Shirking responsibility
INDIAN democracy is designed on the Westminister model, and it proximates the structural moorings of the same rules and regulations of governance. Beyond the trumpeted statistics as the “world’s largest democracy”, the grim reality of the dismal condition of its institutions – legislature, judiciary and executive – showcases a huge gap between the two “mature” democracies.
The principle of counter-balancing institutions to preserve the spirit of the Indian Constitution has been compromised because of inefficiency, overreach and factionalism. This has resulted in a moral crisis in addition to the functional ineptitude. The foundational temper that influenced the freedom struggle and then the profundity of the Constitution envisages a certain behavioural morality from its leadership to uphold the Constitution’s principles. Honest ownership of actions and responsibilities is one of the most basic and sadly waning attributes in the Indian narrative.
In 1956, owning moral responsibility, the then-Railway Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri had tendered his resignation following the Ariyalur train disaster. His honesty was not recognised as weakness as he later went on to become the home minister and then, the prime minister. This template of moral probity, rectitude and conscience has since then been too scarce. Today, the concept of “head-rolling” has acquired a very sinister, undemocratic and convenient dimension. In order to assuage the public pressures of action, the axe usually falls on lowerlevel administrative functionaries. The other escape mechanism is to sidestep the blame with the standard accusations of a political conspiracy.
Contrast this with the response of the previous British prime minister, David Cameron, who on being named (not convicted) in the Panama leaks, admitted, “I know that I should have handled this better, I could have handled this better. I know there are lessons to learn and I will learn them.” Later on the crucial Brexit referendum, the results of which were not legally binding and were only of persuasive import, Cameron accepted “moral” defeat by resigning. He said: “British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path, and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.” His preferred position of “stay” versus “exit” had narrowly lost out. At the age of 49, Cameron, who had once stated that “I was the future once”, resigned. Today, he serves as the president of Alzheimer’s Research UK, to campaign for medical research funding!
Unfortunately in India, there seems to be no accountability for any acts of commission or omission. The promised change by the “Party with a difference” is sadly a continuum of fate for the common man. Spin-doctoring of facts and figures has been elevated to a fine art by glib spokespersons, who blunt each accusa- tion with either a stoic silence or an aggressive counter-recital of “facts” that clinically detail worse statistics and scale of misfortune during previous dispensations. The language in the accompanying social media is derisive and couched in semantics that willy-nilly juxtapose every contrarian view into portents that are ultra-nationalistic, religious or exclusivist.
The deflective dissonance and empty posturing following any fresh scam distracts from any substantial acceptance, introspection and “head-roll” on account of any dereliction in accountability and responsibility.
Certain institutions like the armed forces and the judiciary, which are (were?) relatively spared the intrusion of the politico-bureaucratic obfuscation, rise to the occasion and deliver as they have their own system of meritocracy, discipline and accountability. Often, these institutions have to outstretch beyond their defined-mandate to deliver when the other political and administrative entities betray inability or fear to do so. The operative expression in the armed forces is to deliver even “at the cost of paying the ulti- mate price”. Such undiluted leadership traits of “leading from the front” have ensured that the institution has the highest officer-to-soldier casualty ratio in the world.
For India’s democracy to grow further, all political dispensations across the centre and the states have to glorify a culture of probity and transparency. Democratic instincts need to be strengthened. The promised economic revival has yet to metamorphose, the relationship with the neighbouring countries are at an all-time low with traditional allies like Nepal and Maldives alienated, the minorities are vulnerable, and the agrarian crisis has deepened.
It is true that all of this is not necessarily the creation of the current dispensation, but harping on the past can denude credibility. Neither is questioning the government of the day antinational. Nor for that matter does it tantamount to siding with the opposition. It is the duty of all citizens to openly question and insist on accountability and responsibility for the good of society and the nation, irrespective of the individual’s political affiliation.