I was in Delhi when I heard a person, in an assertive voice, telling another person standing just beside him that “see, you know that rule of the majority has reasons to take mala fide decisions however the rule of law cannot and shall not and rather it invalidates such decision.” I went closer to that person and heard now that another person is saying ‘are you trying to indicate that rule of the majority which Mrs. Indira Gandhi was enjoying?
Which rule imposed emergency and implemented arbitrary nationalization of Banks?” That person said ‘precisely Yes but generally No’. He further said that ‘Democracy attempted to ruin India but Republic saved her.’ My bus arrived and I went away. I wanted to clarify from that person that I understand the rule of the majority means Democracy but what does rule of law indicates, is it Republic? I started wondering and let us see what I found.
We must note that Republic does not only merely mean that the head of the state is elected but not selected, it is more than that. Just consider that a law does not become constitutional because it is passed by the majority i.e. passed democratically in Parliament but it becomes so when it does not violate anyone’s right including the rights of the minority.
What is the meaning of the word Republic and Democracy?
The word republic is derived from the Latin term res publica, which means “public thing”, “public matter”, or “public affair”. Whereas, Democracy means rule of the people i.e. rule of the majority.
And therefore, Republic operates in the interests of the public but not the majority which Democracy does so. Therefore, Republic declares the power lies with the people whereas Democracy confirms power lies with the majority.
We have limited Republic to two counts:
We celebrate Republic day on January 26, 1950 on two counts.
First- The Constitution of Bharat as a whole came into force on 26 January 1950.
Second- For a public declaration of the INC made on 26 January 1930 that this day shall be celebrated as Independence Day which was so declared for complying with its resolution of December 19, 1930, declaring that now the Indians will accept only Purna Swaraj but not Dominion status.
However, we do not celebrate Republic on the ground that it saved us from the peril of democracy i.e. tyranny of the majority.
We forget when Mrs. Indira Gandhi wanted to elevate herself above the law, it was this democracy which supported her because she was enjoying the support of the majority whereas the Republican Bharat protested because she wanted to cowed down the supremacy of the rule of law which the Republic prohibits so.
And resultantly she failed to make the law constitutional which declared the election of the Prime minister cannot be challenged except before the special courts. And who is the representative of Republican Bharat? One may say- of course the President of Bharat!!. I argue No, the constitutional courts of our country. Why so? The president has assented whenever Mrs. Gandhi has attempted to put her above the law, but the country’s Supreme Court has not, on the ground that the rule of law is supreme but not the law of the ruler.
The Republican Bharat guarantees the Rights of the people, guaranteed by the supremacy of the rule of law which the democracy of Bharat attempts to tinker with via its majority in the Parliament, and Republican Bharat has entrusted the duty of enforcing such guarantee upon the Constitutional Courts.
We do not appreciate the spirit of the PURNA SWARAJ Resolution. You tell me does the existence of a democratically elected government confirm that the country is independent? During the last phase of British rule, there indeed was democracy as Indians were allowed to be elected in the legislature but can I say that at that time India was an independent country?
An election is too small to make a country Independent. Governance for the public makes a country Independent and governance is respecting the rights of the people guaranteed by the supremacy of the rule of law.
The birth of the Bharatiya Republic can be traced from the very resolution of Purna Swaraj. The event which preceded such a resolution needs to be emphasized.
Lord Irwin, via Irwin Declaration, declared that India will soon get dominion status which is India will be independent but she still has to be under the sovereignty of the queen. Congress accepted such. However, Lord Irwin has to terminate the declaration because of the protest in England.
This termination inspired the weary and teary Congress to claim Full Independence. Therefore, Purna Swaraj and Dominion Status both are not the same. Let us see how PURNA SWARAJ did not emphasize Democracy but Republic.
Para no.1 of the PURNA SWARAJ Declaration:
‘We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or complete independence.
We shall note that the said paragraph does not talk about the form of government i.e. how the government would be formed whether by election or selection; it laid emphasis only on the rights of the people by using the word inalienable thereby it talked about republic but not democracy.
The declaration of Purna Swaraj was followed by the Karachi resolution of 1931 by the Congress which only enumerated the fundamental rights that the people of India shall have, it remained silent on the form of government, and therefore, when these two documents read conjointly, it lays down the bedrock of Republican Bharat but not Democratic Bharat.
You may be surprised on finding what Dr. Ambedkar had to say on the last day of the constituent assembly. On November 25, 1949, in his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, Dr B R Ambedkar remarked about the potential and pitfalls of life after January 26, 1950,
‘On the 26th of 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 recognising 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 is Assembly has to laboriously built up.’
We shall note that Dr. Ambedkar was indeed apprehensive about the fruits of political democracy which is- everyone can vote for anyone but the party having the voice of the majority shall prevail therefore letting go of the voice of the minority unnoticed and unheeded.
Dr. Ambedkar noted that we have not secured economic and social equality. Therefore, political democracy which is our representatives are elected but not selected does not confirm social and economic equality. He cautioned without such equality, political democracy will be at peril. However, Dr, Ambedkar did not mention how we can bring economic and social equality.
Can democracy bring social and economic equality? I argue No because it is standing on the will of the majority but not of ALL.
Therefore, the question is who secures economic and social equality. I argue that the Republic secures so.
Article 17 prohibits and punishes untouchability. Article 15(1)/(2) declares where untouchability is prohibited namely in public places. Article 18 declares that everyone is equal irrespective of how distinguished he/she is by abolishing title. Article 26 declares that every religion even if the minority can do anything religious howsoever peculiar it is, except it is not against the law strengthened by Articles 29 and 30 which conjointly declares any person following a distinct culture distinctive to the majority can protect its culture and any minority can establish its educational institutions against whom the state cannot discriminate while giving aid to the other secular institutions.
Do not you think these rights are indicative of a republic that concerns itself about the public but not the majority, and therefore the rights are not the product of democracy?
Now coming to articles 15(4)/(5) and 16(4)/(4-A) which burden the state to uplift, by reservation, the socially and educationally backward people which consequently in most cases makes a person economically backward although it does not give the right to such people to claim such right. Articles 39(a) and 46 burden the state to strive for equality.
Do not you think these provisions are been drafted to keep a check on the domination of the majority thereby a check on too much democracy leading to mobocracy?
Therefore, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not the product of democracy instead they are the product of the Republic.
I have always asked myself a question which is why not congress made Bharat a Constitutional Dictatorship with some trappings of democracy at the cost of eliminating a republic that could have constitutionalized dynastism? I am told that Congress could have done so as they were in the driving seat after the departure of the British but they had not because they loved democracy. I wonder that if the congress is so democratic then why Subhas Babu has to resign from the post of congress president?
I argue that the congress could not have made a Bharat that is non-republic because the Congress has estopped itself by demanding from the British a Republican Bharat where people would have rights with an elected head at the top which the British government cannot give by continuing its rule in Bharat as Britain, by very definition, is a government by Monarch at the top, followed by the elected. And therefore, the force of the Congress was a demand for a republican government but not a democratic one.
In the objective resolution presented by the Panditji before the constituent assembly, the opening lines thereof were “(1) This Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India as an Independent Sovereign Republic and to draw up for her future governance a Constitution;
Therefore, you would find that there is no mention of the word democratic which we find in the Preamble of our Constitution. Therefore, I contradict the popular notion that the quest for democracy has brought Independence, and I argue that the dream for Right guaranteeing Bharat thereby establishing a republican Bharat was the dream of the Congress.
We shall note that our Preamble records that we have made Bharat the Democratic Republic. What does that mean? I argue that Republic is the Noun described by the Adjective Democratic. Republic is an ideology where people are having rights guaranteed by the supremacy of the rule of law implemented by a democratic form of an elected government. Therefore, the form may change but nature can never change.
The existence of Democracy in a country does not confirm the existence of a Republic therein and thereby does not confirm the rights for all however Republic confirms the rights of all and simultaneously also confirms the existence of democracy as the head of the Republic is elected but it may be regulated Democracy may not too much democracy leading to mobocracy and I call upon all to re-engineer the Republic day to get it celebrated as the day which confirmed that Republic will stand tall not still like democracy to save us.
‘Republic is the forest where democracy is a tree; therefore you shall at least be here to see trees but not a tree’
