On the eve of the first round of polling for the Lok Sabhaelections on April 11, my mind goes back to some instances of what foreignleaders, political elites, the media and many common citizens told me on Indianelections and India’s democratic process when I was posted in Indian Missionsabroad.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai called me to his office in Kabul on the day the results of the 2004 Lok Sabha elections showed that the NDA led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had unexpectedly lost to the Congress led UPA. Karzai had studied political science in Shimla and had become an avid and knowledgeable follower of the Indian political scene.
Besides, as the Afghan President, he had obviously more than academic interest in what was happening in India, the principal country of South Asia. He had also developed a close relationship with Vajpayee. Along with him he had contributed to the establishment of productive and cooperative bilateral ties. Like most observers he had expected Vajpayee to return to power.
Karzai asked me, “What happened, ambassador”? He added thathe had followed the results on Indian TV channels late into the night. I told him that the Indian voter holds his cardsclose to his chest and often election results throw great surprises. In anyevent there was a continuity in foreign policy and there would be no deviationin India’s Afghan policy. That proved to be indeed so.
Like Karzai in 2004 these days all leaders of regional countries and many world leaders would be following the current election campaign with interest. There primary focus would be on election results. Foreign diplomatic missions in India too would be keeping their governments briefed on the nature of the campaign and try to anticipate its outcomes.
However, foreign leaders, commentators and embassies and high commissions in Delhi would also be focussing on the election process itself; the mammoth election exercise which is the largest administrative undertaking on the planet. It invariably earns the respect of political and bureaucratic classes the world over for the neutrality and the efficiency with which it is conducted.
My first post was Cairo. I reached there in September 1977, six months after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Congress party was swept out of power. The people, especially in the north and the west had forcefully expressed themselves against the excesses of the emergency.
As an Indian in his twenties then I had taken the re-assertion of democracy as a matter of course. Indeed, the only political system I had known till then was a democratic one in which the people voted freely and elections were essentially fair despite their magnitude and complexity. It therefore initially came as a surprise that some Egyptians whom I met spoke glowingly about Indian democracy and its election system which could throw out governments.
After Egypt I went to many other countries in the course of my diplomatic career. I was abroad when some Lok Sabha elections were held. These included 1980 elections that witnessed the return of Indira Gandhi and the Congress party, the 1989 exercise where Rajiv Gandhi lost the massive mandate he had received in the 1984 election after Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
I was also posted in a Mission when the 1991 election took place. These were three different countries but in each case the local media and the political elite was fascinated with the sheer size of the election and the smooth way it was conducted.
The electorate inexorably increased as India’s population went up and with it went up the numbers in each constituency. This too attracted comments. Indian diplomats often have had to respond to one question: how are candidates able to connect with the voters in view of their numbers? This was especially so in countries with small populations.
This was also much before the advent of the social media which is transforming election campaigns though in India public meetings and rallies continue now as they did over the past decades.
It is also noteworthy that some within India complained then and continue to do so that Indian voters are swayed by caste, community or other narrow considerations instead of thinking of the national good.
However, abroad there seemed a greater awareness that voters look for affinities, for persons and parties who would serve their specific interests and serve their specific concerns. There was admiration that Indian voters, whether literate or otherwise, seemed sure of their interests and voted accordingly.
The fact is that is only in the early years of India’s independence that some western scholars questioned if democracy could survive amidst such poverty and illiteracy.
India’s voters demonstrated that human beings know their interests not because they are educated but because they are human beings. If allowed the freedom to vote they did so and surprised the political elites who considered themselves to be the repositories of wisdom. Some thoughtful observers mentioned all this to me when speaking of the Indian political system.
That the Indian democratic system has many admirers abroadcontinues to be true. It is correctly hailed as a continuing achievement.
One last word. Whenever the Indian establishment has soughtto intervene in the conduct of elections anywhere in the country the Indianpeople have paid a heavy price. That is the lesson of history. If elections areheld the people must be allowed to express themselves in keeping with theguarantees enshrined in the constitution.