9

THE CHALLENGES BEFORE THE

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN
INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES
Section 9.1: Conditions Precedent for the
Successful Working of Democracy1
The first preliminary observation I propose to make is this, that democracy
is always changing its form. We speak of democracy, but democracy is not
always the same. The Greeks spoke of Athenian Democracy. But as
everyone knows, the Athenian Democracy was as different from our
modem democracy as chalk is from cheese. The Athenian Democracy
consisted of people 50 per cent of whom were slaves. Only 50 per cent were
free. The 50 per cent who formed slaves had no place in the government at
all. Surely our democracy is quite different from the Athenian Democracy.
The second thing to which I would like to draw your attention by a
preliminary observation is that even in the same country democracy is not
always the same. You take the history of England. Nobody can say that the
English Democracy before the English Revolution of 1688 was the same as
the English Democracy which came after the Revolution of 1688. Nor can
anyone say that the English Democracy as existed between 1688 and 1832
when the first Reform Bill was passed is the same as the democracy that
developed after the passing of the Act of 1832. Democracy keeps on
changing its form.
The third thing that I would like to draw your attention is that democracy
not only undergoes changes in form; democracy always undergoes changes
in purposes. You take the ancient English Democracy. What was the
purpose of that democracy? It was to curb the king, to prevent the king from
exercising what we now in law call his prerogative rights. The king even
went to the extent of saying that although Parliament may be there as an
enactment-making body, ‘I as a king have got the prerogative to make the
law and my law shall prevail.’ It was this kind of autocracy of the king
which made democracy come into being.
Today what is the purpose of the democracy? The purpose of modern
democracy is not so much to put a curb on an autocratic king but to bring
about the welfare of the people. That is a distinct change in the purpose of
democracy. You will therefore see that in the title which I have given to my
subject, I have deliberately used the words ‘conditions precedent for the
success of modern democracy’.
Democracy Defined
What do we mean by democracy? Let us have a clear understanding before
I proceed to my subject. Democracy has been defined, as you know, by
various people, writers of political science and philosophers, sociologists
and so on. I take only two for the purpose of illustrating my point. I do not
know whether any of you is acquainted with that famous book by Walter
Bagehot on the English Constitution, the first modern attempt to give a
clear picture of democracy. If you refer to that book of Walter Bagehot, his
definition of democracy is ‘government by discussion’. That is how he
defines democracy. Take another illustration, that is of Abraham Lincoln. In
his famous Gettysburg speech which he made after the conquest of the
Southern states, he defined democracy as ‘a government of the people, by
the people, and for the people’. Well, many other definitions could be added
in order to give an idea what people mean by democracy. Personally for
myself, I define democracy in a different way, in a much more concrete
way, I think. My definition of democracy is ‘a form and a method of
government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life
of the people are brought about without bloodshed’. That is my definition of
democracy. If democracy can enable those who are running it to bring about
fundamental changes in the social and economic life of the people and the
people accept those changes without resorting to bloodshed, then I say that
there is democracy. That is the real test. It is perhaps the severest test. But
when you are judging the quality of a material, you must put it to the
severest test. And this is how I propose to define democracy, at any rate so
far as today’s address is concerned. Now, how can such a democracy be
successful? This is the main subject matter of my address. Now,
unfortunately there are no dogmas laid down by any of the authors who
have written about this subject of democracy which can give us any idea in
concrete as to what are the conditions precedent according to their
judgement to make democracy a success. One has to read history and as a
result of reading history to find out the breakdown period in democracy’s
life in the different parts of the world where it had functioned and come to
one’s own conclusion.
(1) Absence of Glaring Inequalities
The first condition which I think is a condition precedent for the successful
working of the democracy is that there must be no glaring inequalities in the
society. There must not be an oppressed class. There must not be a
suppressed class. There must not be a class which has got all the privileges
and a class which has got all the burdens to carry. Such a thing, such a
division, such an organization of a society has within itself the germs of a
bloody revolution, and perhaps it would be impossible for the democracy to
cure them. Lincoln once said, although people have not understood his
meaning, in the same Gettysburg speech that ‘a house divided against itself
cannot stand’. He was of course referring to the conflict between the
Southern states and the Northern states. He said, ‘If you of the Southern
states and we of the Northern states are divided, we shall not be able to
stand together when a foreign enemy comes.’ That was probably the
meaning that he wanted to convey when he said that the house divided
cannot stand. But I think that phrase of his or sentence of his is pregnant
with much deeper meaning and it means, as I understand it, that the deep
cleavages between class and class are going to be one of the greatest
hindrances in the success of democracy. Because in democracy what
happens? In democracy everybody, even the oppressed, the suppressed,
those who are deprived of their rights and those who carry the burden, they
have the right to vote in the same way as those who have all the privileges,
and probably those who are privileged are fewer than those who are
unprivileged and since we adopt a majority rule as the rule of decision, it is
quite possible that if the privileged few will not willingly and voluntarily
surrender their privileges, then the distance between them and the lower
orders will destroy democracy and bring into existence something quite
different. There is, therefore, no doubt in my mind that if you examine the
history of democracy in various parts of the world, you will find that one of
the causes for the breakdown of democracy is the existence of these social
cleavages.

(2) Need of Strong Opposition

The second thing which a successful working of democracy requires is the
existence of opposition. Now, I have seen many people not only in this
country but in England condemning the party system. I was just recently
reading, just before I came, a small little book published by the Hansard
Society on the party system in England and here is one whole chapter
devoted to this question whether the party system is a good system and
should be tolerated. There is a variety of views. Now, it seems to me that all
those who are against the party system and who must be taken also on that
very account to be against opposition, seem completely to misunderstand
what democracy means. What does democracy mean? I am not defining it. I
am asking a functional question. It seems to me that democracy means a
veto of power. Democracy is a contradiction of hereditary authority or
autocratic authority. Democracy means that at some stage somewhere there
must be a veto on the authority of those who are ruling the country. In
autocracy there is no veto. The king, once elected, is there with his inherent
or divine right to rule. He does not have to go before his subject at the end
of every five years to ask them, ‘Do you think I am a good man? Do you
think I have done well during the last five years? If so, will you re-elect
me?’ There is no veto on the part of anybody on the power of the king. But
in democracy we have provided that at every five years those who are in
authority must go to the people and ask whether in the opinion of the people
they are well qualified to be entrusted with power and authority to look
after their interest, to mould their destiny, to defend them. That is what I
call veto. Now, a democracy is not satisfied with a quinquennial veto that
the government should go at the end of five years only to the people and in
the meantime there should be nobody to question the authority of the
government. Democracy requires that not only the government should be
subject to the veto, long-term veto of five years, at the hands of the people,
but there must be an immediate veto. There must be people in the
Parliament immediately ready there and then to challenge the government.
Now, if you understand what I am saying, democracy means that nobody
has any perpetual authority to rule, but that rule is subject to sanction by the
people and can be challenged in the House itself. You will see how
important it is to have an opposition. Opposition means that the government
is always on the anvil. The government must justify every act that it does to
those of the people who do not belong to its party. Unfortunately, in our
country all our newspapers, for one reason or other, I believe it is the
revenue from advertisements, have given far more publicity to the
government than to the opposition, because you cannot get any revenue
from the opposition. They get revenue from the government and you find
columns after columns of speeches reeled out by members of the ruling
party in the daily newspapers and the speeches made by the opposition are
probably put somewhere on the last page in the last column. I am not
criticizing what is democracy. I am saying what is the condition precedent
for a democracy. The opposition is a condition precedent for democracy.
But do you know that in England not only is the opposition recognized, but
the leader of the opposition is paid a salary by the government in order to
run the opposition. He gets a secretary, he gets a small staff of
stenographers and writers, he has a room in the House of Commons where
he does his business. In the same way, you will find that in Canada the
leader of the opposition gets a salary in the way as a prime minister does,
because in both these countries democracy feels that there must be someone
to show whether the government is going wrong. And this must be done
incessantly and perpetually and that is why they do not mind spending
money on the leader of the opposition.

(3) Equality in Law and Administration

I think there is a third condition which may also be called a condition
precedent for the success of democracy and that is equality in law and
administration. One need not at this stage debate too much on equality
before the law, although there might be cases here and there when there is
no equality before the law. But what is important is equality of treatment in
administration. It is quite possible for a good many of you to imagine or to
recall cases where a party government is carrying on the administration for
the benefit of the members of the party. At any rate, I can recall a great
many instances of this sort. Suppose there is a law which says that nobody
shall deal in a particular commodity without a licence. Nobody can quarrel
with that law because it is universal. There is no discrimination in that
particular piece of legislation. But let us go further and see what happens
when a man goes to a particular officer or to the minister with an
application for licence in trading in a particular commodity. I do not know,
it is quite possible again that probably the minister may first look at his hat.
What sort of a coloured hat is he wearing? If he is wearing a hat which
appeals to him and it assures him that he is a party man and another man
goes with another sort of dress or belonging to another party and in making
his decision the licence is given to the first and refused to the second,
although both of them on merit are equally qualified to have that licence,
then obviously this is a discrimination in administration and there is no
equity. Of course [there is] the question of licence, i.e. the granting of this
privilege and that privilege is perhaps a small thing and affects only a very
small class of people. But let us go further and see what would happen if
this kind of discrimination enters administration. Supposing a member of a
certain party is being prosecuted for a certain offence for which there is
abundant evidence, and suppose the head of the party in that particular area
goes to the district magistrate and tells him that it is not right for him to
prosecute this man because he belongs to his party and says, ‘Well, if you
don’t do it, I shall refer the matter to the minister and get you transferred
from this place to some other place.’ You can just imagine what chaos and
injustice would result in administration. The sort of a thing which used to
happen in the United States, which is called a spoil system, that is to say,
when one party came in office, it removed all the employees that were
employed by their predecessor including even the clerks and the peons and
they filled their vacancies by those gentlemen who helped the new party to
go [sic] in power. The United States as a matter of fact, had no
administration worth speaking of for a number of years. Subsequently, they
themselves realized that this was not helpful to democracy. They abolished
this spoil system. In England, in order that administration should remain
pure, impartial, away from politics and policy, they have made a distinction
between what is called political offices and civil offices. The civil service is
permanent. It serves all the parties, whichever is in office, and carries out
the administration without any kind of interference from the minister. Such
a thing at one time did exist in our country when the British were here. I
recall very clearly an incident in my own career as a member of the
Government of India. You perhaps will recollect that every viceroy has got
in Delhi some street or club named after him. The only governor general
who does not get his name attached to some street or institution is Lord
Linlithgow. His private secretary was my friend. I was then in charge of
Public Works Department (PWD) and there were plenty of works I was in
charge of. He came and quietly said to me ‘My dear doctor, could you do
something for naming some institution or work after the name of Lord
Linlithgow?’ He said it is looking very glaring that everybody’s name is
there but not his. I said, ‘I will consider.’ I was then discussing the
construction of a barrage over Jamuna in order to provide water to the city
of Delhi in summer, because it goes dry in summer, I told my secretary who
was a European by the name Priar. And I said, ‘Mr Priar, look here, this is
what the secretary to the governor general has said to me. Do you think we
can do something?’ What do you think was his reply? His reply was, ‘Sir,
we must not do any such thing at all.’ Such a thing at any rate in this
country to do would be quite impossible. For any officer to say something
which is contrary to the wishes of the minister is, to my mind, utterly
impossible. But in those days it was quite possible, because we too in India,
like Great Britain, had made that wise decision that administration must not
be interfered with by the government, and that the function of the
government was to lay down policy, but not to interfere and not to make
any discrimination. This is very fundamental and I am afraid we had
already departed from that and may completely abnegate and abolish the
thing we have had so far.

(4) Observance of Constitutional Morality

The fourth condition precedent, in my judgement, for the successful
working of democracy is the observance of constitutional morality. Many
people seem to be very enthusiastic about the Constitution. Well, I am
afraid I am not. I am quite prepared to join that body of people who want to
abolish the Constitution, at any rate to redraft it. But what we forget is that
we have a Constitution which contains legal provisions, only a skeleton.
The flesh of that skeleton is to be found in what we call constitutional
morality. However, in England it is called the conventions of the
Constitution and people must be ready to observe the rules of the game. Let
me give you one or two illustrations which come to my mind at this
moment. You remember when the thirteen American colonies rebelled, their
leader was [George] Washington. It is really a very inadequate way of
defining his position in the American life of that day merely to say that he
was a leader. To the American people, Washington was God. If you read his
life and history, he was made the first president of the United States after
the Constitution was drafted. After his term was over, what appended? He
refused to stand for the second time.
I have not the least doubt in my mind that if Washington had stood ten
times one after the other for the presidentship, he would have been elected
unanimously without a rival. But he stepped down the second time. When
he was asked why, he said,
My dear people, you have forgotten the purpose for which we made this Constitution. We made this
Constitution because we did not want a hereditary monarchy and we did not want a hereditary ruler
or a dictator. If after abandoning and swerving away from the allegiance of the English king, you
come to this country and stick to worship me year after year and term after term, what happens to
your principles? Can you say that you have rightly rebelled against the authority of the English king
when you are substituting me in his place?

He said, ‘Even if your royalty and fidelity to me compels you to plead that I
should stand a second time, I, as one who enunciated that principle that we
should not have hereditary authority, must not fall a prey to your emotion.’
Ultimately, they prevailed upon him to stand at least a second time. And he
did. And the third time when they approached him, he spurned them. Let
me give you another illustration. You know Windsor Edward the VIII
whose serial story has now been published in the Times of India. I had gone
to the Round Table Conference and there was a great controversy going on
there as to whether the king should be allowed to marry the woman whom
he wanted to marry, especially when he was prepared to marry her in a
morganatic marriage, so that she may not be a queen, or whether the British
people should deny him even that personal right and force him to abdicate.
Mr Baldwin was of course against the king’s marriage. He would not allow
him, and said, ‘If you do not listen to me, you will have to go.’ Our friend
Mr Churchill was the friend of Edward the VIII and was encouraging him.
At that time the Labour Party was in the opposition. They had no majority
and I remember very well the Labour Party people considered whether they
could not make capital out of this issue and defeat Mr Baldwin, because
there was a large number of conservatives who in their loyalty wanted to
support the King, and I remember the late Prof. Laski writing a series of
articles in the Herald condemning any such move on the part of the Labour
Party. He said, ‘By our convention we have always agreed that the king
must accept the advice of the prime minister and if he does not accept the
advice of the prime minister, the prime minister shall force his ejection.
That being our convention, it would be wrong on our part to defeat Mr
Baldwin, on an issue which increases the authority of the king.’ And the
Labour Party listened to his advice and did nothing of the kind. They said,
they must observe the rules of the game. If you read English history, you
will find many such illustrations where the party leaders have had before
them many temptations to do wrong to their opponents in office or in
opposition by clutching at an issue which gave them temporary power, but
which they refused to fall a prey to, because they knew that they would
damage the Constitution and damage democracy.

(5) No Tyranny of Majority over Minority

There is one other thing which I think is very necessary in the working of
democracy and it is this that in the name of democracy there must be no
tyranny of the majority over the minority. The minority must always feel
safe that although the majority is carrying on the government, the minority
is not being hurt, or the minority is not being hit below the belt. This is a
thing which is very greatly respected in the House of Commons. A good
many of you must be remembering the results of elections in England in
1931 when Mr Ramsay MacDonald left the Labour Party and formed the
national government. When the election came, the Labour Party, which I
think numbered somewhere about 150 or so, had only fifty members out of
650 with Mr Baldwin as the prime minister. I was then there. But I have
never heard of a single instance of this small minority of fifty members
belonging to the Labour Party under the huge majority of the Conservatives
ever complaining that they were denied their due rights of speech, or
opposition or making motions of any kind as you probably know. You take
our own Parliament. I am not justifying what the members of the opposition
are doing by constantly bringing in motions of censure or adjournment
motions. It is not a very happy thing to work in Parliament to be constantly
dunning these adjournment motions. All the same, you must have noticed
that there is hardly any motion, whether of adjournment or censure, which
has been admitted for the debate. lt surprises me considerably. In my
reading of the English parliamentary debates I have very seldom come
across a case where a demand for adjournment has been refused either by
the speaker, provided of course it is an order by the government. When I
was a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly, there were a few of
our friends, Mr Morarji, Mr Munshi and Mr Kher, and others who were in
office. They never allowed a single motion of adjournment to be discussed.
Either our friend Mr Mavlankar who was then the speaker helped them by
ruling it out or as he admitted, the minister objected to it. You know what
happens when a minister objects? When a minister objects, the man who
proposes the adjournment motion has to produce thirty or forty people,
whatever the quota is. It may be that if the government were constantly to
oppose adjournment motions of the small community which is represented
in the house by a group of few members such as four, five or six, such small
minorities can never get a chance to ventilate their grievances. What
happens is that these minorities develop a contempt for parliamentary
people and develop a revolutionary spirit, something unconstitutional. It is
therefore necessary that when democracy is working, the majority on which
it is based must not act in a tyrannical manner.

(6) Moral Order in the Society

One other point I will refer and then close. I think that democracy does
require the functioning of moral order in society. Somehow, our political
scientists have never considered this aspect of democracy. Ethics is
something separate from politics. You may learn politics and you may know
nothing about ethics, as though politics can work without ethics. To my
mind it is an astounding proposition. After all, in democracy what happens?
Democracy is spoken of as a free government. And what do we mean by
free government? Free government means that in vast aspects of social life
people are left free to carry on without interference of law, or if law has to
be made, then the lawmaker expects that society will have enough morality
in it to make the law a success. The only person who, I think, has referred to
this aspect of democracy is Laski. In one of his books he has very
categorically stated that the moral order is always taken for granted in
democracy. If there is no moral order, democracy will go to pieces as it is
going now probably in our own country.

(7) Strong Presence of Public Conscience

The last thing that I refer to is that democracy requires ‘public conscience’.
There is no doubt about it that although there is injustice in every country,
the injustice is not equally spread. There are some where the impact of
injustice is very small. There are some against whom the impact is very
great. And there are some who are absolutely crushed under the burden of
injustice. One might very easily cite the case of Jews in England. They were
the people who suffered certain injustice which the Christians never did.
What happened was that the Jews alone had to struggle in order to get this
injustice removed. But the English Christians never helped them. In fact,
they liked it. The only man who helped the Jews in England was the king.
This may be extraordinary. But the reason also is extraordinary and the
reason is this: under the old Christian law the children of the Jews could not
inherit the property of the father, for no other reason except that he was a
Jew and not a Christian, and the king being the residuary legatee of the state
received the property of a dead Jew. Now the king liked that sort of thing.
He was very happy. When the children of the dead Jew went to the king in
application the king handed over to them a little bit of the property of their
dead father and kept the rest for himself. But as I said, no Englishman ever
helped the Jews, and the Jews continued to struggle for their liberation. This
is the result of what is called ‘public conscience’. Public conscience means
conscience which becomes agitated at every wrong, no matter who is the
sufferer, and it means that everybody, whether he suffers that particular
wrong or not, is prepared to join him in order to get him relieved. You take
South Africa, the most recent example. Well, the people who are suffering
there are the Indians. Are not they [sic]? The white people are not suffering,
yet you find this Reverend Scott who is a white man doing his level best in
order to get this injustice removed. Recently, I have been reading that a
large number of young boys and girls belonging to the white race are also
joining the struggle of the Indians, in South Africa. That is called ‘public
conscience’. I do not want to shock you, but sometimes I feel how forgetful
we are. We are talking about South Africa. I have been wondering within
myself whether we who are talking so much against segregation and so on
do not have South Africa in every village. There is; we have only to go and
see. There is South Africa everywhere in the village and yet I have very
seldom found anybody not belonging to the Scheduled Class taking up the
cause of the Scheduled Class and fighting, and why? Because there is no
‘public conscience’. Myself and my India is the only world within which I
am bound. If this sort of thing happens, the minority which is suffering
from injustice gets no help from others for the purpose of getting rid of this
injustice. It again develops a revolutionary mentality which puts democracy
in danger. Now, as I said, what I have said is not a series of dogmas which
have been worked out by any political scientists, but the result of what is
impressed upon me as a result of reading the political histories of various
countries, and I believe that these are the most essential conditions for the
purpose of preserving democracy. (BAWS, Vol.17, Part 3, pp. 473–85)
Section 9.2: Failure of Parliamentary Democracy
will Result in Rebellion, Anarchy and
Communism2
During the discussion in the Constituent Assembly there was a variety of
opinion as regards the nature of the Constitution that we should have. Some
preferred the British system; some the American system. There were others
who did not want either of these two types of government. But after a long
discussion, a large majority of members came to a conclusion that the
system of the parliamentary government as it is in Britain is best suited to
our country.
There are some sections of people who do not like parliamentary
government. Communists want the Russian type of government. The
socialists are also against the present Constitution of India. They are
agitating against it. They have declared that if they come to power, they will
modify it. Personally speaking, I am very greatly attached to the
parliamentary system of government. We must understand what it means
and we must preserve it in the Constitution.
What is meant by parliamentary government? There is a book on the
English Constitution by Walter Bagehot. It is, indeed, a classic treatise. It
was later expanded by other authorities on constitutional government like
Laski and others. He has put the conception of the parliamentary
government in one sentence. He says parliamentary government means
government by discussion and not by fisticuffs. You will always find in the
British system of government that they hardly ever resort to fisticuffs while
taking any decision. The decision is always taken after discussion. Nobody
introduces an element of disturbance in British Parliament.
Look at the French politics. Decisions are arrived at more than often by
knocking knockout blows. You will find that this system is hardly adequate
to those not born in that system. It is an alien institution to them. We must
learn, understand and make it a success.
Parliamentary democracy is unknown to us at present. But India at one
time had parliamentary institutions. India was far more advanced in ancient
times. If you go through the ‘Suktas’ of Mahaparinibbana, you will find
ample evidence in support of my point. In these ‘Suktas’ it is stated that
while Bhagwan Buddha was dying at Kusinara (Kushinagar) a message to
the effect was sent to the Mallas who were sitting in session at that time.
They were devoted to parliamentary institutions. When they received the
message about Buddha, they decided that they shall not close the session,
but would carry on with their work and will go to Kusinara after finishing
of the business of the Parliament. There are innumerable references in our
literature to prove that parliamentary system of government was not
unknown to us.
There are many rules about parliamentary procedure. May’s
parliamentary practice is generally followed. One rule that is invariably
followed everywhere is that there can be no discussion without a motion.
That is why there is no discussion on a question. This rule was also
practised in our land in ancient times. The system of secret ballot now in
vogue is also not new to us. It was followed in Buddhist Sanghas. They had
the ballot papers which they called, ‘Salapatraka Grahakas’. Unfortunately,
we have lost all this past heritage that was good. Historians of India must
tackle this question as to why these parliamentary institutions disappeared
from our land. But I find that they cannot or do not want to find out the
reasons for it. Ancient India was the master of the world. There was such
intellectual freedom in ancient India as was nowhere else to be found. Then
why did this ancient civilization go to the dogs? Why was India subjected to
autocratic monarchies? We were familiar with parliamentary institutions.
We know about votes, voting, committees and other things related to
parliamentary institutions. Today, parliamentary system of government is
alien to us. If we go to a village, we will find that the villagers do not
understand what is vote, what is party. They find it something strange,
something alien. It is, therefore, a great problem as to how to preserve this
institution. We will have to educate the public, we will have to tell them the
benefits of parliamentary democracy and of parliamentary system of
government.
We know what Bagehot means by parliamentary government. But today
his definition is of no use, it is utterly inadequate. There are three main
things inherent in the parliamentary system of government.
Parliamentary government means negations of hereditary rule. No
person can claim to be a hereditary ruler. Whoever wants to rule must be
elected by the people from time to time. He must obtain the approval of the
people. Hereditary rule has no sanction in the parliamentary system of
government.
Secondly, any law, any measure applicable to the public life of the
people must be based on the advice of the people chosen by the people. No
single individual can presume the authority that he knows everything, that
he can make the laws and carry the government. The laws are to be made by
the representatives of the people in the Parliament. They are the people who
can advise the men in whose name the law is proclaimed. That is the
difference between the monarchical system of government and the
democratic system of government. In monarchy, the affairs of the people
are carried on in the name of a monarch and under the authority of a
monarch. In democracy, the affairs of the public are carried on in the name
of the head of the state, but the laws and the executive measures are the
authority on which the government is carried on. The head of the state is the
titular head; he is merely a symbol. He is a consecrated ‘Murti’. He can be
worshipped but he is not allowed to carry out the government of the
country. The government of the country is carried out, though in his name,
by the elected representatives of the people.
Thirdly and lastly, parliamentary system of government means that at a
stated period those who want to advise the head of the state must have the
confidence of the people in themselves renewed. In Britain, formerly, the
elections to the Parliament were every seven years. The Chartists agitated
against this. They wanted annual elections. The motive behind this agitation
was very praiseworthy indeed. It would have been best in the interests of
the people if annual elections were held, had it been possible, of course. But
parliamentary elections are very costly affairs. So some sort of compromise
was arrived at and five years’ period was supposed to be a responsible
period at which the legislators and the ministers were to go back to the
people and obtain the fresh renewal of their confidence.
This is also not enough. Parliamentary system of government is much
more than government by discussion. There are two pillars on which the
parliamentary system of government rests. These are the fulcrums on which
the mechanism works. Those two pillars are: one, an opposition and two,
free and fair elections.
For the last twenty or thirty years, we acclimatized to one single political
party. We have nearly forgotten the necessity and importance of
‘opposition’ for the fair working of parliamentary democracy. We are
continuously told that opposition is an evil. Here again we are forgetting
what the past history has to teach us. You know that there were
nibandhkaras to interpret the Vedas and Smritis. They used to begin their
comments on ‘slokas’ and ‘sutras’ by stating firstly the ‘Purva Paksha’ or
the one side of the questions. They used to follow up by giving the ‘Uttar
Paksha’—the other side. By this they wanted to show us that the question
raised was not an easy question: it is a question where there is dispute,
discussion and doubt. Then they used to give what they termed as
‘Adhikaran’ where they used to criticize both the Pakshas. Finally, they
gave the ‘Siddhant’, their own decisions. From here we can find that all our
ancient teachers believed in two-party system of government.
One important thing in the parliamentary democracy is that people
should know the other side, if there are two sides to a question. Hence, a
functional opposition is required. Opposition is the key to a free political
life. No democracy can do without it. Britain and Canada, the two
exponents of parliamentary systems of governments, recognize this
important fact and in both countries the leader of opposition is paid a salary
by the government. They regard the opposition as an essential thing. People
of these countries believe that the opposition should be as much alive as the
government. The government may suppress the facts, the government may
have only one-sided propaganda. The people have provision against this
eventuality in these two countries.
Now the question arises as to whether there is any desire on the part of
the party in power to permit any opposition to be created. The Congress
does not want any ‘opposition’. The Congress is attempting to gather people
of sundry views under one canopy. I ask you whether this is a desirable
trend in the political life of this country?
Free and fair elections is the other pillar on which parliamentary
democracy rests. Free and fair elections are necessary for the transfer of
power from one section of the community to the other in a peaceful manner
and without any bloodshed. In olden times, if a king died, there was at least
one murder in the palace. Revolution used to take place in the palace,
resulting in murders, before the new king used to take the reins of his
country into his authority. This has been the history of India. Elections must
be completely free and fair. People must be left to themselves to choose
those whom they want to send to the legislatures.
 What about free and fair elections? We must not lose sight of the fact
that ‘Big Business’ is trying to play a great part in the political life of this
country. The amount that is being contributed to the Congress on behalf of
the ‘Big Business’ is very dangerous thing. If moneyed people try to
influence the elections by contributing to the election fund of any political
party, what will be the result? If the party which they have supported
financially comes into power, they will naturally try to extract concessions
for themselves either by modifying the present legislation or by influencing
the party in power to legislate in such a manner as would be beneficial to
their interests. I ask you, gentlemen, whether under these circumstances
there is any hope left for the parliamentary system of government to do any
good to the country.
…If parliamentary democracy fails in this country, and it is bound to fail
for the reasons mentioned by me, the only result will be rebellion, anarchy
and communism. If the people in power do not realize that people will not
tolerate hereditary authority, then this country is doomed. Either
communism will come, Russia having the sovereignty over our country,
destroying individual liberty and our independence, or the section of the
people who are disgruntled about the failure of the party in power will start
rebellion and anarchy will prevail. Gentlemen, I want you to take note of
these eventual certainties and if you wish that parliamentary system of
government and parliamentary democracy prevail in this country, if you are
satisfied that we will be assured of our liberty of thought, speech and action,
if we should preserve our independence, if we cherish the inherent right of
individual liberty, then it is your duty as students, as the intelligent
community of our country, to strive your utmost to cherish this
parliamentary system of government in its true spirit and work for it.
Gentlemen, I have done. I thank you for having given me this
opportunity to address this august gathering. (BAWS, Vol. 17, Part 3, pp.
423–28)
Section 9.3: Caste System Is the Biggest Challenge
The subject assigned to me is ‘What are the prospects of democracy in
India’? Most Indians speak with great pride, as though their country was
already a democracy. The foreigners also, when they sit at a dinner table to
do diplomatic honour to India, speak of the Great Indian Prime Minister and
the Great Indian Democracy.
From this it is held without waiting to argue that where there is a
republic, there must be democracy. It is also supposed that where there is a
Parliament which is elected by the people on adult suffrage and the laws are
made by the people’s representatives in Parliament elected after every few
years, there is democracy. In other words, democracy is understood to be a
political instrument and where this political instrument exists, there is
democracy.
Is there democracy in India or is there no democracy in India? What is
the truth? No positive answer can be given unless the confusion caused by
equating democracy with republic and by equating democracy with
parliamentary government is removed.
Democracy is quite different from a republic as well as from
parliamentary government. The roots of democracy lie not in the form of
government, parliamentary or otherwise. A democracy is more than a form
of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living. The roots of
democracy are to be searched for in the social relationship, in the terms of
associated life between the people who form a society.
What does the word ‘society’ connote? To put it briefly, when we speak
of society, we conceive of it as one by its very nature. The qualities which
accompany this unity are praiseworthy—community of purpose and desire
for welfare, loyalty to public ends and mutuality of sympathy and
cooperation.
Are these ideals to be found in Indian Society? The Indian Society does
not consist of individuals. It consists of an innumerable collection of castes
which are exclusive in their lives and have no common experience to share
and have no bond of sympathy. Given this fact, it is not necessary to argue
the point. The existence of the caste system is a standing denial of the
existence of those ideals of society and therefore of democracy.
 Indian Society is so imbedded in the caste system that everything is
organized on the basis of caste. Enter Indian Society and you can see caste
in its glaring form. An Indian cannot eat or marry with an Indian simply
because he or she does not belong to his or her caste. An Indian cannot
touch an Indian because he or she does not belong to his or her caste. Go
and enter politics and you can see caste reflected therein. How does an
Indian vote in an election? He votes for a candidate who belongs to his own
caste and no other. Even the Indian Congress exploits the caste system for
election purpose as no other political party in India does. Examine the lists
of its candidates in relation to the social composition of the constituencies
and it will be found that the candidate belongs to the caste which is the
largest one in that constituency. The Congress, as a matter of fact, is
upholding the caste system against which it is out worldly raising an outcry
against the existence of caste.
There are other special features of the caste system which have their evil
effects and which militate against democracy. One such special feature of
the caste system lies in its being accompanied by what is called ‘graded
inequality’. Castes are not equal in their status. They are standing one above
another. They are jealous of one another. It is an ascending scale of hatred
and descending scale of contempt. This feature of the caste system has most
pernicious consequences. It destroys willing and helpful cooperation.
Caste and class differ in the fact that in the class system there is no
complete isolation as there is in the caste system. This is the second evil
effect in the caste system accompanied by inequality. This manifests itself
in the fact that the stimulus and response between two castes is only one-
sided. The higher caste acts in one recognized way and the lower caste must
respond in one established way. It means that when there is no equitable
opportunity to receive the stimulus from and to return the response from
different castes, the result is that the influences which educate some into
masters, educate others into slaves. The experience of each party loses its
meaning when the free interchange of varying modes of life experience is
arrested. It results in a separation of society, in a privileged and a subject
class. Such a separation prevents social endosmosis.
There is a third characteristic of the caste system which depicts the evils
thereof, which cuts at the very roots of democracy. It is that one caste is
bound to one occupation. Society is no doubt stably organized when each
individual is doing that for which he has aptitude by nature in such a way as
to be useful to others; and that it is the business of society to discover these
aptitudes and progressively to train them for social use. But there is in a
man an indefinite plurality of capacities and activities which may
characterize an individual. A society to be democratic should open a way to
use all the capacities of the individual. Stratification is stunting of the
growth of the individual and deliberate stunting is a deliberate denial of
democracy.
How to put an end to the caste system? The first obstacle lies in the
system of graded inequality which is the soul of the caste system. Where
people are divided into two classes, higher and lower, it is easier for the
lower to combine to fight the higher, for there is no single lower class. The
class consists of lower and lowerer. The lower cannot combine with the
lowerer. For the lower is afraid that if he succeeds in raising the lowerer, he
may well himself lose the high position given to him and his caste.
The second obstacle is that the Indian Society is disabled by unity in
action by not being able to know what is its common good. Plato has said
that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the
end of existence. If we do not know its end, if we do not know its good, we
shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice. Unless we know the good of
the end, we have no criterion for rationally deciding what the possibilities
are which we should promote. Question is, can the Indian Society in its
caste-bound state achieve what is the ultimate question? We come upon the
most insuperable obstacle, that such knowledge is not possible save in a just
and harmonious social order. Can there be a harmonious social order under
the caste system? Everywhere the mind of the Indians is distracted and
misled by false valuations and false perspectives. A disorganized and
factional society sets up a number of different models and standards. Under
such conditions it is impossible for individual Indians to reach consistency
of mind on the question of caste.
Can education destroy caste? The answer is ‘yes’ as well as ‘no’. If
education is given as it is today, education can have no effect on caste. It
will remain as it will be. The glaring example of it is the Brahmin caste.
Cent per cent of it is educated, nay, the majority of it is highly educated. Yet
not one Brahmin has shown himself to be against caste. In fact, an educated
person belonging to the higher caste is more interested after his education to
retain the caste system than when he was not educated. For education gives
him an additional interest in the retention of the caste system namely, by
opening an additional opportunity of getting a bigger job.
From this point of view, education is not helpful as a means to dissolve
caste. So far is the negative side of education. But education may be solvent
if it is applied to the lower strata of the Indian Society. It would raise their
spirit of rebellion. In their present state of ignorance they are the supporters
of the caste system. Once their eyes are opened they will be ready to fight
the caste system.
The fault of the present policy is that though education is being given on
a larger scale, it is not given to the right strata of Indian Society. If you give
education to that strata of Indian Society which has a vested interest in
maintaining the caste system for the advantages it gives them, then the caste
system will be strengthened. On the other hand, if you give education to the
lowest strata of Indian Society which is interested in blowing up the caste
system, the caste system will be blown up. At the moment the
indiscriminate help given to education by the Indian Government and
American Foundation is going to strengthen the caste system. To make the
rich richer and the poor poorer is not the way to abolish poverty. The same
is true of using education as a means to end the caste system. To give
education to those who want to keep up the caste system is not to improve
the prospect of democracy in India but to put our democracy in India in
greater jeopardy. (BAWS, Vol. 17, Part 3, pp. 519–23)
Section 9.4: Qualifications for Elections to
Parliament and Legislatures of the States
I do not want my friend Prof. K.T. Shah to feel that I have not sufficient
respect for him by not speaking on his motion and if you will, Sir, permit
me at this stage, I would like to say a few words.
Mr Speaker, I must confess that when I got the text of the resolution
moved by Prof. Shah I was considerably puzzled, because I felt that in a
resolution of this sort there should not merely be words indicating to the
government that there exists in the Constitution a certain Article which
permitted them to legislate on it but should have also included in it specific
suggestions as to what the government should do in a legislation of this
sort. As I said, I was considerably puzzled and therefore it was very difficult
for me to come to any definite conclusion as to the attitude I should adopt
with regard to this resolution. I now see that the object of Prof. Shah in
framing the resolution in the terms in which he has framed it was really
deliberate. He wanted the House to give him some idea as to what should be
incorporated in a legislation under Sub-clause (c) of the relevant Article in
the Constitution. Well, I have no objection to a procedure of this sort but I
should have thought that if Prof. Shah was so keen as he appeared to be for
a legislation of this sort, he should not have had an empty mind without any
kind of a suggestion of his own. However, I suppose those who have
supported his resolution have correctly interpreted his mind and taking into
account the various speeches that have been made in support of Prof. Shah’s
Resolution, it appears that many members who are keen about adding some
qualification other than those mentioned in the Constitution have in their
mind some kind of an educational qualification. But none of them have
been very precise: none of them have given me any idea as to what is the
standard of education that they would like to prescribe in order that the
candidate may become lawfully entitled to stand.
Now it seems to me that education can hardly be the sole qualification
for membership of this House. If I may use the words of Buddha, he said
that man requires two things. One is gyan [knowledge] and the other is
sheel. Gyan without sheel is very dangerous: it must be accompained by
sheel, by which we mean character, moral courage, ability to be
independent of any kind of temptation, truthful to one’s ideals. I did not find
any reference to the second qualification in the speeches I have heard from
members who have supported Prof. Shah. But even though I myself am
very keen to see that no member enters this august assembly who does not
possess sheel in adequate degree, I find it extremely difficult to find any
means or methods to ensure that valuable qualification.
Coming to the question of education, I do not wish [it] to be understood
that I regard ignorance to be a virtue: let that be quite clear. I regard
education to be a very necessary qualification for possessing that degree of
competence which is very necessary for the performance of one’s duty. In
this House there are people who, although they are not educated, are very
competent to voice the grievances of the class whom they represent. I am
sure about it. A more educated person would not be able to discharge that
function because he does not know and does not have that experience. But
my friends who come from these classes and with whom I have naturally
very great sympathy do not realize that what is more necessary for bringing
relief to the class of people whom they represent is not merely making
speeches in this House, but to suggest remedies for the removal of their
grievances. To make speeches and to ventilate grievances is a very easy
matter but to formulate remedies is a very difficult matter. It requires
education and therefore education, even from the standpoint of the
Backward Classes, Scheduled Classes or tribal areas is a very necessary
ingredient. How can we ensure it? When I examined the suggestion that
there ought to be some kind of educational qualification, I found that a
proposition which is very good in theory or in its academic aspect cannot be
given effect to without producing other evils. That is my difficulty. Where
will you fix the standard? Will you say that only BAs should be qualified to
be members of this House? Supposing you do that, what is the result?
Members probably might know that there are many people who are
educationally and intellectually far more competent than any graduate,
although they have never been inside any college or university. There are
any number of them. Are you going to shut out these people who have
privately educated themselves, who are equally competent or better than
BAs or MAs, merely because they have not been able to obtain a certificate
from a university? I think that would be a very unfortunate result.
Take another consequence. In this country education is in the lowest
grade. Not only is that so but for some reason which all of us know,
education has not been universally spread among all the communities in this
country. There are communities which are highly educated and there are
communities where education is very, very low. Supposing you make BA or
even matriculation as a standard, are you not making the membership of
this House to be a monopoly of the few? I fear that will be the consequence.
Supposing you lower down your standard, say, for instance, to the fourth
standard, to the study of the three Rs or to literacy, in order that no
community may be excluded from the opportunity of sending its members
to this House. Is that qualification any good? It is of no value at all.
Therefore, my submission is this, that it is a good thing. I am not going to
outcry the feeling that there ought to be some education in members who
come to represent their various constituencies in this House. But I just
cannot see how you can give legal effect to it.
Therefore, my suggestion is that this is a matter which had better be left
to the people themselves, or to the political parties who will run the
government. I have no doubt about it that if the political parties, for their
own particular purposes, do not attend to this matter, people themselves in
course of time will attend to it. People are not going to allow persons who
cannot discharge their functions properly in this House to be continued and
returned for ever. They want results, They want their welfare to be attended
to, and I am sure about it that they will realize that the only instrumentality
through which they can achieve this purpose is to send good men to this
House. Therefore, I think the proper course is to leave the matter to the
people. (BAWS, Vol. 15, pp. 188–91)
Section 9.5: Provisions for Disqualification of the
Members of the Parliament and the State
Legislature
I beg to move
That the Bill to provide for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or
Houses of the Legislature of each state, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of
those Houses, the corrupt and illegal practices and other offences at or in connection with such
elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections,
as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.

In the few observations that I propose to make in support of the motion, I

wish to draw the attention of the House to the changes made by the Select
Committee in the bill and also to the changes proposed by some of the
members of the Select Committee in their minutes of dissent. The House
will agree that the bill is a very big one, extending to about 169 clauses. The
Select Committee has made changes in various clauses of the original bill
and it is hardly possible for me to deal with every single change proposed
by the committee. I think it would be enough if I were to draw the attention
of the House to the most important changes which have been made by the
Select Committee. So far as I see, I find that the Select Committee has
made four important changes in the original bill. The first clause in which
important changes have been introduced is Clause 7, which deals with the
disqualifications for being chosen and for being a member of Parliament or
of a state legislature. The House will recall that the clause as it stood
originally had only three cases of disqualification in it. The first
disqualification in the original bill was founded on a conviction for an
electoral offence, either connected with corrupt practice or an illegal
practice. The second disqualification in the bill was founded on a conviction
for an offence enacted by the penal law of the country as distinguished from
an electoral offence, for instance, an officer under the penal code or some
other local criminal law. The third one was the disqualification which was
founded on what might be called the actual serving of a sentence during the
course of the election. That will be found in the original Clause 7, Sub-
clause (2) And the fourth was failure to lodge election expenses in
accordance with the law and within the time.
 So far as these original proposals are concerned, the change which the
Select Committee has made is with regard to the disqualification contained
in Sub-clause (2) of Clause 7, that provision the Select Committee has
dropped. And the reason is this that the clause is unnecessary so far as [sic]
the sentence is for two years or more. If the sentence is for less than two
years the committee felt that there was no necessity to enact a
disqualification on that ground because, assuming that a man was elected to
the House, it would still be necessary for him to obtain the permission of
the House to absent himself beyond sixty days, which is the rule now, and if
the House did not grant him the permission his seat might thereby be
rendered vacant. On that ground the committee felt that it was unnecessary
to retain it. To this Clause 7 the committee has added four new
disqualifications which are very important. The first is that the holding of a
contract with the government would, under the provisions now made by the
Select Committee, be a disqualification. Secondly, the holding of a licence
or permit from the government for dealing in commodities which are
subject to control so far as their price or movement is concerned would also
be a disqualification. Thirdly, the holding of a directorship in a company in
which the government has a share or interest would be a disqualification;
and fourthly, dismissal of a government servant for corruption. These are
the four new disqualifications which the Select Committee has added to the
original clause.
Now I come to the second change which the Select Committee has
made. The House will remember that there was in the original bill a clause
which was numbered 35, the object of that clause was this. The clause
intended to separate proceedings with regard to nomination from
proceedings with regard to actual election. As Hon. Members will
remember, an election proceeding falls into two divisions. The first is the
stage of nomination and the second is the stage of election. Under the law
as it existed the provision was this, that there was no finality to the
proceedings with regard to nomination. There may be objections to
nominations and yet the election could continue to its final course and it is
only when an election petition was filed for challenging the result of the
election that it was open to any party, Who was a party to the election, to
raise the question before the Election Tribunal that the nomination paper of
a particular candidate was wrongly admitted or that the nomination paper of
a particular candidate was wrongly rejected. Then if the Election Tribunal
came to the conclusion that either of the two grounds was well-founded, it
was open to the Election Tribunal to set aside the whole of the election. It
has been felt by many persons who are interested in politics that that was
not a very fair thing, to have the whole of the election gone through with
the enormous amount of expenditure which various candidates would incur
and then to be ultimately faced with this solitary single issue whether the
nomination paper was properly admitted or rejected and then the whole
election to be set aside. It has been felt that it was a very wrong thing and
that it was desirable to sever the nomination proceedings from the election
proceedings and that the election should proceed after the nomination
proceedings have been finalized and made conclusive, so that no such issue
could be raised before the Election Tribunal when the election was
challenged. I personally felt that that point of view was a very good and a
very sound one and that if it was possible we should treat the issue as a
preliminary issue, as civil lawyers call it, and have it disposed of
completely and finally, so that we could then proceed to the real election
nomination, and the challenge to the real election could be limited only
either to corrupt practice or to illegal practice or to intimidation and cases of
that sort in which the election was neither fair nor free. (BAWS, Vol. 15, pp.
509–11)
Section 9.6: Political Democracy Must Result in
Social and Economic Democracy
The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political
democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as
well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social
democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life
which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.
These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as
separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to
divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from
liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without
equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many.
Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity,
liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would
require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the
fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of
these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on
the principle of graded inequality, which means elevation for some and
degradation for others. On the economic plane, we have a society in which
there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in
abject poverty. On 26 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 recognizing 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
live this life of contradictions? 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 or else those who suffer from
inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this
assembly has so laboriously built up. (Constituent Assembly Debates, Book
No. 5, Vol. No. x-xii, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Delhi)
1
Dr Ambedkar gave this speech when he was invited by the members of the Poona District Law
Library on 22 December 1952 for unveiling the portrait of late Shri L.R. Gokhale and for declaring
open the collections of books donated by Shri A.B. Sethna and Shri H.V. Tulpule, two senior
members of the Bar and preserved as separate sections in the law library.
2
Dr Ambedkar delivered this speech before the Students’ Parliament of DAV College, Jullundar City
(Punjab) on 28 October 1951.