56 key concepts in modern indian studies

Democracy

D
emocracy, Robert Dahl notes, ‘is the national ideology of India.
There is no other’ (2000: 162). Two assessments of Indian
Democracy are widely accepted. First, India is regarded as a
significant exception to comparative theories of Democracy. Democratic
institutions such as free and fair elections, and freedom of expression and
association, are not supposed to survive in contexts characterized by high
levels of poverty, illiteracy, and cultural diversity. Yet, despite their many
failings in India, democratic institutions have proved resilient. With low
levels of economic development and cultural homogeneity, India meets
the criterion of institutional consolidation, namely that Democracy is
recognized as ‘the only game in town’ by all actors seeking political power
(for example, Stepan, Linz, and Yadav 2011). Second, it is asserted that
Democracy in India is highly flawed, limited at best. Large-scale poverty
and economic inequality undermine the equality of political rights. The
rule of law is weak, with political institutions offering little protection
to the vulnerable, and few restraints on the powerful. Corruption is
widespread and accountability is minimal. Violence and discrimination
against religious and caste minorities are common, often aided by state
institutions such as the army and police. India is thus seen as an electoral
Democracy, an ‘ethno-democracy’ according to some ( Jaffrelot 2011),
where the basic rights of the poor and of minorities are not respected.
Approaches to Democracy in India can be broadly divided into those
that define Democracy in largely institutional terms, and those that
emphasize socioeconomic criteria ( Jayal 1999). On many institutional
criteria of Democracy such as political competition and electoral par-
ticipation, India appears to be a success case. Elections have been largely
frequent, free, fair, and competitive (Yadav 1999), with relatively high
levels of voter turnout, averaging around 60 per cent since Independence.
Furthermore, Democracy in India has deepened over time: Indian poli-
tics have become more competitive since Independence, with a greater
number of contenders for power, closer electoral contests, and a higher
turnover of incumbents (Yadav 1999; Varshney 2000). Political participa-
tion has increased, particularly among underprivileged groups, with the
 Democracy 57

incidence of voting higher among the less educated, lower castes, rural
groups, and women, in contrast to many western democracies (Yadav
1999). The social profile of the political elite has also changed significantly
since Independence, with many more political representatives drawn from
‘backward’ castes ( Jaffrelot and Kumar 2009). In international terms,
support for Democracy in India is high, including among marginalized
groups, with the very poor and Dalits reporting high levels of commit-
ment to Democracy (Stepan, Linz, and Yadav 2011: 65–6). Yet, institu-
tional approaches do identify deficiencies in Indian Democracy. Political
participation is usually limited to voting, with citizens unable to use the
vote to shape the content of public policies (Yadav and Palshikar 2009).
Policies have largely focused on symbolic improvements in the social
status of previously denigrated groups (Varshney 2000), and selective
benefits for electorally significant groups as part of a politics of patronage
(Chandra 2004). Democratic institutions in India have shown little will
or capacity to improve the material conditions of the disadvantaged or
to deliver universal goods such as health, education, and basic amenities.
Nevertheless, from an international comparative perspective, democratic
consolidation and deepening in India appear in a favourable light.
Approaches that define Democracy in social or economic terms have on
the whole been less optimistic in their assessments of Indian Democracy.
Some have questioned whether India can be regarded as a Democracy at
all, holding that it offers an example of democratic authoritarianism, where
‘the meticulous observance of the ritual of elections enabled a partnership
between the political leadership and the non-elected institutions of the
state’, masking the widespread use of force ( Jalal 1995: 249). Elections and
democratic institutions, more generally, are seen here to have little efficacy
in relation to enduring structures of socioeconomic equality and, impor-
tantly, not necessarily as a democratizing force, often strengthening forms
of centralization and authoritarianism. Others have developed Alexis de
Tocqueville’s (1805–59) analysis of the consequences of Democracy as
a social tendency to argue that in India democratic institutions such as
elections have helped erode social inequalities but done little to tackle eco-
nomic inequalities that capitalist development has exacerbated (Kaviraj
2000). Elections have also produced majoritarianisms based on religion
and caste: Hindu nationalism is one face of democratization in India,
and the cynical extension of quotas for ‘backward’ castes to gain votes is
another. As such, democratic institutions have had illiberal consequences,
58 key concepts in modern indian studies

strengthening the power of groups rather than individuals, and weak-

ening restraints on political power. Another important socioeconomic
perspective suggests that Democracy, like the state itself, is unevenly
spread across India. Democratic institutions were the product of ‘an elite
dominated pact’ (Heller 2000: 504) in India and have been largely inef-
fective in creating relations of equality between citizens. Kerala, however,
represents a different case—of the successful establishment of democratic
relations of equal citizenship through universal social policies. This has
been achieved through a process in which class-based mobilization of
subordinate groups against state institutions for the expansion of basic
services has played a crucial role (Heller 2000: 511).
Oppositional mass-based movements, thus, contra influential theo-
ries (for example, Huntington), can play a crucial role in democratic
advance. Perhaps the most significant contribution of social approaches
to Democracy has been to highlight that democratic institutions are not a
panaceaalways producing desirable consequences such as respect for rule
of law, reduction in poverty, and accommodation of pluralism. Rather the
historical trajectory of democracy in India serves as a useful reminder
that it ‘also very often gives birth to forces, desires, and imaginings of
an authoritarian and anti-democratic nature’ (Hansen 1999: 6), such as
those found in Hindu nationalism in India, and xenophobia in Europe
and elsewhere.
Three emerging research areas on Democracy in India are of note. First,
it has been suggested that democratic institutions, with all their flaws,
have played a significant role in the management of diversity in India, and
thereby advanced important goals such as state stability. Institutions of
federal Democracy encourage ‘identification with the state’ among citi-
zens with different social identities (Stepan, Linz, and Yadav 2011: 62),
contributing to state survival, although this remains to be established
through systematic empirical research. In a similar vein, it has been sug-
gested that elections in India, while encouraging a politics of patronage
and corruption, have also offered opportunities for the reconfiguration
of social identities through the building of new intergroup alliances, and
thereby prevented the polarization of groups (Chandra 2004). Conflict
management and state stability are the unintended, macro-level outcomes
of self-interested actions of politicians seeking political power in a context
in which no social group has a stable electoral majority. A second strand
of scholarship employs ethnographic approaches to illuminate the ritual
 Democracy 59

practices of elections and mass movements in India. What is the mean-

ing of voting in the everyday life of a poor, rural Indian (Banerjee 2007)?
Why do ordinary people bother to vote, given the poor performance of
democratic governments, and the high levels of distrust in politicians?
The spectacle and drama of elections, and the staging of popular protests
against the state are not incidental but rather integral to the democratic
political imaginary in India and elsewhere (Hansen 1999). Ethnographic
approaches promise to illuminate not just the unique colour and texture
of Indian Democracy but also the expressive and performative dimensions
of Democracy more generally. A third approach identifies Democracy
with the everyday practices of the poor in India and elsewhere that breach
or circumvent state laws—the activities of squatters, hawkers, vagrants,
and local strongmen, for instance (Chatterjee 2011). Illegal transgressions
and claims for exceptions to universal laws pressed by subaltern classes, it
is argued, embody a distinct non-western approach to Democracy, more
inclusive than dominant western approaches which privilege the modern
state and universal laws. While providing a useful critique of narrow
institutionalist approaches to Democracy, the political society perspective
has not yet elaborated an alternative set of criteria for Democracy that
establishes how deviations or exceptions from norms are democratic.
Why and how democratic institutions, with their many failings, sur-
vive in India continues to puzzle theorists of democratization. Important
explanations include colonial legacies such as British-style parliamentary
institutions and the subordination of the military to elected civilian
leaders; the democratic dispositions of the Indian nationalist leadership
combined with a long and relatively inclusive national movement (for
overviews, see Varshney 1998; Kohli 2001); and the nature of India’s
cultural diversity, in particular, the absence of a single, stable group that is
large enough to rule over all others (Dahl 2000). Recent research suggests
that democratic institutions in India are supported by a broadly inclusive
and flexible vocabulary of public reasoning that has endured, even as
the meanings of its key normative terms have changed over time (Bajpai
2011). While the contribution of India’s rich traditions of public argument
(Sen 2005: 13–14) to the maintenance of its democratic institutions has
been noted, India’s founding ideals are usually attributed to the thought
of key leaders, such as Gandhi (1869–1948), Nehru (1889–1964), and
Ambedkar (1891–1956). However, more studies of everyday public rea-
soning are needed in sites such as legislatures, courts, and newspapers,
60 key concepts in modern indian studies

in order to discern the role of processes of debate in the sustenance of

democratic institutions (Bajpai 2011). One way or another, India remains
diagnostically significant; its complex resolutions, often imperfect and
messy, continue to challenge the prescriptive certitudes of simple theories.

Further reading: Chatterjee 2011; Dahl 2000; Guha 2007; Hansen

1999; Jayal 2001; Khilnani 2007; Kohli 2001; Stepan, Linz, and Yadav
2011; Varshney 1998.

—rochana bajpai, Senior Lecturer in the Politics of Asia/Africa,

School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London



Development

I
n a broader sense, the term Development is often used to refer to the
gradually unfolding process as societies go from a simple to a more
complex form of organization. However, Development is more com-
monly used to denote material or economic advancement; in this sense
it is often referred to as economic Development. In this common usage,
Development would mean an increase in the standard of living of a nation
which, in turn, invariably has a comparative connotation. It is not surpris-
ing, therefore, to find that the constitutive features of Development are still
hotly debated. Seers (1979) argued that the purpose of Development is to
reduce poverty, inequality, and unemployment, while Sen (1999) argues
that Development involves increasing freedom and broadening choices.
However, these debates must be situated within the broader historical
and political context of the subcontinent. Indian economic and politi-
cal history has shaped its unique perspective on Development. Given
India’s unique features—fertile lands of the Indo-Gangetic plains and
climatic conditions—the Indian peninsula was historically perhaps one
of the most developed and affluent regions (Spear 1985; Thapar 2003).