[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

S.V.Raju's article



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
S.V.Raju of the Project for Economic Education has sent in his earlier
article and writ petition. V.imp work. 

These are being sent in two separate e-mails and also are found in HTML and
Word formats at:

     http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/notes.html

The article:

			   Making a Mockery of Indian Democracy
			    ----------------------------------

Bombay
April 19, 1996									S.V. Raju

While socialism is passing into the history books as a once-noble ideal
that degenerated into an instrument of tyranny in most parts of the world,
it continues to bedevil the Indian polity. Even though we have jettisoned a
good deal of the licence-permit-quota regime which in India is the visible
symbol of socialism, the word continues to disfigure the Indian
Constitution and is making a mockery of Indian democracy.

In India a political party cannot register itself with the Election
Commission of India unless it swears allegiance to socialism along with
secularism and democracy. In other words, as the law relating to elections
stands today only a socialist party can participate in the Indian political
process.

When and how did this happen ?

In 1976, the preamble to the Constitution of India was amended. The words
"Sovereign Democratic Republic" were amended to read "Sovereign Socialist
Secular Democratic  Republic". The amendment was adopted during the last
days of the brief dictatorship imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she was
the Prime Minister of the Government of India. She of course called it an
'Emergency' when most leaders of parties in the opposition were put in
prison (without trial) and civil liberties suspended.

Based on the amended preamble, Parliament passed in 1989 an amendment to
the Representation of the People Act which introduced the concept of
registration of political parties for allotment of symbols and the
entitlement to other facilities such as free copies of electoral rolls etc.
A new section was added to the Representation of the People Act - Section
29 (A).

This new section stipulates among other things that a political party
seeking registration should swear allegiance to the Constitution of India
in general and to the principles of socialism in particular. Every party
candidate filing his nomination paper has also to swear such an oath of
allegiance to socialism. Strangely an independent  candidate (i.e., a
candidate who does not belong to any party) has only to swear allegiance to
the Constitution of India without having to spell it out in terms of his or
her allegiance to socialism.

The Swatantra Party, a liberal democratic party was founded in 1959 long
before the enactment of Section 29 (A). The Party was founded by Mr. Minoo
Masani a patron of the Liberal  International and Mr. C. Rajagopalachari a
close associate of Mahatma Gandhi.

The Swatantra Party split in 1974. One group to which this writer and Mr.
Masani belonged decided to continue the Swatantra Party in the State of
Maharashtra. And it was this party that asked for registration under the
new law. The other group in the split joined another party. In its
application the Swatantra Party explained that while the
party was prepared to swear allegiance to the Constitution and to the
principles of secularism and democracy it was not prepared to swear
allegiance to socialism for the simple reason that the Swatantra Party was
sworn to oppose socialism and statism. The reply from the Election
Commission was truly bureaucratic : 'Please complete the registration as
stipulated by Section 29 (A)'.

Denied registration and in the context of the Maharashtra State assembly
elections we sought justice from the Bombay High Court by filing a writ
petition on 15th December, 1994 three months before the state assembly
elections.

It took the High Court in Bombay 18 months and 20 days to take up the
matter and that too only to set a date for the hearing. On April 4, 1996, a
Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and
another judge ordered a hearing arguments in the first week of August (a
clear 3 months after  yet another election, this time to the Lok Sabha  or
the House of the People (India's lower house of Parliament ). Thus for the
second time, the Swatantra Party was denied its right to participate in the
democratic process because of its refusal to give up its liberal position
and to falsely declare its adherence to socialism.

In our writ petition we clearly stated that the "Swatantra Party does not
wish to circumvent by prevarication and falsehood" the provision in the
election law which compels political parties to swear loyalty to socialism.
The petition pointed that we were determined not to follow the example of
"extreme revolutionary parties" who for the purpose of securing
registration falsely swore that "they bear allegiance to democracy" or of
communal (religion based) parties who falsely swore "allegiance to
secularism".

Our petition pointed out that Section 29 (A) did not provide "for any
verification of the truth" of a party's assertion that it was socialist,
secular or democratic, "nor is there any instance of registration being
denied to or withdrawn from any party on the basis of proven falsehood". In
other words the Swatantra Party could easily have sworn loyalty to
socialism merely to obtain registration and then gone on to attack this
ideology in its manifesto. "But" said our petition, the Swatantra Party had
"no wish to resort to such unconscionable procedure".

The petition clarified that its "grievance is not against the amendment to
the Preamble to the Constitution incorporating therein a reference to
socialism. The Constitution contains many dispositions not all of which
need to be uniformly acceptable to any given individual or  association of
individuals. What is essential is that a citizen must have the right and
the possibility at par with any other citizen to act and to canvass by
constitutional means, for changing the dispositions of the Constitution in
accordance with his inclinations however unreasonable they may look to
others at  a given point of time. Section 29 (A) of the Act prevents
committed and sincere non-socialists from agitating as an organised force
in favour of getting the Constitution modified in their favour by entering
the Legislature and influencing the persuasions of the other members of
parliament".

The petition pointed out that the "term socialism has been applied to a
large spectrum of theories over the last two centuries. Saint Simonism
based on compassion for the less fortunate and suffering fraternity;
Owenism as a serious attempt at organisation of the weaker sections into
economiucally viable units; Fabianism with its mighty intellectual prestige
provided by George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb; Guild Socialism
advocated by G.D.H. Cole; Welfarism providing a misplaced justification for
equal distribution for wealth; the European type of liberal, democratic,
welfarist socialism; the Keynesian model entrusting the responsibility of
ensuring fuller levels of employment and investment; third world states
resorting to planning as an instrument of accelerating growth and equality;
the Soviet type of bolshevik scientific socialism based on dialectical
materialism, historical determinism, class conmflict, the theory of surplus
value aimed at industrialisation nationalisation, planning and dictatorship
of proletariat; and last but not the least, the Maoist, Guevarist,
Castroist, Royist etc. provide only part of the spectrum of ideas that have
been identified with the word socialism....Other schools of socialist
thought are identified by the appendage of qualifications like democratic,
christian, liberal etc."

The petition went to refer to the dictionary meaning of the word "The
Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word socialism as political and
economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the community
as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution and
exchange; a policy or practice base on this theory. It is quite clear that
the word socialism in its unmixed form means much more and much less than a
system based on justice, liberty, equality  and fraternity than is
envisaged in the Constitution of India. It, therefore, follows that the
oath of allegiance to both the Constitution of India and to socialism are
in good part mutually contradictory."

Drawing an essential distinction between socialism and liberalism, the
petition observed: "The essential part of all brands of socialism is the
notion of the paramountcy of society over the individual; of social
decision-making over individual behaviour. This concept of paramountcy
stands in ruins today. It is now accepted quasi-universally that mankind
has not, till date, invented anything better than the market mechanism for
arriving at the best decisions for the society as a whole"

The petition, as we mentioned earlier will be heard in the first week of
August. But it will not erase the fact that a liberal democratic party has
been denied its right for the second time to participate in the elections
because of its refusal to accept socialism, as its creed.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------