@Gulshan

I cannot find any logical correlation between ex-rulers becoming members of his 'Swatantra Pary' and his so-called promotion of aristocracy! Nehru too had ex-ruler in his cabinet and several members of the erstwhile royal families but I fail to understand how did it translate to supporting either monarchy or aristocracy!As to your comments on the existence of Rajya Sabha and upper houses of the assemblies I don't concur with your views that these do any balancing in our system.In fact these have outlived their usefulness and many states have rightly done away with them.West Bengal assembly has no upper house for your information.Only politicans who have no mass base and to be rewarded for their loyalty to political leadership manage to win nominations and become members in it .In fact there is already a strong debate in Great Britain to abolish House of Lords!

As to your views on defection especially in Indian context I do agree that most of the cases which we call defections are in plain terms 'horse trading' of the worst kind.Defection as a concept stands at much higher plane.Even Sir William Gladstone and Winston Churchil were known to have crossed the floor.Let us agree that here the motive behind such acts assumes greater significance and importance.In India majority of such acts come under 'horse trading' as the party deserters fall prey to lure of money or other materialistic consideration!

The Rajya Sabha and upper houses in states were intended as balancing act so as to give representation to eminent persons from different walks of life who would not contest general elections. This provision also like others has been misused. This is another matter.


Inclusion of a few ex rulers by Nehru has no comparison with Swatantra Party that was a feudal and princely organization supported and patronized by Raja Gopalachari.

While there may be some genuine change of mind and one may defect to another party, most cases are of horse trading. Moreover, a member of parliament has been elected on a particular party ticket. This is sheer dishonesty to change party. In these cases, even if there is change of heart, a member must not be allowed to retain his seat after changing party. If the plea of genuine defection and tat too on mass scale is accepted, this will lead to mockery of multi party political system where the leaders and parties are circus players and voters simply jokers.

I wish to bring another aspect of Indian political system- division of authority between legislature, executive and judiciary. Press is considered as forth estate. These are supreme in their own area. It is expected that no wing should encroach upon another. The division of authority between these wings ensures smooth functioning of our system. But we often find encroachment of executive power by judiciary through 'judicial activism'. similarly, executive interferes with judiciary. Freedom of Press is also endangered often. I feel that the scheme of allotting funds for local area development through members of parliament and M.L.A.s- a scheme introduced by Late Shri Narsimha Rao, also goes against the scheme of distribution of authority between legislature and executive. Moreover, this has also resulted in corruption. The legislators time and attention are diverted from their real job i.e. legislation and monitoring public policies and issues.

However, ultimately, this is a matter of national character. Press and media, the fourth estate has a greater responsibility in building public opinion against vote bank politics and other black spots in our political system.

Gulshan,

You have not answered my main question which was how the presence of ex-rulers in his party could make Rajaji a proponent of aristocracy when the truth was that a minuscule number of ex-rulers followed him in his party and it was not the other way round! Rajaji was not their follower!In fact your frequent refrain in projecting Rajaji as such such almost makes it a repetition of a section of Congressmen's allegation in those days on similar lines which was grossly untrue and devoid of substance.A cursory glance at the line-up of these ex-rulers in these two parties would clearly establish the fact that the ex-rulers overwhelmingly outnumbered the ones in the Swatantra Party for obvious reasons.The Congress Party was one in power and better placed to serve the interest of royalty which in fact,it did by appointing a good number of them in various governmental positions.It would be equally unrealistic to expect them all to join a party which was the target of the Nehru government and his government tried all means to politically finish it by spreading canards like the one you mentioned.It's important to note that privy purse issue was not decided at that time and exrulers literally danced to the tune of Nehru and not Rajaji.Let me give you the names of some of the importantant functionaries of that party who both had character and integrity to serve the cause of a party whose leader Rajaji had an unblemished record of public service- Minoo Masani,K.M.Munshi,Sardar Patel's son Dahyabhai Patel,H.M.Patel,J.M.Prabhu just to name a few!

As to your contention that bi-cameralism was intended to serve the so-called purpose of balancing,may I say that it never served that and in majority of democracies in the world such a house is absent and in most of our states it is absent desirably!

The princes in the Swatantra party patronized by Rajaji had an object to govern the nation in their own right and style unlike those in congress who worked under Congress leadership that largely believed in the direction of socialism, democracy and secularism. The princes were also citizens of India and they were rightly expected to involve themselves in national mainstream. The congress under Nehru leadership did not give any leading and guiding role to princes.

Bicameralism was a balancing act although this might not have served the purpose well. This was to balance the domination of representatives in Lok Sabha who were elected by 'illiterate and uneducated masses' whom Rajaji would deny the voting right and thereby create aristocracy. Pt Nehru gave power to all people unconditionally.

Let us discuss another aspect of Indian political system. We are a large country with huge population and regional diversity. We could have either unitary system like Britain or a Federal system. In view of diversity, unitary system was not feasible. Federalism would be against national unity. Hence, our system is quasi federal. The constitution has divided powers between Union and states. There is Union list, state list and concurrent list. There is a happy balance of power between Union and states. It is necessary to review this arrangement from time to time and vest more powers with states consistent with national integrity and need for diversification.

As all state activities are primarily for people mostly living in villages, Panchayats need be given more power. If our people can run local bodies properly, we may expect to participate better role in national and state politics as well and rid the nation of vote bank politics.

@Gulshan

As the topic is real politics and Indian politics I would confine myself to the events leading to our adoption of democracy and its working over the past few decades and the possible solution to the problems created by malfuntioning of it.I think touching the constitutional provisons in regard to distribution of powers and et al would broaden the scope of discussion to divert our attention from the core subject.Against you allusion to Rajaji's Swatantra's party espousal of princely causes I have searched for material to find substance in it but I have not come across any.So I believe it is your subjective opinion and until and unless you produce substantive evidence I would treat as your subjective opinion to which you are rightly entitled and I have no further comments to make only to add that in Rajaji India had a leader whose views were respected by even Gandhiji and in his long political career he managed to keep it spotlessly clean.To Gandhiji he was a rationalist par excellence!
As for your opinion on bicameralism ,the Indian experience is that upper house is an unnecessary adjunct and a drain on public exchequer and I strongly believe the sooner it is given a decent burial the better!Although opinions may always vary!Most of the democracies have discarded it and almost 90% of our state assemblies too have been doing it for enough good reasons!

Now I would devote my next lines to how attempts on the part of Nehru government on building up a monolithic power structure through Congress and its ramifications on prevention of emergence multi-party dmeocracy in India.As I indicated that in the intial days of our democracy the Congress Party sought a kind of dividends on its investment in bringing freedom for the country.And adulation of Nehru grew dangerously with the exit of stalwarts like Sardar Patel and others from the scene and old leaders also started leaving being suffocated by this personality cult which later manifested itself in more uglier forms and still continuing.Nehru under his pesudo-socialist raj created an intermediate class consisting of self-serving politicians,businessmen who filled the coffers of the Conggress Party in return for license and other favors!Contractors had a field day cornerning most of the our 5-Year Plan money.Any criticism of Nehru government by the leaders whose contribution to the attainment of freedom was no less invited ridicule and business houses were discouraged to make any donation to opposition parties to the point that G.D.Birla once openly declared that Swatantra Party was not a good political party to do business with!In the later years of Nehru raj the flashes of impatience with democracy were also evident.I would deal with the political scenario emerging after Nehru's death and Indira Gandhi's emergence in the political horizon and her contribution to the debasement of Indian politics in my next post!

I agree with chinmoy that Rajaji was an outstanding personality and his views were respected. There is always divergence of opinion. This is normal in a democracy. I also feel that Bicameral system has failed. The intention was good but the provision has been misused by sending defeated leaders and unworthy to the upper houses. I have no objection to abolition of upper house but I hold that these were well intended.

It is also true that Congress enjoyed monopoly of power initially owing to involvement in freedom struggle. In fact, there were no opposition parties worth name. This was natural just after independence and could not be wished away. But it cannot be denied that Pt Nehru gave a proper direction to the nation. He is rightly called Architect of the nation. everyone has some drawbacks and possibly, he also suffered from some. Nobody is perfect- even Nehru. But his magnificent role in building nation, his role in foreign policy and implementation of five year plans cannot be ignored. He added glory to nation in international affairs by following policy of non alignment. The three leaders- Nehru, Nasser and Tito were very significant force in world.

The deterioration in Indian politics has been felt more after demise of Nehru. Division on basis of caste and region are now uglier. It is for enlightened citizens particularly media- the fourth estate to play active role in this regard.

I feel that this discussion is confined to only two individuals- Chinmoy and Gulshan. Group discussion is between a number of members- desirably five or more. I request some other members also to give their valuable views.

Poor participation in this GD is somewhat disheartening but the only bright aspect is that it has managed to have more than 150 hits!

chinmoymukherjee wrote:
[quote]Poor participation in this GD is somewhat disheartening but the only bright aspect is that it has managed to have more than 150 hits![/quote]

Apparently other members are enjoying the debate between two participants. The two members have already expressed most of their views. Hope others will also make some contribution in the last two days.

I was watching and enjoying the real debate between you two.Eventhough the GD was less with participation the hit count indicates that all members are reading them well.

The Panchayath Raj elections in Kerala had over one week ago.Almost all results also published.I noticed many strange alliance and contests in many wards.

In Kerala there is only two fronts.CPI(M) lead Left Democratic Front (LDF) and Congress(I) lead United Democratic Front (UDF).Since many expected persons didn't get candidature they jumped to other side and competed.Where their political views gone then?How will they justify their stand so far ?Is that the real politics ? Will it happen in other countries?

CPI(M) and Congress(I) are the direct hitting parties in many constituencies.Surprisingly they united in one of the Panchayaths in my district to defeat Indian Union Muslim League(IUML) candidates while in all near by panchayaths Congress(I) is hand in hand with IUML.If a state leader of either of these parties speak in a political meeting held in this panchayath and its nearby panchayat how will he justify this strange alliance? So that is Indian politics!!

Even children will feel shame on hearing the political news coming on these days.

What has happened in Kerala is relective of the state of affairs in the country.In India ideological considerations always figure nowhere on the part of most of the candidates in the choice of parties! In West Bengal where the Left has been in power for the last 34 years and is currently engaged in a very bitter and vilolent battle to survive there is witnessing large scale swiching of loyalties form CPM to Trinamul at the grassroot levels!