‘In Defence of the Republic’ by Constitutional Conduct Group: Alert, contemplative, courageous

Avijit Pathak

There is something more to democracy than the carnival of periodic elections. If democracy tends to degenerate into some form of electoral autocracy, we ought to be alert, and remind ourselves of the fundamental values of democracy — say, the nuanced art of reasoned debate and meaningful dialogue, the presence of a vibrant civil society, the art of living with cultural and religious pluralism, and above all, the humility on the part of the state machineries to listen to people’s needs and grievances. However, amid the triumphalism of militant Hindutva, the aggression of hyper-nationalism, and the carefully crafted cult of narcissism, we realise the intensity of the threat to the ideal of India as a democratic Republic.

Hence, it arouses hope that the Constitutional Conduct Group — a group of former civil servants of the All India and Central Services — has chosen to remain alert, contemplative and courageous. In fact, as I read the letters they have written, or the statements they have made, I tend to agree with Aruna Roy — one of the contributors of this volume — when she invokes George Orwell, and reminds us that “in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”. Indeed, these civil servants do no escape from the truth as they say that “the pathology of hate and division pursued by the present ruling establishment… has led to the collapse of values on which our Constitution is based”. Let me quote from a courageous letter they wrote to the Prime Minister on April 26, 2022:

“The threat we are facing is unprecedented and at stake is not just constitutional morality and conduct; it is the unique syncretic social fabric, which is our greatest civilisational inheritance and which our Constitution is so meticulously designed to conserve, that is likely to be torn apart. Your silence in the face of this enormous societal threat, is deafening.”

Likewise, in an open letter written on January 7, 2023, they demanded “stern action” against Pragya Thakur for her hate speech — the way she urged the Hindus to keep their vegetable knives sharp so that “those knives could be used to cut off the heads of those indulging in love jihad”. Be it a letter to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, or an open letter to the corporates, or a letter to the Election Commission, or, for that matter, an open letter to the citizens of India — I realise that they have kept their conscience alive, and I see their deep concern for protecting the spirit of democracy from the tyranny of majoritarianism, the virus of the propaganda machinery disseminated through heavily compromised and manipulated media houses, and associated fear of electoral malpractices.

These argumentative interventions remind us of the growing “assault of an arrogant, majoritarian state”, and the way “civil society activists striving to defend the sacrosanct principles of secularism and human rights are subjected to arrest and indefinite detention under draconian laws that block our statute book”.

Apart from these 75 politically and culturally-sensitive letters and statements, what has further enriched the book is a set of essays written by some of our distinguished scholars, activists and journalists like Apoorvanand, Anjana Prakash, Anjali Bhardwaj, Pamela Philipose, Madan Lokur, Aakar Patel, EAS Sarma, Neera Chandhoke, Rebecca Mammen John, GN Devy, Prerna Singh Bindra, Harsh Mander, Julio Ribeiro and Siraj Hussain. From their insightful reflections, let me take two illustrations in order to invite the reader to the text. First, let her/him feel the intensity of Madan Lokur’s anguish over the state of the legal system in the country:

“Remember Stan Swamy — a patient of Parkinson’s? He was denied a straw and sipper, and had to approach a court for this. Think about it — should such a matter have ever come to court? Was any action taken against the jailor who refused the straw and sipper? Was any action taken against the investigating officer who instructed the prosecution lawyer to oppose the request? Was any action taken against the judge who gave 20 days to the prosecution to file a reply?”

Second, if you and I really want to heal this wounded Republic, it is important to contemplate on the danger of what Neera Chandhoke has described as “democratic backsliding” in contemporary India:

“The delivery of social goods as personalised benefit, not as public goods that characterise the welfare state, the development of a major cult of personality, and demagoguery that seems to sway audiences have been accompanied by the elimination of rights that protect citizens against the power of the state… This is democratic backsliding.”

Is it time to wake up?