11-24-2007, 01:13 AM
<!--emo&:devil--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devilsmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='devilsmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Rs 100-cr question mark over Indian democracy
24 Nov 2007, 0047 hrs IST,Jug Suraiya,TNN
Print Save EMail Write to Editor
NEW DELHI : India has joined the general outcry against Musharraf for suppressing democracy in Pakistan. Democracy would indeed be good for Pakistan. It would also be good for India. Unlike Pakistan, we have more or less free and fair, and certainly frequent, elections. But how really democratic is our democracy?
Recently, a 2,000-odd-square-foot flat in Mumbai sold for a reportedly record-breaking Rs 34 crore to a private individual. Almost at the same time, the Congress party headquarters in New Delhi were shifted from Akbar Road to a plot, on Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, the market value of which is some Rs 100 crore but which was handed over to the Congress for Rs 2 crore.
The different pricing mechanisms used in each case, Mumbai and New Delhi (the first based on free market forces, the second on state patronage), exemplifies the huge difference, the deep chasm between the private citizens of this country and any element of the sarkar that we have elected to govern us.
Various elements of the state â the diverse political parties, MPs, MLAs, bureaucrats at various levels â are given not just property/residences at humongously subsided (subsidised by us, the taxpayers) rates but are also accorded other perks and privileges not available to us, the people, supposedly of whom, by whom, and for whom successive governments have been formed since 'independence' (in fact, a transition from one set of exploitative rulers to another).
Why should the Congress â or any other political party â be given prime real estate at a throwaway price? Why should MPs occupy (and often continue to occupy even when their term of office is over) Luytens' bungalows each estimated at Rs 150 crore? If the CEO of a publicly listed company aspires to live in such style it could, and does, make front-page news.
Political parties and MPs and other state functionaries would argue that they all individually and collectively serve the larger public interest of our democratic state, while a private sector CEO serves only his shareholders, hence the qualitative difference between the sarkar and the private citizen. But aren't all private citizens (including CEOs of companies) equal shareholders in the national enterprise of the Indian republic? If so, shouldn't all citizens, all shareholders, be treated on a par? In other words, can a delivery system of democracy (the sarkar) truly deliver democracy if the basis of its functioning is undemocratic in that it differentiates between sarkari and non-sarkari citizens?
In no other established democracy (the US, the UK) do their political parties, or bureaucrats, or MPs or their equivalents (barring heads of government or the state) enjoy such privileges, denied to common citizens. Are the US and UK â or Canada, Australia, Japan, whatever â any the less democratic than India for that? Or are they more democratic?
In other democracies, does sarkari VIP movement routinely generate security bandobast that brings ordinary civil life to a standstill, often for hours?
Does any other democracy boast the counterpart of a Robert Vadra (national Son-in-Law No. 1) who's given super-security protection at the taxpayer's expense and is excused from being frisked at airports even though ordinary citizens (which in this instance include the defence chiefs of staff) aren't accorded such a sign of respect?
So by all means let us in India root for the return of democracy to Pakistan. And hope for its emergence in India, in some not-too-distant future.
(Readers are invited to suggest issues of general interest â political, social, cultural or economic â for discussion in this column. E-mail the topic of your choice to secondopinion@timesgroup.com. Or write to Second Opinion, The Times of India, 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110103.)
Rs 100-cr question mark over Indian democracy
24 Nov 2007, 0047 hrs IST,Jug Suraiya,TNN
Print Save EMail Write to Editor
NEW DELHI : India has joined the general outcry against Musharraf for suppressing democracy in Pakistan. Democracy would indeed be good for Pakistan. It would also be good for India. Unlike Pakistan, we have more or less free and fair, and certainly frequent, elections. But how really democratic is our democracy?
Recently, a 2,000-odd-square-foot flat in Mumbai sold for a reportedly record-breaking Rs 34 crore to a private individual. Almost at the same time, the Congress party headquarters in New Delhi were shifted from Akbar Road to a plot, on Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, the market value of which is some Rs 100 crore but which was handed over to the Congress for Rs 2 crore.
The different pricing mechanisms used in each case, Mumbai and New Delhi (the first based on free market forces, the second on state patronage), exemplifies the huge difference, the deep chasm between the private citizens of this country and any element of the sarkar that we have elected to govern us.
Various elements of the state â the diverse political parties, MPs, MLAs, bureaucrats at various levels â are given not just property/residences at humongously subsided (subsidised by us, the taxpayers) rates but are also accorded other perks and privileges not available to us, the people, supposedly of whom, by whom, and for whom successive governments have been formed since 'independence' (in fact, a transition from one set of exploitative rulers to another).
Why should the Congress â or any other political party â be given prime real estate at a throwaway price? Why should MPs occupy (and often continue to occupy even when their term of office is over) Luytens' bungalows each estimated at Rs 150 crore? If the CEO of a publicly listed company aspires to live in such style it could, and does, make front-page news.
Political parties and MPs and other state functionaries would argue that they all individually and collectively serve the larger public interest of our democratic state, while a private sector CEO serves only his shareholders, hence the qualitative difference between the sarkar and the private citizen. But aren't all private citizens (including CEOs of companies) equal shareholders in the national enterprise of the Indian republic? If so, shouldn't all citizens, all shareholders, be treated on a par? In other words, can a delivery system of democracy (the sarkar) truly deliver democracy if the basis of its functioning is undemocratic in that it differentiates between sarkari and non-sarkari citizens?
In no other established democracy (the US, the UK) do their political parties, or bureaucrats, or MPs or their equivalents (barring heads of government or the state) enjoy such privileges, denied to common citizens. Are the US and UK â or Canada, Australia, Japan, whatever â any the less democratic than India for that? Or are they more democratic?
In other democracies, does sarkari VIP movement routinely generate security bandobast that brings ordinary civil life to a standstill, often for hours?
Does any other democracy boast the counterpart of a Robert Vadra (national Son-in-Law No. 1) who's given super-security protection at the taxpayer's expense and is excused from being frisked at airports even though ordinary citizens (which in this instance include the defence chiefs of staff) aren't accorded such a sign of respect?
So by all means let us in India root for the return of democracy to Pakistan. And hope for its emergence in India, in some not-too-distant future.
(Readers are invited to suggest issues of general interest â political, social, cultural or economic â for discussion in this column. E-mail the topic of your choice to secondopinion@timesgroup.com. Or write to Second Opinion, The Times of India, 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110103.)