Fostering Rule of Law in Indian Democracy

A vibrant, socially united community is promised inclusion in the ST List, in a politically expedient move before the elections. As time goes on, the community feels the promise has not been respected. A whole series of agitations are launched, buses burnt, shops looted, public property damaged. Policemen fire on the agitators, kill a few of them. A nationwide outrage ensues. Trains running across states are stopped. Effects are felt on the national capital. Opinion forums are busy debating the pros and cons of the demands and the state response. A deal is reached finally. A Single Judge commission is appointed to positively consider the demand. ‘Normality’ returns. Life goes on.

More than 5 years ago, a train carriage with passengers is burnt. In a vast danse macabre, a whole state is gripped by raving mobs carrying swords and guns. Members of a particular community are targeted for attacks. The law and order machinery of the state takes a convenient absence of leave, aligning with the political goals of the power holders. After the mayhem subsides, “normality” returns. Life goes on.

Almost 2 decades ago, a caste organization demands differentiated treatment among the backward classes. The modus operandi: Felling trees, blocking vehicular traffic, paralyzing the state. Violence continues but after a while, “normality” returns. The government is brought to its knees. It designates the caste as “most backward”. The caste outfit catapults itself as a mainstream political party on the basis of this “success”.

An interim order of the Supreme Court mandates the release of water from a reservoir to a neighbouring state. Mobs and chauvinist groups gather and take over the sluice gates of the dam. The state pleads “inability” to control the mobs and cites “possible wide spread law and order problems” as an excuse for not obeying the ruling.


On less serious occasions, a veteran Chief Minister gets upset at an interim order of a Supreme Court bench. He calls for a state wide bandh to express “solidarity” with the backward classes. In effect a state government protests against the very law and order machinery it is supposedly in charge. An opposition party leader promises “free” power to farmers. Just to sweeten the offer, he advises them not to pay their dues until he comes to power and cancel their dues. A national opposition party in the national capital plays a dubious role in persuading traders in the city to protest and disobey court orders. A Chief Minister won’t unequivocally side with the law, but hedges her bets just in case, she doesn’t get wiped off in an anti-incumbency wave.

One can go on and on and find numerous instances, when individuals and groups indulge in acts brazen defiance of the law in pursuit of political goals, at times finding themselves on either side of the fence, at times even simultaneously. Of course one cannot argue that “status quo” is good and is bound to be obeyed at all times. The very purpose of a democracy based on rule of law, is to provide a procedural, predictable way to manage changes to the status quo. Then what is unique about this agit-prop tendency in our country?

To answer this question in some detail, it is necessary to trace back our roots. “India” as a cohesive political entity in the modern era was mostly formed in the atmosphere of the struggle against the British rule. The crucible of Freedom struggle is where our nation’s modern consciousness was forged. The righteousness ascribed to the agitations against unjust British laws in particular and the colonial power in general, is still lingering.

It is worth recalling that some of the liberals such as Gokhale and Tagore had qualms about the agit-prop emotional nationalist approach and it’s unwarranted after effects. The fact that the current laws are our laws and needs to be treated differently than colonial laws is still dawning on us. Not very many appreciate that the State, the laws and Constitution are ours since January 26 1950. There has never been a clean break in the distinction in the minds of people about the nature of the State. In the early days of the republic, the two main antagonists to Congress in freedom struggle, both the right and left adopted ambiguous stands. The Left was still involved in an armed “freedom” struggle. The right contested the election of 52 on the promise of altering the constitution.

On the other hand, our institutions, laws though have remarkable continuity from the British Era. This has smoothed the transition and spared us some of the “revolutions” that were visited upon other nations emerging from colonialism but has imposed a slower and gradual pace in establishing the rule of law. The State which functions in the name of the people has been demonized, (rightly at times one can argue) lowering the mental barrier in breaking the law. This periodic demonization by groups themselves involved in the democratic process helps anti-democratic groups such as Naxalites and other extremists to gain legitimacy while deflating the moral power of the State to fight against it.

How do we then foster greater respect in the rule of law, while remaining a functioning, dynamic democracy? Two processes have to concurrently occur. 1) The definition of “ours” and “we” has to be expanded so that increasing number of people and groups feel that they are part of the establishment. 2) The process of law making and decision making should value greater consensus (that may result in gradual change in status quo) over rapidity (achieved with narrow majorities).