Shriman Narayan Agarwal: Author of Gandhian Constitution and Soothsayer of Indian Politics
The framing of India’s Constitution involved numerous prominent figures, including Nehru, Ambedkar, Patel, K M Munshi, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, and B N Rau, along with nearly 290 other members of the Constituent Assembly. Constituent Assembly had the conspicuous absence of the father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. India’s Constitution has been criticized for its stark departure from Gandhian principles. While Gandhi had a vision of self-governing village republics and a decentralized system of politics and governance. In contrast, Nehru, and many of his Congress members differed from Gandhi regarding the constitutional pathways to address India’s social problems. Nehru and Ambedkar rejected Gandhian ideas and instead supported a top-down parliamentary system, with a strong Center.
Around the same time, Gandhi’s disciple, Shriman Narayan Agarwal (who later served as Governor of Gujarat), wrote the Gandhian Constitution of Free India in 1946. Gandhi endorsed Agarwal’s constitution in the forward, saying that nothing in the work that he disagreed with. Agarwal had proposed a unique form of democratic governance. It emphasized grassroots governance and aimed to bring the government closer to the people while maintaining a non-hierarchical structure.
In the introduction, Agarwal draws upon historical and global constitutional experiences to highlight the perils of centralization of power and majoritarianism in democracy. His words eerily resonate with the tumultuous nature of contemporary Indian politics, as if he were a soothsayer of India during the formation of the Indian Republic.
In his section ‘Democracy’ vs. ‘Mobocracy’ (see SR 33), Agarwal notes “Apart from the unhealthy power of money in modern Democracies, the system of electioneering is very defective and undesirable. The existence of big constituencies makes direct and intimate contact between the voters and the candidates well-nigh impossible. This inevitably leads to ‘electioneering campaigns,’ the evils of which are only too well known to all of us.”
Gandhi feared Democracy turning into Mobocracy if there is centralization of power. Writing in Young India(1927), he says “Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy.” (Young India, 1–12–1927, p. 404). Later writing in Harijan he further laments “The line of demarcation between democracy and mobocracy is often thin, but rigid and stronger than unbreakable steel “. (Harijan, 31–3–1946, p. 66))
Furthermore, Agarwal emphasized that these unwieldy constituencies fail to guarantee the selection of the right representatives. He echoed Gandhi’s concerns, noting the emergence of “mobocracy” rather than democracy. Agarwal lamented that decent, capable, and silent individuals shy away from the chaos of elections, leaving room for unscrupulous and corrupt candidates to prevail with their tactics of bribery and manipulation. Additionally, he criticized the exorbitant costs associated with elections, which tend to favour wealthy capitalists who effectively influence the political landscape.
Agarwal criticized the modern party system for its negative impact on democracy. He argues that voters often lack direct knowledge of candidates, as political parties or caucuses rigidly select and present them. This lack of transparency diminishes local interest in elections due to excessive centralization of legislative and administrative processes. He highlighted how well-organized political parties leave little room for individual candidates to express their qualifications and ideas freely.
Agarwal analysis was prophetic words reflecting the present ills of the party system including party whip in parliaments and assemblies. The dominance of well-organized political parties severely limits opportunities for independent thinking and action. Even if an individual happens to be the most qualified candidate, their chances in elections are slim if they do not align with the preferences of party leaders. Furthermore, party candidates find themselves constantly subject to strict party discipline within legislative bodies.
Agarwal also observed that the process of deliberations within legislatures has lost its authenticity. Important debates often follow a predetermined course dictated by the ruling party, rendering legislative bodies mere “talking shops” and diminishing their credibility in the eyes of the public. In essence, Agarwal’s critique underscores the need for a more open, transparent, and democratic electoral system that empowers individual candidates and fosters independent thinking and action within the political landscape.
Agarwal critiques the centralization of power in Western Democracies, attributing it to the perceived threats of foreign aggression in a world dominated by war. This concentration of political authority, he argues, has effectively eroded the essence of democracy, rendering it a mere façade and an expensive spectacle. He highlights how legislative bodies have become overcrowded with legislative matters, resulting in inefficiencies, unwarranted delays, and the waste of time and energy. This situation, he contends, directly contradicts one of democracy’s core principles: that decisions on matters of collective importance should involve the active participation of all citizens. In the end, Agarwal raises the crucial question of which path it will choose to follow in light of these challenges.
Decentralization: Achieving non-violent democracy
Agarwal delves into the perceived incompatibility of democracy with various forms of violence, not just the physical kind, but also economic and social violence inflicted by systems like capitalism and communism. According to him, “The capitalist society is exploitation personified”. He quotes Gandhi, who believed that violence could never be the answer to addressing these issues. For Gandhi, democracy meant that the weakest members of society should have the same opportunities as the strongest (Harijan 18–5-’40). Agarwal contends that capitalism represents exploitation in its essence and argues that true change requires a society founded on economic freedom and equality. He emphasizes that economic equity is paramount, stating that without it, genuine political democracy cannot exist.
One of Agarwal’s key propositions for achieving non-violent democracy is decentralization. He aligns himself with Gandhi’s advocacy for both economic and political decentralization, emphasizing self-sufficient and self-governing village communities as the way forward. Gandhi believed that village communes embody the ideal form of decentralization and local self-government and the future Constitution should revolve around well-coordinated village communities that practice positive and direct democracy.
Agarwal acknowledges that the concept of devolution and decentralization of political power is not unique to Gandhian thought but finds support among Western political thinkers as well. He cites thinkers like C.E.M. Joad, G.D.H. Cole, and Aldous Huxley, who all advocated for the devolution of democracy based on functional grounds. These thinkers were proponents of reducing the scale of government machinery and making it more manageable through localization. Agarwal quotes Joad’s perspective that “the State must be cut up and its functions distributed,” emphasizing the importance of local management. Cole and Huxley also highlight the significance of decentralization as a means to preserve individual liberties and prevent the mechanization of obedience.
Agarwal reflects on the historical significance of village communes in India, emphasizing their presence since ancient times and using basic units of administration as early as the earliest Vedic age. He laments that British rule erased this system of village self-government, replacing it with a foreign, non-Indian model of local self-government. He notes that the decentralization of political power in the form of village communities in India differed significantly from Western models of devolution or decentralization.
If only the framers of the Indian Constitution had taken Agarwal seriously, and understood his dire predictions of today, we would have been far better at functioning politics and governance in the present day.
About author:
Shivakumar Jolad works as an Associate Professor of Public Policy and a member of the FLAME Center for Legislative Education and Research
Acknowledgements
The author greatly acknowledges the comments and suggestions of Ms. Mehr Kalra
