EVOLUTION OF ACCEPTING MONEY FROM CANDIDATES ..... From SINFUL to SHAMEFUL to DELIGHTFUL to RIGHTFUL : By Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 EVOLUTION OF ACCEPTING MONEY FROM CANDIDATES

From SINFUL to SHAMEFUL to DELIGHTFUL to RIGHTFUL

By Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Formally releasing my book ‘Democracy and Governance Through Lens and Blurred Glasses: A Journey into Distorted Visions of Modern-Day Politics’ on December 19, 2025, in Hyderabad, the Chief Guest, former Supreme Court Judge Justice V Ramasubramanian, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and one of India’s most respected jurists, made valuable observations. Moving seamlessly from wittiness to unambiguous truth, in his fifteen minutes address, the Justice remarked on the transition that has happened in our society.

He mentioned that, sixty or seventy years ago, accepting or offering money for a vote was considered SINFUL. Thirty years down the line, what was SINFUL became SHAMEFUL. What was once SINFUL, which later became SHAMEFUL, has now become DELIGHTFUL. Rightfully, therefore, the greatest threat is the erosion of the value system of the common man, the foundation of democracy. Delivered with humor, the statement drew laughter, but its moral weight was unmistakable. Beneath the humor lay an uncomfortable truth, that, democratic erosion is not confined to institutions or leaders alone, but it implicates society itself.

The Justice remarked that, unfortunately, when we talk about democracy and governance, the focus is only on the three pillars, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Observing that, whether by design or by coincidence, all the three pillars of democracy (The Executive, the Legislators, and the Judiciary) were represented in the audience, because the book that was released is all about these three pillars, he said that, by focusing more and more upon these three pillars, we have lost track of the foundation of democracy, namely the common man.

Justice Ramasubramanian cautioned that, the greatest threat to democracy today is, unfortunately, the common man himself, because he thinks accepting money is no problem. He emphasized that democracy is upheld not merely by the three constitutional organs but fundamentally by the common citizen, the custodian, and the fourth and most vital pillar. A vote, he reminded the audience, is not just a number but a moral and civic expression. He also highlighted the visionary nature of the Indian Constitution, noting that principles such as equality and the abolition of untouchability were embedded at inception, decades before many other democracies including USA, adopted similar measures.

Justice Ramasubramanian delivered an address that was profound, humorous, unsettling, and unforgettable. Opening with a seemingly simple question, whether anyone remembered the name of a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Omandur P Ramaswamy Reddiar, and receiving a collective ‘NO’ he delivered a quiet thunderbolt, and quipped, ‘Because he was Honest.’ Laughter followed, but it was tinged with uneasy recognition. Linking this he narrated the anecdote connected to that Great Chief Minister and his Driver.

Once, that Chief Minister, went to a different district by car and came back. While returning by car towards Chennai, he suddenly felt a wonderful aroma. ‘Is it Jackfruit?’ he asked the driver. The driver said, ‘Yes, Chief Minister. In the guest house where we stayed, there were lot of fruits, and the caretaker told to take it.’ The driver elicited from the CM whether the Chief Minister liked it as guessed by the caretaker?

Next day when Omandur returned to the Secretariat, he called the driver and gave him a sealed cover. When the driver asked what it was, he said, ‘There is a ticket for you to travel by bus to the same place, and there is some money equal to the price of the Jackfruit. He should go by bus, pay the fare, and pay for the Jackfruit he brought.’ The driver was frightened. Omandur said, ‘Do not bother. Next month, this money will be deducted from your salary.’ After narrating this the Justice asked the audience: ‘Today, can you find such a Chief Minister anywhere in the world?’

The Salient Feature of Justice Ramasubramanian’s speech: ‘Democracy is all about accommodating everybody. There is a little difficulty in governance. Therefore, I do not know whether democracy and governance, can really go together. But Indian democracy, people have a very peculiar knack. The common man wants his democratically elected dictator to rule him. Therefore, many democratically elected leaders, over a period of time, understand this philosophy and turn into dictators.’

‘Many people think there are lot of threats to democracy. ‘Democracy and Governance Through Lens and Blurred Glasses’ is the title of the book that is released today. Hence, we should know what our lens will do and what blurred glasses will do. A lens is a piece of glass which magnifies the object that you see. A blurred glass is something which does not give you clarity at all.’

‘What happens in a democracy is: admirers, party men, and those who follow the party look at the good deeds through a lens. They magnify and applaud. Persons on the opposite side look at the same thing through blurred glasses and say, ‘There is nothing there. Why are you applauding?’ Therefore, democracy and governance should not be looked at either through a lens or through blurred glasses. They should be looked at through plain eyes. There are no straight answers available either for democracy or for governance’ concluded Justice Ramasubramanian. (FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH AS APPENDIX-1)

A scholarly and Context-Rich Book Review was presented by Professor Ghanta Chakrapani, Vice-Chancellor of Dr BR Ambedkar Open University, who located the book within India’s evolving democratic discourse and emphasized its relevance in a time of institutional strain and civic fatigue. In his thought-provoking Review, he reflected on the author’s writing style, praising its subtle provocation of introspection.

By raising questions without imposing conclusions, noted Ghanta Chakrapani that, the book exposes societal biases, such as differential respect accorded to critiques from various institutions, while remaining bold, fair, and intellectually honest. He cited a compelling instance from the book, where this aspect is explicitly done.  He applauded the author’s ability to be bold, fair, and intellectually honest at once.

Picking up seamlessly from the intellectual frame set by Justice V Ramasubramanian, Professor Ghanta Chakrapani’s review locates Democracy and Governance Through Lens and Blurred Glasses within the lived reality of Indian institutions. Speaking not merely as an academic but as a constitutional functionary who has worked inside governance systems, he approaches the book as a reflective diagnosis rather than a celebratory commentary.

At the heart of his reading lies the book’s central metaphor: the contrast between the constitutional lens and the distorted vision created by blurred glasses. The lens, he explains, represents the Constitution’s promise of clarity, ethics, and accountability. The blurred glasses symbolize how power politics, expediency, institutional fatigue, and selective outrage distort democratic perception. What is endangered, he cautions, is not only governance, but the very way democracy is seen, interpreted, and judged by institutions and citizens alike.

Professor Chakrapani identifies constitutional morality as the book’s anchoring principle. The essays consistently remind readers that all institutions, the Parliament, the Executive, the Judiciary, and independent Bodies, derive both authority and restraint from the Constitution. When this moral anchor weakens, formal structures may survive, but democratic spirit erodes, giving rise to semi-autocratic practices without any overt constitutional rupture.

A significant thrust of the book, as he observes, is its candid assessment of Parliament and Legislatures as declining institutions of accountability. The weakening of debates, committee scrutiny, and legislative oversight has allowed executive dominance to grow unchecked. This institutional imbalance, he notes, inevitably pushes courts into contested spaces, giving rise to accusations of judicial overreach. The book’s question is pointed yet balanced: when legislatures retreat from their constitutional role, who truly disrupts the separation of powers?

On governance and administration, Professor Chakrapani highlights the author’s nuanced understanding of bureaucracy. Rather than portraying civil servants as villains or heroes, the book examines how careers gradually bend under pressure, through fear, convenience, ideological compromise, or misplaced loyalty. Ethical erosion, it argues, is rarely sudden; it is incremental, normalized, and therefore far more dangerous.

The review gives special attention to the book’s treatment of electoral democracy and independent institutions. The influence of money power, selective enforcement of norms, and weakening moral authority of watchdog bodies such as the Election Commission are presented as symptoms of deeper civic disengagement. Democracy, the book reminds us, cannot be sustained by institutions alone if citizens themselves reduce voting to a transactional act.

Professor Chakrapani also notes the author’s distinctive credibility: writing not from abstract theory but from memory, proximity, and experience. Drawing on decades of engagement with constitutional offices, public administration, and state-building, particularly during Telangana’s formative years, the author combines insider knowledge with intellectual restraint. Praise is never uncritical, and criticism never partisan.

Equally important is the book’s tone said Chakrapani. It neither shouts nor sermonizes. It raises questions without imposing conclusions, inviting readers to reflect rather than react. This restraint, Professor Chakrapani suggests, is its greatest strength in a time of polarized discourse. In sum, dovetailing with Justice Ramasubramanian’s warning about distorted vision and civic degeneration, Professor Chakrapani sees the book as a mirror, a diagnostic tool, and a quiet call to responsibility. It urges institutions to rediscover their constitutional purpose and citizens to reclaim democracy as a moral practice, not a spectacle, not a transaction, but a shared constitutional trust. (FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH AS APPENDIX-2)

Former Principal Secretary to first TG CM KCR, S Narsing Rao opened the deliberations by emphasizing the foundational strength of democratic systems and the indispensable role of the Rule of Law. Drawing parallels between the United States and India, he observed that societies anchored in constitutional fidelity and institutional discipline are better equipped to build durable economic and political frameworks. His remarks provided a philosophical anchor for the evening.

MLC Surabhi Vani Devi commended the author’s balanced approach, noting that the book neither indulges in pessimism nor glorifies democracy uncritically. Instead, it offers clarity amidst confusion, reinforcing faith in institutions while encouraging thoughtful scrutiny, an essential corrective in an era of polarized discourse.

Former CMD TG TRANSCO and GENCO, Devulapalli Prabhakar Rao highlighted a distinct dimension, symbolizing the author’s ability to connect institutions with accountability. He said that, in an era of strong opinions and instant judgments, this book invites to pause, think, and view governance with balance and maturity, and observed that, its non-confrontational tone avoids sensationalism and instead invites deeper reflection. By provoking dialogue rather than dictating conclusions, he said, the author strengthens democratic understanding.

BJP State President N Ramchander Rao emphasized that public trust ultimately rests on good governance and principled policymaking. Warning against political inducements, he reiterated that votes must be earned through transparent and ethical governance. His emphasis on the judiciary as the guardian of constitutional integrity underscored the delicate balance sustaining democracy.

Minister D Sridhar Babu brought immediacy and pragmatism to the discourse. Reflecting on democracy through multiple lenses, as an advocate, legislator, and public representative. He acknowledged that ideological differences are natural, even necessary, but governance must remain anchored in public interest. Light yet meaningful exchanges with Ramchander Rao on Panchayat elections connected theory to contemporary political reality. He also stressed that while technology and AI offer vast potential, they can never replace democratic values or institutional robustness, and educating future generations about democratic processes remains paramount.

Former Chief Secretary of AP, LV Subrahmanyam underlined adult suffrage as the cornerstone of democracy, empowering every citizen with an equal voice. Despite systemic challenges, he emphasized the need for bureaucrats to work in harmony with elected governments to effectively serve the people. Praneeth Group Managing Director Narendra Kumar Kamaraju made some key observations on the author and book.

The vote of thanks by senior advocate Harkara Srinivasa Rao was delivered with humility and grace, acknowledging the collective effort behind both the book and its launch. Audience responses echoed a shared sentiment that the evening was warm, inclusive, intellectually energizing, and deeply democratic, an event that did not merely review a book but awakened minds and reaffirmed responsibility.

What truly distinguished the Book Release evening was not consensus but plurality. Perspectives differed sharply at times, yet this diversity itself became a reaffirmation of democracy. Speakers explored the nuanced difference between questioning a value system and deliberately raising a question with intent, allowing listeners to reflect without judgment. Varied viewpoints coexisted, committed to the shared objective of public welfare, creating an intellectual atmosphere that mirrored the very theme of the book.

The release was far more than a conventional book launch. It unfolded as a reflective democratic moment, an evening where governance, law, politics, administration, academia, and citizen responsibility converged in rare harmony. Held at the MLAs and MPs Colony Cultural Center, Jubilee Hills, the event evolved into an intellectual congregation marked by depth, diversity, disagreement, and dignity. The dais itself reflected the plural spirit of the book. The Chief Guest and the Special Chief Guests, together brought administrative, political, legal, and public-sector perspectives to the evening.

The audience transformed the event into a living democratic forum. Sitting and former High Court Judges, former Judges, former Chief Secretaries, senior IAS officers, law officers, advocates, chartered accountants, corporate leaders, doctors, journalists, academicians, spiritual thinkers, and social leaders filled the hall, engaging not merely as listeners but as reflective participants. To name few of them:

High Court Judge Justice N Rajeshwara Rao, Former High Court Judges Justi Noti Rammohan Rao, Chairman State Police Complaints Authority Justice Shiva Shankara Rao, State Human Rights Commission Chairman Justice Shameem Akhtar, Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, District Judge R Tirupathi, Former Advocate General BS Prasad, Former Public Prosecutor Pratap Reddy, TG Additional Solicitor General B Narasimha Sharma, Deputy Additional Solicitor General Bhujanga Rao, Advocates Y Rama Rao, YN Lohita Shastry, Bhasha Vali etc.

Similarly, Former Rajya Sabha Member K Keshava Rao, MLA Peddapally C Vijaya Ramana Rao, Former Chief Secretaries Rajeev Sharma, LV Subrahmanyam, Chartered Accountants SV Rao, Shesha Prasad, CEO Volante Technologies Vijay Oddiraju, NATCO CEO Tumuluri Mohan Kumar, ED India Insurance Group Surya Mohan S, Siva Kumar, Vinod Achanta, Mukund Renova Hospital Director Dr Nagesh Tippa Raju, I Focus Head Kuppa Vasudeva Sharma, Former TTD Dharma Prachar Parishath Chairman Chilakapati Vijaya Raghavacharylu, Industrialist Jogesh, Former Additional DGP R Seetarama Rao, Former CGM SBI Bhandaru Ramchandra Rao, Senior Journalists Bhandaru Srinivasa Rao and Devulapalli Amar etc. And many more.   

Authored by me, the book that was released, presents a sweeping, incisive, and deeply experiential account of India’s democratic journey, seen sometimes through a clear lens, at other times through blurred glasses, yet always anchored in conscience. The work reflects not merely observation but my active participation, not theory alone but lived governance. My perspective has been shaped by over two decades of close engagement with public institutions, having served as Chief Public Relations Officer to the first Chief Minister of Telangana K Chandrashekhar Rao, as PRO to Dr M Chenna Reddy during his second term as Chief Minister of Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, and worked closely with former AP Governor Kumud Ben Joshi.

I also spent nine formative years at the Dr MCR HRD Institute as Senior Faculty and Additional Director, mentoring civil servants and engaging deeply with the ethical and operational foundations of governance. This rare convergence of proximity to power, administrative insight, and academic reflection gives the book, perhaps, its distinctive balance, critical without cynicism and analytical without detachment.

I hope that, my book stands as a democratic diary, a governance manual, a moral compass, and a citizen’s guide. Through seventy-five articles, the book journeys from immediate political events to deeper constitutional and ethical reflections. It demystifies constitutional principles, administrative systems, political behaviour, and electoral dynamics in an accessible and rigorous manner, making it relevant to policymakers, scholars, civil servants, students, and citizens alike.

The quality of being honest and straightforward, is one of its defining strengths of my book. I did not hesitate to expose institutional erosion, political expediency, ethical compromise, and civic apathy. My articles point toward reform, renewal, and responsibility, reminding readers that democracy is neither automatic nor self-correcting, but it survives only through vigilance and participation. In essence, my book does not dictate conclusions. It provokes dialogue, invites disagreement, and demands reflection. The book release thus became more than an event, it became a democratic statement. reaffirming that governance must be examined honestly, democracy defended vigilantly, and citizenship lived responsibly.

APPENDIX-1

FULL TEXT OF SPEECH OF

CHIEF GUEST JUSTICE V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Former Judge, Supreme Court of India

Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission

I always used to say that the last speaker of the day has a peculiar problem. When the last speaker gets up to speak, either the audience is half asleep or the hall is half empty. Fortunately, the hall is not half empty today. What I cannot say about is the first part. But this itself, I think, is one of the problems of primitive democracy, that, when you have too many VIPs.

Democracy is all about accommodating everybody. It is what it is, about including everybody, all-inclusive. So, when you want to include everybody in the audience for a book release function, and everybody has to come on stage for photographs, it becomes difficult to even take photographs. Too much of democracy, therefore, results in, … well, I do not want to use that word.

There is a little difficulty in governance. Therefore, democracy and governance, I do not know whether they can really go together. But if you carefully look at Indian democracy, you will find that people have a very peculiar knack. The common man wants his democratically elected dictator to rule him. Therefore, many democratically elected leaders, over a period of time, understand this philosophy and turn into dictators. This, in a sense, is democracy in countries of this nature.

Many people think there are a lot of threats to democracy. In fact, the Honorable Minister said, ‘What is the lens through which I have to see?’ I will not give you a perspective. Democracy and Governance Through Lens and Blurred Glasses is the title given to the book. So, we should know what our lens will do and what blurred glasses will do.

A lens is a piece of glass which magnifies the object that you see. A blurred glass is something which does not give you clarity at all. So, the Minister said that what happens in a democracy is this: your admirers, your party men, and those who follow you look at your good deeds through a lens. They magnify you and applaud you. Persons on the opposite side look at the same thing through blurred glasses and say, ‘There is nothing there. Why are you applauding?’

So, I think democracy and governance should not be looked at either through a lens or through blurred glasses. They should be looked at through plain eyes. In fact, for a moment, I would like to take the role of an advocate for Mr Optimist, not because he articulated the point, but because he wanted to articulate the point without really making it a point.

About page 386, he wanted to draw on a theme. I will say that on page 386 he refers to demonetization and GST. They may all have resulted in the poor performance of this particular government. Demonetization happened in November 2016. GST came in 2017. In 2019, their proportion, if you look through our data, did not show a major fall. It was only in 2024 that it came down. This is the point which he wanted to argue, is it not? I am only acting as an advocate here. I am not an advocate for Mr Johnson or the law, nor for his party.

Unfortunately, when we talk about democracy and governance, we focus only on the three pillars, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. I do not know whether by design or by coincidence, all the three pillars of democracy are represented here today. The Executive is here, the Legislators are here, and the Judiciary is here. All the three pillars are here, because this book is all about these three pillars.

But by focusing more and more upon these three pillars, we have lost track of the foundation of democracy, namely the common man. The greatest threat to democracy today is, unfortunately, the common man himself, because he thinks accepting money is no problem.

Look at the way the transition has happened in our society. Sixty or seventy years ago, accepting or offering money for a vote was considered SINFUL. Thirty years down the line, what was SINFUL became SHAMEFUL. What was once SINFUL, which later became SHAMEFUL, has now become DELIGHTFUL. Rightfully, therefore, the greatest threat is the erosion of the value system of the common man, the foundation of democracy.

We had a Chief Minister in Tamil Nadu by name Omandur P Ramaswamy Reddiar. You would not have heard much about him because he was an honest man. I used to tell people that if you want to be remembered for a long period of time by a large number of people, you must be a Hitler. If you are a good man, who will remember you?

Once, when he was the Chief Minister, someone died, and he went to a different district by car and came back. While returning by car towards Chennai, he suddenly felt a wonderful aroma. ‘Is it jackfruit?’ he asked the driver. The smell was coming. The driver said, ‘Yes, Chief Minister. In the guest house where we stayed, there were a lot of fruits.’ The caretaker had said, ‘Please take it. Would the Chief Minister like it?’ The driver said yes and was asked not to say anything.

When Omandur P Ramaswamy Reddiar returned to the Secretariat, he called the driver and gave him a sealed cover. When the driver asked what it was, Omandur P Ramaswamy Reddiar said, ‘There is a ticket for you to travel by bus to the same place, and there is some money equal to the price of the jackfruit. You must go by bus, pay the fare, and pay for the jackfruit you brought.’ The driver was frightened. Omandur P Ramaswamy Reddiar said, ‘Do not bother. Next month, this money will be deducted from your salary.’

Today, can you find such a Chief Minister anywhere in the world? If such an event happened today, people would ask, ‘Where did you ask for jackfruit? I was the invited guest, and you took the jackfruit.’

This transition that has taken place in our value system starts at our homes. We have all started doing it ourselves. But one thing about Indian Democracy is remarkable. The American Constitution came in the late 18^th Century. It did not guarantee equality, because slavery was not abolished at that time. It took more than ninety years for an amendment to abolish slavery. After that, it took another ninety years for segregation laws to be abolished, culminating in the famous Rosa Parks incident in December 1955.

It took nearly 180 years for the American Constitution to evolve to guarantee equality. Whereas, from day one, the Indian Constitution guaranteed equality. We had great people-people who could see the future of our country. The only mistake they made was this: we have a trained schedule for people who jump from party to party, but we do not have any schedule for a person who takes money to cast a vote.

In 2006, there was a very famous election in Tamil Nadu where the rates went so high. An election officer, who was a friend of mine, narrated an incident that shook me. He said that party workers were distributing money to all households but avoided one particular building because it was occupied by the leader of an opposition party. The wife of that leader asked, ‘Why are you not paying money to us?’ They replied, ‘You belong to the opposition party.’ She said, ‘Just because my husband belongs to another party does not mean I will not vote.’

This is a real-life incident. It is hard to believe, but that is the extent of degeneration that has taken place in our society. It is this degeneration that poses the greatest threat to our country. That is why Plato described democracy not as the best form of government, but as the second-worst form. After all, who are the demos? If the demos are not clearly defined, it will not be democracy; it will only be demagoguery. That is what we see today.

What is the problem with governance? Many bureaucrats are here, and you may pardon me for saying this. It applies not only to bureaucrats, but also to judges, legislators, and politicians. Their entire career is divided into three parts: the first decade, the second decade, and the last decade. In the first decade, people come with vision and say, ‘I can do it. In the second decade, they say, ‘What can you do, sir?’ In the last decade, they say, ‘Nothing can be done.’ This is the transition through which every one of us goes.

The reason is compromise. I always tell my colleagues. Look at anybody’s career. It is not a question of compromise or no compromise. Today it is a question of when a person compromises. Some people start their career with compromises, many end their career with compromises. In this journey, at different points of time, people compromise, not necessarily on financial integrity, but because of various other factors.

Some people have ideological compulsions. Some think that unless they stay in the system, they cannot do good to the system, and that there is no point in fighting and getting out. A lot of things come into play. Therefore, this is a huge canvas. The problems posed are multifaceted, and there is no single solution. There is nothing like a one-stop-shop solution.

There are no straight answers available either for democracy or for governance. That, I think, is the summing up of this entire article.

Thank you very much. 

 

APPENDIX-2

FULL TEXT OF BOOK REVIEW By

SPECIAL CHIEF GUEST PROFESSOR GHANTA CHAKRAPANI

Vice Chancellor Dr BR Ambedkar Open University

Former Chairman Telangana State Public Service Commission

All the three traditional pillars of the State, and what we often call the ‘Fourth pillar’ of democracy, are present in this hall today. It is a rare privilege to speak on a book about democracy and governance in the presence of those who interpret the Constitution, those who make our laws, those who implement them, and those who scrutinise them on behalf of the people. I deem it both an honour and a privilege to be here this evening, in the company of such distinguished jurists, legislators, administrators and journalists.

Jwala has been kind to involve me in almost every one of his books, either to write a preface, or to join him at a release function, except, of course, for his deeply personal works on the Ramayana, the Bhagavata and the Bharata. That long association makes today’s occasion feel not just like a formal event, but like a continuing conversation between friends who care about the same constitutional values.

            I never felt that associating with Jwala’s work or speaking at his meetings was a challenge. He would send me the draft, I would read it, admire it, and speak quite effortlessly from the heart. But today I am a little confused about what exactly to say. This time the difficulty is not the book, but the difficulty is the distinguished company. When Justice V Ramasubramanian has written a ten‑page appraisal, when S Narsing Rao has given a six‑page foreword, and when a close companion and the author himself have written so clearly about the work, it becomes hard to know what new I can add.

I stand here, therefore, with great respect and a little hesitation, trying to share, in simple words, how this book speaks to someone who lives inside the systems that it so carefully examines. The title of the book, ‘Democracy and Governance through Lens and Blurred Glasses: A Journey into Distorted Visions of Modern-Day Politics,’ is highly complex and rich with meanings and connotations. The title itself invites us to pause.

The word ‘Lens’ suggests the ideal way of seeing democracy clearly: through constitutional values, ethics, and citizens’ interests. The ‘Blurred Glasses’ imply that in practice this vision is distorted by power politics, expediency and weakening institutions, so that, what should be transparent appears hazy or misleading. The subtitle, ‘A Journey into Distorted Visions of Modern-Day Politics,’ signals that this book is not a celebration of democracy, but a tour of how it is twisted in real life. It suggests that what has been distorted is not only governance, but our very way of seeing, the lenses through which parties, media and even citizens interpret events.

This gives us a clue to what Jwala is trying to do. He takes the clear, sharp lens of the Constitution, and then he shows us how, when that lens is covered with the dust of narrow politics, propaganda, personality cults and institutional neglect, our collective glasses become blurred. Through this contrast of lens versus blurred glasses, he explores the gap between the idea of democracy and the practice of democracy. The title has both depth and a touch of sarcasm, but it is a very gentle, constructive sarcasm. It is meant to wake us up, not to insult us.

Before speaking about the book in detail, let me turn to the author and to the distinguished people who stand around this book. Jwala Narasimha Rao is not just a columnist. He is a wide reader, a sharp observer, and a practitioner of governance issues. He has the restless curiosity of a journalist, but also the patience of a serious student of institutions. His life is intertwined with the Constitution, Parliament, Public Policy, and the Everyday Struggles of Citizens. Those who know his work often say that, he does not write from opinion alone, but he writes from memory, conscience, and the courage to connect dots that others prefer to keep separate. This makes his work both intellectually rich and morally serious.

About Justice V Ramasubramanian, I can speak only with reverence. He is one of India’s finest jurists, with deep knowledge of the Constitution, political philosophy, and Indian society. For me, it is a Dronacharya–Ekalavya relationship. I do not know him personally, yet his judgments have silently mentored me. Some of our most critical notifications and recruitments survived constitutional scrutiny because of the depth, balance, and fairness of his reasoning. In that sense, he ‘saved’ us without ever asking for my finger. When such a judge writes a detailed appraisal of Jwala’s work, it is more than a review. It is a dialogue between two constitutional sensibilities, two minds that both cares deeply for the rule of law and the integrity of institutions.

I also had the privilege of working closely with S Narsing Rao. He is one of Telangana’s finest civil servants, not only top‑ranked in the Indian Civil Services but also a deep and quiet intellectual. In the formative years of Telangana, he balanced power with calm wisdom and a keen sense of fairness. I worked with him for almost six years. From him, I learned administration, ethics and what I like to call the three Ds: Decency, Dignity and Decorum.

For me he is a true guru in governance. When such a person writes a six‑page foreword to this book, we know that the author is someone serious and that the subject is not treated lightly. Along with this, a long‑time companion of Jwala has written a warm and honest prologue, and Jwala has written his own note explaining why he brought these essays together. The book, therefore, comes to us already surrounded by careful and responsible voices.

Who is Jwala as a writer and thinker? The first thing that strikes us is his temperament. He is not carried away by emotion. He does not shout, he does not abuse and he does not use anger as an argument. He is not a partisan warrior. His ‘Ideology’ if we may use that word, is the Constitution itself. He stands firmly on democratic values, constitutional morality, and institutional integrity, not on party lines or personal loyalties. Even when he is sharply critical, his tone is calm and his arguments are built on facts, documents, and careful reasoning. This gives his writing a special credibility. It allows him to question all sides with equal honesty and to avoid the usual labels of ‘For or Against’ a particular leader or government.

The second striking feature is his memory and his sense of history. Jwala can recall events from fifty or sixty years ago, such as, debates in Parliament, statements by leaders, policy turns taken in earlier decades, and connect them to today’s controversies. His anecdotes are never casual. They are chosen to show how institutions have evolved, where we have honoured our promises and where we have quietly moved away from the original spirit of the Constitution.

Underneath these stories lies a great deal of reading: constitutional law, political theory, public administration, Indian history, and comparative politics. But he wears this scholarship lightly. He explains complex issues in simple, direct language, without jargon. There is also realism in his writing. Jwala understands how the system actually works: how files move, how notifications are drafted, how recruitment rules are framed and challenged, how a policy decision travels from a political promise to a government order, and sometimes to a courtroom.

He knows the distance between what is written in textbooks and what happens across the table in a government office. At the same time, he carries a strong sense of institutionalism and constitutionalism. He keeps asking: What is the rightful role of Parliament? How should the Election Commission behave if it wants to keep public trust? What should civil servants do when political instructions conflict with constitutional duty? How should information commissions and regulatory bodies serve citizens? In all this, he writes like a journalist in spirit: he looks for facts, he respects evidence and he is not afraid to ask inconvenient questions.

The book ‘Democracy and Governance through Lens and Blurred Glasses’ brings together about seventy‑five of his articles, written over nearly fifteen years. Many of them first appeared in newspapers, magazines and on his blog ‘Jwalasmusings.’ In this volume they are arranged into chapters and clusters. Together they cover many layers of our democracy. At the core is the Constitution. Around it is the Parliament and the State Legislatures. Then come the executive and the civil service. Then the independent institutions, such as the Election Commission and information commissions. The book also touches on administrative reforms commissions, public policy debates and the values that must guide all of these, such as, values like accountability, transparency, and constitutional morality.

The Constitution is the central thread. For Jwala, it is not a dry legal text. It is a living guide. In his articles, he explains how the power to reorganise states must be used carefully, with respect for both national integrity and regional aspirations. He treats federalism, fundamental rights, and the basic structure not as technical doctrines but as moral commitments. He reminds us that all institutions derive their authority and their limits from the Constitution. When they drift away from this anchor, we begin a quiet slide towards semi‑autocratic practices, even if the formal words of the Constitution remain unchanged. A recurring idea in his writing is that democracy is not a perfect system, but it must prevail. And it can prevail only if we protect not just the text but the spirit of the Constitution.

On Parliament and Legislatures, his assessment is frank and sobering. In his well‑known article ‘Parliament as an Institution of Accountability is on the decline,’ he writes that over the years the effectiveness of the Indian Parliament as an institution of accountability and supervision has been steadily weakening. He points out that the usual tools of accountability, the motions on the floor, questions, debates, the committee system etc. are being rendered dysfunctional. Parliament, he notes, is increasingly becoming ineffective in scrutinising the executive. Instead of being a forum for serious deliberation, it is often reduced to an oppositional space where shouting substitutes for reasoning. He warns that the long‑term implications of this inaction and decline are serious for the health of democracy.

Behind this critique lies a deeper concern about the balance of power. When Parliament fails to do its job, the executive becomes too strong. Ordinances and delegated legislation expand. Independent regulators and authorities take decisions without adequate legislative oversight. At the same time, citizens and interest groups start looking to the courts to correct policy or to fill gaps left by legislative inaction. Then we enter the debate about ‘Judicial Overreach’ and the fear that the judiciary is becoming a ‘Super Parliament.’ Jwala’s position is subtle: he does not attack the courts; he asks why Parliament left such a vacuum in the first place. The remedy, in his view, is to restore the dignity and effectiveness of Legislatures so that each organ of the State can function within its proper sphere.

On civil servants and administration, Jwala writes with both sympathy and expectation. He believes that the first loyalty of bureaucracy must be to the Constitution and to the citizen, not merely to the government of the day. Ethical administration, for him, is not a luxury, but it is the foundation on which democratic legitimacy rests. Here his thinking meets what many of us learned from S Narsing Rao, the three Ds of Decency, Dignity and Decorum in public life. Jwala argues that honest officers must be protected from arbitrary transfers and vindictive actions. Recruitment and promotion should be based on merit and integrity. Administrative reforms must aim to create systems that are open, predictable, and fair, so that, an individual officer’s courage is supported by institutional design, not left isolated.

He also pays close attention to institutions like the Election Commission of India. Jwala often calls Indian elections a great festival of democracy, but he refuses to close his eyes to the darker side. He worries about the influence of money power, the use of divisive rhetoric, the uneven playing field between ruling parties and opposition, and the length and design of election schedules. He observes that the authority of the Election Commission flows not only from Article 324, but from public perception of its neutrality, consistency, and courage. When the Commission appears hesitant or selective in enforcing the Model Code of Conduct, or slow in responding to clear violations, that moral authority suffers. His conclusion is simple: if people stop trusting the referee, the game itself loses legitimacy.

Similarly, he writes about the Right to Information and information commissions as critical tools of democratic accountability. If commissions are headless, understaffed or painfully slow, citizens remain in the dark. And democracy cannot function in darkness. Transparency, timely information, and reasoned decisions are, for him, non‑negotiable. He connects RTI to larger questions of public trust: when citizens cannot access basic information, they will either become cynical or fall prey to misinformation. In both cases, democratic debate is weakened.

A very special part of the book, for many of us here, is his writing on Telangana. Apart from straight‑forward constitutional foundations, democratic values, administrative ethics and institutional practices, Jwala has devoted a good number of articles to the governance priorities and policies of the first Government of Telangana. Those were our ‘Rainbow Years’ that first decade when a new State was trying to find its feet, and many of us in this hall had the privilege of working together in that phase of institution‑building. Even in those articles, what stands out is his integrity.

There is no unnecessary praise, no public‑relations language, no attempt to flatter anyone in power. When he wrote something good about a government initiative, it was because he found genuine value in its design, ethics, and impact, not because he wanted to please those in office. That balance of supporting what is right, questioning what is wrong, and always measuring both against constitutional values, makes his work especially trustworthy for those of us who lived through that period of Telangana’s governance.

He also engages with the reports of various administrative reforms commissions and public policy bodies. Instead of treating these documents as files to be stored, he reads them as serious attempts to improve governance. Then he asks a simple question: have we actually implemented these recommendations in spirit, or merely borrowed some words for speeches and PowerPoint presentations? Time and again, he returns to a few core values: accountability, transparency, respect for institutional boundaries, and the courage to admit and correct mistakes.

What, then, is the purpose of this book, and how can it be useful to us? In his own introductory note, Jwala explains that he has brought these essays together to trace how our vision of democracy has become distorted. The ‘Lens’ represents the clear, principled view that the Constitution offers. The ‘Blurred Glasses’ represent the way this view gets twisted by partisan politics, personality worship, propaganda, and institutional fatigue. The book takes the reader on a journey through these distortions. It does not merely complain, but it documents, analyses, and invites reflection.

For people like us, the jurists, legislators, administrators, journalists, academics and citizens, this book can serve at least three purposes. First, it is a mirror. It forces us to look honestly at what is happening inside our own institutions: in Parliament, in Government Departments, in commissions and in the media. Second, it is a diagnostic tool. It helps us see where the problem lies, not only ‘Out There’ in some other institution, but sometimes within our own practices, habits, and blind spots. Third, it is a quiet call to action. It invites each institution to return to its constitutional purpose and each citizen to remain engaged and vigilant.