Commentary/ Saisuresh Sivaswamy

Cry, Freedom!

Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon is like scores of old ex-servicemen one comes across, especially in the north. Firm of build, age has left its mark on his body only insofar as the snowing of his hair is concerned. But there is a sorrow in his eyes, in this the fiftieth anniversary of our independence, which is understandable considering that he is one of India's freedom-fighters for whom the present is not what they gave their future for.

They did not give their blood, sweat and tears for the sake of a country in which an errant motorcyclist who strays on to the prime minister's route gets the third degree, while the cops who were responsible get off with a light punishment.

They did not fight for the freedom of a country in which communal violence erupts on the publication of a mere book. In which a dilapidated place of worship becomes the reason sanity, and thousands, are sacrificed to atavistic mayhem.

They certainly did not fight to live to see the day when the prime minister of the country can be changed merely on the whim of a doddering individual heading a political party in the ICU. Nor is the country they fought for one in which sharing or river waters between states creates near-war situation.

It is not one in which the prime minister of the country is unable to even introduce a path-breaking piece of legislation in Parliament, the stumbling block being not the Opposition but his own party! It cannot be one in which merit often gets sacrificed on the altar of caste and/or filthy lucre. It was not one in which the political party which led the fight against the colonisers with its swadeshi movement, turn to a foreign-born widow for its own political survival.

Having said the above, it is perhaps time to look at the future.

The future, it is said, is like a superstructure founded on the strength of one's past. If that is the case, what is the nation's future considering its recent past?

The fiftieth anniversary of our Independence, then, could be the occasion of a fresh tryst with destiny. This is essential, given that the earlier one, promised on the night of August, 1947, has been belied, the rousing ideas that motivated the country and its millions having been thrown to the winds.

To do so, it is necessary to question and redefine some of the Republic's founding ideas. Like socialism. What is the point of clinging to a dogma, especially one that has been given up for dead in its sown land of origin? In a country that is rushing onwards to meet the onslaught of Foreign Direct Investment, where is the place for anti-business thought? The thought of egalitarianism, particularly in the workplace, is a noble one, but it should not be allowed to come in the way of the nation's progress.

Since it is an accepted fact that balance of trade is the new yardstick for measuring a nation's progress and that the socialist block does not hold all the cards in this regard, this is one shibboleth that needs to be shown the door. Of course, you could retain the ideals of the ism, even while giving up the nomenclature.

Like secularism. The textbook definition of secularism is non-recognition of religion, but is that the one that fits the nation best? The question needs to be thoroughly thrashed out, now that at least one political party has raised the point and what is more, is on the threshold of federal power. The State could be non-religious, but certainly it cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that secularism is often a cover for different communities to perpetuate mostly antiquated customs and practices that will not stand scrutiny in any other part of the civilised world.

Does secularism mean that different groups of Indians will be governed by different sets of laws? Given that our founding fathers were deeply inspired by the West when they framed the Constitution, and that in the West the Church plays a significant role in the nation's affairs, surely the secularism they meant was different from the practised non-interference in matters religious that the word means today?

In a country that is so deeply spiritual as India, surely the State has a role to play in managing the affairs of religions as well? If not, why would the Supreme Court, that final repository of wisdom and hope in the country, urge the government to implement a civil code for all communities?

Like democracy. India was, is and will be a democracy, thank god for that. But a question could be raised as to the nature of this democracy. It is a matter of great pride that we are the world's largest democracy, but it is a matter of a little regret that the electorate has little role in the selection of the chief executive.

How many of us voted for Deve Gowda, or Inder Kumar Gujral, as prime minister? The fault lay in the choice of the Westminister model for the emerging republic, but then times were different. A new nation, it was felt, needed to be ruled from the Centre and a unitary model of the Constitution was chosen.

Today, as the leaders go about tomtoming the virtues of being a federal republic, perhaps the model that we should follow should be based on the tried and tested American pattern. If nothing else, that may be one way of ensuring that the government we elect lasts for its full term.

Change, of course, is central to life, and certainly those who drafted the Constitution did not expect it to be a static document. If that was indeed the case, then the numerous amendments that followed since 1950 would not have been necessary. It calls for deep conviction and a sense of purpose to realise that things are not what they were expected to be 50 years ago, and that corrective measures are needed for the country to be on course for the next 500 years.

Oh, this way too we will reach a destination, but the question is will that be where the nation needs to go?

Tell us what you think of this column