It would be comforting to believe that the ugly developments in Haryana do not represent the way Indian democracy has come to function. But to believe that would be to delude ourselves. Just as it could be said in the first two decades of the century that what Bengal thought and did today, the rest of India would follow tomorrow, it can be said now that Haryana has become a pace-setter in the decline of the quality of Indian democracy.
The governor, Mr. GD Tapase, has come in for a lot of criticism for the unprincipled manner in which he has handled the situation resulting from the election to the Vidhan Sabha. He could have had one excuse for his deplorable conduct. By claiming, however, that neither the Prime Minister nor any other central Congress (I) leader had given “any advice, instruction, guidance, or direction to the governor”, the ruling party has made his position wholly indefensible. He cannot pass on the blame to someone else.
It is in keeping with the way issues like this are handled these days that the disclaimer should have come from one of the general secretaries of the AICC (I), Mr. Chandulal Chandrakar and not from the Union home minister who normally keeps in touch with governors on behalf of the Union government. This blurring of the distinction between the government and the ruling party raises important issues, though this is not a new development. But that is a separate problem.
Mr. Tapase stands condemned in the eyes of all those who have any concern for democratic norms without which no democracy can survive for long. The Congress (I) disclaimer must add to his embarrassment and make it reasonably certain that he will return to the obscurity of a retired district politician from which Mr. Morarji Desai had rescued him in 1977.
Grand ‘Homecoming’
Assuming that the central Congress (I) leadership is not responsible for Mr. Tapase’s decision to ignore all norms of democratic behaviour, what about the way its nominee in Haryana, Mr. Bhajan Lal, has gone about the task of securing the necessary majority for the unavoidable trial of strength in the Vidhan Sabha? Surely, it cannot disown responsibility for the grand “homecoming” of the party rebels. They have not only been enthusiastically welcomed back into the fold but also given ministerial gaddis.
It is a wholly unnecessary wound the Congress (I) leadership has 1 inflicted on itself and the party. In this case, it cannot even claim that it had no alternative. For it could have allowed the Lok Dal leader, Mr. Devi Lal, to go ahead and form the government in the sure conviction that it would collapse in almost no time. Indeed, so jealous has been the Lok Dal chief, Mr. Charan Singh, of Mr. Devi Lal that he himself would have spared little effort to bring him down. Once again, Mrs Gandhi could have depended on Mr. Charan Singh to work as an “ally” of the Congress (I) without any condition or price. That would have paved the way for a stable Congress (I) ministry and the central leadership an opportunity to have a team of its choice. It could even have had a different chief minister, if it was not happy with Mr. Bhajan Lal and was inclined to replace him with someone more suitable for the job.
Apparently the Congress (1) leadership panicked and allowed itself to be bulldozed by Mr. Bhajan Lal who alone had a stake in pushing events in the direction they have taken. He might have retained his position as leader of the Congress (1) legislature party and therefore become chief minister after the fall of the Lok Dal government. But he could not have been sure that the party’s central leadership would continue to favour him if it got a proper opportunity to review his performance and its impact on the fortunes of the Congress (I) in the state. It was vital for him to deny it such an opportunity.
Survival Law
Mr. Bhajan Lal is not overburdened with a strong sense of public morality. Few politicians are in Haryana where survival is the highest principle. So he would not have had any compunction in living by the only law he and his supporters know – the law of survival. But why should the central leadership have allowed itself to be manipulated by him?
It cannot argue in self-defence that the stakes were too high. There were no stakes at all. The state would have fallen into its lap like a ripe plum if only it was prepared to wait. This argument would, however, not hold if like the Lok Dal, the Congress (I) in Haryana, too, is little more than a collection of individuals who cannot be expected to stay together even briefly without the adhesive of power and all that goes with it. In that case, we are in a different ball game.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the developments in Haryana is the ease with which the top Congress (I) leadership has reconciled itself to the doings of Mr. Tapase and Mr. Bhajan Lal. It has shown no signs of being disturbed by the turn events have been given. In any case, it has allowed Mr. Bhajan Lal to “manage” things.
The most obvious explanation for it is that it takes an amoral view of politics. But behind it all lies a view of democracy which reduces it to a numbers game. And that is not a malaise which afflicts only the Congress (I). Every other party suffers from it.
The concept of democracy, of course, involves the counting of heads. It is just not possible to define it except in those terms. As the centuries-old charge has it, under this system 100 donkeys count for more than 10 wise men. Since there is no method whereby a community can choose its rulers in conformity with Rousseau’s concept of the general will, it is necessary to hold elections for the purpose. And elections must involve the counting of heads. But an election is only the first step towards a democratic form of government and it, too, must take place under certain rules which have come to be summed up in the slogan of fair and free elections. Democracy is a system. It cannot survive without respect for its rules. It is not a free for all in which the more numerous are entitled to prevail.
Democracy has often been described as rule of law as opposed to rule of men which must inevitably degenerate into some form of tyranny. That is why all genuine democrats insist on an independent, competent and honest judiciary which can ensure adherence to the constitution and the laws on the part of the executive. But even the most independent-minded judiciary cannot ensure respect for the spirit of the constitution.
Mr Justice Lentin could declare the then Maharashtra chief minister, Mr AR Antulay, guilty of abuse of office by holding that there was a nexus between the grant of cement quotas to certain builders in Bombay and donations by them to trusts set up by him. But he could not under the law take the next logical step and disqualify him from continuing as chief minister or holding any other elective office.
In Mr. Antulay’s case Mrs. Gandhi acted and secured his resignation. But several others have gone scot-free after similar adverse judgments by duly appointed commissions of inquiry. And there are innumerable cases of not just wrong-doing but of virtual assaults on the Constitution which have not in the past attracted and do not attract today judicial scrutiny. Indeed, they cannot be dealt with judicially. How is a judge, for example, to determine beyond “reasonable doubt” the means which Mr. Bhajan Lal has used to win over legislators or the means which Mr. Devi Lal used in order earlier to ensure their support for him?
Press Vigilant
A vigilant press can be helpful in exposing such dirty goings-on. It is one of the great fortunes of Indian democracy that such a press exists. But it has survived, grown and even prospered precisely because those at the helm of affairs in New Delhi have at least been willing to tolerate it. Otherwise the Kairons, Bakshis, Patnaiks, Antulays, Thakurs and Chaudhuris in the states would have performed its last rites long ago. And even the most vigilant press can in effect do no more than appeal to the good sense of the community, arouse it and expect to act. In India not only the community but also its elected representatives are often unwilling to live up to their obligation.
In Maharashtra, for instance, the press campaign did not make the slightest impression on the support for Mr. Antulay among the legislators. The opposition by and large behaved as if it had entered into a conspiracy of silence with him. And not a single body of public-spirited men and women organised a single demonstration against him.
This public apathy is one reason why even Mrs. Gandhi’s detractors feel compelled to appeal to her good sense. In India today there is no other practical choice. That places her in a strong position but it also imposes on her the obligation to uphold and promote certain standards of public morality. Else, she will be reduced to a symbolic figure which buccaneers sheltering behind her will freely exploit. They are already doing so on a grand scale.
The Times of India, 2 June 1982