INTRODUCTION:

Like other political systems, Indian political system has its roots in its past. A revolutionary movement of liberation cannot alone create a political system which is completely indigenous and borrows nothing from the past. No revolutionary movement, however radical, can change the entire network of political institutions overnight. Therefore, the study of legacies of Indian political system is essential. Every civilization emerges from the womb of previous civilizations. India remained under the rule of the British for two hundred years. This long period of the English domination influenced the Indian political system greatly. India chose to be a democracy and adopted the Parliamentary model when liberated from the foreign yoke. It would be farfetched to say that we had democratic governments in the past, but the democratic tradition has continued to persist which may be traced back to the ancient times. Ancient India allowed considerable freedom of speculation.

It is hardly necessary to point out that as many as the six orthodox philosophical systems, charismatic and heterodox schools of thought flourished freely, and differences in metaphysics and theology were to some extent reflected in the realm of political ideas. Indian political thought was much concerned with the moral obligation on the part of both, the King and the subjects, each of which implicitly involved corresponding moral rights. The King is morally obliged to govern according to the principles of "protection and pleasing the people." The government envisaged by the political theorists of ancient India is rather stern paternalistic one, but the one which provides for the welfare, both moral and material, of all its subjects. It is in no sense a democracy, but it allows freedom of speech and freedom of movement and the idea of government, by discussion, is not wholly absent from it. And finally government is not an end in itself. There is only one final end to which all valid human activity should serve as means - the achievement of inner peace by each individual.

Thus with its independence, India adopted various legacies from the British political system. W.H. Morris Jones divides these legacies of Indian political system into four categories namely: Government, Movement, Mediating Institutions, and Problems and Process.² These legacies can be discussed as follows:

Government:

It was the British government which strengthened the notion of Government in India. During the British period, the rule of government reached every nook and corner of the country. No doubt, the sphere of government was very narrow because its control did not reach the rural areas. As Morris Jones writes, there was only a Headman and a Patwari in every village, who in these capacities represented the British government. The government activities were more numerous in the urban areas than in the rural areas. The increase in the government activity increased the role of the government in the day-to-day life of the people. This sense of having a government was surely the legacy of the British. But it was not much extensive, legitimate and having people's support as of today. Rather it was narrow, alien and less extensive. At the village level, government was synonymous with tax or Revenue Collector. Though the present government of India is not the same as its predecessor was, yet it has some of its features. This psychological fact of Indian political life was evidenced frequently during the discussions in the Constituent Assembly during 1947-1949. When the new constitution was being prepared, it played an important part, for instance, in the rejection of proportional representation, in the insertion of emergency provisions, and qualifications attached to the Fundamental Rights. There was much need of the Government because the whole process had to work around it. The Indian political system also inherited certain features of government like Dyarchy, Centralized Bureaucracy and Federal system of Government.

Federal System:

The constitution of India is of Federal character but with a number of unitary features. But the word ‘federal’ has nowhere been used in the constitution. It may be wrong to assume that the constitution she inherited in 1947 was unitary but with strong federal features. The Government of India Act of 1935 pointed directly in the direction of federalism. For the first time it failed in the federal structure. No doubt, the Act of 1935 failed to establish any real kind of Provincial Autonomy, thereby making the concept of federalism eyewash. But it paved the way for the future emergence of the federalism. In fact, the present constitution of India which was passed by the members of the Constituent Assembly on 26 November, 1949 and came into force on 26 January, 1950 extensively borrowed the federal features from the Government of India Act, 1935. It is also noteworthy that in the present constitution, there are various provisions which give the Central Government more powers such as emergency provisions under Articles 352, 356 and 360, deployment of armed forces in the States, dismissal of State Government according to Article 356 and inclusion of any subject in the State list on the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha.

Dyarchy:

Mainly the Act responsible for the introduction of dyarchy are the Mont ford Reforms of 1919. According to these Reforms, responsible governments were to be introduced in the Provinces. The subjects of administration were to be divided into two categories viz., Central and Provincial. The Central subjects were those which were to be kept under the control of Central Government exclusively. The Provincial subjects were sub-divided into Transferred and Residuary subjects. The Reserved subjects were to be administered by the Governor and his Executive Council without any responsibility to Legislature. Though in the present Indian Constitution, the provisions of dual government are not found in the similar position yet some provisions resemble them. The federal structure is thus an important part of the legacy of government.

Centralized Bureaucracy:

The centralized bureaucracy, as of today, is a British legacy. British government created a large bureaucracy to run the government with districts as the units of administration. The bureaucrats were given special powers during the regime of the British government for various reasons. They had to tackle with any type of situation which might have emerged from disobedience movements. Clearly the one reason for the wide powers of the civil servants was alien nature of the government. Most of the members of the Indian Civil Service were very much loyal to the British government and the government had also blindfaith in them. Therefore, it depended upon them to run the administration. The administration was hierarchical, from the Governor General of India to Tehsildars at the village level. This hierarchy included various officials such as Governor or Lieutenant-Governor as the head of the State, Commissioner, Collectors, Tehsildars and village Headmen. The original, senior and most superior service was the Indian civil service. To belong to the ICS was not simply a guarantee of a good and interesting job, it was also a calling an honor. The members of Indian Civil Service were not only appointed as District Collectors, but were also appointed in the Governor-General's Executive Council. The members of the Indian Civil Service were recruited by a competitive examination, earlier only in England under the Civil Service Commissioners. Some Indians entered independence up to certain extent. But no political party has been able to fully eradicate backwardness, poverty and allied problems completely from India. Therefore, every political party which came into power has been criticized by the masses.

Extra Constitutional Measures:

Various extra-constitutional measures like, Bandhs, Hartals, Satyagrahas, Hunger strikes, fast-unto-death have been the legacies of British Indian political system. Satyagraha, which takes the form of fastings, strikes, bandhs and dharnas, is the legacy of the national movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. However, it is not being agreed that all the above mentioned forms of extra-constitutional measures are really Gandhian in spirit. Not even those, who participate in these movements, claim that these extra-constitutional measures have become legitimate in the Indian context, most probably because of the fact, that the government against which they are often directed, itself was a party to such measures against the British Raj. A large number of such movements have appeared in the Indian Political System. Smock examples are Morarji Desai's part to dissolve Gujarat Vidhan Sabha in 1975 and J.P.'s struggle in Bihar (1974-75) for the dissolution of Bihar Legislative Assembly. It is somewhat difficult to say that all the Satyagrahas which have appeared after the independence are not totally of Gandhian nature. Rajni Kothari says that the length and continuity of both the nationalist movement and the Hindu civilization contributed considerably to the unity of the new India and imparted to it the modernist design, depth, flexibility and maneuverability. The uproar was a continuous interaction and interplay between a rich and pliable tradition on the one hand and the new frame-work of the democratic institution and values on the other. The behavioral and attitudinal under pinnings of both tolerance of diversity and dissent, legitimacy of the new elite committed to free institutions and assimilation of all major stands of social structure and thought appeared to mix well and gave rise to a synthesis that was at the same time traditional and modern. Had the national movement been short in duration or shallow in its penetration, such a synthesis in depth, would not have been there when independence came. Thus the Indian political system inherited various legacies from its predecessor, viz. the British Indian political system, which shaped the making of our Republic and our constitution substantially.

REFERENCES:

1. Austin, Granville, Working of A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience;-Delhi: OUP, 1999.

2. Basu, Durga Das, Introduction to the Constitution of India-New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, 2002.

3. Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India-Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2002.

4. Chaube, Shibanikinkar, Constituent Assembly of India-New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors,2000.

5. Datar, Arvind P.Datar, On Constitution of India-Agra : Wadhwa and Co., 2001.

6. Hasan, Zoya and E, .India's Living Constitution: Ideas, Practices, ControversiesSridharan etc.(eds.)-Delhi :Permanent Black, 2002.

7. Jain, Subhash C., The Constitution of India: Select Issues and Perceptions -New Delhi: Taxman Publications, 2000.

8. Kagzi, M.C. Jain, The Constitutional of India Vol.1 and 2.-New Delhi: India Law House, 2001.

Received on 02.06.2019 Modified on 20.06.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(3):795-797.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00130.X