INDIA A SHAM DEMOCRACY RULED BY ELITES

India is a “nominal democracy” with “political families and a few elite” continuing to rule the nation since its independence, unfairly.

Former Chief Election Commissioner, James Michael Lyngdoh who is in Shillong to attend the national convention on Right To Information said, five percent elite and political families are ruling the nation since the country’s independence and he therefore considers India a sham democracy.

“To say that elections in the country are conducted free and fair is absolutely laughable,” the outspoken Lyngdoh said, who himself took many powerful politicians to task for grossly violating the election process, during his tenure as CEC.

He said “rich candidates and people connected with political families” almost always have their way out in dictating the terms of the elections in India.

Unless, he said, the five percent elite and political families are held accountable to make way for an equalitarian society, India cannot remotely consider itself a democracy. “I cannot think of a democracy without competition,” he said.

Lyngdoh was pessimistic when asked if India would soon witness an outburst like the Arab world: “I don’t see it happening for a long time now.”

He blamed the present caste system in India as a road-block for an uprising like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and other nations.

“The caste system is like an extended family. They take refuge in each other for security, because politicians have kept them helpless over the years. Unless they get an alternative this would continue and India would remain divided,” he cited.

The Ramon Magsaysay award winner said disparity in resource sharing and social equilibrium can be restored somewhat through writ petitions, public hearings and social networking.

Strongly advocating the adoption of the Whistleblowers’ Act, he said, India must take the cue from the United States and enact the Act immediately.

“10 to 12 whistleblowers were killed in India. Like the US the whistleblowers must be provided safe houses and maintenance and in the event of their death, take responsibility of their families,” he suggested.

Terming the Right to Information Act as “symbolic,” he nonetheless said: “willy-nilly we have to deal with the Act.”