By Fabian Lyngdoh
The concept of the ‘rule of the people’ led to the emergence of a democratic society as an ideal condition where individual freedom and the collective order can tolerably co-exist. The concept ‘rule of the people’ is closer to the meaning of democracy than the concept, “rule of law”. Rule of law, implies that the law is above the people, hence it also implies that the sovereign, whose command is law, is also above the people. But democracy is built on the concept of the rule of the people. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution says that people are the ultimate authority and hence, the sovereign. ‘Rule of law’ is the guiding norm in regulating the balance between individual freedom and the collective order by the government constituted by free choice of the people. The ultimate authority of the rule of law rests with the Supreme Court, while the ultimate authority of the rule of the people is manifested in the electoral process symbolized by the President of India. The Supreme Court cannot grant pardon in the name of law to any convict, but the President in certain cases can do so, but not on behalf of law or the government, but on behalf of the people.
India has not yet matured as a real democracy. In the west, democracy is a spontaneous socio-political evolution based on gradual process of social change. The collective consciousness of the people has already acquired democratic tendency, and democracy emerged with this collective consciousness as the author. Democracy evolved in the west together with the development of capitalist industrial production. In India on the other hand, democracy was an abrupt gift of historical exigency where only a few intellectual leaders of the national liberation movement understood its meaning, while the mass and multitude of people do not understand what democracy is all about even today. Democracy in India preceded capitalist industrial production and collective consciousness, and it has been thrust upon them out of necessity. Hence the society is now governed by a democratic system of government while the collective consciousness is still in the feudalistic stage. In this situation, the general population are little aware of what is going on in the political system and have little awareness of their rights and responsibilities as democratic citizens. Democratic government is looked upon as something foreign and strange and being imposed by external force, popularly conceived among the Khasis as sorkar. This sorkar, is not part of the natural society as it has not yet entered into people’s consciousness as something part of their own social living, except during the election festivities once in five years. Democratic principles have not yet been ingrained into the people’s social consciousness. Political leaders have almost absolute right to manipulate the State’s affairs without much hue and cry by the general citizens, except a few desperate cries by civil society leaders, and even these cries are not motivated by pure democratic concerns but by a jumble of mixed interests. Since the society is still feudalistic in nature, while the political system is that of a modern democracy, hence the society and the state are not compatible. There is a lag in the rate of change of the society to that of the state. Judging from the political behavior of the electorates and the people’s representatives; the popularity and the success of dynastic politics; the survival of octogenarians in active politics; the circumstantial no-entry for academics and intellectuals into political leadership, and the great influence that money plays in the electoral process, we can say that by and large, feudalistic mentality still rules the Indian society. Social disorder or disruptive human behaviour in mature capitalistic societies with democratic political system might be due to over-step of individual freedom into the sphere of the collective order, but problems of democratic government in feudalistic society is not due to over-step of individual freedom, but due to this lag.
Due to well developed modern information system, societies all over the world tend to converge on the common principle of democracy and liberalism with the American political system as the model. But due to the pertinent differences in the basic conditions or circumstances that the societies exist, the criteria of equilibrium between individual freedom and the collective order are not identical in all societies. USA and India may have similar democratic principles, but a different set of criteria exists to maintain the equilibrium between individual freedom and the collective order in the American society, and another set of criteria may be required to maintain the same equilibrium in the Indian Society. So the Society and the State are not universally compatible in the present countries of the World. There is a lag which induces tensions to the equilibrium of individual freedom and the collective order in countries like India.
Indian democracy though is still young, but as it functions today it is the best that people can bear in this quasi-feudalistic society. The Indian political system is a democracy operating in a feudal society. Being feudal in character but democratic in expression, the Indian society still needs to be under the shadow of certain benevolent dynasty, and the Nehru-Gandhi family seems to provide that inherent need to prevent chaos, religious fundamentalism and cultural tyranny. Political democracy is constituted but a democratic society has not been established. Dowry is still appealing even for high class educated families, a victim of Sati is still popularly deified, the participation of women in governance is still abhorrent in many communities, and other defunct aspects of patriarchy still widely retained. The present Indian democracy is a feudalistic-democracy, where, especially in the Indian mainland, a Chief Minister decorates his chair like a royal throne, and people have to look up to him as a Raja or Maharaja with fear and awe. That is Indian democracy, but it works as long as the society is not democratically mature and people’s mentality is enslaved by the royal pretence of the people they have elected. Indeed, Indians under the rule of Ashoka or Akbar might have had more feeling of security and justice than under the rule of the present democratic Netas. The whole Indian society from top to bottom, left to right, is desperately in need of democratization. If democratic integration has been achieved, why at all should India survive on dynastic politics and octogenarian leadership? Thanks to the Nehru-Gandhi family for the martyrdom. It is not this family which keeps the Indian society lingering on feudalism, but it is the feudalistic character of the Indian society which necessitates the existence of such a dynasty as a replica of Ashoka or Akbar on whom people repose their faith. When the whole Indian society is in that situation, academic debates on the issue of why the North-eastern tribals should not join the national main stream and do away with special constitutional protection like the Sixth Schedule, the Inner Line etc., as hurdles to Indian democratic consolidation, have no meaning. At least in North-east India the consciousness of the tribal people is lingering on the rule of custom and traditions not on the rule of Kings or Rajas. Dr. Mukul Sangma and other Chief Ministers of the North-eastern States would not have the courage, or even the desire to sit on golden painted thrones. The Prime Minister’s chair and Chief Ministers’ chairs are executive chairs; they do not symbolize sovereignty at all. Only the President of India, though not popularly elected, can sit on a throne, but without the crown. The throne symbolizes the sovereignty of the people, while a crown on the other hand would symbolize a monarch not the people. Indian nation can be built on political maturity in democracy, not on racial, cultural or religious ground. If we stress on Indian culture, then the North-eastern tribals are closer to China or Myanmar than India on that count. So Indian mainstream is not a “political democracy in a democratic society”. As yet, it is improper to think of a national mainstream which others should follow, when that mainstream is still a mixed jam of feudalism, democracy and religious fundamentalism. At present, there is no model of a national main stream. Let us strive to build it.