Abstract
India’s political evolution spans from ancient republican traditions to modern parliamentary democracy. Rooted in indigenous practices like the Sabhas and Samitis, governance has historically emphasized collective wisdom and Rajdharma—political righteousness akin to constitutional principles. Colonial rule introduced legislative reforms, culminating in the modern parliamentary structure. While India’s Parliament symbolizes democracy’s triumph, it faces issues such as disruptions, corruption, and declining legislative quality. Yet, deepening representation through quotas and societal democratization has reshaped its composition. Despite challenges, India’s Parliament remains vital, reflecting both indigenous democratic traditions and adaptations to colonial legacies. Reforms are needed to enhance accountability and efficiency.
Keywords
Rajdharma, Parliamentary Democracy, Accountability, Criminality in Politics, Representative Governance
Introduction
India’s democratic journey is a tapestry of indigenous traditions, colonial impositions, and post-independence reforms. Ancient texts like the Santiparvan highlight a time when society thrived without formal governance, transitioning to structured systems with the emergence of Rajdharma—a moral compass for rulers. Early republics, such as Lichhavi and Mithila, demonstrated India’s deep-rooted commitment to collective governance. However, British colonial rule marked a pivotal shift, introducing centralized legislative mechanisms through key Acts like the Regulating Act of 1773 and the Charter Act of 1833, which laid the foundation for modern parliamentary structures.
Post-independence, India adopted a parliamentary democracy inspired by British practices but tailored to its unique socio-cultural ethos. Parliament was initially dominated by lawyers and freedom fighters, but deepening democracy expanded representation through caste-based quotas and grassroots movements. Criminalization of politics, corruption, and declining procedural norms threaten Parliament’s efficacy. Despite these issues, India’s Parliament endures as a cornerstone of governance, reflecting the nation’s adaptability and resilience.
Recent developments, including live telecasts and increasing public awareness, have democratized access to parliamentary proceedings while amplifying disruptions and grandstanding. These dynamics reflect evolving social and political realities, challenging traditional norms but also underscoring the need for reforms to uphold accountability and functionality. In this context, India’s parliamentary system remains both a reflection of its democratic heritage and a symbol of its aspirations. The journey from Rajdharma to representative democracy highlights the need to address systemic issues while celebrating the resilience of India’s democratic spirit.
Research Methodology
The research methodology of the paper is historical and analytical. The study employs qualitative analysis to interpret historical events and their implications for modern parliamentary democracy. It integrates comparative methods to juxtapose ancient Indian governance systems with modern legislative structures.
Review of Literature
The Santiparvan tells of a time in ancient India when society thrived without the need for a king or formal laws. However, as moral decline set in, the concept of “Matsyanyaya” (the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak) began to dominate. Alarmed, the gods responded to the people’s pleas for help, and Brahmadeva, realized that society could only survive if a legal code was established and enforced. This realization led to the emergence of kingship as a means to maintain order, marking the beginning of the ‘Social Contract’ in ancient Indian thought.
However, the formation of a representative Parliament remains unclear, with little evidence to trace its origins. Even Kautilya, one of India’s greatest political thinkers, advocated for a benevolent monarchy in his treatise, the Arthashastra. Nevertheless, historical records show that experiments with representative governance began as early as the 6th century BC, even in the absence of a nation-state. These early republics, included the kingdoms of Lichhavi, Kapilvastu, Pava, Kushinara, Ramagrama, Sunsamagiri, Piphali, Suputa, Mithila, and Kollanga.
The so-called-modern concepts of Parliament, Cabinet, and Prime Minister were mirrored in the Sabhas, Samitis, and Ganapati of these republics. In these systems, rulers, though monarchs, were bound by the collective wisdom of their advisors, forming a Council of Ministers. The ruler’s actions were guided by Rajdharma, an intrinsically Indian concept similar to today’s Constitutionalism. Rajdharma emphasized political righteousness and the duties and responsibilities that a ruler must uphold.
However, the current political structure of independent India is greatly influenced by the recent 400 years of colonial rule.
The 1601 Charter, which granted the Governor and the East India Company the authority “to make, ordain, and constitute such and so many laws, constitutions, orders, and ordinances” as deemed necessary for good governance, laid the early groundwork for the modern legislative process in India.
The Charter of 1726, laid down the legislative power of Governors and the Councils of the three Presidencies.
The Regulating Act of 1773 marked the beginning of Parliamentary control over the East India Company’s government. This Act initiated the process of territorial integration and administrative centralization in India, establishing Bengal as the supreme Presidency and appointing the Governor of Bengal as the Governor-General.
The Charter Act of 1833 ended the Company’s trading rights, turning it into solely an administrative agency of the British Crown in India. The Governor-General of Bengal was then designated as the Governor-General of India, with authority over all of British India. For the first time, the Governor-General’s Government was referred to as the Government of India, and his Council became known as the Indian Council. This Act established a single legislative council for all British territories in India and introduced institutional specialization by separating the law-making functions of the Council from its executive functions.
The Charter Act of 1853 further evolved the legislative process by requiring bills to pass through three stages and be referred to Select Committees. Discussions in the Council, when acting legislatively, became oral rather than written. The Council also began to see its role as not only legislative but also as a representative body, addressing and investigating grievances.
In 1885, the Indian National Congress held its first session in Bombay, where it passed a resolution calling for constitutional reforms, including the inclusion of elected members in the Legislative Councils and the right to discuss the budget. W.C. Banerjee, in his inaugural presidential address, passionately described the Congress as the National Assembly of India.
The Indian Councils Act of 1892 granted the Central and Provincial Councils the limited right to discuss the budget for the first time, though members still lacked the power to propose resolutions or divide the Council on financial matters.
Post-Independence India therefore evolved as a Parliamentary form of Democracy, with clear separation of powers between the three organs- Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. There is also separation of powers in the form of ‘lists’ between Centre and States.
Democracy is a form of government in which the power is vested in the general public to choose their representatives. There are mainly presidential democracy, Parliamentary democracy, rest are Jacksonian democracy, direct democracy and others. Parliamentary democracy is a form of government where the citizens elect their representatives to form a legislative body.
The Indian Parliament has undergone significant changes since Jawaharlal Nehru’s iconic ‘Tryst With Destiny’ speech in 1947. By 2008, nearly 60 years later, the institution’s integrity was questioned when three members waved bundles of cash in the House during a no-confidence vote, alleging they had been bribed to support the government. In the 1950s, however, the Indian Parliament was admired as a model for newly independent nations. After India’s first general elections in 1952, the Manchester Guardian praised it as a rare example of a successful parliamentary institution in Asia. British political scientist W.H. Morris-Jones, in his 1950s study, called it a “Story of Success.” Today, such views are rare. Disruptions in proceedings have become commonplace and there has been a marked decline in the hours Parliament sits, the volume of legislation passed, as well as the quality of debates and committee scrutiny.
The architects of the Indian Constitution selected a parliamentary system of government, deeming it more appropriate for the nation’s background of religious, linguistic, and socio-cultural diversities The democratic process in a developing nation such as India, characterized by inadequate political awareness and ineffective public opinion, is plagued by numerous deficiencies. B.K. Nehru has asserted that India’s experience with parliamentary democracy has been less than gratifying, as it has not adequately reflected the goals and ambitions of the populace. The functioning of parliamentary democracy over the past four decades has revealed a growing centralization of authority, which has unavoidably suppressed local initiative.
In the 1970s Indira Gandhi broke with this successful formula and attempted to concentrate power in the central government. When these efforts were resisted, she declared a state of emergency in 1975, arresting journalists, politicians and other opponents. In 1977 she lifted the emergency, held elections and was defeated by a coalition, giving India its first non-Congress government.
Though that government quickly failed, the election fractured the Congress coalition that had held since independence, creating regional Congress breakaway parties. It also empowered parties like the communists, whose Left Front would go on to rule the state of West Bengal, bordering Bangladesh, for three decades.
Conversely, the Parliament predominantly comprised lawyers affiliated with the liberation movement and legislative institutions in pre-independent India Conversely, the Parliament predominantly comprised lawyers affiliated with the liberation movement and legislative institutions in pre-independent India. Reservations or quotas for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes are partially to blame for this. This is also a result of democracy’s ongoing development, which has been facilitated by a variety of factors, such as the 1989 adoption of the Mandal Commission Report’s suggested quotas for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The JPC’s investigation into the 2G spectrum allocation fraud, which is regarded as one of India’s largest corruption scandals, is another example of corruption scandals in India.
The effectiveness of Parliament in controlling executive power is a subject of debate. One of the most critical moments for India’s parliamentary democracy was the “state of emergency” declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975, which many political analysts believe was more about preserving her political power than serving the national interest. There is also a general consensus that the procedural norms foundational to parliamentary practice began to decline, particularly after the mid-1970s. The weakening of political parties, the increasing number of parties represented in Parliament—from five in the first Lok Sabha to nearly 40 half a century later—and the evolving nature of constituent services and re-election incentives have all contributed to transforming the Indian Parliament. Despite its many challenges, Parliament has endured as a vital institution.
Parliament plays a key role in accountability and oversight in a democracy in two main ways. First, it is the body through which the government is held accountable. Second, elections serve as the mechanism through which parliamentarians themselves are held accountable. The functioning of any Parliament is influenced by both of these factors, as Parliament is likely to hold the government accountable with an awareness of how it will be judged in upcoming elections. Therefore, a thorough assessment of Parliament’s role in accountability must consider the incentives and factors that impact both these forms of accountability.
While many commentators view disruptions in Parliament as evidence of inefficiency and dysfunction, they should be understood in the context of Parliament’s changing social and political composition, as well as the introduction of live telecasts of proceedings since 2006, which have encouraged grandstanding. The increase in protests and the behaviour of MPs may reflect a clash between elite and mass cultures, challenging traditional British parliamentary rituals. This also signifies the intrusion of street politics and political theatre into the Parliament, which has often negatively impacted its deliberative and legislative functions.
Criminality and corruption, increasingly linked to India’s political class, pose a serious threat to the legitimacy and accountability of Parliament. As early as 1951, MP H.G. Mudgal was accused of accepting bribes to ask questions and propose amendments in Parliament. Decades later, the 2008 scandal raised similar concerns about MPs’ conduct and accountability, questioning whether parliamentary privileges hinder accountability and if there are safeguards to prevent their abuse. Another alarming issue is the high number of MPs with criminal charges. In the 17th Lok Sabha, 43 percent of MPs had pending criminal cases, prompting the Indian Supreme Court to remark that “lawbreakers have become lawmakers.”
The evolution of India’s political structure reflects a complex journey from its ancient indigenous roots in representative governance to the modern institution we see today which is a result of an incomplete decolonisation of an imposed foreign political structure. While the current system has faced challenges, including criminality, corruption, and disruptions, it has also undergone significant changes in its social and political composition, making it more representative of the colonised Indian society. However, concerns about the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of Parliament persist, highlighting the need for ongoing reforms to uphold the integrity and functionality of India’s democracy. Despite these challenges, the Indian Parliament remains a crucial institution in the nation’s governance, not because of its structure but due to the innate sense of democracy that the Indian citizens as a civilization always had.
One of the most significant challenges confronting Indian democracy is its inability to achieve sustained economic growth comparable to that of neighbouring countries such as China over the past four decades. Moreover, it has struggled to eradicate extreme poverty, leaving a stark disparity between the lifestyles of the educated elites in highly globalized urban centres like Delhi and Mumbai and those of India’s most impoverished citizens.
The prevailing economic landscape perpetuates low-wage, low-skilled employment as the primary avenue for millions of young Indians, particularly in economically disadvantaged and densely populated states like Uttar Pradesh. This has resulted in a substantial demographic of disaffected and economically marginalized voters.
Nationalist and populist ideologies have capitalized on this disenchantment, often attributing societal challenges to religious minorities, most notably Muslims and Dalits, while simultaneously fostering a sense of pride and unity among segments of the Hindu population.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, embodies the Hindu nationalist movement. Its ideological foundation, Hindutva, has historically advocated for India as a homeland for South Asia’s Hindus, a position advanced in parallel with the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims. This perspective has roots predating India’s independence.
In contemporary discourse, the BJP seeks to consolidate the Hindu community, arguing with some justification—that caste divisions within Indian society were amplified under British colonial rule as part of a deliberate strategy to divide and govern.
India’s democratic framework faces numerous challenges that undermine its effectiveness and inclusivity. The increasing criminalization of politics, as evidenced by the growing number of legislators with criminal cases, has adversely impacted the quality of democratic discourse. Archaic laws, such as the colonial-era Police Act of 1861, remain inadequate in addressing modern challenges.
The Anti-Defection Law, granting presiding officers the authority to decide disqualifications, has raised concerns over politicization, as seen in cases like the Karnataka political crisis. This law, along with the first-past-the-post electoral system, restricts dissent and narrows the scope of representative democracy, with marginalized groups and minorities often left underrepresented. The declining scrutiny of legislative proposals, exemplified by the bypassing of parliamentary committees during the passage of critical laws like the RTI and UAPA amendments, further weakens governance.
Moreover, frequent elections lead to policy paralysis and increased expenditure, while the use of parliamentary privileges sometimes infringes on press freedom through strategic lawsuits. The diminishing role of an effective opposition due to the dominance of single-party majorities further erodes the checks and balances essential to democracy.
Reforms such as legislative impact assessments, codification of parliamentary privileges, and strengthening of parliamentary committees are necessary to address these issues. Additionally, reviewing the Anti-Defection Law, establishing more special courts to try politicians with criminal cases, adopting state funding for elections, and implementing hybrid voting systems or simultaneous elections could enhance democratic accountability and inclusiveness. These measures, alongside efforts to repeal outdated laws and ensure better representation are vital.
Suggestion and Conclusion
The Indian Parliament, though deeply rooted in ancient traditions of governance and adapted through colonial legacies, stands at a crossroads. Its historical evolution has demonstrated remarkable resilience, yet the contemporary challenges of criminality, corruption, inefficiency, and declining accountability demand urgent reforms. Parliament must reclaim its role as the embodiment of representative democracy and the custodian of the people’s will.
1. Promoting Ethical Leadership: Political parties must prioritize candidates with clean records and invest in leadership training that emphasizes ethics and public service. Citizens, too, bear the responsibility of making informed choices during elections, rejecting candidates with questionable backgrounds.
2. Strengthening Parliamentary Committees: These bodies should be empowered with greater transparency and binding recommendations. Public participation in committee deliberations can further enhance accountability.
3. Hybrid Electoral Reforms: Introducing a proportional representation component alongside the first-past-the-post system could ensure better representation of marginalized groups and smaller political parties.
4. Empowering Grassroots Representation: Strengthening local governance institutions and increasing their integration into state and central policies will deepen democracy and foster inclusiveness.
India’s democratic journey is a testament to its resilience and adaptability, rooted in ancient traditions of governance and shaped by colonial legacies and post-independence reforms. From the ethical tenets of Rajdharma to the structured framework of parliamentary democracy, the nation has continually evolved its political institutions to reflect the aspirations of its diverse population.
However, the challenges facing the Indian Parliament today—ranging from criminality in politics to declining procedural integrity and representational imbalances—threaten its foundational purpose. While disruptions and corruption tarnish its image, the Parliament’s ability to adapt and persist amidst changing social, economic, and political dynamics underscores its critical role in the nation’s governance.
Reforms are urgently needed to restore accountability, efficiency, and inclusiveness. Measures such as strengthening parliamentary committees, promoting ethical leadership, and embracing electoral reforms can revitalize the institution. Grassroots empowerment, digital engagement, and transparency in legislative processes are vital to bridging the gap between Parliament and the people it represents.
Ultimately, India’s Parliament is more than a legislative body; it is a living embodiment of the country’s democratic spirit. By addressing its shortcomings and celebrating its potential, Parliament can continue to serve as a pillar of governance, embodying the ideals of justice, equality, and collective progress.
By- Snigdha Madduri
UPES, Dehradun