Parliamentary Democracy that Pandit Nehru Nurtured

 

 

 

 Parliamentary Democracy that Pandit Nehru Nurtured

The credit for establishing and experimenting successfully with the Parliamentary Democracy during the most defying period -the crucial and formative years of post independent India- goes to Pandit Nehru, who governed the country for 18 long years. Owing to his pre-eminent position, the Cabinet system of government that he headed had a high degree of stability, though the system was new and the persons ruling the country had no experience of governance, with yesteryear rebels confronted with the task of nation building.

Until 1950, Nehru and Patel made all the decisions of substance in the Cabinet. The only other person whose counsel was regularly sought was Maulana Azad- the Doyan of Indian’s nationalist Muslims.  In the Cabinet, Nehru was surrounded by persons who were conservative and did not share his ideology, reflecting the heterogeneous character of the Congress party.  He was trying to emulate Mahatma Gandhi, who converted his opponents by example and brought them into his inner circle. He was loyal to his old colleagues, persons who fought side by side for Independence. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary system of government provided a framework that made the government accountable and responsible, imposing on those in authority the obligation to explain and defend their exercise of it, at the same time enabling those outside to have channels of representation, criticism and appeal, providing an effective mechanism of checks and balances.

Nehru did not allow the massive majority of the Congress in the Parliament to suppress and stifle the opposition and dissent.  The Parliamentary debates were vigorous, as illustrated in the cases of Hindu Code Bill and the States Reorganization in the very first Lok Sabha, when the opposition numerical strength was insignificant. The opposition, though small and fragmented, was keen, able and vociferous. New convention and precedents were established. As Michael Brecher said, “an encouraging feature is the attitude of the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues, who are consciously trying to raise the status of Parliament.”

If Parliament is to be real it must be fairly conducted. As Morris Jones said, the Indian Parliament during the Nehru Era afforded “ample opportunity for the ventilation of grievances, spirited Question Periods, adjournment Motions, Half-an-Hour Discussions, and debates on Demands for Grants”, and the discussion of Bills bringing out the main issues, giving the Opposition an opportunity to express their view. And the “parliamentary institutions are more firmly established in the way of life of the Indian people than they are in that of many a country in Europe”.

Nehru declared time and again his unwavering faith in the democratic process. He ensured that he remained present in the House every day during the session. He was active in debates; tolerant and courteous to the Opposition; encouraging them, as he believed in building parliamentary conventions. He was remarkably attentive to MPs inquiries, often responding instantly. He dominated the proceedings, by sheer weight of his personality. And “his pre-eminence can only be compared with that of Churchill at Westminster during the second world war”.  Often he would leap to rescue a minister feebly answering questions, and make moving and solemn speeches.

The Indian Parliament was guided by the able Speaker G. V. Mavlankar- sharp and shrewd, patient and determined, and no tool of the government.  He shaped the rules and conventions of debate, established the privileges of the house, set up machinery for determining with opposition participation the allocation of parliamentary time and created a whole system of parliamentary committees to function as watch--dogs over the conduct of administration. He made his position- and through it that of parliament- one of substantial independence of government.

The fair conduct of proceedings is a good test of parliamentary independence. The Parliamentary Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee and the Select Committees provided ample opportunities to ensure fair conduct of the government business.  Nehru wanted the opposition to grow.  And “it makes sense to say that if opposition had not existed he would have found it necessary to invent”, for success of a parliamentary democracy an effective opposition is a sine qua non.

The one-dominant party system, instead of impeding the growth of parliamentary institutions had, in fact, strengthened them, because Nehru was a true democrat by training and temperament. It had served not to destroy but to sustain parliamentary institutions, with the Congress party “holding together of very many regional and sectional interests within the one organization. This has not merely ensured governmental stability but also averted the total exclusion of one part of the national community from the channels of power.” And the political and moral values inherent in the government by the rule of law had made it possible to resist any abuse or arbitrary exercise of power.

The Second General Election in 1957 was unique. It was the largest democratic electoral exercise in history, with 193 million voters- 20 million more than the first election in 1952- and over 60 per cent of the electorate exercising the franchise in a country where more than 80 per cent population was illiterate. It was an extraordinary experiment of reposing faith in the democratic process and in the wisdom of the poor and the unlettered choosing their government, demonstrating to the world the power of ballot. The Congress won 371 seats, out of 494, and the Communist Party of India, with 27 seats, emerging as the main opposition in the Lok Sabha. The State of Kerala had made a history of electing a communist government, and Nehru taking pride that an Indian State had the first communist government in the world, elected through a democratic process.

Nehru carefully nurtured the parliamentary democracy, writing regularly fortnightly letters to Chief Ministers explaining to them his policies, emphasizing on communal harmony and protection of minorities and importance of a neutral non-partisan bureaucracy;subjecting himself to cross-examination in Parliament by a minuscule opposition;and not interfering with the judiciary and ensuring freedom of press. "Though he was, in the celebrated Indian metaphor, the immense banyan tree in whose shadow no other plant could grow, he made sure that every possible flora flourished in the forest". And “by his speeches, his exhortations and above all by his own personal example, he  imparted to the institutions and processes of democracy a dignity that placed it above challenge from would be tyrants”, says Shashi Tharoor. His speeches were an extended conversation with the people of India, in the process educating a largely illiterate, overwhelmingly poor people about the rights and prerogatives that came with freedom. He had a public audience at his home every morning when ordinary people could come to petition or talk with their Prime Minister.

He said to an American journalist Normal Cousins: “My legacy to India? Hopefully, it is 400 million people capable of governing themselves”. Amidst India's myriad problems, it is democracy that has given the Indians chance to break free of the shackles of caste, creed, culture and gender. Though there is social oppression and caste tyranny, the democracy offers the victims a means of redemption through the ballot-box.  Elections have increasingly given real political power to the lowest of low.  If today, a man of humble origins occupies the highest office and another holds the most powerful position in India, the nation must be eternally grateful to its first Prime Minister.

On the day Nehru died- May 27, 1964- an earthquake rocked New Delhi- sign of a portentous omen. A few days before his death, when asked at a press conference why not settle the issue of a successor in his life time, he replied:"My life is not coming to an end so soon”. And when he died, the immortal lines of Robert Frost,written in his own hand, were found on his bedside table:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep 

But I have promises to keep

And miles to go before I sleep

Miles to go before I sleep