Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI—Welfare Party of India (WPI) president, Dr. SQR Ilyas, has issued a stark warning about India’s changing political landscape, cautioning against potential threats to its democratic fabric and India’s commitment to being a sovereign, secular, socialist, and democratic republic, as enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble.
In a speech analyzing the current political scenario here at Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) headquarters recently, Dr. Ilyas, a prominent Muslim leader and a spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), expressed grave concern about the country’s future, noting the risk of losing its unique status in the world in coming years.
Dr. Ilyas delved into various aspects of the country’s current state, and its unique character, the importance of religious freedom, and effective governance, and the crucial need for independent institutions like the judiciary and media. He specifically expressed concerns about the growing influence of the government on these institutions, raising fears of potential repercussions. He also touched upon the challenges to economic justice, citing a shift from socialist economic policies to a capitalist system that concentrates resources in few hands, leading to increasing economic challenges for the common man.
Reminding the citizens of the vision outlined in the Constitution and its preamble after independence, Dr. Ilyas stated that following the country’s independence, the constitution outlined a vision for a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. He said, “this vision meant a nation free from dictatorship or monarchy, where the people would govern by electing their representatives. Secularism, on the other hand, means that policies and programs would not be influenced by any particular religion. It involves maintaining equal distance from all faiths and ensuring complete freedom for all religious groups to practice and propagate their beliefs. The concept of socialism was introduced, signifying a commitment to a fair distribution of wealth within the economy. The idea of a republic highlights the nation’s sovereignty, ensuring freedom from external dominance and the formulation of independent policies. Fraternity in the preamble signifies the binding force for a diverse nation comprising various classes, castes, and communities. The concept of justice for all encompasses social, economic, and political dimensions. The preamble emphasizes the freedom of thought and expression for all citizens, irrespective of religion, caste, or community. It underlines equality among individuals, regardless of their background, ensuring the protection of dignity and equality for all citizens within the country.”
Mentioning that the effectiveness of a country’s vision depends on the alignment of its elected leaders with the constitution, its preamble, and the values, Dr. Ilyas commented that despite not achieving the ideal situation in the past 75 years, there had been significant progress and harmony to a large extent in the country. He said, “riots also took place, and discrimination persisted, although the ideals set out in the constitution were not fully implemented. However, those in power had generally respected the constitution’s basic structure, and there was no instance where elected leaders had advocated for deviation or separation from the constitution, either in policy or rhetoric.”
However, Dr. Ilyas warned that the current government, in power for nine years, explicitly declared its discomfort with the constitution, deeming it unfit for the nation and believing that just as Pakistan was built in the name of Islam, so India should also be built in the name of Hinduism. “Therefore, it denied or disagreed with all the previous policies and programmes.”
Criticizing the current government’s failure to consult with stakeholders before making crucial decisions, Dr. Ilyas commented that India’s democracy isn’t just about holding elections every five years, but it hinges on the government’s policies and decisions made in Parliament or assemblies reflecting the people’s aspirations. Noting that when Parliament debates policies, whether related to education, economy, or agriculture, those impacted should be actively engaged, their voices heard, and their concerns incorporated, he pointed out that it had previously been upheld, with comprehensive consultations involving students, parents, teachers, and experts for education policies, similarly for farmers and agricultural specialists, and so on. “Such informed policy documents were then presented to Parliament for rigorous discussion and scrutiny. Important policies could even undergo extended debate for a day or two, potentially resulting in referral to Standing or Select Committees for deeper analysis and recommendations before returning to Parliament for a final decision.”
Slamming the current government’s decision-making process, accusing it of acting without public consultation or even considering feedback, Dr. Ilyas said, “In the past few years, the government has been making key decisions without consulting the people. Policy documents are rarely shared, and when they are, the government shows no interest in the public’s suggestions.”
Giving example of the New Education Policy which the government recently introduced, Dr. Ilyas pointed out that there was a lot of discussion on the policy, and many people gave their inputs to the government, but asked what happened to those inputs.
Similarly, talking about the three controversial farm laws that were passed by the government with the claim of being made for the benefit of farmers, he said that the government did not consult with farmers at all, which led to a year-long protest by farmers and the eventual withdrawal of the laws. However, he added that the government had not fulfilled the assurances that it gave to farmers after the withdrawal of the laws.
Highlighting the alarming trend of the current government’s disregard for stakeholder consultation, Dr. Ilyas cited the recent parliamentary session where crucial bills were passed without proper debate and with no discussion through voice votes. He explained that due to lacking a majority in the Rajya Sabha, the government often leverages regional parties for support. He said, “these parties, in turn, receive benefits in their states for favourable votes or abstentions. This strategy has proven effective in securing legislative passage. Conversely, in the Lok Sabha where the government holds a majority, significant decisions are frequently pushed through via voice votes within a matter of hours.”
Describing the suspension of 143 members from the Parliament as suppression of opposition voices and rejecting the essence of parliamentary democracy, he said that an expulsion trend had been observed in recent years, targeting key opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Mahua Moitra, and Sanjay Singh when they attempted to hold the government accountable on various issues.
Dr. Ilyas also sounded the alarm over recent fast-tracked legislation which granted extraordinary powers to the government and the passage of crucial bills like those replacing the CrPC, IPC, and Evidence Act without parliamentary debate even when a large number of opposition MPs were suspended from the parliament.
Dr. Ilyas pointed to several laws in India dubbed “draconian” or “black laws” due to their excessive power granted to the government and infringement on basic citizen rights such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Act (GUJCOCA). Under these laws, the burden of proof often shifts to the accused, making bail difficult even though the guideline of the Supreme Court is ‘bail is a rule and jail is the exception.’
Terming the three bills which were brought to repeal the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as very crucial changes in our criminal justice system, Dr. Ilyas said that the government claimed that those laws were colonial and from British times, so after getting independence, we should be free from these laws too. “In principle, this argument is valid. For example, under the sedition law in section 124A, people have been jailed for rebellion even for disagreeing with a government policy or decision. Objections to policy decisions, even those arising from legitimate policy disagreements, dissent is now perceived as treason against the nation under this law. But despite that, the sedition rule has now been brought once again, even replacing ‘Rajdroh’ with ‘Deshdroh’. Similarly, in the new law that replaces the CrPC, certain aspects previously covered under draconian laws like UAPA have now been brought within the ambit of ordinary criminal laws.”
Discussing the pathetic situations of the pillars of democracy in the country, Dr Ilyas emphasized the roles of the legislature in crafting laws, the bureaucracy in implementing them, and the judiciary in holding the government accountable to public concerns. A free and independent media serves as the fourth pillar, vital for a robust democracy.
Expressing concerns about the growing influence of the government on these institutions especially bureaucracy, Dr. Ilyas said, “recent appointments in the bureaucracy suggest a preference for individuals who align with the government’s views rather than those who are competent and trustworthy. Now, ‘yes men’ are being appointed to enforce the government’s will without question.”
Expressing worry about the diminishing independence of the judiciary, Dr. Ilyas emphasized the vital role of the judiciary in upholding justice when individuals’ rights were infringed upon by government decisions, administration, or police actions. Historically, courts generally based their rulings on these principles. However, Dr. Ilyas expressed concern about a perceived shift, with judgments at all levels, including the Supreme Court, appearing to reflect the government’s stance more often. He said, “for instance, in the Babri Masjid case, while the spirit of the observations favours Muslims, the actual judgment goes against them.”
Similarly, citing the recent Supreme Court decision on Article 370, Dr. Ilyas reminded that if any state’s identity is being fundamentally altered by the Centre, the matter should be discussed in that assembly. He said, “In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, where there was no state assembly, the governor was considered a substitute for the state assembly, appointed by the government itself. Based on this premise, Article 370 was revoked, and the Supreme Court upheld it. As a result, the government now has the authority to intervene in states where the governor’s will aligns with it, which could have potential repercussions.”
Emphasizing that the media, fundamentally an institution for voicing public sentiment and concern to the government, should operate independently, Dr. Ilyas said, “the media has almost become a spokesperson for the government.” He lamented the worrying trend of media consolidation over the past few years with most electronic channels now echoing the government’s line, leaving only a few remaining newspapers and independent platforms to challenge the dominant narrative.
Speaking about various institutions that operate with autonomy or semi-autonomy, free from undue government influence, Dr. Ilyas said, “the Election Commission of India, for instance, safeguards free and fair elections, while the Reserve Bank of India steers economic policy independently. However, these institutions like the University Grants Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation, previously with a degree of independence, are now witnessing increasing government intervention. Even their autonomy is being curtailed, with the government directing the actions of agencies such as the CBI, NIA, and ED according to its leanings.”
Expressing alarm over the potential erosion of the Election Commission’s independence, Dr. Ilyas highlighted recent amendments to its appointment process as a worrying indication of possible political interference in this vital institution, entrusted with upholding the integrity of India’s electoral system. He said, “previously, the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India jointly appointed election commissioners. The new bill, however, vests power in the Prime Minister, a minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, raising concerns that the latter’s voice could hold less weight if the first two agree on an appointment.”
Dr Ilyas mentioned India’s adherence to the first-past-the-post electoral system, where a candidate or party winning the highest votes, even without a majority, forms the government. For instance, in both the 2014 and 2019 elections, the Modi government secured around one-third of the total votes while the majority voted against it.
Dr. Ilyas suggested adopting proportional representation in India to ensure fair representation based on population and foster a more inclusive democracy. Highlighting that while diverse countries often embrace proportional representation, India remains committed to the first-past-the-post system, enabling minority-vote parties to govern, he said, ”despite the potential for better representation of diverse communities, the major parties, BJP and Congress, continue to support the current system.”
Regarding secularism, Dr. Ilyas highlighted attempts to undermine cultural and religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution, particularly impacting the Muslim community. He expressed apprehension about efforts to change the structure of religious schools “Madrassa” and eliminate the Waqf law, jeopardizing the cultural freedom granted by Articles 29 and 30.
Dr. Ilyas concluded by calling for a strong alliance to replace the current government and emphasized the need to avoid communal grounds in elections. He urged Muslims to clarify misconceptions, strengthen relations with non-Muslims, and counter issues by presenting correct information to the public.
