How Central Is an Understanding of the Constitution to an Understanding of Indian Politics - Case Study Example

How central is an understanding of the constitution to an understanding of Indian Politics? Politics in India is a vibrant display of democracy, culture and traces of Western, particularly British influence. In its history, it has bred the likes of colorful personages such as Indira Gandhi and parties like the formidable Indian National Congress. As the largest democracy in the world, its politics generates extensive interest and, indeed, it deserved the study owing to its distinct character as well as parallels to its counterparts around the world. This paper discusses how an understanding of India’s constitution is central to the understanding of the country’s political environment. Background The constitution of India declares the country as a “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic”. An Indian government website has this to say about its constitution: Following a British parliamentary pattern, the constitution embodies the Fundamental Rights, which are similar to the United States Bill of Rights, and a Supreme Court similar to that of the United States. It creates a "sovereign democratic republic" called India, or Bharat (after the legendary king of the Mahabharata ), which "shall be a Union of States." India is a federal system in which residual powers of legislation remain with the central government, similar to that in Canada. The constitution of India provides detailed lists dividing up powers between central and state governments as in Australia, and it elaborates a set of Directive Principles of State Policy as does the Irish constitution. (‘Indian Government’ 2000) It is, hence, not surprising that there are scholars who view the Indian constitution as a “rag bag of borrowings”. According to J.C. Johari (1996): The founding fathers borrowed much from the constitutions of other countries and then created a mosaic of stones of different hues. Obviously, it lacks the essential content of Indianness and, for this reason, it establishes not an indigenous but an imported system. (p. 67 ) The Indian government follows that of a federal parliamentary representative framework with power vested on three branches of the central government – the executive branch, the legislative and the judiciary. The executive department is led by the ceremonial office of the President who is elected indirectly by a special electoral college. He appoints a Prime Minister who in turn discharges the real national executive power. This branch of the Indian government closely resembles that of the relationship between the British sovereign and her Prime Minister. This is also the same with the case of India’s bi-cameral legislature which in some ways follows that of its British counterpart. The parliament is consisted of the Rajya Sabha (Council of states) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). Administration of the federal states is also the same as those of federalist countries such as the United States’ only that in India, the federal government is distinguished by the higher degree of control over the country’s 28 states and 7 union territories. The Indian judiciary, which was founded during the British occupation, is similar to most English-speaking countries. Judges conduct trials while the Supreme Court holds the highest seat in the judicial hierarchy. The degree of power within the bureaucracy mostly tilts in favor of the legislature since the President who appoints both the Prime Minister and the magistrates to the Supreme Court owes his appointment to the body, although indirectly. It is, hence, often possible to have patronage politics prevailing within the system where the justices are beholden to the Prime Minister who is also beholden to the Parliament. Constitutional Politics Until the 1990s, Indian politics was dominated by the powerful Indian National Congress Party. This is largely due to its role in the independence movement against the British rule. Jawaharlal Nehru, the founder of the Indian National Congress is also one of the drafters of the Indian constitution. The successors of the party, hence, benefited from the appeal of the Nehruvian legacy and its moral integrity. This period marked the emergence of the political agenda that were shaped mainly by socialist ideology. Indian National Congress is in the midst of it all except for brief periods such as during the 1970s and late 1980s. This is not surprising since the word “socialist” is conveniently wedged somewhere in the constitution’s Preamble in the course of its several amendments. The dominance of the national parties prior to the 1990s provided the peace that permeated in the period. We underscore the fact that the Indian constitution dictates a strong central leadership amidst a federal backdrop. The diversity of the Indian society and the framework of the state divisions, as future developments would show, are conducive environments for conflict and discontent for this type of federalism where power is concentrated on the central government. The emergence of pluralism within the Indian polity, as will be discussed later, assures an increase in tension as minorities and interest-groups emerge and have initiated clamor for their voice to be heard, particularly in the area of power-sharing and autonomy. We should not forget that the Objectives Resolution, penned by Nehru himself and eventually adopted by the Constitutional Assembly in drafting the Indian constitution, stipulated that existing Indian territories shall possess and retain the status of autonomous units, together with residuary powers, and exercise all powers and functions as are vested in or assigned to the Union. (Raman 1990, p. 215) Constitutional Ambiguity There are those who argue that important parts of the Indian constitution are full of ambiguities that law scholars have come to call the constitution as a lawyer’s paradise. (Gopal, p. 151) For instance, there is no clear explanation how the “socialist” and “secular” concepts therein should be interpreted and what is the relationship of the two. As an upshot, there is a debate whether to realize an ideal that India should be a socialist state due to the seemingly contrasting “secular” phrase that hints a kind of liberalism. Indeed, often these parts are subject to litigation and the constitution is in itself amended at least 70 times from its inception. This is possible because the Parliament has the power to unilaterally amend the constitution. (Kapur 1970, p. 485) As a result, the constitution today has also developed differently from what the founders have intended it to be. Dispensing with the ideological clarity, the constitution has generated debates, conflicts, and confusion as to its interpretations, which contribute greatly to what has become of the Indian polity. Contemporary Landscape At the dawn of the 1990s, politics in India saw a shift from a landscape dominated by big national political parties to a kind that welcomed minorities and interest groups. The political movements are fueled by widespread discontent over the dominant party’s administration of the government, which has become lax and overconfident to be brazenly corrupt. Where in the past Indian politics was viewed to be the solution to social ills and the passport to progress, today it is viewed largely as the problem. According to Stephen Philip Cohen (2001, p. 82), the Indian government had become a weak bureaucracy that is unable to accommodate and address its social conflicts. The government is notoriously crippled in curbing criminality and communal disturbances. Also, there are observers who argue that today the government had been criminalized as politicians resort to hiring mercenaries and resorting to illegal activities to strengthen their grip on to power. The rise of alternative parties such as Janata Dal and the advent of coalition parties were a testament to the growing discontent from the electorate. Today, the political trend is geared towards a new period where smaller but numerous minority groups, backward classes, and other interest groups rise to power at the expense of the national political parties, which are experiencing an erosion of support. It is during this time that the constitution has already undergone several makeovers, including landmark statutes granting privilege to backward classes in India’s caste system and the recognition of minorities and interest groups as a middle force in politics. This would leave a mark of its own in the country’s polity and would be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. The Caste Politics To understand how lower castes or Backward Classes should be treated according to the Indian constitution, Ratna Revankar (1971) explains: The social conditions in India were such that they necessitated the incorporation of special treatment for Backward Classes. These classes were denied opportunities of education, which stood in the way of their general advancement. Besides, the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution cannot be operated in vacuum. To build an egalitarian society special preference to Backward Classes is inevitable. (p. 316) However, this special treatment for backward classes is being dragged to the political arena. Often this is taken advantage by politicians to garner the layman’s vote. For instance, statutes, citing the constitution for reference, increased the number of seats for Backward Classes in the Parliament or give free electricity for the less privileged sector. Although, the intention was noble, the system is being politically used in order to advance prospects of getting elected to public office due to the high percentage of the lower class in India’s population. As a result, complaints are now being lodged against concessions for backward classes citing that it is a form of reverse discrimination which some sector argue as unconstitutional. Revankar echoed critics stressing that “adult franchise and democratic decentralization have placed political power in the hands of numerically strong Backward Classes. It is felt that castes are becoming politically dominant and there are situations where they play an important part in the Constitution of cabinets in some States.” (1971, p. 317) As early as the inception of the Indian constitution, there are political scientists who displayed remarkable foresight, arguing that the caste system could be used as a political resource. One of these is B. R. Ambedkar who admonished the founding fathers and the legislators themselves to eliminate the concept of caste from the Indian society to prevent an occurrence of such a problem. (Thomas et al.1972, p. 123) As it is, critics of the caste politics today have sufficient ammunitions against the special treatment of caste classes. Most of these concern affirmative action practice under Indian laws that give exclusive access to members of lower castes to certain government jobs and slots in public universities. In fact, the escalation of the tension brought about by these developments forced the then Prime Minister Morarji Desai to create the Mandal Commission which was mandated to identify the socially or educationally backward sectors. (C. Hurst 2003, p. 320) The recommendations of the commission were never implemented due to the negative public opinion. Plurality The Indian Constitution has encouraged diversity, affirmative action, the caste concept and autonomy for its territories in its vision of an egalitarian society. In the early years of India’s nationhood, these have helped achieve stability owing to the people’s high regard for the national leadership. But the trend of the electorate’s mistrust for the government and the plurality in the Indian political landscape today paved the way to a polarized polity which some even exploit for political gains. Unfortunately it led to what political observers call a deteriorating democratic process in the country, which is marked by communalization where caste Hindu mobilization and Muslim solidarity is at its peak. To illustrate the worsening tension within the Indian political landscape, we turn to Paul Richard Brass as he recounts the election scenario which happened in 1991. According to Brass (2003, p. 279), massive riots provided a background for the election campaign, helping to frame it in a way which worked to the advantage of [certain parties] and that the riots that occurred before and during the campaign had three consequences in the country as a whole: 1. concentration of the Hindu vote; 2. high turnout of sectoral electorates; and, 3. communal polarization. It is, therefore, unfortunate that political scientists paint the future of politics in India as bleak. The country has a sharply divided society where castes and sub-castes, Hindus and Muslims are antagonistic towards each other while at the same time facing their own social evils. There was a lack of political leadership and the whole country had no leader under whose banner and at whose call all Indian could unite and face any calamity. On the whole Indian society was completely a degenerated one… The division of society into caste and sub-caste very adversely affected even our political unity. (Manoj, p. 1) The paragraph above was a description of India back in the colonial times. Sadly, the author could very well be speaking of India and what has become of the country’s political system today. References Brass, R. (2003). The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. University of Washington Press C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. (2003). Indias Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes. Author Cohen, P. (2001). India: Emerging Power. Brooking Institution Press Gopal, R. (1994). Hindu Culture During and After Muslim Rule. M.D. Publications, Pvt. Ltd. “Indian Government.” (2000). IndianChild.com. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.indianchild.com/indian_government_and_politics.htm Johari, J.C. (1996). Indian Political System. Anmol Publications PVT. Kapur, A. C. (1970). Constitutional History of India. Niraj Prakashan Manoj, S. (n. d.). Indian Government and Politics. Anmol Publications PVT. Raman, S. (1990). Amending Power Under the Constitution of India: A Politico-Legal Study. Eastern Law House Revankar, R. (1971). The Indian Constitution: A Case Study of Backward Classes. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press Thomas, M., Wilkinson, T. and Wilkinson, S. (1972). Ambedkar and the Neo-Buddhist Movement. Christian Literature Society Read More