Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 14

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Fundamental weaknesses of present day democracy

Successful governance of a country requires the services of multiple professionals with specialized qualifications and experience at the top level. This basic requirement has been ignored for the top functionaries of government in almost all countries.  Functions of policy making, enactment of laws, planning and implementation of projects and overall governance have been usurped from qualified professionals by politicians without the required specific qualifications under the  claim that they have been elected by people!! How can this absence of qualification for governance be justified even if the claim is true?  Moreover, this claim is completely hollow because of the basic defect that people who elected them did not have the knowledge and expertise needed to select efficient persons with specialized qualifications and experience to enact laws, make policies and govern the country!! This lack of knowledge and expertise among people becomes deplorable when large numbers of people are illiterate or do not have even a moderate level of general education. Just imagine what will happen to a patient if the surgeon is selected by people or to a dam, bridge or house if the engineer is selected by people or to delivery of justice if judges are selected by people and so on!! Selecting top managers of governance by people is bound to have similar atrocious consequences. It is significant that such calamities have not occurred only because the multiple professionals responsible for governance have been selected by specialized institutions manned by highly qualified selectors with many years of experience. In sharp contrast, the political leaders who have to supervise these expert professionals are selected by people without requisite knowledge and expertise!! This topsy-turvy situation is a fundamental weakness of democracy as practiced at present.

Fortunately, even though people were least competent to select efficient persons to run a democratic government, they had awareness enough to distinguish between the bad and the worse and throw out the latter who, they knew, had failed miserably to meet their needs and aspirations. They have also refused to be fooled by the high decibel propaganda about high growth rate which has benefited the rich but not the poor. This awareness, which had received praise after general elections,  has so far saved our democracy from crumbling down further and ruining our country by cautioning such politicians that their misdeeds will not be tolerated indefinitely and rejecting bad governance - the so called incumbency factor which is a reflection of this awareness. Despite their frustrations, this awareness has also kept in check revolutionary violence for the time being. Further frustrations may burst the dam!!

A second fundamental weakness pointed out in Article 2 is that  peoples’ representatives have seldom been elected by majority of people and do not generally have the support of even 50% (often much less) of the people  in their constituencies!! 

A third fundamental weakness  is that there is no system to assess the efficiency of performance of political leaders every year as is regularly done even for the qualified professionals involved in governance.  This topsy-turvy discrimination is obviously illogical and risky. It is also not realized that this discrimination is actually down-grading politics as a strange profession which can be practiced by anyone (even without basic education) without being assessed for efficiency!!  The only “peculiar assessment” called for by this strange profession is that some people (not even majority), that too without knowledge and expertise of governance, consider their governance as satisfactory, that too once in five years (not annually), even if it has not fulfilled their needs and aspirations. This has been achieved by using the power of their oratory to mesmerize people to blindly believe that they are their benefactors. Ironically, this situation has been continuing for such a long time that no questions have been asked.

Moreover, this situation makes a mockery of education and training and also the need for assessment of efficiency of performance. The message conveyed by this is that these important practices may be allowed to continue but used only to make a justification whenever called for!!

It may be argued that increased GDP growth rate has proved the efficiency of this distorted system. This argument is faulty for two reasons:

(1)It ignores that growth has not been inclusive and poverty, hunger and malnutrition of children continue to be rampant. Inflation is stifling; food prices are spiraling; infrastructure projects have slowed down; manufacturing sector is in dire straits; petroleum prices are constantly increasing; the rupee has collapsed; fiscal deficit is high; the rich are becoming fabulously richer; and even the high growth rate is dwindling. Moreover, governance by non-professionals (politicians) has not only resulted in these shameful situations but also to complete callousness in rectifying these shameful situations. (Many more examples of shameful situations faced by the country are given in a later article.) The single track pursuit of growth rate and other misplaced priorities have been at the expense of welfare of people. All these clearly show that except for growth rate, which has resulted in a sense of complacency, the system has hardly achieved anything substantial to speak off for welfare of people.

(2)There is a strong possibility that if the qualified and experienced professionals, who formed the back bone of governance for many years, had been allowed to govern the country without interferences by politicians for selfish and party interests, the situation could have been much better and shameful situations could have been avoided!!

These fundamental weaknesses of present day democracy form the twenty-second and most important obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

Three fundamental weaknesses have been pointed out above:

(1) People are least competent to select efficient persons with specialized qualifications and experience to enact laws, make policies and govern the country   because they do not have the required knowledge and expertise.

(2) Politicians who have usurped power from qualified professionals under the  claim that they have been elected by people have seldom been elected by majority of people and do not  generally have the support of even 50% (often much less) of the people in their constituencies!! 

(3) There is no system to assess the efficiency of performance of political leaders every year as is done for the professionals involved in governance.

The incompetence of people to select suitable leaders  emphasized under (1) above gives further justification to the suggestion in Article 2 that we should seriously consider an alternative for the election system because it has failed to elect true representatives with majority support of the people. Therefore, considering both (1) and (2) above, the only solution is to find an alternative for the defective election system.

Meanwhile, the elected representatives should be given the necessary basic training before they start functioning as MPs, MLAs or Panchayat members so that they can do justice to their work at least in a semi professional manner. It                                      is desirable to train some of them to work as specialists in a field of governance of their choice to qualify as professionals in governance. It is pertinent that, unlike for political leaders, basic training is a normal practice for all persons recruited for civil and military services before they are given responsibilities!!

With regard to (3) above, at the end of each year, efficiency of all elected representatives should be objectively assessed and those not performing efficiently warned to improve, as suggested in Article 3. If the elections are held only for those who become inefficient in later yearly assessments or cross a prefixed age limit or voluntarily retire, as suggested in that Article, the training period for new political leaders will not affect much the continuity of governance because the majority of political leaders would have been already trained as suggested in the preceding paragraph and working more efficiently because of yearly assessment of efficiency.

A better alternative to overcome these fundamental weaknesses may be to thoroughly overhaul the system using a professional approach, which is badly needed. This aspect is discussed in detail in another article

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome this very serious obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 13

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Large states -  a hindrance to democracy

Efficient administration is virtually impossible in large states. For example, a minister or head of department in a large state will not have time (without neglecting other work) to make adequate number of visits to all districts for discussions, supervision etc. even once a year. Many aspects of good governance will suffer in many parts of a large state in the absence of frequent intensive supervision which is essential for efficient administration. Due to such inadequate attention by government machinery, people in some parts of a large state feel that they receive only step motherly treatment. Moreover, people in many parts of a large state are unhappy that they have to waste more time and money to visit the capital of the state to sort out their problems with government. As a result of such inadequate interaction between government and people, large states are less efficient in satisfying the needs and aspirations of people.

Diversities are more common in large states. The resulting intra state rivalries between different identity groups have made functioning of democracy more difficult and ineffective in large states.  

Dissatisfaction and frustrations within various identity groups is increasing day by day in large states. This has led to increased conflicts and disintegrating tendencies. Because of pent up deep dissatisfactions and frustrations people in large states have often resorted to acts of violence even at the drop of a hat. Other law and order problems also become more difficult to handle in large states.

All these show that democracy will function better if we divide the country into optimal small states. USA with much smaller population has many more states!! Following this example of a modern flourishing democracy it is worthwhile for India to have more than 50 states. The situation is so bad that some states have large populations which exceed the population of some countries!! Because of a laissez-faire attitude, our democratic Parliament and government have not given thought to improving our democracy by having optimal small states only.

Disgusted identity groups have been mounting pressure again and again for carving out small states of their choice from large states.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Government has not realized that such disgusts have mounted up in many parts of a large state only because of its callousness or inability to carry out investigations throughout the state to ascertain the reasons for these and to educate and pacify people. Hardly any attempt has been made to ascertain the will of the people in different areas spread across large states because of a defeatist mentality arising from the enormity of the problem. Due to inadequate attempts to tackle or meet aspirations of people, violence and terrorist activities had steadily increased in many parts of large states. After prolonged delays which had caused lot of heart burn and violence resulting in destruction of properties and even life, government was forced to ultimately carve out small states out of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. Yet, government is not prepared to see the writing on the wall. It has not cared to apply its mind to ascertain the optimum size of a state to have a successful democracy in different demographic situations.

Despite facing many problems, government does not have the vision to apply its mind to carry out studies to foresee possible divisive and destructive developments and act to forestall unhappy events or to understand the emerging needs and aspirations of local people.

As pointed out in Article 6, government considers listening to people as a sign of weakness instead of strength of a democracy. This intolerant attitude is anti-democratic and shows a know-all dictatorial approach. It proves beyond doubt that government gives only lip service to democracy and do not at all care for democracy, while ironically boasting that it functions as a democratic government. It has not realized that the real strength of a democratic government lies in its ability to (1) listen to people, (2) accept useful ideas and (3) act on these with vision and commitment.

Because of a laissez-faire attitude, it blindly waits for things to happen and adopts in haste only haphazard piece meal approaches, that too after allowing agitations to build up and cause damages. It has not cared to study the advantage of forming small states in a democratic manner before agitations come up. It refuses to recognize the realities and is hanging on to straws (like a drowning man), with a conservative approach.

Large states have more MPs and are able to put more pressure to derive additional benefits for their states or to block developments in other areas to spite their neighbours and to show off their superiority. This makes people in smaller states unhappy. Such biased treatments which give better opportunities to some people and treat the others with a step motherly attitude are against the principles of democracy.

Thus, having large states causes dissatisfaction among people in both large and small states and results in an unsuccessful democracy.

These aspects form the twenty-first and most serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

To overcome this serious obstacle, another States Reorganization Commission should be set up immediately with definite instructions to ascertain the optimum size of a state to have a successful democracy in different demographic situations and carve out small compact states (may be with approximately two crore population each to have more than 50 states) which can satisfy the needs and aspirations of different identity groups to the maximum extent possible. Emphasis should be on creating a true democracy to satisfy people by having more homogenous small states. Additional expenditure required to set up and maintain these states should not stand in the way of having a true democracy. People want government to spend public money to meet their needs and aspirations and not according to its whims or to waste as at present. Moreover, it is pertinent that with more states, while over head expenses will increase, there will be considerable savings in travel expenses, administration etc. which will reduce the additional financial burden to a large extent. Some possible ways of reducing expenditure due to forming more states is suggested in a later article.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome this very serious obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 12

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

National integration

Ideally, India should have a democracy which attends to the needs and aspirations of people all over the country. But the situation is very complex and intricate because of wide spread diversities. The feeling that we are all Indians with at least a substantial number of common needs and aspirations is lacking in the country. This has resulted in multiple sets of needs and aspirations which have to be satisfied by a democracy. State wise, language wise, religion wise, caste wise and tribe wise alienations in individualities stand in the way of common needs and aspirations. Wide gaps in economic status also divides the country into distinct groups with vastly different individualities, needs and aspirations. Unfortunately, this is made worse by activities of political parties which often encourage diversities in individuality by creating conflicts to serve their selfish interests. These make the situation very complicated with regard to needs and aspirations to be met by a democracy. Therefore, the needs and aspirations of people can be ideally met only by a federation of multiple democracies and not by a unified democracy. The fact that such multiple units of democracy, if at all they can be made functional, will criss-cross and clash with each other makes the situation extremely complicated and difficult to manage. Therefore, it is more realistic to strive for developing a national democracy which satisfies the needs and aspirations of maximum number of people to the extent possible, with special stress on the have nots who need democracy most, unlike the haves who can manipulate to have a good quality of life. The situation can be assuaged to a large extent only by a well planned and actively implemented national integration programme. This is the only way to develop the best possible democracy for the whole country.

But, attempts at national integration have not succeeded even after many years because of a bureaucratic approach with least priority, which has been sporadic, patchy and ineffective due to lack of vision and commitment. Hardly any attempt has been made to identify institutions which have been struggling to reduce alienations in individualities and support these or to identify and motivate some institutions to do so, because of lack of vision and commitment. There is an urgent need to systematically plan and actively implement multiple innovative strategies to progressively improve national integration, in a mission mode.

These aspects form the twentieth serious and complicated obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

To overcome this obstacle, national integration with a vision should be implemented using multiple strategies, in a mission mode. Thinking out of the box for innovative ideas is absolutely necessary.

One way is to have planned inter state migration by encouraging  people, who feel frustrated in  carrying out their visions or to have a good quality of life because of inadequate support from their surroundings, to shift to another area. To the extent possible, alternate choices should be offered to them to choose from. Each state should have an annual target for this and systematically identify, educate (by quoting successful migrations) and motivate persons, to meet the target. This planned inter state migration has the additional advantage of reducing tensions in the former areas by removing frustrated persons. The receiving states will welcome this if it solves their problems like lack of particular types of labour force, new type of enterprises, improvement in trade, additional cottage industries etc. It is pertinent that such types of unplanned migration have taken place and have resulted in inter mingling of people from different places, without any serious problems in the receiving states. A happy “give and take” approach among the concerned people has been strengthened. For example, thousands of people from Bihar and Kerala are working in many states and many thousands from North-eastern states can be found in cities like Bangalore.

A positive approach is to encourage such migration. For this, those who are prepared to migrate (particularly relatives and friends of those who already migrated) should be given financial and other supports and other incentives to do so. An easy way to identify such frustrated persons is to opt for religious and linguistic minorities. This should be strictly avoided because it is against the spirit of integration. Economic advantages and/or improvement in quality of life should be the guiding factors for migration. A systematic proactive approach with patience will yield substantial improvement in national integration quite soon.

Inter caste, inter religious and inter state marriages should also be encouraged by giving substantial grants to such couples. Honour killings and other anti-national and immoral atrocities which stand in the way of such marriages should be tackled through educating people and giving adequate grants also to the families of the couple and to village panchayats for each such marriage. Award for panchayats (including wards or residential associations in towns and cities) with maximum number of such inter marriages should be instituted. People should also be educated about the genetic advantages of such inter marriages.

School children and college students should be regularly taken on “know your country” education trips to areas with a different culture so that they can understand and appreciate different cultural practices. This will help to develop a national identity among children and young people. Incentives should be given to schools and colleges which undertake such “know your country” education trips, by way of grants, travel concessions etc.

As stated earlier, state wise, language wise, religion wise, caste wise and tribe wise alienations in individualities stand in the way of common needs and aspirations. Attempts should be systematically made to have dialogues with the leaders of such groups to motivate them to enthuse a national identity in their groups by educating them and emphasizing on them that there is no clash between national and group affiliations. Wherever a perceived clash continues educative dialogues should be continued to amicably remove the misunderstandings. Prestigious state and national awards should recognize individuals and institutions excelling in promotion of national integration.

There are fields such as sports, arts, music, dance and entertainment in which the above type of alienations are negligible. Priority should be given to encourage such activities through out the country to speed up national integration. An additional benefit is that such activities help people to forget their worries for some time and feel happy

Multiple languages in the country complicate the problem. A common national script for all languages should be adopted to mitigate this problem.  Mastering a new script is the most difficult part of learning a new language. Once proficiency in the common national script for all languages is achieved, it is easier for people to learn other languages and enjoy the richness of the literature in other languages of their choice. The fact that people are able to read many words which are common to many languages (particularly because of their Sanskrit origin) makes it even more easy. This will lead to better understanding of different cultures. When people travel from one linguistic state to another, they often face difficulties because they are not able to read the names of places, roads, eating places, bus routes and their destinations, travel direction sign boards etc. If these are written in a national script all over the county, these difficulties will be overcome and tensions on inter state travelers will be reduced. Because all people have to learn the new national  script, there will be no complaints about anyone group getting an advantage over another as happened when attempts were made to propagate Hindi as the national language.

It is important to have a change in mind set to provide adequate funds for all these schemes on top priority basis in order to achieve the worthy aim of national integration, which is essential to have a successful democracy.

In addition to the above, if a variety of serious innovative attempts are made to make it easier for people to mingle with each other, they will understand each other better and a feeling of nationality will develop.

All these emphasize the need for planning and implementing multiple innovative approaches to promote national integration, with determination and a sense of commitment to a mission mode. This will have a definite impact on making the needs and aspirations of people less complex and reduce conflicts to have a democracy  which satisfies maximum number of people in the country.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome this very serious obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 11

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Judicial system

In a democracy, fool-proof arrangements have to be made to provide affordable quick justice to all people. Providing faultless  justice is another crucial requirement. The present judicial system has failed in both these aspects, as explained below. There are some basic faults which can be removed only by a totally fresh approach.

Affordable quick justice:   Lakhs of cases have been pending in courts for many years and denying justice to lakhs of people. A truly democratic Parliament and government would have given highest priority to rectify this serious problem. Instead, a callous laissez faire attitude with least importance to provision of quick justice has been adopted for many years. This has to be condemned outright as a blot on our democracy. Because government, politicians of questionable character and influential persons/ organizations are defendants in many of these cases, one can even suspect that they have a vested interest in delaying these cases.

One of the main reasons for piling up of cases is shortage of judges. Parliament and government have not been sincere enough to tackle this problem. The meager allocations made are due to low priority and not lack of resources. While government has all along been claiming lack of resources, it had “chosen to forgo tax revenues amounting to Rs. 5 lakh crores a year through tax concessions to corporate entities and the rich in the past two or three Budgets.” (Deccan Chronicle dated 1-10-12) A scheme named Sonia Gandhi Go Shiksha Yojana has been running for over eight years and almost Rs. 8,000 crore of tax payers’ money has been spent in the name of teaching traffic rules to cows!! (DNA dated 6-10-12). Government was prepared to spend Rs.30,000 crores to bail out Air India so that rich people can fly. Spending even a part of the huge  amounts given to such lower priority schemes would have been more than sufficient to have adequate number of judges to provide quick justice to  lakhs of people. People want a democratic government to spend their money to meet their essential needs (e.g., justice) and not according to its whims or to help the rich!!

Some fast–track courts were set up in 2000 to speed up justice. But, out of 1,734 such courts only 976 are functioning now because of lack of funds (The Hindu dated 17-08-14, page 1).This also shows lack of priority given to speeding up justice.

Recommendations made by judicial commission were not implemented and gather dust. Similarly, Administrative Reforms Commission and the Committee that reviewed the Constitution had stressed on setting up special benches in High Courts for disposing of poll suits within six months. But in August 2012, the Law Minister stated that at least 76 petitions challenging elections to legislative assemblies between 2010 and 2012 were pending disposal. This has resulted in number of lawmakers continuing to function and enjoy privileges though their eligibility for these is doubtful. Ignoring these and other recommendations questions the sincerity of Parliament and government in providing justice.

Supreme Court (SC) is also partly responsible for this dismal situation. As the Statutory Authority responsible for providing justice, it should have warned government that the low priority given to providing funds and its unhelpful attitude to ensure quick justice are against the spirit of the Constitution. It should have demanded appointment of more judges and staff by reducing wastages repeatedly pointed out by auditors and by avoiding expenditure on projects that are less important for people. There have been many scams resulting in loss of huge amounts of money. Years back, Late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had cautioned that benefit of about 85% of money spent on projects for rural development has not reached people.  This wastage is still continuing. All these and more enormous wastages of tax payers’ money still continue without even a semblance of efforts at least to reduce these. SC should have emphasized that all these show that low priority and wastage are the main reasons for not appointing more judges and staff to clear backlog of cases to help people.

It is universally accepted that justice delayed is justice denied. When lakhs of cases were pending for years and lakhs of people were suffering from delay of justice, the courts enjoyed vacations regularly. They have allowed themselves this distorted privilege which no other department has. This heartless attitude is anti-people and reminds one about Nero playing the fiddle when Rome was burning!  Callousness on the part of judges is crystal clear.

Because of a laissez faire attitude judges have not applied their mind to identify and remove archaic procedures followed for many years. For example, when there is an appeal against a lower court judgment, the higher court often refers the case back to the lower court for review. This procedure leads to avoidable increases in number of cases at the lower court (which already has huge arrears), besides delaying justice and increasing financial and other burdens on litigants. Moreover, when either of the litigants appeal against the second judgment of the lower court, as often happens, it results in double work for the same case in the higher court. Further delays and additional expenses for litigants again occur. These could have been avoided if the higher court had applied its mind in the first instance itself and given orders. A careful study of all procedures and making necessary changes to quicken justice are long overdue.

It is well known that bulk of our people cannot afford to fight for justice even at one level. Provision of indiscriminate opportunities for repeated appeals is made use of by rich people or organizations. They also employ senior lawyers paying exorbitant fees and matching this is beyond the reach of most people. This makes it almost impossible for most people to get justice. Neither Parliament nor government nor judges have sincerely applied their mind to this problem.

The above aspects depict the seventeenth serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

Overcoming this serious obstacle needs a complete change in outlook resulting in a well staffed and reformed judicial system which can ensure quick justice to all people and not for rich people only. For this, a thorough review of the working of the judicial system should be carried out by an independent body with adequate expertise and its recommendations should be immediately implemented in toto. Any rejection should be confirmed by both houses of Parliament.

Budget should make adequate provision for appointing sufficient number of judges and staff to clear backlog of cases. To avoid budgetary constraints, SC which is a statutory authority, should be empowered to make the budget for the judicial system and present it directly to Parliament. Providing justice to all people is so fundamental in a democracy that other budgets should be pruned by government, if necessary, to ensure quick and affordable justice.

Because justice is now beyond the reach of common people, costs incurred should be subsidized to help poor people to get justice. Alternately, a graded system for court fees and other expenses attuned to income levels and provision of free lawyer services of good quality to those who cannot afford to match the lawyer services engaged by the rich should also be thought of. The possibility of a few persons misusing this arrangement should not be an excuse for denying this to bulk of the people. The resulting loss will be much less than the huge wastages which now occur without being questioned.

Providing faultless justice: Another matter of serious concern is that transparency of courts is being increasingly questioned by people. Article 10 has highlighted that, on an average, about 90,000 persons had complained to NHRC every year about violation of human rights. Many thousands more were likely to have complained to the State Human Rights Commissions. About two-thirds of these complaints were not examined by NHRC. As explained in Article 10, in the absence of required break up of the above data, it is reasonable to presume that majority of this enormous number of violation complaints arose from perceived denial of justice by courts. This also indicated that lakhs of people did not have faith in judgments by courts and appealed to HRCs!! This is a serious blot on our judicial system.

When a complainant sought file notings and reason for judgment, SC stated that it does not maintain any records such as file notings or reasons for judgments and nobody has the right to question this. If any other government organization functioned without keeping records or with such complete lack of transparency, SC would have passed serious strictures against it. The double standards are alarming.

This deplorable attitude that people do not have freedom to ask for the grounds for a judgment  is out right anti-democratic. This shows that the court treats with contempt the basic principle in the Constitution that people are the masters in a democracy!! Thus, SC which ought to uphold the Constitution is violating it.

An article in Times of India dated 28-07-14 stated: “”Justice is not a cloistered virtue” said Lord Atkin. “It must suffer the scrutiny and outspoken comments of ordinary men.” It quoted Justice Makandey Katju as saying “Now it is the people who are supreme (see Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’) and all state authorities, including judges, are nothing but their servants.” Therefore, not furnishing the grounds for a judgment is an act of contempt of people who are the masters in a democracy.

Another act of contempt of people by SC is that letters to SC from ordinary people are not answered.

The increasing number of allegations of judicial misconduct emphasizes the need for investigation. For example, “Prized placements in offices of top lawyers are easily obtained by wards of judges.” (Such judges may feel obliged to top lawyers). “The most damaging secret is that the legal profession has remained cloistered and oligarchic, and in this the bar is as guilty as the bench.”(DNA dated 28-01-14).

There is a general impression that judges are prone to “listening” to senior advocates while passing judgments. This also needs to be investigated. If true, one possible reason can be that these advocates are more knowledgeable and efficient in providing justice. Can there be other reasons? Can it be that there is a nexus between top lawyers and judges? If so, lack of transparency is their necessity.

The above aspects depict the eighteenth and very serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

Overcoming this serious obstacle needs immediate action to provide complete transparency of judicial verdicts and to change the attitude that judges are the masters and can do anything without being questioned. Reasons for judgments should invariably be given in a language which people can understand and feel convinced. Letters to  SC by people should be answered promptly.

Basic defects: The dismal functioning of our justice system is also due to basic defects in the system. A retired judge of SC stated: “A radical transformation of the robed brethren has become necessary.”…“the law of interpretation that the judiciary adopts tends to favour the haves, not the have-nots. The social structure and the fundamental character of the instruments of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary have political character” (The Hindu dated 29-12-13, page 13). 

Our justice system is a remnant of British rule. It is archaic and complex. It is also not people-friendly.

An aberration in the judicial system which is not in tune with democracy (in which people are the masters) is that judges have to be addressed as “Your Lordship” or Hon’ble or similar terms, while other officers are addressed as “Sir”. This is a remnant of the British rule.   Logically extending this point further, it is incongruous that people (the masters in a democracy) have to address government officers as “Sir” and bow before them as second class citizens. Is not equality in status enshrined in our Constitution? Can we not agree on a word for addressing each other with mutual respect irrespective of positions held?

Basic defects and complexities in our judicial system is the nineteenth and most serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

The urgently needed radical transformation of the judicial system can be effected in two ways:                                                                                                                                                                               

One approach is to think out of the box and ask many basic questions to reform the judicial system and make it quick, faultless and people-friendly.  For example, when a person wants to seek justice why can’t he/she file a petition in writing in ordinary paper (with or without help from a lawyer) and send it through post to a judge and save money and time? To file a petition why is it necessary for the petitioner to pay fees when provision of justice is an essential function of democracy which has to serve the peoples’ needs?  Why is it necessary to argue civil cases in a court of law in stead of the judge, who is well versed in laws of the country, disposing it off himself/herself, after discussing/seeking clarifications from both parties (with or without help from a lawyer) to clarify matters? Why ask both parties to a case to engage lawyers to argue before a court of law when a qualified judge is capable of considering all legal aspects of the case and can provide justice without being side tracked or biased or mesmerized by clever lawyers? Does not the court system in which lawyers tell judges about legal aspects, question the legal knowledge of judges and their ability to take a fair decision themselves, without help from lawyers? In case a judge feels the case is complicated and feels the need for legal opinion to make sure that all aspects have been properly considered, why can’t he/she seek it formally from one or more colleagues and take a joint decision in stead of constituting a bench and delaying matters? Similarly, when appeals are made, can’t these be disposed of by senior judges without constituting a bench and bringing in lawyers? Can we find a way to avoid indiscriminate appeals which delay justice? Will not abolition of the court system reduce the cost of providing justice incurred by both people and government?

Why is it that there is no uniformity in interpretation of laws among judges and lawyers? Is it not essential to redraft the laws to avoid or at least minimize differences in interpretations?

Why did even experienced judges and legal experts, who know the complex and time consuming nature of the system, adopt a laissez faire attitude and did not think out of the box and ask lot of questions to simplify the system? Are they afraid that simplifying the system will be against their interests? If legitimate interests are affected, how can this be compensated?

If the system is simplified based on answers to many relevant questions including those given above it will speed up justice and reduce the cost of providing justice.

A better approach is to replace the current British model with one based on democratic principles and our culture. If people are the masters they should be made the jury also by giving judicial power to panchayats to form the first level of the reformed judicial system. Such a democratic practice which was in vogue earlier in many places can be studied and modified to make it more systematic and fool-proof. These will turn out to be peoples’ courts delivering quick justice and avoiding back logs. Historically, India had many rulers like Asoka and Akbar who had dispensed justice with equanimity and earned the praise of people. Checks needed at higher levels for providing justice under the reformed system should be evolved after a careful study of the practices by these rulers and modifying these to suit modern environment and technology. Such a judicial system, which takes into account democratic principles and our culture, will deliver quick and faultless justice in tune with our culture.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome these very serious obstacles are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.