India News and Features Alliance (INFA)

POLLS ALONE NOT ENOUGH, By Inder Jit, 11 June, 2026

REWIND

New Delhi, 11 June 2026

POLLS ALONE NOT ENOUGH

By Inder Jit

(Released on 24 January 1978)

Thoughts among ardent nationalists have been turning lately to the state and content of our resurrected democracy. Not a few of these have been prompted by the recent developments on the political front and the approaching Republic Day which has come to be accepted as an annual occasion for national introspection. Interest has also been encouraged by the glowing compliments paid to India and its people by the visiting British Prime Minister, M. Callaghann in his address to Members of Parliament and in what Mr. Morarji Desai stated in his remarks on the occasion. India, said Mr. Callaghan, had proved its devotion to democracy and preservation of fundamental freedoms in the events of 1977. Parliamentary democracy, said Mr. Desai, was functioning in the country now at all levels “in the fullest freedom.”

Polls are fundamental to parliamentary democracy. But these by themselves cannot be regarded as enough. Mr. Callaghan was, therefore, taking a surprisingly simplistic view when he lauded Mrs. Gandhi for calling the election ignoring two basic facts. First, her prime motivation, which was anything but democratic. (Mrs. Gandhi, let it be remembered, made it clear repeatedly that there would be no return to the pre-Emergency days.) Second, she had by then reduced democracy to a sham – a mere form. Parliamentary democracy implies a delicate and well-considered functional balance between its three principal organs, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Yet, Mrs. Gandhi calculatedly succeeded in making the executive all-powerful by the time the Emergency was proclaimed. Indian democracy was not subverted in our fell blow on June 26, 1975. Its erosion began much earlier.

Certain salient facts need to be recalled since public memory is proverbially short. The well known dictum that every man has a price and few in modern India ever want to retire was successfully exploited to play havoc with various democratic institutions. Incredible as it may seem today, we had at one stage a sitting judge of the Supreme Court simultaneously Chairman of the Law Commission, a body directly under the Union Law Ministry. The judge attended the court in the morning and the Commission in the afternoon! The subtle erosion of the independence of the judiciary began with the appointment of retired Supreme Court Judges first as Governors and then as Ambassadors. It was carried to a decisive stage when Mr. Justice Ray was handpicked by Mrs. Gandhi and named Chief Justice of India in supersession of three senior colleagues.

Our Constitution makers thoughtfully provided for an impartial election machinery outside Government control to ensure free and fair elections. The Chief Election Commissioner was, therefore, made removable only through impeachment by Parliament. Yet Mrs. Gandhi eroded his impartiality without outwardly violating the letter of the Constitution by exploiting the absence of any ban on his taking an appointment under the Government. Mr. K.V.F. Sundaram, who was India’s second Chief Election Commissioner, was made Chairman of the Law Commission on retirement. His successor, Mr. S.P. Sen Verma, who was the CEC during the crucial 1971 and 1972 general elections to Parliament and the State Assemblies and allotted Mrs. Gandhi the controversial cow and calf symbol following the Congress split of 1969, was appointed a member of the Law Commission on retirement in a new post created to accommodate him.

Little was done by Mrs. Gandhi to strengthen Parliament and its sovereignty. Outwardly, Parliament carried on its routine business. But inwardly various recognized conventions for healthy running of parliamentary institutions were defied. The impartiality and independence of the Speaker was undermined slowly but surely. Retired Speakers were appointed as Governors as in the case of Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Sardar Human Singh. Nothing was done to depoliticize the office of Speaker and to ensure his uncontested return. In fact, the office of the Speaker touched its nadir at the Centre when Mr. Gurdial Singh Dhillon accepted ministership in Mrs. Gandhi’s cabinet. Nothing was done in the States either. Indeed, the lapses in the States became worse and Speakership came to be actively involved in politics and used as a spring board to earn richer political dividends.

Two additional statutory restraints were put on the powers of the executive by way of the Public Service Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor-General; the latter was described by Dr Ambedkar as "probably the most important officer in the Constitution." As the watchdog of finances, the Comptroller and Auditor-General performs a vital role and hence the constitutional ban on his appointment under the Government after retirement. Yet, the late Asoke Chanda was successively appointed Chairman of the Finance Commission and two other Commissions, including one on All India Radio. Another retired C&AG preferred to fish in obliging private waters and became the Chairman and/or Director of 20 companies -- the maximum permitted under the Company Law. A third retired C&AG was elected to the Rajya Sabha two years ago as an independent with the support of Mrs Gandhi's Congress.

The UPSC, which is expected to prevent the government from abusing its power and patronage as an employer and becoming the greatest source of corruption and nepotism, was not spared either. Its authority was increasingly eroded by taking more and more posts out of its purview. Many commissions found themselves needled time and again and were even denied adequate staff. A case in point was the decision of the Union Agriculture Ministry to set up an ad hoc committee for recruitment to the ICAR instead of passing the job back to the UPSC, as recommended by the Gajendragadkar Committee. Some states went further and crudely reduced their Public Service Commissions’ virtually to zero. Indeed, the situation in Haryana and a few other States became so bad that at one stage the UPSC Chairman, Mr .C.S. Sarkar, now retired, was constrained to seek the Prime Minister's intervention.

The functioning of the executive was so manipulated as to clear the decks for the establishment of dynastic rule. All power was concentrated increasingly in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. The Cabinet functioned collectively only in name. Each Minister operated essentially in accordance with the whims and fancies of the supreme leader. Talk of a committed bureaucracy and the feudal manner in which personal loyalty was rewarded undermined the concept of an independent and non-political civil service, one of the basic requirements for a healthy parliamentary democracy. Public morality and the rule of law took a back seat. Even solemn assurances given on the floor of Parliament, were flouted without the betting of an eyelid. A case in point was the Government’s decision to appoint the second Central Vigilance Commissioner, Mr. S. Dutt, India’s ambassador to Bangladesh, notwithstanding the rules barring him from further employment. India perhaps gained abroad. But it lost great deal at home.

One could go on and on. The office of the President. Federation of our Constitution and the office of Governor. The fourth Estate. But, in the final analysis, we as a people need to be clear on the fundamental issue. Do we genuinely want parliamentary democracy or do we not? If we do, we will need to take effective steps to nurse it back to health. Happily, the Janata leaders are clear on fundamentals and appreciate the vital importance of maintaining a delicate balance between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. As Mr. Morarji Desai emphasised prior to Mr. Callaghan’s address to MPs, an independent judiciary and a non-political civil service and army are necessary to guarantee the performance of democratic institutions and popular freedom in the country”. We fool none but ourselves in merely paying lip service to the Constitution and our Sovereign Democratic Republic. One swallow, as the saying goes, does not make a summer. So also one poll does not necessarily make a democracy.--- INFA