On August 15, 1947, in his historic speech, Jawaharlal Nehru said, “The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.” 75 years after the pledge, the inequality of opportunities which Nehru wanted to eradicate has only systematically widened. three broad heads: gender inequality, social inequality and the practice of democracy have weakened over time in a gradual manner over time.
According to the global Sustainable Development Goals target, all countries are expected to have an MMR below 70. But the MMR ( maternal mortality rate)in 456 out of 640 districts of India is above 140 per lakh live births. The Global Gender Gap Index, produced by the World Economic Forum, India’s position fell from 98 in 2006 to 135 in 2022. On the sub-indices, a) On economic participation, India fell from 110 in 2006 to 151 in 2021, b) In health and survival, it slipped from 103 in 2006 to 155 in 2021. The reported Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes against women as a proportion of total IPC crimes increased steadily between 1990 and 2019.
A 2019 paper shows that the egalitarian achievements up to the early 1980s have been lost following the liberalisation turnaround. The paper estimate that the top 1% of earners captured less than 21% of the total income in the late 1930s, 6% in the early 1980s and 22% in recent times. Further, the share of the bottom 50% income group grew over 90% in the 1980-2015 period, while that of the top 10% grew 435%, The sustained gains of economic growth have not been channelled to widen the access to education, health care, social security and so on. Shankkar Aiyar termed India as a “Gated Republic”. With growing social and economic inequality, Indian democracy is emerging to fulfil the term “Gated Republic”. So, the inequality of opportunities which Nehru wanted to eradicate has only systematically widened in India. Economic growth in India has been associated with unequal outcomes that have created divides between regions, sectors, and people. Over the period 1950-51 to 2019-20, the agricultural sector’s share in GDP fell from 58% to 15%.now it has shrunken even further. The economic inequalities have risen in India since India took the path of rapid growth from 1980s. For example, For India, the World Inequality Report 2021, estimated that the top 1% held as much as 33% of total wealth in India and the top 10% held 65% of total wealth. There has been jobless growth in India. Economic growth has not led to commensurate employment creation in India. Economic growth can be transformed into meaningful development only if it brings about an improvement in the living conditions of people.
It is essential to recognize that employment is not only a source of growth but also a means of mobilizing people, which is the most abundant resource for development in India. The 16-day freedom of speech debate in Parliament pitted Jawaharlal Nehru against Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Their echoes continue to bedevil and bruise India today. The mood of Parliament was sombre. It was 29 May 1951, the 14th day of the 16-day heated debate to bring the first amendment to the Constitution of India. The thumping of the tables and shrill voices of the Members of Parliament disrupting speeches were matched by the rising tempers. Freedom of speech was at stake. For two weeks, interim Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had been passionately pressing for ‘changes’ in the Article guaranteeing freedom of speech, which, according to him, were urgently needed. But the changes, which he called small and simple, were about to redact the freedoms which the country—and its press—was only starting to enjoy barely 46 months into India’s Independence.
“Every freedom in the world is limited,” said an impassioned Nehru in Parliament, debating why the press needed to be leashed. The press, he argued, must have some balance of mind, which it seldom possesses, if it wants to enjoy the freedom. “They cannot have it both ways – no balance and freedom,” he added. with time press freedom index as per world indexes has shrunk to 150 out of 180 countries on 18 June 1951, with 228 ayes, 20 nos and about 50 abstentions, the amendments were assed. Nehru won but it was the day India lost its way to the gates of freedom. From Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses to M.F. Husain’s paintings; from Leena Manimekalai’s interpretation of Kaali to Mohammed Zubair’s tweets; from Kanhaiya Kumar’s speeches to Prashant Bhushan’s criticism of the Chief Justice of India, freedom of speech and expression has always been up for contestation.
No one could be jailed unless it was proven in court that their actions are going to overthrow the state. But the amendments brought these laws back. Now, instead of overthrowing the state, if the government was of the view that that person’s actions are against the interest of the security of the state, he or she could be penalised. The tragedy is that India never had absolute freedom. After a crushing 200-year British rule, a written Constitution laying down freedoms to the Indian citizens was a breakthrough. And at the heart of these freedoms were the fundamental rights – including freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It was welcomed with gusto by the Parliamentarians, most of whom were themselves once victims of repressive laws regulating free speech under British rule. Nehru was an authoritarian politician. He wanted to win elections. Though his intent at that time was not wrong, his approach was misplaced. He could not incorporate criticism. All other powerful leaders were side-lined by him and he wanted to get his agenda through, barring few most of the successive prime ministers followed the authoritarian style of Nehru till now.
Recent events hold the answer. What transpired on the floor of Parliament in 16 days in 1951 has grown deep roots in society today. In May 2022 when Ratan Lal, a Delhi University professor, called a shivling a cylindrical object made of stone in his tweet over the Gyanvapi mosque issue in Varanasi, he was booked for spreading enmity between communities on a complaint by Hindu groups. And when BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s comments on Prophet Muhammad went viral, calls were made from various sections of society to invoke section 153A against her as well. Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran’s recent Assertions about how to lose a country in the world? He listed few points 1. The creation of a story or a myth that claims to be of and for the real people the authentic owners of the nation unjustly marginalised in the past by assorted conspiracies.2. this is followed by an assault on rationality and on language wear new meanings are thrust upon old terms and arguments is replaced by aggressive slogans. 3. leaders shedding all shame and decency and aestheticism and teach their followers to do so as well all in the name of an authentic indegenity .4. dismantling or co-option of all the institutions that are intended to act as checks and balances on the executive power, including judiciary, media and the constitution. 5. Designing of new citizens who will be pre calibrated to the new shrugging off the weight of history. 6. Reduction of all liberal and secular thinking persons to a stage of irrelevance and despair where they can only laugh at the horror that their country has become. 7. New rulers build their own country having crushed all possible sources of resistance to their agendas. Dr B R Ambedkar in 1949 speech in constituent assembly asserted that three principles of liberty equality and fraternity should be treated as a form of unity in trinity to sustain the health of a social democracy. Sardar Patel asserted that in shaping up the Indian state the inspiration and the stimulus came from the above rather than from below and unless the transplanted growth takes a healthy root in the soil ther will be a danger of collapse and chaos. Dr Ambedkar like Turkish journalist Temelkarun to sustain a democracy and to protect against losing a country there should be a absence of glaring inequalities presence of an strong opposition, equality of law and administration observance of constitution, morality, avoidance of tyranny of majority over minority a functioning of moral order in society and public conscience.
