Economic Times
31 May, 2008
How secular is the state apparatus?
by C P Bhambhri
A foundational principle of a democratic political system is that a professional and permanent civil bureaucracy and police force should be entrusted with the task of implementation of law and maintenance of order in society. These upholders of the rule of law are expected to perform their official obligations on the basis of boundaries and limitations laid down by laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures. The doctrine of the supremacy of rule of law in a democracy can be concretised only if every citizen is treated as an equal by the functionaries of the State.
The citizen's right to be treated as an equal before law is bound to be violated, if in the process of actual implementation of the law, officials of the state operate on the basis of their personal likes and dislikes. A biased civil bureaucracy and police force are incapable of upholding the principles of the rule of law in an impartial manner. Hence, it is essential to find out if there are any serious deviations between the claims made by democratic theory about the neutrality of state apparatus and its actual praxis.
A few instances may be mentioned to substantiate the argument that functionaries of the state have ceased to be impartial and neutral guardians of the rule of law in the country and a close nexus has developed between political parties and permanent members of the state apparatus.
First, Indira Gandhi supported by her chief political advisor gave a clarion call in 1970 for the need for a 'committed bureaucracy', which in reality meant that the state functionaries should be loyal servants of the ruling political party. Indira Gandhi's authoritarian Emergency Regime of 1975-75 witnessed the functioning of 'loyalist' civil and police personnel.
Second, Indira's defeat in the Lok Sabha elections of 1977 brought social conservative forces into power under the formal leadership of Morarji Desai whose government was really dependent on more than 85 Lok Sabha members owing allegiance to the RSS and Jan Sangh. Not only this, but the Morarji government at the Centre also 'dismissed' all duly elected Congress-led state governments and for the first time in the history of post-Independence India, RSS-Jan Sangh led state governments were formed in major states like Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
The entry of RSS-Jan Sangh political leaders into the corridors of power, both at the Centre and in major states, created a fertile ground for the cooptation of state functionaries in the ideological beliefs of the forces of Hindutva. The 1970s is a watershed in the history of post-Independence India because the practitioners of Hindu religion-based politics succeeded not only in winning elections but they got a good opportunity to create a state apparatus in their own ideological image.
Third, chief election commissioners like T N Seshan, J M Lyngdoh and N Gopalaswami tried to cleanse the state machinery for the purposes of holding 'free, fair and fearless' elections under 'officials' who the EC could trust as 'neutral and impartial'. What is the need for the Election Commission to ask for 'transfer of politically and ideologically tainted officials' before every election? If democratic elections cannot be conducted by fair-minded officials and if they have to be under the strict vigilance of the Election Commission, it is impossible to expect that such officials can ever implement in a fair manner the rule of law in normal circumstances.
Fourth, the state of Gujarat witnessed the worst kind of anti-Muslim genocide in March-April 2002 and the defenders of law and order were themselves 'active partisans' under the leadership of Narendra Modi state government. The story does not end here. The victims of the Gujarat riots could not get justice in the state because the state apparatus was infected with the ideology of anti-Muslim Hindutva. Why did the Supreme Court transfer the Bilkis Bano case from Gujarat to Mumbai? The Muslims of Gujarat are still living in fear and the minority community is still under siege because the state apparatus has been ideologically committed to the BJP government in Gujarat beginning from 1995.
Fifth, just a few hours after the bomb blasts in Jaipur on 13 May 2008, state functionaries, without any evidence, publicly stated that SIMI and Muslim Bangladeshis were involved in this terrorist activity. If in Gujarat Muslims had become the target of the Sangh Parivar when a rail compartment was torched, Bangladeshis have become the whipping boys of the Sangh Parivar in Rajasthan after the Jaipur blasts.
In this context, let us not forget that L K Advani as home minister from 1998 to 2004 had always stated in public that Hindu Bangladeshi refugees are welcome but Muslim Bangladeshi are "illegal and should be arrested and deported". How can Indian citizens expect equality before law when the defenders of the rule of law distinguish between Hindu citizens and Muslim citizens? The above narrative clearly shows that the rule of law based democracy of India is threatened by ideologically prejudiced custodians of the fundamental rights of citizens.
The civil and police functionaries have complete constitutional and legal backup if they decide to perform their duties in an impartial manner. What then explains the complete subservience of permanent and professional members of the state apparatus to the ideological and personal prejudices of elected representatives? First, a large number of permanent officials are willing to break the letter and spirit of rule of law with a view to curry favour with ruling politicians. Hence, a relationship of 'give and take' develops between the obliging officials and the politicians. It is a simple system of patronage which operates between bureaucrats who bend and break laws in return for rewards from politicians.
Second, India does not follow any system of recruitment which ensures that the state apparatus will consist of only those who believe in the philosophical postulates of a secular, plural democracy as enshrined in the Constitution of the country. A society can be ideologically divided, even polarised, but the maintenance of the rule of law in a democracy cannot be handed over to ideologues of one persuasion or the other.
The opponents of secular democracy have entered the state apparatus because India has followed an open-ended laissez-faire policy of recruitment based on merit behind which personal ideological beliefs of a bureaucrat lie hidden. The state apparatus should reflect the values of the Constitution if law-based democracy has to flourish in India and if the citizen has to have faith in the legal and judicial system of the country.
|
