Nation longs for real democracy

Rahul Singh

Yes, we are proud of our democracy, the largest in the world, but it is a seriously flawed one. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government — except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” It’s quite true for us. Democracy has kept us united, no doubt about that. Military rule broke up Pakistan. Authoritarian rule split up the Soviet Union. Had they both been democratic, they might still be one nation. Perhaps in Pakistan’s case, a country — West and East Pakistan – separated by a huge mass of Indian territory, united only by religion, it was not a feasible proposition from the start.

But the breakaway of the eastern wing and the creation of an independent Bangladesh was not the handiwork of Indian manipulation, however much many Pakistanis believe that to be the case. It was mainly the fault of the Pakistan military regime, aided and abetted by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. A democratic election had just taken place in Pakistan and East Pakistan leader Sheikh Mujibur Rehman’s party had got a majority. Sheikh Mujibur should have been asked to form the government. Instead, Bhutto was able to persuade Pakistan’s army commander, the unlamented General Yahya Khan, to crack down on East Pakistan. The rest is history. 

Indira Gandhi may have used the opportunity to help in the creation of Bangladesh, but it was Pakistan’s failure to carry through the democratic process that really led to the break-up of the country. However, most Pakistanis, especially the military, have never forgiven India for this. 

In contrast to this is what happened in India, specifically in Tamil Nadu (earlier Madras). In the 1960s, a separatist Dravidian movement had been set in motion in the state, mainly due to the Centre’s ham-handed attempt to force Hindi language down the throats of Tamilians. Many of them felt their Dravidian culture was in danger and there was even a serious talk of breaking away from the Indian union and forming a separate homeland. Democracy came to the rescue, as it had not done in Pakistan. A Dravidian party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) came to power in the state in 1967 and the separatist demand melted away. Democracy always has a moderating, healing effect, while authoritarianism polarises and hardens attitudes. 

There is also a misconception that a dictatorship, or one-party rule, is better for economic development than a democratic set-up which retards growth. What a notion! Compare North Korea and South Korea, the first is as authoritarian as you can get and the second a full-fledged democracy. They are the same people, one crushed and backward, the other free and at present among the most developed and prosperous societies in the world. The same comparison can be made between East and West Germany, before they united. Spain and Portugal languished under dictators Franco and Salazar, yet accelerated forward economically and socially once democracy arrived. 

Ditto for most of Latin American countries, once mostly ruled by military dictators but now have democratic governments. There are exceptions, of course. Tiny Singapore and China, both of whom have made phenomenal progress under authoritarian, one-party rule. 

Let us now turn to the limitations of democracy and how it is still such a flawed process in India. To illustrate that, a true anecdote. In the 1970s, when I was editing the Indian edition’s Reader’s Digest, we had a conference of the Digest editors from all over the world. One of the invitees was Melvin Laird, who as Secretary of Defence had held probably the second-most important position in the US administration, after the President. When I met him, he had accepted the position of “senior counsellor for national and international affairs” for the US Reader’s Digest. To me, this seemed a terrible, humiliating come-down, unfitting for a man who had once been such a key political figure. I had the temerity to tell him this, over a dinner. 

“Young man,” he replied, “In your country, I believe people enter politics mainly to make money. In my country, many of us sacrifice a lot by going into politics.” 

His reprimand, which is what it truly was, has remained with me to this day. Yes, in India, politics has increasingly become a money-making profession, not a public duty for which you sacrifice a great deal. 

Let me end with another anecdote about somebody who was in college with me in England, Martin Bell. He became a famous TV BBC broadcaster. In 1997, an MP, Neil Hamilton, was standing for re-election from the Conservative Party. There were strong allegations of sleaze and wrongdoing against Hamilton. Three weeks before the General Election, Bell decided to leave the BBC and stand against Hamilton, saying that if he was elected, he would serve for only one term. He won by a landslide and the defeat marked the end of Hamilton’s political career. 

That is true democracy at work, cleaning up the system. Sadly, it does not happen in India. Which is why I am looking closely at the fate of Sadhvi Pragya Thakur. If she wins, it will be a very sad day for Indian democracy, making it even more flawed than it already is. 

The writer is a veteran journalist