10/16/2014

The Hindu : Are we a soft state?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Tuesday, August 29, 2000

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home
Features | Previous | Next

Are we a soft state?

THE RECENT autonomy resolution passed by the

Kashmir Government brought out the soft underbelly of
the Indian state. People have criticised the government
for not acting in a mature and decisive manner. The
government should have been strong enough to have the
resolution considered by Parliament or at least by a
committee or a group of Ministers. But if it rejected the autonomy resolution for reasons which
one can surmise, why did it buckle under adverse criticism and agree to meet the Kashmir Chief
Minister so soon after rejecting it? People see this as a manifestation of the country being a soft
and weak state.
The term `soft state' was first used by the noted economist Gunnar Myrdal in his classic book
The Asian Drama in the context of South Asia for the inability of the states to implement their
economic plans and programmes efficiently and effectively. Now the term has acquired
additional dimensions of meaning that subsumes a comprehensive collapse of even the most
basic functions of the state. A contemporary political commentator Atul Kohli has aptly drawn
attention to the paradox of the enormous expansion of the state power in India at the same time
when its powerlessness to act effectively is equally obvious.
Take several incidents or events that show the softness of the Indian state. The country has had to
suffer from a series of strikes which have crippled the functioning of the government. There are
strikes by the banking personnel, by the telecommunication or the airlines staff, by the truck
drivers and by sundry organisations including electricity, government unions, teacher unions, etc.
http://www.thehindu.com/2000/08/29/stories/13290831.htm

1/4

10/16/2014

The Hindu : Are we a soft state?

In most, if not all, such strikes, the government, the Central or the State, buckles under the
combined pressure of these unions and the different political parties which usually support these
strikes and lead to closure or slow- down of work. Whenever such strikes take place and are
resolved, usually by giving hefty pay hikes or other benefits, it is only the organised sector which
benefits. The unorganised sector neither gets the pay hikes nor improvement in their working
conditions.
A proper balance
Political parties like the CPI and the CPI(M) usually support such strikes and closure of work and
help in the negotiations with the management or the government. But since these parties do not
particularly care for the unorganised sector, the latter has perforce to look for other spokesmen.
Parties like the CPI(ML) or the PWG step in and often use tactics which are outside the pale of
the law and this leads to violence, bloodshed and rigid postures on both sides. The United
Kingdom was also beset with prolonged strikes before and after Ms. Margaret Thatcher became
the Prime Minister. But she introduced legislation so that these strikes and closure of work
became difficult, if not impossible. A government must strike a proper balance between
legitimate collective bargaining rights and public interest or common good.
The recent events in which the Christians have come under attack of some unlawful and criminal
elements have brought out the vulnerability of the Indian state. These attacks are barbaric and
should be condemned unequivocally, but why should the government be so apologetic? Why
should the Prime Minister, when he went to Italy recently, act in such an apologetic manner, as
newspaper reports would suggest? In a recent BBC World news broadcast, there was news of two
clashes - one in the Philippines and the other in Indonesia between the Muslims and the
Christians on a particular day in July. There was no news about the President or any leading
government official of these countries explaining what happened and acting apologetically. Why
should this happen in India? The law should be strong enough to deal with such situations and
whoever is guilty, a member of the Sangh Parivar or any one else, should be punished as per law.
Unfailing regularity
Talking of the guilty politicians and other important personalities being brought to book, there
seems to be a comical turn to the way the events unfold. After a lot of fanfare, permission is
obtained from the Governor or Chief Minister or someone else to prosecute some politician.
After this is done, there are interviews of some leading personalities and often of the CBI or ED
Directors about the investigation that is going on to collect irrefutable evidence to punish these
persons. Then one gets to see shots on the TV of these persons being sent to judicial custody
under heavy police bandobust. And then what happens? Nothing. The indicted persons are
http://www.thehindu.com/2000/08/29/stories/13290831.htm

2/4

10/16/2014

The Hindu : Are we a soft state?

invariably found to be either innocent or at least the evidence is not strong enough to nail them.
Why does this happen with such unfailing regularity? Was the evidence initially collected not
strong enough, or were the witnesses intimidated to withhold crucial and damning evidence? Or
is the law of the land not good enough to punish these highly placed politicians and personalities?
Or is there political interference or some other underhand deals which let the indicted go scotfree? In any case the state is shown to be in poor light.
Contrast this with the treatment meted out to the ordinary citizen, especially the poor, helpless
ones. They are kept in police lock-up and incarcerated in jails on mere suspicion or at the behest
of some powerful persons and stay there often for long periods even without proper charges
being framed against them, let alone proper prosecution.
In fact, the irony is that they sometimes spend more time in jails as undertrials than the quantum
of punishment they would have received had they been properly prosecuted and received the
punishment for the crime they are alleged to have committed.
There have been reports that in Andhra Pradesh, there are about 9,000 undertrials who have been
behind bars for different periods from a year to five years. The government has decided to release
7,000 of them because they have already completed longer terms than what the punishment due
to them if they had been prosecuted and found guilty of their alleged offences. In a similar
situation in Bihar in the past, the Supreme Court came to the rescue of the undertrials on a PIL
and directed the Bihar Government to file annual report to the Court on their incarceration.
Consider the atrocious and medieval barbarity that was recently inflicted on a Dalit driver,
Dinanath Baitha, by the Bihar Minister Lalit Yadav. Although he has been dismissed from the
Council of Ministers by the Chief Minister, the trial, when and if it takes place against the
Minister, will be a long and tortuous one with no certainty that he would be punished. But
whether or not he is actually punished, the occurrence of this incident only shows how influential
people view the power or the powerlessness of the state to punish them. They act and believe, a
belief fortified by many such events, that they can get away with anything including literally
murder, and showing the legal machinery to be a weak and ineffective institution.
A palliative, not panacea
Politically, the institutions of state were meant to be strong and resolute but in actual practice we
find them wanting in several situations as shown above. In many instances, be it the cleanliness
of our rivers or fixing the height of our dams or the implementation of the Srikrishna
Commission Report in Maharashtra, we find that the Supreme Court has to intervene because the
executive has failed to discharge its duties. Is it good for our polity? In fact, many observers have
http://www.thehindu.com/2000/08/29/stories/13290831.htm

3/4

10/16/2014

The Hindu : Are we a soft state?

decried this tendency and have bemoaned the emergence of the Supreme Court as an executive
organ of our state. In any case, judicial activism can at best be a palliative and not a panacea for
all our problems.
In fact, the courts are now tending to come in the picture with sickening regularity for resolution
of patently political conflicts, for giving an aggrieved party or individual his due, for filling in
gaps in legislation in the interest of good governance. The latest example is its comments on the
role of the Central Government on the implementation of the Srikrishna Commission Report and
on the lack of coherence in the actions of the governments in New Delhi and Mumbai and the
prosecution of Mr. Bal Thackeray. Such an atrophy of the executive and legislative arms of the
state would be an ominous sign on the functioning of democratic governance in India.
RAVI P. BHATIA & M. P. SINGH
University of Delhi
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Section : Features
Previous : Know your English
Next
: Security and intelligence
Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home
Copyrights 2000 The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/2000/08/29/stories/13290831.htm

4/4