Indian democracy reality and myth.pdf

Indian Democracy: reality or myth?Author(s): Soli J. SorabjeeSource: India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2 (AUTUMN 2006), pp. 83-96Published by: India International CentreStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23005873 .Accessed: 06/09/2014 03:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

India International Centre is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to IndiaInternational Centre Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sat, 6 Sep 2014 03:03:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Soli J. Sorabjee

Indian Democracy: reality or myth?*

I

I

selected the present topic for the lecture because V.M.Tarkunde

had an abiding faith in democracy and firmly believed in the

importance of adhering to democratic values.

No political term has been abused so indiscriminately as

'democracy'. It is amusing to notice patently totalitarian regimes

flaunting the democratic label. I do not propose to indulge in semantics

and regale you with various definitions of democracy, because I have

in mind T.S. Eliot's quip that 'when a term has become so universally sanctified as "democracy" I begin to wonder whether it means

anything, in meaning too many things'.

Etymologically, democracy means the power of the people. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, is the

sovereign definition of democracy. Even if democracy cannot be

precisely and comprehensively defined we can recognize it by some

of its essential features in action.

Regular, fair and free elections are the fundamental unmistakable

indicia of democracy. The foundation of democracy is that people have

the right to vote freely and fearlessly and thus rule through their

elected representatives. Churchill, in felicitous language, said: 'At the

bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross, on a little

bit of paper.' Justice Hugo L. Black of the United States Supreme Court

articulated a central tenet of democratic governance when he said:

* Delivered at the India International Centre on 25 July 2006, as the First V.M. Tarkunde

Memorial Lecture


84 / India International Centre Quarterly

'No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a

voice in the election of those who make the laws under which we must live.'

Let us turn now to the ground realities. The undeniable fact is that corruption and criminalization have bedevilled the process of free and fair elections. The power and tyranny of wealth combined

with muscle force have subverted the system. In some parts of the

country, democracy is treated as a harlot to be picked up in the street

by a man with an AK-47. There are blatant and pervasive breaches of

the law prescribing a ceiling on election expenses. Potential lawmakers

begin their political careers as unashamed lawbreakers. The limits of election expenditure prescribed are meaningless and almost never

adhered to. Political parties, which have a fair share of the criminal

elements, handle enormous funds, believed to be unaccounted illicit

money, collected ostensibly for meeting party and electoral

expenditure. Electoral compulsions for funds become the foundation of the super structure of corruption. As a result, it becomes difficult

for the good and the honest to contest elections and gain entry into Parliament and the state legislatures.

Election laws at present in force permit persons with colourful

criminal backgrounds to contest elections. The recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution

(NCRWC), and also of the Law Commission that persons against whom charges have been framed by a court of law should be

disqualified from contesting elections have not at all been heeded. For this all political parties have to bear their proportionate share of

blame. The consequence is the disgusting spectacle of history sheeters and criminals in Parliament and state legislatures, and worse, also in

the Cabinet making laws and ruling us and our children.

Barring honourable exceptions, the prime motivation of these

elected representatives of the peoplethe supposed servants of the

peopleis to recoup the illegally incurred election expenses. The

notion of rendering service to the nation appears strange and is alien

to their thinking. Thus, money power and criminal elements have thoroughly

criminalized politics and have contributed to the pervasive

degeneration of standards in political and also in public life. This is

reflected in the shoddy quality of governance and of the governing processes.


Sou J. Sorabjee / 85

Again, barring a few exceptions, we have legislators who

apparently answer the description given by Sri Aurobindo who

referred to the average politician in words which have striking relevance today:

...he does not represent the soul of a people or its aspirations. What he does usually represent is all the average pettiness, selfishness, egoism, self-deception that is about him and these he

represents well enough as well as a great deal of mental

incompetence, timidity and pretence. Great issues often come to him for decision, but he does not deal with them greatly; high words and noble ideas are on his lips, but they become rapidly the claptrap of a Party.

In view of this state of affairs, one wonders whether what we have is

democracy or mobocracy in action. Whatever the nomenclature, this

makes a mockery of democracy and leads people to conclude that

democracy in India is a glorified myth. If democracy is to be made a reality, the cleansing of public life is

absolutely imperative. A beginning should be made with the law

relating to defections which cries out for an urgent change. Defection

is the worst form of political immorality. A defector commits a breach

of faith with the electorate. Defection in any form must not be

countenanced nor permitted, be it by a merger of political parties or

other stratagems. A defector should be debarred from holding any ministerial post or any public office, thereby removing a strong incentive for defection. Moreover, the question of disqualification of

a member on account of his alleged defection should not be decided

by the Speaker. My personal experience has shown that Speakers of

some State Assemblies do not display the requisite impartiality and

independence expected of them.

Let me give you an amusing example. I was briefed in a matter

where the issue involved was the disqualification of a member on

account of his joining another political party. During the conference I

enquired about the various persons in my chambers. One of them

turned out to be the Speaker whose order was being questioned before

the Court. I asked him, 'Mr. Speaker, why are you here in the

conference?' He replied with gusto, 'Sir, I am on the Chief Minister's

side, am on your side.' I had to politely but firmly tell him, 'Mr.

Speaker, you are not supposed to be on the side of anyone.' I whispered to my instructing advocate, Praveen Parekh, in Gujarati that he may ask the Speaker to leave my chambers, which he did. The Speaker



was furious and complained to the Chief Minister that 'Sorabjee insulted me and did not take my assistance in the matter.' So much

for his independence and impartiality! I believe that the convention that a person on being elected as a

Speaker should sever his political ties with the party to which he

previously belonged should be made a legal requirement. Besides, in

view of the experience of the working of the tenth Schedule in the

Constitution, which deals with defections, an amendment is necessary to provide that the power to decide questions of disqualification on

the ground of defection, should be entrusted to the Election

Commission instead of the Chairman or Speaker of the House

concerned as at present. That was one of the recommendations of the

NCWRC. It has been ignored once more.

II

I

now turn to the lack of representational legitimacy. The

multiplicity of political parties, combined with our Westminster

model based on the first-past-the-post system results in a majority of legislators getting elected on a minority vote. They usually win by

obtaining less than 50 per cent of the votes cast, that is, with more

votes cast against them than in their favour. There are states where 85

per cent to 90 per cent of the legislators have won on a minority vote.

At the national level, in the last three Lok Sabha elections, the

proportion of MPs who have won on a minority vote is over 67 per cent on an average. In extreme cases, some candidates have won even

on the basis of 13 per cent of the votes polled. Thus Parliament and

the state legislatures, owing to the inherent weaknesses of the first

past-the-post electoral system, have not acquired a true representative character. The thirteenth Lok Sabha represented only 27.9 per cent of

the total electorate. This low representative character of the

legislatures, even after more than fifty years of independence, casts

serious doubt about the reality of democracy. Another serious problem in the functioning of democracy is voter

apathy owing to a deep disenchantment with the working of the

institutions of democracy. People seem almost to have resigned to

what they consider their inevitable fate. This attitude of fatalism

coupled with cynicism is detrimental to democracy, and is also partly

responsible for the fact that corrupt and undesirable persons get elected


SOU J. SORABJEE / 87

and rule us and the future generations. The right to vote, of making the little cross on the little bit of paper is a precious right and must be exercised with a full sense of responsibility. Votes should not be cast on the basis of the religion or caste or lineage of the candidate, but on his or her individual merit. Casting votes for candidates with a

colourful criminal record is a sacrilege, an affront to honest law-abiding

people. Indeed, it is the citizens' ethical obligation to reject such

candidates.

It is forgotten that a citizen's obligation in a democracy is not

discharged by the exercise of franchise once in five years and thereafter

retiring in passivity and not taking any interest in the working of the

government and enforcing its accountability. Accountability is to be

enforced not merely at the time of elections, but during the life of the

government in power. Otherwise, democracy becomes merely a

ritualistic exercise in voting and not a continuous process of

government by the people. M.N. Roy believed that to make democracy effective, people should exercise this right not periodically, but from

day to day. This is a rather tall order. However, what Roy wanted to

emphasize was that an alert and active citizenry is essential to ensure

the successful functioning of participatory democracy and making it

a reality. I would be presenting a lop-sided picture if I did not mention

some positive developments, one of which is the widening of the

democratic base with the formation of elected panchayati raj institutions. Another significant feature is that representation in the

legislatures has become more egalitarian. The composition of

Parliament and the state legislatures, in terms of the width of social

representation is moving in the right direction. The seventy-third and

seventy-fourth amendments to the Constitution ensuring the

reservation of one-third of seats for women in elections to village panchayats and municipalities have provided a welcome impetus to

democracy. The recent entry in Parliament of young, intelligent and

dedicated persons is another encouraging development. The most heartening feature is the willingness to abide by the

electoral verdict after a free and fair election. No government in India

has hung on to power after the electorate has rejected it. There has

been an orderly succession after every electoral verdict. This is a vital

distinctive feature of democracy which distinguishes it from a

dictatorship.



Our founding fathers were aware of the vast disparities in wealth

and income of our people. Their anxiety that the operation of the

economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth is

reflected in Directive Principle 39(c) of the Constitution, namely, 'that

the operation of the economic system does not result in the

concentration of wealth and means of production to the common

detriment'. While winding up the debate in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, before the Constitution was finally adopted, Dr. Ambedkar pointed out the perils of what he described as a life of

contradictions in these memorable words:

On 26th January, 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be

recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.

Wide disparities in wealth and income persist, nay have

increased, and may be accentuated in the wake of unregulated

globalization. The anguished question posed by Dr. Ambedkar

continues to haunt us. His warning has been ignored. How long shall

we dither in getting rid of this life of contradictions?

In an article published in July 1974 in the Radical Humanist, Tarkunde advocated the 'adoption of income policies and taxation

laws which would contain disparities of income and wealth within

comparatively narrow limits'. It was his strong belief that 'equality

requires that "fair shares" in the national product should be available

to all and that excessive disparities of income and wealth should be

prevented' [emphasis added].

Regrettably, the sordid phenomenon of the concentration of

wealth in the hands of a few families and industrial houses whilst the

majority of our people can hardly eke out a decent existence still

persists. Motor cars like the Lamborghini and Rolls Royce, each valued

at between Rs. 2 and 4 crores, have been imported and have been


Soli J. Sorabjee / 89

rapidly picked up by some persons overflowing with unbounded

wealth. I do not resent their wealth, but am distressed that thanks to

the hideous working of our system the common person cannot afford

to buy and possess even an auto. We are witness to the disgusting

spectacle of lakhs of rupees being spent by some plutocrats on social

occasions like weddings with pomp and splendour in sharp contrast

to the conditions of the majority of the people living across the street

in dingy dwellings and in unhealthy surroundings. Is this democracy or plutocracy? Why, then, are we surprised that Naxalites are gaining

ground? I am surprised that there are not more Naxalites when we

have provided a fertile soil for their proliferation. At the end of fifty years, despite the growth record, the backlog

of poverty in our country is enormous and human deprivations are

immense. We must remember that poverty is a potent violator of

human rights. To many the taste of democracy is bitter because its

fullness is denied to them. 'We can have democracy or we can have

concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.'

This was not said by a die-hard Marxist, but the great American judge and jurist, Louis Brandeis. Securing economic and social justice is a

moral imperative for any democracy. Failure to do so results in

disillusionment with democracy and leads to emergence and ultimate

acceptance of authoritarian regimes. Social justice, which is reflected

in the Preamble to our Constitution, and is the signature tune of our

Constitution, is still a distant dream. And without social justice

democracy cannot be a reality: it is a fashionable myth.

Ill

I

would now like to address another feature of our democratic

polity. In one of his essays, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. has pointed out theiperils of hero worship: namely, the surrender of decision,

the unquestioning submission to leadership, the prostration of the

average person before the Great Man or Woman and how these are

fatal to human dignity. Roy, too, deprecated the cult of hero worship which is endemic in our country, and where the personality cult is

ever flourishing. There is nothing wrong in admiring our leaders as

heroes and heroines. However, the risk is that in the process there is a

tendency to entrust such persons with vast powers and uncritically



accept the exercise of these powers by them without insisting on

accountability. Dr. Ambedkar was aware of these lurking dangers. In the

Constituent Assembly he underlined the importance of observing the

caution which John Stuart Mill had uttered to all who are interested

in the maintenance of democracy, namely, 'not to lay their liberties at

the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable

him to subvert their institutions'. There is nothing wrong in being

grateful to great leaders who have rendered life-long services to the

country. But there are limits to gratitude. As has been well said by the

Irish patriot Daniel O'Connell, 'No man can be grateful at the cost of

his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and

no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.' Dr. Ambedkar

emphasized that this caution is far more necessary in the case of India

than in the case of any other country because:

... in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude, by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in

politics, Bhakti or hero worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

These words have a prophetic ring. We did not heed them to our

cost and had to suffer the imposition of the spurious June 1975

emergency which was foisted on the country by a powerful charismatic

leader. The slogan 'India is Indira and Indira is India' was chanted ad

nauseam in the sycophantic hero worship of the leader. We paid the

price. Democracy suffered a temporary demise in our country from

June 1975 till March 1977 when it was restored. We must be on our

guard that this phenomenon, which is fatal to human dignity and

eventually leads to dictatorship, does not recur. We have had enough of dynastic rule.

In one of his writings Tarkunde perceptively pointed out that:

...the reason why authoritarianism appears to be always round the corner in India is that the majority of the people in the country continue to hanker for a saviour who will lift them from the mire of poverty and provide them with the means for a decent human existence. The attitude they have in politics is similar to the attitude

they have in religious affairs. It is not an accident that there are numerous holy pretenders in India with large followings.


Soli J. Sorabjee/ 91

Democracy has wider moral implications than mere

majoritarianism. A crude statistical view of democracy gives a

distorted picture. A real democracy is one in which the exercise of the

power of the many is conditional on respect for the rights of the few

and especially of the minorities. Pluralism is the soul of democracy. The right to dissent is the hallmark of a democracy, indeed its

very essence. In a real democracy the dissenter must feel at home and

ought not to be nervously looking over his shoulder fearing captivity or bodily harm, or economic and social sanctions for his

unconventional or critical views. There should be freedom to express the thought we hate. Freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no

freedom after speech. The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accommodation it extends, in the words of

our Supreme Court in its celebrated decision in S. Rangarajan:

.. .not merely to ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population because such are the demands of the pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.

In my opinion, of all the threats to our democracy the gravest is

the rise of fanaticism and intolerance all round, which has assumed

menacing proportions. In a free democratic society tolerance is vital

especially in large and complex societies comprising people with

varied beliefs and interests. An intolerant society does not brook

dissent. An authoritarian regime cannot tolerate the expression of ideas

which challenge its doctrines and ideology in the form of writings,

plays, music or paintings. Intolerance is utterly incompatible with

democratic values.

The rise of intolerance all round is alarming. It is not confined to

any particular political party or group or sect. Any criticism of Madame

Sonia Gandhi and her style of functioning by any Congress person is

visited with unpleasant consequences. You will recall that Sharad

Pawar and Sangma, when they were members of the Congress party, had proposed that a person of non-Indian origin should be ineligible to hold high offices under our Constitution including that of the prime minister. The proposal was obviously designed to preclude Sonia

Gandhi from becoming the prime minister of India. This led to a

frightening outburst of anger in the Congress. Effigies of Pawar and

Sangma were burnt, and if they had attended the Congress Working



Committee, which was to be held at that time, they would have been

lynched. No one can criticize the supremo, Bal Thackeray, without

incurring the wrath of the Shiv Sainiks. It is depressing that we have reached a stage where even the moderate expression of a different

point of view is met with hostility. Of late, there have been vociferous demands for bans. The banning itch has become infectious. Sikhs are

offended by certain words in the title of a film; Christians want the film Da Vinci Code banned because they find it hurtful. No one dare write an authentic and critical biography of a revered religious or

political leader. The American author, Laine, who wrote a biography of Shivaji in which there were unpalatable remarks about Shivaji was

sought to be prosecuted, and there was a ridiculous demand for his extradition. Worse, the prestigious Bhandarkar Institute at Pune where Laine had worked and done some research was vandalized by bigots and invaluable manuscripts were destroyed. This was fascism at its worst and a fatal blow to our democracy. The Taliban was emulated.

Take the recent instance of intolerance displayed towards the actor Aamir Khan. One may disagree with his views or his lending support to the Narmada Bachao Aandolan movement and criticize him severely. However, to burn his posters and to prohibit the

screening of his films and subject him in Gujarat to social and economic sanctions is the height of intolerance. This attitude is totally antithetical to our Indian psyche and tradition. Our Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Chinnappa Reddy in the Jehova's Witnesses' case, has rightly reminded us that: 'Our tradition teaches tolerance; our

philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance. Let none dilute it.'

It must be realized that intolerance has a chilling, inhibiting effect on freedom of thought and discussion. In the absence of tolerance,

healthy and vigorous debate and frank discussion are no longer possible. The consequence is that dissent dries up; when that happens democracy loses its essence and reality. There is an urgent need to combat intolerance and the deadly threat it poses to the democratic fabric of our nation with all our might. The practice of tolerance in our multireligious, multicultural nation must be regarded as a fundamental duty of every citizen, and must be actively encouraged and performed if we are to make our pluralist democracy a living, robust reality.


Soli J. Sorabjee / 93

IV

The

collapse of the criminal justice system is a tragic indisputable fact. The judicial system has not been able to meet even the

modest expectations of the society. Its delays and costs are

frustrating, its processes slow and uncertain. People are pushed to

seek recourse to extra-legal methods for relief. Trial systems, both on

the civil and criminal side, have broken down. Access to justice is not

a reality; it has become a cruel slogan. After this dismal picture, it may well be concluded that

democracy has withered away in our country and there can be only one answer to the question posed in the title of this talk. However, that is not so because even though the firmament is dark and

depressing, there are rays of hope, there is a silver lining. There is no

dearth of criticism, at times virulent, and often ill-informed about our

judiciary. Yet, paradoxically, it is the institution of an independent

judiciary which has prevented the collapse of democracy and made it

a reality. It has done so by steadfastly upholding the Rule of Law

which sustains democracy. Accountability is the sine qua non of

democracy. Our judiciary has enforced the accountability of the

holders and wielders of power on several occasions. It has acted on

the dictum that 'however high you may be the law is above you' and

has done so irrespective of the status of any person or authority.

Recently, a minister in the Maharashtra Cabinet was sentenced to one

month's imprisonment for committing a breach of a Supreme Court order passed for protection of environment.

Another judicial contribution is the development of Public

Interest Litigation (PIL). The occasional aberrations and abuse of PIL

should not blind us to the fact that, thanks to PIL, numerous under

trial prisoners languishing in jails for inordinately long periods have

been released; persons treated like serfs and held in bondage have

secured their freedom and have been rehabilitated; inmates of care

homes and mental asylums have been restored their humanity; and

the condition of workers in stone quarries and young children working in hazardous occupations has undergone a humanizing change. Women who are the victims of sexual harassment have secured relief.

Juristic activism in the arena of environmental and ecological issues

and accountability in the use of hazardous technology has been made

possible and has yielded salutary results. Fundamental rights have

become living realities, to some extent, for at least some indigent,



disadvantaged and exploited segments of Indian humanity. The most

heartening feature is that courts have started taking human suffering

seriously and are responding to it with sensitivity. A free and independent press also enforces accountability by

exposing malfeasance and lapses in administration and thus functions

as an instrument of democratic control by enabling citizens to call

upon their rulers to account for their actions. Furthermore, the press

gives voice to the voiceless, hope to the hopeless and the exploited

segments of our society whose plight is unknown till the press brings it to our notice.

No doubt the press acts irresponsibly at times, indulges in

sensationalism and unjustifiably violates the privacy of individuals.

Yet, no human institution is perfect. Demands for stringent restrictions

on the press are unwarranted. In the words of Madison: 'It is better to

leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by

pruning them away, injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits.'

It is my firm belief that, but for an independent judiciary and a

free press, democracy would have disappeared from our midst long

ago. What makes our democracy a reality is the adherence to the Rule

of Law by our judiciary, and the enforcement of accountability of the

wielders of power by the judiciary and a free press. It is these institutions which have given strength to our democracy and sustained it. It should be our endeavour to strengthen these institutions and

remove anomalies and shortcomings, if any, in their functioning rather

than weaken these institutions.

V

The

real problem, the deep malaise lies in the fact that there is a

collapse of values in public life. Unfortunately, we live in times

when there are no men and women to match our Himalayan

peaks, when our political system has more criminals, fixers and

hypocrites per capita than at any time in our history. There is a crisis

of confidence. There is a crisis of leadership. The foremost requirement is the restoration of confidence in the institutions of democracy. This

needs a strong and enlightened national leadership that is able to cope with emergent problems boldly and decisively.


Sou J. Sorabjee / 95

Let us not forget the elementary truth that the effectiveness of

democracy rests not only upon knowledge and judgment, but upon character, a commodity in short supply Louis Brandeis rightly reminds

us that 'democracy in any sphere is a serious undertaking. It is more

difficult to maintain than to achieve. ... Success in any democratic

undertaking must proceed from the individual'. It is only the morally mature and sensitive individual who will be determined to do away with slums, eliminate the ever-growing cancer of corruption and help lift the load from the poverty stricken. The prime need is to bring about a revolution in the mindset of the people. We need persons whom Roy calls 'detached individuals; spiritually free individuals'.

We need in our public life persons like Tarkunde who did not

hanker after fame and fortune. His top-most priorities were the welfare

of the nation and the protection of the human rights of our people and, in particular, the rights of the minorities. He was keen that

minorities enjoyed the full plenitude of the fundamental rights

guaranteed to them under our Constitution and that they should not

labour under any feeling of insecurity and discrimination. He

possessed in abundant measure that rare and lovely virtuecourage which was visibly displayed during the dark days of the Emergency when many lawyers were reluctant, or afraid, to take up cases of the

victims of illegal detentions under MISA. I can only lament with the

poet Wordsworth and say: Tarkunde, 'thou shouldst have been living at this hour, the Nation hath need of thee'. I shall always remember

my close association with him during that time, and also his advice

and guidance. It was his persuasion to which I yielded and accepted the offer of the post of the Attorney General for India in 1998, which I

had previously declined. Tarkunde was always toiling tirelessly day and night for the dissemination of humanist values of freedom, rationalism and secular morality. When I think of Tarkunde, I am

reminded of the verse:

The heights of great men reached and kept, Were not attained by sudden flight, But they, while their companions slept, Were toiling upwards in the night.

Friends, after 56 years the lofty aims and aspirations and the

pledges of our Founding Fathers have not been fulfilled. Yet there is

no room for despondency or fatalism. Let us resolve today to redeem

the unfulfilled pledges of our Founding Fathers. I know that this may



appear Utopian and that the task is stupendous. But the stakes too are

stupendous: the survival of democracy in our land. Therefore in the Tarkunde spirit let us undertake cheerfully and undaunted the journey on that bumpy and difficult road with miles to go, always remembering that we have promises and pledges to keep before we

go to sleep.


Article Contentsp. [83]p. 84p. 85p. 86p. 87p. 88p. 89p. 90p. 91p. 92p. 93p. 94p. 95p. 96

Issue Table of ContentsIndia International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2 (AUTUMN 2006), pp. 1-180Front MatterEDITORIALLinking Histories: the planning of New Delhi [pp. 1-12]Enshrining an Imperial Tradition [pp. 13-26]Imperial Delhi: imagined, imaged, iconicized [pp. 27-37]Photo EssayThe Authorised Version [pp. 38-56]

INTERVIEWA Nice Man to Know [pp. 57-74]

All the Teachings [pp. 75-82]Indian Democracy: reality or myth? [pp. 83-96]Making Truth Powerful [pp. 97-107]Climate Change and Global Warming [pp. 108-114]Primary Education and the Law [pp. 115-124]Court to Academy: Karnatik music [pp. 125-138]INTERVIEWA Blessed Life [pp. 139-156]

BOOK REVIEWSHow Much is Enough? [pp. 157-160]The New American Empire? [pp. 161-163]Plaiting Patterns [pp. 164-170]Great Expectations [pp. 171-174]How Green is My Delhi? [pp. 175-177]

Back Matter

Indian democracy reality and myth.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Indian democracy reality and myth.pdf