RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research and Analysis Wing, or R&AW. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also Associate Editor, Indian Defence Review.
Following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, the political class of our country was confounded by the level of public anger directed against them.
It was not a question of good and bad politicians. The underlying and cumulative reason was that the existing political system, over the years, had failed to deliver on the most vital aspect of governance i.e. securing the citizens of the country. The initial response of the political class during the attack on Mumbai was that it was an attack on India, as if all terrorist attacks before were not attacks on the country.
The armed forces again came to the rescue of the country. It is the same armed forces that have been demanding status-quo in status after the Sixth Pay Commission announcement.
Just a few days later after the Mumbai attack, as the results of the Assembly Elections in the four states were being disseminated by the media; some elements of our political class and some permanent faces in the media gleefully noted that terrorism did not seen to be an issue in the election. It was a perverse delight. Politics during that period had again triumphed over security.
Even during the Lok Sabha elections, national security should have dominated the electoral discourse, but has been absolutely overshadowed by puerile and divisive agendas.
The biggest casualty in the unfolding election drama is political morality, which seems to have disappeared. Pre-election poll alliance partners may switch-sides and become post-alliance partners in government. Some of the smaller political parties, bereft of wider national consciousness, have unabashedly declared this. Such parties are the biggest stumbling blocks in the emergence of national resolve to address pressing security issues, the crying need of the hour.
This was evident during the recent Lok Sabha elections, when both the DMK and the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu spoke of their resolve to create a separate Eelam in Sri Lanka. Any sane strategic analyst or foreign policy expert will vouch for the fact that a united Sri Lanka is in the best interest of India, because two antagonistic countries would translate into wooing of different sets of external powers in what is considered the critical part of the Indian Ocean with some of the best ports and harbours, and its location with regard to the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC). That Eelam cannot be achieved is a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, the statements emanating from important political players in Tamil Nadu, who have the keys to the formation of the government at the center, has in effect negated most of the contribution that India has made to Sri Lanka in the recent years. No wonder the Sri Lankan leaders were livid, declaring that the protagonists of Eelam in India should consider its creation on their own country's soil. No wonder that Sri Lankans feel that China and Pakistan are much more unequivocal in their support and are therefore more trustworthy.
Any political system can function only within the confines of the nation-state. A political system must contribute to the security, well-being and growth of the country. If a political system fails to deliver on this account, it calls for a drastic reassessment and change. India certainly is at a juncture where some hard reviews and decisions have to be made with regard to the existing political culture, which is eating into the vitals of the nation-state.
The inviolate and critical parameters within which democracy has to function are the physical and psychological integrity of the country. In a democracy, the security forces cannot ensure the physical integrity of the state if the psychological integrity flounders due to inept, effete, shortsighted, self-serving, and divisive political leadership. Politics in India is becoming increasingly detrimental to the integrity of the nation.
If India withers, there will be no consolation prize for having run a democracy that destroyed a nation with all the potentials of a world power. The present form of parliamentary democracy in India, therefore, cannot be an end in itself.
The rudimentary requirement of a democracy is informed and purposeful political leadership, which strengthens the other two pillars i.e. the judiciary and the executive.
But with every passing day in India, the equation between the pillars is getting vitiated. The political leadership has tried to undermine these institutions at the expense of India, which they profess to serve. The very people, to whom they owe their existence, have been misguided; robbed of their rights and privileges; and are being treated as commodities. It is a well known fact; all political outfits in India exploit poverty by disbursing large sums of money to people for attending political gatherings. Someone has appropriately observed that corruption thrives in the country because the people in positions of power do not treat those whom they are meant to serve as their own.
The security, well-being and growth of any nation-state are predicated on peace and stability. Proper political direction, political will and political consensus on security issues are hallmarks of a prosperous and a vibrant country. Further it requires unity and maximization of national effort through healthy and trustworthy inter-institution relationship.
While the British left strong institutional legacies and framework with regard to the executive, the judiciary and the armed forces; being colonial rulers they did not leave behind a strong political legacy. The top leadership during the freedom movement and in the first decade of independence, were not 'professional politicians', but were essentially groomed in the British tradition of law, Constitution, and liberal and broad outlook.
Having ruined the political culture in the country, the political class is at odds with other efficient institutions. Recently, many politicians took umbrage over the sting operation on 'cash for votes' scam in the 'confidence motion' in the parliament. They maintained that it was demeaning for the institution of parliament and the political class as such. So they chose to ignore the 'kabutarbazi' (facilitating of illegal migration to foreign countries) and the 'cash for questions' scams, which are only the tips of the iceberg and reflect the rot that has set in the legislative culture of India.
That the state legislatures had been rendered impoverished of basic parliamentary ethos and practices were well known, but there was some comfort that the parliament, to a great extent, was insulated from the malaise. It does not seem to be so any more. A few years ago, V S Naipaul, had said that the saving grace of India was a strong 'center', which on many occasions prevented the states from self destruction. But, if the 'center', which is like the 'brain' of the human body, begins to suffer from malignant ailment, it can well be conjectured what will happen to the rest parts of the body.
Competitive politics in the present Indian context amounts to 'two wrongs make a right'; it means opposing every good and bad decisions of the incumbent power; it means fluid loyalties; it means foisting regimes of coalitions that the people never voted for; and it also means primacy of government survival over the pressing security and development issues.
The cumulative effect of competitive politics, lack of political integrity and will, is now posing pernicious threat to the integrity and unity of India in the form of regionalism, cast rivalries, communal divide, insurgencies, terrorism, demographic assault on India, criminalization of politics and society, absence or shrinking of the states' writ in large parts of India, naxalism, mob culture, and externally shrinking of India's influence even in the neighbouring countries.
The attack on Mumbai was a tacit declaration of war by the jihadis and their master, the Pakistani Army. The country was once again reminded of the pernicious threat that the jihadis pose to India and the world as such.
But just when a national resolve appeared to be building up to meet the vicious threat, a cabinet minister tried to torpedo the emerging consensus by the most outlandish statement, insinuating the involvement of some elements within the country in the killing of the ATS chief of Maharastra, as he was investigating the Malegaon blast case. The elements that he was alluding to were quite obvious. Expectedly, he found some supporters across the political class! Anyone with the modicum of understanding of the methods employed by external agencies could deduce that statements of this nature are not motivated by just vote bank politics.
Federalism must contribute to the well-being and growth of the nation. However, during and in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, some chief ministers of states were either conspicuous by their silence on the incident or perfunctory in their response. They failed to rise above regional political considerations in forging any unity of national purpose.
On the other hand, the center has displayed lack of urgency in dealing with security problems that bedevils various states, but is pan-Indian in nature. One such problem is Naxalism affecting various states on the union. Though the prime minister has described it as the main threat to India's national security, the center has done very little in treating it as a national problem. It has made only cosmetic efforts towards forging any measure of coordination between the naxal affected states to wage a united war against Naxalism.
The miscarriage or even the efficacy of our present political system has been underscored in the case of Jharkhand state. This state, one of the worst affected by Naxalism, has had seven Chief Ministers in the last 10 years. One of the architects of the state, Mr Shibu Soren was first removed from chief ministership only after nine days, when he failed to prove majority in March 2005 in the legislature. Later in August 2008, he was again imposed as the chief minister of the state after his life term in the Shashinath Jha murder case was set aside by the Delhi High Court in August, 2007 on technical grounds. His appointment was part of a political bargain effected in Delhi. The bargain was symptomatic of the disproportionate leverage that the smaller regional parties have over the pan-Indian parties. Mr Soren was only compelled to resign from his post after he lost in the by-election.
The culture of fiefdoms and sinecures is encouraged by our political system. Ever since the bill regarding the stipulation of percentage of legislators as ministers has been in effect, it is a common practice for the ruling party to appoint MLAs and MPs with no professional background to various boards, corporations and commissions to placate them.
This culture has consumed our administrative, intelligence and security apparatus as well. The political leadership and the National Security Advisor are more than aware about the inter-agency rivalry. Reports about the inter-service machinations of the most pathetic kind in some of our intelligence agencies are an endemic feature. The problems can be set right in a month, if the political leadership so desires. But political interests probably override national concerns and exigencies.
The concept of nation-state is overwhelmingly a 20th century phenomenon. When the independence of India was debated, India's security environment was relatively benign. World War-II had just ended and it was believed by many that another major global war was not in the realm of possibility. The ramifications of the Cold War that followed were hardly discernable at that time. Pakistan was not envisaged, as a militarily hostile state. There was no Bangladesh. China was perceived as a friendly power. The phenomenon of insurgency was not pronounced. Left wing extremism had not impacted the subcontinent. More importantly, our leaders, adept at methods of resistance, lacked in strategic thinking.
It was under these circumstances, that we patterned our democracy on the Westminster Model. We not only emulated the British political system, but also inherited their administrative culture and infrastructure. Some of our political leaders after independence displayed the same Vice-Regal tendencies. The bureaucrats and the police officers continued to function in the colonial mould. In the years that followed they found themselves under equipped to deal with the administrative and security complexities of a decolonised and independent nation. They were overwhelmed by internal threats like insurgency and leftwing extremism.
But instead of dealing with the problems head on, they sought refuge in puerile intellectualism, a product of flawed selection process that persists. On the other hand, the armed forces, which were also a colonial instrument, had to respond to external threat posed by Pakistan soon after independence in a long drawn war. In the early 50s, it was deployed to prevent Nagaland from seceding. A few years later, it had to brace the onslaught by China, a country which our leaders considered to be the friendliest. Later, apart from the various Indo-Pak wars, the Indian military was deployed to combat various insurgencies, and also in the country's neighbourhood in Sri Lanka and Maldives.
Clearly, India's security environment has been degenerating right after independence, outpacing the efficacy of our political and administrative system. Therefore, a borrowed political system, adopted in a different era and international environment, was bound to suffer from serious limitations. If the imperatives are preservation and wellbeing of the state then our political system must be altered and adapted to address the problems of the contemporary Indian state.
The idea of another 'constituent assembly' should not be considered blasphemous. As does everything in the world and nature evolves, it cannot be anyone's case that a political system does not.
| Slide Shows | Columns | Calendar
Share | 
Print | Rate 
