INTERVIEW WITH MANOHAR SINGH GILLS Chief Commissioner of India WE HAVE TO SEE THE POSITIVE SIDE Serge Berthier.- India is said to be the largest democracy of the world, and you have been the Chief Election Commissioner for the past seven years. Some says the system does not work, that the country should be run by two parties and not a myriad of parties which bring instability, that the Constitution should be overhauled. Others disagree. As one of the two officials who cannot be dismissed by the political establishment, the other being the Chief Justice, you are above the political fray. What is your judgment? Manora Singh Gill.- First let me say that the Election Commission is an unique tool. I have not been able to find something like it anywhere. We are part of the Constitution, on par with the Supreme court. We enjoy the same security. The Chief Election Commissioner is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the cabinet. Once I was appointed, even the President cannot give me any direction, much less the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet, because they are an interested party. What more security one can want? Now what you describe, that we are in a sort of crisis, can be seen differently. It is easy to talk about a perfect democracy when your per-capita income is, says, USD20 000. Try it when it is USD300, if that, and when that per capita income is not distributed equally. That is the Indian case. The State of Maharashtra has one the highest per capita income of the country, the second used to be Punjab. All the wealth is between Bombay and Pune, that is where traditionally were the sugar mills. So, on one hand, it is a nearly impossible situation, and looking back, 52 years back exactly, you have to give credit to the British for some system of governance, because if you look westward, at Pakistan which is sadly going up and down, back and forth, without progress, then you think: "what is a reasonable way for us to govern ourselves?" What they choose was a great act of faith. Nehru, for example, fought for full adult franchise. Others argue that the people were not yet ready. It is always the elite’s view that the people are never ready. Although I am sitting in Delhi, I am one of the people, because I am a peasant. I come from a village. And I won’t forget the elite's view ever, for, even today, post-liberalization, the authentic Indian is outside Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore or Hyderabad. People outside may be focused on those cities, but still 80% of the Indians are the people as the elite says. The real stuff in India is the peasantry, the villages.
SB.- Then, that is maybe the first misconception about the problem of governance. The Constitutional setup does not prevent the upper classes from keeping the lever of power. Why is it so if they do not represent the majority? MSG.- India has a western constitutional parliamentary model that came about with people educated in London. The leaders of the Congress were barristers and lawyers from Oxford or Cambridge. And actually the system of governance started with the Government of India Act of 1935, long before independence. In other words the British unlike more determined colonial powers such as the Belgium, the Dutch and others, started introducing along education, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta universities were setup in something like 1865, then most of the western, local governments. It was a game of asking more, getting little, and so on and so forth. Therefore if someone really tries to understand the current system, he has to understand how it was designed and kept running. When the Indian Constitution was drawn up, the Indians looked at the rest of the world, but mainly they were British trained and so they draw heavily at the 1935 act. That is what we started with. I think the negative is easy to see fifty years later.
SB.- But why are the negative showing up so late. Fifty years is a very long time, and one would think that after one or two governments, the fault lines in the system would be clearly exposed and addressed. MSG.- First, we have to see the positive side, that is the fact that India was to be governed in some kind of participative control of the people at large. But then, what happened was, for thirty years, what I call an imperial democracy, if one can say that. It happened because Nehru had the charisma of a super-hero. He was everything that the world looked at in a hero and more, romantic, handsome, elegant, liberal, a poet, like Shelley, trying always to do the good things of life, and always dreaming and pushing. Congress was in total control for good reason and obvious reason and he was a super romantic hero, handsome, elegant, liberal, etc everything that the world looked at in a hero and more. He was a poet, like Shelley, trying always to do what was good, and always dreaming and pushing. As a result, the Congress was in total control at all level. Nehru was aware of that situation, he knew that they were other aspirations and if you look at the first four or five elections, he tried to create at least a nominal opposition, but what he got was a rump parliament. The situation was easy. The economy was good, the population was only 300 million. There was enough to eat, and when short of finance, it was easy to get a little help. There was no political life to speak of. That is why for long nothing happened. Today, India has what I call a million mutinies and a million concerns. High and low, rich and poor, East and West, Hindus, Muslim, Christians and everybody else, castes and every kind of segment of the society, have worries and claims. We are a multicultural country, we are one great country but it is a coalition of many cultures, nobody can pretended it it is not. Furthermore it was bound to happen that, sadly, the 300 million would become one billion. That is the sad negative to our fifty years. We failed in that.
SB.- That is not the only failure. You mentioned that the British setup universities as far back as the nineteenth century, but today the literacy rate is appalling by modern standard. MSG.- By international level we are, I am told, at 65% if that. But if Kerala is at almost 100%, if Mysore is at that level too, Bihar is at a lowly 20-30%, as is Rajasthan. In those fifty years, we should have been at 80-90%. Now, with these two failures, in spite of lots of achievements in industrialization, science and technology, we have a mutiny. Today every segment of the Indian society, every ethnic group, every caste and sub caste has re-subgrouped. I often read a book about the French Revolution and it there, that is what we are going through.
SB.- Do you mean that the mood is such that we are on the verge of a revolution? MSG.- I am saying there is a lot of imperfections. How could it be otherwise? The power structure, the lack of development, here and there, in great pockets, some places maybe good, others not so good, the lack of literacy, the lack of dealing with the caste equalities, rural oppression in particularly states like Bihar or Uttar Pradesh, or wherever, all of those, and one can go on on those listing …
SB.- Then, in such a setup, can we really talk of democracy? MSG.- For good democracy you must have reasonable economic development and near total literacy. Now those we have not quite yet, even if we have better development since the growth rate is peaking up. Hopefully we will share this development, and the literacy is moving upwards, but definitely we have to address some fundamental agenda of the country and in that there should be some bipartisan agreements.
SB.- Why would be your fundamental agenda that would be above politics? MSG.- Let’s put three only: Population control, total literacy and some kind of justice. We have to work to that.
SB.- You are in charge of the electoral process in the country. What are your main problem? MSG.- Let me put it this way: elections are carefully organized and we , definitely have a large means of control against rigging in the pockets where it might happen. Nevertheless, where you have the least literacy, the least growth rate and the maximum poverty are where the abuse of the electoral process is likely. Inevitably, it raises the tension in those areas because everybody realizes that we have to get our hands on the lever of power to avoid such abuse. My point is that there is no rule that applies pan-indian. Actually, there is nothing that you can apply pan-India, whether you are talking about policies or agriculture rate growth or whatever. After all, India is a sub-continent.
SB.- In spite of the mutinies you mentioned, which could be interpreted as a sign of dissatisfaction with the political governance of the country, India enjoys a high turn-out at each election. Isn't it paradoxal MSG.- Why do an high percentage voters? We got 62% for the national election which is for Delhi governance, a place very far away from your state of Bihar or Punjab, and 70 to 80% for the States election. It means that the people have still a focus that an election does make a difference and they can remove politicians from power.We have studied the last twelve parliamentary elections and the probability of a politician to be elected has been only one in four. The highest and mightiest have been overthrown, including Mrs Gandhi and every election overthrow one or the other.
SB.- Yet, but now people says that such an attitude fosters instability. Governments don't last enough to implement any long-term policy and you had three general elections in four years. Is that good? MSG.- Some people outside, but also within India, the elite and the press which is also urban-centric, keep on saying that we have instability. I don’t see it. In fifty years of parliamentary system, the elite, those who governs took credit for whatever the system achieved, but then when it fails, they are quick to blame the people, not themselves who govern, not the civil service. They want to throw it away. They talk about a presidential system, which will avoid successive failure. A president for one billion people? I tell them: "how will you do it?". Some others talk about a one-two party system. To take care of India? I am not prepare as a citizen to give up my participation in India’s governance. Yes, we need a reasonable coherence and stability in the governance but we will develop all together with participation.
SB.- The critics say that it is the dictatorship of consensus rather than democracy that explains the successive falls of so many governments in the 1990s. MSG.- In my view, they are minor matters which need to be addressed but India’s constitution is well written, that is why it has managed to hold the absolute conundrum of people together. Now we certainly need to do the fine tuning of it.
SB.- But isn't' it perturbing to see the Union government being weakened by the day because no party is really national anymore? MSG.- What happened these last three years I see it as positive. We had 45 years of a single party rule, then after the 1996 election, a coalition took power. The coalition was quickly and reasonably on the job, they use to meet every month and talk about programs and policies and the belief that regional people, chief ministers will be less national was proven wrong. Naidu was the chairman coordinator and the PM of the day, sat to his right and he controlled the meeting. But they all as far as the center was concerned, I could see there were talking about India. Yes they wanted decentralization of development and finance for the states, that was legitimate and correct. Those government broke on certain political factors of major parties and lesser parties, IN my position I won’t comment on that. Then we had the 1998 election, and the 1999, but over the three years, somehow tow-three PM what I see is India is groping towards what I call cohesive coalition, left of center, right of center. It is new for India, and in terms of political sciences, is three years a long time for a billion people to reorient their political direction? Has anybody done it faster/ So what they are doing now is learning and if I look back, the 1998 election the current ruling party with allies, BJP, they were saying, no we want to be single party, stable and able, the Congress also saying something else, but I think that at the back of their mind they had that idea that if we get close to power we will quickly pick up some allies. They had some secret allies like Dalkali and some others. That they thought they will pick up. That was bound to be because it was such a new game, to have a coalition like in Switzerland or Italy or Scandinavia, with an advance program and even ministry sharing like in Israel is not possible overnight. So BJP formed a government with allies, but then had to go again for election in 199. But this time they went with an advanced program and a common name (NDA) so in my personal view I think it is going forward in the right direction. Whenever I see in future election more groupings of that sort. hopefully we will share this development, and the literacy is moving upwards, in that situation we have tremendous ferment in that democracy, particularly in those few years. It is no longer possible, and in view, not desirable that a monolithic party should run the country and two parties to be necessary. Why? A billion party can’t just be run by one party or two parties.
SB.- What sort of system do you see evolving from coalition politics, if any? MSG.- We do not want to go the way our friend of the North did and collapsed the same way. All politicians agree on that, even (communist) Calcutta wants investments. So economic decentralization, financial decentralization and bipartisan view are the new trends. Some will do it faster, others less so. Only three years ago, that frame of mind of mind would have been impossible. That is the most important. The mind-set is gone although the Congress party is still going through the debate. Let’s them go through the debatebut the ruling party has made up its mind.
SB.- Yes, but in practice, it does not seem to bring much action and the coalition is beset by problems and internal conflicts. MSG.- Of course the Alliance has problems because major parties that also are the main opponents at the State level needs to cooperate at the center. That contradiction, which you don’t have that in Europe, is causing difficulties. India has to deal with this complex and almost contradictory situation, that you have to work some grouping in Delhi tot last the term, while at the State level you don't need to. Nevertheless, one has to recognize that the economic liberalization and sharing of decentralization decision -making is going on pan India, pan parties. Evryrone is in fact on a learning curve.
SB.- Do you share the view of many that the Constitution needs to be changed to propel India into a more rational way of governance MSG.- The constitutional document itself certainly needS some minor corrections. this idea for example that you have every time a minister walks out of the government, even at the State level, to go for election, is outmoded. In Germany, one can walk out but then his party can find someone else within the coalition to fill the post. Not so, in India.
SB.- What about the language problem. India is a Babel. Does it help? MSG.- It is a complex issue. Looking back over the fifty years, we went through many phases, even declaring a national languagethen finding correction to defuse local tensions. Today at the State level, the major level, we have fifteen to twenty major groups, the Tamil are using their language, and so are the Kerala, the Andra , the Assami. Four five states are using exclusively Hindi. So at State level, by and large everybody is using the State language. Int a way it makes sense because that is where the cutting-edge is, the people have to fill up application in their own language, what else will they do?
SB.- Certainly, but what is then happening at the national level? How can you have a sense of a nation when you do even understand your neighbour? MSG.- We have to be pragmatic. What esle can we do? At the national level the position is that we have Hindi of course and then we have English also, and I think a mixture is going on. At the Center in the early years people were making a fuss ot if, but today the atmosphere is very much relax so there is no tension. At the same time, when you go to talk around, two languages are prominent. You have English and what I call some kind of railway-station Hindi. Hindi has been spreading in theses fifty years, not so much by the government, but by the Bombay film industry. I am trying to say seriously that we should give a national honor collectively to the Bombay popular film industry for doing the greatest service to the country, Hindi is really spreading through dance, songs and movies. If you go to Madras, a Tamil place, everyone knows the songs in Hindi. That is the way it is spreading.
SB.- I may shock you, but I find that India is not a secular but very much a religious country, where religion plays a important role in politicics, and therefore interferes with the democratic principles. Do you agree? MSG.- I am aware of the power of religion, and it is a concern, but I wont’ discuss it extensively because in my position I can’t. Let the politicians discuss the issue but I certainly would say, even in watching all the politics closely, the action of every party, I would say that India is certainly the most friendly to all religions. At the same time, it is also mixed with the ferment of power and economic growth and sharing. Like many other things, I do believe that the bed-rock of India and the maintaining of the direction of India for all Indians and everybody should remain friendly. I believe democracy will resolve to a forward perfection not a backward one.
SB.- How do you manage those conflictual requirements at election time? Is every preacher at liberty to use the election to promote his religion? MSG.- We try to control an ambiguous situation. We now allocate TV times on a fair basis. What the people can say is very well control, you can’t use it for spreading religion, it is part of the law and it is very well controlled. Unfortunately, it means that now speeches are very bland. We also control symbols which can be powerful tools. But you cannot just by regulations and laws achieve everything, it is also by the transformation of society that people will evolve.
SB.- Do you think that local elections in India can be fair and honest when there is such a poverty that the livelihood of the people is very much dependent on the people that control thelocal governments? MSG.- We are not in charge of the panchayat elections. The constitution is clear. I am responsible for the national parliamentary elections, the presidential and vice-presidential elections, and the State assembly elections. At the local government level, the bureaucracy tries to improve the situtaion by appointing local commission of the level of a high court judge to be independent of the State government but those commission are still struggling, I am backing them by holding an annual meeting to support them because they are struggling with the local State government which, of course, do not like their interference. Here and there once upon some of the commissioners have started copying our set-up - the state government is finding every difficult to hold them back because all India is watching - it is difficult, I agree, and I am making every effort since I have been appointed, when they have election I support them with statement and going there.
SB.- How large is the election commission? MSG.- When we have an election, we have a potential of 620 million voters . It means a minimum of 800 000 polling stations and therefore we have about five million polling staff.
January 2000
© www.asian-affairs.com | |||
 | | | |