“If he (Pt Jawaharlal Nehru) says as the head of the Government that he is prepared to allow any viewpoint to be circulated within the country – and that is what we understand by democratic freedom – so long as it does not advocate chaos. I would be at one with him. If he says that because he does not like that anybody should speak about the annulment of the partition he means to prevent us and therefore wants to put these words in the Constitution and later pass some law consistent with them, then I say it is most arbitrary and if done, will lead to serious consequences”. –Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Parliamentary Debate on the First Amendment Bill, May 16, 1951
We often use the cliché, “Democracy needs a strong and effective opposition”; however, we rarely discuss what kind of Opposition. Is it just the numbers that define a strong Opposition? What kind of Constitutional methods can the Opposition employ in a democracy? Most importantly, is it a universal principle or applies only when a specific political party is in power? As the 2024 General Election has thrown a mandate where Opposition is numerically strong, we must thoughtfully deliberate on these questions.
When Bharat attained Independence from British rule, Congress party had an uninterrupted stronghold on the polity across the States, from Parliament to State Assemblies. The domination of the Nehruvian Congress was such that the entire polity was called the ‘Congress System’. With clear dynastic and party considerations, Nehru tried to amend the Constitution as per his will. The First Amendment was introduced to restrict press freedom. Even before the Constitution was adopted, national weeklies like Organiser faced censorship from the Government for reporting the plight of Hindus in East and West Pakistan. When the Supreme Court ruled in favour of media freedom, Nehru dared to introduce restrictions on free speech. In another case, when the judiciary upheld the right to property for individuals, Nehru chose to amend the then provision in Article 31. Remember, this was within two years of the adoption of the Constitution and when the Nehruvian Congress was still a caretaker Government without getting an official mandate through General Elections as per the Constitutional provisions. That clearly shows the mindset of the Congress vis-à-vis the spirit of the Constitution. Thankfully, though the Opposition was numerically weak, ideologically and constitutionally, it was strong enough not to give a cakewalk to the dictatorial tendencies. The debate between Pt Nehru and Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee on the First Amendment to the Constitution is a classic case study on Parliamentary debates. Even within the Congress, voices like Purushottam Das Tandon and Kanhayalal Munshi were sharp and clear enough to take a stand in favour of the Constitutional spirit over party interests.
The same was true when Indira Gandhi divided the Congress to establish a formal dynastic monopoly over the party by renaming it the Indira Congress and later imposed a national Emergency to brutally mutilate the Constitutional spirit. Leaders like Pt Deendayal Upadhyaya and Dr Ram Manohar Lohia cornered her dictatorial tendencies inside and outside the Parliament. The Lok Sangharsh Samiti, constituted by the initiative of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), displayed the true democratic spirit of Bharat and led the second freedom struggle to save the Constitution and democracy. After Ms Gandhi’s assassination, Rajiv Gandhi had a brutal majority in Parliament. Through the postal bill, he again tried to play around with individual freedom by introducing provisions related to keeping a watch on personal correspondence. Consequently, the only pocket veto was used till date by then President Giani Zail Singh, the effective role of the numerically weak Opposition and the responsible role of the media turned public opinion against the Government. The corruption charges in the Bofors case led to the dynastic Congress’s first decisive loss, which it has not yet recovered. A responsible Opposition, committed to the Constitutional and democratic values, is more critical than a numerically strong but irresponsible Opposition.
Strangely, the people who argue in favour of numerically strong Opposition at the Union level in Bharat do not argue the same regarding State Governments. Even after ruling for decades with undemocratic practices of violently abusing the Opposition parties, Communist or Trinamool Congress rules in West Bengal remain safe for democracy. After blatantly practicing communal and casteist dynastic politics in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, they remain protectors of social justice and the Constitution. And Congress, with unashamedly promoting dynasty over democracy, now claims to be fighting to save the Constitution. Running a campaign based on lies related to reservations and the Constitution to usurp power, misusing technology to misinform people on the laws passed by the Parliament, aligning with the external forces to weaken the Constitutional institutions and openly advocating divisive, separatist politics are not signs of the responsible Opposition.
The smear campaign is run against the Election Commission and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for petty political interest, another sign of unreliable Opposition. The EVMs were first introduced during the Rajiv Gandhi Government. Since then, many elections have taken place with different electoral outcomes. The Election Commission had given a call to prove that EVMs can be hacked multiple times, and then no legal luminary supporting the Opposition could accept the challenge.
On May 16, 1951, Pt Nehru, while arguing his case in favour of land reforms and the Executive-Judiciary tussle over the same, remarked, “Somehow we have found that this magnificent Constitution that we have framed was later kidnapped and purloined by the lawyers”. Who is employing the same set of ‘eminent lawyers’ to manipulate the laws for political gains now?
The appointments of the Election Commissioners were always the prerogative of the Government. It is the PM Modi-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government that included the leader of the Opposition in the process. Still, the fake allegations, with the help of celebrity YouTubers, are spread about the Constitutional appointments. The worst part is that making all the allegations about curbing media freedom and independent journalism against the ruling party, the way State Governments ruled by Congress and its allies are intimidating and using police force against journalists and media houses are nothing but the height of hypocrisy. Instigating the unrest in the security forces is an act of working against the unity and integrity of the nation, which is a fundamental principle of our Constitution.
The kind of Opposition we witness today is the conglomeration of self-serving dynastic parties who, with the help of international networks of Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs), Islamist forces, anti-Bharat think tanks and media houses, are engaging in the treacherous exercise of pulling down the ‘Bharat’ story. They see PM Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party as the stumbling block in their nefarious designs to undermine Bharat’s cultural, economic and strategic resurgence. Democracy is always about differences of opinion and pulls and pressures among various interests. We need to build national consensus amidst all those strains. The Constitutional framework and Parliamentary system are there to debate and discuss for building such national opinion on diverse issues. If the Opposition, for petty political interest, decides to use practices that undermine the Constitutional spirit and democratic practices, then such strong or weak Opposition is detrimental to democracy.
Comments