AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        57 years after we created our Republic on 26 January, 1950, we are one of the poorest countries in the world. We are one of the most corrupt countries in the world. We continue to be a weak country in terms of many known parameters. What has been our record compared with China which too started its difficult journey in 1949 after more than a century of internal civil war and external aggression? Even a cursory comparison between China and India in terms of basic economic parameters of annual production and activity will definitely force us to ask the legitimate question: Are we not a failed republic? Are we fit for responsible democracy? Have we not created a Thuggee Raj in the name of Nehruvian Secularism and one party-one family-democracy? Let me give some bare statistics in outline just to illustrate how we are a failed republic in comparison with China:

        In all basic areas, which benefit the masses, such as Literacy improvement, Population control, Health Care programs, Infrastructure development, Olympic medals, etc, China is way ahead of India. It is frightful to imagine that at the present rate of growth, it may take India more than 100 years, in most areas just to catch up with China.

        Social and economic inequality is detrimental to the health of any society. Especially when the society is diverse, multicultural, overpopulated and undergoing rapid but unequal economic growth. 'In the beginning, there was desire which was the first seed of mind,' says Rig-Veda. This desire for a healthy family, healthy society and a healthy country drives individuals and governments alike. The government is supposed to create settings that will provide equal opportunity for an individual to fulfil these desires. There is an undisputed association between this social equality, social integration and health. The effect of social integration on health is conclusively documented in the theory of 'social support'. The effect of social and economic inequality on health is profound too. Poverty, which is a result of social and economic inequality in a society, is detrimental to the health of population. The outcome indicators of health (mortality, morbidity and life expectancy) are all directly influenced by the standards of living of a given population. More so, it is not the absolute deprivation of income that matters, but the relative distribution of income. Various international studies have documented a strong association between income inequality and excess mortality.

        When these various social theories are applied to the Indian context, we notice that millions of lives millions of lives perish in India every year just on account of lack of socio-economic equality. This basic inequality has been magnified by the rapid but unequal economic growth that India has witnessed in the last two decades. Amidst the rising standards of living, lie pockets of terrible poverty and deprivation, which remain untouched by the policies of the Government of India.

        The nation has failed miserably in the areas of politics, economics and governance. Let me take up these areas one by one. There is an unavoidable feeling of hopelessness, disappointment and unease about every aspect of our politics and political system. As soon as the elections are over, and a new Government takes office (no matter what complexion and colour), the Government becomes a power unto itself. The people's interests tend to be overtaken by the power of special interests. Mancur Olson uses his famous phrase 'Distributional Coalitions' in this context to describe the problem. These coalitions are generally more interested in influencing the distribution of wealth and income in their favour, rather than in the generation of additional output for the benefit of the public. This is the real position obtaining in India today. Ministers and their bureaucrats have become authoritarian, self-centred and autocratic. Only on paper they are subject to some checks and balances by the judiciary but, by and large they are able to do as they wish. Their accountability to the public is more apparent than real - at least till the next elections.

        To quote the brilliant words of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a well-known writer on Law and Governance in India: 'The broad framework within which practices of popular authorization can be carried out remain in tact, but politics itself has become an area where norms exist only in their breach. ... The very mechanism, designed to secure the liberty, well-being and dignity of institutions, representative democracy, is routinely throwing up forces that threaten to undermine it; the very laws that are supposed to enshrine republican aspirations are incapable of commanding minimal respect, and their inaction subjects the entire political process to ridicule. The corruption, mediocrity, indiscipline, venality and lack of moral imagination of all the political class, those essential agents of representation in any democracy, make them incapable of attending to the well-being of citizens.'

        In practice the accountability of the Government in India to Parliament and Legislatures is perfunctory and minimal. Only the rituals like reference to rules of business, including regular question hours and Calling Attention Motions are duly in place and spiritlessly observed by the Government. However, as long as the Government and the political parties represented in it have a majority in Parliament, they can literally get away with anything, including ministerial corruption and harassment of persons in opposition. Political parties, small and large, are firmly under the control of one or two powerful leaders and inner-party democracy is conspicuous by its absence in most parties. Thus, in actual practice, the Government is accountable only to a handful of unscrupulous leaders of a few political parties that are represented in the Government. To crown it all, in a coalition Government, even very small party formations with a declared loyalty to a particular caste or sect, can have a disproportionate influence in determining the course of Government policies. What is the effect of all this? Parliament and Legislatures generally do what the Government wants them to do, rather than the other way round. The Government's real accountability to the judiciary is also minimal. Thus, a determined Government can more or less do what it wants - except change the basic structure of the Constitution or hand over all the cities of India to China or Pakistan or even Italy! In the UPA context, it will not be an exercise in wild imagination to say that those Indian Cities can even be handed over on long-term lease to a handful of powerful leaders of different miniscule parties forming part of the UPA coalition in New Delhi!!

        So much for our disgraceful record as a republic in the area of politics. In the area of economics, through Nehruvian Socialism (Communism) and mixed (up) economy, we created the gigantic public sector Indian economy of non-performance and Himalayan corruption. Economic strangulation of the masses became our watchword till Narasimha Rao took the decision to liberalise the Indian economy in 1991. While democracy has clearly spread to the remotest part of the country in ever-widening circles of political awareness in the remotest parts of India, yet the political system by and large has become increasingly unresponsive to the vital economic interests of the poor and disadvantaged groups.

        In the area of governance we have created the crisis of non-governance duly blessed by all the three Pillars of the State - the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Here are the words of former Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah on this subject: 'There is a fundamental breach of the Constitutional faith and their method of governance lies in the neglect of the people who are the ultimate source of all political authority. Public servants and institutions are not alive to the basic imperative that they are servants of the people meant to serve them. The dignity of the individual enshrined in the Constitution has remained an unredeemed pledge. There is, thus, a loss of faith in the Governments and governance. Citizens see their Governments besieged by uncontrollable events and are losing faith in institutions. Society is unable to cope with current events.'

        A small group of great men can always create a great Constitution. But a great Constitution by itself cannot give birth to a great people. What is the cause of all major trouble in our infant republic? Our public life is filled with self-seeking scoundrels. All the Pillars of the State are also filled with such men. I can state the truth about our republic only in the biting words of Walt Witman spoken in another context in 1880. In this context, we should not lose sight of the fact that Walt Witman was described as the great poet of American democracy by no less a savant than Emerson. Let us hear the words of Walt Witman:

        'The members who composed it were, seven-eighths of them, the meanest kind of bawling and blowing officeholders, office-seekers, pimps, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men, custom-house clerks, contractors, kept-editors, spaniels well-trained to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail-riflers, slave-catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the Presidents, creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, bribers, compromisers, lobbyers, sponges, ruined sports, expelled gamblers, policy-backers, monte-dealers, duelists, carriers of concealed weapons, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred inside with vile disease, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people's money and harlots' money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combining's and born freedom-sellers of the earth.'