. A new political leadership did emerge, people trusted it, put them on the pedestal of power and began to rue over their choice within a year: “All are alike”. That says it all.
Several nations gained independence after the WWII, mostly in Asia and Africa. Each one of these declared themselves as democratic states that would strive hard to ameliorate the fate of their people, particularly those who were deprived of a decent life for ages under imperialist colonial rule and its tyranny. Most of these became victims of military takeover, political leaders turned into dictators and despots and there was no-comprehension of the ideology of growth and development that would be suited to the country concerned and not thrust upon by outsiders.
In contrast, India received global admiration for strengthening the roots of democracy in its initial years. Pakistan and its travails were often mentioned in international discourses. It suffered several military takeovers. It was Zulfkar Ali Bhutto who deprived Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from taking oath as the Prime Minister of the Integrated Pakistan. What followed is history.
Nations must continuously learn not only from internal happenings but must also keep an eye on the international scenario. Even a peripheral look will indicate that for a majority of politicians and political parties, survival in politics and gaining power at any cost is the only consideration. On umpteen occasions, practically every political party has resorted to politics, confining its elected flocks to five-star comforts, which should be an insult to any dignified individual. All of this must stop forthwith. Even media should take the lead in educating people.
People, progress, prosperity and peace are on the back burner for majority of power-hungry and frustrated politicians in India. In democracies, enlightened civil society must attempt comprehending what transforms a democratic leader into a self-centred timid individual who refuses to realise the basic expectations of his people. There is no dearth of people in every walk of life who are quietly, sincerely and dexterously living a value-based life, contributing to the national cause and their fellow-beings. They must raise their voice against unscrupulous practices being indulged in at higher levels. The civil society, politically unhinged, must realise its responsibility and assert its presence. It must be accepted that these reform must begin from schools, colleges and universities. The future generations must realise that winning an election — through unethical means — may be the biggest defeat in life for a conscientious and committed nationalist citizen.
(The writer is former Director, NCERT, and an educationist)
