Indian democracy has for long been held to be a theoretical and historical anomaly. India, according to this argument, did not possess any of the social and economic requisites of a democracy. Both its poverty and literacy levels were a major hindrance to the consolidation of the democratic processes and institutions that the nation’s founding fathers had put in place.
Historically, too, the British did not encourage or promote the growth of democratic institutions in this country. The credit for that must go to the several nationalist movements that sought to promote democratic values and worked towards establishing democratic principles of governance.
The ground reality today is that those democratic roots have indeed grown stronger over the last six decades since India’s independence. India has achieved democratic consolidation, proving many a sceptic wrong. At the same time, however, it would be patently wrong to argue that the record of Indian democracy has been entirely unblemished and there are no danger signals for the sustainability of India’s democratic institutions and processes.
Sumit Ganguly, one of the editors of the volume under review, believes as much. He has put together a dozen essays from well-known academics and experts, who broadly agree with him in his assessment that the Indian experiment in democracy has fared quite well, although there are many problem areas.
Neatly divided into four sections, four of these essays deal with politics (the political parties, electoral system, ethnic conflict, caste and minorities), three essays cover the state (the federal structure, judicial sovereignty and the police), three essays take up issues pertaining to society (the role of civil society, corruption and the media) and two examine the economy (growth and states).
The most interesting conclusions emerge from the two essays on the economy and how economic reforms have strengthened democratic roots in the country and how economic disparities among states have actually emboldened the people to demand further reorganisation of states to ensure improved delivery systems and better governance.
Aseema Sinha argues that higher economic growth in the wake of reforms has not lifted every section of society or every region. While there are winners from the economic reforms process, there are many losers as well. But the positive outcome, though unexpected, is that while those who benefitted from reforms felt no need to tamper with the democratic systems, the underprivileged people who lost out in their wake did not vent their anger by seeking to destroy democratic institutions either.
More From This Section
On the contrary, Sinha argues, the losers have submitted themselves to the institutions of electoral politics for redressal of their grievances, instead of turning against them. Aiding this process has been the increasing size of the middle-class population, which has cast its vote in support of the democratic system. In addition, the state too has recognised the gaps that reforms may have created in the economic prosperity levels among people and different regions. This has led to generous doses of policy measures to achieve inclusive growth.
Sinha’s assessment may not be entirely accurate. With several districts in the country coming under the influence of the Maoist groups, it is clear that large ethnic groups of losers from the economic reforms process are not necessarily turning to the state. Instead, they are seeking redressal of their grievances through the Maoist groups, many of which still claim to be outside the existing democratic system in the country. Till the state decides on a strategy to accommodate these groups and bring them within the pale of its policy apparatus, doubts about the efficacy of reforms in strengthening India’s democracy may persist.
Not surprisingly, therefore, Sunita Kale is less optimistic about her assessment on the impact of reforms on Indian democracy. She is quite candid about her fear that the problem of rising economic inequalities among states could worsen with the spread of market-linked development policies.
Equally concerned is Niraja Jayal, who points out that while the civil society movement has greatly contributed to increased public accountability, the quality of the civil society movement has given rise to many problems. Many of these organisations, affiliated as they are with political parties with vested interests , have “illiberal characteristics” and do not always subscribe to the principles of a pluralist democracy.
The role of the regional language media in promoting the idea of a secular India, too, has come in for question. Pratap Bhanu Mehta is justifiably concerned over the adverse fall-out of judicial activism. But none of them raises doubts about the future of Indian democracy. In any case, all the essayists on India’s political and electoral system have showered some well-deserved praise on the country’s political classes for having run the system without major hiccups. Overall, the book creates a strong feel-good factor about Indian democracy. The danger signals are there, but a little subdued.
THE STATE OF INDIA’S DEMOCRACY
Ed Sumit Ganguly, Larry Diamond & Marc F Plattner
Oxford University Press
232 pages; Rs 675
