Question : Indian Judicial System Needs Over-hauling.
(2020)
Answer : The Indian democracy, being the largest in the world, is upheld by its judicial system. While the source of the judiciary’s power is the Constitution, its strength comes from the faith of Indian citizens. Lack of faith would lead to chaos, where people would hesitate to, if at all, approach courts in pursuit of justice.
The prevalence of justice in our society is highly dependent on the judiciary, which is why its efficiency is integral to the success of the social order of India. As long as the citizens of India believe in the mechanisms and integrity of courts, the judiciary remains the interpreter of laws and the determinant of social justice that it should be. Unfortunately, there are issues that restrict the reach of our laws to all Indian citizens.
Significant among many accomplishments to India’s credit after independence has been performance of three wings of the State, namely, the executive, the judiciary and the legislature.
The Indian judicial system is a well-established institution that has won global acclaim. It however, has, its weaknesses, traceable largely to the complexity and enormity of the responsibility it is expected to discharge. Those include heavy pendency, delay in disposal and not being technologically equipped to respond to the imperatives of a rapidly changing socio- economic system.
One of the most prominent concerns our country is facing is the sizable backlog of cases in courts. There has been an accumulation of cases in the Supreme Court, in the 24 High Courts and in subordinate courts. For example, there is a logjam of more than 2.8 crore cases in courts. This issue can primarily be attributed to a shortage in judges. The number of judges appointed all over India is far less than the total capacity of judges approved.
The requirement for judicial reforms is highlighted by the fact that the limited supply of judges to cater to the vast demand for the attention of courts by accumulating cases has led to a rise in the figurative price of justice. Those who approach courts not only incur the litigation costs, but also spend a large amount of time in wait. As William E. Gladstone said, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Furthermore, there is a possibility that an increase in the efficiency of the judicial system could curb crime rates. The proximity of penalty for committing a crime that is brought by judicial efficiency would have the psychological effect of deterring crime.
The independence of the judiciary is integral to the structure of our country. However, past situations coming under scrutiny have proved that even the judiciary may be prone to corruption. Judges who can be influenced by politics may create prejudice in courts, despite the principles of natural justice that demand trials without any bias whatsoever.
One method of easing the situation would be to explore alternative avenues of dispute settlement. The time-tested practice of village level institutions hammering out solutions to cases of civil as well as criminal nature can, for instance, be consciously encouraged.
Coverage by mechanisms already in existence such as Consumer Courts, the Income Tax and Sales Tax Tribunals, the Central and State administrative tribunals, Mahila Courts, and Lok Adalats can be expanded while also strengthening their capabilities. Increased synergy and role clarity between the various agencies at the national and State levels dealing with graft, corruption and vigilance will also considerably ease the situation.
Apart from these systemic issues, a concern that has frequently been flagged by informed observers is “judicial overreach”, a practice that has, in fact, often proved beneficial for the overall improvement of the robustness of the polity as is the Golaknath case, following which verdict, the power of Parliament to amend the chapter of the Constitution which deals with fundamental rights was taken away.
Expanded and creative use of information technology and digitisation of registry, trial and disposal of cases will infuse transparency and speed into the system. The all-pervading malaise of corruption and graft has not spared the judiciary either. However, it would be unfair to point one’s finger at the judiciary until sweeping reforms have been undertaken to rid the entire public system of this scourge.
The time and the attention of judges are the most scarce resources. Efforts are, already, on to re-engineer the judicial process to encourage efficiently through optimal optimising the use of these key resources.
Following the advent of the forces of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, and phenomena such as terrorism and climate change, calls for robust responses to hitherto unknown imperatives. All the wings of the State have to prove equal to the challenges posed by the emerging scenario. Given the manner in which our systems have conducted themselves over the past seven decades, however, one remains confident that the task will not prove to be beyond the ability of our institutions.
Question : Majoritarianism conflicting with constitutional spirit, an unhealthy trend in Indian democracy.
(2016)
Answer : The concept of majoritarianism asserts that a majority of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under growing criticism and democracies have increasingly included constraints in what the parliamentary majority can do, in order to protect citizens’ fundamental rights.
This should not be confused with the concept of a majoritarian electoral system, which is a simple electoral system that usually gives a majority of seats to the party with a plurality of votes. A parliament elected by this method may be called a majoritarian parliament (e.g., the Parliament of India).
It is easy enough to begin any discussion on this matter with the Constitution of India as anchor, for subject to certain limitations it grants a right to freedom of speech and expression. But, we would do well to set aside the document for a moment, and think about what rights a democracy, properly understood, must guarantee. Our tendency, unfortunately, is too often think of democracy as a form of majoritarianism, where the will of the greatest number ought to always prevail; we, therefore, seek to balance an individual’s right with the supposed interests of the larger society. If restricting certain speech would make the majority of us happy, then such societal happiness, it is argued, would constitute good reason for restricting such speech. But this model for framing the purport of our moral rights, as the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, among others, argued, is fundamentally flawed. It does not comprehend what democracy, which at its heart is an interpretive concept, really means.
If democracy were to be a truly legitimate form of government, it must contain certain inherent value; and since it is difficult to argue that majoritarianism has any such value over and above its ability to institutionalise the larger goals of a legitimate government, we must reject any definition of democracy that rests purely on the rule of the majority. In other words, democracy cannot be considered an end by itself, but must represent a means to attain justice. In order to be genuinely participatory, democracy must entail more than just a commitment to elections; it must treat certain fundamental rights as distinct and incapable of being transgressed purely on the caprice of the majority.
Our greatest failing as a nation is to allow whimsical decisions of the majority to override the most fundamental moral rights that we enjoy as citizens. When the Indian Constitution says, as it does in Article 19(1)(a), that citizens have a right to freedom of speech and expression, it is memorializing a particular moral right. The limitations that it places on this right through Article 19(2) by allowing the State to make reasonable restrictions in the interests, among other things, of public order, decency or morality, are therefore to be invoked only when compelling reason is presented. The question is: what constitutes compelling reason?
The grounds that the Constitution of India provides in Article 19(2), as its text says, ought to be reasonable.
And what is reasonable is to be tested not on the threshold of majoritarian will, but on larger, scrupulous standards. For example, it would be reasonable to constrain speech if it is absolutely apparent that such speech would incite the committing of an offence. Such a test was, in fact, devised by the U.S. Supreme Court in the famous Brandenburg v. Ohio case: it is only speech that incites “imminent lawless action,” the court held, which is constitutionally unprotected.
Question : How effective are our system and institutions in dealing with disasters?
(2012)
Answer : Disasters and their management generally get discussed in their aftermath but practically it should result in planning and preparing the strategy to tackle and mitigate disasters in a responsible and effective manner. Disasters, both natural and unnatural, are macro level events or processes, which induce disturbances and turmoil for a prolonged life-threatening environment for a community.
India is considered as the world’s most disaster prone country. Like many other countries in this region, India is plagued by various kinds of natural disasters every year, such as floods, drought, earthquakes, cyclones and landslides.
In India, a closer analysis of what transforms a natural event into a human and economic disaster reveals that the fundamental problems of development that the country faces are the very same problems that contribute to its vulnerability to the catastrophic effects of natural hazards.
Development and disaster-related policies have largely focused on emergency response, leaving a serious under-investment in natural hazard prevention and mitigation.
The late 1990s and the early part of this century marked a watershed in Disaster Management in India. The Orissa Super Cyclone and the Gujarat Earthquake taught the nation a hard lesson. The experiences of the stakeholders like the state, voluntary sector and the communities at large helped in initiating the planning process pertaining to preparedness and mitigation of disasters.
A welcome step in this direction was setting up of a High Powered Committee on Disaster Management in 1999, which submitted its report in 2001. An important recommendation of the committee was that at least 10 percent of plan funds at the national, state and district levels be earmarked and apportioned for schemes that specifically address areas such as prevention, reduction, preparedness and mitigation of disasters. Also for the first time in the planning history of India, planners devoted a separate chapter titled ‘Disaster Management: The development perspective’ in the tenth five-year plan document (Planning Commission, 2002).
More recently, several institutions with a focused mandate on disaster management have come up in various parts of the country. The Ministry of Home Affairs (Disaster Management Division), National Institute for Disaster Management (New Delhi), Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), Orissa State Disaster Management Authority (OSDMA), Disaster Mitigation Institute (Ahmedabad) can be seen as initiatives taken in the right direction.
There has also been a concerted effort on the part of the state to mainstream Disaster Mitigation initiatives in Rural Development schemes. One of its example is the coordination between the Ministry of Rural Development and the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is now the nodal ministry for coordination of relief and response and overall natural disaster management, for changing the guidelines of schemes such as Indira Awas Yojna (IAY) and Sampoorn Grameen Rojgar Yojna (SGRY) so that the houses constructed under IAY or school buildings/community buildings constructed under SGRY are earthquake/cyclone/flood resistant.
Question : Food Security - legislation and implementation.
(2012)
Answer : After the rural job guarantee programme, the government is now focusing on an ambitious National Food Security Act aimed at drawing more people into the food security net. It has made a strong pitch for providing 35 kg of cereal at Rs 3 per kg every month to the poor of this country.
The Union Cabinet has approved the Draft National Food Security Bill. It seeks to provide subsidized food grains to over half of India’s 1.2 billion population.
The food security bill promises 75 percent of rural population and 50 percent of urban households, the right to 7 kg food grains per person, at Rs.3 per kg for rice, Rs.2 per kg for wheat and Rs.1 per kg for coarse grains to the priority beneficiaries.
The general category will be provided at least three kilograms of food grains per person per month at half the minimum selling price.
The draft law explains ways to implement the scheme and prescribes penalties for flawed delivery. While the state has to ensure uninterrupted supply of food-grain through the Public Distribution System (PDS), vigil on distribution will be through quarterly meetings between shop owners and representatives of local bodies who will be involved in the selection of the shop owner.
States will have to fully computerize their PDS within two years of the law and they “shall provide a toll-free number and a website where consumers can register their complaints. All complaints shall be addressed within 39 days of receipt and records of the same shall be made available in the public domain, including the Internet,” says the draft.
A commissioner will be appointed in each state to monitor the scheme, suggest changes in it, investigate scarcities, and award penalties to public servants for failures. The penalties could be a fine of gross salary of one month up to five years for negligence, or imprisonment of six months to five years in case of “deaths or serious morbidity”.
Keeping in mind substantial layoffs in select sectors, in the wake of the global economic crisis, the government is expected to expand the scope of the programme to include sectors such as textiles as well as large sections of agricultural labour impacted by volatilities in the food sector.Question : The predicaments of Democracy?
(2011)
Answer : China is achieving milestone after milestone every year while, India, the largest democracy in the world, has just overcome a policy paralysis. The world’s oldest democracies, like, England and United States, have been confronting humiliating revelations by their own news papers.
The democratic world is facing new demonstration, new exposition every day. Development of latest technologies has helped these free, liberated citizens to express themselves more empathically, more widely. Their free corporate are engaged in development of new, and sometimes, strange products which have become a headache for ethically conscious humans. Three parent baby, surrogate mothers etc are few of such technologies. All these developments have raised a question over utility of democracy.
It has been alleged that modern world has become a fish market. Everyone is shouting about his/her own rights and the world, as a whole, is suffering. But it is not even half of the truth. The world may be full of noise, full of demands, but it is no doubt that it has achieved a lot for humans. We were never so prosperous in the past. Life expectancies, health standards are only improving. And it is happening when almost the entire world is moving towards democracy.So, democracy is an interesting phenomenon in human history and we must understand it completely, from its history to its future, to understand its benefits as well as dangers completely. With the development of human society, political organisation of societies also began. There were examples of democratic political systems in ancient period also. Greeks, Romans, Vaishali, Magadha and many more empires tried democratic systems to some extent. But modern democratic systems come into existence in 19th century only and this system spread its wing throughout the planet in the 20th century only.
Today democracy can be understood in two ways. One--- as a philosophy of equality and another, as a system of governance. As a philosophy, democracy refers to equal rights, equal status and equal opportunities for all citizens. There are no divine rights in it, no hereditary benefits, except, economical. It gives freedom to everyone to express his/her views, to cherish his/her faith, to aspire and work for own dream and goals.
Question : The nuclear civil liability bill
(2010)
Answer : The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 seeks to create a mechanism for compensating victims of nuclear damage arising from a nuclear incident.
The Bill fixes no-fault liability on operators and gives them a right of recourse against certain persons. It caps the liability of the operator at Rs 500 crore. For damage exceeding this amount, and up to 300 million SDR, the central government will be liable.
All operators (except the central government) need to take insurance or provide financial security to cover their liability. For facilities owned by the government, the entire liability up to 300 million SDR will be borne by the government. The Bill specifies who can claim compensation and the authorities who will assess and award compensation for nuclear damage. Those not complying with the provisions of the Bill can be penalised.
The liability cap on the operator (a) may be inadequate to compensate victims in the event of a major nuclear disaster; (b) may block India’s access to an international pool of funds; (c) is low compared to some other countries. The cap on the operator’s liability is not required if all plants are owned by the government. It is not clear if the government intends to allow private operators to operate nuclear power plants.
The extent of environmental damage and consequent economic loss will be notified by the government. This might create a conflict of interest in cases where the government is also the party liable to pay compensation. The right of recourse against the supplier provided in the Bill is not compliant with international agreements India may wish to sign.
The time-limit of ten years for claiming compensation may be inadequate for those suffering from nuclear damage. Though the Bill allows operators and suppliers to be liable under other laws, it is not clear which other laws will be applicable. Different interpretations by courts may constrict or unduly expand the scope of such a provision.
India has an ambitious goal to increase 5-fold the amount of electricity produced from nuclear power plants to 20,000 MWe by 2020. This will be further increased to 63,000 MWe by 2032. In this way, India will produce 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants by 2050. India’s present production of electricity through nuclear power is 5780 MW. To increase the share of nuclear power, foreign companies would need to be involved in the manufacture and supply of nuclear reactors. Although there is no international obligation for such a bill, in order to attract the US companies involved in nuclear commerce such as General Electric and Westinghouse, it is necessary to introduce a liability bill which would help these private companies in getting insurance cover in their home state. Thus, the bill will help in the realization of the Indo-U.S. Nuclear deal.
Another motive for the bill is to legally and financially bind the operator and the government to provide relief to the affected population in the case of a nuclear accident. In consideration of the long-term costs related to clean-up and shut-down activities if a nuclear accident were to occur, prominent members of the civil society in India have called on the Government and political parties to hold nuclear suppliers responsible and liable for nuclear accidents.Question : Is dual citizenship good for an individual
(2008)
Answer : A person with dual citizenship is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Dual citizenship (sometimes called dual nationality) happens automatically in some situations, such as when a child is born to parents in the United States to foreign parents. In this case, the child (unless the parents are foreign diplomats) generally becomes a citizen of that nation as well as of the parents’ home nation. Similarly, if a child of India is born overseas, the child may automatically become a citizen of both India and the country of birth, depending on that country’s laws. Dual citizens can receive the benefits and privileges offered by each country. For example, they have access to two social service systems, can vote in either country and may be able to run for office in either country (depending on each country’s laws). They are also allowed to work in either country without needing a work permit or visa and can attend school in either country at the citizen tuition rate.
As a dual citizen, you are allowed to carry passports from both countries.It also guarantees right of entry to both countries, which can be especially important if you have family to visit, are a student or do business in either country. Another benefit of dual citizenship is the ability to own property in either country. Some countries restrict land ownership to citizens only, and as a legal citizen of two countries, you would be able to purchase property in either - or both - countries. If we travel frequently between the two countries, this might be especially useful since property ownership might offer a more economical (and comfortable) way to live in two places.As a dual citizen, you are bound by the laws of both countries. For example, If we are a dual citizen of the India and a country with mandatory military service, we may lose our Indian citizenship under certain circumstances, such as if we serve as an officer in the foreign military, if the foreign military force is engaged in a war against India or if we volunteer for service.
If we are a dual citizen living abroad, we might owe taxes both to India for income earned abroad and to the country where the income was earned. Income tax treaties are in effect, however, between the India and many other countries that reduce or eliminate India’s citizen’s tax liability in other countries.Because tax laws are complicated and can change from year to year, be sure to consult with a qualified tax accountant.
Depending on our career path, dual citizenship can be a disadvantage. If we are seeking a position with the Indian government or access to classified information, for example, having dual citizenship can prevent you from gaining the security clearance you need to work in these fields. Those born into dual citizenship may encounter fewer problems than those who actively sought out dual citizenship. Dual citizens enjoy certain benefits, such as the ability to live and work freely in two countries, own property in both, and travel between the countries with relative ease. There are drawbacks; however, including the potential for double taxation, the long and expensive process for obtaining dual citizenship, and the fact that we become bound by the laws of two nations. Because dual citizenship is complex, and the rules and laws regarding citizenship vary from one country to the next, an individual will be freer in case of single citizenship.
Question : India’s Foreign Policy and World Power
(2005)
Answer : Today India’s foreign policy has established one of the most important strategic relations with global nations. Coming down the lane, earlier, India’s foreign policy was just a principle rather than a practice. India soon became an example for all the emerging economies in the world. Experts believe that India’s foreign policy is based on “multi- alignment”. India’s foreign policy is now more focussed on strategic partnership for domestic development. Standing firmly on the values of peace an d sovereignty, India shares diplomatic relations with most countries. India has attained a prominent voice in global affairs over the years.
India has become one of the leaders in the developing world. It is a member of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) group of nations. India is also a member of United Nations, the G20 industrial nations, the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund (IMF) among many. Territorially, India is a part of South Asian Association for Regional cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multispectral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). India has also established close ties with Arab League, Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the African Union. Today, the nation is building strong relations with the USA, China, EU, Pakistan, Brazil, Japan, Israel and Mexico.
Currently, Russia is the leading weapons supplier for the nation. Israel has emerged as India’s second largest strategic and military partner. India also has restructured its foreign policy with the US. India’s “Look East Policy” is also reformed, enabling partnerships with Southeast Asian countries. India is also a charter member of United Nations and is a member of many UN agencies. India has been calling for support for the seat of Permanent membership in the UNSC. It is also a member of the member of the G4 groups of nations, constituting Brazil, Japan and Germany, all wanting permanent representation in the UNSC. It justifies its demand for permanent representation on the grounds that it is the second most populous country in the world, the world’s largest democracy, and it is the third largest in terms of purchasing power parity, the world’s ninth largest economy and maintains the third largest army in the world.
Question : Criminalization of Politics
(2004)
Answer : Criminalisation of politics and corruption in public life has become the biggest threat to India, the world’s largest democracy. The roots of corruption lie in the election expenses of the candidates. the expenses incurred by the candidates are much more. As the candidates generally don’t have so much money to spend, the funds usually come from the business world or the underworld. Once the candidate becomes an MP, MLA or a minister, he has to reciprocate to his donors in a big way. This is the root cause of corruption. Corruption at higher levels of political leadership leads to corruption in the bureaucracy and other wings of the administration like the police or the Public Works Department. It spreads from top to bottom. It travels downwards into the entire bureaucratic apparatus and also amongst the civilians. Along with money power, muscle power has also polluted elections. Unfortunately, a large number of our MPs and legislators have criminal records against them.
This evil of Criminalization of Politics calls for special attention of the people because the subject revolves around the vested interests of politicians of all hues as such the people can never hope that the politicians would take any initiative to rectify this evil. The prevailing trend is spreading like cancer. It is nullifying all the constitutional safeguards of democracy; that is, it is spoiling bureaucracy by making it partial; it thwarts press; and even threatens judiciary; and thus is destroying the foundation of democracy. So the people should wake up at once and force the political parties to mend their ways.
The political parties do not pay attention to inculcate noble political values and principles of citizenship in the people. They do not promote patriotism and commitment to nation-building. They do not want to unite the people of nation by stressing the importance of harmonious living. On the contrary, they perpetuate the differences among the people and make full use of those differences for creating conflicts among them. The British followed the policy of ‘divide and rule’; after India became independent, our politicians have become past masters of the art of creating groups and inciting them against one another. They want to fish in the troubled waters and when the water is placid,they trouble it to achieve their selfish ends.
The corner-stone of democracy is objective discussion of the public issues by the people. The representatives of the people are expected to encourage such discussions, generate valuable ideas and take decisions in the larger interests of the people. But even the democratic forums like legislative assemblies and Parliament are not used for sincere discussions.
Question : The Role of Judiciary in India
(2003)
Answer : In a democratic country like India, the role of judiciary is significant. Judiciary administers justice according to law. It is required to promote justice in adjudicatory process. Credibility of judicial process ultimately depends on the manner of doing administration of justice. Judiciary can promote social justice through its judgments. Otherwise common man will suffer a lot. In a democracy, the role of judiciary is crucial. Judiciary is a faithful keeper of the constitutional assurances. An independent and impartial judiciary can make the legal system vibrant. Our Indian judiciary can be regarded as a creative judiciary. Credibility of judicial process ultimately depends on the manner of doing administration of justice. The role of judiciary includes
Justice - Social, economic and political is clearly laid down in the preamble as the guiding principle of the constitution. Social justice is the main concept on which our constitution is built. Part III and IV of Indian constitution are significant in the direction of Social Justice and economic development of the citizens. Judiciary can promote social justice through its judgments. In other sense, they are under an obligation to do so. While applying judicial discretion in adjudication, judiciary should be so cautious. And prime importance should be to promote social justice.
The Judiciary is regarded as the guardian of the constitution. In federal States this function is discharged by the application of the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court of India enjoys limited power of judicial review in invalidating laws made by Parliament or State Legislatures.
In fact the importance of the judiciary in a democratic society can hardly be exaggerated. Judiciary is a part of the democratic process. Judiciary not only administers justice, it protects the rights of the citizens and it acts as the interpreter and guardian of the constitution. In many states the judiciary enjoys the power of judicial review by virtue of which the judiciary decides the constitutional validity of the laws enacted or of the decree issued. It can invalidate such laws and decrees which are not constitutional.Question : My Idea of an Administrator
(2003)
Answer : Although the selection and training of good administrators is widely recognized as one of most pressing problems, there is surprisingly little agreement among executives or educators on what makes a good administrator. The executive development programs of some of the nation’s leading corporations and colleges reflect a tremendous variation in objectives.
In my opinion an administrator is one who directs the activities of other persons and undertakes the responsibility for achieving certain objectives through these efforts. Within this definition, successful administration appears to rest on three basic skills, which we will call technical, human, and conceptual. It would be unrealistic to assert that these skills are not interrelated, yet there may be real merit in examining each one separately, and in developing them independently.
The human skill is the executive’s ability to work effectively as a group member and to build cooperative effort within the team he leads. As technical skill is primarily concerned with working with “things” (processes or physical objects), so human skill is primarily concerned with working with people. This skill is demonstrated in the way the individual perceives (and recognizes the perceptions of) his superiors, equals, and subordinates, and in the way he behaves subsequently.
The person with highly developed human skill is aware of his own attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs about other individuals and groups; he is able to see the usefulness and limitations of these feelings. By accepting the existence of viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs which are different from his own, he is skilled in understanding what others really mean by their words and behavior. He is equally skillful in communicating to others, in their own contexts, what he means by his behavior.
Such a person works to create an atmosphere of approval and security in which subordinates feel free to express themselves without fear of censure or ridicule, by encouraging them to participate in the planning and carrying out of those things which directly affect them. He is sufficiently sensitive to the needs and motivations of others in his organization so that he can judge the possible reactions to, and outcomes of, various courses of action he may undertake. Having this sensitivity, he is able and willing to act in a way which takes these perceptions by others into account. With these skills only an administrator can deliver the best to the people or citizen of his country
Question : Whither Indian democracy today?
(2002)
Answer : Indian democracy is unique in itself. A few of our enlightened educated leaders felt it was the best system for a country of overwhelmingly poor and superstitious illiterate fellows. Not many scholars, gave India a chance of survival at the time of independence and still, not only have we survived, we have carved a nation which is at the threshold of a global power status in more ways than one.
Today we are the largest functioning democracy in the world and that too in a region beset by religious fundamentalism, military takeovers, instability, and communist uprisings. Question is not whether we should be proud of our democracy. The question we need to ask ourselves is, should we be satisfied the way our democracy is functioning today?
Democracy means a system of governance where people choose their leaders. The leaders in turn are accountable to the people. As opposed to a monarchy where all power is concentrated in an all powerful monarch, in a democratic polity a ruler comes to power with the trust of his people. And periodically he has to retain that trust in a competitive, open and fair contest.
India, while practising the best of democratic practices like regular elections, vibrant party system, a vocal opposition, adult suffrage etc, also exhibits those very symptoms that raise the doubts about the healthy functioning of a democracy. Nepotism is rampant. A connection to someone higher up in the system has become a status symbol.
Very often this small coterie develops into a plutocracy, aristocracy, technocracy and all other sorts of ‘elite groupings, which work systemically to undermine democracy. Working from the grassroots, this elite uses their approach to their immediate superiors to gain entry into the corridors of power.
Some of the measures incorporated like anti defection law, cap on election expenditure, disclosure of assets of candidates etc have given hope that sensible efforts are being made to restore the basic principles of democracy in our country. Still we have a long way to go. We have to understand the nature and magnitude of the problem we have to confront. No other successful democracy boasts of such varied culture, demography, practices and history as ours.
