365betÓéÀÖ

Dr. R. V. R. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO
Vice-Chancellor, A. P. Open University, Hyderabad

I call my theme the Indian Experience because the word “Experience� would urge us to remember the basic fact of the continuity of Indian civilization during the last four millennia unbroken and uninterrupted. It is true that the contemporary experience is new-rather a distinct phase of that 4000 years of experience. But the important point is that the outsider need to be cautioned not to miss the essential continuity. Not that this continuity has been the result of smooth transformations. On the contrary this continuity witnessed recurrence of social upheavals, travails of transition and breathtaking breaks. The encrustation of one religious mode over another, the super imposition of diverse social orders, the coming and going of a series of empires hyphenated by a plethora of parochial principalities � all these in the midst of myriad social move­ments subtly altering the texture of both ideology and praxis, though little noticed by historians who tend to miss the tree for the wood, constitute the paradigm of the Indian experience.

Of course, in a general sense this is no different from the pattern of historical change elsewhere. But that is precisely the point; that the experience is but a major microcosm of the global microcosm. Yet there is a difference also. We talk of unity in diversity. This refers not merely to the existence of an overarching Indian identity containing a staggering range of modes of Indian experience, sometimes challenging the very larger identity. It also refers to a vertical historical procession which changes often, leaving a desiderata of earlier systems of thought and social behaviour patterns. Conventional sociology may term this type of historical experience as inimical to change because of the drag of tradition and conservatism con­stituting an inhibiting factor to change. Views differ on this aspect of the Indian experience. Still, the syndrome of continuity through change has been the distinct hallmark of our evolution. That there has been no necessary antipathy to adaptation can be illustrated by our contemporary experience with modernization.

We adopted a liberal democratic constitutional system with an ideological leaning towards the welfare socialist credo. The vastness and diversity of the country made us opt for a federal structure of government. Our Executive Government is modelled on the British parliamentary type. Our basic commitment to liberal pluralist democracy can be illustrated by the following characteristics of our constitutional system:

1. A system of Universal Suffrage under which free and fair elections are held every five years. In the contest of a robust competitive plural political party participation, it is worthwhile to note that since the Indian Constitution came to force in 1950, we have not missed a single general election, in which nearly 400 million (nearly half of India’s population) participate. Thus, the Indian electorate itself nearly equals twice the total population of USA. We have now reduced the age limit of our voter from 21 to 18 which further increases the massive strength of our electorate.

2. Our party system encompasses a veritable spectrum of political ideologies. These range from far left groups to very conservative political and economic ideologies. While it could be argued that such a wide-ranging political spectrum has its disadvantages, in that a solid middle range political consensus gets weakened, we also take the other viewpoint that a healthy democracy should thrive within the context of diverse political and economic ideologies.

3. Our anchorage in constitutional democracy is attested by the fact that the Constitution embodies a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights, we call it Fundamental Rights, Civil Liberties, Right to Personal life, Right to Equality, and the whole gamut of human rights find their place in this document. Our superior judiciary � both at the federal level and the· state levels � has not been shy at all in enforcing these rights and standing forth as the protector of the liberties of the individual citizen.

Of course, as a country beset with the problem of economic under-development and traditional and outworn social values, India could not but be favourably disposed to the incorporation of the socialist ideal, where communitarian norms, as against the free play of individual rights alone find recognition. Some people may entertain a prejudice against the “socialist� notion. But, I hope, they would not deny the fact that claims of the average common man, particularly in a poverty-stricken country, as against the entrenched privileges of the propertied sections and that of “high caste� people, should be protected by the recognition and implementation of communitarian value-goals. With this in view, our Constitution provides for a chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, in which socio-economic goals like the prevention of concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and the realization of social equality and equity are enshrined. With this in view we have embarked on the strategy of affirmative action under which the socially depressed classes are given weighted advantage in the matter of jobs and admissions to educational institutions in all parts of the country.

4. I have mentioned our federal set-up. India is a sub­continent but with continental dimensions. The diversities in our climate, language, religion, economic capabilities, etc., constitute a staggering diversity. Thus a federal system is the only pattern possible to accommodate these factors. How­ever, to guard against the fissiparous and centrifugal forces, the founding fathers of our Constitution chose to provide for a strong federal power. But here again the vitality of the constitutional process is demonstrated by the fact that during the last decades the states of the Indian federation have been demanding more autonomy-political, administrative, as well as financial.

The above mentioned development is also tied up with the evolution of our political parties. Since Independence in 1947 for over a quarter of a century, the Congress Party in India (which was largely instrumental in conducting our freedom struggle for nearly 70 years) was elected to power almost throughout India. Since the late 60’s, in some parts of the country other political parties could succeed in gaining power within the constitutional system and through the electoral process that the system provides. For instance, in the State of West Bengal in the eastern part of the country a coalition of leftist parties led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has been in power for nearly twodecades. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, (popularly called, Madras) a regional party came into power almost at the same time. Thus, the hegemony and dominance of the Congress Party was under challenge and these challenges emanated from two distinct quarters. One from parties with a more leftist oriented ideology and two, regionally based parties which stress more on regional claims which are allegedly ignored by the federal government under the Congress role. In recent years the regionalistic trend has manifested itself in some other areas of the country also. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) came into power in 1982-83 basing itself on claims of the Telugu language and Telugu culture for a more prominent role. Regionalism in some other parts of the country also takes the shape of ethnic claims of people living in tribal and such other areas. This trend has implications both for the existing federal structure and for the concept of national unity.

The federal structure is under stress and strains. Some people regard that granting greater autonomy would weaken the federation. But some others hold that the federal criteria laid down in 1950 cannot any longer be regarded as sacrosanct. Further, the demands for greater autonomy, the later people argue, are evidence of the vitality of the Indian political system and a test for its capacity for adaptability. I myself tend to agree with this view.

As for the implications of the trend to national integration, regionalism could assume an ultra-radical posture threatening the fabric of the polity. For instance, the Khalistan Movement in Punjab, originally starting as a demand for a greater autonomy for the adherence of the Sikh religion living in the North-Western part of the country, has now, in the hands of a few misguided people, degenerated into a demand for secession and this demand is being pursued through merciless terrorist activity in the Punjab region of India. It is this type of a perversion that regionalism can sometimes develop into, that makes many people shun the very concept of regional claims.

While the nation is beset with the Punjab problem with its accompanying terrorism, the country is also attending to the regional claims with perspicacity and equanimity. In the dialogue of political process, no doubt, acute disagreements, sometimes expressed, in radical and rabid terms, do manifest. At the same time, the constitutional set-up has already demonstrated its vitality to accommodate the electoral mandates. The federal Government and the Congress Party in power there, with all its rhetoric about the dangers and threats emanating from regional claims, has been adhering to the constitutional norms respecting the popularly elected governments in states where the Congress Party itself is not in power. Of course, here also there are complaints of federal interference and even of federal attempts to destabilise the non-Congress state governments. To meet these complaints and accusations, various institutional devices are being thought of and a broadly acceptable consensus will emerge soon.

The trends in the Indian social system should also be high­lighted. Foreigners always point out to the complexities of the Indian social system. The religious diversity of the country, representing all the higher religions of the world and encompass­ing hundreds of major and minor cults, creates a milleu fraught with potentialities for conflicts. The Indian sub-continent went through a horrible nightmare of Hindu-Muslim conflict at the time of the partition of India in 1947 in which hundreds of thousands of people perished at the altar of religious fanaticism then.

Occasional bouts of religious intolerance still occur in independent India. In more recent times the Hindu-Sikh confrontation can also be cited as an instance of the recurring syndrome of inter-religious conflict in the country.

At another level, the caste system within the majority Hindu community in the country, also results in inter-societal conflicts, gnawing at the entrails of our social fabric. The caste system not merely divides the society, but perpetuates the system of social hierarchy which not only violates the concept of human equality but runs counter to the foundations of democracy based on individual equality. After all, our constitutional set-up is founded on the implied criterion of Homo-Egalitarianimus whereas our society still operates on the model of Homo-Hierarchicus. How can a democratic political system function when embedded in a larger social system, which is so inherently inegalitarian?

This indeed is a major problem we have to face. On the one hand, one can despair of the success of our modern con­stitutional experiment. But, on the other one can put faith in our society’s ability to adapt to the demands of change. It is not as if the Indian social structure remained static. Four thousand years of evolution should put a discount on the talk of the static nature of Indian society. It is true that still the deleterious circumstances of caste and social hierarchy not only impede but often pervert democratic politics. The emergence of caste-based vote banks, electoral process corrupted by this phenomenon and the ruthless manipulation of the caste factor by politicians and by administrative henchmen, is corrupting the Indian political system.

First and foremost is the influence of the modernising elites of India. Right from the 19th century days the leaders of Indian nationalism have moulded public opinion into jettisoning the traditional social structures. While most of these leaders themselves belonged to the higher caste echelons, there were also people born into lowly social strata who by dint of their educa­tion and character became leaders of the people at large. Of course, the modernising elites did not all cherish one uniform goal of social transformation. The difference between the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi on the one hand and Jawaharlal Nehru on the other is a case in point. Both of them, in one sense, were profoundly modern in their outlook. Yet, their social visions differed widely. Mahatma Gandhi envisioned a society free of caste distinctions, a society in which the social and economic hiatus between individuals would vanish. At the same time, he rated the religious dimension, in its broadest sense, as the foundation of Indian social existence. He also championed a decentralised socio-political system in which “voluntarism�, rather than compulsion and centralised economic planning, should be the instrumental device for socio-economic transformation. His creed of non-violence is well known. But we should also emphasise that he was a revolutionary who would mobilise non-violent protest against established order for the sake of socio-political justice. Some regard this as political asceticism. But given the “psyche� of the Indian to venerate the ascetic and the �guru�, the Gandhian tradition has provided modern India with an ideology of radical social transformation without rejecting some of the essential traditional norms.

Jawaharlal Nehru, on the other hand, is a modernist, essentially imbibing the western positivist criterion and along with it a profoundly humanistic outlook. He is as much an heir to the values of the American and French revolutionary tradition as to the 20th century socialist ideology. He was much more impatient of the traditional Indian social ethos than his political mentor, Mahatma Gandhi. Nehru, as the moderniser par excellence, opted for an economic planning with emphasis on industrialisation and radical social transformation.

The point I wish to make it that the contemporary sources of modernization of India are themselves diverse. But, the very fact that Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru symbolise the visions and values of contemporary India demonstrates the synthetic nature of the contemporary Indian criterion. That these two stalwarts could claim the devotion and following of the Indian masses also attests to the role of deliberate political education to which the masses are subject to and heed to. Thus deliberate social change, quite apart from the inherent adaptability of Indian society for change, is a major factor to be reckoned with.

Not that other ideological schools are absent in the Indian context. There is the Marxist ideology which has a hold over a considerable section of the people, particularly among the educated sections. The impact of this in affecting the changes in the value system of the people is significant. But here again the dominant influence of Gandhi and Nehru is so perceived that even a good part of the Marxist value system is subsumed under their ideology. So, barring groups and sects preaching a return to Hindu orthodoxy or other parochial orthodoxies, the dominant social paradigm of present day India is still one of a profound commitment to change–and change to a just social order based on the dignity of the human being.

To what extent has this been translated into practice? Candour would demand a very very skeptical answer. For, as already mentioned, caste feeling is still strong and human dignity is still at a discount as millions live under below subsistence levels of existence. Yet, one should view it with a sense of proportion. At the economic level the overall performance of economy, both in the vast agricultural sector and the urban industrial sector, is considerable. India’s growth rate in recent times has gone to nearly five per cent level. While large sections of the masses are still to be touched by the developmental process, some of these sections have atleast been able to assert their claims and project their power. The programmes of Integrated Rural Development, though subject to criticism from various quarters, have brought about some development at the grass roots level.

In this context, I should mention the rise of peasant and rural movements challenging the Governments policies as only benefiting the upper and middle classes. Many of these movements are inspired by radical Marxist or Maoist ideas. Not going into the question whether Marxism-Maoism is a better alternative to pluralist democracy and open society. I would like to state that even for the success of our pluralist democratic experiment these peasant movements have a contribution to make. Because, in creating a challenge to State power, they put the State on notice that unless it can deliver the goods through its pluralist institutions, its credibility would be gone. No doubt, such move­ments may also invite State violence to suppress them. There are Indian critics who say that this is already manifest. To me, however, such movements could be regarded as catalysts in socio-­economic transformation and correctives to the constitutive process.

Coming to the problem of social inequality, I am glad that my optimism is even better grounded. I would take the problem relating to the condition of the so-called untouchables in Indian society. As some of you know, these belong to the lowest of the low in traditional Hindu social hierarchy. They constitute nearly twenty per cent of the Indian people. It has been our standing shame that the Indian civilisation, with all its wonders in literary, cultural and spiritual fields, has treated these sections as the float same of its 4000 years of civilisation. Yet, it was Mahatma Gandhi, who in contemporary times protested against this announcing that the Hindus atone for this monumental inhumanity they perpetuated on a big section of their own community. He, along with many others, could transform the terms of discourse relating to this problem. A moral and social legitimacy has emerged in India during the last century that this inhuman institution should be discarded. Both the Congress party and all other political parties are committed to this new so do-moral paradigm.

More importantly, the Indian Constitution has categorically declared the institution of untouchability as punishable as a crime under law. In order to uplift these classes, the Constitution, as I have already pointed out, provides for a wide range of affirmative action strategies like compulsory reservations in Government and public sector jobs and for seats in educational institutions. To buttress these policies, many constitutional amendments were also brought about. This is not to say that overnight these sections of people have attained equal status in society. Social prejudices, as we know, die hard. Not only this, the other upper castes, sometimes even protest against the privileges extended to the former “untouchable� castes. The point, however, is that even the protesters dare not question the moral and social bam of affirmative action.

We have already referred to the dimension of religious conflict manifesting itself in an acute manner in contemporary Indian society. This dimension is indeed to be despaired about. But we should also look to the ideological and institutional patterns that inform our society which contain the base of religious conflict. We have embraced the concept of secularism precisely in order to proclaim where we stand on the religious issue. While recognising the social reality of religious diversity, at the political systemic level, religion is sought to be kept out. Even now there is a healthy debate going on whether secularism should deliberately involve the State discouraging, or even denying, the role of religion in social affairs. Some of our intellectuals regard this as necessary for quick and beneficial social transformation. But others, in fact the majority of Indians, protest against this conception of secularism. They visualise a society in which people are given every opportunity to practise their religions and creeds but at the same time not permitting the State patronage to any one of these. Even Jawaharlal Nehru, who at the intellectual plane was a “positivist�, could not bring himself to project a materialistic conception of secularism. We are proud of the fact that on the whole, Indian society for ages is known to have internalised the spirit of tolerance towards competing religious creeds. This type of synoptic view of religion provides us with a strong foundation to build our secular polity.

While communal and religious discard seem to belie the prospects for secularism, it should not be forgotten that in the midst of these negative tendencies, Indian socio-political system, both ancient and modern, saw prominent roles being played by persons belonging to all religious communities in politico-social matters. Many a Hindu faithfully served Muslim kings and vice Versa. In contemporary Indian democracy, the prominent places occupied by Muslims, Christians and Sikhs in a record to be proud of. Of the eight Indian Presidents, we so far had, two were Muslims and one was a Sikh. The Indian Supreme Court has a long list of eminent jurists belonging to various religious groups. So is the case with our Armed Services and other offices of importance. Obviously this is not merely a cosmetic feature or our secularism.

Free India’s achievements in terms of foreign policy are well known. We, under Nehru’s initiative, evolved the idea of non­alignment in the context of the raging cold war in the post second World War world. That the newly-emerging nations should keep out of the quarrels of the giants is now being properly understood in the West also. Very favourable winds of change blowing across China and the Soviet Union confirm my point. The Western commitment to unalloyed capitalism and non­-interventionist political system has been under modification since long. Thus, not merely co-existence but even convergence of rival systems seem to be a realistic idea.

The non-aligned movement now encompasses over two-thirds of the international political system. With the relative decline of the cold war, the non-aligned concern has shifted to North-­South global economic issues rather than earlier political concerns relating to the East-West divide. Our demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in which we claim a just share in international trade, and in order to do so are anxious to build our domestic economic infrastructure both industrial and agricultural is yet to gain an adequate response from affluent societies. Western societies should be well disposed to allow even a modicum of transfer of resources from themselves to the Third World.

Our relations with our neighbours have witnessed many ups and downs. With Pakistan we have a running quarrel since both of us attained independence in 1947 after the partition of India. As a matter of fact, the quarrel is very much a function of the partition of India, which itself was a bitter fruit of our colonial legacy. We regard that Pakistan was unable to reconcile to the given fact of India’s largeness and regional prominence and sought to align itself permanently against us. It is true that we are not completely blameless ourselves in not reassuring Pakistan about our friendly intentions. Unfortunately the bitterness of the partition of India and the surfacing of the religious factor conditioned our mutual relations for over 40 years. We fought altogether three major wars. In the process our region became an arena for super power rivalry in which often both of us willingly allowed ourselves to be used as pawns. Even now, thanks to the persistent rivalry, the Indian sub­continent is in the danger of becoming a victim to a nuclear arms race, in addition to a sizable concentration of conventional arms on both the sides.

As the largest and the most powerful power in South Asia, we are also subject to accusations of trying to dominate the region. The pride in being recognised as the predominant power in the region, gets neutralised by the criticism of tending to be the domineering power of the region. In this it is difficult to always dismiss the perceptions of our neighbours. But, our recent record has Dot been that bad either. In the case of Sri Lanka, it is at the invitation of that country that a contingent of our Armed Forces operated there, as a Peace Keeping Force, to help in the implementation of the political settlement between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil separatists there. India played the role of an honest broker in facilitating that political settlement in Sri Lanka. Within our own country there is con­siderable criticism about the wisdom of our sending troops to Sri Lanka. This very criticism shows the dilemma inherent in projecting power beyond one’s frontiers.

The movement for South Asian Regional Cooperation is on since 1983. Realising the conflict-ridden nature of the South Asian Region at the political level, the leaders of the seven nations of South Asia rightly thought that initiating a regional cooperation movement as no effort towards functional integration of the region, would indirectly facilitate the lowering of the impact of the political discord among the nations of the area. India’s role in this regional cooperative movement is appreciated all round and this to an extent is our way of assuring our neighbours that our bigness does not necessarily mean big power chauvinism.

Our contribution to the promotion of the objectives of the United Nations has been quite considerable. During the cold war days, India’s mediation was sought quite frequently. If we have been strident in our championing of anti-colonialism and anti-racialism this is because these in themselves have been the goals of the United Nations. Even in the non-aligned movement and in the Third World Councils ours has always been a posture of moderation. Similarly, our record in using other international platforms like the Commonwealth of Nations has been a positive one. We used the opportunity provided by the inter linkages that diverse international organisations, regional and global, provided effectively to bring about a consensus on various aspects of world affairs. As a great civilization, our emergence is characterised by restraint and moderation. We did not project an over-adventurist ideological posture, nor crudely assert some sort of an Asian identity to promote our selfish ends. This indeed is a proud record. Scholars described Mahatma Gandhi as a gentleman colossus. This can well be said of the emergence of India into the comity of nations. We know that we have many things to be modest. But we also feel that our modesty and restraint are inborn and inherent, a legacy of our age-old history.