Is India the World’s Most Populous Democracy Or A Banana Republic Threatening To Implode?

Manmohan Singh, current prime minister of India.

Image via Wikipedia

Unlikely though it may sound, the exchanges below resulted from an initial post in a social media site, Facebook to be precise. If you thought FB was merely about status updates, pics of birthday parties and barely concealed narcissism, read on to be pleasantly surprised:

The protagonists in this discussion are Biswajit Dutta who started the ball rolling with his post, yours truly and several other people, who pitched in at various stages of the discussion. To maintain reader interest, I have added some material by way of additional links to relevant articles and pictures.

Biswajit Dutta (BD henceforth)

Had enough of scams & political turbulence ! This UPA government hesitant to come clean(the shameless CVC isn’t quitting after all) is stone walling all demands for a transparent probe . I say Manmohan Singh must go . A bungling spineless puppet & a root less politician(masquerading as PM) unwilling & unable to control his flock has no business to continue . The buck stops with him .

Suman Bhowmik (SB henceforth):

How can thomas resign? he has been handpicked by the all powerful madam who insists on having the corrupt & spineless (often christians) in key positions that will allow her a free run through state coffers e.g. the chairs of the cvc or the president. the man thus can’t even shit in his pants without madam’s permission!!

Me : (RM henceforth)

India has had all manners of PMs, spanning the entire spectrum from the good to the bad and the ugly. Blue Turban however would surely go down in history as the most ineffective one, a captain who has just no control over his ship, a wimp who is only too glad to enjoy the honour, prestige and perks bestowed by the seat while affairs are controlled and manipulated by the Royal Family of India ably aided and abetted by the eternal gomusta, Pranab Mukherjee.

Pranab Mukherjee, Indian politician, current F...

Image via Wikipedia


It’s a disgrace that the CVC continues . He was selected over two others despite severe corruption charges against him . Now even after the Supreme Court strictures , the Govt. refuses to release him . Maybe he knows too much about the telecom scam . Might chortle if he is out of office . That would be highly inconvenient to Congress .

This Prime Minister is the worst in my book . Clinging on to his chair like a limpet devoid of self respect . The lures of office are surely too attractive to relinquish .


Frankly, we need either a benovalent dictator or army rule for for 10 years – long enough to instill discipline in the country through rank & file and wipe out the present crop of assholes masquareding as politicians of every colour!! neither looks likely. but to have a combo of chandrababu, nitish, modi running the state with help of jaswant, jaitley, pranab, diggy & few others looks the best bet.


I can understand your utter frustration with the state of affairs and that of every well-meaning Indian. However autocracy or authoritarian rule may not be the way to go – the risks far outweigh the perceived benefits (check out Pakistan’s history as an example).
Suggesting solutions may seem trite and a somewhat futile exercise but here’s my 2 bits:

The people must find a way to hold any government

DELHI. With Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari ...

Image via Wikipedia

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ma...

Image via Wikipedia

that they elect accountable. And, to ensure such accountability, info, knowledge and audit procedures must be strengthened. I do have some ideas about how this can be done and have mentioned them in bits and pieces elsewhere so I shall not dwell on them again here.

Also, since the British parliamentary model hasn’t quite served India during the last 60 years or so, shouldn’t there be a serious discussion about possibly switching over to the Presidential model (like the U.S.).? If nothing else, imagine the billions that would be saved every year by abolishing the nominal Governors and Raj Bhavans and the nominal President together with the Rashtrapati Bhavan?

First though, to even initiate all this, the country needs a leader – an elected one and not an appointed one –

BRIC leaders

Image via Wikipedia

with leadership qualities, charisma & vision. Once that is in place, some of the other things would follow logically.

People must choose leaders at every level who articulate their ambitions and objectives – earthy & pragmatic ones & not rhetorical ones or mumbo-jumbo like introducing ‘socialism’ compatible with say Lenin’s left cojone for example. The hypocrisy and shamming has to be dropped at every level. If most people want prosperity, material wealth, a better quality of life etc., they and their leaders must clearly articulate those aims & objectives. Otherwise it is becoming a country either with no defined objectives or totally faux objectives because of which, once in power, its open season for rogues & scammers (in an oligarchy, only a small coterie accumulates wealth & power).


Agree. no system can truly substitute for a democracy. but for that to function ideally, the enabling conditions are adequate education, full information & fair elections. While we seem to have managed the last, the political class has ensured we are way behind in the first two. and unless we can develop a system of recalling & punishing non-performing & corrupt politicians at all levels they will never allow the changes required. That can only happen if good men enter politics with a vengeance!!


President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minist...

Image via Wikipedia

You’re very right. I wish the people make aspects like education, vocational training, infrastructure major election issues. Its basic human nature to want prosperity, a better quality of life, material possessions, comforts etc.,. Owing to certain age-old social hangovers & the bs propagated by these rogues in the garb of politicians, people have become defocused and confused. Elections are fought many a times mainly on some local, petty issues. The bigger picture is thus not addressed.

Re: availability of info, I daresay the situation is overall much better than it was, say 2 decades ago. The momentous RTI legislation passed by the Vajpayee govt. has helped quite a lot I believe. Non-conventional sources of info, the internet have all helped in this regard. I wish someone starts an Indian version of Wikileaks. I am sure if they are assured of complete confidentiality, there will be no dearth of whistleblowers, exposing many more scams and putting corrupt politicians and bureaucrats on the backfoot.

While on the subject, a friend sent me the links recently to this talk by ‘Dr. Subramanian Swamy. I know the man is considered cranky, whimsical and eccentric by many. Be that as it may, the contentions he makes here haven’t been emphatically disputed or challenged leading me to believe that there possibly is some degree of truth. As he says, on some of these issues he has filed petitions in the Supreme Court also. Here’s the link to the post.


Elections being fought on local issues is an universal phenomenon . The common American wants out of Iraq or Afghanistan as he relates with horror to the body bags of his friends & relatives . He does not loose sleep over national strategic interests . Very few look at the big picture . That’s for Obama & Hillary to ponder . It is another matter that what is good for the individual , more often than not , is also good for the whole . If you maximize individual welfare , barring a few exceptions & conflicts of interest which ultimately evens out at a macro level , you also maximize aggregate welfare . If local elections are fought on local issues of bijli , sadak , pani , naukri , law & order & better prices of produce – I have no objection to it . It ultimately boils downs to good governance .

In India what distorts the picture & prevents fair reflection of popular voice are :-
a)Caste system .


Image via Wikipedia

b)Black money & corruption .
c)Muscle power .
While we could have done with higher literacy , I believe in the robust common sense of people . They know what is good for them & unless the above 3 factors distort the scenario , they vote for the right candidate . The common Indian has plenty of horse sense to do right by themselves .

I would stick with the Westminster model of democracy that has stood the test of time in India . (a) Social reforms & progressive elimination of caste system is the need of the hour . (b) Black money generation & corruption are the main bottlenecks that shall curtail India’s growth story . We have to find ways of unearthing the massive parallel economy . Partial amnesty , institutional funding of elections , reduction in tax rates & better compliance are major issues that the govt is addressing . But somehow there is a lack of will to go all the way due to vested political interests .(c)Coercion is a law & order function that can be tackled .

I feel black money is the single most important bugbear . Find a way to effectively tackle that & India , sooner rather than later , shall realize its full potential .


If the economy doesn’t turn around reasonably soon and enough people aren’t able to secure jobs, make a decent living & put bread on the table, anything else Obama and his administration may do, would be immaterial. It is highly doubtful whether he would win a 2nd term in that case. As Bill Cinton rightly surmised and stated during his initial campaign, “Its the economy, stupid.”

Local issues are fine so long as they relate to the basic hierarchy of most people’s needs – food, education, opportunities for earning, quality of life etc., in their location or region. Ideally, in fact that is what it should be. What I meant was Indian politician’s introducing factors like caste, religious minorities etc., to drive a wedge among people and create vote banks for themselves. People don’t realize that these divisions eventually don’t do the majority any good.

Sometimes common sense may be pretty uncommon and if most people knew what is good for them, they would have held politicians and leaders to much higher standards than they have in India. It is the lack of accountability (and of course the lack of punishments) which encourages politicians to perpetrate scams. I for one wouldn’t be surprised if guys like Kalmadi & A. Raja are re-elected come the next elections. How do you explain the large numbers of politicians with criminal back grounds and cases pending against them who are elected to Assemblies and to the Parliament?

Indian democracy, just over 60 years old, is pretty young by historical standards. If it hasn’t quite delivered, its time to make significant mid-course corrections, without of course doing away with democracy altogether. The social, cultural, economic, ethnic and a whole lot of other parameters are vastly different in India, compared to the U.K. or certain other countries in W. Europe. Hence merely transplanting that model to India, without changes and adaptations, as was done in 1947, I still believe was a major folly for which the country has been paying a heavy price.


I appreciate your reasoning but would still go by the model of democracy practiced in India . I feel there is nothing wrong with the system per se . The problem lies in its proper implementation . It is the practitioners who have let Indian democracy down . Set the faults right & implement a strategy to curb corruption . I am sure we shall be on track . There are sufficient checks & balances . Else , the chances of success under any other model including the US presidential model may not to be bright either . Will caste , graft or communal issues not warp the outcome of elections under other systems ? The Swiss model of direct democracy – referendum/initiative/recall , prima facie looks a good option . The question however remains as to how to work such a system in India with its large geographical expanse & diversity ? A method has to suit the geography , genius & diversity of the people where it is proposed to be introduced . India is too plural & may not lend itself to a great deal of experimentation or tinkering .


Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

Implementation of systems is one of the major issues, I agree. Systems exist on paper. They are either not implemented or subverted easily. Certain systems (e.g. the legal system) are creaking and on the verge of breaking down because of a host of well known factors. Enforcement of systems is another major problem area.


Gordon Brown and Manmohan Singh

Image by Downing Street via Flickr

again, red-tapism and bureaucracy is still so frustrating that using existing laws and regulations, some ‘babu’ or the other can just you hold you up endlessly. When one wants to cut through the red-tape, corruption mostly pops up as the recourse.

Also, for a developing country, there are far too many layers of officialdom and elected reps. Take W. Bengal as a case study. The accumulated debt of the State Govt. is USD 46 billion. It is really stretched to pay the wages of even State Govt. employees (what is the productivity of these State govt. employees; lets not get there even, because that’s a horror story). Add to that the expenses (direct & indirect; also official and unofficial) of electing and maintaining numerous MLAs,councillors etc., Throw in the costs of maintaining a Governor. What are the benefits that accrue to the people as a result of all this and at what cost? If you look at the diminishing returns of all these expenses (one has to add in all the unofficial expenses, including scams, corruption etc.,) wouldn’t you say that changes and reforms are needed to ensure that such unproductive expenditures and leakages mostly are controlled and minimised at least?


But US also has governors & states . How will its system of representative democracy & Presidential system help in ameliorating India’s status ? We have to cut costs & the debt mountain . Slash bureaucracy , prune by legislative fiat the bloated ministry sizes – both at centre & states(a limit on no. of ministers as a proportion to assembly size is already existent , make it harsher) , flatten the administrative structure , reduce the expanding tiers & hierarchies . The lesser the quantum of intermediaries between ministers/key officials & the average man on the street , lesser the chances of corruption . Babudom has to be minimised . Intensify use of IT in administration & truncate role of middlemen/lobbyists/power brokers . And yes , introduce state funding of elections . But all this boils down to need for a more efficient administration rather than a searing indictment of Indian democratic framework .


I am not advocating transplanting the U.S. system wholesale. That would be another mistake, much like transplanting the British system was many years back. Any system needs to be modified and adapted based on local characteristics & prevailing parameters. Systems also need to be dynamic and evolve and change over a period of time, rather than be static. Intense discussions and deliberations in this regard have to happen before a suitable and workable system emerges and it is disappointing to find that there are no discussions on even in this regard, currently in India.

As I have mentioned, democracy, with its many imperfections, I still believe is the best bet for India. However any objective analysis will show that the present system, for a host of reasons which can be discussed till the cows come home, hasn’t delivered. India has grown and even prospered in parts not because of its political system but in spite of it. The sheer size of its domestic economy, its demographics and private entrepreneurship are some of the key factors in the growth story if one again analyzes the economic and other related parameters.

I must confess though that talking of various prescriptions to remedy the current situation is futile armchair preaching, which I plead guilty to as well. Lot of these prescriptions are nothing new or novel. Many people have talked about these for a while. Management text-books, economists, plenty of other professionals will state what needs to be done. How will it happen and who will do it are the issues which remain unanswered. For whatever reasons, it hasn’t quite happened and, let’s face it, will not happen anytime soon. What then is the remedy?

Again, I must confess, I have no easy or ready answers to that query. As some of you may have noticed, I had mentioned sometime back that possibly, given the present state of affairs and the present system, India in its present form is ungovernable. Some friends countered that possibly that was a rather too pessimistic & negative line of thought. Well, I quite believe in being positive and personally am a ‘can-do’ kind of guy but I must say, at least I have no ready answers really to what can be done, realistically and pragmatically speaking.

The U.S. Presidential system vs. the British Parliamentary System is a huge topic so I am not even going there right now. However I can’t help mentioning some very fundamental differences which I believe are clearly in its favour.

1. The President / Governor once elected to office can effectively function as a CEO mostly. He can appoint his own team and find the best man for a job, at times cutting right across party affiliations. He can bring in professionals from any field, academics, corporate etc., without worrying about what their political leanings may be. He is not necessarily dependent on party high commands, powerful coteries within his party etc., solely to build his team.

2. The person and his/her track record, potential and capabilities are mainly evaluated and voted on by the electorate, at times cutting across party affiliations. Which is why one could easily have Republican Presidents / Governors when the Congress / Senate say has a Democratic majority and vice versa. The chances of the best person for the job, out of those who have thrown their hat into the ring, getting elected are thus considerably brighter than a typical British parliamentary system.

3. Each important appointee of the President / Governor is first scrutinized by the full Congress / Senate. In many an instance, the nomination of a person the President / Governor may be pushing for a particular post is struck down by a majority owing to blemishes in the person’s history or track record. This is a bipartisan process. This ensures a certain degree of quality and far more merit-based appointments.

4. All important elected positions including that of President / Governors is for a max of 2 terms i.e. for a 8 year period, provided the person can get successfully re-elected after the first 4 years. Consolidation of power and formation of long-standing oligarchies and coteries is thus avoided to quite an extent.


Good points .
1)Realistically how far can a President/Governor of US rise above party affiliations ? The extent of free hand also depends of the stature/clout/grassroots support/personality/profile of incumbent . Can they afford to antagonize the party rank & file ? Otherwise the CEO runs a real risk of having his proposed bills being repudiated by the Congress/Senate & rendering his position untenable . For instance , what’s the status of Obama presently after his recent electoral reverses ? Can he ride roughshod over the Democrats during the residual term of his Presidency
2)With drastic political polarization in US , scope of bipartisan consensus is limited .
3)The counterpart of President/Governor in India shall be the PM/CM . How much autonomy they enjoy is a function of their local clout , personality , goodwill & mass support base . The weaker the CEO , the larger shall be the vice like grip of the High Command . Manmohan Singh is that example . However , there have been numerous instances at the central/state level where the PM/CM have driven the party & not vice – versa . We don’t need to look too far . Recall Indira Gandhi & YSR .
4)An assertive PM/CM can definitely break free of the shackles of party & have technocrats in ministries/administration . Manmohan Singh as FM under Narasimha Rao & Sam Pitroda as technology adviser to Rajiv Gandhi come to mind . The CEO has to be precise about his priorities & demarcate his sphere of influence with the blessings of his party . That is possible in India .
5)A system of scrutiny of significant govt appointments like CAG , CVC is also extant here . The leader of the opposition is a part of their selection process . The ruling party with its numbers can of course push through dubious candidates(like the present CVC) , but that can happen in America as well .
6)Limiting the terms of PM/CM in India as well may not be a bad idea . In addition to development of coteries/vested interests around long serving incumbents , there is an aspect of limited shelf life as well . You need fresh ideas & approaches periodically which a new person can introduce .
7)An independent judiciary & free press are two pillars of a functioning democracy . With the rapidly spreading cancer of corruption in India , I fear for these two institutions . Already some high profile journalists have been compromised .
8)We can amend our constitution to make it responsive to change & adapt some global best practices . However I still maintain that there is nothing drastically wrong with the idea & conceptual framework of Indian democracy . What we have to guard against is diminution of moral values in our society leading to phenomenal levels of dishonesty in our system .


Responding to interesting points mentioned by you.

The U.S. situation, as far as Presidents & governors are concerned is a complex one dependent on many parameters and on the person’s image and charisma too. There isn’t one way or formula which works. But if the President’s / Governor’s popularity ratings remain high, the party almost always swing around behind him. In certain cases, if they don’t, he can actually tell them to go climb trees instead.

Look at Arnie in California. A predominantly Democrat state, traditionally returning the largest no. of democrats to Congress has elected and re-elected a Republican governor for 2 terms.


Image by Presidency Maldives via Flickr

Obama’s problems are partly of his own making. He indulged in lofty rhetoric and soaring promises of change and hasn’t delivered on those at all. He hasn’t quite delivered on the economy too though one must say he is trying his best and can’t quite be faulted if things haven’t exactly turned round as quickly as the electorate may have expected. Statistics show that the large base of young and undecided voters who helped elect him to office have largely deserted him in the last elections and have mostly stayed away or swung to the other side.

The PM / CM in India and the President / Governor in the U.S. are definitely not the same. The President / Governor enjoys far greater powers and autonomy virtually like the CEO of an orgn. A study of the systems will make that amply apparent. He doesn’t need party sanctions or legislative sanctions in many cases for getting certain things done. He can veto something passed by the Congress or Senate if he doesn’t approve of it.

It is extremely doubtful whether any U.S. President would have been able to ‘push through’ the appointment of the CVC as you have mentioned. The very hint of a ‘scam’ in his past record would have been enough for many Congresspersons & Senators of both parties to vote against nominating him. The President wouldn’t even have pushed under the circumstances as that would have quite tarnished his public image. In this case I believe the guy was appointed despite a formal objection from the leader of the opposition. That’s a stark example of either inadequate systems or dysfunctional ones.

Ashok Chavan with Sonia Gandhi in a Rally

Image via Wikipedia

Also look at the quality of the Secys and various other appointees in the U.S. consistently and look at the general quality and calibre of ministers in India over the years. Your examples of Pitroda & MMS are hardly apt. Pitroda except for a few years hardly mattered in any sphere and was blown away as soon as Rajiv Gandhi exited. MMS’ pathetic predicament as an ‘appointed’ PM has been much discussed and talked about so I am not even going there.

You have mentioned personalities time & again. Sure, personalities do matter in any sphere, be it politics, corporate or academic. However evolving and implementing a system with enough checks and balances is the key to a functioning and vibrant democracy. No one’s saying it is perfect. However the U.S. system is far more evolved in that respect with its systems, safeguards and checks and balances. India may have systems on paper but more often than not, they are observed in the breach.

Finally, barring some intervening years when the Janata Dal / BJP held sway, wouldn’t you say that India has actually been a one-family rule, which is not even an oligarchy but a monarchy of sorts? Isn’t it downright pathetic that a country of 1.2 billion people can’t find people to helm its affairs outside of the one family which has ruled it since independence?

And how did it all start? Because Gandhi liked Nehru as his chief acolyte and ‘appointed’ him as the head of the govt. of an independent India? Was there any open discussion or election within the party as to who should become the PM? No. Was any attempt made to listen to dissenting opinions and voices? No. And once this man assumed the top job, his family members kept getting inducted and then elevated to the top job time & time again over 6 decades barring minor breaks in between. Can you imagine this ever happening in the U.S.? Well in their 300 years of history it hasn’t happened so far and it is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Together with a compromised judiciary, corrupt politicians and bureaucracy and systems which are largely dysfunctional, added to one-family rule for about 5 decades of its 6 decades old independence, is India even a functioning democracy, let alone a vibrant one? Despite any amount of rhetoric or assertions that it indeed is, I remain deeply sceptical because to me facts on the ground are what matters and seeing is believing and so far whatever I have read, heard and seen, doesn’t convince me in the least that it is.


Extremely convincing & persuasive . Must confess , I am seeing the situation more from your perspective after this debate . A few observations –
a)I was merely drawing parallels with positions under US system when I was referring to PM/CM in India. How can their powers & responsibilities be identical when the models of democracy pursued by USA & India are radically different – Presidential & Parliamentary respectively?
b)When I was referring to personalities , I was just mentioning how the stature , popularity , charisma & mass base of a PM/CM can alter their power equations with party . An assertive CEO who has risen through the ranks(& not foisted by the party) & is also a mass leader can enjoy considerable autonomy , room for manoeuvre(even a carte blanche) within the Indian political system . The party has little option but to fall in line . There have been plenty of such powerful regional satraps under the Indian political dispensation .
c)If the fundamentals of the nation state are flawed & the moral fibre is vitiated , as is evidenced in India today , any system whether US or India would throw up garbage . I diagnose corruption to be India’s primary malaise & ways & means have to be found to manage it . With black economy constituting at least 50% of India’s GDP & billions of dollars being salted away to tax havens abroad , serious introspection is called for . India can grow in double digits(with hugely positive multiplier on the distributive aspect too) even if a fraction of the parallel economy surfaces . Since the political machinery spews a major component of it , India needs a major revamp of its political set up . One way could be state funding of elections . There needs to be several other measures as well to clean up our Augean Stables .
d)I agree one party & one family rule has its shortcomings . But if a family has unique charisma & is the mai – baap of the bulk of rural populace , how can the Indian democracy be faulted ? CPI(M) in West Bengal has undoubtedly been a major beneficiary of rigging . No such accusation can be hurled at the Congress . They have won elections fair & square & have chosen the Nehru-Gandhi’s as their leader . What’s wrong with that ? It is the Congress party’s prerogative to choose their leader . What the Congress can of course be faulted with is the absence of inner party democracy & their atrocious process of ad hoc High Command selection of CMs or PM(as with MMS) .
e)Raja , we can debate this issue ad nauseam & arrive at no definitive conclusion . Wholesale reforms like introduction of US Presidential model isn’t going to happen . The Parliamentary form is here to stay in India for good . We have to suggest changes within the existing framework . Amend the constitution to make our system work better . I for instance like the US convention of fixed terms for President/Governor . In India this is not possible as an incumbent govt itself doesn’t have a fixed term , what to speak of PM/CM . This situation generates intense horse trading for numbers(though an amendment has been implemented about disqualification of MPs/MLAs) & aggravates corruption . Politicians find a way to circumvent the laws .
f)How about a fixed term of Parliament/State Legislature(no early dissolution) ?

Sonia gandhi early days

Image via Wikipedia

The MP/MLA’s enter house through hustings . The house is convened by the speaker & the parties nominate their respective leader & his running mate – the deputy leader , candidates . Let the house elect a leader/deputy leader from among its members with a fixed term of 5 years . That would ensure the PM/CM has a relatively free hand & fixed tenure .
g)Let each appointment of minister recommended by PM/CM also be debated , vetted & voted by the members of house . That would be an improvement over the present arbitrariness .


Yes the topic can be up for endless discussions. I do believe though that a lot has to happen first for systemic and structural changes to happen. In addition to development of people and human resources, mindsets have to change and possibly major upheavals have to happen.

Have you looked at China as an example? Dazzling degree of development, complete transformation of the business and industrial landscape, great improvements in infrastructure, education, vocational training, generation of employment opportunities have all happened on a scale unthinkable in India over the last 2 decades mainly. Check out what Shanghai or Beijing are like today compared to what they were say in the late 80s or early 90s. Look at what their railroads, buses, roads etc., are like today compared to say two decades ago. They are comparable to the finest cities in the world today. How can they achieve all these over the last 2 decades?
Based on my observations and experiences over the last 15 years or so, let me identify some very basic factors:

1. The govt. had a grand plan, a vision about where they want to get to, in 5,10 or 20 years time. In addition to their collective thinking on this issue, they got the needed inputs from some of the best brains in this regard from the world over. If they had to pay top dollars in terms of consultancy fees to some of these people they weren’t hesitant to do so.

2. Once the plan and all its elements was in place, they set milestones for themselves and went about relentlessly implementing it. Yes there is corruption and even institutionalized corruption but the big difference is that at the end of it all, people must deliver and results as planned must be obtained. You know what would have happened to people like Suresh Kalmadi, even if he was a senior member of the party, the moment it was discovered that he had screwed up while preparing for the CWG? He would have been arrested within days, the trial would have been over in 3-4 weeks at the most and at the end of it all, if found guilty, he would have been put behind bars for a long time. Besides, they would have promptly done whatever is necessary to recover as best as possible, the amounts he had embezzled.

3. Is the average mainland Chinese unhappy at the state of affairs? No way. The equation is pretty simple – they want to get ahead in life, realize their ambitions re: wealth, quality of life etc., and are prepared to work hard at every step of the way (e.g. education, work) to do so. The govt. facilitates this greatly at every stage in the process (education, infrastructure, job & business opportunities, attracting investments etc., etc.,).

Hu Jintao at the G20 Smmit

Image by Downing Street via Flickr

4. It may be one party rule but the top leaders have a wealth of diverse & relevant experience over many years and need to have a pretty good track record generally to be even considered for the top job. Yes there is politics, coteries at work, group dynamics etc., which, I think,  is unavoidable in any large organization but there is also a process of collective vetting which goes on internally. For example if certain high-powered groups and committees, don’t ratify & approve of the guy there is no way he can get to the top job. Once in the top job he has to adhere to a blueprint for running the nation which is already drawn up and which is constantly monitored, benchmarked and amended if necessary. He has to deliver as per the defined milestones and if he makes any major slip-ups, he will be deposed & replaced with someone else by these committees. The process may not be transparent to the outside world but then is the way the board of a private corporation functions transparent to the outside world?

Look at the CVs of most U.S. Presidents over the years. Whether one agrees or disagrees with their personalities or their policies mostly people like Bush Sr., or Clinton are right for the top job given their good educational background and commendable track records be it as Governor, Senator, head of govt. agencies like the CIA etc.,

Now, if you compare all this with examples like Sanjay & Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia or Rahul, you will begin to see my point about what I meant while mentioning that this is actually a monarchy. Aside from a couple of years of experience after being thrust into the position of party general secretary, do you have a clear idea of what Rahul’s background and experience has been say till the age of 35? Can you tell me what his plans for the country may be after he assumes the top job and how he evolved those plans in the first place? Since he neither seems to have the background nor the necessary experience to have formulated such plans himself, do you know who were the people who helped him to formulate those plans? And more importantly, do you know the details of how he plans to implement those plans and what are the milestones for their implementation? Would the people vote him to power because they are impressed generally about his plans & vision and are convinced about his implementation strategy or just because he is the son of Rajiv & Sonia Gandhi, has a pleasant face and a nice smile and is a scion of the Nehru – Gandhi family which has anyway held sway over the country for decades? If most people are convinced that it’s a darned difficult job to govern India, how can they put someone at the helm of affairs who doesn’t seem to have either the background or the experience for the top job, whose vision for the country is not generally known and whose implementation strategy is utterly unclear (is there any plan at all or just a desire to go with the flow and be in power whatever it takes?)

Bill Clinton - yes, I took this photo

Image by Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton via Flickr

Let me tell you the answer to some of those. Most people don’t even think along those lines. They vote based on possibly some petty local issues, money and muscle-power and as a result the Congress say cobbles a majority with the help of some regional parties to whom carrots like ‘lucrative’ ministerships and various other money-making avenues are held out. Once this is in place, Rahul G automatically becomes the PM in any case because every MP knows that he is the choice of the Chairperson (his mother) & the High Command (mother’s stooges) and since there is no democracy within the party and no process of electing and ratifying who will be the leader of the govt., any opposition to the idea on their part will possibly mean a summary expulsion from the party.

Is this what you would call a functioning democracy, far less a vibrant one?

You know why any discussion about any changes in the system is utterly futile and actually a waste of time? Because the people who have to initiate the process for any changes, have a vested interest in ensuring that these kind of changes don’t happen anytime in the future, because if they do happen, it will be greatly to their disadvantage (most of them anyway). Hence they will do all they can to maintain status quo at best (at worst, things will get a lot worse before something snaps). Therefore, you have a dead-end kind of situation.

Partho Datta:

I believe MMS should resign but Congress may not let him since it wud be an admission of negligence. Plus, the Prince of Wales won’t be risked when there are so many scams to handle.

Sure, scarcity, the Executive’s power to say yea/nay and poor oversight boost corruption. The primary source however is avarice. Structural changes might not happen in a hurry or be very effective. The multi-billion dollar business handed out to cronies and insiders by US Depts of Defence and Homeland Security is a case in point.

There are three things we as citizens can try.

One, use the laws like RTI, PIL and the recall mechanism. Information made available to people on their rights can build pressure.

Two, fight for the independence of the press and of supervisory agencies like the HCs and the SC, CEC, CVC. Use our vote and our voice to the maximum.

Third, refuse to use influence or bribe, even if it means some giving up in our personal lives.

Corruption may titillate the middle class but it penalises the poor. Left with no worthwhile option, with apologies to the makers of Slumdog Millionaire, they will either revolt, or become cannon-fodders or be just sullen and destructive. As John Kennedy put it: “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”


, , , , , , , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: