REVIVING THE ORIGINAL BUT ABANDONED CONCEPT OF INDIA

REVIVING THE ORIGINAL BUT ABANDONED CONCEPT OF INDIA

By

Colonel Pankaj Bhagwati

17 Ocotber 2019

Prologue        15 August every year is celebrated by us Indians as the day we gained our political Independence from the British throwing away the yoke of imperialism. But it was an independence of sorts, when nearly the entire North of India was being devastated by the effects of partition. For the first time in recorded history was a decision responsible for mass migration & slaughter at such an epic proportion. Three men namely Louis Mountbatten, Mohammed Ali Jinnah & Jawaharlal Nehru, by their actions (or sometimes lack of it) presided over an upheaval that put the Mongol Hordes to shame. The cataclysm has scarred the collective psyche of the subcontinent so severely that generations will be born with the scar tissue still prominently discernible. The root cause behind the decision was the misplaced concept of equating religion to civilisation. With a lawyer’s flair in his character, Jinnah successfully argued that Hindus & Muslims comprised two different civilisations that would be unable to stay united & therefore had to be divided politically. He, through his last ditch effort of ‘Direct Action’, precipitated an orgy of communal violence and set into motion a sequence of activities that culminated in the birth of Pakistan.

A Distracting Discourse.      While most of us are aware of the nuances of history as I enumerated above, the continuation of the above discourse and its subsequent impact, large or minute, in every aspect of our everyday lives has taken our attention away from the original concept of India and what we individually personify as being civilisationally Indian. Our lives and the focus of our nation today is cluttered with the entropy of communalism, regionalism, castiesm, language and many others that strive to accommodate within the centralised notion of India. But, without the concept of India being clear, personality based assumptions create the disharmony that we witness today. Hence, we have Tamil Nadu that detests the imposition of Hindi as a language, the Kashmiris fighting for their unclear version of independence, the Nagas for secession, the Bodos within Assam fighting for autonomy, the Manipuris against the Army & the Nagas, the Tripurites against the Bengalis, the Naxals wanting to overthrow the elected government and so on and on.  

Geography or Polity

So what is India, and what is the concept of India? To answer this question, I need to once again regress to history. After all India is an ancient land; probably even the cradle of civilisation - a statement that may annoy the history buff, but can yet be debated with candour. Some proponents of British rule state that Britain unified India. But, India as a land has always existed millennia before the British arrived. Shashi Tharoor in his book ‘An Era of Darkness’ argues that unifying forces always existed in India. Right from the time of Ashoka the subcontinent was loosely unified under various empires. The Kushanas, the Guptas, the Cholas, the Mughals or the Marathas all unified India to some extent in different time periods. If some parts of India were left out, certain other parts were included. Robert D Kaplan in this seminal work titled ‘Revenge of Geography’ stated that culturally and historically Northern India was more connected with Afghanistan than it was with the Deccan or the Southern Kingdoms. On the other hand Sanjeev Sanyal in his book ‘The Sacred Geography of India’ stated that the process of Aryanisation is still ongoing with the Northern Hindi speaking people of India making inroads into the parts of Southern and Eastern India. But India as a land has always been identifiable due to its geographic and cultural contiguity despite its dynamic political boundaries.

To understand the issue better we must all for once be analyse it in a dispassionate manner divorced from popular rhetoric. Delhi was never the capital of the Cholas, or the Cheras, or for that matter the North Eastern part of India under the Ahoms, who were never politically united until the British. So today, when apparently Centre sponsored diktats seem to invade perceived realms of regional governance it results in dissonance. On the other hand, most of India does not detest the alignment with Delhi, which traditionally has always been the seat of the dominant power. Even after the decline of the Mughal Empire, it was customary that requests for succession in local kingdoms (including the Marathas) were sent to the Mughal emperor despite his titular status. It was this acceptance in the national conscience that the Rebels of the East India Company declared Bahadur Shah Zafar as their Emperor.

Today, the national identity of India has well sunk into all its subjects. Cognitively, there is no clash in the people in terms of regional versus national identities. Despite Nehru’s fears that the linguistic division of states would lead to balkanisation of India, it did not happen and the tricolour is equally respected in Kerala as it is in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Assam or any other part of India. But yes, we still continue to remain divided over numerous issues. Is this division the bane of India; an apprehension that was echoed by Lt General Abhay Krishna in the Doctrines & Strategy Seminar conducted in August 2019 in the Army War College? Or can it be an advantage, and does it point towards a direction about the true nature of our national entity?

Our Ancient Character.      India is vast and ancient land. The culture of India has traditionally been of complete individual independence. There could be atheists (nasthisk) and there were the believers (aasthik). All were accepted in the society. Differences in viewpoints always exist and were to be respected. The process of ‘Vaad-Vivaad’ (argument & counter-argument) in our culture encouraged presentation of different opinions through the medium of debate. Never were differences in viewpoints ostracised. Communities were inherently independent economically and administratively. Local tax collectors even until the Mughals were free to pardon the yearly tax of citizens in case of distress or occasions such as marriages or calamities. Gurcharan Das in his book ‘India Grow at Night’, states that the traditionally strong Indian society prevents the Government from overstepping its mandate. Pluralism too is ingrained in our culture and history. Hence it is not odd that you find an African Tribe in Gujarat, Jewish settlements in Manipur & Kerala, churches more antique than those in Europe, the largest population of Zoroastrians etc. It may surprise some of us to learn that Queen Cleopatra’s first choice for exile after being defeated by the Romans was Kerala. To summarise, India historically has been the ethnic melting pot of the world (a concept now portrayed by the USA).

Alien or Indigenous. Have we ever wondered why we celebrate only one Independence Day? Why do we not celebrate the day when the Mughal Empire ended (after all the Mughals were originally Uzbeks)? Or let us say, the day when the British defeated the Ahoms in Assam in 1826 (as Ahoms were also foreigners from Burma). What about the Afghans defeating the British in 1842 (Kabul was a part of India during the Mughals). The reason is simple. Though all the invaders were foreigners, all of them, excepting the British, melted into the Great Indian civilisation pot. They settled into the land, adopted its customs and procreated within its masses adding to its diversity but working towards its unity. This is the demographic and cultural tradition in the concept of India. This is what is reflected in the oft used phrase ‘Unity in Diversity’. Only the British maintained exclusivity, debarring interracial marriages. Over thousands of years and hundreds of empires, we Indians have witnessed numerous power centres across the length and breadth of our country. Each one of our 731 districts has a different tale to tell along with rich unique traditions and culture. We are different, and yet are also one. Like different organs in a body, we are culturally unique and different, yet we are all connected together by our endeavour to support the larger body of India to which we all belong. It is this ‘Diversity’ that is now being targeted with a falsely misconstrued notion justifying a single identity. We are not a Han China. The essence and beauty of India though thousands of years has been one of diversity. Let us not try to undo it as it will make us into a ‘Torn Country’ (Samuel P Huntington in Clash of Civilisations).

India’s Decentralised Heritage

Localised Governance.        For thousands of years India has been ruled by various monarchies. Monarchies exercised their power through nobles and local rulers. Directly answerable to the public these local rulers maintained their areas and promulgated self governance. Decentralisation of areas with respect to administration, tax collection, welfare and infrastructure ensured the best for the people. It allowed local communities to grow, minorities to be protected, investments to be fastracked and public works to be scrutinised. Every little locality matured into a region of excellence. This is how India until the 1500s retained the highest share of Global GDP. Despite invasions and changes in dynasties, these institutions of local governance remained. This is why, in spite of political changes throughout its history, India never was categorised as a poor nation.

British Impact on Governance.       After the British arrived, they broke this system of local governance and instituted the centralised bureaucracy, so that taxes could be collected more efficiently. The focus changed from being people-centric to be government-centric. This is why the head of administration in a district was called “District Collector”. Every decision and rule enshrined was framed so that the government could govern easily, rather than the citizens who could benefit. As a result, urban areas with government establishments in vicinity developed while the rural heart of India degenerated. This policy and system of the British was adopted hook-line & sinker by us. The result is clear for all to see. Even today, every action enforced by the government of India is government-centric where the government benefits and the people suffer. The need for a citizen to obtain approvals from government agencies right from the time he is born to the time he dies is so numerous, restrictive, time consuming with deliberate bottlenecks that the citizen remains forever subservient to the wishes of the state without ever being able to realise his true potential.

Benign States.           Not all parts of India were so unlucky. There were enlightened rulers of princely India which were able to make great progress despite the back-breaking taxes imposed by the British. By retaining the time-tested ancient system, states like Patiala, Travancore, Vadodara etc were able to maintain life-standards at par with most European nations of that time. These states carried out massive infrastructural development, social reforms, instituted educational hubs at par with the best in the world. The bluff of the self-serving, demented rulers of India was only applicable where the British had displaced the traditional ones and installed puppets of their choice. Again, contrary to popular belief that language and ethnicity were fundamental to becoming representatives of the people is also misplaced. Meritocracy was the important factor. Gopal Swamy Iyengar (a Tamilian) was the prime-minister of Kashmir under Maharajah Hari Singh; Maurice Emygdius Watts a Londoner was the Prime-minister of Travancore during the regency of Sethu Lakshmi Bai.

Flawed Parliamentary Democracy

While it was being debated which system India should adopt after independence, the choice was between the American Presidential system and the British Westminster model. Clement Atlee suggested the American system stating that it was more suited due to the fact that our states and districts are larger than most nations. However, Indian suspicions that the British would only want the worst for India made us adopt the British system. Today millions of Indians have sometimes no representation in the Parliament. Worse, millions of Indians do not know whom to hold responsible for the mess they find themselves in. Absent and unapproachable legislators and the non-available executive has throttled the lives of millions of people due to the absence of governmental access around which our entire system is built.

Population Bane?     There are voices that argue that the huge population is the reason for India’s poverty. This is perhaps the most absurd reasoning. More population translates to more working hands and implies more manpower available for development of every unit of land. More the people, more the taxes collected, faster the infrastructure built, greater the economic life-force and faster the development. However, whose fault is it that we do not have adequate schools? Who is responsible for the abysmal standard of education? It surely cannot be the fault of excess population. Dr Reddy’s hospital near Bangalore gives affordable world-class medical health-care at very low prices. A CT scan costs Rs 500/- and a bypass surgery is performed at Rs 2500/-. It is the volume of patient traffic that makes it possible. If it was possible at a private clinic, why is a government hospital not able to do so? Is population really a problem?

Ushering Change: Unleashing the Districts

So what is it that has missed the eye? What is it that fundamental issue that if changed can bring about a reversal in the manner our country has been progressing? How can we change governance from being government-centric to being people-centric? The answer is surprisingly simple. It is the ancient Indian system of self governing communities. Mahatma Gandhi understood the concept & institutionalised the Village Panchayats. But he left it to us to carry forward the concept. For starters, we can unleash our districts which are much more homogeneous and make them more independent. By an act of constitution, grant the districts the power of states. We will have 731 states. So what? Which other nation in the world has 16 percent of the world population in 2.4 percent of the area? Another change will be to amalgamate the executive and the legislative. It seems ridiculous that those chosen as representatives and the ones who execute are different entities. This will make those who are elected more accountable to the public. What would happen if the districts which are smaller in terms of area and population and therefore more handle able in terms of administration are unleashed?

Decentralisation.       Decentralisation has very little pitfalls. In a vast country like India, we cannot have the approach that ‘one size fits all’. Imagine each member of a family surrendering your entire salary to the village elder so that all in the village could benefit! If all districts are given complete independence within the larger framework of the Union of India, they will be much more responsive and efficient. Those with better systems will do well and those without will be forced to change by their people. More accountable local governments will be pressurised to make intimate & visible reforms or face the brunt of the community directly. It will also infuse a spirit of healthy competition within neighbouring districts. Local achievements and successes can be better projected which today are lost in the cacophony of National discourses and counter-narratives.

Independent Districts.          So what should be a district look like? With millions of citizens in each of our 731 districts, each one is a small country to itself. A district with the power to make its own laws (in coherence with the national intent), have its own courts, collect it own taxes (with a small defined portion given to the centre), make its own infrastructure, run its own hospitals and schools, bring in foreign investment, indulge in its own Research & Development, generate its own revenue will be much better able to address its own problems and leverage its potential. Each district can then transform itself into regions of excellence. Best practices in one district can be emulated and readily incorporated by others depending upon their applicability. Gone will be the calls and disturbances/ insurgencies for autonomy. These districts can also carry out their elections divorced from the National election, thereby disassociating local agendas from national ones.

Centre’s Role & Relevance. But what about the national identity? What should be the relevance of the Centre? The centre should only focus on National agendas. Its responsibility should be restricted to Defence, Foreign Policy, National Infrastructure, Disaster/Calamity mitigation and as a watchdog for ensuring that districts do not flout the framework of their charters. Some markers for the framework within which the districts should function are as below:-

(a)               Respect the Flag and the Constitution of India.

(b)              Ensure no discrimination under religion, region, caste, language or colour.

(c)               Follow and adhere to National Policies on Defence, Foreign Policy, Infrastructure & Environment.

(d)              Ensure no embargo on the flow of goods, vehicles, businesses or natural resources from other districts.

(e)               Pass no law or discriminate against movement/migration/residence of people from any part of India.

Will decentralisation lead to balkanisation? I believe not. The people of each district should have a say in the National issues. National elections must be held periodically with universal suffrage from the districts.   The reduced responsibilities of the centre will also result in the reduction of a large number of portfolios at the National level. This reduced strength of ministers should automatically move to the upper house of the parliament. The elective representatives of each district should form a part of the Lower House of the Parliament to discuss National issues put forward by the National Ministers who would now be in the Upper House. Likewise the Upper House of the Parliament would need to be reshuffled and brought back to the concept it was designed for comprising of technocrats.

Epilogue    

This is an idea I had for long which evolved & matured over years of academic research & tempered by witnessing the political landscape of our Nation for the last many decades. I have deliberately not gone into the details of each aspect as it would make the article too lengthy and is actually the subject fit for a book. The concept of India has historically been one of complete economic & cultural independence. We are a ‘Unity in Diversity’. Our pluralism has been our strength that has added sumptuousness to our cultural depth & heritage. This is a legacy that we cannot forget and should not sacrifice it coloured by Western ideas of Nationalism. The growth of India and her multitudes of diverse population are destined to happen provided we understand our roots and imbibe the time-tested methods enshrined in the richness of our history.