The story of the beginning of American politics is legend. The famous jurist and scholar Kenneth Wheare referred to it as” the biggest liberal experiment in democratic government” that the world had witnessed because of the staggering idealism and exuberance and the audacious leap of faith that took place.
The new law of the nation was at its centre. What had once been the largest town in the world transformed into the largest democracy in a single document, with its infamous chapter on fundamental rights.
Consider the history of this law. A second of mankind was promised flexibility. It represented the transformation of imperial topics into citizens who would support the rights of the largest public in the world.
This constant exuberance has been a common way to draw attention to its efficient shortcomings. However, 75 years later, with Narendra Modi as prime minister and the nation being designated by the V-Vdem ( Varieties of Democracy ) institute as an “electoral autocracy” in 2024, it has also developed into a powerful tool to highlight Indian democracy’s contemporary issues.
In the 2024 general election, India’s notoriously divided opposition was able to form a coalition to defeat Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP) in a notoriously divided coalition. By appealing to the progressive outlook that underpins the constitution, it did so. But had stuff actually changed a lot since the 1950 amendment’s adoption?
The danger and fall of dictatorship
In contrast to its American counterpart, India’s constitution is not fueled by an urge to control political power and guarantee open freedom. It is predominated by the notion of enabling political will to advance social and economic transformation.
It sought to establish a position that was unwaveringly committed to achieving social, economic, and social justice, as defined by India’s founders. According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s earliest prime minister, they were freeing India” through a new law to feed the starving citizens and clothe the dressed poor.”
This is at least partially explained by the situation surrounding the birth of separate India. Violence, the trauma of separation, and a fear of division if the nation was divided into spiritual, cultural, and verbal minorities were all at play in this.
The pressure of establishing political independence were added to this. And this tumult erupted against a destitute, ignorant, and desolate population without any prior democratic or socially rooted experience.
However, the more important truth is that civil liberties were often left out of the conversation for the leaders of separate India because they thought destitution and social discrimination were more important issues. They felt the need to establish the fresh state through which these issues were to be addressed.
Both the licensing of aggressive state power and significant restrictions on civic freedoms were required. The law firmly affirmed centralization and executive dominance.
By granting power to appointed bureaucrats rather than elected officials, it retained the “bureaucratic totalitarianism” of its European colonial father.
Additionally, it gave the professional power over the government, allowing it to make and dismember regions at will, and gave the centre power over the states. The government has the power to determine when parliament is summoned or suspended without breaking it, and it has the power to appoint an executive order in its place.
Additionally, it gave the resident more authority. Nearly every important right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution is qualified on vague grounds, including cultural unity, public order, or the security of the state.
The constitution’s extraordinary power concentration and the creation of a great armory of coercive laws were obscured by the rhetoric about freedom. In a discussion in April 1947, Somnath Lahiri, a part of the basic council for Bengal and the head of the Communist Party of India, pointed out bitterly that the fundamental rights provisions had “been framed from the point of view of a authorities constable.”
The second piece of legislation passed in the new political state in February 1950, the Preventive Detention Act, made it possible for the government to proactively jail people without a test or remedy to judicial review.
Whatever the framers might have said at the time, the law is a strong proof that it was never intended to serve as a barrier in the service of progressive individualism.
dilution of democracy
More than 106 modifications and changes have been made since the constitution’s implementation. These have more diluted the liberal intentions of the constitution and undermined yet the system’s restricted system of checks and balances.
One egregious case of the added “anti-defection rules” in 1985 is the twelfth schedule. It forces personal legislators to cast ballots under group diktats without fear of dismissal.
This has weakened political oversight, given parliamentary party bosses ‘ hold on individual legislators, and given them more power. Majoritarianism has grown firmly since the risk of backbench uprisings has ceased to exist.
By design, the executive’s usage of energy and its concentration are embedded in India’s legal framework, which has historically been a difficult environment for any rights and freedoms beyond voting and votes. The establishment of the laws of legality and parliamentary primacy is impeded by anti-democratic tendencies by legal means.
Given this circumstance, it is not astonishing that almost all Indian governments have used the authority they were given to accomplish these goals.
A second act significantly curtailed freedom of speech during Nehru’s rule. Additionally, it included a specific schedule in the law to shield illegal legislation from criminal review.
Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s girl, suspended the law for 21 weeks between 1975 and 1977 in a state of emergency when her position was in jeopardy. As part of a flawed people handle program, her government forced the government to sterilize thousands. All was legitimately legal and legitimate.
So, Modi’s growing dictatorship, his criticism of the opposition press, and those who oppose him in the courts are less a deviation from the standard than a validation of it. The truth is abroad.
The most crucial factor in this situation is not the government or the charter. The main constraint on executive power has been the inability of the Indian electorate to give parliamentary majority elections too frequently.
Citizens delivered split demands and coalition governments for 25 years between 1989 and 2014. This diluted and dispersed political strength. Unsurprisingly, this led to an increase in the government’s politics metrics. These actually reached their peak in the 2000s, when the judgement partnerships included more than a few parties. However, the fundamental issues remained the same.
Contrary to all belief, when the electorate elected but another alliance to power in 2024, the electorate uncovered what the progressive elite of the nation has consistently failed to grasp. Over the years, the Indian public itself has steadfastly kept dictatorship at bay, not the renowned constitution. How long will it take the electorate to maintain doing this.
Tripurdaman Singh works as a doctoral fellow at the University of London’s Institute of Commonwealth Studies.
The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Learn the article’s introduction.