REWIND

New Delhi, 25 August 2022

CONSENSUS NEEDED ON BASIC ISSUES

By Inder Jit

(Released on 1 November 1983)

Consensus has become a fashionable word in New Delhi these days. Everyone who is anyone now talks of a national consensus, thanks to the AICC (I) meet in Bombay and the varied Opposition reactions to its Political Resolution. The AICC (I), according to the resolution, “is convinced that in the overall interest of the country some basic concepts should be held inviolate and beyond political controversy”. It adds: “The policies and programmes of the Congress (I) provide the basic framework for a national consensus on such issues as national unity, secularism, planning, self-reliance, defence, non-alignment and world peace. The AICC (I) feels apprehensive that the attempt of the Opposition parties to wreck this consensus is ominous portent.” While the BJP Chief, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, and the CPM General Secretary, Mr. EMS Namboodripad, have doubted the Congress-I plea, reinforced by Mrs. Gandhi’s own remarks on the occasion, the United Front, led by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, has reacted constructively notwithstanding the attack on the Opposition parties.

In a resolution on the subject, the United Front has stated: “The Prime Minister has talked about the need for a national consensus on vital issues that face the nation…. We propose the following agenda for evolving such a national consensus and call upon the Prime Minister to fix the time and date for the meeting of all political parties.” Nine points were listed for the agenda. These are (1) Fixing national priorities and formulating policies for economic development; (2) Ban on defections and toppling of democratically elected governments; (3) Ending money power in elections; (4) Preventing the use of State-owned radio and television as organs of the ruling party and ensuring freedom of the Press; (5) Upholding the freedom and independence of the Judiciary and of the Election Commission; (6) Implementation of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission; (7) Protection to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Muslims and other minorities from violence and exploitation; (8) Settlement of Punjab and Assam crises and (9) Restructuring of Union-State relations.

The AICC (I) General Secretary, Mr. C.M. Stephen, has since pointed out that the Opposition and, more especially, the United Front has misinterpreted the AICC (I)’s Bombay resolution and its reference to consensus. He has declared that the Congress (I) at no stage called for a national consensus of all the political parties. The Congress (I) party, he has asserted, was only interested in securing the consensus of the people on the basic issues, not of the Opposition parties. Mr. Stephen’s statement only confirms what some astute observers have opined: the reference to consensus in the political resolution is essentially political and poll-oriented and designed to project the Congress-I as the only champion of the laudable principles of national unity, secularism, planning, self-reliance, defence, non-alignment and world peace. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy of the Janata Party has publicly agreed with the views of Mr. Stephen and stated that there is “no common ground for evolving a consensus in approach between the Congress (I) and the Janata Party.”

Sadly, an excellent idea has got shot down even though it may have been inspired solely by political or poll considerations. India today needs a national consensus on basic national issues as never before since the country adopted the Constitution. The system provided under the Constitution worked well under Nehru --- and for some years after him. This was only to be expected. The Constitution reflected the national consensus. All the major issues were thrashed out in the Constituent Assembly and an agreed democratic system evolved. Simultaneously, healthy traditions and conventions were established. Not everything, after all, can be provided for in a Constitution. The system stood up magnificently to two severe tests --- Pakistani aggression in 1965 and again in 1971. But the harsh truth is that the system has got increasingly run down during the past decade and is no longer functioning as it ought to. Even in its present condition, the system, I am certain, will respond gloriously in the face of another major crisis. Our people’s patriotism fortunately overrides all other considerations. But the crucial point is that the system should also work from day to day in normal times.

The Congress-I has identified seven subjects for a national consensus. Curiously, however, a consensus already exists on these matters explicitly or implicitly both among the political parties and the people at large. Everyone accepts the need for national unity, secularism, planning, self-reliance, defence, non-alignment and world peace. True, there was time when some people in the country were opposed to one or more of these concepts. Rajaji and his Swatantra Party, for instance, strongly disliked socialistic planning and denounced the system as a “licence-permit raj.” Some people once unwisely regarded non-alignment as neutrality and, like America’s John Foster Dulles, even dubbed it as immoral. Prior to Independence and thereafter, a few small political parties or groups have advocated the establishment of a Hindu rashtra (nation). But all these are now largely a thing of the past. A fresh national consensus on the seven issues proposed by the Congress-I is thus unlikely to help matters much. It will neither tone up the system nor ensure its smooth and purposeful functioning.

Democracy provides a delicate but vital balance between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. This balance has regretfully been gravely disrupted during the past decade and more. Parliament today is no longer what it was originally intended to be or what it was during the Nehru era. (Mrs. Gandhi herself has voiced reservations about its present functioning.) The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. But India’s judiciary and its independence has been repeatedly under attack. Only the other day, the Bar Council of India deplored further erosion of the independence of the Courts. In fact, the Executive today has become all powerful. In the bargain, other autonomous institutions have also come to suffer. The Election Commission, for instance, no longer enjoys the respect it did until a year ago. It has mindlessly tended to take orders from the Government as in the case of the undemocratic and unconstitutional Assam poll, ignoring its statutory status designed to give our democracy strength and stability through free and fair elections.

The system has come to acquire many more distortions both at the Centre and in the Union’s relationship with the States, Nehru, Patel and other leaders, for instance, recognized the key role of the services in providing an element of continuity in a parliamentary democracy, as reflected in the adage: Governments will come and governments will go, but the civil servants will go on forever. They accepted the concept of a neutral and impartial civil service, committed only to the Constitution and the country. Civil servants were consciously encouraged to give their advice independently in the best national interest and to implement the Government’s decisions honestly and impartially. But the civil servants have slowly but surely been pushed towards giving up this healthy approach. In fact, commitment has been sought to be given a new connotation and the civil servant encouraged through the use of both the carrot and the stick to commit himself to the party in power and its best interest. The IAS and other Central Services were designed to underpin national unity. But here, too, regional chauvinism is being allowed to run amuck.

Democratically elected Governments have been toppled wantonly in the States --- both by the Janata Party in 1977 and by the Congress-I in 1980. Article 356 of the Constitution, which provides for President’s Rule in the States, has been misused for party ends. Time and gain, State legislatures have been kept in animated suspension by the Congress-I when the Founding Fathers only provided for dissolution of the Assemblies and fresh elections. The Governor’s office was intended to play a key role in India’s federal set up --- both as the Constitutional head of the State and as an agent of the Centre. Nehru bent over backwards to build healthy conventions around the office. But all these have fallen by the wayside. The Governor today is no longer supposed to be appointed for five years, as stipulated in the Constitution. Instead, he is now expected to hold the office only “during the pleasure of the President”. Provoking an erstwhile Governor to candidly comment: “Governors can now be fired at will. How can you expect anyone to be impartial and objective under such conditions.”

Most of the trouble and tension in our polity today can be traced to the distortions in the system as also violating of healthy traditions and conventions both in regard to substance and style. Repeated pandemonium and uproar in Parliament (and State Assemblies) rightly angers people. But few pause to see the problem from the viewpoint of the Opposition. Not long ago, a top leader said: “What do you expect us to do when questions are not answered and lies are brazenly told? What are we to do when we are barred from raising issues?” Do we have a choice?” One simple truth needs to be remembered. What we are witnessing today is not violence but counter violence --- a reaction to destruction of accepted norms and conventions and distortion of the system. In the final analysis, there is need to forge a fresh national consensus on the basic structure of our system. Details in regard to planning and policies must be left to the individual parties. We can ignore the slow destruction of the system only at our peril. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)