Political Science And International Relations

TEST 9 MODEL ANSWERS

1. Explain the term ‘politicisation of caste’. How it is changing the contours of caste
system in India?

Answer:

In a diverse society like India, which is seen as the complete grid of caste, ethnicity, religions
etc, the interrelationship between social and political structure in the form of identity politics
has been a common phenomenon. In the Indian context, Christophe Jaffrelot calls ‘caste’
as the mosaic of Indian politics.

Due to the increasing significance of politics of number, there is an increasing trend of

identity politics in general and caste politics in particular. In order to galvanise support or
popular base, political parties mobilise people on the basis of caste. Caste structure provides
one of the principal organisational clusters used by political parties for articulation of support.

Thus, caste has become a political category and due to the influence of caste on politics in the
form of popular mobilisation, it is ambivalent that whether the caste uses politics or politics
uses caste. In this context, Rajni Kothari suggests that it is not just caste has influenced
politics, but politics has also influenced caste. It is not the politics that has become caste-
ridden, caste has also got politicised.

In concrete terms, the caste-ridden feature of politics is represented by the process of

mobilisation & voting on the basis of caste factor. On the other hand, politicization of caste is
evident from the fact that caste has become an influential factor for acquiring secular
benefits such as access to education & employment through the instrument of reservation.

As the caste has become a political category in the contemporary context, the caste system
has also undergone a change. Exploring the relationship between caste & politics, Surinder
Jodhka has emphasized that the caste is much more active institution than it was ever.
According to Jodhka, it is an outcome of the electoral processes and competitive politics
leading to politicization of caste.

According to Sudha Pai, with the impact of politics, the caste system has been increasingly
experiencing change and the discourse on caste has changed from hierarchy to difference in
the contemporary period. Sudha Pai emphasized that the change in caste system has taken
place at various level-

1|Page
 1. The power relationship among caste groups at village & local level is undergoing
significant change. Unlike traditional competitive relation between dominant & lower
castes, contemporary relationship is characterized by both collaboration &
competition. This is mainly due to the process of secularization of caste that has led
to break up of old socio-political order.
2. There is an increased awareness about sub-castes and they are playing a more
important role than earlier.
3. Affirmative action such as reservation has led to the rise of a small but influential
educated middle class amongst the lower castes, who are demanding a share in the
fruits of development.

Thus, there is change in the contours of caste system in India. There is a greater diversity
in the political & socio- economic position of caste groups, particularly at the lower levels of
the caste system. There is politicisation of caste along with castecization of politics.

2. ‘Secularism and Democracy are the twin pillars of the state, the very foundation of
our society’. Considering this statement discuss the nature of secularism in India. Do
you think that secularism in India remains a contested concept?

Answer:

According to Charles Taylor, secularism in some form is a necessity for the democratic life
of religiously diverse societies. Thus, despite being a western concept, secularism constitute
the very foundation of the Indian society as it ensures, what Hasan Suroor calls as, ‘plural
coexistence’.

Secularism, that defines appropriate relation among state, individual and religion, is
interpreted differently in different countries, resulting in diverse models. The western model,
which usually considers separation of state from religion as secularism is different from the
Indian model of secularism, owing to the difference in societal structure & values.

According to Rajeev Bhargava, in his work ‘secularism and its critics’. There are three
different models of secularism---

1. Hyper substantive model- Secularism based on the substantive values like

autonomy, human dignity, freedom of choice.
2. Ultra procedural model- secularism based on rationality, rules & bureaucratic
rational procedures.
3. Contextual secularism- secularism based on the principle of ‘principled
distance’ between state and religion. It is a politically- negotiated model that
exclude or include religion based on the context.

2|Page
According to Rajeev Bhargava, Indian model of secularism is not based on any single
overarching idea and, thus, is compatible with the ‘contextual- model’ of secularism. He
argues that the Indian model is neither the model of ‘religious neutrality nor equal treatment
of all religions. On the contrary, Indian model follows the principle of ‘principled distance’
that provides flexibility in approach through differential treatment. Based on the context,
state exclude or include religion, resulting in simultaneous existence of engagement &
disengagement between state & religion.

Thus, in this way, the Indian model is contextual model of secularism. Rajeev Bhargava has
given 7 essential features of the Indian model of secularism-

1.Despite the absence of any state religion, state is not averse to use of religious symbol.
2.No strict boundary between politics & religion, rather porous boundary.
3.No active hostility towards religion & no passive indifference.
4.Different religions are in the foundation of state.
5.No over-arching idea of secularism.
6. Secularism is dependent on the idea of liberty, equality and is considered as the integral
component of democracy.
7. Politically negotiated contextual model.

According to D E Smith, in his work ‘India as a secular state’, the Indian Constitution and
the Indian Supreme Court are the two great bulworks that protect Indian secularism. The
Indian constitution affirms the principle of no established state religion along with religions
liberty that incorporates Right to profess, practice & propagate religion, Right to set up
religious institutions & minority educational institutions (Art 25- Art 30).

According to Rajeev Bhargava, Indian secularism continues to be misunderstood as its

complexity and distinctiveness remains elusive. In other words, idea of India as a secular
state remains a matter of debate. This is so because the idea of secularism, which is
considered as the cornerstone of Indian democracy, is a highly contested concept.

There are different lines of understanding of secularism, which were evident in the debates in
the constituent Assembly.

1. Nehruvian idea of ‘Dharma nirpeksta’ or religious neutrality: It is a modernist

approach based on separation between politics and religion in the form of
religious neutrality.
2. Gandhain idea of ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’ or Equal of all religion: It is
based on rejection of idea of separation of religion and politics and believed in
equal respect of all religions.

In addition to the debate on the nature of Indian model of secularism, there has been a
difference among scholars on the idea of India as a secular state. According to D E
Smith, despite being a secular state, India has some but not all features of a secular state.

3|Page
He argues that although the Indian constitution reflects freedom of religion and Right to
equality & citizenship, it lacks the principle of separation between state and Religion. On the
other hand, Marc Galanter criticises D E Smith for evaluating Indian secularism from
the perspective of American model. According to Galanter, India has its unique model of
secularism.

Ashish Nandy takes an ‘anti-secularist’ stand as he prefers Gandhain idea of tolerance

over secularism, which he considers as modern western concept that doesn’t suit Indian
realities. In the same line, T. N. Madan refers to the idea of secularism as arrogance &
political folly. He argues that in a multi-religious society like India, secularism should be
based on recognition of religious pluralism & tolerance.

Partha Chatterjee, like Nandy & Madan held that secularism, being a western construct,
is problematic when applied in the Indian context, which is evident in the idea of ‘pseudo
secularism’ given by Hindu majority with reference to attempt to defend rights of religious
minorities.

According to Neera Chandhoke, Indian version of secularism is based on Gandhian

principle of equal respect of all religions. On the other hand, Gurpreet Mahajan argues that
India presents different case because it affirms both the idea of no established religion &
religious liberty.

Thus, above debate among scholars reflects that there is dissatisfaction with both the theory
and practice of secularism in India.

3. “Indians love to have parties and distrust them too”. Discuss the challenges and
paradoxes of Indian parties.

Answer:

• Political parties are indispensable to any democratic system and are essential components
of representative democracy in general and parliamentary form of government in
particular. Parties are the leading political institution that offers citizens avenues for
political precipitation 7 choices in governance.
• However, a/q to Suhash Palshikar, depending on the way the political parties function in
India, they evoke curiosity and criticism. A/Q to him, there’s a growing element of
distrust among people with respect to political parties. A/Q to Prof. Yogendra Yadav, the
political parties in India are going through the process of ‘institutionalization’ and ‘de-
institutionalization’ simultaneously.
• A/Q to Palshikar, political parties in India face five challenges—
(i) Preference to electoral activism over party building

4|Page
 By giving priority to electoral activism over party building process, they over lock the
importance of cultivating long term loyalties among members that remain intact
irrespective of electoral upsets.
(ii) Challenge of balancing party-work and livelihoods of members.
Parties in India prefer broad-basing citizen involvement through participating in the
organization. However, they fail to create enough opportunities for members to meet
their requirements & livelihoods.
(iii) Monopoly of economics in politics-
Another challenge is to ensure that financially better-off doesn’t have monopoly on
politics and to create such opportunities that allow even ordinary citizens to
participate in politics.
(iv) Resource-based challenge
This challenge is a product of inequality among parties on the resource front.
Movement parties like AAP, having restricted resources, find it difficult to run party
on popular contributions. On the other hand, mainstream political parties engage in
corrupt practices by distorting public policy to generate resources on a huge scale.
(v)Balance b/w dual aspiration of movement vis-a-vis governance.
A party can constantly renew its popular base by engaging in movements involving
people. At the same time, they opt for electoral processes to form government. A/Q to
Suhash Palshikar, in pursuance of both these aspirations, parties either misses out on
governance skills or loses enthusiasm for movement.

Paradoxical feature of Political Parties (Paul Brass)

(i) In terms of organization, parties are organized on the modern bureaucratic principles, but
in practice, they work on traditional political practices of dynastic style.
(ii) Inspite of the fact that party system is a product of modernization of the society and
government, political parties opt for traditional form of political mobilization based on
identity politics.
(iii) Although political parties are essential for democratic culture in India, but they
themselves lack internal democracy. A/Q to Rajni Kothari, this is an important non-
western feature of Indian political parties.

(Q4) ‘Democracy often have undemocratic roots and India is not an exception, at least
not on this score’ (Atul Kohli).

• Democracy in India has been characterized as an ‘intellectual puzzle’ and a ‘paradox’

and Atul Kohli held that India’s democracy has defied many prevailing theories that
provide certain essential pre-requisites for democracy to be a successful political
experiment. Contrary to the theories that suggest that democracy is most likely in
industrialised & capitalist countries with a healthy tradition of democratic culture, India’s
democracy has succeeded despite India being a developing agrarian multi-ethnic society
with a rigid hierarchical social structure.

5|Page
• A/q to Atul Kohli, Indian democracy can be best understood by focusing, not mainly on
socio-economic determinants, but by examining India’s modern political determinants.
In this context, Kohli, in his work, ‘The Success of India’s Democracy’, has argued that
democracy in India has undemocratic roots. In other words, he meant that the
introduction and the consolidation or strengthening of the democratic culture in India has
been a result of certain important undemocratic political events in the country.
• Origin of Indian Democracy: A Colonial legacy
A/q to scholars like Weiner, India’s democracy is mainly a legacy of British colonialism.
India inherited a number of political traits from British rule, that can be argued to be
significant for India’s democratic evolution, such as a relatively centralized state, an
efficient civil service, and introduction of elections, And values of liberal democracy
among political elites such as Nehru. A/q to Sumit Sarkar, India as a post-colonial state
was fundamentally an outgrowth of the colonial regime. However, despite
acknowledging British role in introduction of democratic ideas, Sumit Sarkar held that
Indians shaped their own version of democracy with introduction of adult franchise,
secularism & federalism.
• In the context of role played by political institutions, such as political leadership, in the
consolidation of the Indian democracy, Atul Kohli has divided India’s political
evolution in 3 distinct phases-----
(i) Dominance of Nehru (1950-mid 1960s)
• A/q to Atul Kohli, the two most important institutions that strengthened democracy
was- civil service & Congress (INC). The civil service, a colonial body, contributed to
effective government & political stability. On the other hand, INC, product of national
movement & enjoyed popularity & legitimacy, led to the dominance of Nehru.
• A/q to Kohli, owing to his political stature, Nehru accommodated rival elites within
congress and, thus, silenced any form of political challenge to his leadership. In
addition, during this phase, congress provided state patronage to powerful members of
society such as land-owners, upper castes etc for electoral mobilization.
• A/q to Atul Kohli, despite undemocratic political strategies of Nehru & Congress
party, poor governance & multiple political conflicts couldn’t weaken democracy due
to effective civil service, low level of political mobilization & dominance of Nehru &
INC.
(ii) Dominance of Indira Gandhi (1970s & 1980s)
• Indira Gandhi’s personalistic & populistic politics weakened democratic institutions
such as the congress party, civil service, federal system etc.
• A/Q to Atul Kohli, Indira Gandhi’s ‘brief authoritarian period’(1975-1977) helped
Indian democracy to be strengthened—
(i) The fact that Indira Gandhi was voted out of the power post-emergency confirmed
the efficacy of India’s democracy.
(ii) India’s political groups, such as communists, became recommitted to
democracy and thus broadening the Indian democracy.

6|Page
(iii) Phase of Government instability(1990s-)
• A/Q to Atul Kohli, India’s democracy strengthened during this phase in the following
manner—
(i) Decline of congress dominance led to the rise of BJP and growing significance of
regional parties and, thus, led to an and of hegemony of a single party (INC).
(ii) The rise of coalition politics has forced parties to be more accommodating
than the centralized system of single-party dominance.

(Q5) ‘Democracy is a contested concept. A growing embrace of citizenship rights by

common Indians has given rise to numerous demands for more power & resources’.
Explain with reference to the growing grass root movements in India.

• Democracy is a system of government in which the supreme authority lies with the
‘people’. Although ‘people’ are central in the democratic system, the problem arises due to
the fact that the ‘people’ are not homogeneous. People of different social and economic
strata have different and, even contrasting, interests. Thus, in a stratified and diverse
society such as India, the term ‘people’ become complex & elusive.
• Democracy as apolitical regime ensures civil & political rights and not necessarily socio-
economic rights. In other words, in a diverse society like India, democracy exists in the
form of political democracy and not as social democracy. In such a condition, socio-
economic inequality hampers effective and meaningful participation of the deprived &
marginalized sections of the society. Wider socio-economic inequalities tend to provide
less opportunity to the deprived for asserting their civil & political rights. It is in this
context, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar emphasized on transforming India’s democracy into a social
democracy as well. He argued that political democracy cannot survive unless it is build on
the base of social democracy recognizing liberty, equality & fraternity.
• A/q to Atul Kohli, democracy both facilitates as well as is challenged by numerous issue-
based movements that demand more power & resources. A/Q to him, the formal legal
rights provided by the democratic arrangements allows deprived or marginalized sections
of the society to pursue specific issues or interests such as women’s, environmental &
economically oriented movements. These movements are not class-based and are
concerned for the common good of the society. They’re grass root movements or micro-
movements as they’re often remained local & regional movements that represents the gap
b/w the expectations of people & functions of the system.
• A/Q to Doug McAdam, social movements are those organised efforts, on the part of
excluded groups, to promote or resist changes in the structure of the society such as
Narmada Bachow Andolan (NBA), Chipko movement, women’s movements etc.
• Impact on Democracy
• A/Q to Atul Kohli, there has been a positive impact of the grass root movements on
India’s democracy as it has led to the deepening & strengthening of democracy. These
movements represent the people’s consciousness for asserting their interests & demands. It
encourages mobilization & participation of people on diverse issues. Thus, through greater

7|Page
 mobilization & effective participation of people, irrespective of class & caste-based
identities, has led to democratisation of Indian society.
• However, a/q to Rajni Kothari, such movements are desirable only if the political change
desired by group offers a greater scope of political freedom, than is offered by the existing
political arrangement. Thus, social movements with misplaced ideology & aspirations may
prove counterproductive to the democratic fabric of the society.

(Q6) ‘Democracy in India hasn’t only taken roots, but has spread wide and deep. The
resulting ‘million mutinies’ haven’t resulted into any significant redistribution of wealth
& power’. Explain with examples.

• A/q to Moore Barrington, although India remains in the pre-industrial age economically
but as a political species, it does belong to the modern world. He argues that India’s
political democracy appears strange in the Asian setting. Ashutosh Varshney, in his
work,’ India Defies the Odds’. Why democracy survives?, has argued that India’s
democracy has succeeded against considerable odds such as poverty, illiteracy and a
deeply hierarchical social structure, which are considered as inhospitable conditions for
democratic functioning.
• However, despite considerable odds, Atul Kohli argues that the Indian democracy has
taken roots and Sumit Ganguly characterizes it as ‘the only game in town’, However, a/q
to Atul Kohli, the successful history of India’s democracy is full with instances when a
variety of politicized social groups – ethnic, class, caste or regional –has periodically
demanded a greater share of resources, autonomy & self – government. As democracy
has spread numerous mobilized groups in India have demanded redistribution of power
& resources.
• A/q to V.S Naipaul, the Indian society is fragmented & diverse with many different
social, religious, cultural and linguistic expressions in the form of assertion of their
identity against the established political & social order. It is this identity based
movements, based on the differences on the basis of caste, class, gender, region &
religion, and is referred to as ‘million mutinies’. Naipaul sees these ‘mutinies’ or
movements as the commencement of consciousness among the Indians.
• A/q to Atul Kohli, the identity based movements has found diverse expressions in the
context of Indian democracy. For e.g.- ethnic movements in states such as Tamil Nadu,
Punjab & Kashmir ; lower class movements of west Bengal & Kerala were incorporated
by communist parties; caste –based movements in states of Bihar & UP which led to
emergence of caste based parties such as BSP.
• A/q to Atul Kohli, within the framework of India’s federal structure, the accommodation
of group demands has repeatedly strengthened India’s democracy. He argues that India’s
democracy has been deepened by processes that has facilitated a modest degree of
redistribution of power such as coalition politics, which a/q to Jyotirindra Das gupta
represents the negotiation b/w national and regional elites.

8|Page
• Atul Kohli argues that the success of India’s democracy lies in the fact that it has enabled
regional forces to successfully press their demands & proper accommodation of these
demands such as reorganization of India along linguistic lines, share of economic
resources b/w central & state governments, emergence of local self-governments etc.
Moreover, India’s democratic accommodation has weakened rigid social inequalities and
thus broadened its scope for low-caste & low-class masses.
• However, excessive centralization, without accommodating demands of identity- based
movements has often backfired which is evident in the case of ethnic movements of
Punjab and Kashmir.
• Thus, the success of India’s democracy lies both as a procedural as well as substantive
democracy. On the procedural conditions, Indian democracy has been successful as a
system with free & fair elections, universal suffrage and citizen’s rights. On the other
hand, in the substantive context, India’s democracy is successful as it is inclusive,
tolerates pluralism & diversity, and allows for expression of group’s demands and is
responsive to them by negotiation and accommodation.

(Q7) ‘Numerous ethnic movements have confronted India’s multi-cultural democracy.

India thus provides laboratory like conditions for the study of ethnic movements.’ (Atul
Kohli).

• A/q to Donald Horowitz, ethnicity is a term which designates a sense of collective

belonging based on common descent, language, history, culture, race or religion. The
congruence of ethnicity and statehood together constitute a nation. In this context, India
represents a complex and unique example of a nation which is a diverse and multi-
cultural democracy.
• J.S. Mill, in his work ‘Considerations on Representative Governments’ had advanced the
view that democracy is ‘next to impossible’ in multi-ethnic societies and completely
impossible in linguistically divided countries. By this yardstick, Indian democracy is a
prime case study because ethnic discontent & movements have been endemic since the
independence.
• In India, ethnic allegiance has been in conflict with the mainstream nationalism. Despite
adoption of a liberal democratic polity after independence, ethnic identities have
remained powerful & continue to claim recognition. Tamil nationalism, movement in
Punjab and J&K are examples of ethnic movements.
• The ethnic challenge to the Indian nationalism is manifested in the form of the self-
determination movements such as autonomy movements, secessionist movements &
insurgency and in the form of ethnic violence and conflicts. In this context, Salig S
Harrison termed the first two decade following the independence as the ‘most dangerous
decades’ referring the linguistic or communal conflicts in India.
• The major causes for ethnic movements in India are---
(i) Multicultural approach in the constitution- Owing to the large diversity & size of
the Indian subcontinent, multicultural approach based on recognition & protection of

9|Page
 India’s diverse culture, was followed in the constitution. This allows different
communities to continue with their separate identity without the necessity of
assimilation. This is evident in debates on uniform civil code in the country.
(ii) A/Q to Rajni Kothari, ethnic upsurges and assertions of cultures are the
consequences of excessive modernization & homogenising trend of modern state.
(iii)A/q to Neera Chandhoke, ethnic identities are the result of the type of politics
(identity politics) that has been pursued in the subcontinent. A/Q to Kanchan Chandra
the politics of Patronage based on ethnic head counts forms the primary factors.
• Atul Kohli, in his work ‘can Democracy accommodate ethnic movements?’, suggests that
democracy is a cause of the problem as well as part of the solution of ethnic movements.
A/q to him, introduction of democracy in prismatic societies create sense of insecurity
among traditional elite who go for mobilization on the basis of ethnic identity to ensure
their privileged position. Thus, democracy enhances ethnic movements.
• However, Atul Kohli asserts that even if democracy creates problem, only it can offer
solution to the ethnic challenges. In the Indian context, he argues that despite being a
democratic nation, India doesn’t have the right type of democracy which enhances ethnic
conflicts in the country. Thus, India requires more democracy to handle the challenge of
ethnicity. In this context, Kohli appreciates the way J L Nehru has tackled linguistic
nationalism through democratic approach. On the contrary, Indira Gandhi preferred
personalisation & centralization of power to handle Sikh nationalism, which proved
counterproductive. In the same line, Ashotosh Varshney suggests vigorous civic
engagement to meet the ethnic challenge.
• In the view of S D Muni India has successfully survived numerous ethnic movements
because Indians do not have a single identity rather they have multilayered identities. In
the same line, James Manor argues that there’re cross-cutting identities and no permanent
fault-lines in the Indian society.

(Q8) ‘India’s political parties have evolved less on ideological lines and more as
amorphous collections of political activists coming together for the sake of winning
elections, often rallying around an ethnic or identity-based agenda’ Comment.

• Political parties, essential components of representative government are considered to be

indispensable for the successful working of modern democracy. A/q to Paul Webb,
parties offer citizenry a meaningful degree of choice b/w and control over political elites
and are important in building civic & political orientations in the country through their
ideology & programmes.
• In the Indian context, political parties do represent enduring ideology and are
distinguished from other parties on ideological issues such as secularism vis-a-vis
nationalism etc.
• However, with the increased political competitions, there has been a tendency within
political parties to give priority to ‘winnability’ over allegiance to ideology. The

10 | P a g e
 imperative of security electoral victory has led parties to launch a wide search for
candidates or political activist, using ‘winnability’ as the key criterion.
• The preference given by political parties to the criteria of ‘winnability’ over ‘ideological
cohesion’ is evident in the following manner---
(i) Identity-Politics
In a multi-ethnic like India, political parties follow an exclusivist strategy that
deliberately seeks to divide people on ethnic fault-lines, with an aim to capitalize on
several social cleavages. This form of political mobilization is known as identity
politics. As Indian states are typically linguistic and cultural entities, the parties that
reflect such social cleavages flourish therein.
For e.g. - BSP aggressively promotes lower-caste political consolidation against
upper-caste Hindus.
(ii) Coalition politics
• Coalition governments have became an abiding feature of Indian political system.
A/q to Duverger’s Law, in a single-member constituency, first-past-the-post
electoral system would promote political parties to aggregate to obtain the
winning plurality.
• In the Indian context, the clear emphasis of coalitions since the nineties has been
on the territorial compatibility & political convenience at the expense of
ideological compatibility. The coalitions have been driven by the imperatives to
aggregate votes to win elections and not by ideological or programmatic
cleavages. Thus, parties compromise to win elections & form governments. In this
context, the Indian case of coalition has been referred to as ‘Rainbow coalition’
which represents the paradigm of ‘catch all parties’.
• However, coalition politics of India’s political parties, based on ideological in
cohesiveness and compromise to form government has enabled a greater variety
of regional & ethnic parties to gain a share of power, leading to ‘board-basing
democracy’ & ‘ethnification’ of parties. As the ethnic & regional parties play a
key role in formation & survival of coalitions, they’re been able to promote their
ethnic interests in the way of compromise.
• Moreover, the decline of ideology in Indian politics is reflected when defectors
join other parties if they are regarded as having winnability in elections.
• However, rise of movement based parties such as AAP, Swaraj India etc represent
evolution of parties, which despite its anti-ideological stand, focus on
developmental agenda & aim to take Indian politics away from caste and religion.

11 | P a g e