V. Ramani's web SUNDAY UVACHA

In a rather unusual disclosure amidst the flurry of scripted TV channel interviews he gave during the 2024 Lok Sabha election season, the Prime Minister claimed he respected the opposition; in fact, he bemoaned the absence of a strong opposition. He further went on to say that the opposition had been of no use to him and that they were so full of negativity, opposing decisions in the country’s interest for political benefit. In a parliamentary democracy, the very concept of political parties in opposition being useful to the ruling party is antithetical. It is the democratic responsibility, nay, democratic duty of the political opposition to question the government at every turn and criticise actions it feels are violating constitutional propriety or the rule of law.

While India has seen a complete breakdown of consensus between the government and opposition political parties over the last five years, this debate needs to be widened to clarify the term “opposition” as also to examine why respect for the “opposition” is critical to a functioning democracy and what those holding the reins of government need to do to demonstrate that they really respect the “opposition”. Based on my three decade-long experience at various levels of governance, I give below eight guidelines to a healthy, vibrant (even if raucous at times), functional democracy and how these have been repeatedly breached in recent years.

1. Opposition is a far broader term than just political opposition

Political parties that sit on opposition benches in legislatures are, of course, the opposition (in the narrow sense). But there is also a wider universe of opposing ideologies and views. These include different stakeholders in a democracy — farmers, industrial workers, the salaried middle class, media, academia, entrepreneurs and businesspersons, to name just a few. It is very likely that a government will be able to satisfy the demands of any one group only to a limited extent. That is why consensus in policy making is stressed: while certain priorities may receive greater attention, those whose demands are not satisfied should, after due consultation and dialogue, receive rational explanations as to why their demands may have to be deferred to a later date.

2. Adopt a collegial system of governance

In a feudal political environment where the top honcho calls all the shots, consultation, dialogue and debate are conspicuous by their absence. The past decade has seen a worsening of this trend of unilateral decision making, both at the centre and in the states. Cabinet meetings become a formality, with Ministers rarely giving their opinions on issues, let alone openly voicing dissent. Parliament has been reduced to a pale shadow of its former self: contrast proceedings in recent years with the vibrant debates of the 1950s. A disturbing feature has been the failure of the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, to participate regularly in debates in the two Houses of Parliament. The strife in Manipur, caused in large part by executive inaction, has received little attention in the Lok/Rajya Sabhas and has seen no statement by the Prime Minister to date. Demonetisation, Article 370 abrogation, the Citizenship Amendment Act, the Farm Laws and the COVID pandemic are glaring examples of executive actions undertaken without the legislature being consulted. Standing Committees of the different Ministries have been rendered insignificant; important legislation with far-reaching implications for the right to liberty of citizens, like the UAPA and PMLA amendments and the new criminal laws, would have benefited from examination by select committees comprising members of both Houses of Parliament. The nadir was reached in the last winter session of the last Parliament, when important legislation was passed in the absence of 146 opposition members of both Houses, who were suspended after acrimonious exchanges with the Presiding Officers of both Houses, on not being allowed to raise issues of national importance.

3. Accept dissent gracefully and give full space for freedom of expression

Given that, in a parliamentary democracy, the ruling party generally secures around 40% of the vote, there is always going to be a sizeable segment of the population that is critical of the policies and actions of the government of the day. Intolerance of dissenting opinions is evident when terms like “anti-national” and “urban Naxal” are freely employed against those with different points of view. Withdrawal of FCRA registration and 80G income tax exemptions are tools used to block NGOs that question government policies impacting human rights and the environment. A disturbing feature over the past decade has been the frequent use of sedition provisions and other draconian laws against those who are only asserting their right to freedom of expression and to stand up for the marginalised and underprivileged sections of society. The use (misuse?) of legislation that inhibits the judiciary from granting bail has been a powerful weapon in the hands of the executive. Activists and dissenters languish in jail for years without trial: the Bhima Koregaon and Delhi riots cases are only the most glaring instances. Selective implementation of the criminal law provisions relating to defamation and promoting enmity between communities have been widely employed to suppress criticism of executive actions and policies. Governments need to take to heart the wise words of Sant Kabir:

निंदक नियरे राखिए ऑंगन कुटी छवाय,

बिन पानी, साबुन बिना, निर्मल करे सुभाय ।

Heeding the words of critics keeps governments from taking wrong steps. Else, the people will respond appropriately at the time of elections, as the Lok Sabha elections of 1977 and 2024 and numerous legislative assembly elections have demonstrated.

4. Respect institutional independence

A major casualty over the past few decades has been the steady erosion of independence of institutions mandated by the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court may have scuppered the establishment of the NJAC in 2015, but the executive has adroitly used delaying tactics to stall the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts who are perceived to be independent in their approach. The inordinate delays in hearing crucial cases like the electoral bonds, Article 370 abrogation and CAA, as well as judgments which limit personal liberties of citizens have tended to erode public confidence in the judicial system. The lukewarm approach to grant of bail has emboldened investigative agencies to undertake search and seizure operations even in minor cases involving activists, media persons and dissenters: the provisions of draconian laws like the UAPA and PMLA ensure that the process becomes the punishment, with frequent arrests and long periods of incarceration without trial, given that “jail, not bail” seems to be the new jurisprudence.

The administrative executive (the civil services and the police) have often deviated from the golden words of Sardar Patel, when he spoke to the first batch of IAS probationers on 21 April 1947: “I would advise you to maintain the utmost impartiality and incorruptibility of administration. A civil servant cannot afford to, and must not, take part in politics…I hope that you would…render your service without fear or favour and without any expectation of extraneous rewards.” Political interference in appointments, postings and transfers has become a flourishing industry. Police reforms as mandated in the 2006 Supreme Court directions in the Prakash Singh judgment are honoured more in the breach: as for wider reforms in the civil services, perish the thought.

The Election Commission of India has, especially in recent months, come in for severe criticism for its flip flops on electoral bonds and timely publication of votes polled. In the recent Lok Sabha elections, it can be faulted on three other issues as well: (i) It could have frozen the use of proceeds of electoral bonds, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in February 2024, using its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India; (ii) It looked the other way when prominent politicians were arrested and opposition political parties were harassed by investigative agencies after the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC); (iii) It took no action against various political functionaries for vituperative speeches that demonised a minority community.

Nor has the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) covered itself with glory with its performance in the last seven years. A body that brought out a plethora of reports in the pre-2014 era, with inspired leaks to the media, has severely curtailed the issue of reports covering audits of Ministries/PSUs in subsequent years, noticeable reticence being obvious in the Rafale and demonetisation cases.

The mainstream print and electronic media has abdicated its role as the Fourth Estate. Barring a clutch of online news media and social media channels, the corporate-run media outlets have functioned as fawning spokespersons for the ruling dispensation.

5. Stop using investigative agencies to settle political scores and gain political advantage

The “caged parrot”, as the CBI was disparagingly referred to by the Supreme Court, has now been reinforced by “formidable falcons” — the ED, NIA, NCB, Delhi Police and the Income Tax department. All these agencies do have a crucial role to play in checking terrorism and crimes, including economic offences. The problem arises when they flex their muscles against political opponents of the ruling party around election time and, increasingly, in the interregnum between elections, to sway legislator loyalty in favour of the ruling party. Lure of office is definitely a major influence on legislators, but the promptness with which investigations are launched at moments of crucial political developments are definite pointers to pressures being put, especially when cases are miraculously dropped after months and years of investigations the moment the politicos concerned throw in their lot with the ruling party. The concept of a level playing field at election time has been severely compromised during the latest Lok Sabha elections by the arrests of prominent politicians and other executive actions by investigative agencies at a time when the MCC was in force.

6. Stop “othering” communities and groups

A polyglot, multicultural country thrives on the joyous acceptance of different customs and traditions and the celebration of diversity. The past many years have seen shrill campaigns directed at the Muslim community, with abysmal depths being reached during the appalling election campaign focused on “infiltrators”, “vote jihad” and “appeasement”. State policy in states governed by the BJP has been directed at specific freedoms of the minority communities — food, religion, marriage and even dress. In the name of reasonable restrictions, fundamental rights of association under Article 19 of the Constitution of India (that includes with the opposite sex) and Article 25 (freedom to propagate religion) are being infringed upon through legislative measures pushed through without consultation with the affected stakeholders. Hate speech against the Muslim community attracts little attention from most governments and their police forces, and religious processions are used as a method to provoke the Muslim community. The bulldozer raj in Uttar Pradesh and a number of other BJP-ruled states, with scant regard for due process of law, has spread terror of arbitrary state action among dissenters and the Muslim community.

7. Promote genuine federalism

Probably no aspect has been as severely impacted in recent years as the federal structure of India. Governors have always been handy tools in the hands of the party ruling at the centre ever since the days of Indira Gandhi. This breakdown of trust between Governors and opposition State Governments has assumed epidemic proportions today. Governors reserve to themselves the right to sit on bills sent to them for assent after passage by the legislature, a practice deplored by the Supreme Court. State governments also have major grievances about the tardy release of funds rightfully due to them from the centre, which also curtailed states’ powers to tax and borrow from the market. Subjects were moved from the State list to the Concurrent list, so that the scope for central interference increases. A move to give the Central government powers to move All India Service officers from the states to the Government of India without state government concurrence was aborted only after stiff opposition from state governments. The devaluation of the Inter State Council right from the days of Congress governments has resulted in the absence of an effective forum for centre-state discussion and dialogue.

8. Observe decency and civility in public life

While there has been a steady coarsening of discourse within Parliament and in society over the past couple of decades, the rise of social media since 2014 and the rabidly partisan approach of a number of television channels has poisoned the social and political environment in recent times. The root of this degeneration probably lies in elections being treated as the end rather than as a means to an end. The recent Lok Sabha elections saw speeches descend to levels that would shame any decent society. The blatant use (and misuse) of platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp and X (formerly Twitter) to spread fake news and indulge in slander and innuendo has sown the seeds of bitterness between  political parties and, more dangerously, between communities.

Gresham’s Law has operated in Indian political and social life, with the basest tendencies driving out the basic human values of tolerance and kindness. Let us be clear: this sickness affects the body politic across the political spectrum. Autocratic, anti-democratic behaviour can be observed in a wide range of political leaders, starting with the way they run their parties, translating eventually into authoritarian governance. Institutional subservience supports such behaviour. The integrity and impartiality of the civil services and the police have long been compromised by the lure of plum postings while in service and comfortable sinecures after retirement. This tendency has, unfortunately, percolated to the armed forces and the judiciary as well. The public perception of the impartiality of government auditors, regulators and other constitutional bodies charged with maintaining checks and balance on the executive has suffered serious erosion over the years. Respect is given when it is earned through one’s actions. Only if the latest election results lead to introspection on their watchdog roles among various constitutional bodies, the media and the permanent executive can democracy hope to flourish in India. As Rabindranath Tagore has said “Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.”