The Great Speeches of Modern India

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

  Her duty done, Charu comes back to the bedroom. For a few moments she is undecided what to do. This, of course, is an inevitable aspect of boredom. One has time on one’s hands, but is frequently at a loss to know how to use it. Charu briefly admires her handiwork, then picks up a book from the bed, ruffles through the pages and puts it down.

  She now comes out of the bedroom, and once again proceeds down the verandah towards the outer apartments. Apart from the obvious fact of Charu’s restlessness, these comings and goings in and out of rooms help to establish the plan of the first floor of Bhupati’s house where most of the action will take place. In a story like Charulata, the setting itself is a character, and must be established as carefully in all its details as any human participant in the story.

  Charu now comes into the drawing-room and picks out from a bookcase a novel by Bankimchandra. This is the third motif: Bankim will prove to be a common link between Charu and Amal.

  Charu has already reacted to a monkeyman’s drumming which is heard from somewhere in the neighbourhood. Idly turning the pages of the novel, she makes her way to her husband’s study which lies in the direction of the sound of drumming. She goes to a window in the room, raises the shutters and peers out—and there is the monkeyman in the house next door.

  This gives Charu an idea. She scurries out of the room, comes back to the bedroom and takes out a lorgnette from a drawer. This lorgnette is the fourth motif, and will feature in a crucial later scene with Amal.

  As she hurries back to her husband’s study swinging the lorgnette in her hand, the camera follows the object through the verandah railings. Precisely, the same viewpoint will recur in a very different context when a triumphant Charu will make a headlong dash for Amal’s room, this time swinging in her hand the magazine which has published her article.

  The monkeyman is now brought up close as Charu observes him through the lorgnette. But the man goes away, and Charu now turns to another window. This one gives on the street. This time Charu has a glimpse of a palki, which is followed by a fatman who carries a lot of sweetmeats dangling at the end of a string. The man goes out of view, but Charu, anxious to stay with this amusing character a little longer, rushes to the drawing-room and follows him through three successive windows until the man turns a corner and is finally lost to sight.

  It was important to stress this playful aspect of Charu, because this is where she is farthest from her staid husband and closest to the youthful, exuberant Amal.

  Charu has now reached a point where she is once again undecided what to do. The first musical motif is introduced here: a line of melody which will be associated with Charu, and which now unfolds as Charu makes her way pensively to the piano. She lifts the lid and casually strikes a note. But she is immediately distracted by the sound of booted footsteps from the verandah.

  We now see Bhupati in his shirtsleeves, stomping busily down the verandah towards the bedroom.

  Charu comes out of the drawing-room and stands by the door, looking the way her husband has gone, her chin resting on the hand holding the lorgnette. She knows her husband will return, and sure enough he does, this time with a fat book in his hand, his eyes glued to an open page.

  He stops by Charu for a moment to turn a page, then walks on without noticing her. Charu keeps looking at the receding figure. Then, in a playful gesture, she brings the lorgnette up to her eyes. For a brief moment Bhupati is brought up close before he goes out of sight down the staircase.

  Charu removes the lorgnette from her eyes and keeps looking for a few more seconds towards the door through which her husband has just gone out.

  Then her hand with the lorgnette flops down. We now know that Charu is resigned to her state of loneliness. And this brings the scene to a close.

  Lowering the voting age to eighteen (New Delhi, December 1988)

  RAJIV GANDHI (1944–1991)

  The announcement contained in this speech was of obvious significance for Indian democracy as the lowering of the voting age immediately increased the size of the electorate. Rajiv Gandhi was young and his image had a special appeal for youth. The change made a huge number of young people participate in the democratic process. What was surprising is that despite the enormity of the decision it did not stir up a controversy. Nor did it win plaudits for Rajiv Gandhi.

  Let me say at the outset that the legislation that this government has brought, is a major legislation as it is aimed at strengthening the roots of our democracy. Our Indian democracy is unique in many ways. It is a unique experiment which is of global interest. It is the first time that a diverse society, with diverse cultures, with ethnically different people, speaking different languages, inhabiting different regions, professing different religions, and having different castes, has been brought under one democratic system. In a sense it is the microcosm of the world as also a demonstration to the world that the democracy is possible amongst a diverse society such as ours which can be a model for an international democracy for people to live together on the globe.

  During these forty years, the experiment of Indian democracy has been extremely successful—perhaps, the most successful in any developing country—and I would like to thank and congratulate the people of India for the success of this experiment.

  During these forty years, we have learnt a number of things and some weak areas in our system have become noticeable, and it is necessary to correct these areas. This Bill, for the first time in forty years, addresses itself to major issues relating to electoral reforms. This government started the process of bringing about electoral reforms, by first bringing the Anti-Defection Bill. We followed that by regulating donations from companies, by altering the Companies Act. We followed that by bringing in a Bill to prevent the misuse of religious institutions. This is the fourth step that we are taking during this Parliament.

  This bill addresses a number of areas. I won’t go into all the details. The law minister and other members have covered those details. But these are some areas that I would like to touch. One of the most significant areas that this Bill goes into is to preserve secularism in our country.

  It is important to spend a minute on why secularism is important. It is important for us to understand what we mean by secularism, because there are some amongst us who, under the label of secularism, want to destroy religion. Our secularism is not anti-religion, nor is it for destroying religion. We must be very clear about that. I would like to say categorically that anybody who thinks that secularism means the destruction of religion or an anti-religion act, is doing a disfavour to the word secularism, is doing a disfavour to our nation; and some who believe in that, should revise their thinking, because it is dangerous for our country.

  Secularism is essential because, in a pluralistic society such as ours, it is essential to separate politics and government from religion. If we do not do so, we run the gravest risk of disintegrating the country and destroying our nation. Perhaps the effect will be much beyond just the effect that it will have on the nation. We will lose the nation; but the world will lose an experiment in building one humanity. So, the repercussions are much greater than even those affecting our nation.

  The path that Gandhiji and Panditji have put us on to, and Indiraji took us on, has much greater goals than just those limited by our boundaries; and we must not limit our vision by our boundaries. Our vision must go beyond. So, secularism is one key word, and it is essential that secularism is brought in every area of our activities. Elections and the electoral process is one such very important area.

  We took the first step when we brought the Bill for preventing the misuse of religious institutions. In this Bill, by requiring the political parties to submit themselves to the Constitution of India, we are pushing them further towards the secular goal. I feel here it is important for me to say that when we push people towards secularism—and I am saying push people, and not force people, because when we start forcing, then things snap; people take hard decisions. We must coax them and brin
g them into the mainstream, and that is what we are trying to do. We could have taken a very hard stand. I have gone through the proceedings of the House. Some members feel that much stronger action have been brought in. This was considered by the cabinet.

  We went into it in depth and, in balance, we felt that it was better to tread softly along this path, because if we try to force, we may end up in a situation where we will isolate a large section of our population and deliberately cause fissiparous tendencies to develop. We have adopted the way of pulling the people into the mainstream and convincing them that this is the right way to go. We believe that by making political parties submit themselves to the Constitution of India, we are only strengthening our electoral process, our democracy and our nation. And any party that is not willing to submit itself to the Constitution of India does not deserve to be recognized as a political party…

  An hon’ble member from the Opposition and an hon’ble member from our side have recommended an amendment to bring in the full provision of the Misuse of Religious Institutions Bill. We thought that it was already included, but, perhaps, it was a little soft; it was covered, but not completely. I have asked the law minister to bring in a government amendment because there are some technical problems in the wording of the two proposals. We will bring in a government amendment to cover this area and I would like to thank both the members…

  Another very important aspect of the bill is the protection that we have sought for the weaker sections when they go to vote. As I said, our electoral system, our democracy have functioned very well. But there are certain weak areas; and one of the weak areas is that the feudal elements prevent the weaker sections, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the minorities, the women, from going out to vote. Sometimes they are prevented from leaving their homes; sometimes they are prevented from actually getting to the booths by the feudal elements. This is, of course, one of the reasons. By making booth capturing a cognizable offence and by making both capturing a corrupt practice, we feel that the hands of the weaker sections will really be strengthened. We have also listed a number of crimes which, if committed, will debar people from contesting an election. We have mentioned specifically those crimes which are antisocial and which are demeaning of the dignity of a particular section of the people. It is, again, the weaker sections against whom these crimes are committed and it is our earnest endeavour to protect the weaker sections by bringing in these provisions.

  One major step that we are taking is reducing the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen.

  We have full faith in the youth of India. The youth of India have demonstrated their wisdom, their maturity in panchayat elections, local body elections, and we feel that they are now ready to participate fully in the democratic process. This amendment will bring in almost fifty million people into the electoral system.

  There has been another area where there have been some differences between what some parties have felt and what we have felt; what we have brought in and what has been the question of the multi-member election commission. We have full faith in the election commissioner and we feel that anybody who wants a multi-member election commission seems to have some doubts about the election commissioner. We have no doubts about the integrity and independence of the election commissioner and going to a multi-member election commission, we feel, would have meant that we doubted the integrity of the election commissioner in some way. We have no doubt about the integrity…

  Having said that, let me also say that there have been a number of occasions when the decision of the election commissioner has been contentious. The Opposition has not agreed with many decisions and has made issues. We too have not liked many decisions and have made issues. But the fact is that it has been fairly universal and we have found that the election commissioner was tied down by the lack of powers he had. We could keep complaining. But because the system was as it was, he was not able to do even what he wanted to do. So, we have thought that instead of going for a multi-member commission, like has been suggested by certain parties, we would instead strengthen the hands of the election commissioner because we have full faith in him. This bill strengthens the hands of the election commissioner and for the first time perhaps the election commissioner will have the powers to deal with the task that has been given to him.

  One more question had come up on identity cards. When we discussed this in the cabinet, we very clearly gave our affirmation. In fact, we have cleared identity cards. We will have multipurpose—whatever they are—identity cards. There are some problems on how it will be handled administratively; what it will cost; how we will bear it and how we will deal with these two areas. But we will start the process now. Because of the size of the country, the size of the electorate and the other complications, we cannot say that we will complete the whole process before the next elections or according to a time schedule, but I am very keen that the process is put into motion rapidly. In the initial stages we will have to learn in the process of putting this through, but we would like to see that it gets through quickly. We will overcome the difficulties and we will try and have identity cards as soon as possible.

  Amongst the many points that have been raised during this debate I would like to refer to only two: the first is state funding. The problem is not whether there is state funding or not. The problem as I understand it, is the question of the money power in elections, let me say very clearly from experience. I am very clear that our people are much too clever and much too wise to be misled by money power. Never has money power been the deciding factor in an election in this country. This is my feeling. If some people feel that our electorate can be misled by money power, I think they are totally wrong. It is only the politicians who sometimes feel that by spending more money they can do something. But our electorate is much too wise for that. state funding in no way changes the amount of money that is being used. In fact, it will only increase the amount of money that is out there for electoral use. It will not reduce the raising of money for elections in any way. So, I do not see state funding tackling the issue of the cost of elections in any way. If it did, we would have brought it here. But, I do see a need for trying to reduce the cost of elections. If the hon’ble members have a positive suggestion on that we will definitely consider it. But nothing concrete has come to us on that issue yet. Let me once again say that I am very clear in my mind that we cannot buy the electorate of India. The electorate of India is much too independent and wise for that.

  Sir, the second point that was raised—I think it does need addressing—is, some members have felt that this Bill has not addressed the core issues and has addressed only the peripheral issues. Well, I feel some of these members are suffering from what could best be called peripheral myopia.

  Let me say very clearly that this Bill is a major Bill. It is a major electoral reform. I would go to the extent of calling it historical and revolutionary, and significantly, we have brought it in the centenary year of Panditji. It will strengthen the roots of our democracy and it re-establishes the faith of the Congress in the youth of India and in the wisdom of the people of India…

  Panchayati raj (New Delhi, October 1989)

  RAJIV GANDHI (1944–1991)

  By pursuing in earnest the project of institutionalizing village self-governance through panchayats, Rajiv Gandhi was carrying forward an idea that was close to Mahatma Gandhi’s heart. Even though Nehru and Indira Gandhi had not been too keen on panchayats, the process had made significant advances in West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Rajiv Gandhi, as Prime Minister, attempted to give a national dimension to the process. The political calculation behind it was that it would enable Congress governments at the centre to bypass hostile state governments and give money directly to the people. This was one of Rajiv Gandhi’s most important political contributions and the process continues albeit at a slower pace than what he would have liked.

  I have been following with the closest interest this important debate on the Panchayati
Raj and Nagarpalika Bills. These constitutional amendments, which I had the honour to introduce at the last session, are of truly historic and revolutionary significance. It is, therefore, not surprising that the debate should have been sometimes stormy, sometimes incisive, sometimes reflective, but at all times lively. I wish to thank all members on both sides of the House for the important contributions they have made to this debate which is bound to adorn textbooks on constitutional history for many years to come.

  By and large, it appears to me there is general acceptance of the need for maximum democracy and maximum devolution. What is disputed is matters of constitutional jurisdiction, political propriety, electoral motivation, and legislative detail. Allow me, madam, to deal with each of these apprehensions in turn.

  It has now been well established in both Houses that there can be no doubt about the Union Government’s competence to introduce these constitutional amendments. We have displayed the utmost rectitude in not impinging upon the essential constitutional relationship established between the union and the states. Our basic aim is to secure constitutional sanctity for democracy in the panchayats and nagarpalikas and devolution to them of adequate power and finances to ensure the people’s participation in the development process.

  First, we have left entry five of the State List exactly as it is and where it is. The competence of state legislatures to deal with all municipal legislation relating to rural and urban local bodies has not been tampered with in any way. Second, care has been taken to so draft the constitutional amendments as to leave it entirely to state legislatures to draft the law on the subject, and state governments to formulate and pass the necessary orders to realize the objectives of these, constitutional amendments. The only point I would wish to stress is that all municipal law has to conform to the provisions of the constitution. These two amendments, when passed, will set the constitutional stage on the basis of which state legislatures will undertake detailed legislation…