Polity and governance

For achieving inclusive growth there is a critical need to rethink the role of the State. The early debate among economists about the size of the Government can be misleading. The need of the hour is to have an enabling Government. India is too large and complex a nation for the State to be able to deliver all that is needed. Asking the Government to produce all the essential goods, create all the necessary jobs, and keep a curb on the prices of all goods is to lead to a large cumbersome bureaucracy and widespread corruption.

The aim must be to stay with the objective of inclusive growth that was laid down by the founding fathers of the nation and also to take a more modern view of what the State can realistically deliver.

This is what leads to the idea of an enabling State, that is, a Government that does not try to directly deliver to the citizens everything that they need. Instead, it (1) creates an enabling ethos for the market so that individual enterprise can flourish and citizens can, for the most part, provide for the needs of one another, and (2) steps in to help those who do not manage to do well for themselves, for there will always be individuals, no matter what the system, who need support and help. Hence we need a Government that, when it comes to the market, sets effective, incentive-compatible rules and remains on the sidelines with minimal interference, and, at the same time, plays an important role in directly helping the poor by ensuring that they get basic education and health services and receive adequate nutrition and food.

Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare — they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical split — "Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development ?" — often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful — through the 1970s and 1980s and even later — in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.

To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization — important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.

If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is "conducive to development", we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the "constituent components" of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.

In a typical Western liberal context, deepening of democracy invariably leads to consolidation of 'liberal values'. In the Indian context, democratization is translated into greater involvement of people not as 'individuals' which is a staple to liberal discourse, but as communities or groups. Individuals are getting involved in the public sphere not as 'atomized' individuals but as members of primordial communities drawn on religious or caste identity. Community-identity seems to be the governing force. It is not therefore surprising that the so-called peripheral groups continue to maintain their identities with reference to the social groups (caste, religion or sect) to which they belong while getting involved in the political processes despite the fact that their political goals remain more or less identical. By helping to articulate the political voice of the marginalized, democracy in India has led to 'a loosening of social strictures' and empowered the peripherals to be confident of their ability to improve the socio-economic conditions in which they are placed. This is a significant political process that had led to a silent revolution through a meaningful transfer of power from the upper caste elites to various subaltern groups within the democratic framework of public governance.

The subject of democracy has become severely muddled because of the way the rhetoric surrounding it has been used in recent years. There is, increasingly, an oddly confused dichotomy between those who want to ‘impose’ democracy on countries in the non-Western world (in these countries’ ‘own interest’, of course) and those who are opposed to such ‘imposition’ (because of the respect for the countries’ ‘own ways’). But the entire language of ‘imposition’, used by both sides, is extraordinarily inappropriate since it makes the implicit assumption that democracy belongs exclusively to the West, taking it to be a quintessentially ‘Western’ idea which has originated and flourished only in the West.

But the thesis and the pessimism it generates about the possibility of democratic practice in the world would be extremely hard to justify. There were several experiments in local democracy in ancient India. Indeed, in understanding the roots of democracy in the world, we have to take an interest in the history of people participation and public reasoning in different parts of the world. We have to look beyond thinking of democracy only in terms of European and American evolution. We would fail to understand the pervasive demands for participatory living, on which Aristotle spoke with far-reaching insight, if we take democracy to be a kind of a specialized cultural product of the West.

It cannot, of course, be doubted that the institutional structure of the contemporary practice of democracy is largely the product of European and American experience over the last few centuries. This is extremely important to recognize since these developments in institutional formats were immensely innovative and ultimately effective. There can be little doubt that there is a major ‘Western’ achievement here.

Human history abounds in claims and theories confining the right of governing to a few select citizens. Exclusion of the many is justified on the ground that human beings may be rightfully segregated for the good of society and viability of the political process.

Many people in India feel that if we cut our defence expenditure on weapon-building, we can create a climate of peace with our neighbours, subsequently reducing the conflict or creating a no-war situation. People who proclaim such ideas are either the victims of war or the propagators of false argument.

The ultimate aim of government is not to rule or control by fear, nor to demand obedience, but conversely, to free every man from fear, that he may live in all possible security. In other words, to strengthen his natural right to exist and work without injury to himself or others. The object of government is not to change men from rational beings into beasts or puppets. It should enable them to develop their minds and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled.

Our municipal corporations are understaffed. The issue of skills and competencies of the staff poses an even greater challenge. Urban services delivery and infrastructure are complex to plan and execute. They require a high degree of specialization and professionalism. The current framework within which municipal employees, including senior management, are recruited does not adequately factor in the technical and managerial competencies required. Cadre and recruitment rules only specify the bare minimum in academic qualifications. There is no mention of managerial or technical competencies, or of relevant work experience. This is the case with most municipal corporations. They also suffer from weak organisation design and structure.

Vast numbers of Indian citizens without bank accounts live in rural areas, are financially and functionally illiterate, and have little experience with technology. A research study was conducted in a particular area in which electronic wage payments in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) are meant to go directly to the poor. It was observed that recipients often assume that the village leader needs to mediate the process, as was the case under the previous paper-based system. Among households under this research study area who claimed to have at least one bank account, over a third reported still receiving MGNREGS wages in cash directly from a village leader.

We generally talk about democracy but when it comes to any particular thing, we prefer a belonging to our caste or community or religion. So long as we have this kind of temptation, our democracy will remain a phoney kind of democracy. We must be in a position to respect a man as a man and to extend opportunities for development to those who deserve them and not to those who happen to belong to our community or race. This fact of favouritism has been responsible for much discontent and ill-will in our country.

Governments may have to take steps which would otherwise be an infringement on the Fundamental Rights of individuals, such as acquiring a person's land against his will, or refusing permission for putting up a building, but the larger public interest for which these are done must be authorized by the people (Parliament). Discretionary powers to the administration can be done away with. It is becoming more and more difficult to keep this power within limits as the government has many number of tasks to perform. Where discretion has to be used, there must be rules and safeguards to prevent misuse of that power. Systems have to be devised which minimise, if not prevent, the abuse of discretionary power. Government work must be conducted within a framework of recognised rules and principles, and decisions should be similar and predictable.

No Right is absolute, exclusive or inviolable. The Right of personal property, similarly, has to be perceived in the larger context of its assumed legitimacy. The Right of personal property should unite the principle of liberty with that of equality, and both with the principle of cooperation.

The conflict between man and State is as old as State history. Although attempts have been made for centuries to bring about a proper adjustment between the competing claims of State and the individual, the solution seems to be still far off. This is primarily because of the dynamic nature of human society where old values and ideas constantly yield place to new ones. It is obvious that if individuals are allowed to have absolute freedom of speech and action, the result would be chaos, ruin and anarchy.

Accountability, or the lack of it, in governance generally, and civil services, in particular, is a major factor underlying the deficiencies in governance and public administration. Designing an effective framework for accountability has been a key element of the reform agenda. A fundamental issue is whether civil services should be accountable to the political executive of the day or to society at large. In other words, how should internal and external accountability be reconciled? Internal accountability is sought to be achieved by internal performance monitoring, official supervision by bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission and Comptroller and Auditor General, and judicial review of executive decisions. Articles 311 and 312 of the Indian Constitution provide job security and safeguards to the civil services, especially the All India Services. The framers of the Constitution had envisaged that provision of these safeguards would result in a civil service that is not totally subservient to the political executive but will have the strength to function in larger public interest. The need to balance internal and external accountability is thus built into the Constitution. The issue is where to draw the line. Over the years, the emphasis seems to have tilted in favour of greater internal accountability of the civil services to the political leaders of the day who in turn are expected to be externally accountable to the society at large through the election process. This system for seeking accountability to society has not worked out, and has led to several adverse consequences for governance.

Some special measures can be considered for improving accountability in civil services. Provisions of articles 311 and 312 should be reviewed and laws and regulations framed to ensure external accountability of civil services. The proposed Civil Services Bill seeks to address some of these requirements. The respective roles of professional civil services and the political executive should be defined so that professional managerial functions and management of civil services are depoliticized. For this purpose, effective statutory civil service boards should be created at the centre and in the states. Decentralization and devolution of authority to bring government and decision making closer to the people also helps to enhance accountability.

To understand the nature and quantity of Government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society.

The nature of the legal imperatives in any given state corresponds to the effective demands that state encounters, and that these, in their turn, depend, in a general way, upon the manner in which economic power is distributed in the society which the state controls.

“The individual, according to Rousseau, puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the General Will and in our corporate capacity we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

In a democratic State, where a high degree of political maturity of the people obtains, the conflict between the will of the sovereign law-making body and the organized will of the people seldom occurs.

A successful democracy depends upon widespread interest and participation in politics, in which voting is an essential part. To deliberately refrain from taking such an interest, and from voting, is a kind of implied anarchy; it is to refuse one’s political responsibility while enjoying the benefits of a free political society.

In a free country, the man who reaches the position of leader is usually one of outstanding character and ability. Moreover, it is usually possible to foresee that he will reach such a position, since early in life one can see his qualities of character. But this is not always true in the case of a dictator; often he reaches his position of power through chance, very often through the unhappy state of his country.

Disruption of traditional institutions, identifications and loyalties is likely to lead to ambivalent situations. It is possible that some people may renew their identification with traditional groups whereas others align themselves with new groups and symbols emergent from processes of political development. In addition, political development tends to foster group awareness of a variety of class, tribe, region, clan, language, religion, occupation and others.

There has been a significant trend worldwide towards regionalism in government, resulting in a widespread transfer of powers downwards towards regions and communities since 1990s. This process, which involves the creation of new political entities and bodies at a sub-national level and an increase in their content and powers, is known as devolution. Devolution has been characterized as being made up of three factors—political legitimacy, decentralization of authority and decentralization of resources. Political legitimacy here means a mass demand from below for the decentralization process, which is able to create a political force for it to take place. In many cases, decentralization is initiated by the upper tier of government without sufficient political mobilization for it at the grassroots level, and in such cases the decentralization process often does not fulfil its objectives.

The States are like pearls and the Centre is the thread which turns them into a necklace; if the thread snaps, the pearls are scattered.

Really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as the greatest he, and therefore truly, I think it is clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under the government, and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he has not had a voice to put himself under.

Political theorists no doubt have to take history of injustice, for example, untouchability, seriously. The concept of historical injustice takes note of a variety of historical wrongs that continue into the present in some form or the other and tend to resist repair. Two reasons might account for resistance to repair. One, not only are the roots of injustice buried deep in history, injustice itself constitutes economic structures of exploitation, ideologies of discrimination and modes of representation. Two, the category of historical injustice generally extends across a number of wrongs such as economic deprivation, social discrimination and lack of recognition. This category is complex, not only because of the overlap between a number of wrongs, but because one or the other wrong, generally discrimination, tends to acquire partial autonomy from others. This is borne out by the history of repair in India.

The interests of working and poor people have historically been neglected in the planning of our cities. Our cities are increasingly intolerant, unsafe and unlivable places for large numbers of citizens and yet we continue to plan via the old ways — the static Development Plan — that draws exclusively from technical expertise, distanced from people's live experiences and needs, and actively excluding large number of people, places, activities and practices that are an integral part of the city.

In India, the current focus on the right to privacy is based on some new realities of the digital age. A right is a substantive right only if it works in all situations, and for everyone. A right to free expression for an individual about her exploitation, for instance, is meaningless without actual availability of security that guarantees that private force cannot be used to thwart this right. The role of the State, therefore, is not just to abstain from preventing rightful free expression, but also to actively ensure that private parties are not able to block it.

Our urban bodies cannot possibly ensure sustainable delivery of water in our cities unless financing mechanisms are put in place. Water delivery requires heavy investment in collecting it from a natural source, treating it to make it potable, and laying a distribution network of pipes for delivery to the users. It also requires investments in sewerage infrastructure and sewage treatment plants so that the sewers can carry the wastewater to these plants to ensure that no untreated sewage is discharged back into natural water bodies. If our cities were rich enough to meet the entire cost, water could be delivered free. They are not.

In Part III of the Constitution, which assures people certain fundamental rights, Article 25 proclaims that “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”. What people fail to notice is that this proclamation is prefixed with the words “subject to public order, morality, health and to the other provisions of this Part”, which set conditions precedent for the legal protection of religious practices of any community. The closing words of this prefatory rider in Article 25 virtually constitute a subordination clause placing other fundamental rights mentioned in Part III over and above the right to religious freedom. Among those other fundamental rights is the right to equality before law and equal protection of laws—assured at the outset and elaborated in later articles to mean, inter alia, that the State shall not deny equal protection of laws to any person or group of persons on the basis of religion alone.

It is certain, that seditions, wars, and to be imputed to the wickedness of the subjects, as to the bad state of a dominion. For men are not born fit for citizenship, but must be made so. Besides, men’s natural passions are everywhere the same; and if wickedness more prevails, and more offences are committed in one commonwealth than in another, it is certain that the former has neither enough pursued the end of unity, nor framed its laws with sufficient forethought; and that, therefore, it has failed in making quite good its right as a commonwealth.

Inequality violates a basic democratic norm: the equal standing of citizens. Equality is a relation that obtains between persons in respect of some fundamental characteristic that they share in common. Equality is, morally speaking, a default principle. Therefore, persons should not be discriminated on grounds such as race, caste, gender, ethnicity, disability, or class. These features of human condition are morally irrelevant. The idea that one should treat persons with respect not only because some of these persons possess some special features or talent, for example skilled cricketers, gifted musicians, or literary giants, but because persons are human beings, is by now part of commonsense morality.

Aristocratic government ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchic government ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. But even democracy ruins itself by excess of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is, at first glance, a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses. The people have no understanding and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them. Such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy. — Plato

Can a democracy avoid being a welfare state for long? Why cannot mass welfare be left entirely to the markets? There is a built-in tension between markets and democracy. Markets do not work on a one-person-one-vote principle as democracies do. What one gets out of the market place depends on one’s endowments, skills, purchasing power and the forces of demand and supply. Markets reward individual initiative and skill, and may also lift many from the bottom rungs of society, but some people never get the opportunity to develop skills that markets demand; they are simply too poor and too handicapped; or skill formation takes too long. By creating jobs, markets may be able to help even unskilled people, but capitalism has always witnessed bursts of unemployment.

“In simple matters like shoe-making, we think only a specially trained person will serve our purpose, but in politics, we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a State. When we are ill, we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence—we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one: well then, when the whole State is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best?”

“The social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions.”

We often hear about conflicts among different States in India over river waters. Of the 20 major river systems, 14 are already water-stressed; 75% of the population lives in water-stressed regions, a third of whom live in water-scarce areas. Climate change, the demands of rising population and the need for agriculture to keep pace, and increased rate of urbanization and industrialization will exacerbate water stress. According to the Constitution of India, water is a State subject and not that of the Union, except for regulation of inter-State rivers. Key to ensuring balance between competing demands of various stakeholders is a basin-based approach to allocate water amongst constituent regions and States. Allocating fair share of water to them requires assessments based on objective criteria, such as specificities of the river basin, size of dependent population, existing water use and demand, efficiency of use, projected future use, etc. while ensuring the environmental needs of the river and aquifers.

India should ensure the growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data of citizens secure and protected. No one will innovate in a surveillance-oriented environment or in a place where an individual’s personal information is compromised. The ultimate control of data must reside with the individuals who generate it; they should be enabled to use, restrict or monetise it as they wish. Therefore, data protection laws should enable the right kind of innovation — one that is user-centric and privacy protecting.

“The last end of the state is not to dominate men, nor to restrain them by fear; rather it is so to free each man from fear that he may live and act with full security and without injury to himself or his neighbour. The end of the state, I repeat, is not to make rational beings into brute beasts and machines. It is to enable their bodies and their minds to function safely. It is to lead men to live by, and to exercise, a free reason; that they may not waste their strength in hatred, anger and guile, nor act unfairly toward one another.”

Not every voice on the internet commands the same kind of audience. When anonymous private entities with high capital can pay for more space for their opinions, they are effectively buying a louder voice. If political discourse in the digital sphere is a matter of outshining one’s opponent till the election is won, then the quality of politics suffers. The focus of social media is restricted to the promotion of content that generates more user engagement, regardless of how inflammatory the content may be.

In a robust democracy, reality, howsoever inconvenient it may be, finds its expression both in the speech of political leaders and the other social forms of assertion. The existence of the real has to be transparent, both through its circulation in and by the media as well as its argumentative articulation in deliberative democracy. A normatively responsible media through its communication effect has the responsibility to circulate the content of reality without distortion.

“A good statesman, like any other sensible human being, learns more from his opponents than from his fervent supporters. For his supporters will push him to disaster unless his opponents show him where the dangers are. So if he is wise he will often pray to be delivered from his friends, because they will ruin him. But, though it hurts, he ought also to pray never to be left without opponents; for they keep him on the path of reason and good sense. The national unity of free people depends upon a sufficiently even balance of political power to make it impracticable for the administration to be arbitrary and for opposition to be revolutionary and irreconcilable.”

“A network of voluntary associations stands as a ‘buffer’ between the relatively powerless individual and the potentially powerful State.”

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, or the JJ Act, 2015 allows for the possibility for trying adolescents above 16 as adults if they are accused of committing a heinous offence. A heinous offence is one with a minimum punishment of seven years. Offences such as culpable homicide and causing death by negligence, which are common in drunken driving cases, are not heinous offences because they do not have a prescribed minimum punishment. The JJ Act, amended in 2021, now categorises an offence that has no minimum sentence, but has a maximum sentence of seven years or more as a serious offence which nonetheless, in the opinion of activists, does not merit the transfer of a case to the adult criminal justice system.