关于印度政治民主的研究

在任何一个社会都需要政治治理。我相信民主是治理的最好形式之一。霍布斯认为，在任何社会中生需要权力的集中。这清楚地显示需要一个运转良好的政府。詹姆斯•麦迪逊说，“如果人人都是天使，没有一个政府是必要的。如果是天使统治人，政府外部或内部控制是不必要的。” （麦迪逊联邦党人文集-51）。

这清楚地表明需要民主从不同的角度提供一个全面的方法来控制政府，这可能会超越边界成为独裁专制，然而他们两确是不同的。这是因为民主是人民的政府，为了人民并且 由人民组成。基本上，它涉及该国的公民在选择他们的政府的权利。

民主已经赋予了印度政治。民主甚至在吠陀时代就已经存在。民主，对于我来说，，不仅是一个政府的形式，它也是一种生活方式。

There has been a need for governance in any society. I believe democracy is one of the best forms of governance. Hobbes believes that there needs to be centralised authority to survive in any society. This clearly shows that need of a well-functioning government. James Madison said,"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, no external or internal controls on the government would be necessary." (Madison,The Federalist Papers-51). 

This clearly shows the need for a democracy which is different from and provides a comprehensive means to control the government which might transcend into the boundary of dictatorship and authoritarianism yet is different from both. This is because democracy is government of the people, for the people and constituted by the people. Basically, it involves the citizens of the country have role in choosing their government.

Democracy has been innate to Indian Politics. It has been seen that democracy existed even in the Vedic age. Democracy, according to me, is not just a form of Government it is a way of life. The question is, is this way of life really enjoyed by all Indians in post-colonial India? As mentioned above, for me, democracy would be one of the best forms of governance, yet in India it would have been implemented better. In order to understand why Indian democracy has changed for the better or for the bad, we need to study it in the light of Indian history of the post-colonial times and then subsequently relating it to the contemporary India. Just as Adrian Leftwich writes,"To study politics is to study critically the history of possibilities and the possibilities of history". (Leftwich 1984).

Thus, for me democracy is the rule of the majority where every citizen or the common man of the country is free to participate in the elections and is free to enjoy certain rights and freedoms. Here, the power is constituted in the hands of the public and is exercised by them indirectly through the elected representative. Hence, I believe that in a democratic country the inequalities among the masses would be less and everyone would have equal rights and privileges and can participate in the decision making of the country.

Nehru's Influence on 'Democracy'
Nehru was a staunch believer in democracy advocated a representative form of democracy characterized by regular elections, adult franchise and parliamentary form of government. The very fact that proper elections were carried out after independence, in spiteof the presence of no other party of a national level stature in the political arena, shows his commitment to establish a well-functioning democracy.

This might portray a picture of Nehru being very democratic, yet I feel that the British while going just handed the power of rule over to the Indians, but those Indians who got political power, already had economic and social power and this did not trickled down to the common man. This I believe was the greatest flaw because the government comprised of the dominant 'upper' classes. Kaviraj, through his essay on ' Critique of the Passive Revolution', also sees India being a bourgeois state which is a state of dominance is enjoyed by the capitalists. Hence, I consider that the state here, becomes capitalist, as Marx would say, because the economic relations and the capitalist planning is all done for capital reproduction for the benefit of those who dominate the state.

I would also like to argue that during the Nehruvian time, the government was pseudo-secular and pseudo-socialist. This can because even though he wanted to eradicate poverty through mixed economy, land reforms and agrarian transforms, they failed due to the influence of industrialization which Nehru promoted. Nehru believed that India should be economically self-sufficient, although his approach to self-sufficiency led through large-scale industrialization rather than village industries. The socialist resolution used communist language and called for the 'establishment of a socialistic pattern of society where the principal means of production are under social ownership or control' and there is 'equitable distribution of the national wealth.' According to me, with industrialization being promoted it would never be possible for equitable distribution of wealth occurring because the industrialists would want to gain profits at the cost of the common man. And hence, this ideology failed.

Moreover, I would argue persuasively that the basic inadequacy in Nehruvian style of governance did not lie in a faulty vision, but in an inability to establish new institutions to implement the programme of national development and social change. Nehru failed to follow the adult suffrage which he believed was of prime importance to development, with a speedy enforcement of land distribution and tenancy reform, a proper emphasis on education, a revision of the administrative system and control of population. Thus in all, Nehru's idea of democracy was borrowed and hence did not work well in the Indian state at that time due the influence of the elite in the democracy.

Indira Gandhi's Democracy
The era of Indira Gandhi's reign is called the 'era of disillusionment'. The reason behind this was 'emergency' that was declared by her. I would like to argue that there was a weakening of the democratic foundations in our country. The period became considerably turbulent and instable and shook the very foundations of democracy.

Indira Gandhi tried to recreate congress party in the 1970's and make it more 'populist organ'. She promised 'alleviation of poverty' to the masses, thus gaining their support. However, her rule can be said to an authoritative one as the popular support she received and concentrated only to her. She has transformed government which was supposed to be for the public to her personal tool. She imposed 'emergency' to avoid being out of politics and protect her vested interests, marring the lives of the common man. Fundamental rights of citizens were suspended, censorship was imposed on the press and many prominent political leaders were arrested. The economy is the country worsened. From these arguments, I believe that Indira Gandhi was a power-hungry woman and individualistic who imposed emergency to safeguard her own political and personal interested.

Apart from this, corruption was high among the political leaders. In fact, Indira Gandhi herself is said to have 'institutionalized' corruption by holding two posts in the government. Also, she implemented 'green revolution' which can also be seen as an elitist way of encroaching into agriculture because not all farmers would benefit from it. Thus, the democracy was badly shaken up. In my opinion, during Indira Gandhi's rule, democracy didn't exist at all. I argue that the citizens and common man were firstly all in awe of her, and hence she got the populist vote. She didn't implement what she had promised to them and they would not speak up and stand up to her and fight for their rights. Secondly, the poverty was on a rise as well. Breaking down of institutions and green revolution were the ideas of the elite and hence, not really a mouthpiece for the poor. And lastly, I believe that the governance that prevailed was largely 'individualistic' and not at all democratic in any sense of the word.

Rajiv Gandhi's democracy
Indian democracy after being almost non-existent in Indira Gandhi's time began to take hold on the country again during the Rajiv Gandhi's rule. According to me, he can be seen as a mediocre leader as he did not do much to change the situation if India, though he did try to undo the mistakes made by his mother and brother. He even accepted the corruption claim and believed that the common man need to be helped. His reign can be summed up with good intentions, some progress, frequently weak implementation, and poor politics He tried to reform the economy and rehabilitate congress. In this time too, populism continued to exist in the congress because the work wasn't towards the nation. By the end of the 1980's, his leadership faded out and so did congress to a large extent.

I argue that his rule wasn't really democratic because of the way the center-state relations were dealt with. This is seen in the light of Punjab's internal politics which couldn't be resolved and there was a rise in religion and politics during this time. In case of the Punjab issue, interests of the Congress Party posed an obstacle to a reconciliatory approach. Here again, for the interests of the governing class, the common man or Sikhs in this case had to suffer.

Secondly, the entire secular outlook of democracy also can be contested. Rajiv Gandhi used the strategy of serially appeasing first Muslim fundamentalists and then Hindu fundamentalists reflected cynical contempt for the people and their intelligence. He appeased Muslim fundamentalists; with the Shah Bano amendment, which denied divorced Muslim women the right to maintenance that all other divorced Indian women enjoyed. He appeased Hindu fundamentalists by opening the gates of the locked Ayodhya premises for laying the foundation stone for a Ram temple.

Thus, his intent was more or less right, but I believe it did not help in repairing the damage caused to the democracy in any way. Democracy thus, was seen to be on a downward road.

The 1990's!
In this section, I would like to look at to important changes that came about. One being the reforms in the political economy and second being the increase in the caste-based party formation in India.

Pranab Bardhan in the chapter on "the Political Economy of Reform in India" takes a mixed stand on whether changes have occurred or not. He does believe that certain groups or parties tend to dominate over the policy formation. But with an increase in the dominant coalition has remained the same. The corporate coalition especially after economic reforms, have become both more prosperous and also more powerful. The other element of the coalition is the class bureaucrat that is weaker now, in the sense that because of reform we have fewer regulations, so bureaucrats have less power. On the other hand, the political class has not become less important. He also argues that these coalitions have not changed the power structures.

I do agree with him, that Economic Concentration has increased but political instability and democratic failure of machinery continues. Also, I would like to see this in the light of the present day democracy. This clearly shows how there exists an inequality in opportunities. In politics, there existed a monopoly of power which I believe is changing. This I shall look at with the entry of castes in politics.

As Bardhan mentions there has been a diminishing hold of elite control and there has been an unfolding of populist democracy to reach the lower rungs of the hierarchy and this can be seen a sign of democratic progress, yet he argues corruption and nepotism is on a rise these of this. I do agree with him and would like to argue that our need for group equality rather than individual rights is somehow suspicious because it is human nature to be in competition. Moreover, this entire coalition of parties leads to divided or fragmented opinions which are not for the greater good for all the citizens, but only for a certain section who are getting benefitted through this election scheme.

Thus, as Rajni Kothari puts it the Indian model is based less on coercing individuals and more on making them pursue their growth albeit in a given framework. I believe it is based less on conflicting self-interests and more on reconciliation of such interests on a common ground formulated by the legitimized elite. Moreover, though casteism is weakening, caste is still important in politics and this is now strengthened through caste associations. The use of reservation is also on an increase. As some would argue this would show how democracy has led to an increase of the lower castes in politics, I would counter this argument by saying this need not affect all the lower castes, some of them continue to be marginalised and in the present day all the more because they may not have representation. Moreover, those who do have representative may not be benefitted due to the corruption that exists and if their leader wants to work towards his own personal agendas.

Conclusion  结论

Thus, I still believe that there is no denying the fact that democracy is still the most successful form of government in the world today. There is, however, a need for us to educate masses and also have a revise our constitution. The distortions that have risen in recent years must be corrected, if we really want out nation to succeed in democracy. I believe that today, Indian democracy is webbed with complexities of corruption, power politics, nepotism, greed and authority.

The keepers of democracy who are supposed to be safe guardians of our institutions are the same ones who are disconnected with the wants and needs of the common people of India. It is said that democracy is of the people by the people, for the people. Unfortunately it has become only for a few people who enjoy the benefits of democracy while the common man is becoming disillusioned and pessimistic about democracy. There is no doubt that India is a democratic republic because of the institutions established by the British. But post-colonial India has not reached its full potential. We are still trying to run our country with the institutions whose definition of democracy is narrow.