Political PDF M

FUNCTIONING OF
INDIAN DEMOCRA CY
DEMOCRACY
(UNDERST ANDING
(UNDERSTANDING
INDIAN DEMOCRA CY)
DEMOCRACY)
By
Murtaza Ahmed (M.A, B.Ed, NET, SET)
Assistant Professor in Political Science
SCS,GDC Mendhar J&K
Zain Bin Hussain Batt (BALLB, M.A, NET, SET)

Assistant Professor in Political Science
GDC Doda, J&K
Jahangeer Ahmad Bhat ( M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D0

Lecturer in Political Science
SCS,GDC Mendhar J&K
VINOD PUBLICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION
ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED
Head Office # 22, Books Market, Ludhiana (Pb.) INDIA
Supply : Ludhiana-Delhi-Bangalore-Chennai-Mumbai
Jammu and Kashmir-Gujarat-Orissa-Kolkata
E-mail : order@vinodpublications.com
Website : FOR ONLINE SHOPPING
www.vinodpublications.com
i
Published by :
Vinod Tandon
VINOD PUBLICATIONS
ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED
(India’s Most Trusted Educational Publisher)
Head Office :
Books Market, Ludhiana-141008, Punjab
Branches :
• Paharganj, New Delhi
• Kishanpura adjoining Box factory, Jalandhar (Pb.)
• Kucha Nahar Singh, Panjtirthi, Jammu (J&K)
• Jaan Manzil, Barbershah, Srinagar (Kashmir)
Contact Numbers
Ph. : +91-9218-21-9218
+91-987-638-4590
E-mail : order@vinodpublications.com
vinodpublicationsindia@gmail.com
Helpline : help@vinodpublications.com
Blogger : vinodpublicationsindia.blogspot.com
Linked In : http://www.linkedin.com/pub/vinod-publications/
88/677/212
Website : www.vinodpublications.com
© All rights reserved.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. Any person
who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be
liable to criminal prosecution and civil claim for damages. Authors take
the responsibily of the matter inside. Publisher is allowed to use the
book in any way for sale purpose.
Typeset & Cover Design in India by

Vinod Publications Typeset & Graphics
Note : We have made all our efforts to avoid errors and omissions in this work,
Inspite of this if some might crept in inadvertently, they may kindly by brought to
our notice. Any dispute arising will be sort out in Ludhiana Jurisdiction only.
ii
PREFACE
It is with the great pleasure that the book “Functioning
of Indian Democracy” is being placed in the hands of the
reader. This is a masterpiece for the students of Democracy
in India. While preparing this book efforts have been made
to make it factual, analytical , up to date and relevant both
for teachers and students of Political Science. The
“Functioning of Indian Democracy” or “Conceptualizing
Indian Democracy” deliberates on various dimensions of the
foundation, functioning and challenges confronting
parliamentary democracy in India.
This book provides a platform for debates emanating
from the depths of society, new critiques of the manner in
which democracy has functioned, and the strengths and
weaknesses of Indian democracy. It deals with the theory and
practice of democratic governance, the constitutional
provisions, role of the democratic institutions in strengthening
the functions of the state, the role of the media as the fourth
estate, the rise of social movements and civil society, the
critical role of economic development in sustaining
democracy, and the country wide challenges faced by Indian
Democracy. It also value the role of different sections of the
society like social reformers, scholars, women and peasants
for the establishment of an independent democratic entity in
India.
iii
I would like to place on record my heartfelt thanks to
the co-authors of this book Mr. Zain Batt and Dr. Jahangeer A
Batt .They contributed their best with their professional
expertise and wisdom.
I owe my debt of gratitude to my family
members, colleagues, students and especially younger
brother Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed for their support and
encouragement. It is a matter of pleasure for me to authored
2nd book with Vinod Publications, I am equally thankful to the
publisher.
I believe that a good teacher is not complete
without Curious students and an author can not be a effective
until and unless he/she get feedback from readers. So I expect
feedback from the readers, that will be appreciated and
seriously considered in next work.
Murtaza Ahmed
Assistant Professor
SCS Govt Degree College Mendhar J&K
********
iv
SYLLABUS
UNDER NEP-2020 As Prescribed by
Uni
Univver sity of J
ersity amm
Jamm
ammu u
FUNCTIONING OF INDIAN
DEMOCRA CY
DEMOCRACY
(UNDERSTANDING INDIAN DEMOCRA
(UNDERSTANDING CY)
DEMOCRACY)
SEMESTER - III
Course Code : UMJPST - 302 Mid Sem. Test: 15
UMIPST - 303 Tutorial : 25(15+10)
Credit: 4 (3Th+1T) Time of Exam: 3 Hours
End Sem. Exam: 60
UNIT - I
EVOLUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL AND COM-
PARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
l.l Evolution of Democracy: A Colonial perspective
1.2 Democracy in India: Constitutional perspective
1.3 Parliamentary Democracy: Redefining Westminster
Model
1.4 India's Democracy in Comparative perspective of
USA and UK
UNIT - II
FUNCTIONING AND DEEPENING OF DEMOCRACY
2.1 Functioning of Indian Democracy during Nehruvian
Era
2.2 Working of Indian Democracy in the post- Nehruvian
Era
v
2.3 Democracy at Grassroot Level (73rd and 74th
Amendment)
2.4 Political Elite and Indian Democracy
UNIT - III
ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND POLITICAL
PROCESSES
3.1 Neo- Liberalism and Indian Democracy
3.2 Judicial Activism and Indian Democracy
3.3 Coalition Politics and Indian Democracy
3.4 Secularism and Indian Democracy
UNIT - IV
EMERGING ISSUES IN DEMOCRACY
4.1 Naxalite Movement and Indian Democracy
4.2 Media and Democracy: Role and Responsibilities
4.3 Civil Society and Indian Democracy
4.4 Governance and Indian Democracy
********
vi
CONTENTS
UNIT - I
EVOLUTION,CONSTITUTIONAL AND
COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVES
1.1 EVOLUTION OF DEMOCRACY : A
COLONIAL PERSPECTIVE ........................... 1-14
P Evolution of Democracy in British India ...... 4
P Role of Women, Tribes and Peasants in
Political Outfit ....................................................... 13
1.2 DEMOCRACY IN INDIA:
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ........ 15-27
1.3 PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY:
REDEFINING WESTMINSTER MODEL..28-35
P Similarities Between the Indian Parliament
and the British Parliament ................................... 28
P Difference between the Indian Parliament and
the British Parliament ........................................... 33
P Impact of Westminster Model in Governance of
India ........................................................................ 35
1.4 INDIA’S DEMOCRACY IN
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF UK AND
USA ................................................................... 36-44
vii
P Key Milestones in Indian Democracy.......... 36
P Key Features of Indian Democracy ............. 37
P India and UK .................................................. 37
P India and USA ................................................ 40
UNIT - II
FUNCTIONING AND DEEPENING OF
DEMOCRACY
2.1 FUNCTIONING OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY
DURING NEHRUVIAN ERA ........................ 45-52
2.2 WORKING OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY IN
THE POST- NEHRUVIAN ERA ................... 53-59
P Challenges to Democracy ............................ 56
P Influential Thinkers and Ideas in India’s
Democratic System............................................... 56
2.3 DEMOCRACY AT THE GRASSROOT

LEVEL (73RDAND 74THAMENDMENT) ...... 60-69
P Evolution of Democracy at Grassroot Level

................................................................................ 61
c 73RD CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ACT........................................................................ 63
P Key Features of the 73rd Constitutional
Amendment Act ..................................................... 63
viii
P Role of 73rd Constitution Amendment in
Economics Planning ............................................. 65
c 74TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ACT........................................................................ 67
P Role of 74th Constitutional Amendment in
Economic Planning............................................... 68
2.4 POLITICAL ELITE AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY ................................................ 70-78
P Definitions of Political Elite ......................... 70
P History of the Political Elite in India .......... 72
P Evolution in the 21st Century ...................... 73
P Factors Contributing to the Emergence and
Perpetuation of the Political Elite in Indian
Democracy ............................................................ 74
UNIT - III
ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND POLITICAL PRO-
CESSES
3.1 NEO-LIBERALISM AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY .................................................. 79-89
P Introduction of Neo-liberal Economic
Reforms in India ................................................... 80
P Political Implications of Neo-Liberal
Economic Policies ................................................ 82
ix
P Challenges and Opportunities of Neo-Liberal
Economic Policies ................................................ 82
P Political Thinkers’ Perspective on Neo-
liberalism ............................................................... 83
P Economic Thinkers’ Perspective on Neo-
liberalism ............................................................... 83
P Political Thinkers Perspectives on the
Relationship Between Neo-Liberalism and Indian
Democracy ............................................................ 84
P Political Thinkers Insightful Perspectives on
the Impact of Neo-Liberalism on Indian
Democracy ............................................................ 87
3.2 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY .............................................. 90-100
P Key Instances of Judicial Activism in India..92
P Thinker’s Positive Perspective Related to
Judicial Activism ................................................... 95
P Criticism and Caution Related to Judicial
Activism ................................................................. 96
P Balancing Act of Judicial Activism ............. 97
3.3 COALITION POLITICS AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY ............................................ 101-110
P Definitions of Coalition Politics ................... 101
P Forms of Coalition Politics .......................... 102
x
P History of Coalition Politics in India .......... 103
P Factors of Coalition Politics in India .......... 106
P Advantages of Coalition Politics ................. 107
P Disadvantages of Coalition Politics ............ 107
P Views of Political Thinkers about Coalition
Politics in India .................................................... 108
3.4 SECULARISM AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY ............................................. 111-119
P Definitions of Secularism ............................. 112
P Secularism in India ....................................... 113
P Provisions and Ideas for Secularism .......... 114
P Challenges to the Secularism in India ........ 117
UNIT - I V
EMERGING ISSUES IN DEMOCRACY
4.1 NAXALITE MOVEMENT AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY ............................................ 120-133
P Origin and Historical Background of Naxalite
Movement ............................................................. 121
P Root Causes of the Naxalite Movement .... 123
P Characteristics of Naxal Regions ............... 127
P Naxalism as a biggest threat to the Democracy
in India .................................................................. 128
xi
4.2 MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY: ROLE AND
RESPONSIBILITIES ................................. 134-142
P Historical Evolution of Media in India ....... 134
P Different kinds of Indian Media .................. 135
P Different Agencies Concerned with Indian
Media .................................................................... 137
P Role and Responsibilities of Media in India
............................................................................... 139
P Challenges Faces by Media ......................... 140
4.3 CIVIL SOCIETY AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY ............................................ 143-153
P Evolution of Civil Society in India ............... 143
P Roles and Responsibilities of Civil Society in
Indian Democracy ............................................... 145
P Funding Sources of Civil Society in India .. 151
P Criticism of Civil Society in India ............... 152
4.4 GOVERNANCE AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY ............................................ 154-167
P Good Governance ......................................... 155
P Governance in India ..................................... 155
P Good Governance in India ........................... 165
v Bibliography ..............................................168
*********
xii
Evolution, Constitutional and Comparative Perspectives 1
1
EVOLUTION
UTION,, CONSTITUTION
EVOLUTION AL
CONSTITUTIONAL
AND COMP ARA
COMPARA TIVE
ARATIVE
PERSPECTIVES
1.1 EVOL
EVOLUTION OF DEMOCRA
OLUTION CY : A COL
DEMOCRACY ONIAL
COLONIAL
PERSPECTIVE
Democracy is a form of government in which the people have

the power to choose their representatives and hold them accountable
for their actions. Democracy is often considered as a modern and
universal value that is essential for human dignity, freedom, and
development. However, democracy has a long and diverse history that
is influenced by different cultural, historical, and political contexts. One
of the most interesting and complex cases of democracy is India, which
is the world’s largest democracy and one of the oldest civilizations.
India’s democracy is not a simple or straightforward outcome of its
colonial past, but rather a result of a dynamic and contested process of
decolonization, nation-building, and constitutionalism. India’s democracy
was shaped by various factors, such as the legacy of British colonial
rule, the Indian freedom struggle, the partition of India and Pakistan,
the drafting of the Indian constitution, the social and economic challenges
of post-independence India, and the cultural and religious diversity of
India’s population.
1
2 Evolution, Constitutional and Comparative Perspectives
British colonial rule in India lasted for almost two hundred years,
from the mid-18th century to the mid-20th century. During this period,
Britain established its political, economic, and administrative domination
over most parts of the Indian subcontinent, through direct or indirect
control. Britain also introduced various institutions and policies that had
a lasting impact on India’s society, such as the modern education system,
the legal system, the civil service, the railways, the census, the press,
and the electoral system. Some of these institutions and policies were
intended to modernize and civilize India according to British standards
and interests, while others were designed to exploit and divide India for
British benefit.
British colonial rule also provoked various forms of resistance and
opposition from different sections of Indian society, such as peasants,
workers, tribals, women, religious groups, and nationalists. The Indian
freedom struggle was a long and diverse movement that aimed to achieve
political independence from British rule. The freedom struggle was led
by various leaders and organizations, such as Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, the Indian
National Congress (INC), the Muslim League (ML), the Communist
Party of India (CPI), and many others. The freedom struggle adopted
various strategies and tactics, such as non-violence, civil disobedience,
mass mobilization, armed rebellion, constitutional negotiations, and
electoral politics. The freedom struggle also articulated various visions
and ideologies for India’s future, such as nationalism, secularism,
socialism, communalism, feminism, and democracy.
The partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 was one of the most
tragic and violent consequences of British colonial rule and the Indian
freedom struggle. The partition was based on the idea of creating two
separate nations for Hindus and Muslims on the basis of religion.
However, the partition was not a simple or smooth process. It involved
massive displacement of millions of people across the new borders;
communal riots that killed hundreds of thousands of people; disputes
over territory, resources, and minorities; and wars between India and
Pakistan over Kashmir.
The drafting of the Indian constitution was one of the most
remarkable and ambitious achievements of post-colonial India. The
constitution was drafted by a constituent assembly that was elected by
the people of India after they gained independence from British rule in
1947. The constitution reflects the aspirations and ideals of the Indian
freedom struggle as well as influences from other constitutional models
such as Britain’s parliamentary system; America’s federalism; France’s
secularism; Ireland’s directive principles; Germany’s fundamental rights;
Japan’s pacifism; etc. The constitution also incorporates values and
traditions from India’s ancient civilization such as dharma (duty), ahimsa
(non-violence), sarvodaya (welfare of all), etc.
The constitution establishes India as a sovereign socialist secular
democratic republic that guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms
to all its citizens regardless of caste creed religion gender or language.
The constitution also provides for directive principles of state policy
that guide the government to promote social justice economic
development environmental protection and international peace. The
constitution also lays down the structure and functions of three branches
of government: executive legislature and judiciary.
India’s democracy faces many challenges and opportunities in its
journey towards achieving its constitutional goals. Some of these
challenges include poverty, illiteracy, corruption, communal violence,
caste based biases, regionalism, human rights violations, environmental
degradation, gender inequality, media bias, political instability, electoral
malpractices, judicial delays etc. Some of these opportunities include
economic growth social development technological innovation cultural
diversity civil society activism democratic participation international
cooperation etc.
India’s democracy is not perfect but it is resilient and adaptive. It
has survived many crises and conflicts in its history and has shown
remarkable capacity to reform and renew itself. It has also inspired
many other countries in their struggles for freedom and democracy.
India’s democracy is a living experiment that continues to evolve and
grow with its people. It is a source of pride and hope for millions of
Indians who aspire for a better future for themselves and their nation.
Evolution of Democracy in British India
British India was the part of the Indian subcontinent that was under
the direct or indirect control of the British Crown from 1757 to 1947.
British India consisted of two types of territories: the British provinces,
which were administered by the British government; and the princely
states, which were ruled by local rulers who acknowledged British
sovereignty. Democratic process in india can be evaluate under the
following heads;
1.The Colonial Era (1757-1858): This period was marked by
the expansion and consolidation of British power in India, following the
victory of the East India Company over the Nawab of Bengal at the
Battle of Plessey in 1757. The East India Company gradually acquired
political, economic, and military dominance over most of India, while
exploiting its resources an suppressing its people. The Company also
introduced some reforms, such as education, law, and administration,
but these were mainly aimed at serving its own interests and creating a
class of loyal collaborators. The Company faced resistance from various
Indian rulers and movements, such as Tipu Sultan, the Marathas, and
the Sikhs, but managed to defeat them with superior technology and
diplomacy. However, in 1857, a large-scale rebellion broke out among
the Indian soldiers (sepoys) of the Company’s army, who were joined
by many civilians and princes. The rebellion, known as the Sepoy Mutiny
or the First War of Independence, was sparked by various grievances,
such as religious interference, economic exploitation, and political
oppression. The rebellion was brutally crushed by the British forces,
with widespread massacres and atrocities committed on both sides.
2.The Imperial Era (1858-1919): This period saw the transfer
of power from the East India Company to the British Crown, following
the Government of India Act of 1858. The British government assumed
direct control over the British provinces and indirect control over the
princely states. The British government also adopted a policy of divide
and rule, which sought to create divisions among the Indians on the
basis of religion, caste, language, and region. The British government
also pursued a policy of economic imperialism, which involved extracting
raw materials from India and exporting finished goods to India, while
imposing heavy taxes and tariffs. The British government also suppressed
any form of dissent or nationalism among the Indians, by using force,
censorship, and propaganda. However, some Indians began to demand
greater rights and representation within the British system, such as Raja
Ram Mohan Roy, Dadabhai Naoroji, and Gopal Krishna Gokhale.
These moderate nationalists formed the Indian National Congress (INC)
in 1885, which became the largest political organization in India. The
INC initially sought constitutional reforms and self-government within
the British Empire, through petitions, resolutions, and cooperation. The
British government responded with some concessions, such as the Indian
Councils Act of 1892 and 1909, which increased the number and powers
of Indian members in the legislative councils. However, these reforms
were inadequate and unsatisfactory for most Indians.
3.The Nationalist Era (1919-1947): This period witnessed the
rise of mass nationalism and independence movements in India, following
the end of World War I in 1918. The Indians had participated in the
war on behalf of Britain, hoping for more political rights and autonomy
after the war. However, they were disappointed by the Montagu-
Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, which granted limited self-government
to India but retained ultimate authority with Britain. Moreover, they
were outraged by the Rowlatt Act of 1919, which authorized preventive
detention and trial without jury for suspected revolutionaries.
These measures led to widespread protests and civil disobedience
campaigns across India, led by Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders of
the INC. Gandhi advocated a non-violent method of resistance called
satyagraha (truth force), which involved breaking unjust laws peacefully
and accepting punishment willingly. Gandhi also mobilized millions of
Indians from all walks of life around various issues, such as non-
cooperation with British institutions (1920-22), boycott of foreign goods
(1921-22), salt march against salt tax (1930), quit India movement
against British rule (1942), etc. Gandhi also forged alliances with other
groups and parties, such as Muslims (Khilafat movement), peasants
(Champaran satyagraha), workers (Ahmedabad mill strike), women
(Bardoli satyagraha), etc. Gandhi’s campaigns put immense pressure
on the British government to negotiate with the Indians and grant them
more autonomy and representation. The British government responded
with several proposals and acts, such as the Simon Commission (1927),
Round Table Conferences (1930-32), Government of India Act (1935),
Cripps Mission (1942), Cabinet Mission (1946), etc. However, these
proposals and acts failed to satisfy the demands of the Indians, who
wanted nothing less than complete independence from Britain. Moreover,
they also failed to resolve the communal problem, which had become
acute due to the growing rift between the Hindus and the Muslims, who
had formed their own party, the Muslim League, in 1906. The Muslim
League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, demanded a separate state for
the Muslims of India, called Pakistan, based on the two-nation theory.
The INC, led by Jawaharlal Nehru and others, opposed the partition of
India and advocated a secular and united India. The British government,
unable to reconcile the conflicting claims of the Indians and facing
increasing unrest and violence in India, decided to quit India and transfer
power to the Indians. The British government passed the Indian
Independence Act of 1947, which partitioned India into two dominions:
India and Pakistan.
The act also granted both dominions the right to choose their
own form of government and constitution. Thus, on 15 August 1947,
India became a free and democratic nation, with a Constituent Assembly
elected by universal adult franchise. The Constituent Assembly drafted
and adopted the Constitution of India, which came into effect on 26
January 1950. The Constitution of India established a parliamentary
system of government with a federal structure, a bicameral legislature,
an independent judiciary, and a secular ethos. The Constitution of India
also enshrined various fundamental rights and duties for the citizens of
India, such as equality, liberty, justice, fraternity, etc. The evolution of
democracy in British India shows that it was a long and arduous process
that involved various struggles and sacrifices by the Indians. Democracy
in British India was not a gift or a legacy of the British rule; it was a
result of the aspirations and actions of the Indians themselves.
4. Acts and Legislation during British period: The British
introduced several acts and legislation that affected the political,
administrative, economic, and social aspects of India. Some of these
acts were aimed at reforming and modernizing the Indian society and
institutions, such as the Indian Councils Acts of 1861, 1892, and 1909,
the Government of India Acts of 1858, 1919, and 1935, the Indian
Penal Code of 1860, the Indian Forest Act of 1927, and the Hindu
Widow’s Remarriage Act of 1856. Other acts were designed to
suppress and control the Indian resistance and nationalism, such as the
Rowlatt Act of 1919, the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of
1919 (also known as the Rowlett Act), the Vernacular Press Act of
1878, the Arms Act of 1878, and the Defence of India Act of 1915.
Some acts were also controversial and divisive, such as the Partition of
Bengal in 1905, the Salt Act of 1882, and the Communal Award of
1932.
5. National Aspirations of the people: The British rule in India
also stimulated and shaped the national aspirations of the Indian people,
who gradually developed a sense of political awareness, identity, and
unity. Various political parties, organizations, movements, and leaders
emerged to voice their demands and grievances against the British
policies and to seek greater autonomy or independence for India. Some
of these were moderate and constitutionalist, such as the Indian National
Congress (INC), founded in 1885, which initially sought greater
representation and participation in the British administration. Some were
radical and revolutionary, such as the Ghadar Party, founded in 1913,
which advocated armed rebellion against the British rule. Some were
religious and communalist, such as the Muslim League, founded in 1906,
which demanded a separate state for Muslims in India. Some were
regional and linguistic, such as the Dravidian Movement, founded in
1944, which opposed Hindi imposition and Brahmin domination in South
India.
6.Impact of Enlightenment and Reformation: The British rule
in India also exposed the Indian society to the ideas and influences of
the European enlightenment and reformation, which challenged some
of the traditional and orthodox aspects of Indian culture and religion.
The British introduced western education, science, technology, law,
medicine, literature, art, and journalism in India, which created a new
class of educated Indians who were influenced by rationalism, liberalism,
humanism, democracy, secularism, socialism, feminism, and other
modern ideologies. Some of these Indians became reformers who tried
to eradicate social evils such as caste discrimination, untouchability, child
marriage, sati (widow immolation), female infanticide, and purdah
(veiling). Some examples of these reformers are Raja Ram Mohan Roy
(1772-1833), who founded the Brahmo Samaj in 1828; Ishwar Chandra
Vidyasagar (1820-1891), who campaigned for widow remarriage;
Jyotirao Phule (1827-1890), who founded the Satyashodhak Samaj in
1873; Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), who founded the Ramakrishna
Mission in 1897; Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883), who
founded the Arya Samaj in 1875; Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), who
led the non-violent civil disobedience movement; Rukmini Devi Arundale
(1904-1986), who revived the classical dance form Bharatanatyam;
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941), who won the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1913; Sarojini Naidu (1879-1949), who became the first
woman president of INC in 1925; B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), who
drafted the Constitution of India and championed the rights of Dalits;
Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), who became the first Prime Minister
of independent India; Subhas Chandra Bose (1897-1945), who formed
the Indian National Army to fight against the British with Japan’s help;
Bhagat Singh (1907-1931), who became a martyr for his revolutionary
activities; M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948) led non-violent civil disobedience
movement against British rule.
7.Limited Franchise: The British rule in India also introduced
the concept and practice of limited franchise, which allowed some Indians
to vote and elect their representatives in the legislative bodies at the
provincial and central levels. However, the franchise was very restricted
and based on property, income, education, and other qualifications,
which excluded the majority of the Indian population, especially the
poor, illiterate, women, and minorities. The first elections under the British
rule were held in 1892 under the Indian Councils Act of 1892, which
gave some representation to the Indians in the Imperial Legislative
Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils. The franchise was
gradually expanded under the subsequent acts of 1909, 1919, and 1935,
but it never reached universal suffrage. The first general elections in
India with universal adult franchise were held in 1951-52 after India
became independent in 1947.
8.The Elections and Representation: The elective element for
Indian natives in legislative bodies dates back to 1909. The British
Parliament, when it took over from the East India Company, under the
Government of India Act 1858, the governance of Indian territories
under its occupation after the first war of independence which broke
out in India for freedom from the British in 1857, had provided for the
constitution of bodies to legislate on local laws under the Indian Councils
Acts of 1861 and 1892. But the legislative bodies created there under
were small bodies, consisting only of nominated members, with no
representation of the local people under the former Act and with a small
element of local representation under the latter. The elective element for
the natives in legislative bodies in British India found its introduction for
the first time under the Indian Councils Act 1901.
The Government of India Act 1919 introduced a system of diarchy
(a dual system of governance) in the provinces. The act also introduced
direct elections for some seats in the provincial legislatures. The
Government of India Act 1935 introduced provincial autonomy and
increased the number of voters from 7 million to 35 million.
9.Ideas and Role of Freedom Fighters: The British rule in India
also inspired and provoked various ideas of Freedom fighters, who
challenged and resisted the colonial domination and exploitation. These
Ideas ranged from moderate to radical, from constitutional to
revolutionary, from non-violent to violent, from secular to religious, from
nationalist to regionalist, from socialist to capitalist, from Feminist to
patriarchal, and from inclusive to exclusive. Some of these ideas were
influenced by the global events and movements, such as the American
Revolution (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Irish
Rebellion (1798), the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), the Latin
American Wars of Independence (1810-1825), the Greek War of
Independence (1821-1832), the Italian Unification (1861), the German
Unification (1871), the Meiji Restoration (1868), the First World War
(1914-1918), the Russian Revolution (1917), the Irish War of
Independence (1919-1921), the Chinese Revolution (1911-1949), the
Second World War (1939-1945), and the Cold War (1947-1991).
Some examples of these ideas are:
i. Swaraj: This term means self-rule or self-government. It was
used by various Indian leaders and movements to denote their goal of
independence from British rule. It was also used to imply a moral and
spiritual dimension of self-reliance and self-discipline. Mahatma Gandhi
popularized this term and defined it as “the rule of our own passions”.
He also linked it with his concept of swadeshi or self-sufficiency.
ii.INA: This stands for Indian National Army or Azad Hind Fauj.
It was a military force formed by Subhas Chandra Bose with Japanese
support during World War II. It aimed to liberate India from British
rule by fighting alongside Japan against Britain and its allies. It recruited
Indian soldiers who had been captured by Japan as prisoners of war. It
also mobilized Indian civilians living in SoutheastAsia. It had a provisional
government called Azad Hind or Free India, which was recognized by
Japan and some other countries. It fought bravely in Burma and reached
Indian soil in Manipur and Nagaland before being defeated by British
forces.
iii.Inquilab: This term means revolution or uprising. It was used
by various Indian leaders and movements to denote their radical and
violent methods of overthrowing British rule. It was also used as a slogan
or war cry by many revolutionaries. One of them was Bhagat Singh,
who along with his comrades threw bombs in Central Legislative
Assembly in Delhi in 1929 as a protest against repressive laws. He
shouted “Inquilab Zindabad” or & quot; Long live revolution & quot;
before being arrested.
10. Role of Press and Literature: The press and literature played
an important role in spreading awareness, information, education,
inspiration, and mobilization among the masses during the freedom
struggle. The press was a medium of communication between the leaders
and the people, as well as among different regions and groups. The
press also exposed the atrocities, injustices, and exploitations committed
by the British authorities and their agents. The press also challenged the
official propaganda and policies of the colonial government and presented
alternative views and visions for India’s future. Some examples of
influential newspapers and journals during the freedom movement are:
a. Kesari: This was a Marathi newspaper founded by Bal
Gangadhar Tilak in 1881. It advocated militant nationalism, swaraj,
swadeshi, boycott, civil disobedience, and resistance against the British
rule. It also supported the causes of peasants, workers, and women. It
was banned several times by the British government for its seditious
content.
b. Young India: This was an English weekly journal edited by
Mahatma Gandhi from 1919 to 1931. It propagated his ideas of non-
violence, truth, satyagraha, constructive work, khadi, village industries,
and communal harmony. It also criticized the British policies and laws
and reported the activities and achievements of the freedom movement.
c. Prabasi: This was a Bengali literary magazine founded by
Ramananda Chatterjee in 1901. It published the works of prominent
writers, poets, and intellectuals such as Rabindranath Tagore, Bankim
Chandra Chattopadhyay, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Abanindranath
Tagore, and Bipin Chandra Pal. It also reflected the social and cultural
aspects of the freedom movement and the nationalist awakening.
11. Supremacy of British Parliament: The British system is based
on the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, which means that
Parliament has absolute authority to make or unmake any law and that
no other institution can override or challenge its decisions. This doctrine
was derived from the historical development of Britain as a unitary state
with a centralized monarchy and a representative legislature. However,
this doctrine was not applicable to India during the colonial rule. India
was governed by various acts and statutes passed by the British
Parliament, which gave limited powers and rights to Indians. Moreover,
India was subject to the executive control of the Governor-General
(later Viceroy) and his council, who were appointed by the British Crown
and were responsible to it. Furthermore, India was subject to the judicial
review of the Privy Council in London, which was the highest court of
appeal for Indians. Thus, India did not enjoy any sovereignty or autonomy
under the British rule.
12. Role of Women, Tribes and Peasants in Political Outfit :
Women, tribes and peasants played a significant role in shaping India’s
democracy by participating in various political movements and struggles
during and after the colonial rule. Some examples are:
a. Women: Women participated in various phases of the freedom
movement such as the Non- Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience
Movement, Quit India Movement, etc. Women also joined various
political parties and organizations such as Indian National Congress
(INC), All India Women’s Conference (AIWC), Communist Party of
India (CPI), etc. Women also formed their own associations and groups
such as All India Women’s Indian Association (AIWIA), National
Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) etc. Women also contributed to
various social reforms such as abolition of child marriage, widow
remarriage, female education, etc. After independence, women continued
to play an active role in politics by contesting elections at various levels,
forming women’s wings in parties, demanding reservation of seats for
women in legislatures, etc.
b. Tribes: Tribes resisted the British rule by launching various
revolts and rebellions such as Santhal Rebellion (1855-56), Kol
Rebellion (1831-32), Munda Rebellion (1899-1900), Rampa Rebellion
(1879-80), etc. Tribes also joined various political parties and
movements such as INC, CPI, Forward Bloc, Praja Mandal, etc. Tribes
also formed their own organizations such as All India Tribal Association
(AITA), All India Adivasi Mahasabha (AIAM), etc.
c. Peasants: Peasants played a significant role in India's freedom
struggle and mass mobilization. They were crucial in various movements
like the Non-Cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience
Movement. They actively participated in protests, boycotts, and
demonstrations, highlighting economic hardships and exploitation.
Notable events include the Bardoli Satyagraha and Tebhaga Movement,
both advocating for farmers' rights and fair land distribution. Their
contributions helped shape the socio-political landscape and eventually
led to India's independence in 1947.
It was the Government of India Act, 1935 that laid the foundation
stone of democratic rule in India. The Congress remained in power
only for two years—from 1935 to 1937. From 1940 to 1945, the
British government was preoccupied with the World War II. The efforts
for giving political freedom to India started from 1946 till it became free
in August 1947. The Constitution of free India accepted democracy as
the basis of ruling the country.
1.2 DEMOCRA CY
DEMOCRACY IN INDIA:
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Democracy in India is a complex and fascinating topic that has

been shaped by various historical, political, and social factors. India is
the world’s largest democracy, with a population of over 1.3 billion
people and a diverse range of religions, languages, cultures, and regions.
India’s democracy is based on the principles of constitutionalism,
secularism, federalism, and pluralism, which are enshrined in its
constitution that came into force in 1950.
The constitution of India was drafted by a constituent assembly
that was elected by the people of India after they gained independence
from British colonial rule in 1947. The constitution reflects the aspirations
and ideals of the Indian freedom struggle, as well as the influences of
other constitutional models such as the British, American, French, and
Irish systems. The constitution also incorporates the values and traditions
of India’s ancient civilization, such as the concepts of dharma (duty),
ahimsa (non-violence), and sarvodaya (welfare of all).
Democracy is the core value that has been enshrined in the
preamble of the constitution. The Honorable Supreme Court relying on
the decision of Kesavananda Bharati stated that democracy was an
essential feature of the Constitution and forms part of the basic structure.
The bench added certain other features deeply related with the
democratic system to the list of the basic structure, which was: Rule of
Law and the power of Judicial Review. The constitutional perspective
of Indian democracy can be explained by these provisions and features
of Indian Constitution under the following heads:-
1. Preamble of the Constitution- The Preamble in its present
form reads: “We, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly
resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST
SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its
citizens:
JUSTICE, Social, Economic and Political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote
among them all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the
unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of
November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO
OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION”
The constitution of India establishes India as a sovereign, socialist,
secular, democratic, and republic nation. A democratic polity, as
stipulated in the Preamble of Indian Constitution, is based on the doctrine
of popular sovereignty, that is, possession of supreme power by the
people.
The term ‘democratic’ is used in the Preamble in the broader sense
embracing not only political democracy but also social and economic
democracy. This dimension was stressed by Dr. Ambedkar in his
concluding speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949,
in the following way: “Political democracy cannot last unless there
lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy
mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and
fraternity. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not
to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of
trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat
the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from
equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty
and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty
would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality
without liberty, would kill individual initiative”
2. Fundamental Rights- As we have seen, rights are claims that
are essential for the existence and development of individuals. All these
rights are recognized by the society; some of the most important rights
are recognized by the State and enshrined in the Constitution. The
constitution of India provide comprehensive list of six fundamental rights.
These Fundamental Rights are promoting the idea of political democracy.
They prevent the establishment of an authoritarian and despotic rule in
the country, and protect the liberties and freedoms of the people against
the invasion by the State. They operate as limitations on the tyranny of
the executive and arbitrary laws of the legislature. In short, they aim at
establishing ‘a government of laws and not of men’.
Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights.
However, the right to property was deleted from the list of Fundamental
Rights by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978. It is made a legal right under
Article 300-A in Part XII of the Constitution. At present article 12 to
35 contained in Part III of the Constitution deal with six Fundamental
Rights. These are:
1. Right to equality (Articles 14–18)
2. Right to freedom (Articles 19–22)
3. Right against exploitation (Articles 23–24)
4. Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25–28)
5. Cultural and educational rights (Articles 29–30)
6. Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32)
These rights are called fundamental rights because of two reasons:
Firstly they are enshrined in the Constitution which being fundamental
law of the land guarantees them. Secondly they are justifiable
(enforceable by courts). In case of a violation, a person can approach
a court of law. Article 32 confers the right to remedies for the enforcement
of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen. That is why Dr
Ambedkar called Article 32 as the most important article of the
Constitution—‘an Article without which this constitution would be a
nullity. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it’.
However Article 226 has conferred these powers on the high court.
So these fundamental rights are most essential for the allround
development (material, intellectual, moral and spiritual) of the individual.
These Fundamental Rights are the basic conditions enshrined in the
constitution promoting the ideal of political democracy in India.
3. Directive Principles of State Policy- Part IV of the
constitution provides for directive principles of state policy, which are
guidelines for the government to promote social justice, economic
development, environmental protection, and international peace. The
Directive Principles along with the Fundamental Rights contain the
philosophy of the Constitution and is the soul of the Constitution. These
DPSP are the guiding principles and ideals that the State should keep in
mind while formulating policies and enacting laws. Directive Principles
of State Policy aim to create social and economic conditions under which
the citizens can lead a good life. They also aim to establish social and
economic democracy through a welfare state. They seek to establish a
‘welfare state’ in India and impose a moral obligation on the state
authorities for their application. On their ideological basis and contents,
these Principles can be classified into three broad categories, viz,
socialistic, Gandhian and liberal–intellectual.
4. Separation of Power and Functions- The separation of powers
is imitable for the administration of federative and democratic states.
Under this rule the state is divided into three different branches-
legislative, executive and judiciary each having different independent
power and responsibility on them so that one branch may not interfere
with the working of the others two branches . In India, a separation of
functions rather than of powers is followed. Unlike in the US, in India,
the concept of separation of powers is not adhered to strictly. However,
a system of checks and balances have been put in place in such a manner
that the judiciary has the power to strike down any unconstitutional
laws passed by the legislature.
The constitution of India lays down the structure and functions of
the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the
judiciary. The executive branch consists of the president, who is the
head of state and is elected indirectly by an electoral college; the prime
minister, who is the head of government and is appointed by the president
from the majority party or coalition in the parliament; and the council of
ministers, who are appointed by the president on the advice of the prime
minister. The president has largely ceremonial powers, while the prime
minister and the council of ministers exercise executive authority. The
legislature branch consists of a bicameral parliament, which is composed
of two houses: the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) and the Lok Sabha
(the lower house). The Rajya Sabha represents the states and union
territories of India and has 245 members who are elected indirectly by
the state legislatures for six-year terms. The Lok Sabha represents the
people of India and has 543 members who are elected directly by
universal adult suffrage for five-year terms. The parliament makes laws
on matters that are listed in the union list or concurrent list in the
constitution. The parliament can also amend the constitution with a
special majority.
The judiciary branch consists of a supreme court, which is the
highest court of appeal and has 34 judges who are appointed by the
president on the recommendation of a collegiums of senior judges; high
courts in each state or group of states, which have jurisdiction over
state matters and can hear appeals from lower courts; and subordinate
courts at district and local levels, which deal with civil and criminal
cases. The judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution and can review
any law or executive action that violates or infringes upon the fundamental
rights or other provisions of the constitution.
5. Parliamentary Form of Government- The Constitution of
India has opted for the British parliamentary System of Government
rather than American Presidential System of Government. The
parliamentary system is based on the principle of cooperation and
coordination between the legislative and executive organs while the
presidential system is based on the doctrine of separation of powers
between the two organs. The parliamentary system is also known as
the ‘Westminster’ model of government, responsible government and
cabinet government. The Constitution establishes the parliamentary
system both at the centre as well as at the states level. The features of
parliamentary government in India are:
(a) Presence of nominal (President) and real (Counsel of Minister
headed by Prime Minister) executives.
(b) Majority party rule.
(c) Collective responsibility of the executive to the legislature.
(d) Membership of the ministers in the legislature..
(e) Leadership of the Prime minister at Central level or the chief
minister at state level.
(f) Dissolution of the lower House (Lok Sabha or Assembly).
Therefore the Parliament of India represents the collective will of
the people. It is largely based on the British pattern. But there are some
fundamental differences between the two. For example, the Indian
Parliament is not a sovereign body like the British Parliament. Further,
the Indian State has an elected head (republic) while the British State
has hereditary head (monarchy). In a parliamentary system whether in
India or Britain, the role of the Prime Minister has become so significant
and crucial that the political scientists like to call it a ‘Prime Ministerial
Government’.
6. Division of Powers- The Constitution divided the powers
between the Centre and the states in terms of the Union List, State List
and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule. The Union List consists
of 100 subjects (originally 97), the State List 61 subjects (originally 66)
and the Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre
and the states can make laws on the subjects of the concurrent list, but
in case of a conflict, the Central law prevails. The residuary subjects (I.
e, which are not mentioned in any of the three lists) are given to the
Centre.
7. Federal System with Unitary Bias- The Constitution of India
establishes a federal system of government. It contains all the usual
features of a federation, viz., two governments, and division of powers,
written Constitution, supremacy of Constitution, rigidity of Constitution,
independent judiciary and bicameralism.
However, the Indian Constitution also contains a large number of
unitary or non-federal features, viz., a strong Centre, single Constitution,
single citizenship, flexibility of Constitution, integrated judiciary,
appointment of state governor by the Centre, all-India services,
emergency provisions, and so on. Moreover, the term ‘Federation’ has
nowhere been used in the Constitution.
Article 1, on the other hand, describes India as a ‘Union of States’
which implies two things: one, Indian Federation is not the result of an
agreement by the states; and two, no state has the right to secede from
the federation. Hence, the Indian Constitution has been variously
described as ‘federal in form but unitary in spirit’, ‘quasi-federal’ by K
C Wheare, ‘bargaining federalism’ by Morris Jones, ‘co-operative
federalism’by Granville Austin, ‘federation with a centralizing tendency’
by Ivor Jennings, and so on.
8. Rule of Law- The concept of ‘equality before law’ under article
14 is an element of the concept of ‘Rule of Law’, propounded by A.V.
Dicey, the British jurist. The Indian Constitution guarantees that no person
shall be denied the right to equality before law or the equal protection
of law in the territory of India. This is a right that can be claimed by any
person, whether a citizen or a non-citizen, on Indian soil. Here, we can
find that Article 14 comprises two expressions, which are ‘equality
before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’. The first expression ‘equality
before law’ is borrowed from the English common law. The expression
‘equal protection of law’ is borrowed from the constitution of USA.
Rule of law has been declared by the Supreme Court as one of the
basic features of the Constitution so it cannot be amended even by the
constitutional amendment.
9. A Secular State and Multiculturalism- The Constitution of
India stands for a secular state. Hence, it does not uphold any particular
religion as the official religion of the Indian State. The following provisions
of the Constitution reveal the secular character of the Indian State:
(a) The term ‘secular’ was added to the Preamble of the Indian
Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.
(b) The Preamble secures to all citizens of India liberty of belief,
faith and worship.
(c) The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or equal protection of the laws (Article 14).
(d) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground
of religion (Article 15).
(e) Equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public
employment (Article 16).
(f) All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and
the right to freely profess, practice and propagate any religion (Article
25).
(g) Every religious denomination or any of its section shall have
the right to manage its religious affairs (Article 26).
(h) No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for the promotion
of a particular religion (Article 27).
(i) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational
institution maintained by the State (Article 28).
(j) Any section of the citizens shall have the right to conserve its
distinct language, script or culture (Article 29).
(k) All minorities shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice (Article 30).
(l) The State shall Endeavour to secure for all the citizens a Uniform
Civil Code (Article 44).
The Western concept of secularism connotes a complete separation
between the religion (the church) and the state (the politics). This negative
concept of secularism is inapplicable in the Indian situation where the
society is multireligious. Hence, the Indian Constitution embodies the
positive concept of secularism, i.e., giving equal respect to all religions
or protecting all religions equally. Moreover, the Constitution has also
abolished the old system of communal representation that is, reservation
of seats in the legislatures on the basis of religion. However, it provides
for the temporary reservation of seats for the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes to ensure adequate representation to them.
10. Republican State: India is a Republic Country- A republic
country is where the head of a particular state is an elected person and
not someone from a hereditary monarch. India is known as a republic
country because the people of India elect the head of the state. Therefore,
the term ‘republic’ in our Preamble indicates that India has an elected
head called the president. He is elected indirectly for a fixed period of
five years. A republic also means two more things: one, vesting of political
sovereignty in the people and not in a single individual like a king; second,
the absence of any privileged class and hence all public offices being
opened to every citizen without any discrimination.
11. Universal Adult Franchise- The Indian Constitution adopts
universal adult franchise as a basis of elections to the Lok Sabha and
the state legislative assemblies. Every citizen who is not less than 18
years of age has a right to vote without any discrimination of caste,
race, religion, sex, literacy, wealth, and so on. The voting age was reduced
to 18 years from 21 years in 1989 by the 61st Constitutional Amendment
Act of 1988. Universal adult franchise makes democracy broad-based,
enhances the self-respect and prestige of the common people, upholds
the principle of equality, enables minorities to protect their interests and
opens up new hopes and vistas for weaker sections.
12. Independent Judiciary- Simply stated independence of
judiciary means that the other organs of the government like the executive
and legislature must not restrain the functioning of the judiciary in such a
way that it is unable to do justice. The other organs of the government
should not interfere with the decision of the judiciary. Judges must be
able to perform their functions without fear or favour. Independence of
the judiciary does not imply arbitrariness or absence of accountability.
Judiciary is a part of the democratic political structure of the country.
The Indian Constitution has ensured the independence of the
judiciary through a number of measures like non involvement of legislature
in appointment of judges; decide matters before them impartially purely
on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any
restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or
interferences, direct or indirect. In India the legislature and executive
have no power to interfere in the judicial decision, while judiciary has
power to review the decision of legislature and executive. Constitution
of India provide independent and integrated judiciary, where the Supreme
court is on the top of the hierarchy of judicial structure The judicial
review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality
of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and
state governments.
13. Free and Fair Election- The founding fathers of Indian
Constitution conceived of representative parliamentary democracy as
the polity most suited to India’s ethos, background and needs. They
envisaged equal participation of all the adult citizens in the democratic
process without any discrimination. The representatives of the people
are selected through universal adult franchise. Elections are held to elect
members of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Assemblies, and
Legislative Council, to the posts of President, Vice-President, Local
Bodies, Municipal Corporation, Gram Panchayat, Zila Panchayat and
Block Panchayat
In this context articles 324 to 329 in Part XV of the Constitution
deals with electoral system in the country. For conducting free and fair
election, the Constitution provides for an independent Election
Commission under article 324. The power of supertendence, direction
and conduct of elections to the Parliament, the state legislatures, the
office of the President and the office of the Vice-President is vested in
the Commission. For conducting the Elections of Local bodies the
constitution of India also provide State election Commissions under
article 234(D). The superintendence, direction and control of the
preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to the
panchayats and Muncipilities shall be vested in the state election
commission.
14. Independence Bodies and Commissions- The Indian
Constitution not only provides for the legislative, executive and judicial
organs of the government (Central and state) but also establishes certain
independent bodies. They are envisaged by the Constitution as the
bulworks of the democratic system of Government in India. These are:
(a) Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections to the
Parliament, the state legislatures, the office of President of India and the
office of Vice-president of India.
(b) Comptroller and Auditor-General of India to audit the accounts
of the Central and state governments. He acts as the guardian of public
purse and comments on the legality and propriety of government
expenditure.
(c) Union Public Service Commission to conduct examinations
for recruitment to all-India services 15 and higher Central services and
to advise the President on disciplinary matters.
(d) State Public Service Commission in every state to conduct
examinations for recruitment to state services and to advice the governor
on disciplinary matters. Moreover the Constitution also provide other
commissions and offices for the protection of rights and upliftment of
the weaker sections of society. These commissions are National
Commission of SC, National Commission for ST, e Special Officer for
Linguistic Minorities and National Commission for Backward Classes
(NCBC). The Constitution ensures the independence of these bodies
through various provisions like security of tenure, fixed service
conditions, expenses being charged on the Consolidated Fund of India,
and so on.
15. Freedom of Press- Article 19 guarantees to all citizens the
six rights. These are: (i) Right to freedom of speech and expression. (ii)
Right to assemble peaceably and without arms. (iii) Right to form
associations or unions or co-operative societies. 10 (iv) Right to move
freely throughout the territory of India. (v) Right to reside and settle in
any part of the territory of India. (vi) Right to practice any profession or
to carry on any occupation, trade or business
Freedom of the press is a fundamental right elucidated in the Indian
Constitution that guarantees all citizens the freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19. India’s press has a long history of being a
pillar of democracy, perhaps the fourth pillar. The Supreme Court held
that the freedom of speech and expression includes the following: (a)
Right to propagate one’s views as well as views of others. (b) Freedom
of the press. (c) Freedom of commercial advertisements. (d) Right against
tapping of telephonic conversation. (e) Right to telecast, that is,
government has no monopoly on electronic media.
It’s obvious that press in India enjoys a significant degree of freedom
under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, but nothing can be absolute
so, in order to prevent any misuse of power, several restrictions has
been imposed by the government. One such important limitation to the
right to freedom of expression and speech, is that it must be: In the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, Security of the State,
Friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality,
In relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
16. Decentralization at the local level- Originally, the Indian
Constitution, like any other federal constitution, provided for a dual
polity and contained provisions with regard to the organization and
powers of the Centre and the states. Later, the 73rd and 74th
Constitutional Amendment Acts (1992) have added a provision for the
establishment of local government at the rural as well as urban level.
This feature of Indian constitution is unique, which strengthen the
democracy at gross root level.
The need for decentralization in India was first recognized by
the Constitution of India. Several attempts have been made to decentralize
the powers to the levels of towns and villages. Panchayats were set up
at the village level and municipalities at the urban areas but were directly
under the control of the state governments. Thus it was constitutionalised
through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992.
1.3 PARLIAMENTAR
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRA
ARY CY
CY::
DEMOCRACY
REDEFINING WESTMINSTER MODEL
The Westminster model of governance is a type of parliamentary system

that originated in the United Kingdom and was adopted by many former
British colonies and territories. It is characterized by a bicameral
legislature, a head of state who is usually a monarch or a president with
ceremonial powers, a head of government who is the prime minister
and the leader of the majority party or coalition in the lower house, a
cabinet of ministers who are responsible to the parliament, and an
opposition that provides a check and balance to the government. The
Westminster model also relies on conventions, traditions, and unwritten
rules that regulate the functioning of the parliament and the executive.
Westminster Model Redefined in the Context of India: The
Westminster model has been redefined in the context of India to
suit its unique historical, cultural, and constitutional circumstances.
Similarities Betw Between een the Indian P ar
Par liament and
arliament
the British P ar liament
arliament
Par
Given below are the points showing similarities between indian
and briritish parliament:-
[Two Houses of Parliament: Both India and Britain have a
bicameral parliament, consisting of an upper house and a lower house.
In India there are two houses Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Rajya
sabha is a upper house with maximum fixed strength of 250, out of
which, 238 are to be the representatives of the states and union territories
(elected indirectly) and 12 are nominated by the president. At present,
the Rajya Sabha has 245 members. Of these, 229 members represent
the states, 4 members represent the union territories and 12 members
are nominated by the president.The Lok sabha known as the house of
the people is a lower house with maximum strength of 552. Out of this,
530 members are to be the representatives of the states, 20 members
are to be the representatives of the union territories are , directly elected
by the people. 2 members are to be nominated by the president from
the Anglo-Indian community .At present; the Lok Sabha has 545
members. Of these, 530 members represent the states, 13 members
represent the union territories and 2 AngloIndian members are nominated
by the President. The British Parliament consisting two houses, the House
of Commons and House of Lords.
The House of Commons in the UK Parliament is composed of
Members of Parliament (MPs) who are directly elected by the public
through general elections. There are 650 constituencies, each
represented by one MP. The House of Lords is made up of appointed
and hereditary members. It includes three categories: Lords Spiritual,;
senior bishops of the Church of England, Lords Temporal: Life peers
appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister and
Hereditary Peers: A limited number of hereditary peers remain after
reforms. They are elected by their fellow hereditary peers.
[ Nominal Head of the State: Both Indian republic and Britain
constitutional monarchy have a nominal head of the state. In India, it is
the President, and in Britain, it is the King or Queen. In India, the head
of state is the President who is elected by the members of parliament
and state legislative assemblies through proportional representation. The
President of India is the ceremonial and constitutional head of the country.
In the United Kingdom, there is a constitutional monarchy where the
head of state is hereditary. The monarch’s role in the UK is largely
ceremonial and symbolic, with the actual governance of the country
being carried out by elected officials, including the Prime Minister and
the Parliament.
[ Council of Ministers: Both India and Britain have a council
of ministers headed by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the
majority party or coalition in the lower house of parliament. The council
of ministers is collectively responsible to the lower house and can be
removed by a vote of no-confidence. The Council of Ministers in both
India and the United Kingdom is responsible for assisting the head of
government in making policy decisions and running the government.
However, there are differences in their composition and functions due
to the distinct political systems in each country.
[ Collective Responsibility: Both follow the principle of
collective responsibility, where all ministers are collectively responsible
to the parliament for their policies and actions. If a motion of no-
confidence is passed against the government in the lower house, the
prime minister and the cabinet have to resign or seek fresh elections.
Similarly, if a minister disagrees with a major policy decision of the
cabinet, he or she has to resign or face dismissal. The concept of
collective responsibility in both countries ensures that the government
presents a unified stance to the public and Parliament, maintaining stability
and consistency in governance
[ Role of Prime Minister: In both the United Kingdom and
India, the Prime Minister serves as the leader of the lower house of the
parliament, which is the House of Commons in the UK and the Lok
Sabha in India. The Prime Minister plays a crucial role in shaping
government policies, leading legislative agendas, and representing the
government in the respective house. In both political systems the Prime
Minister is the most powerful and influential person in the government
and parliament. The Prime Minister determines the agenda and direction
of the government, chairs cabinet meetings, appoints and dismisses
ministers, represents the country in international forums, and acts as a
link between the head of state and parliament.
[ Role of Opposition: Both have an opposition that forms an
alternative government in waiting. The leader of the opposition is usually
the leader of the largest party or coalition that is not in power. The
opposition has its own shadow cabinet that criticizes and challenges the
government on various issues. The opposition also plays an important
role in scrutinizing bills, holding debates, asking questions, and
conducting inquiries.
[Majority Party Rule: Both India and Britain follow the principle
of majority party rule, which means that the party or coalition that has
more than half of the seats in the lower house forms the government and
appoints the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then chooses his or
her council of ministers from among the members of parliament.
[ Collective responsibility: Both India and Britain follow the
principle of collective responsibility, which means that all the members
of the council of ministers are jointly responsible for the decisions and
actions of the government. If any minister disagrees with a policy or
decision, he or she has to resign from the cabinet or abide by it. The
council of ministers also has to resign if it loses the confidence of the
lower house.
[ Dissolution of Lower House: Both India and Britain have a
provision for dissolving the lower house before its normal term ends. In
India, the President can dissolve the Lok Sabha on the advice of the
Prime Minister or if no party or coalition can form a stable government. In
Britain, the King or Queen can dissolve the House of Commons on the
advice of the Prime Minister or if a motion for an early general election
is passed by two-thirds of its members.
[ Business of Houses: Both India and Britain have similar
procedures for conducting business in their houses of parliament. The
business includes various items such as question hour, zero hour, motions,
bills, debates, adjournment motions, no-confidence motions, etc. The
business is regulated by rules made by each house, presided over by a
speaker or chairman elected by its members, and assisted by various
committees.
[Role of Convention: Both India and Britain rely on conventions
or unwritten rules for many aspects of their parliamentary system.
Conventions are based on customs, traditions, precedents, practices,
etc., that are followed over time and accepted as binding by all
parties. Some examples of conventions are cabinet secrecy, individual
responsibility, caretaker government, etc.
[ Harmony between Legislature and Executive: Both India
and Britain have a system where there is harmony between legislature
and executive. This means that there is no separation of powers between
these two organs of government. The executive is derived from legislature
as all ministers are members of parliament. The executive is also
accountable to legislature as it can be removed by a vote of no-
confidence or censure motion. The executive also influences legislature
as it controls most of its agenda and initiates most bills.
[ Rule of Law: Both India and the United Kingdom (UK) follow
the rule of law as a foundational principle of their legal systems. The rule
of law emphasizes that everyone, including the government and public
officials must adhere to the law and that laws are applied consistently
and fairly to all individuals.
Both India and Britain follow the principle of rule of law, which
means that all persons are equal before law and subject to its jurisdiction.
No one is above law or immune from its application. Law is supreme
and prevails over arbitrary power or discretion. Law is also made by
representatives of people in parliament and interpreted by independent
judiciary.
Dif
Difffer ence betw
erence between een the Indian P ar
Par liament
arliament
and the British P ar
Par liament
arliament
Major differences between the Indian Parliament and the British
Parliament are:
1. Diversity and representation: The Indian Parliament has more
diversity and representation than the British Parliament in terms of gender,
religion, caste, ethnicity, language, and region. The Indian Parliament
has 543 members in Lok Sabha (of which 78 are women) and 245
members in Rajya Sabha (of which 27 are women), representing 29
states and 7 union territories with different cultures and identities. The
British Parliament has 650 members in House of Commons (of which
208 are women) and 792 members in House of Lords (of which 207
are women), representing four nations (England, Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland) with some degree of devolution.
2. Constitution: India has a written constitution that defines and
limits the powers of the parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. It
also provides for a federal system of government, where the states have
their own legislatures and governments. The constitution can be amended
by a special majority of both houses of parliament and ratification by
half of the states. UK has an unwritten constitution that is not codified in
a single document. Instead, it’s formed from various sources like statutes,
conventions, judicial decisions, and historical documents. Key principles
include parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, and constitutional
conventions that guide how the government operates.
3. Judicial Review: The Indian Parliament is subject to judicial
review by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, which can declare
any law or executive action as unconstitutional or ultra vires if it violates
any provision of the constitution or infringes upon any fundamental right.
The British Parliament is sovereign and supreme in its legislative power
and cannot be challenged by any court or authority. However, since
Britain is a member of the European Union (EU), it has to comply with
some EU laws and regulations that may override its domestic laws.
4. Procedure of passing bills: The Indian Parliament has a more
complex and rigid procedure for passing bills than the British Parliament.
A bill can be introduced in either house of the parliament, except for
money bills, which can only be introduced in Lok Sabha. A bill has to
pass through three readings in each house, followed by a joint sitting in
case of a deadlock between the two houses. A bill also requires the
assent of the president before becoming an act. The British Parliament
has a simpler and flexible procedure for passing bills. A bill can be
introduced in either house of the parliament, except for supply bills,
which can only be introduced in House of Commons. A bill has to pass
through five stages in each house, followed by the royal assent by the
monarch before becoming an act.
5. Party system: India has a multi-party system, which means
that there are many political parties that compete for power and
representation in the parliament and the state legislatures. No single
party can usually win a majority of seats on its own, and therefore,
parties have to form coalitions or alliances with other parties to form the
government. The multi-party system reflects the diversity and pluralism
of Indian society, as well as the federal structure of the Indian constitution.
However, it also poses some challenges such as instability, fragmentation,
corruption, and policy paralysis.
Britain has a bi-party system, which means that there are two
dominant political parties that alternately form the government and the
opposition in the parliament. The two main parties are the Conservative
Party and the Labour Party, which have different ideological orientations
and policy preferences. The bi-party system ensures stability,
accountability, and clarity of choice for the voters, as well as effective
governance and legislation. However, it also excludes smaller parties
and minority groups from having a fair representation and influence in
the political system.
6. Head of the State: India has a republican form of government,
where the head of state is an elected president who has certain reserve
powers to protect the constitution and act as a neutral arbiter in case of
a constitutional crisis. While in UK there is a constitutional monarchy.
Impact of Westminster Model in
Gover
Gov nance of India
ernance
Following are the points:-
i. It has enabled India to adopt a democratic and federal system of
government that respects its diversity and pluralism.
ii. It has ensured a balance of power and checks and balances
between the parliament, the executive, and the judiciary.
iii. It has facilitated a smooth transition of power and stability of
government through regular elections and peaceful transfer of authority.
iv. It has fostered a culture of debate, dialogue, and deliberation
among different parties and groups on various issues.
v. It has faced some challenges and limitations due to coalition
politics, corruption, criminalization, defection, and disruption.
1.4 INDIA’S DEMOCRA

INDIA’S CY IN COMP
DEMOCRACY ARA
COMPARATIVE
ARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE OF UK AND USA
Indian Democracy is one of the most vibrant and diverse political

systems in the world. Rooted in the principles of equality, representation,
and participation, it has evolved over the years to become a cornerstone
of the country’s governance. The introduction of Indian democracy can
be traced back to its struggle for independence from British colonial
rule and the visionary leaders who laid the foundation for a democratic
nation.
Historical Context: The seeds of Indian democracy were sown
during the British colonial period, when Indians began demanding greater
representation and a role in their own governance. Movements like the
Indian National Congress, founded in 1885, played a crucial role in
articulating the aspirations of the Indian people and advocating for
democratic rights.
Key Milestones in Indian Democr ac
Democrac
acyy
Given below are the points showing the milestones:-
i. Government of India Act, 1935: This act introduced a federal
structure and provided for limited self-governance within British colonial
dominions. It established provincial legislatures and introduced elections,
albeit with limited suffrage.
ii. Post-Independence: The year 1947 marked India’s
independence from British rule. Under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and other prominent leaders, the newly
formed government embarked on creating a democratic framework for
the nation. The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, became the guiding
document that laid out the principles and mechanisms of Indian
democracy.
Ke y F ea
Fea tur
eatur
tures es of Indian Democr Democrac ac
acy y
Following are the points:-
1. Universal Suffrage: The Indian Constitution grants the right
to vote to all citizens, regardless of caste, creed, gender, or religion,
ensuring equal participation in the democratic process.
2. Multi-Party System: India has a vibrant multi-party political
system, which encourages diverse viewpoints and ensures representation
for various segments of society.
3. Separation of Powers: The Indian democracy follows the
principle of separation of powers between the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches, ensuring checks and balances.
4. Fundamental Rights: The Constitution guarantees fundamental
rights to citizens, such as freedom of speech, expression, and religion,
which are essential for the functioning of a democratic society.
5. Regular Elections: India holds regular elections at various
levels, from local panchayats to the national parliament, enabling citizens
to choose their representatives and hold them accountable.
6. Independent Judiciary: The Indian judiciary acts as a
safeguard of democratic principles, interpreting laws, upholding the
Constitution, and ensuring justice.
7. Media Freedom: A free and vibrant media plays a crucial role
in Indian democracy, facilitating the exchange of ideas and holding those
in power accountable.
INDIA AND UK
A comparative analysis of the democracies in India and the United
Kingdom (UK) involves examining various aspects of their political
systems, electoral processes, governance structures, and socio-political
dynamics. Both countries have distinct historical, cultural, and institutional
backgrounds that shape their democratic functioning. Here’s a
comparison of key aspects:
[ Historical Context:
♦ India: India’s democracy was established after gaining
independence from British colonial rule in 1947. It is the world’s most
populous democracy and has a diverse population with various
languages, religions, and cultures.
♦ UK: The UK has a long history of parliamentary democracy,
dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215. It has evolved over centuries
and has influenced democratic systems worldwide.
[ Political System:
♦ India: India has a federal parliamentary democratic system
with a President as the head of state and a Prime Minister as the head
of government. The Parliament consists of two houses: the Lok Sabha
(Lower House) and the Rajya Sabha (Upper House).
♦ UK: The UK is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary
democracy. The monarch is the head of state, but the real political power
lies with the Prime Minister and the Parliament, consisting of the House
of Commons and the House of Lords.
[ Electoral Process:
♦ India: India holds regular general elections for the Lok Sabha,
State Legislative Assemblies, and local bodies. Elections are conducted
using a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
♦ UK: The UK also follows the FPTP system for general elections
to the House of Commons. It has a multi-party system dominated by
the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
[ Federal vs. Unitary Structure:
♦ India: India is a federal republic with a division of powers
between the central government and states. States have their own
legislative assemblies and governments.
♦ UK: The UK has a unitary structure, with power concentrated
at the central government level. Devolution has led to the establishment
of regional legislatures in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
[ Judicial Independence:
♦ India: India has an independent judiciary with the Supreme
Court as the highest authority. The judiciary plays a crucial role in
upholding the constitution and protecting citizens’ rights.
♦ UK: The UK also has an independent judiciary, with the Supreme
Court serving as the highest court. It ensures the rule of law and the
interpretation of legislation.
[ Cultural Diversity and Identity:
♦ India: India’s democracy is characterized by its diverse
population, languages, cultures, and religions. Ensuring representation
and harmony among various groups is a significant challenge.
♦ UK: The UK has cultural and linguistic diversity, but it is not as
extensive as India’s. However, issues related to national identity and
devolution have been important in recent years, particularly in Scotland
and Wales.
[ Media and Freedom of Expression:
♦ Both countries uphold freedom of expression and have vibrant
media landscapes. However, challenges like media ownership
concentration and issues related to press freedom persist in both
democracies.
[ Challenges:
♦ India faces challenges such as socio-economic inequality,
corruption, regional disparities, and communal tensions.
♦ The UK grapples with issues related to Brexit’s impact,
immigration, economic disparities between regions, and debates over
the future of the union (with Scotland’s desire for independence being a
key issue).
In conclusion, while both India and the UK are democracies, they
differ significantly due to historical, cultural, and institutional factors.
India’s democracy is shaped by its diversity and federal structure, while
the UK’s democratic system has evolved over centuries. Each country
faces unique challenges in maintaining and strengthening its democratic
institutions and ensuring the representation and well-being of its citizens.
INDIA AND USA
Comparative analysis of the democracies in India and the United
States (USA), focusing on various aspects of their political systems,
governance structures, electoral processes, and societal dynamics:
[ Political System:
♦ India: Federal parliamentary democratic republic with a
President as the head of state and a Prime Minister as the head of
government.
♦ USA: Federal presidential democratic republic with a President
serving as both the head of state and the head of government.
[ Constitution:
♦ India: Has a written constitution that outlines the fundamental
rights of citizens and the structure of the government.
♦ USA: Has a written constitution that serves as the supreme law
of the land and delineates the separation of powers among the branches
of government.
[ Electoral Process:
♦ India: Conducts regular elections at various levels of
government, including national, state, and local elections. Uses a first-
past-the-post electoral system.
♦ USA: Holds presidential elections every four years, along with
elections for Congress (House of Representatives and Senate). Employs
an electoral college system to elect the President.
[ Bicameral Legislature:
♦ India: Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha (House of the
People) and the Rajya Sa bha (Council of States).
♦ USA: Congress consists of the House of Representatives and
the Senate.
[ Judicial System:
♦ India: Independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the
apex court, responsible for interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding
fundamental rights.
♦ USA: Independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court serving
as the highest court of appeal, responsible for interpreting the Constitution
and federal laws.
[ Federal Structure:
♦ India: Federal system with a division of powers between the
central government and the states.
♦ USA: Federal system with powers divided between the federal
government and individual states.
[ Cultural and Religious Diversity:
♦ India: Diverse society with numerous languages, religions, and
cultures, leading to complex governance challenges related to
representation and social cohesion.
♦ USA: Diverse society with people from various ethnic, religious,
and cultural backgrounds, emphasizing principles of pluralism and
individual rights.
[ Freedom of Speech and Media:
♦ Both countries place high importance on freedom of expression
and a free press, although challenges related to media ownership,
regulation, and disinformation exist.
[ Economic Systems:
♦ India: Mixed economy with a significant public sector and private
enterprise; focuses on economic growth and poverty alleviation.
♦ USA: Capitalist economy with a strong emphasis on individual
entrepreneurship, innovation, and free markets.
[ Foreign Policy and Global Role:
♦ India: Developing global influence, focusing on economic growth,
regional stability, and strategic partnerships.
♦ USA: A major global power with extensive political, economic,
and military influence, playing a significant role in international affairs.
[ Challenges Faced by India and USA
India: Faces challenges of poverty, inequality, corruption, and
governance issues stemming from its diverse population and complex
social fabric.
USA: Deals with issues such as political polarization, racial
tensions, income inequality, and the balance between individual freedoms
and societal cohesion.
In summary, India and the USA have distinct democratic systems
shaped by their historical, cultural, and institutional contexts. India’s
democracy grapples with its diversity and development goals, while the
USA navigates issues of representation, constitutional principles, and
societal cohesion. Both democracies face unique challenges in maintaining
their democratic institutions and addressing the evolving needs of their
citizens. In conclusion, the comparative analysis of the democracies in
India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (USA)
underscores the diversity of political systems, governance structures,
and societal dynamics across these three nations. Each democracy is
shaped by its historical trajectory, cultural context, and institutional
framework. While there are similarities in the principles of democracy,
there are also notable differences that have significant implications for
governance, representation, and citizen engagement.
India’s democracy, marked by its federal structure and commitment
to diversity, navigates the complex challenge of ensuring equitable
representation and fostering unity among its diverse population. The
federal parliamentary system, along with a vibrant media landscape,
enables India to balance regional autonomy with central authority.
However, issues of poverty, inequality, and communal tensions remain
key challenges that require ongoing attention.
The UK’s democracy, with its deep-rooted parliamentary tradition
and constitutional monarchy, reflects a history of gradual evolution. The
devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland addresses
regional aspirations but also raises questions about the future unity of
the nation. Pressing issues like Brexit’s aftermath, economic disparities,
and identity politics challenge the UK’s ability to maintain cohesion.
The USA’s democracy, characterized by its presidential system and
emphasis on individual rights, grapples with political polarization and
social divisions. The constitutional framework and checks-and-balances
mechanism underpin a system where power is shared between the
federal government and states. However, the challenge of bridging
ideological gaps, addressing systemic inequalities, and preserving
democratic norms poses significant tests for American democracy.
Each democracy’s approach to freedom of expression, judicial
independence, and electoral systems reflects its unique context. All three
nations value democratic principles and have a significant global presence,
shaping international diplomacy and affairs. As these democracies
continue to evolve, the comparative analysis underscores the importance
of adaptability and responsiveness to the changing needs and
expectations of their citizens. The success of these democracies hinges
on their ability to address challenges, foster inclusivity, and uphold the
principles of accountability, transparency, and individual rights. Through
their distinct journeys, India, the UK, and the USA contribute to the
diverse tapestry of global democracy while striving to create societies
that reflect the aspirations of their people.
***********
Functioning and Deepening of Democracy 45
2
FUNCTIONING AND
DEEPENING OF
DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACY
2.1 FUNCTIONING OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY
DURING NEHRUVIAN ERA
The Nehruvian era in India, spanning from 1947 to 1964, was a

transformative period in the country’s history, characterized by the
leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister. During this
time, India navigated its path as a newly independent nation, laying the
foundation for a democratic system that continues to shape the country’s
governance today. According to Bhikhu Parekh, Nehru can be
regarded as the founder of the modern Indian state. Parekh attributes
this to the national philosophy Nehru formulated for India. For him,
modernisation was the national philosophy, with seven goals: national
unity, parliamentary democracy, industrialisation, socialism, development
of the scientific temper, and non-alignment. In Parekh’s opinion, the
philosophy and the policies that resulted from this benefited a large
section of society such as public sector workers, industrial houses, and
middle and upper peasantry. The functioning of democracy in India
during the Nehruvian era was marked by key principles, institutions,
and policies that aimed to foster inclusivity, economic growth, and social
45
46 Functioning and Deepening of Democracy
progress. From adopting universal adult franchise to implementing Five-

Year Plans, Nehru’s vision and policies played a pivotal role in shaping
India’s democratic framework. However, the era was not without
challenges, and criticisms arose concerning the concentration of power
and regional disparities. Nevertheless, the Nehruvian era laid the
groundwork for a strong democratic foundation, leaving a lasting impact
on the political landscape of the world’s largest democracy.
Understanding the functioning of democracy during this era offers
valuable insights into India’s democratic evolution and the enduring legacy
of its founding leaders. The Nehruvian era in India refers to the period
when Jawaharlal Nehru served as the country’s first Prime Minister
from 1947 (independence) until his death in 1964. This period is marked
by significant developments in shaping the functioning of democracy in
India. Here are some key aspects of how democracy operated during
the Nehruvian era:
1. Parliamentary Democracy: India adopted the parliamentary
system of democracy, which is characterized by a President as the head
of state and a Prime Minister as the head of government. The Prime
Minister and the Council of Ministers were collectively responsible to
the elected lower house of Parliament, the Lok Sabha. Nehru was the
leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha, which enabled him to
become the Prime Minister.
2. Objective Resolution and the Preamble of the Indian
Constitution: During the Nehruvian era, which lasted from India’s
independence in 1947 to Jawaharlal Nehru’s death in 1964, the
functioning of democracy was influenced by several key elements,
including the Objective Resolution and the Preamble of the Indian
Constitution.
The Objective Resolution introduced in constituent assembly by
Nehru on December 13, 1946 and later adopted as the Preamble to
the Indian Constitution, laid down the fundamental principles and goals
of the nation. It emphasized justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for
all citizens. This commitment to social justice and inclusive governance
helped shape the democratic framework of the era. The Preamble, as
part of the Constitution, serves as a guiding light for Indian democracy.
It outlines the values of a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic
republic. The functioning of democracy during this period was
characterized by adherence to these principles, fostering a society that
aimed at eradicating inequalities, ensuring individual freedoms, and
upholding the rule of law.
3. Universal Adult Franchise: The Nehruvian era saw the
implementation of universal adult franchise, granting the right to vote to
all adult citizens, regardless of gender, caste, or economic status. This
was a crucial step in making India a truly inclusive and democratic nation.
4. Dominant Party System: The Indian National Congress (INC)
was the dominant political party during the Nehruvian era. Nehru was a
key leader of the INC, and the party played a central role in shaping the
policies and governance of the country.
5. Five-Year Plans: Nehru introduced the concept of Five-Year
Plans, inspired by the Soviet model, to guide India’s economic
development. These plans aimed at promoting industrialization,
agricultural growth, and improving living standards for the masses. The
planning process involved elected representatives and played a significant
role in shaping India’s economic policies.
6. Landmark Legislation: Several crucial pieces of legislation
were enacted during this period to strengthen democracy and protect
fundamental rights. The Constitution of India, which came into effect in

1950, laid the foundation for India’s democratic system, with a strong
emphasis on fundamental rights, separation of powers, and an
independent judiciary.
7. Panchayati Raj System: Being influenced by the ideas of
Mahatma Gandhi ,Nehru advocated for local self-governance and
encouraged the establishment of Panchayati Raj institutions to promote
grassroots democracy. These institutions aimed to decentralize power
and involve people at the local level in decision-making processes. Pt.
Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister, who first time inaugurating
the Nagpur panchayat in Rajasthan on October 2, 1959, on the eve of
90th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru said, “We are going to lay the foundations of democracy or
panchayati raj in our country…. It is a historic event. It is fitting that the
programme of panchayati raj should be inaugurated on Mahatma
Gandhi’s birthday…. The progress of our country is bound up with the
progress in our villages.”
8. Press Freedom and Free Speech: Due to his liberal outlook
Nehru was a staunch supporter of press freedom and free speech,
despite facing criticism from various quarters. The press played a crucial
role in critiquing the government’s policies and holding the authorities
accountable. Jawaharlal Nehru had a high conception of the place of
the place of the press in national life both during the freedom struggle
and after freedom.
9. Foreign Policy: Nehru was a humanist thinker, in the context of
the nation; the human values that inspired him to become a nationalist,
the same values also made him a supporter of internationalism to protect
the interests of the entire race. A champion of human freedom, Nehru
opposed colonialism in his foreign policy and it received high praise
from many newly independent countries. Under Nehru’s guidance, India
became the first country to begin a policy that was new in the history of
international relations-the policy of Non-Alignment, which was founded
in 1961 in Belgrade and was ably supported by Gamal Abdel Nasser
of Egypt, President Sukarno of Indonesia and Joseph Broz Tito of
Yogoslovia. Nehru’s relation with commonwealth countries, hosting of
Asian Relations conference in New Delhi, regional cooperation, faith in
UNO and Policy on Palestine further indicates the India’s stand on
liberal democracy during this period.
10. Challenges and Criticisms: The functioning of democracy
in India during the Nehruvian era was not without challenges. There
were concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of the
ruling party, especially the Prime Minister, which some saw as limiting
the space for political opposition. Additionally, issues related to economic
disparities, linguistic diversity, and regional imbalances posed significant
challenges to the democratic governance of the country.
Despite these challenges, the Nehruvian era played a foundational
role in shaping the democratic institutions and principles that continue
to guide India’s political system to this day. Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership
and vision were instrumental in establishing India as a democratic and
secular nation, laying the groundwork for subsequent governments to
build upon. During the Nehru era, Indian democracy underwent
significant developments and challenges from the perspectives of various
political thinkers. Let’s explore how some prominent political thinkers
viewed the functioning of Indian democracy during that time:
11. Jawaharlal Nehru: As India’s first Prime Minister and a leading
political thinker, Nehru was a strong advocate of democracy and
secularism. He believed in the power of democratic institutions to foster

social and economic progress. Nehru emphasized the importance of
inclusive policies, social justice, and economic planning through Five-
Year Plans to uplift the masses and reduce socio-economic disparities.
He envisioned a democratic India that valued diversity and allowed for
dissent, despite being criticized for certain centralizing tendencies.
Nehru’s commitment to democratic values and his role as a political
thinker significantly influenced the functioning of Indian democracy during
his tenure.
12. B.R. Ambedkar: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of
India’s Constitution, played a crucial role in shaping the democratic
framework of the nation. He emphasized the importance of guaranteeing
fundamental rights, especially for marginalized and oppressed
communities. Ambedkar’s vision of democracy focused on the
empowerment of the socially disadvantaged through affirmative action
and reservations. His advocacy for social justice and equal opportunities
helped strengthen the de
13. M.K. Gandhi: Although Mahatma Gandhi was not directly
involved in the governance during the Nehru era, his influence on Indian
democracy remained significant. Gandhi’s idea of decentralized
governance and self-sufficiency at the grassroots level aligned with
Nehru’s push for the Panchayati Raj system. While Gandhi expressed
concerns about the potential pitfalls of representative democracy and
political power, his philosophy of non-violence and inclusive governance
remained an underlying influence on the functioning of Indian democracy.
14. Rajagopalachari (C. Rajagopalachari): Rajagopalachari,
popularly known as Rajaji, was an important political thinker during the
Nehru era. He held differing views from Nehru on certain matters,
advocating for a more decentralized political structure and minimal state
intervention in economic matters. Rajaji expressed concerns about the
concentration of power at the center, which he believed could potentially
hamper democratic decision-making. His emphasis on individual
freedoms and limited government intervention added to the diversity of
perspectives in the Indian democratic discourse.
15. Jayaprakash Narayan: Popularly known as JP, Jayaprakash
Narayan was a prominent political thinker and leader during the Nehru
era. He was a strong advocate for democratic values and emphasized
the importance of participatory democracy. JP played a significant role
in advocating for land reforms, fighting against corruption, and promoting
democratic accountability. His call for “Total Revolution” aimed at
transforming the political, social, and economic structures of the country,
contributing to the dynamics of Indian democracy during the Nehruvian
era. These perspectives from different political thinkers provide insights
into the complexities and diversity of opinions surrounding the functioning
of Indian democracy during the Nehru era. Despite disagreements on
certain aspects, the collective efforts of these thinkers helped shape
India’s democratic trajectory and laid the foundation for its democratic
identity as it stands today.
In conclusion, the Nehruvian era in India witnessed the
functioning of a vibrant and evolving democracy, guided by the principles
and policies of its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. During this
period, Indian democracy made significant strides and faced challenges,
with a focus on building an inclusive, progressive, and diverse nation.
Key features of the functioning of Indian democracy during the Nehruvian
era included the adoption of universal adult franchise, ensuring the
participation of all citizens in the electoral process. Nehru’s leadership
and vision played a pivotal role in shaping India’s democratic institutions

and policies. The introduction of Five-Year Plans aimed at fostering
economic development and reducing socio-economic disparities. While
these plans propelled industrialization and modernization, they also faced
critiques for their effectiveness and implementation challenges. The
establishment of a parliamentary democracy allowed for a system of
checks and balances, where the Prime Minister and the Council of
Ministers were accountable to the elected representatives in the Lok
Sabha. Nehru’s commitment to secularism and inclusivity laid the
foundation for India as a diverse, multi-religious, and multicultural nation.
Press freedom and free speech were upheld, contributing to a vibrant
public discourse. Despite these achievements, there were criticisms
regarding the concentration of power in the hands of the ruling party
and concerns about regional imbalances and disparities. From the
perspective of various political thinkers, including Nehru himself, B.R.
Ambedkar, M.K. Gandhi, Rajagopalachari, and Jayaprakash Narayan,
there were differing viewpoints on the functioning of Indian democracy.
These diverse perspectives enriched the democratic discourse and
contributed to shaping policies and institutions during the Nehruvian
era.
Overall, the Nehruvian era played a pivotal role in laying the
groundwork for Indian democracy. Its emphasis on social justice,
economic planning, secularism, and democratic principles set the stage
for India’s continued democratic evolution in the subsequent decades.
The era remains a critical part of India’s political history, and its impact
on the functioning of Indian democracy continues to be felt today.
2.2 WORKING OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY

IN THE POST
POST-- NEHR UVIAN ERA
NEHRUVIAN
Indian democracy in the post-Nehruvian era has been a

fascinating journey marked by profound transformations and challenges.
After the leadership of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru,
the nation witnessed a series of political, economic, and social shifts
that significantly impacted its democratic system. This era saw the rise
of diverse political ideologies, coalition politics, economic reforms, and
the assertion of regional aspirations. As India grappled with the
complexities of a pluralistic society, its democratic institutions faced tests
of resilience and adaptability. In this exploration, we delve into the
working of Indian democracy in the post-Nehruvian era, examining the
key themes and developments that shaped the nation’s democratic
landscape, while also recognizing the persistent efforts to uphold
democratic values amidst a rapidly changing world.
Indian democracy in the post-Nehruvian era refers to the period
after the tenure of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, which
began after his death in 1964. Nehru, a prominent leader during the
Indian independence movement, played a pivotal role in shaping India’s
political and economic landscape after gaining independence from British
rule in 1947. The post-Nehruvian era witnessed significant changes and
challenges in India’s democratic system. Various political leaders and
parties came to power, each contributing to the evolution of Indian
democracy. This period can be broadly divided into several phases,
with different governments and policies shaping the country’s trajectory.
Throughout this era, India faced various socio-economic, political,
and regional complexities, which tested the strength and resilience of its
democratic institutions. Several key themes characterized Indian
democracy during this period:
i. Political Pluralism: India’s democratic setup saw the emergence
of multiple political parties representing diverse interests and ideologies.
Regional parties gained prominence, reflecting the country’s diverse
linguistic, cultural, and regional identities.
ii. Economic Policies: After Nehru’s era of socialist economic
policies, subsequent governments experimented with various economic
reforms, liberalization, and globalization. The opening up of the Indian
economy led to significant changes in trade, investment, and industrial
growth.
iii. Coalition Politics: The post-Nehruvian era saw an increase in
coalition governments at the central level. With no single party having a
clear majority in some instances, parties had to form alliances to govern
effectively, leading to challenges in decision-making and governance.
Decline of congress started an era of multi-party system where no single
party secured majority in election from 1989 to 2014.
Despite of many week governments, the positive development for
the growth of democracy took place in coalition era is the representation
of various political parties from different socio-political background and
addressing the need of the different section of society and fulfilling the
aspiration of all region of the country. In post Nehruvian era from V.P
Singh to Narendra Modi twelve coalition government more or less rule
over the country.
iv. Social and Cultural Changes: India witnessed significant
societal changes during this period, including advancements in technology,
urbanization, and changes in social norms. These changes influenced
the country’s political landscape and demanded new approaches to
governance. In post-Nehruvian era some government decisions brought
forth a foundational change in Indian politics and democratic structure.
The decision to implement the Mandal Commission report’s
recommendations by the VP Singh government on August 7, 1990 was
one such decision, whose impact continues to be felt today in the country’s
political and social makeup. Earlier, only about 25 percent o the
population in India that was classified as SC or ST was eligible for
reservation. Following the Janata government’s decision to implement
the Mandal Commission in 1990, 50 petite people of India who belonged
to the Other Backward Classes also became eligible for reservation.
This meant that all of a sudden, nearly 75 percent of the Indian population
was covered by reservations.
v. Regional Aspirations: Regional aspirations and demands for
greater autonomy and statehood became more pronounced during this
era. State-level politics played a crucial role in shaping national politics,
leading to debates on federalism and centre-state relations. After the
implementation of the recommendations of States Reorganisation Act
of 1956, some new states were created keeping in view the regional
aspiration of the people from different regions of the country.
vi. Foreign Policy: India’s foreign policy evolved to address
changing global dynamics. It sought to maintain strategic partnerships,
promote economic interests, and assert its position on international
platforms. In 1964 Jawaharlal Nehru died, and after a brief period of
transition his daughter Indira Gandhi took office as prime minister. She,
and later her son and successor as head of government Rajiv Gandhi,
were the key protagonists who left their mark on the second phase of
Indian foreign policy, which lasted from 1966 to 1989. This period also
includes the phase of the Janata government (1977-1980).
vii. LPG Reforms: Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization
reforms refer to a set of economic reforms introduced by the Indian
government in 1991.These reforms were a part of India’s New
Economic Policy, which aimed to uplift the country economically.
The LPG Reforms were introduced at a time when the Indian economy
was facing a balance of payment crisis. These reforms were introduced
to promote economic growth and improve India’s foreign exchange
situation The LPG Reforms contributed greatly to making India a globally
integrated economy.
Challenges to Democracy
Indian democracy generally face major challenges in the form of
corruption, illiteracy, poverty gender discrimination, regionalism,
casteism, communalism and religious fundamentalism, electoral
malpractices, and political violence. Moreover criminalization of politics,
abuse of power, Delay in Justice, undue proclamation of emergency
may also seen as some other challenges for the democracy in India
during this period. Despite the challenges, Indian democracy in the post-
Nehruvian era demonstrated resilience and adaptability. The country
continued to hold regular free and fair elections, ensuring the peaceful
transfer of power and providing opportunities for political participation
to its vast population.
In conclusion, the post-Nehruvian era in India has been a period
of dynamic changes and adaptations in its democratic fabric. The
country’s ability to navigate through diverse challenges while upholding
the principles of democracy remains a testament to its commitment to
democratic governance The working of Indian democracy in the post-
Nehruvian era has been viewed through the lens of various important
political thinkers and intellectuals.
Inf luential Think
Influential hinker er
erss and Ideas in India’ India’s s
Democratic System
Let’s explore the perspectives of some influential thinkers who have
analyzed and commented on India’s democratic system during this period:
1. Rajni Kothari: Rajni Kothari was a prominent political scientist
known for his work on Indian politics and democracy. He emphasized
the significance of India’s diverse social and political landscape in shaping
its democracy. Kothari’s analysis highlighted the role of regional parties
and the challenges of coalition politics, underscoring the need for better
governance and inclusive development.
2. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: As a statesman and former Prime
Minister of India,Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s perspective on Indian democracy
focused on striking a balance between traditional values and modernity.
He advocated for cooperative federalism and emphasized the importance
of strengthening democratic institutions to ensure effective governance.
3. Jayaprakash Narayan: Jayaprakash Narayan, also known
as JP, was a social and political activist who played a pivotal role in
India’s opposition movements during the post-Nehruvian era. He was
a staunch advocate of grassroots democracy and called for political
reforms to curb corruption and promote participatory democracy.
4. Amartya Sen: Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate economist
and philosopher, analyzed Indian democracy from a human development
perspective. He highlighted the significance of social welfare, education,
and healthcare in fostering an inclusive and sustainable democratic
society.
5. Pratap Bhanu Mehta: Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a political
scientist and public intellectual, has offered critical insights into the
functioning of Indian democracy. He has written extensively on issues
such as corruption, populism, and the need for greater political
accountability.
6. Ramachandra Guha: Ramachandra Guha, a historian and
author, has provided historical perspectives on India’s democratic
journey. His works shed light on the challenges of maintaining diversity
and pluralism in Indian democracy and the importance of safeguarding
democratic institutions.
7. Arundhati Roy: Arundhati Roy, a renowned writer and social
activist, has been vocal about issues of social justice, tribal rights, and
environmental concerns. Her critiques have called attention to the impact

of economic policies on marginalized communities and the need for
more equitable development.
8. Narendra Modi: As the Prime Minister of India since 2014,
Narendra Modi’s perspective on Indian democracy has focused on
development, governance, and foreign policy. His leadership has
emphasized the role of digital technology in promoting transparency
and citizen engagement. Despite of many controversies and criticism
for some legislations and policies of NDA Government during this period,
the Modi government’s commitment for ‘Sab Ka Saath, Sab Ka Vikaas
And Sab Ka Vishwas” further strengthened the functioning of democracy
in India. International engagement and partnership with conventional
and non conventional friends also seen a positive development for
democracy during Modi period.
9. Medha Patkar: Medha Patkar, an environmental and social
activist, has been a prominent voice for the rights of displaced
communities due to development projects. Her work has raised
awareness about the challenges faced by vulnerable sections of society
in the context of India’s democratic development.
These thinkers’ perspectives offer a diverse and nuanced
understanding of Indian democracy in the post-Nehruvian era. Their
analyses have influenced public discourse, policy debates, and the quest
for strengthening democratic values and institutions in India. The interplay
of these intellectual voices continues to shape the trajectory of Indian
democracy as it navigates through contemporary challenges and
opportunities.
In conclusion, the working of Indian democracy in the post-
Nehruvian era has been a complex and dynamic journey, shaped by a
multitude of factors, challenges, and contributions. After the tenure of
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s democratic system evolved through diverse
phases, witnessing political pluralism, economic reforms, coalition
politics, and the assertion of regional aspirations. Prominent political
thinkers and intellectuals have played a crucial role in analyzing and
critiquing various aspects of Indian democracy during this period. Their
perspectives have shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the
democratic system, the challenges faced in governance, social justice,
corruption, and the need for continuous reforms to strengthen democratic
institutions. Indian democracy has demonstrated resilience amidst the
complexities of a diverse and rapidly changing society. Regular free and
fair elections have provided opportunities for political participation and
peaceful transitions of power. However, the nation has also grappled
with issues of social inequality, communal tensions, and corruption,
necessitating ongoing efforts to uphold the principles of democratic
governance.
As India moves into the future, the interplay of political thinkers,
policymakers, and civil society will continue to influence the trajectory
of its democracy. It will be essential to safeguard the core principles of
inclusivity, secularism, transparency, and accountability to ensure that
Indian democracy remains vibrant and responsive to the needs and
aspirations of its people. The post-Nehruvian era has been a period of
growth, transformation, and learning for Indian democracy, and it will
undoubtedly continue to evolve, drawing on its rich diversity and
democratic ethos to navigate the challenges and opportunities that lie
ahead. Ultimately, the success of Indian democracy will hinge on the
collective efforts of its citizens and leaders to uphold democratic values
and promote the welfare of all segments of society.
2.3 DEMOCRA
DEMOCRACYCY AT THE GRASSROO
GRASSROOT
OOT
LEVEL (73RDAND 74THAMENDMENT)
Democracy at the grassroots level in India refers to the process of

decentralization of power and decision-making, where local communities
and citizens actively participate in governance and development initiatives.
It is a crucial aspect of India’s democratic system, aiming to bring
governance closer to the people and ensure their direct involvement in
shaping policies that impact their lives.
The introduction of democracy at the grassroots level in India
can be traced back to the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in
1992. These landmark amendments led to the establishment of
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) at the village, intermediate (block),
and district levels and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in urban areas. The
objective was to empower local communities, particularly marginalized
groups, women, and minorities, by devolving administrative and financial
powers to these grassroots institutions. The idea behind this
decentralization was to promote participatory democracy, enhance
transparency, and foster bottom-up development. By transferring
responsibilities to elected representatives at the local level, the
government sought to address the specific needs and priorities of
different regions and communities, thereby promoting more inclusive
and responsive governance.
Since its inception, grassroots democracy in India has witnessed
both successes and challenges. On one hand, it has provided a platform
for ordinary citizens to voice their concerns, participate in decision-
making, and hold their representatives accountable. It has also played a
significant role in empowering women, enabling them to actively engage
in political processes. On the other hand, there have been challenges in
fully realizing the potential of grassroots democracy. Issues like
inadequate funding, capacity-building, and political interference have at
times hindered the effective functioning of these local institutions.
Moreover, there remain concerns about the limited autonomy of PRIs
and ULBs, as decisions taken at higher levels of government can still
have a significant impact on local affairs. Nonetheless, the introduction
of democracy at the grassroots level has brought about positive changes
in many areas of India. It has paved the way for community-driven
development projects, improved service delivery, and greater awareness
of democratic rights among citizens.
In conclusion, democracy at the grassroots level in India represents
a significant step towards more inclusive and participatory governance.
By empowering local communities and elected representatives, it aims
to foster development that is responsive to the diverse needs of the
people. As India continues its democratic journey, strengthening and
nurturing democracy at the grassroots level will remain pivotal in ensuring
a more equitable and prosperous future for the nation.
Evolution of Democracy at Grassroot Level
The history of democracy at the grassroots level in India can be
traced back to the early 1950s when efforts were made to decentralize
power and promote local self-governance. However, the formal and
systematic introduction of grassroots democracy in India began with
the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in 1992. These
amendments brought about significant changes in the governance
structure and aimed to strengthen democracy at the local level. Let’s
delve into the key milestones in the history of grassroots democracy in
India:
[ Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957): The idea of
decentralized governance was first emphasized by the Balwant Rai Mehta
Committee in 1957. The committee recommended the establishment of
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) to promote rural development and
local self-governance. Although some states implemented these
recommendations, progress was slow and uneven.
[ Ashok Mehta Committee (1977): The Ashok Mehta
Committee reemphasized the importance of PRIs and recommended
constitutional recognition for Panchayati Raj to strengthen democracy
at the grassroots level. However, its recommendations were not
immediately implemented.
[Rajiv Gandhi Government’s Initiative (1989): In the late
1980s, the Rajiv Gandhi government attempted to introduce grassroots
democracy by amending the Constitution. However, the proposed
amendments failed to pass due to a lack of consensus among various
political parties.
[73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992): The
turning point in the history of grassroots democracy in India came with
the passage of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in April
1992. These amendments mandated the creation of PRIs at the village,
intermediate (block), and district levels, and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)
in urban areas.
[Three-Tier System of Panchayati Raj: The PRIs were
structured as a three-tier system: Gram Panchayat at the village level,
Panchayat Samiti at the block level, and Zila Parishad at the district
level. This multi-tiered structure aimed to facilitate the effective devolution
of powers and functions to local bodies.
[Reservations for Marginalized Groups: The amendments
also provided for reservations of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs),
Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women in the PRIs and ULBs. This move
aimed to ensure the political representation of marginalized communities
and empower them in the decision-making process.
[ Decentralization of Powers: The amendments granted
constitutional status to PRIs and ULBs and devolved administrative,
financial, and planning powers to these institutions. It allowed them to
manage local development programs, allocate funds, and implement
welfare schemes.
[Positive Impact and Challenges at Grassroot Democracy:
The introduction of grassroots democracy had a positive impact on
rural and urban governance in various states. Many PRIs and ULBs
successfully undertook community-driven development projects and
enhanced service delivery. However, there were also challenges, including
inadequate funds, capacity-building issues, and political interference in
some cases.
Since the introduction of grassroots democracy, it has been an
ongoing process of evolution and refinement. The democratic institutions
at the grassroots level continue to play a vital role in local governance,
empowering citizens, and promoting inclusive development in India.
While there are still challenges to overcome, the journey of grassroots
democracy remains an essential aspect of India’s democratic experiment.
73RD CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 1992, introduced
significant changes to the Indian Constitution to promote decentralization
and strengthen democracy at the grassroots level. It provided
constitutional recognition and a legal framework for the establishment
and functioning of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in rural areas.
Key F ea
Fea tur
eatur es of the 73r
tures 73rd d Constitutional
Amendment Act
Here are the key features of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment
Act:
1. Establishment of PRIs: The amendment mandated the
establishment of three-tier Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) at the
village, intermediate (block), and district levels. These institutions were
designed to serve as local self-government bodies, bringing governance
closer to the people.
2. Seats and Reservations: The amendment provided for direct
elections to the PRIs. It also mandated the reservation of seats for
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in proportion to
their population. Additionally, it reserved one-third of the seats for
women, both in the general and reserved categories.
3. Five-Year Term: The PRIs were granted a fixed term of five
years to ensure stability and continuity in their functioning.
4. State Election Commissions: The amendment established
State Election Commissions to conduct free and fair elections to the
PRIs and ensure their autonomy from state governments in matters of
electoral processes.
5. Powers and Functions: The amendment devolved various
powers and functions to the PRIs. These included functions related to
local planning, economic development, social justice, and implementation
of government schemes at the grassroots level.
6. Finance Commission for PRIs: The amendment required the
establishment of a State Finance Commission to recommend the
distribution of finances between the state government and PRIs. It aimed
to provide financial resources to PRIs for effective governance.
7. Independent Election Commission for Panchayats: The
amendment also called for the establishment of an independent Election
Commission for Panchayats at the national level to oversee the conduct
of elections to PRIs across the country.
8. Role in Economic Planning: The amendment assigned PRIs
the responsibility of preparing economic development plans at the local
level. It aimed to involve local communities in the planning and
implementation of development projects.
9. Audit of Accounts: The amendment mandated the audit of
accounts of PRIs to ensure financial transparency and accountability.
10. Continuance of Traditional Institutions: The amendment
recognized the existence of traditional village-level institutions and
allowed them to continue functioning in areas where PRIs were not
immediately established.
Role of 73rd Constitution Amendment in
Economics Planning
The 73rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, also known as the
Panchayati Raj Act, played a significant role in economic planning at the
grassroots level. It empowered Panchayats (local self-governing bodies)
to be involved in various aspects of economic planning, which in turn
contributed to decentralized development and local economic growth.
Here’s how the amendment impacted economic planning:
a)Preparation of Plans: The amendment mandates Panchayats to
prepare plans for economic development and social justice. This includes
the formulation of plans that address local economic needs and priorities.
b)Local Resource Allocation: Panchayats were granted the
authority to allocate resources for various development projects and
initiatives. This allowed them to allocate funds in a manner that aligned
with the economic requirements of their communities.
c)Agriculture and Rural Development: Panchayats gained the
power to plan and implement agricultural and rural development projects.
This includes initiatives related to agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries,
and other rural livelihoods.
d)Infrastructure Development: Panchayats were entrusted with
the responsibility of planning and implementing infrastructure projects at
the local level, such as roads, water supply, sanitation, and electricity.
e)Promotion of Small-Scale Industries: Panchayats could play a
role in promoting small-scale industries and cottage industries, which
contribute to local economic growth and employment generation.
f)Natural Resource Management: Panchayats were empowered
to manage local natural resources, which can have direct economic
implications. This includes decisions related to land use, water resources,
and forestry.
g)Social Welfare Schemes: Panchayats became key players in
implementing social welfare schemes at the local level, which can have
indirect economic benefits by improving the well-being of the local
population.
h)Revenue Generation: Panchayats gained the authority to levy
certain taxes, fees, and charges, which could contribute to local revenue
generation and fund economic development initiatives.
i)Coordination with District Planning: The amendment
encouraged the establishment of District Planning Committees (DPCs)
to coordinate plans and programs between Panchayats and other local
authorities, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to economic
development.
Overall, the 73rd Amendment aimed to empower local communities
and Panchayats in shaping their economic destiny, fostering a bottom-up
approach to economic planning that considers the unique needs and
priorities of each local area. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act
was a landmark step towards empowering local communities and
promoting grassroots democracy in India. By providing constitutional
status to PRIs and ensuring reservations for marginalized groups, the
amendment aimed to foster inclusive governance and address the needs
and aspirations of the people at the grassroots level. Since its enactment,
the amendment has played a significant role in promoting local self-
governance and community-driven development across the country.
74TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT
The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 1992, introduced
significant changes to the Indian Constitution to promote decentralization
and strengthen democracy at the urban local level. It provided
constitutional recognition and a legal framework for the establishment
and functioning of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in urban areas. Here
are the key features of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act:
1. Municipal Bodies: The amendment mandated the establishment
of Municipal Bodies in urban areas, including Municipal Corporations,
Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayats. These institutions were
designed to serve as local self-government bodies for urban governance.
2. Direct Elections: The amendment provided for direct elections
to the Municipal Bodies, ensuring citizens’ participation in the electoral
process.
3. Seats and Reservations: Similar to the 73rd Amendment, the
74th Amendment also mandated reservations of seats for Scheduled
Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women in proportion to
their population. One-third of the seats were reserved for women, both
in the general and reserved categories.
4. Five-Year Term: The Municipal Bodies were granted a fixed
term of five years to ensure stability and continuity in their functioning.
5. Powers and Functions: The amendment devolved various
powers and functions to the Municipal Bodies, including functions related
to urban planning, infrastructure development, public health, water supply,
and waste management.
6. Finance Commission for ULBs: Similar to the 73rd
Amendment, the 74th Amendment required the establishment of a State
Finance Commission to recommend the distribution of finances between
the state government and ULBs. It aimed to provide financial resources
to ULBs for effective urban governance.
7. State Election Commissions: The amendment called for the
establishment of State Election Commissions to conduct free and fair
elections to the Municipal Bodies and ensure their autonomy from state
governments in matters of electoral processes.
8. Ward Committees: The amendment encouraged the constitution
of Ward Committees to enable greater citizen participation in local
governance and decision-making.
9. Audit of Accounts: The amendment mandated the audit of
accounts of Municipal Bodies to ensure financial transparency and
accountability.
Role of 74th Constitutional Amendment in
Economic Planning
Similar to the 73rd Amendment, the 74th Amendment assigned
Municipal Bodies the responsibility of preparing economic development
plans at the local level, involving citizens in the planning and
implementation of development projects. The 74th Constitutional
Amendment Act aimed to empower urban local governments and ensure
effective urban governance. By providing constitutional recognition to
ULBs and promoting citizen participation, the amendment sought to
address the specific needs and challenges of urban areas. Since its
enactment, the amendment has played a significant role in promoting
local self-governance and participatory development in India’s urban
centers. In conclusion, democracy at the grassroots level in India has
been a transformative journey, marked by significant efforts to
decentralize power, empower local communities, and promote
participatory governance. The introduction of Panchayati Raj Institutions
(PRIs) through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act and Urban Local
Bodies (ULBs) through the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act has
been a pivotal step towards strengthening democracy at the local level.
The establishment of PRIs and ULBs has provided ordinary citizens
with a platform to actively participate in decision-making processes
and shape policies that directly impact their lives. The reservation of
seats for marginalized groups, including Scheduled Castes (SCs),
Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women, has played a crucial role in ensuring
political representation and empowerment for historically disadvantaged
sections of society. The journey of grassroots democracy in India has
witnessed successes, as many local self-government bodies have
undertaken community-driven development projects, improved service
delivery, and fostered greater transparency and accountability. Moreover,
the decentralized governance system has contributed to the development
of a more inclusive and responsive administrative structure, addressing
the specific needs and aspirations of diverse communities and regions.
However, challenges remain in fully realizing the potential of
democracy at the grassroots level. Issues such as inadequate funding,
capacity-building constraints, and political interference have at times
hindered the effective functioning of PRIs and ULBs. It is essential to
address these challenges to ensure that local governance institutions
can fulfill their intended roles as engines of local development and social
justice.
As India continue its democratic journey, strengthening
democracy at the grassroots level will remain critical. Encouraging citizen
participation, enhancing financial autonomy, and promoting the spirit of
cooperative federalism will be instrumental in nurturing the growth of
vibrant and accountable local governance. Moreover, nurturing a culture
of transparency, responsiveness, and inclusivity will contribute to making
grassroots democracy a truly empowering force for all citizens,
irrespective of their social, economic, or cultural background. Ultimately,
the success of democracy at the grassroots level in India will depend on
the collective efforts of citizens, elected representatives, policymakers,
and civil society to uphold democratic values, foster community
participation, and promote equitable and sustainable development. By
continually investing in the strength of local governance, India can build
a strong foundation for a vibrant, inclusive, and responsive democratic
system that reflects the aspirations and well-being of its diverse
population.
2.4 POLITICAL ELITE AND INDIAN
DEMOCRACY
Indian democracy, one of the largest and most vibrant in the world,
is characterized by a multi-party system, universal suffrage, and periodic
elections at various levels of government. However, within this
democratic framework, there exists a select group of individuals who
wield significant political power and influence, commonly known as the
“political elite.” These elites, often belonging to established political
families or influential backgrounds, play a crucial role in shaping the
nation’s political landscape and policy decisions.
“Political elite” refers to a small and often influential group of
individuals who hold significant power, influence, and decision-making
authority within a political system or society. These individuals typically
possess higher levels of political knowledge, access to resources, and
the ability to shape public policies and discourse. The concept of political
elite is often associated with the concentration of power and influence
in the hands of a select few.
Definitions of Political Elite
Here are a few definitions of “political elite”:
i. C. Wright Mills (1956): Sociologist C. Wright Mills described
the political elite as a small group consisting of leaders from political,
economic, and military spheres who hold immense influence and control
over societal decisions. He coined the term “power elite” to refer to this
interconnected group that shapes major social and political outcomes.
ii. Robert Michels (1911): Political sociologist Robert Michels
introduced the concept of the “iron law of oligarchy,” which suggests
that in any organization or political party, a leadership elite inevitably
emerges, concentrating power and decision-making authority in the hands
of a few, regardless of the organization’s initial democratic intentions.
iii. Vilfredo Pareto (1896): Italian economist and sociologist
Vilfredo Pareto introduced the concept of the “circulation of elites,”
which suggests that over time, different individuals and groups within a
society rise to power and then eventually yield their positions to new
elites. This cyclical process ensures that the composition of the elite
remains fluid.
iv. Political Science Definition: In political science, the term
“political elite” refers to a group of individuals who hold influential
positions within the government, political parties, interest groups, or
other institutions that play a role in shaping public policy. These individuals
often possess superior knowledge, resources, and networks, which
contribute to their ability to influence political decisions.
v. Media and Public Discourse: In contemporary discussions,
the term “political elite” is often used to refer to politicians, policymakers,
and influential figures who are perceived as being disconnected from
the concerns of the general population and who make decisions that
may not align with the interests of ordinary citizens.
Overall, the concept of political elite highlights the concentration of
power, influence, and decision-making authority in the hands of a select
group of individuals within the political realm. The composition, dynamics,
and impact of political elites can vary across different political systems
and historical contexts.
The emergence and perpetuation of the political elite in India can
be attributed to various factors, including dynastic politics, access to
wealth and resources, caste and identity-based affiliations, corporate
connections, and extensive networking within the political ecosystem.
While the political elite can provide stability and experience to
governance, it also raises concerns about representation, accountability,
and inclusivity. In this context, understanding the dynamics of the political
elite in Indian democracy becomes essential. This exploration delves
into the origins, characteristics, and impact of the political elite, while
also considering its implications for the broader democratic process.
By acknowledging the presence of a political elite and its role in shaping
the nation’s destiny, we can foster discussions about transparency,
fairness, and the need for a more participatory and representative political
system in India. Only through a comprehensive understanding of the
political elite can we strive for a stronger and more inclusive democracy
that truly reflects the aspirations and interests of all Indian citizens.
The history of the political elite in India can be traced back to the
pre-independence era, during the struggle for independence from British
colonial rule. However, the concept of a political elite evolved significantly
after India gained independence in 1947.
Histor
History y of the P olitical Elite in India
Political
Here’s a brief overview of the history of the political elite in India:
[Pre-Independence Era: Before India’s independence, the
political landscape was dominated by prominent leaders and activists
who led the freedom movement against British rule. Figures like Mahatma
Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Subhas
Chandra Bose emerged as key leaders of the Indian National Congress,
the primary political party at the forefront of the struggle for
independence. These leaders were considered part of the early political
elite for their pivotal roles in shaping the future of the country.
[Post-Independence Period: After India gained independence
in 1947, the political elite shifted its focus from the freedom movement
to governing the newly independent nation. Jawaharlal Nehru, who
became India’s first Prime Minister, continued to lead the Congress
party and played a central role in shaping India’s policies and institutions.
The Congress party enjoyed significant political dominance during the
initial years of independence, which contributed to the consolidation of
the political elite around the party and its leaders.
[ Dynastic Politics and Political Families: Over time, the
phenomenon of dynastic politics began to take root in India. Certain
political families, like the Nehru-Gandhi family, the Scindias, and others,
rose to prominence and became synonymous with the political elite.
Members of these families often inherited political positions and wielded
considerable influence within the Congress party and other political
entities.
[ Era of Coalition Politics: In the 1980s and 1990s, India
witnessed a shift from single-party dominance to coalition politics. With
the rise of regional and caste-based parties, new leaders emerged as
part of the political elite. These leaders had a stronghold in specific
regions and communities, and they played crucial roles in forming coalition
governments at the national level.
[ Rise of Regional Political Elite: India’s federal structure
also gave rise to regional political elites in different states and union
territories. Leaders like M. G. Ramachandran (MGR) in Tamil Nadu,
N. T. Rama Rao (NTR) in Andhra Pradesh, and others commanded
significant political influence and cult-like followings within their regions.
Ev olution in the 21st Centur
Evolution Century y
In the 21st century, the political elite continued to evolve. The
emergence of new political parties, the growing influence of social media,
and the changing demographics of voters contributed to new faces and
dynamics within the political elite. Political leaders like Narendra Modi,
who rose to prominence in Gujarat and later became the Prime Minister,
represented a new generation of leaders in India’s political landscape.
It is important to note that the political elite in India has been a
subject of both admiration and criticism. While some leaders have been
hailed for their visionary leadership and contributions to the nation, others
have faced scrutiny for issues like corruption, nepotism, and a
disconnection from the needs of the common people. As India’s
democracy continues to evolve, the role and composition of the political
elite remain subjects of ongoing debate and discussion. The concept of
the “political elite” in the context of Indian democracy refers to a select
group of individuals who hold significant political power and influence
in the country. These individuals typically belong to established political
parties, come from influential families, and have a strong presence in the
political, economic, and social spheres of India. Indian democracy is
based on the principles of universal suffrage, where all adult citizens
have the right to vote and elect their representatives. The country has a
multi-party system, with several political parties vying for power and
representation at various levels of government. However, over the years,
certain families and individuals have consistently dominated the political
landscape, giving rise to the notion of a political elite.
Factors Contributing to the Emergence and
Per petua
erpetua
petuation tion of the P olitical Elite in Indian
Political
Democracy
There are several factors contributing to the emergence and
perpetuation of the political elite in Indian democracy:
1. Dynastic Politics: In Indian politics, it is not uncommon to find
political dynasties, where the children or relatives of established
politicians inherit their positions and political influence. This dynastic
culture has led to a concentration of power within certain families,
reinforcing the idea of political elite.
2. Wealth and Influence: Politics in India often requires significant
financial resources to contest elections, conduct campaigns, and maintain
party structures. The access to wealth and resources gives some
individuals an advantage in the political arena, consolidating their position
as part of the political elite.
3. Caste and Identity Politics: In a diverse country like India,
caste and identity play a crucial role in politics. Some politicians belonging
to influential caste groups or identity-based organizations can wield
considerable influence over their constituencies and the government.
4. Connections with Corporate Interests: The nexus between
politicians and corporate interests can also contribute to the formation
of a political elite. Politicians with connections to big businesses may
influence policies and decisions that favor these corporate entities, further
enhancing their power.
5. Experience and Networking: Over time, experienced
politicians develop strong networks and alliances with other influential
figures, creating a close-knit group of individuals who share and protect
their interests. The existence of political elite in Indian democracy has
both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, experienced
leaders can bring stability and continuity to governance, and their
understanding of the political system can lead to effective decision-
making. However, concerns arise when the political elite become
detached from the broader population, leading to issues like cronyism,
corruption, and a lack of representation for marginalized communities.
To strengthen Indian democracy, it is essential to promote
transparency, accountability, and inclusive representation in the political
process. Encouraging political participation from a diverse range of
individuals and addressing issues like money in politics and nepotism
can help reduce the concentration of power within the political elite and
ensure a more vibrant and responsive democracy. Political elitism in
India is often closely associated with prominent political dynasties that
have maintained significant influence and power over generations. These
dynasties are characterized by the continued leadership of family
members, with political positions being inherited rather than earned
through merit or democratic processes. Here are some examples of
prominent political dynasties in India:
6. Nehru-Gandhi Family (Indian National Congress - INC):
The Nehru-Gandhi family is one of the most well-known and influential
political dynasties in India. It traces its roots to Jawaharlal Nehru, the
first Prime Minister of India, and includes Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi,
Sonia Gandhi, and Rahul Gandhi. Several members of this family have
served as Prime Ministers or held important positions within the Indian
National Congress party.
7. Scindia Family (Indian National Congress - INC): The
Scindia family is another prominent political dynasty within the Indian
National Congress. Jyotiraditya Scindia, the grandson of Vijayaraje
Scindia, has been a prominent leader within the party.
8. Thackeray Family (Shiv Sena): The Thackeray family has
been a significant force in Maharashtra politics through their association
with the Shiv Sena party. Bal Thackeray, the party’s founder, was a
charismatic leader, and after his death, his son Uddhav Thackeray took
over the reins of the party and served as the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra.
9. Karunanidhi Family (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam -
DMK): The Karunanidhi family has played a crucial role in Tamil Nadu
politics through their association with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
M. Karunanidhi, a stalwart leader in Tamil Nadu politics, served as
Chief Minister multiple times. After his death, his son M. K. Stalin took
over as the party’s leader and became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
10. Lalu Prasad Yadav Family (Rashtriya Janata Dal - RJD):
The Yadav family, led by Lalu Prasad Yadav, has been influential in
Bihar politics through their association with the Rashtriya Janata Dal.
Lalu Prasad Yadav served as the Chief Minister of Bihar, and his wife
Rabri Devi and sons Tejashwi Yadav and Tej Pratap Yadav have also
been prominent leaders in the party.
11. Pilot Family (Indian National Congress - INC): The Pilot
family has been active in Rajasthan politics. Rajesh Pilot was a prominent
leader in the Indian National Congress, and after his death, his son
Sachin Pilot has emerged as a prominent leader in the state.
These are just a few examples, and there are other regional and
state-level political dynasties in India. The prevalence of political
dynasties has been a subject of debate and criticism, as it raises concerns
about the lack of internal party democracy and limited opportunities for
aspiring leaders from non-political backgrounds to enter politics. The
concentration of power within these families can also lead to issues
related to nepotism and lack of representation of a broader spectrum
of society in the political process.
In conclusion, the concept of the political elite in Indian democracy
is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon. While Indian democracy
upholds the principles of universal suffrage and periodic elections, a
select group of individuals and families wield significant political power
and influence, shaping the nation’s political landscape. The historical
context of the political elite can be traced back to the pre-independence
era, but it has evolved significantly since India gained independence in
1947. Dynastic politics, caste-based affiliations, access to wealth and
resources, and networking within the political ecosystem are among the
factors contributing to the emergence and- perpetuation of the political
elite in India. These elites often dominate the leadership positions in
political parties and hold key government offices, raising concerns about
representation, inclusivity, and accountability within the democratic
system. While the political elite can bring experience and stability to
governance, it also leads to potential issues such as cronyism, nepotism,
and a disconnect from the needs of the common people. Marginalized
communities may also find limited representation within the political elite,
hindering the realization of a truly inclusive and representative democracy.
To strengthen Indian democracy and address the challenges posed
by the political elite, there is a need for comprehensive reforms.
Promoting transparency, accountability, and internal party democracy
can help reduce the concentration of power within political families and
create opportunities for new and diverse leaders to emerge. Campaign
finance regulations and measures to curb the influence of special interest
groups can enhance the level playing field for all aspiring politicians.
Furthermore, empowering marginalized communities through
affirmative action and greater political participation can promote social
justice and equitable representation. Encouraging political engagement
among the youth and fostering a culture of informed citizenship can also
contribute to a more vibrant and participatory democracy.
In essence, acknowledging the presence of the political elite in
India and critically examining its impact on the democratic process is
crucial to fostering a more inclusive and responsive political system. By
actively addressing the challenges posed by elitism and promoting
democratic values, India can aspire to realize the true potential of its
diverse and vibrant democracy, ensuring that the voices and interests of
all citizens are heard and represented.
************
Economic, Legal and Political Processes 79
3
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC,, LEGAL AND
POLITICAL PROCESSES
3.1 NEO-LIBERALISM AND INDIAN

DEMOCRACY
Neo-liberalism is an economic and political ideology that advocates for

reduced government intervention in the economy, privatization, free
market principles, and a focus on individual freedom and choice. It
emerged as a dominant economic philosophy in the late 20th century
and has significantly influenced economic policies in various countries,
including India. Indian democracy, on the other hand, is based on the
principles of universal suffrage, multi-party competition, and periodic
elections at various levels of government. It upholds the idea of inclusive
governance and social justice while aiming to meet the diverse needs
and aspirations of its vast and heterogeneous population. The introduction
of neo-liberalism in India has had a profound impact on its economic
policies, development trajectory, and social fabric. By exploring the
relationship between neo-liberalism and Indian democracy, we can gain
insights into how economic reforms have influenced the country’s socio-
political landscape and the challenges and opportunities they present
for ensuring a more equitable and inclusive democracy.
79
80 Economic, Legal and Political Processes
Neo-liberalism and Indian democracy have had a complex and
intertwined relationship since the introduction of economic reforms in
the early 1990s. Neo-liberalism, as an economic ideology, emphasizes
free-market principles, reduced government intervention, privatization,
and deregulation to spur economic growth and development. India’s
democratic system, on the other hand, aims to ensure political
representation, social justice, and the well-being of its diverse population.
Introduction of Neo-liberal Economic
Ref
eforor
orms ms in India
In response to a severe balance of payments crisis, India embarked
on a path of economic liberalization and globalization in 1991. These
reforms often referred to as the “New Economic Policy,” marked a
significant departure from the earlier era of socialist-inspired economic
policies. Under the leadership of then-Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan
Singh and the government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, India
adopted neo-liberal economic policies, opening up the economy to
foreign investment, reducing trade barriers, and initiating privatization
measures. India’s encounter with neo-liberalism can be traced back to
1991, when the country faced a balance of payments crisis and had to
seek a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Bank. In return, the IMF and the World Bank imposed a structural
adjustment programme (SAP) on India, which required the government
to undertake a series of neo-liberal reforms, such as:
i. Devaluation of the rupee and liberalization of foreign exchange
and trade
ii. Reduction of fiscal deficit and public expenditure
iii. Abolition of industrial licensing and removal of import restrictions
iv. Opening up of various sectors to foreign direct investment (FDI)
and private participation.
v. Disinvestment of public sector enterprises and reduction of
subsidies
vi. Reform of the financial sector and capital markets
vii. Rationalization of the tax system and introduction of value added
tax (VAT)
viii. Deregulation of labour laws and social security schemes
The neo-liberal reforms were initiated by the Congress government
led by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Manmohan
Singh, who argued that they were necessary to revive the economy,
enhance efficiency and competitiveness, attract foreign capital and
integrate with the global market. The reforms were continued by
successive governments, both at the centre and in the states, irrespective
of their political affiliations. The neo-liberal agenda was also supported
by various sections of the Indian elite, such as big business, media,
academia and civil society
Impact of Neo-Liberal Reforms on Indian Economy
The neo-liberal reforms aimed to attract foreign investment, boost
industrialization, and increase overall economic growth. While India has
witnessed impressive economic growth since the 1990s, these reforms
have also led to widening income disparities, increased wealth
concentration, and uneven development across different regions of the
country.
Impact of Neo-Liberal Reforms on Indian Society and
Politics
The impact of neo-liberalism on Indian society and politics has
been mixed. On one hand, economic growth has created a burgeoning
middle class and contributed to the expansion of consumerism. On the
other hand, the rising income inequality has exacerbated poverty and
marginalized sections of society, leading to social unrest and challenges
to inclusive development. Furthermore, the push for privatization and
reduced government spending in certain sectors, such as education and
healthcare, has raised concerns about access to essential services and
the role of the state in ensuring social welfare.
Political Implications of Neo-Liberal
Economic Policies
Neo-liberal economic policies have also influenced political
dynamics in India. The pro-market reforms have garnered support from
segments of the business community, while some critics argue that they
have eroded the welfare-oriented character of the Indian state. Politicians
and political parties have often navigated a delicate balance between
promoting economic growth and addressing social equity concerns.
Challeng
Challenges es and Oppor tunities of Neo-
Opportunities
Liberal Economic Policies
The combination of neo-liberal economic policies and the
complexities of Indian democracy has presented both challenges and
opportunities. While economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty,
the persistence of income disparities remains a major challenge. Ensuring
inclusive development and addressing the needs of marginalized
communities are essential tasks for sustaining a healthy democracy.
Moreover, the nexus between economic power and political influence
can also lead to concerns about the role of money in politics and the
potential erosion of democratic institutions.
In conclusion, the interplay between neo-liberalism and Indian
democracy has shaped the country’s economic and political landscape.
While economic reforms have driven growth and modernization, they
have also posed challenges to inclusive development and social justice.
Balancing the imperatives of economic growth with the values of
democratic representation and equitable governance continues to be a
complex task for India as it navigates the evolving global and domestic
socio-economic landscape. The relationship between neo-liberalism and
Indian democracy has been a subject of debate and analysis from the
perspectives of political and economic thinkers. Let’s explore how these
thinkers view the interplay between neo-liberal economic policies and
the democratic system in India.
· Political Thinkhinker er s’ P
ers’ er
Per specti
erspecti
spectiv ve on Neo-
liberalism
Given are the points according to political thinker’s perspective:-
a. Supporters of Neo-liberalism: Some political thinkers who
support neo-liberal economic policies argue that market-oriented reforms
promote economic growth and efficiency, leading to greater prosperity
for the country as a whole. They believe that reducing government
intervention and allowing market forces to operate freely can create a
conducive environment for businesses and investment, which ultimately
benefits the people.
b. Critics of Neo-liberalism: On the other hand, critics of neo-
liberalism from a political perspective raise concerns about its impact
on democracy. They argue that reducing government regulation and
privatizing key sectors can concentrate economic power in the hands
of a few wealthy individuals and corporations. This concentration of
economic power may lead to a corresponding concentration of political
power, potentially undermining democratic principles such as
representation and accountability.
c. Social Justice Advocates: Political thinkers advocating for
social justice highlight how neo-liberal economic policies can exacerbate
inequality and marginalize vulnerable sections of society. They argue
that reducing social spending and relying on market mechanisms may
lead to a lack of access to essential services for the poor and
marginalized, hindering their socio-economic mobility and participation
in the democratic process.
Economic T hink hinker er s’ P
ers’ er
Per specti
erspecti
spectiv ve on Neo-
liberalism
Given are the points according to economic thinker’s perspective:-
a. Supporters of Neo-liberalism: Economic thinkers who
support neo-liberal policies often emphasize the potential benefits of
increased competition, foreign investment, and trade liberalization. They
believe that a more open and market-oriented economy can attract
capital, technology, and innovation, fostering economic growth and job
creation.
b. Critics of Neo-liberalism: Some economic thinkers criticize
certain aspects of neo-liberalism, particularly its potential to lead to
income inequality and create winners and losers in the market. They
argue that without adequate social safety nets and redistributive policies,
the negative effects of economic liberalization can be disproportionately
borne by the marginalized sections of society.
c. Pragmatic Approach: Some economic thinkers advocate for
a pragmatic approach that acknowledges both the potential benefits
and challenges of neo-liberal policies. They suggest a balanced approach
that combines market-oriented reforms with targeted social welfare
programs to address the socio-economic disparities and protect
vulnerable populations.
In summary, political, and economic thinkers offer varied
perspectives on the relationship between neo-liberalism and Indian
democracy. While some proponents see neo-liberal policies as
instrumental in driving economic growth and development, critics voice
concerns about their potential impact on political representation, social
justice, and inequality. A nuanced understanding of these perspectives
is essential for formulating policies that promote economic progress
while safeguarding the principles of democracy and ensuring social
inclusivity in India’s diverse and dynamic socio-economic context.
Political Thinkhinker er
erssP er
Per specti
spectiv
erspecti ves on the
Relationship Between Neo-Liberalism and
Indian Democracy
Several important political thinkers and economists have offered
their perspectives on the relationship between neo-liberalism and Indian
democracy. Let’s explore the views of some prominent figures:
i. Amartya Sen (Economist): Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate in
economics, has been critical of unbridled neo-liberalism and its potential
negative impact on social justice and democracy. He argues that a purely
market-driven approach can lead to income inequality and a lack of
access to essential services, hindering human development and
undermining democratic principles. Sen advocates for a more inclusive
approach that considers the capabilities and well-being of all citizens,
focusing on the expansion of education, healthcare, and social safety
nets.
ii. Jean Dreze (Economist): Jean Dreze, an economist known
for his work on poverty and development issues in India, has also
criticized the unfettered implementation of neo-liberal policies. He
emphasizes the importance of public services and social spending to
address socio-economic disparities and enhance human development.
Dreze argues that neo-liberalism should be balanced with targeted
welfare programs to ensure that economic growth benefits all sections
of society.
iii. Prabhat Patnaik (Economist): Prabhat Patnaik, a Marxist
economist, has been a vocal critic of neo-liberalism and its impact on
Indian democracy. He contends that neo-liberal policies prioritize market
interests over the well-being of the people and argue that such an
approach can undermine democratic decision-making. Patnaik calls for
a stronger role for the state in economic planning and social welfare to
promote a more equitable and inclusive society.
iv. Ramachandra Guha (Historian and Political Thinker):
Ramachandra Guha, a historian and political thinker, has discussed the
challenges of balancing neo-liberal economic policies with the principles
of Indian democracy. He highlights the need for democratic governance

to address the socio-economic disparities arising from market-oriented
reforms. Guha emphasizes that a healthy democracy should actively
engage in debates about the direction and consequences of economic
policies to ensure social justice and equity.
v. P. Sainath (Journalist and Rural Affairs Expert): P. Sainath,
a renowned journalist focusing on rural affairs, has extensively covered
the impact of neo-liberal policies on India’s rural communities. He has
highlighted the agrarian crisis and its implications for farmers, arguing
that neo-liberal economic policies can deepen rural distress and
contribute to agrarian inequality. Sainath advocates for policies that
prioritize rural development and livelihoods to address rural poverty
and uplift rural communities.
vi. Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar (Economist and
Columnist): Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, a prominent economist
and columnist, supports market-oriented reforms and liberalization. He
argues that economic liberalization has contributed to India’s economic
growth and global integration, leading to positive outcomes in terms of
poverty reduction and job creation.
These perspectives highlight the complexity of the relationship
between neo-liberalism and Indian democracy. While some thinkers
and economists emphasize the potential benefits of economic
liberalization, others caution against its potential adverse effects on social
justice, equality, and democratic representation. A well-informed and
nuanced approach is essential for shaping policies that leverage the
advantages of economic reforms while safeguarding democratic
principles and ensuring inclusive development in India.
Political Think hinkerer
erss Insightful P er
Per specti
erspecti
spectiv ves
on the Impact of Neo-Liberalism on Indian
Democracy
Several important political thinkers have offered insightful
perspectives on the impact of neo-liberalism on Indian democracy. Here
are some key thinkers and their views:
i) Partha Chatterjee: Partha Chatterjee, a prominent political
theorist, has critiqued the effects of neo-liberalism on Indian democracy.
He argues that neo-liberal economic reforms have led to the emergence
of a “political society” in India, where the state prioritizes economic
growth and development over social welfare. Chatterjee suggests that
this has resulted in a distancing of the state from the concerns and needs
of ordinary citizens, leading to a diminished role for democratic
institutions in addressing social inequality and marginalization.
ii) Achin Vanaik: Achin Vanaik, a political analyst and scholar,
has raised concerns about the implications of neo-liberalism on Indian
democracy. He argues that the prioritization of market forces and private
interests over the public good can undermine the democratic nature of
the state. Vanaik advocates for a reassertion of democratic values and
mechanisms to ensure that the government remains accountable to the
people and prioritizes their welfare over narrow economic interests.
iii) Arundhati Roy: Arundhati Roy, an author and social activist,
has been critical of the effects of neo-liberal economic policies on Indian
democracy. She highlights how economic liberalization has led to the
displacement of marginalized communities and has resulted in the
concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. Roy advocates
for a more inclusive and equitable approach to development that
prioritizes the needs of the poor and marginalized, rather than perpetuating
inequalities.
iv) C.P. Chandrasekhar: C.P. Chandrasekhar, an economist and
political thinker, has analyzed the impact of neo-liberalism on India’s
economic policies and democratic institutions. He has raised concerns
about the potential erosion of public sector institutions and the growing
influence of private corporations in shaping government policies.
Chandrasekhar emphasizes the importance of ensuring democratic
accountability and public control over economic decision-making to
safeguard the interests of the majority.
v) M.K. Narayanan: M.K. Narayanan, a former National
Security Advisor and diplomat, has expressed concerns about the
challenges posed by neo-liberalism to India’s national security and
internal stability. He points out that economic disparities resulting from
neo-liberal policies can lead to social unrest and political instability, posing
risks to democratic governance.
vi) Medha Patkar: Medha Patkar, a social activist and leader of
the Narmada Bachao Andolan, has been a vocal critic of neo-liberal
policies and their impact on marginalized communities. She has highlighted
how large-scale development projects under neo-liberalism have
displaced indigenous and rural populations, leading to violations of human
rights and ecological damage. Patkar advocates for policies that prioritize
the interests and rights of affected communities, promoting a more
participatory and democratic development model.
These thinkers offer diverse perspectives on the challenges posed
by neo-liberalism to Indian democracy. They raise important questions
about the implications of economic reforms on social justice, democratic
representation, and inclusive development. Their insights contribute to
ongoing debates about finding a balance between economic growth
and democratic governance, and how to ensure that the benefits of
economic progress are shared equitably among all sections of society.
In conclusion, the relationship between neo-liberalism and Indian
democracy is complex and multi-faceted. The introduction of neo-liberal
economic policies in India in the early 1990s has brought about significant
economic growth and integration into the global economy. However,
this approach has also posed challenges to the principles of Indian
democracy, social justice, and inclusivity.
Proponents of neo-liberalism argue that market-oriented reforms have
led to economic growth, foreign investment, and job creation, benefiting
India’s overall development. They emphasize the role of free-market
principles in driving economic progress. On the other hand, critics raise
concerns about the potential negative impact of neo-liberalism on Indian
democracy. They argue that unbridled economic liberalization can lead
to income inequality, concentration of economic power, and
marginalization of vulnerable sections of society. The prioritization of
private interests and profit motives may undermine the state’s role in
addressing social welfare and promoting equitable development.
The challenges presented by neo-liberalism in the Indian context
include the displacement of marginalized communities due to large-scale
development projects, erosion of democratic accountability in economic
decision-making, and disconnect between economic growth and inclusive
development. For a more sustainable and equitable path forward, a
balanced approach is required—one that leverages the advantages of
economic reforms while safeguarding democratic principles and social
justice. This includes the implementation of targeted welfare programs,
strengthening democratic institutions, and ensuring that economic policies
prioritize the welfare of the majority and address the needs of
marginalized communities. To achieve a harmonious coexistence of neo-
liberalism and Indian democracy, policymakers must prioritize inclusive
development, social equity, and the protection of the rights and interests
of all citizens. By incorporating the voices and concerns of diverse
stakeholders, India can aspire to strike a balance between economic
growth and social welfare, fostering a robust and inclusive democracy
that benefits all members of society.
3.2 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND INDIAN

DEMOCRACY
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary

in interpreting and shaping the law, often going beyond traditional
boundaries to protect the rights of citizens and uphold constitutional
principles. In India, judicial activism has emerged as a significant aspect
of the country’s democratic system.The scope of judicial activism in
India is broad and dynamic, and it continues to evolve as the judiciary
takes on an active role in interpreting and enforcing the law. The scope
of judicial activism in India includes the following aspects:
1. Protecting Fundamental Rights: One of the primary areas
where judicial activism is prominent is in safeguarding fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The judiciary intervenes to protect
citizens’ rights to life, liberty, equality, freedom of speech, and various
other rights when there is a violation or threat to these rights.
2. Social Justice and Inclusivity: Judicial activism in India
extends to promoting social justice and inclusivity. The judiciary has
played a vital role in addressing issues related to caste discrimination,
gender equality, reservation policies, and the welfare of marginalized
sections of society.
3. Environmental Protection: The scope of judicial activism in
India includes addressing environmental issues and promoting sustainable
development. The judiciary has taken proactive measures to protect
the environment, combat pollution, and ensure the preservation of natural
resources.
4. Curbing Corruption and Promoting Good Governance: The
judiciary’s role in combating corruption and promoting good governance
is another important aspect of judicial activism. The courts have
intervened in corruption cases involving public officials and have issued
directives to ensure transparency and accountability in government
functioning.
5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The introduction of PIL in
Indian jurisprudence has expanded the scope of judicial activism.
Through PIL, any individual or organization can approach the courts
seeking remedies for issues affecting the public interest, even when they
are not directly involved in the matter.
6. Judicial Review of Legislation and Executive Actions: The
judiciary’s power of judicial review allows it to assess the constitutionality
of legislation and executive actions. By doing so, the courts act as a
check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that their actions
are in line with the Constitution.
7. Expanding the Interpretation of Laws: Judicial activism in
India also involves interpreting laws in a progressive manner to suit the
changing societal needs and circumstances. The judiciary has often
interpreted laws broadly to provide justice and uphold constitutional
values.
8. Human Rights Protection: The judiciary actively protects
human rights and takes cognizance of cases involving violations of human
rights, both by state and non-state actors.
However, it is essential to note that judicial activism is a subject of
debate in India. While supporters argue that it is necessary to fill
governance voids and protect citizens’ rights, critics express concerns
about judicial overreach and the potential erosion of the separation of
powers. Striking the right balance between judicial activism and judicial
restraint is crucial to maintaining the proper functioning of India’s
democratic system. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court,
has often taken an active role in addressing social and political issues,
especially when there is a perceived failure or inaction on the part of the
executive and legislative branches. Through its judgments, the judiciary
has played a crucial role in expanding the scope of fundamental rights,
ensuring social justice, and safeguarding the principles of democracy.
Key Instances of J Judicial Activism
udicial Acti vism in India
Some key instances of judicial activism in India include:
1. Expanding Fundamental Rights: The Indian judiciary has
interpreted fundamental rights, enshrined in the Constitution, in a broad
and progressive manner. It has recognized the right to privacy, the right
to live with dignity, and the right to access information, among others,
through its activist approach.
2. Social Justice: The judiciary has been instrumental in promoting
social justice by intervening in matters relating to the protection of
marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society. It has issued
directives and judgments to address issues of caste-based discrimination,
the rights of women, and the welfare of children.
3. Environmental Protection: The judiciary has actively engaged
in matters concerning environmental protection and conservation. It has
imposed restrictions on industries and activities harming the environment,
and mandated measures to safeguard natural resources.
4. Corruption and Governance: In cases of corruption and
governance issues, the judiciary has acted as a watchdog, investigating,
and prosecuting public officials, ensuring accountability, and promoting
transparency in government functioning.
Critics argue that judicial activism can sometimes encroach upon
the domain of the executive and legislature, leading to concerns of judicial
overreach. Additionally, they contend that unelected judges making
policy decisions may undermine the principles of representative
democracy. On the other hand, proponents of judicial activism believe
that it serves as a necessary check and balance against potential abuse
of power by other branches of the government. They argue that the
judiciary’s intervention is crucial in protecting individual rights and
promoting a just and equitable society.
In conclusion, judicial activism in India has played a significant role
in shaping the country’s democratic landscape. By interpreting the
Constitution in a progressive manner and intervening in critical matters,
the judiciary has contributed to the protection of fundamental rights,
social justice, and good governance. However, the balance between
judicial activism and the respect for the separation of powers remains
an ongoing debate in the context of Indian democracy. Judicial activism
in the context of Indian democracy has been a topic of debate and
discussion for several decades. It refers to the proactive role of the
judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the law, often going beyond the
traditional boundaries to address societal issues and uphold constitutional
values. Here are some key aspects of judicial activism and its impact on
Indian democracy:
1) Filling the Governance Void: One of the reasons behind
judicial activism in India is the perceived governance void or inaction
by the executive and legislative branches. When these branches fail to
address pressing social and political issues adequately, the judiciary
steps in to fill the void and protect citizens’ rights and interests.
2) Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Indian judiciary has
been at the forefront of safeguarding fundamental rights enshrined in the
Constitution. Through its activist approach, the judiciary has expanded
the scope of rights, ensuring that they are not merely symbolic but
practically enforceable.
3) Social Justice and Inclusivity: The judiciary has played a
significant role in promoting social justice and inclusivity in a diverse
country like India. It has intervened in matters related to caste
discrimination, gender equality, minority rights, and other social issues
to ensure that marginalized sections of society are protected and their
rights are upheld.
4) Environmental Protection: Recognizing the importance of
sustainable development and environmental conservation, the judiciary
has taken proactive measures to address environmental issues. It has
delivered landmark judgments to protect the environment and natural
resources, holding industries and governments accountable for
environmental degradation.
5) Curbing Corruption: Judicial activism has also been evident in
tackling corruption and promoting good governance. The judiciary has
taken up cases of corruption and issued directives to investigate and
prosecute offenders, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability
in the government.
6) Checks and Balances: Judicial activism serves as an essential
aspect of the system of checks and balances in Indian democracy. It
acts as a counterbalance to the powers of the executive and legislature,
preventing any potential abuse of authority and protecting citizens’ rights.
However, there are some concerns regarding judicial activism in Indian
democracy:
7) Separation of Powers: Critics argue that judicial activism blurs
the lines between the three branches of government, leading to concerns
about encroachment on the domains of the executive and legislature.
They believe that policy decisions should primarily be the responsibility
of the elected representatives and not the unelected judiciary.
8) Accountability: Some critics argue that judicial activism,
especially when it involves matters of policy, can lead to a lack of
accountability. Unlike elected officials, judges are not directly
accountable to the public for their decisions, which raises questions
about the democratic legitimacy of their interventions.
9) Judicial Overreach: There have been instances where the
judiciary’s intervention has been perceived as excessive, leading to
charges of judicial overreach. This can potentially undermine the principle
of separation of powers and the autonomy of other branches of
government.
In conclusion, judicial activism has played a crucial role in shaping
Indian democracy by protecting fundamental rights, promoting social
justice, and ensuring accountability. While it has been a force for positive
change in many instances, the balance between judicial activism and the
principle of separation of powers remains a subject of ongoing debate
in India’s democratic setup. Striking the right balance is essential to
ensure that judicial activism complements and strengthens democracy
rather than undermining it.
T hink er’
hinker’
er’s s P ositi
Positi
ositiv ve P er
Per specti
erspecti
spectiv ve R ela
Rela ted to
elated
Judicial Activism
The concept of judicial activism in the context of Indian democracy
has been a subject of interest and debate among political thinkers and
scholars. Different political thinkers have varying perspectives on the
role and impact of judicial activism in India. Thinker’s Positive
Perspective related to judicial activism are:-
a. Ambedkar’s Vision: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the architects
of the Indian Constitution, believed that the judiciary should play an
active role in protecting the rights of marginalized communities. He
envisioned the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and the
fundamental rights of citizens, ensuring social justice and inclusivity.
b. Granville Austin’s View: Granville Austin, a prominent scholar
on Indian constitutional law, believed that judicial activism was essential
in the initial years of India’s democracy. According to him, the judiciary’s
active role was necessary to fill the governance void and uphold
constitutional values when the executive and legislature were still in the
process of establishing themselves.
c. Upendra Baxi’s Approach: Upendra Baxi, a legal scholar,
argued that judicial activism is a crucial aspect of Indian democracy,
especially in a country where marginalized sections face significant socio-
economic challenges. He believed that the judiciary’s intervention was
necessary to protect the rights of the vulnerable and ensure social justice.
Criticism and Caution Related to Judicial
Activism
Following are the points showing criticism and caution related to
judicial activism:-
a. Separation of Powers: Critics of judicial activism, like H.M.
Seervai, have expressed concerns about the judiciary’s intervention in
policy matters, which they view as a violation of the principle of separation
of powers. According to them, the executive and legislative branches,
being accountable to the electorate, should primarily deal with policy
decisions.
b. Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s View: Political theorist Pratap Bhanu
Mehta has cautioned against the “judicialization of politics” in India. He
argues that the judiciary’s increasing role in policymaking can undermine
democratic processes and public accountability.
c. Soli Sorabjee’s Stance: Legal scholar Soli Sorabjee has
expressed concerns about the potential for judicial overreach and the
judiciary becoming “super-legislature.” He emphasizes the need for
maintaining a balance between judicial activism and the autonomy of
other branches of government.
Balancing Act of Judicial Activism
Many political thinkers acknowledge that while judicial activism
has been instrumental in addressing social issues and protecting
fundamental rights, it should be exercised with caution. They stress the
importance of a delicate balance between judicial intervention and
respect for the principles of representative democracy and separation
of powers.
In conclusion, political thinkers’ perspectives on judicial activism
in Indian democracy vary widely. While some view it as a necessary
tool to protect the rights of citizens and uphold constitutional values,
others caution against potential risks of judicial overreach and
undermining the democratic process. Striking the right balance is crucial
to ensure that judicial activism remains a positive force in Indian
democracy while respecting the roles of other branches of government.
India has seen several landmark decisions by the judiciary in the light of
judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to the active role played by the
judiciary in interpreting laws and ensuring the protection of fundamental
rights, even if it involves going beyond the traditional bounds of judicial
review. Here are some important landmark decisions showcasing judicial
activism in the Indian democracy:
[ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this
landmark case, the Supreme Court of India established the doctrine of
“basic structure” of the Constitution. The court held that the Parliament’s
amending power is not unlimited and cannot alter the essential features
or the basic structure of the Constitution. This decision has acted as a
check on potential abuse of power by the legislature.
[ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case

expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court
ruled that the right to life encompasses several fundamental rights, and
any law depriving a person of their life or liberty must be just, fair, and
reasonable.
[ Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In this case, the
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to address and prevent sexual
harassment of women at the workplace. It was a significant step in
safeguarding women’s rights and workplace dignity.
[ Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
The court held that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution, and forced eviction of pavement dwellers
without providing alternative accommodation is unconstitutional.
[ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): In a historic
decision, the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex
relations between adults, effectively striking down Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code, which had criminalized homosexuality. This decision
was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
[ Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (1985): This case highlighted the issue of environmental
protection. The court ordered the closure of limestone quarries in the
Doon Valley to prevent ecological degradation, setting a precedent for
public interest litigation (PIL) in environmental matters.
[ Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): In this
case, the Supreme Court took cognizance of bonded labor in India and
directed the government to take various measures to abolish the practice

and rehabilitate the bonded laborers.
[ National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
(NALSA judgment) (2014): The Supreme Court recognized
transgender persons as a third gender and affirmed their right to equality
and protection from discrimination. It also provided directions for their
welfare and social inclusion. These landmark decisions illustrate the
proactive role played by the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of citizens
and promoting social justice in India.
The concept of judicial activism in the Indian democracy has been
a subject of both appreciation and criticism. In conclusion, there are
several key points to consider:
1. Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: Judicial activism in India
has played a crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights enshrined in
the Constitution. The judiciary has expanded the scope of these rights,
ensuring that they are upheld and protected, even if it requires striking
down laws that violate them.
2. Filling Legislative Void: At times, the judiciary has stepped in
to fill legislative voids when the legislature has failed to enact necessary
laws to address pressing issues. This has helped in advancing social
justice and promoting the welfare of marginalized communities.
3. Striking a Balance: While judicial activism has been instrumental
in addressing social issues and protecting rights, critics argue that it can
sometimes blur the separation of powers between the judiciary and the
other branches of government. Striking a balance between judicial
intervention and respecting the authority of the elected representatives

is crucial for a healthy democracy.
4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Judicial activism in India is
closely associated with PIL, which allows citizens to approach the courts
directly to seek redressal for issues affecting public interest. While PIL
has been a powerful tool for social change, it has also faced criticism
for being misused and burdening the judiciary with matters that should
be addressed through the legislative process.
5. Accountability and Transparency: Judicial activism has often
led to increased transparency and accountability in governance. The
judiciary has taken strong stands against corruption and executive
excesses, promoting good governance and the rule of law.
6. Evolving Legal Landscape: Through judicial activism, the Indian
judiciary has contributed to the evolution of the legal landscape by
interpreting the Constitution dynamically and adapting it to changing
societal norms and values.
In conclusion, judicial activism in the Indian democracy has
played a significant role in protecting individual rights, promoting social
justice, and filling legislative gaps. However, it is essential for the judiciary
to maintain a delicate balance between its role as a protector of rights
and the principle of separation of powers. An independent and
accountable judiciary is essential for a thriving democracy, and the
dynamic nature of judicial activism should be accompanied by a strong
commitment to uphold the rule of law and respect the boundaries of the
judicial function.
3.3 COALITION POLITICS AND INDIAN

COALITION
DEMOCRACY
Coalition politics is a form of governance where multiple political parties

with differing ideologies, interests, and regional bases come together to
form a government. This collaborative approach is adopted when no
single party secures an absolute majority in an election, making it
necessary for parties to ally with one another to reach the required
number of seats or support to govern. The concept of coalition politics
contrasts with single-party majority governments, where a single political
party holds enough seats in the legislature to govern without needing the
support of other parties. In countries with diverse political landscapes
and multiparty systems, coalition politics often becomes a common
method of governance.
Coalition governments are prevalent in parliamentary

democracies, where the executive branch is formed from the legislature
and led by a Prime Minister or a similar position. In such systems, the
coalition partners work together to form a government and collectively
decide on policies, legislative agendas, and administrative matters.
Coalition politics is a concept that has been discussed and analysed by
various thinkers, scholars, and political commentators.
Definitions of Coalition Politics
Here are some definitions of coalition politics by prominent thinkers:
1. Rajni Kothari: Rajni Kothari, an Indian political scientist and
renowned scholar, describes coalition politics as “an arrangement or
alliance between political parties or groups, formed to attain specific
political objectives, particularly in the context of lacking a clear majority
in the legislature.”
2. Atul Kohli: Atul Kohli, an Indian American political scientist,
views coalition politics as “a means to manage and accommodate
diversity in a pluralistic society like India, where different social, cultural,
and regional groups seek representation and a share in governance.”
3. Pratap Bhanu Mehta: Pratap Bhanu Mehta, an Indian
academic and political commentator, characterizes coalition politics as
“a form of power-sharing that compels parties to transcend their narrow
interests and forge alliances based on common objectives to establish a
working government.”
4. Mahesh Rangarajan: Mahesh Rangarajan, a historian and
political analyst, defines coalition politics as “a practical necessity in a
diverse society like India, where regional and ethnic identities play a
significant role and no single party can claim a national mandate without
forming alliances.”
These definitions provide various perspectives on the nature and
significance of coalition politics in India. They highlight its role as a
mechanism to manage diversity, share power, and facilitate governance
in a complex and multi-ethnic democratic setup.
Forormsms of Coalition P olitics
Politics
Coalition politics can have various forms:
1) Pre-Poll Alliances: Political parties enter into formal alliances
before elections, pledging to support each other to form a government
if they collectively secure a majority.
2) Post-Poll Alliances: After election results are announced and
no single party has a clear majority, parties negotiate and form alliances
to reach the majority mark.
3) Minor Coalition Partners: In some cases, a large party may
lead the coalition with smaller parties joining as coalition partners,
providing support in exchange for specific ministerial positions or policy
considerations.
4) Grand Coalitions: Grand coalitions are formed when major
political parties from opposite end of the ideological spectrum come
together to create a stable government in times of national crisis or
extraordinary circumstances.
Coalition politics brings both advantages and challenges to
governance. On the one hand, it allows for the representation of diverse
interests and regional aspirations, promoting inclusive decision-making.
It encourages consensus-building and cooperation among parties,
fostering a more consultative approach to governance. However, it can
also lead to policy gridlock and slower decision-making, as parties with
different agendas and ideologies may find it challenging to agree on key
policy matters. Countries like India, Germany, and the Netherlands have
witnessed successful coalition governments, while other countries have
faced challenges in maintaining stable and effective coalitions. The
success of coalition politics largely depends on the ability of coalition
partners to work together, find common ground, and prioritize the national
interest over narrow party interests.
In conclusion, coalition politics is a prominent feature of governance
in many democracies, providing an avenue for multiple parties to
collaborate and form governments. It is an important mechanism for
accommodating diverse interests, but it also requires skillful negotiation
and compromise to ensure effective governance.
Histor
History y of Coalition P olitics in India
Politics
The history of coalition politics in India can be traced back to the
early years after independence. India’s political landscape is diverse,
with numerous regional and national parties representing various
ideologies and interests. As a result, coalition governments have become
a common feature of Indian politics, especially since the 1990s. Here is
an overview of the key milestones in the history of coalition politics in
India:
[ Formation of the First Coalition Government (1967): In
1967, India witnessed its first significant shift towards coalition politics
when no single party secured a clear majority in the general elections.
The Indian National Congress, which had dominated the political scene
since independence, faced a decline in its vote share, leading to the
formation of the first coalition government at the center. The Congress
had to seek support from various regional and left-leaning parties to
maintain a government.
[ The Emergence of Regional Parties (1970s and 1980s):
During the 1970s and 1980s, regional parties gained prominence in
Indian politics. States like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh
saw the rise of strong regional leaders and parties that demanded greater
autonomy and recognition of regional issues. This regionalization of
politics contributed to the growth of coalition politics at both the center
and state levels.
[ National Front Government (1989): The general elections
in 1989 marked a significant turning point in Indian politics. The Janata
Dal, a coalition of various non-Congress parties led by V.P. Singh,
formed the National Front government with the support of the Bhartiya
Janata Party (BJP) and left-leaning parties. This coalition government
came into power with a clear anti-Congress mandate.
[ United Front and Third Front Governments (1990s):
The 1990s saw a series of coalition governments formed by the United
Front and Third Front alliances. These governments were characterized
by diverse parties, including regional players, socialist groups, and left-
wing parties. The United Front governments, supported from outside
by the Congress, provided stability for brief periods.
[ Bhartiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance
(1998): In 1998, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), along with its allies,
formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and came to power.
The NDA was a coalition of center-right and regional parties with the
BJP as the dominant force. The NDA government lasted until 2004,
with Atal Bihari Vajpayee serving as the Prime Minister.
[ United Progressive Alliance (2004): In 2004, the Indian
National Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to
power after securing the support of various regional parties. Manmohan
Singh became the Prime Minister, and the UPA formed the government
with a coalition of center-left and regional parties.
[ National Democratic Alliance (2014 and 2019): In 2014
and 2019, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) emerged
as the dominant force in Indian politics. The NDA secured a clear
majority in both elections, but it continued to include various regional
parties as its coalition partners.
[ State-Level Coalitions: Coalition governments have been a
common phenomenon in several states of India. State-level politics often
involves complex alliances, with parties forming governments based on
post-poll alliances and seat-sharing arrangements.
Coalition politics in India reflects the country’s diverse social,
cultural, and regional fabric. It has become an integral part of Indian
democracy, with different parties and alliances playing significant roles
in shaping the country’s governance and policies. Coalition politics in
Indian democracy refers to a system where political parties with different
ideologies and interests come together to form a government. Unlike a
single-party majority government, a coalition government is formed when
no single party secures an absolute majority in the parliamentary or
state legislative elections. In such scenarios, political parties collaborate
to reach a majority and establish a government. Coalition politics has
become a prominent feature of Indian democracy, particularly after the
1990s. Before that, India largely witnessed single-party rule dominated
by the Indian National Congress. However, as the political landscape
evolved, regional parties gained strength, and the Congress’s dominance
waned, leading to a proliferation of coalition governments at both the
central and state levels.
Factors of Coalition Politics in India
Rise of a multi-party system in India can be attributed to factors
such as its diverse population, regional and linguistic variations, social
and economic differences, and the democratic framework established
by the Indian Constitution. These factors have given rise to a range of
political ideologies and interests, leading to the emergence of multiple
political parties that represent various sections of society and regions.
These are some major factors have contributed to the rise of coalition
politics in India:
1. Fragmented Electoral Landscape: India’s diverse society
and multiplicity of regional identities have resulted in a fragmented electoral
landscape. No single party has been able to secure an absolute majority
on its own in many elections, necessitating post-poll alliances to form a
government.
2. Regional Aspirations: Regional parties have gained popularity
as they focus on specific local issues and regional aspirations. As a
result, they often hold the key to forming coalitions at the national level.
For example Akhali Dal in Punjab, DMK in Tamil Nadu, TDS in Andhra
Pardesh, National Conference in J&K often represent the regional
aspiration of the concerned region.
3. Coalition Dynamics: Coalition politics is an essential aspect
of India’s federal structure. States in India have significant autonomy
and play a crucial role in national politics. Thus, state-level alliances can
influence coalition-building at the centre.
4. Anti-Incumbency: Due to anti-incumbency sentiments against
ruling parties at various levels, voters tend to choose different parties in
different elections, leading to a lack of single-party majorities.
5. Multi-Party System: India operates as a multi-party system,
providing various parties with opportunities to gain representation and
share power in coalitions.On geographical basis India’s party system
divided into all India parties, trans regional parties, regional parties and
local parties. While on the basis of Ideology the Political parties are
divided into Leftist, rightist and central parties. Thus in case of multi
cultural country like India, these political parties represents the people
from different areas, section of societies and ideologies.
Advantages of Coalition Politics
Following are the advantages:-
i. Representation of Diverse Interests: Coalition governments
often represent a broader range of interests, reflecting the diversity of
the Indian population.
ii. Consensus-Building: Coalitions require parties to negotiate
and arrive at consensus-based decisions, promoting a consultative
approach to governance.
iii. Power-Sharing: Different parties get the opportunity to
participate in governance and influence policy decisions. The power
sharing among different parties, lead to a system of checks and balances
that can prevent any single party from wielding excessive authority and
role of majoritirianism.
Disadvantages of Coalition Politics
Following are the disadvantages:-
i. Instability: Coalition governments can be prone to instability
due to conflicting interests among coalition partners, leading to frequent
realignments or mid-term collapses. Many times after the election a
single political part fail to form the government that may cause political
instability.
ii. Policy Gridlock: Politics in India can be expensive due to the
need for negotiations, compromises, and distribution of resources among
the various parties forming the coalition. This can sometimes lead to
policy gridlock and inefficient decision-making processes, affecting the
overall governance and economic progress of the country.
iii. Governance Challenges: Coalition governments may face
difficulties implementing long-term policies due to the need to balance
diverse party agendas. While policy and decision making on various
social issues. In the parliament or state assemblies, it may cause the
lack of consensus.
iv. Compromise on Ideology: In order to maintain the coalition,
parties may have to compromise on their core ideologies, leading to
disillusionment among their respective supporters. Because of unsuitable
alliances many times for the sake of power the parties compromise on
electoral promises that cause distrust among the people-voters of that
party.
In conclusion, coalition politics has become a defining characteristic
of Indian democracy, reflecting the country’s diverse political landscape.
While it provides representation to various interests and encourages
consensus-building, it also presents challenges in terms of governance
stability and policy implementation. Successful coalition governments
require strong leadership, effective coordination among coalition
partners, and a commitment to the common welfare of the nation.
Vie ws of P
iews olitical T hink
Political hinker er
erssa bout Coalition
about
Politics in India
Several important political thinkers in India have expressed their
perspectives on coalition politics in Indian democracy. Here are some
key viewpoints from renowned political thinkers:
[ Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, one of the key
architects of the Indian Constitution, emphasized the significance of
coalition politics in representing the diverse interests of the country. He
believed that India’s social, economic, and cultural diversity required a
system that accommodated various viewpoints and allowed different
communities to have a voice in governance. Coalition politics, according
to Ambedkar, could help in maintaining the unity and integrity of the
nation while acknowledging regional aspirations and concerns.
[ Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, a
prominent socialist leader, advocated for coalition politics as a means
to counter the dominance of the Congress party. He believed that
coalition governments would provide a platform for regional and socialist
parties to assert their influence and bring about social and economic
justice. Lohia argued that a strong opposition coalition was necessary
to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single party and
to safeguard the interests of marginalized sections of society.
[ Rajni Kothari: Rajni Kothari, a political scientist and social
thinker, studied the dynamics of Indian democracy extensively. He saw
coalition politics as an essential feature of Indian democracy due to the
country’s diversity and the multiplicity of social, economic, and cultural
cleavages. According to Kothari, coalition governments were a reflection
of India’s social realities and provided an opportunity for multiple voices
and interests to participate in the governance process.
[ Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a veteran leader
of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the first Prime Minister from the
BJP to lead a coalition government, supported the idea of coalition
politics as a pragmatic approach to governance. As the head of the
National Democratic Alliance (NDA), Vajpayee demonstrated that
coalition governments could be stable and effective if based on a shared
minimum program and a commitment to national interest.
[ Pratap Bhanu Mehta: Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a prominent
political scientist and public intellectual, has written extensively on Indian
politics and governance. He has argued that coalition politics can create
challenges in policy formulation and implementation due to the inherent
need for consensus-building among diverse parties. Mehta has also
highlighted that coalition governments may face difficulties in taking bold
reform measures due to political compulsions and the fear of upsetting
coalition partners.
[ Arun Shourie: Arun Shourie, a well-known journalist, author,
and politician, has been critical of coalition politics in India. He has
expressed concerns that coalition governments often prioritize political
survival over policy matters, leading to policy paralysis and delayed
decision-making. Shourie has argued that coalition politics can lead to
a lack of accountability, as parties tend to deflect blame for failures on
coalition partners.
These perspectives from important political thinkers showcase the

complexity and diverse opinions surrounding coalition politics in Indian
democracy. While some view it as a necessary aspect of inclusive
governance, others have raised valid concerns about its impact on policy-
making and accountability. The debate on coalition politics continues to
shape discussions on Indian democracy and governance. In India,
coalition politics has been a prominent feature of its democracy for
several decades. Due to the diverse and multi-ethnic nature of the
country, no single political party has been able to secure an absolute
majority in the Parliament on its own. As a result, political parties often
form alliances or coalitions to gain a majority and form a government.
3.4 SECULARISM AND INDIAN

DEMOCRACY
Secularism is a political and philosophical principle that advocates

the separation of religion from the affairs of the state and the public
sphere. It entails a neutral and impartial approach by the government
towards all religious beliefs and practices, treating them equally and
refraining from endorsing or favouring any specific religion. The core
principles of secularism include:
1. Religious Freedom: Secularism upholds the right of individuals

to practice, profess, and change their religion freely without any
interference or coercion from the state or other religious groups.
2. State Neutrality: A secular state maintains an impartial stance
towards all religions and does not promote or establish any particular
religion as the official or favoured one.
3. Separation of Church and State: In a secular system, religious
institutions and religious authorities are separate from governmental
institutions and they do not hold direct political power.
4. Equality and Non-discrimination: Secularism ensures that all
citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, are treated equally under
the law, with no discrimination based on religion.
5. Public Sphere Neutrality: In the public sphere, secularism
calls for a religiously neutral environment, where religious beliefs do not
dictate public policies, laws, or governance decisions.
6. Religious Pluralism: Secularism acknowledges and respects
the existence of diverse religious beliefs and practices within a society,
fostering an atmosphere of religious tolerance and coexistence.
Secularism is often viewed as a means to promote religious freedom,
prevent religious conflicts, and ensure that governance and public policies
are based on rational and universal principles, rather than religious
dogma. It allows for the coexistence of diverse religious communities
within a society while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all citizens,
regardless of their religious affiliations.
Definitions of Secularism
Various thinkers and scholars have offered their perspectives on
the concept of secularism. Here are some definitions of secularism by
prominent thinkers:
i. Charles Taylor: Charles Taylor, a Canadian philosopher, defines
secularism as “the idea that the state and its institutions should be separate
from religious institutions and activities, ensuring religious freedom and
preventing the dominance of any particular religion in public life.”
ii. John Rawls: John Rawls, an American political philosopher,
describes secularism as “the principle that political decisions should be
made on the basis of public reason, which is accessible to all citizens,
regardless of their religious or philosophical beliefs.”
iii. Jawaharlal Nehru: Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime
Minister and a prominent leader of the independence movement, defines
secularism as “the principle of equal respect for all religions, and the
state’s impartiality in matters of religion, ensuring equal rights and
freedoms to all citizens regardless of their faith.”
iv. Jurgen Habermas: Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher,
views secularism as “the idea of public reason and discourse that allows
individuals from diverse religious and philosophical backgrounds to
engage in rational deliberation on matters of common concern.”
v. Talal Asad: Talal Asad, a cultural anthropologist, provides a
critical view of secularism, describing it as “a modern Western concept
that imposes a particular understanding of religion and rationality, often
marginalizing non-Western and non-secular worldviews.”
These definitions illustrate the diverse interpretations and discussions
surrounding the concept of secularism. While there is broad agreement
on the idea of separation of religion and state, there are variations in
emphasis on religious freedom, public reason, and the role of secularism
in shaping public culture and discourse. Each thinker’s perspective
reflects their particular intellectual context and the specific challenges
and considerations relevant to their respective societies.
Secularism in India
The Constitution of India introduces the Indian state as a Sovereign,
Socialist, Secular, and Democratic Republic. The introduction of
secularism in Indian democracy is a fundamental aspect that underpins
the nation’s diverse and pluralistic society. Secularism plays a crucial
role in upholding the principles of equality, religious freedom, and social
harmony, and it is enshrined in the Indian Constitution as one of its core
principles.
When India gained independence from British colonial rule in 1947,
its leaders recognized the need to address the diverse religious and
cultural landscape of the country. The framers of the Indian Constitution,
led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and others, ensured that secularism was a
foundational principle to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all citizens,
irrespective of their religious beliefs. The Indian Constitution embodies
the ‘Positive’ concept of Secularism. This is taken to mean that there is
no official religion of the State as in other Constitutions, that no special
preference or treatment is given to any particular religious community
rather promotion of all religions in Indian equally. It is also taken to
mean that India is not a Theocratic State yet the State is not completely
separated from religion as in the case of the western secular countries.
Pr
Pro ovisions and Ideas ffor or Secularism
Secularism in India can be understood by the following provisions
and ideas:
1. Separation of Religion and State: Secularism in India
advocates for the separation of religious institutions from governmental
institutions. The state does not interfere in the internal religious affairs of
various communities. India is a multicultural society where the people
of much religion live together, and no religion has official place in the
country.
2. Equal Treatment of all and Equality before Law: Secularism
in India mandates that the state treats all religions impartially and does
not accord preferential treatment to any particular religion. The
government is neutral and does not endorse or promote any specific
faith. Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India. This provision confers rights on all persons whether citizens or
foreigners. Moreover, the word ‘person’ includes legal persons, viz,
statutory corporations, companies, registered societies or any other type
of legal person. The concept of ‘equality before law’ is of British origin
while the concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ has been taken from the
American Constitution. The first concept connotes: (a) the absence of
any special privileges in favour of any person, (b) the equal subjection
of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary
law courts, and (c) no person (whether rich or poor, high or low, official
or non-official) is above the law. (c) The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws (Article
14).
3. Reflection in Preamble: Secularism in India is that it is a
fundamental principle enshrined in the Constitution and has played a
significant role in shaping the country’s identity and governance. The
word ‘Secular’ was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment
Act of 1976. At the time of independence India inherited various
problems owing to its sociological variety and cultural diversity, some
of which posed as challenges to a liberal, egalitarian democratic system.
In this context the idea of a secular state was enshrined for achieving
social harmony, social peace and preserving the unity and fraternity of
the people of India professing numerous faiths. Though the word ‘Secular’
was initially not mentioned in the Preamble, the original framers of the
Constitution adopted articles 25, 26 and 27 to further the idea of
Secularism.
4. Religious Freedom: Indian secularism upholds the right of
individuals to freely practice, profess, and propagate their religion. It
ensures that citizens are not subjected to discrimination or coercion
based on their religious beliefs. Article 25-28 of the constitution deals
with the freedom of religion. These rights are as under; Article 25 says
that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the
right to freely profess, practice and propagate religionArticle 26:
Freedom to manage religious affairs.Article 26 provides Freedom to
Manage Religious Affairs. This freedom includes; a) Right to establish
and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) Right
to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) Right to own and
acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) Right to administer
such property in accordance with law Article 27 lays down that no
person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for the promotion or
maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. In other
words, the State should not spend the public money collected by way
of tax for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. Under
Article 28, no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational
institution wholly maintained out of State funds. However, this provision
shall not apply to an educational institution administered by the State
but established under any endowment or trust, requiring imparting of
religious instruction in such institution.
5. Right of Minorities; Article 29 provides that any section of
the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script
or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same. Article
30 provides Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational
Institutions. Furthermore the National Commission of minorities and
many other constitutional and non constitutional frameworks protect
the rights of minorities in India.
6. Social Cohesion: India is home to a myriad of religious
communities, including Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains, and others. Social cohesion in India refers to the degree
of unity, harmony, and mutual understanding among its diverse population.
India’s society is characterized by various cultural, linguistic, religious,
and ethnic groups. While there have been instances of tension and conflict,
efforts are made to promote social cohesion through policies, education,
and intercultural dialogue. Ongoing dialogue and understanding among
these diverse groups play a vital role in maintaining social cohesion and
fostering a sense of national identity.
7. Inclusive Governance: Secularism promotes an inclusive form
of governance, where the state does not interfere in religious matters
and respects the autonomy of religious institutions. This allows for greater
participation and representation of diverse communities in the democratic
process.
8. Pluralistic Identity: Secularism has been instrumental in shaping
India’s identity as a pluralistic, multi-religious, and multicultural nation,
respecting and celebrating its diverse heritage.
9. State Intervention to Promote Equality: Indian secularism
allows the state to intervene in matters of religion to promote social
welfare, prevent religious discrimination, and abolish practices that are
detrimental to society.
10. Respect for Religious Pluralism: Indian secularism
recognizes and celebrates the diverse religious landscape of the country.
It promotes a spirit of religious tolerance and encourages peaceful
coexistence among different religious communities.
It is important to note that the concept of secularism in the Indian
context differs from the Western notion of a complete separation of
religion and state. Indian secularism acknowledges the historical, cultural,
and religious diversity of the nation and seeks to accommodate various
religious practices and customs within the framework of a democratic
and inclusive society. The idea of secularism in India aims to build a
harmonious and pluralistic nation, where citizens of all religions can live
together with mutual respect and understanding.
Challenges to the Secularism in India
Following are the important challenges for the secular febric of
India:
1) Communalism: The rise of religious extremism and communal
tensions can undermine secular values, leading to conflicts based on
religious identities.
2) Identity Politics: Politicians sometimes exploit religious
sentiments for electoral gains, which can erode the secular fabric of the
country.
3) Religious Conversion: Conversion controversies can strain
relations between different religious groups, raising concerns about
fairness and coercion.
4) Caste-Based Politics: Caste-based divisions can overshadow
secular principles, as political parties may prioritize caste-based vote
banks.
5) Legal Battles: Disputes over religious practices and places of

worship can create social divisions and legal challenges, such as those
related to Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
6) Unequal Resource Allocation: Uneven distribution of
resources among religious communities can fuel tensions and feelings of
discrimination.
7) Intolerance: Instances of intolerance towards different religions
and beliefs can undermine the concept of coexistence.
8) Cultural Differences: Balancing the rights of various religious
and cultural groups while maintaining a secular framework can be
complex.
9) Media Influence: Irresponsible reporting or sensationalism
can exacerbate communal tensions and hinder the promotion of harmony.
10) Education System: The education system’s portrayal of
history, culture, and religions can sometimes reinforces biases and hinder
a truly secular approach.
Secularism in India has been both a guiding principle and a challenge.
While the Constitution guarantees religious freedom and prohibits
discrimination on the basis of religion, the country has also witnessed
instances of religious tension and communal violence. The concept of
secularism has been debated and interpreted in various ways, with
differing opinions on the extent to which religion should influence state
affairs. Over the years, India has navigated a complex path, balancing
its rich religious diversity with the need for a unified national identity.
Political and social dynamics have at times tested the commitment to
secularism, but it remains an integral part of India’s democratic
framework.
Conclusion
The introduction of secularism in Indian democracy has been a
crucial step towards nurturing a pluralistic and inclusive society. It reflects
the nation’s commitment to maintaining religious harmony, protecting
the rights of all citizens, and upholding the principles of social justice
and equality. Secularism in India is an ongoing journey that continues to
shape the nation’s development and identity. It reflects the complexity
of a diverse society striving to uphold principles. Despite of many
challenges India is among the top secular countries which protect the
rights of all sections of society without any discrimination.
*************
120 Emerging Issues in Democracy
4
EMERGING ISSUES IN
EMERGING
DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRA CY
4.1 NAXALITE MOVEMENT AND INDIAN

MOVEMENT
DEMOCRACY
Naxalite are a group of left radical communist and the supporter of

Maoist political ideology. The word Naxalite derived from the word
“Naxalbari” which is the name of a village of west Bengal where peasant
insurgencies took place on 1967 against the landlords. Generally the
majority of people of naxalites group are belongs to labourer, adivashi,
and unemployed and mostly of them are living in remote area where the
development failed to reach yet.
At very first this movement had started in Naxalbari village and
gradually spread to all over India. At initial stage this movement started
against the landlords by peasants but now they are fighting against the
state and government. And now they are significantly active in 72 districts
of 9 different states and gradually it is becoming threat to the Indian
democracy and development of Indian economy. The Indian prime
minister has described the fight with the Maoist insurgents as India’s
“biggest internal security challenge.”
120
Emerging Issues in Democracy 121
Origin and Historical Background of

Naxalite Mo
Movvement
From the village of naxalbari in West Bengal the term naxalism is
derived. Naxalisim is an informal name given to radical, often violent,
revolutionary communist groups that were born out of the Sino-soviet
in Indian Communist Movement. It was initially started with a rebel by
a group of people against the local landlords, as a peasant was bashed
by the local landlords over land dispute.. The objective of the rebellion
was, “Rightful redistribution of land to the working peasants.” The
Naxalite movement is not principally a rural, agrarian problem as the
doctrine of the Naxalites argues, but is a problem of the leading edge of
the urban intelligentsia. Now naxalisim is one of the biggest security
problem faced by India. Naxalisim not only affects the internal security
but it also affects the external security. This movement was originated
by Kanu Sanyal, Charu Majumdar and Jangal Santhal. Kanu Sanyal
was a follower of communist ideology. He thinks the economic freedom
will come when you fight with maximum wealth holder.”Charu
Majumdar, who was inspired by the ideology of Mao Zedong of china.
He said, “That Indian peasants and lower class tribal’s overthrow the
government and upper class by force for whom he held responsible for
their commitment.” A large number of urban elites were also attracted
to the ideology, which spread through Charu Majumdar writing,
particularly the “eight historic documents” which formed basis naxalite
ideology. Charu Majumdar wanted a prolonged people’s war in India
similar to Chinese revolution 1949.
And Jangal Santhal, who started his political carrier on 1949 in
Nepal, was a popular person among the Adivasi, peasants and tea
labourers of Darjeeling. Santhal stood in election for communist party
of India and communist party of India (Marxist) on 1957, 1962 and
1967 but he had been unsuccessful to achieved winning number of votes.
Santhal was front warrior of the naxalite movement. The uprising was
spearheaded by Charu Mazumdar. Similarly, a peasant revolution was
launched in an area called Srikakulam of Telangana region of Andhra
Pradesh led by Chandra Pulla Reddy. Both incidents were violent in
nature and drew their inspiration from the success of the Communist
movements in China and Russia.
Initially the Naxalite movement which was originated in West
Bengal and had later moved to the less developed rural areas in southern
and eastern India including in the state of Chhattisgarh, Odessa, Andhra
Pradesh, and telengana. According to 1971 census, about 60% of people
of the population were landless and the major share of land was in the
hands of 4% richest peoples. The peasants were exploited by the
landlords raised their bow and arrows in insurgencies. And this was the
primary cause of this movement.
The Maoists assert that they are defending the rights of the
marginalized: the poor, the landless, Dalits, and tribal indigenous
communities. They call for a revolution, demanding a radical restructuring
of the social, political, and economic order. The Maoists believe the
only way marginalized communities can win respect for their rights is to
overthrow the existing structure by violent attacks on the state. Various
state governments have responded to this challenge by carrying out
security operations to defeat the Maoist movement, provide protection
for local residents, and restore law and order. The police in these states
receive support from central government paramilitary forces. Various
state and national forces often conduct joint operations, in part to deny
the Maoists sanctuary in other states. Because of the ineffective response
by states, in 2009 the central government started to coordinate security
operations.
Root Causes of the Naxalite Mo Mov vement
The Naxalite movement derives the root causes of its formation
from the inequalities and exploitation faced by the tribal communities.
The following issues at the inception of the Naxals, form the plight of
the sufferers:
I.Zamindari System: The Zamindari system was adopted during
the British rule wherein a piece of land was given to a Zamindar and in
return, he was required to pay a certain amount to the company or the
state. The Zamindar did not cultivate the land himself. He distributed
and redistributed it till it reached the tiller of the land who was a tribal or
a common man working hard in the field. At each stage, the poor people
or the tribals suffered immensely because a certain amount was required
to be paid to the renter of the land and it led to the exploitation of the
poor tribal at each stage.
II. Status of Tribals: The government decided to declare certain
forests as reserved forests for the purposes of conservation, scientific
research, for sanctuaries and land acquisition for dams, roads, industries,
etc. It was done directly at the cost of the tribals who the inhabitants of
these forests for many generations were. Thus, the state government,
the contractors, and lower level officials fully exploited the tribals, bringing
down their status to that of encroachers in the forests.
III.Resettlement and Rehabilitation: The records of
resettlement and rehabilitation reveal that payment of compensation for

lands and assets acquired from the people for various purposes, are
very rarely compensated to them. For certain poor families, it has meant
generations of resettlement without being given any compensation. This
has led to deprivation and marginalization of the people. Although
industrialization did take place in the country, the tribals were deprived
of the basic benefits of education and training. Therefore, they could
not avail of new opportunities in the industries and remained marginalized.
Administration in Remote Areas Being very poor and unmonitored, these
areas were developed but had poor connectivity. Even post-
independence, the agrarian reforms did not reach these areas.
Corruption, vote bank politics and atrocities against the Scheduled
Castes wrecked havoc in the economic and social fabric of the society.
IV. Governance Related Factors: The malfunctioning of
government machinery in terms of inefficiency, corruption and
exploitation was largely considered as the main factor behind the creation
of a power vacuum as well as a space for Maoists to take root in and
find legitimacy amongst the deprived and impoverished sections of the
population in the country. Since the demand of the poor people for
change was not coming from the government, a natural recourse was to
look for an alternative. The mass mobilisation has been possible only
due to the inherent disenchantment with the prevalent system. The Naxals
reached out to the people, understood them, took up their issues and
fought for their dignity and rights. They earned goodwill among the tribals
and the downtrodden. It is of great interest to note that unlike the other
internal security problems of the northeast, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)
and Punjab were separatist in nature; Left Wing Extremism (LWE) is
not a separatist or externally driven movement. LWE believes that
democracy is ill suited to India and wants to make it a Communist type
state. They have no respect for, or faith in, the Indian Constitution and
the democratic system of government. They strongly believe in a classless
society and consider rich capitalists, farmers and industrialists as their
enemies. The aim is to overthrow the established government by using
armed guerrilla rebellion along with agitation by the masses which in
effect means dictatorship by the proletariat.
Globalisation and liberalisation are seen as challenges to socialism.
It is common knowledge that in most Naxal-affected regions, there is
total lack of governance. The civil administration departments like the
police forces, revenue department, and judicial institutions are seldom
heard of. This has allowed the Naxal forces to run a parallel government
in these areas. The practice of holding Jan Adalat’s, land distribution,
construction of irrigation facilities and tax collection by the Maoist cadres,
are evidence of the lack of the hold of the state government, as also
explain the reach of Naxalism.
V. Socio-Economic Inequalities: The Naxal affected areas are
severely affected by the disparities in economic and social terms. The
rich Thakurs and Zamindars consider poor people and tribals as people
with no dignity and, hence, socially exploit them. All kinds of social
discrimination are practiced against them. The females of the poor classes
are treated as commodities to be used and exploited. These inequalities
in society force them to take recourse to violence and join Naxalism.
Economically, there is a large gap between the haves and have nots.
Lack of employment opportunities for the youth in the relatively deprived
regions of the country further allows Naxal groups to recruit more and
more people. Hence, the primary incentive to join the Naxals was to
ensure an adequate income. The poverty levels in the Naxal affected
states of Orissa, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are much higher
(with more than 40 percent of the population living below the poverty
line).
VI. Sexual Exploitation & False Charges against tribal:Tribal

people are living in remote areas where the development , education
and legal awareness yet to spread properly. According to the view points
of some researchers due to the lack of education and awareness the
tribal women sexually harassed by many government employee and
police framing false charges against the tribal people. These things are
creating anti-government feeling in them.
VII. Unemployment: Unemployment is the root cause for the
tribal people joining naxal . As per some report about 60% people of
tribal area are living in rural and 32% are living in urban are below
poverty line and approx. 76% of them are farmer or agriculture labour.
Several reports reveal that 20 rupees is the daily expense of 60% of
people of India. The Indian government framing various plans and
programmes for development of this people but because of improper
awareness, corruption and middleman this plans are failed to make any
changes in this areas. To get rid of this humiliation and pathetic life the
youth are joining naxal and by the naxal they are giving education to
their fellows as per their own ideology.
VIII. Financial Support: No organization can survive without
sound financial support and a source of regular income. By rough
estimates, the LWE generates approximately Rs 500- 700 crores
annually. This money is spent on payment to its cadres, for the purchase
of arms and ammunition, running of frontal organizations and institutions.
The main sources of funds are wealthy industrialists who carry out mining
in these areas. To finance their activities, the Naxalites “accept
contributions” in the form of “taxes and levies”, loot government
treasuries and banks and also extort vast amounts from businesses,
industries, political leaders, government officials, rich landlords and
professionals. The extremists live by the gun, reaping a rich harvest of
extortion and tax collection, with revenues to the tune of Rs.1, 000
crore a year. The quantum of collection varies from state to state. As
per estimates, the total collection from Bihar and Chhattisgarh is around
Rs. 200 crore and Rs. 150 crores respectively, 6 while that from
Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh is about Rs. 350 crore and Rs. 100
crores respectively.6 In addition, the Naxalites are also engaged in, or
control, significant levels of illegal economic activity7.The extremists
live by the gun, reaping a rich harvest of extortion and tax collection,
with revenues to the tune of Rs.1,000 crore a year. In addition, the
Naxalites are also engaged in, or control, significant levels of illegal
economic activity, harvesting and smuggling of forest produce. Smuggling
of tendu leaves and other forest products such as opium and kattha
also adds to their revenue.
Characteristics of Naxal Regions
Naxalite problem has affected Karantaka , Chhattisgarh , Odisha
, Andhra Pradesh ,Maharashtra ,Jharkhand ,Bihar ,Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal, and in 2009 Naxalites were active across approximately
180 districts in ten states of India.
In August 2010, after the first full year of implementation of the
Integrated Action Plan (IAP), Karnataka was removed from Naxalite
–affected states. In July 2011 the number of Naxalite –affected areas
was reduced to 83 districts in nine states (including 20 additional
districts.). The most of these new districts are from Orissa, Chhattisgarh,
Bihar and Jharkhand where Naxalism enjoys a support base among the
tribal Populations, and further the area in which the Naxals are operating
suits for the Guerrrila warfare. Naxals has appropriated the historical
rebellions of Santhals, Kols and Mundas, which their ancestors had
fought against the colonial state. Naxals have been successful in depicting
and presenting the present Indian state as a colonial and capitalistic
state entering their hitherto free lands for the acquisition of natural
resources. To counter the challenge posed by Naxalism, the Indian state
has adopted two pronged approaches of confrontation and development.
It is found that districts where Naxalism has grown have some
unique characteristics such as;
♦ High share of ST/SC population
♦ Low literacy rate
♦ High infant mortality
♦ Low level of urbanization
♦ High forest cover
♦ High share of agricultural labor
♦ Low per capita income
♦ Low per capita food grain production
♦ Low level road density
♦ Store house of minerals
♦ High share of rural households without specified asset and
banks accounts.
Naxalism as a biggest threat to the
Democracy in India
The Naxalite threat is the biggest security problem for India s future
as its effects are multi-layered. The Maoist movement highlights India s
interior weaknesses, which makes India also vulnerable to external
threats. As part of globalization, threats such as the Naxalite movement
can no longer be viewed as simply internal as it also affects external
security. The security dangers are aptly described by a former Pakistani
Director-General of the Inter- Services Intelligence and his description
of India s foreign affairs. The Director-General equated India being
busy with internal security problems to having two extra Divisions in the
Pakistan Army for free. A nation cannot effectively withstand threats
coming from outside its country if there is instability inside it. Furthermore,
globalization has encouraged the emergence of non-state terrorist actors
as well as international interference in each other s affairs. India has
been one of the victims of international and state sponsored terrorism
fuelled by fundamentalist ideologies.. India s regional neighbors are also
external threats. For example, in 2004, the MHA was wary of the
“symbiotic relationship” between the Communist Party of Nepal and
Naxal groups in India. This means having military deployed along the
border. In the past, India has also been involved in territorial disputes
with China such as over Aksai Chin. Another reason why the Naxalites
are the biggest threat to security is because of the way the issue affects
India s economic development. This is apparent in several ways. For
example, the more the Maoists concentrate on the poor and marginalized
regions of India, the more economic development (which is imperative
to improving those regions conditions) will be hampered. Furthermore,
the Naxalite rebels are no longer just focusing on remote jungles but on
urban centers. Maoist leader Kishenji even declared that the group
aims to establish an armed movement in Calcutta by 2011. Internal
order and stability are necessary for a nation s economic development.
For India to continue being able to withstand outside security threats, it
must build up its infrastructure, its defence and its people. In terms of
lifting its citizens out of poverty, India has a long way to go, and continued
economic growth is integral to India s development as a strong global
player. The Naxalite activities are using up scarce resources on defence
and internal security when it should be spent on areas such as social
development. For example in 2006, 22% of the total government
expenditure is on the military, compared with a mere 1.84% of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on the social sector
The report also highlighted the reduction of Maoist related violent
incidents in the last five years (a decrease of 26.7% from 2013 to 2018),
due to the Maoists losing ground to the Indian forces. Furthermore, it

states that: “The development outreach by the Government of India has
seen an increasingly large number of LWE cadres shunning the path of
violence and returning to the mainstream”.
While this is positive news for India’s counterinsurgency efforts,
the Maoists’ loss of ground coincides with an increase of executions of
civilians by Maoists. Individuals are often branded as police informers
by Maoists, and are executed for supposedly conspiring with the State.
Using civilians as scapegoats for their decreasing hold in the Red Corridor
territory creates an environment of terror for those living in Naxalite
areas, and deters them from any attempts to collaborate with the police.
Out of the 109 civilian casualties in Naxalite-related incidents in 2018,
61 were executed. From January to June 2019, out of the 37 civilian
casualties, 22 were executed for being “police informants”. This goes
to show that civilians pay the highest price in the Naxalite insurgency,
and that the Maoists have turned their terror tactics against the very
people they claim to be fighting a so-called revolution for. This brings
into question the durability of the CPI-Maoists and other Naxalite groups
that resort to these tactics. As they increase violence against their very
own support base, they stray from their original ideology and civilians
earlier loyal to their cause become disenchanted with Maoist ideology.
Government accuses the United Liberated Front of Assam (ULFA)
of working with the Naxalites to smuggle drugs and counterfeit money
along the Indian-Bangladeshi border, in exchange for weapons and
explosives from the ISI. Another Bengali connection is Sailen Sarkar, a
member of the communist party of Bangladesh. Sakar was accused of
training Naxalites in ISI sponsored camps in Bangladesh, and of
participating in organised crime activities alongside the Maoists and the
ULFA.
In these operations, the ISI seems to act as a third party, because

of which establishing a direct link between the ISI and the Naxalites
becomes difficult. However, the ISI’s long-lasting policy of providing
support to anti-India insurgent groups should not be overlooked,
especially when the Naxalites are moving towards establishing business
relations with underground criminal networks based in Pakistan.
In 1967, oppressed peasants inspired by the communist movement
raised their bows and arrows against the feudal landowners in Naxalbari.
In 2019, the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), known also
as Maoists or Naxalites, raised their upgraded, more sophisticated
weapons against mining corporations and development projects which
threatened to expel indigenous tribes (or Adivasis, an umbrella term to
describe tribal populations) from their ancestral lands in order to exploit
the mineral-rich soil. Times have changed, but the aim of the Maoists
has not: seizing land from oppressors and redistributing it to the people.
This armed struggle has resulted in human rights violations, mass
displacement and at least 12,000 deaths as of 2018.
The complexity of the causes of the Naxalite problem as well as its
implications both for internal and external security reflect a solution that
is multi-dimensional and calls for a synergy between the central
governments and the states. In order to comprehensively dissolve the
Naxalite threat, the government has to address its root causes. Socio-
economic alienation and the dissatisfaction with the widening economic
and political inequality will not be solved by military force alone, which
seems to be the main instrument employed by the government. The
problem calls for a pronged solutions: social and economic development,
multi-lateral dialogue and military force governance:-
1. Socio-Economic Development: As the Naxalites are fuelled
by discontent from the marginalized and the poor, a larger percentage
of the national budget must be allocated to addressing the needs of
these regions. More of the national expenditure needs to be focused on
developing these poorer regions through initiatives regarding health,
education, social welfare and rural and urban development. Government
service delivery should be improved in these tribal areas. Both state
and government must ensure that things such as statutory minimum wages,
access to land and water sources initiatives are implemented. In coming
up with strategies for national economic growth, the government must
always bear in mind the possible effects of fast growth for all socio-
economic groups in a country as large and diverse as India. If the social
needs of these marginalized people are addressed, there will be no
discontent to fuel the Naxalite s movements.
2. Dialogue: Second, the government should initiate sincere
dialogue with these marginalised groups, the Naxalites and state leaders.
The popularity of Naxalites with the adivasis is a reflection of the fact
that the government has been unaware or “unapologetically indifferent
to their plight”. By communicating and starting a dialogue between
these stakeholders, these groups will feel that they being listened to. By
opening dialogue, the government can give opportunity for the rebels to
join the mainstream by showing them that solutions can be created
together with the government, by being part of the political system in a
legitimate way. They no longer need to resort to violence to get the
state s attention. For example, the former director-general of AP
concluded that as a result of the ceasefire and dialogue with Maoists in
2004, the violence in the state decreased by 80-90 percent in the region.
As David Pilling noted, the challenge for India s leaders will be to allow
the necessary. Development in these poverty-stricken areas while
acknowledging the rights of a neglected indigenous group.
3. Military: Currently, the main instrument employed by the

government to address the Naxalite threat is the increasing use of the
military. While some military force is still needed to combat against the
Maoist guerrillas, it should not be the only solution. By only addressing
the issue by brute force, government risks alienating civilians who are
caught in the middle. Coercion of the state will only encourage people
to rally against it.
4. Governance: The growing Naxalite insurgency also reflects a
flaw in the federal structure. Because law and order is seen as a state
responsibility, the central government is unable to be implementing a
coherent national strategy to address the threat. Ganguly notes that “in
the absence of a near complete breakdown of public order or without
the express request of the afflicted state, the central government cannot
intervene.” The government has the overall responsibility of mobilizing
development, but it cannot do so without the support of the states. The
central government and the states need to cooperate together to solve
the internal security threats and co-ordinate the implementation of this
multi-dimensional approach. Both organizations must complement and
support each other’s initiatives and strategies.
Conclusion
Therefore the state must start to fight the conflict legally, minimize
collateral damage, strengthen the leadership of the security forces and
abstain from any human rights violation. The security forces should better
start protecting the population living within the area of conflict instead
of merely confronting the Maoists on large scale. The Naxalite movement
must be challenged politically by presenting better alternatives to the
Maoist approach and offer new perspectives. In this regard the state
should start addressing the basic needs of the poor and fulfilling its main
responsibilities to deliver human development to these disadvantaged
areas.
4.2 MEDIA AND DEMOCRA CY

CY:: ROLE AND
DEMOCRACY
RESPONSIBILITIES
“Media” refers to various means of communication and information

dissemination that reach a large audience. It encompasses a wide range
of platforms, tools, and technologies used to convey messages, ideas,
news, entertainment, and other forms of content. Media can be classified
into different types, including print media (newspapers,
magazines),broadcast media (television, radio), digital media (online
platforms, social media), and more. Its primary purpose is to inform,
entertain, educate, and connect people by conveying information and
content to a widespread audience.The media in India plays a significant
role in shaping public opinion, fostering democracy, and disseminating
information.
Historical Evolution of Media in India
The history of media in India is rich and diverse, reflecting the
country’s cultural, social, and political evolution. In India Traditional
forms of communication included storytelling, manuscripts, and
inscriptions on stone. Ancient texts like the Vedas were passed down
orally before being written.The modern media era began with the arrival
of printing technology in India.The first newspaper, “Hickey’s Bengal
Gazette,” was published in 1780. The 19th century saw the emergence
of regional newspapers and magazines.During British colonial rule, media
played a crucial role in the struggle for independence. Nationalist leaders
used newspapers and magazines to spread awareness about political
issues and unite people against British rule.In 1927, the first experimental
broadcast took place, leading to the establishment of All India Radio
(AIR) in 1930. Radio became a vital medium for disseminating news,
entertainment, and educational programs.Television was introduced in

1959 with the launch of Doordarshan, the state-owned TV broadcaster.
It initially broadcast in black and white and later transitioned to color.
Television became a primary source of news, entertainment, and cultural
content.n the 1990s, liberalization policies led to the growth of private
radio and television channels. This brought about a diversification of
content, including entertainment, news, and educational programming.The
late 20th century saw the rise of the internet, leading to the growth of
online media. News websites, blogs, and social media platforms gained
popularity, enabling faster information dissemination and user
engagement. The proliferation of mobile phones and affordable internet
access expanded digital media consumption. India became one of the
world’s largest users of smartphones and social media platforms.The
21st century witnessed the rise of social media platforms like Facebook,
Twitter, and WhatsApp, transforming how information is shared and
discussed. Social media played a role in political campaigns, social
movements, and public discourse.The history of media in India reflects
a dynamic interplay between traditional and modern forms of
communication, with each era contributing to the rich tapestry of India’s
media landscape.
Different kinds of Indian Media
There are different kinds of media in India, such as print media,
electronic media, and digital media. Each of them has a role and
responsibility in informing, educating, and entertaining the public, as well
as in promoting democracy and good Governance.In India, the types
of media are similar to those found globally. Here are some specific
types of media commonly present in India:-
1. Print Media: This includes newspapers, magazines, journals,

books, and other publications that are printed on paper. Print media is
one of the oldest and most widely used forms of media in India. It has a
large reach and influence, especially in rural areas where access to other
media is limited. Print media is also considered as a credible source of
information and opinion. News papers like Times of India, Hindustan
Times,The Indian Express, Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi), Amar Ujala (Hindi)
and magazines like India Today, outlook, Frontline, Femina, Vogue India,
Reader digest India are some major examples of print media in India.
2. Electric/Broadcast Media: This includes radio, television,
cinema,Cable and Satellite Services, Direct-to-Home (DTH) Services
and other forms of audio-visual communication that are transmitted
through electromagnetic waves. Electronic media is a powerful and
popular form of media in India. It has a wide reach and impact, especially
among the urban and young population. Electronic media is also a source
of entertainment and culture for the masses.
· Doordarshan (DD National) ,Star Plus, Zee TV, Sony
Entertainment, NDTV, Aaj Tak, All India Radio, Radio Mirchi, Radio
FM, Tata sky, Airtel Digital TV,Dish TV,Star Plus are some examples
of Electric or broadcast media in India.
3. Digital Media: This includes internet, social media, mobile
phones, and other forms of online communication that are enabled by
digital technology. Digital media is a new and emerging form of media in
India. It has a growing reach and influence, especially among the educated
and tech-savvy population. Digital media is also a platform for interactive
and participatory communication among the users. Digital media includes
Online Streaming Platforms like hotstar, Netflix, Podcasts like IVM
podcast, Saavn podcast, Video sharing plateform like YouTube India,
Tiktok, Instagram reel, Social media platform like Facebook, Twitter,

whatsapp, Instagram and Online Learning Platforms like Byju’s,
unacademy etc.
Dif
Difffer ent Ag
erent encies Concer
Agencies Concerned ned with Indian
Media
Indian media is a vast and diverse sector that comprises various
types of agencies that are involved in the production, distribution, and
regulation of media content. Some of the different agencies of Indian
media are:
i. Media Houses: These are the organizations that own and
operate various media outlets, such as newspapers, magazines, television
channels, radio stations, websites, and apps. They are responsible for
creating and delivering media content to the audience. Some of the
major media houses in India are Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (The
Times Group), Network18 Group, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.,
The Hindu Group, India Today Group, NDTV Ltd., etc.1
ii. Media Agencies: These are the firms that specialize in media
planning and buying for their clients, who are usually advertisers or
marketers. They help their clients to select the best media platforms,
channels, and formats to reach their target audience and achieve their
campaign objectives. They also negotiate the best rates and deals with
the media owners and monitor the performance and effectiveness of
the campaigns. Some of the top media agencies in India are DDB Mudra
Group, Dentsu Aegis Network, Group M, Havas Media Group, IPG
Mediabrands, Madison World, Omnicom Media Group, Publicis
Media, etc.
iii. Creative agencies: These are the firms that provide creative
services for their clients, such as designing and producing advertisements,
logos, slogans, jingles, brochures, websites, videos, etc. They help their
clients to communicate their brand identity and message to the audience

in an attractive and effective way. Some of the leading creative agencies
in India are Ogilvy & Mather, JWT India, Lowe Lintas, McCann
Erickson India, Leo Burnett India, FCB Ulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd.,
Grey Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd., etc.
iv. Public relations agencies: These are the firms that manage
the reputation and image of their clients, who can be individuals,
organizations, or institutions. They help their clients to build and maintain
positive relationships with the media and the public. They also handle
crisis communication and damage control in case of any negative publicity
or controversy. Some of the prominent public relations agencies in India
are Adfactors PR Pvt. Ltd., Genesis Burson-Marsteller India Pvt. Ltd.,
Edelman India Pvt. Ltd., Perfect Relations Pvt. Ltd., MSLGROUP
India Pvt. Ltd., Weber Shandwick India Pvt. Ltd., etc.
v. Regulatory bodies: These are the authorities that oversee and
regulate the functioning of the media sector in India. They ensure that
the media follows the laws, rules, guidelines, and codes of conduct that
are applicable to them. They also protect the rights and interests of the
media consumers and address their grievances and complaints. Some
of the key regulatory bodies for Indian media are Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting (MIB), Press Council of India (PCI), News
Broadcasters Association (NBA), Broadcast Audience Research
Council (BARC), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI),
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), etc.
Role and R esponsibilities of Media in

Responsibilities
India
The media in India plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion,
disseminating information, and holding those in power accountable. Its
responsibilities include:
1. Informing the Public: Media informs citizens about local,
national, and international news, events, and developments, ensuring an
informed citizenry.
2. Watchdog Function: Media acts as a check on government
and other powerful institutions, uncovering corruption, misuse of power,
and unethical behavior.
3. Promoting Democracy: By providing a platform for diverse
viewpoints and facilitating healthy debates, media fosters democratic
values and the exchange of ideas.
4. Advocacy and Awareness: Media raises awareness about
social issues, human rights violations, and other concerns, often
advocating for positive change.
5. Educational Role: Educational programs and documentaries
on television, radio, and online platforms contribute to public knowledge
and awareness.
6. Entertainment: Media provides entertainment and cultural
content, contributing to leisure and relaxation.
7. Cultural Preservation: Media helps preserve cultural heritage
by showcasing traditional art forms, music, dance, and literature.
8. Social Change: Media campaigns and coverage can drive social
change and influence public opinion on issues like gender equality,
environmental protection, and more.
9. Public Accountability: Investigative journalism holds public

figures, government officials, and businesses accountable for their
actions.
10. Creating a Forum: Through interviews, debates, and
discussions, media provides a platform for different perspectives to be
heard.
11. Consumer Awareness: Media informs consumers about
products, services, and their rights, helping them make informed
decisions.
12. Bridge Between Government and People: Media facilitates
communication between the government and citizens, conveying policies,
initiatives, and public feedback.
However, it’s important to note that media’s effectiveness in fulfilling
these responsibilities can be influenced by factors such as editorial
independence, media ownership, political pressures, and economic
constraints. An independent and ethical media landscape is essential for
upholding its responsibilities effectively.
Challenges Faces by Media
Media in India faces several challenges that can impact its functioning
and effectiveness. Some of these challenges include;
1) Political Influence: Media outlets sometimes face pressure
from political entities to alter coverage, resulting in compromised
objectivity and independence.
2) Media Ownership: Ownership of media organizations by
corporate entities or political figures can lead to biased reporting or
self-censorship to protect financial or political interests.
3) Sensationalism: Sensationalism in reporting for higher

viewership or readership can lead to distortion of facts and shallow
coverage of important issues.
4) Misinformation and Fake News: The rapid spread of
misinformation and fake news on digital platforms can erode public
trust in media and distort public perception
5) Censorship and Self-Censorship: Legal and regulatory
challenges can lead to self-censorship among media professionals to
avoid conflicts with authorities.
6) Lack of Press Freedom: Journalists often face threats,
violence, and harassment when reporting on sensitive topics, limiting
their ability to cover stories freely.
7) Economic Pressures: Media organizations struggle with
financial sustainability due to changing advertising models and competition
from digital platforms, affecting quality journalism.
8) Regional Disparities: While media is concentrated in urban
areas, rural regions often lack access to quality journalism and news
coverage.
9) Language Barriers: India’s linguistic diversity can limit the
reach of media outlets, as many regions have content available in a
limited number of languages.
10) Lack of Media Literacy: Limited media literacy among the
population can result in uncritical acceptance of misinformation and an
inability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources.
11) Ethical Concerns: Some media outlets prioritize sensational
content over responsible journalism, undermining public trust in the media
industry as a whole.
12) Threats to Journalists: Journalists often face threats, attacks,

and intimidation when covering sensitive issues, hindering their ability to
report fearlessly.
Media needs to uphold its role as a responsible and responsive
institution in India’s democracy. It needs to adhere to the principles of
accuracy, fairness, balance, objectivity, impartiality, public interest, social
responsibility, and accountability. Media also needs to adapt to the
changing needs and expectations of the people, as well as to the emerging
trends and challenges in the media environment. Media needs to
collaborate with other actors in the democratic system, such as the
government, the judiciary, the civil society, the academia, and the public.
Media needs to protect its autonomy and diversity from any undue
influence or interference. Media needs to enhance its capacity and
competence to deliver quality journalism that informs, educates,
entertains, empowers, and engages the people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the role of media in Indian democracy is multifaceted
and vital. Serving as a watchdog, educator, and bridge between citizens
and authorities, media facilitates informed decision-making, holds power
accountable, and fosters transparency. By disseminating information,
promoting diverse viewpoints, and encouraging civic engagement, the
media upholds democratic values and strengthens the democratic fabric
of India. However, challenges like bias, sensationalism, and external
influences underscore the need for a responsible and independent media
landscape to effectively fulfill its role in safeguarding the principles of
democracy.
4.3 CIVIL SOCIETY AND INDIAN

DEMOCRACY
Civil society means the entire range of organized groups and

institutions that are independent of the state, voluntary, and at least to
some extent self-generating and self-reliant. This includes non-
governmental organizations, independent mass media, think tanks,
universities, and social and religious groups. Democracy is the system
of government where the people have the power to choose their
representatives and participate in decision-making. Civil society plays
a vital role in a democratic society, as it informs, educates, empowers,
and engages the citizens. Civil society also acts as a watchdog of the
government, holding it accountable and transparent.
Civil society in India derives its strength from the Gandhian

tradition of volunteerism, but today, it expresses itself in many different
forms of activism. In independent India, the initial role played by the
voluntary organizations started by Gandhi and his disciples was to fill in
the gaps left by the government in the development process. The
volunteers organized handloom weavers in village to form cooperatives
through which they could market their products directly in the cities,
and thus get a better price. In the 1980s, however, the groups who
were now known as NGOs became more specialized and the voluntary
movement was, in a way, fragmented into three major groups:
development NGOs, research NGOs, and activist NGOs.
Ev olution of Ci
Evolution vil Society in India
Civil
The evolution of civil society in India can be broadly divided into
several phases.These phases are characterised by changing social
political andeconomic dynamics,which influenced the growth and
Development of Civil Society organizations and movements.
[ Pre-Independence Era: During British rule, civil society in

India was nascent but began to form around issues of national identity,
freedom, and social reform. Organizations like the Indian National
Congress played a pivotal role in advocating for independence.During
this period the civil society played a crucial role in various ways like
Swadeshi movement,Salt march,Quit India movement,women activism
etc.
[ Post independence Phase 1950s-1970s: characterized by
a civil society that was controlled by the elites. In this phase, civil society
derived its strength from the Gandhian tradition of volunteerism, but
was mainly involved in filling in the gaps left by the government in the
development process. The volunteers organized handloom weavers in
villages to form cooperatives through which they could market their
products directly in the cities, and thus get a better price.In the early
years after independence, civil society organizations focused on nation-
building, poverty alleviation, and development.
[ Regime of Indira Gandhi and aftermath: During this
period a mass-based civil society is said to have emerged. In this phase,
civil society became more specialized and fragmented into three major
groups: development NGOs, research NGOs, and activist NGOs. The
development NGOs focused on providing basic services and livelihoods
to the poor and marginalized sections of society.
[ The declaration of a state of emergencyduring this phase led
to a crackdown on civil liberties and civil society organizations. This
period highlighted the need for a robust civil society to safeguard
democratic values
[ Structural Adjustment Programme and rise of NGO
phase(1980s-1990s,): This phase characterized by a drastic rise of
NGO activity in India followed by the professionalization of these NGOs.
In this phase, civil society faced new challenges and opportunities due
to the liberalization and globalization of the Indian economy. On one
hand, civil society had to deal with the negative impacts of structural
adjustment policies such as poverty, inequality, unemployment,
displacement, etc. On the other hand, civil society also benefited from
the increased funding and support from international donors and
agencies. Civil society also became more diverse and networked with
other actors such as media, academia, government agencies, etc.
[ Social Movements and Advocacy (2000s-2010s): Various
social movements, such as the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the Right
to Information movement, gained prominence. Civil society played a
crucial role in advocating for policy changes and accountability.
[ Digital Era and Grassroots Mobilization (2010s-
present): The advent of technology and social media has enabled civil
society groups to connect and mobilize on a larger scale. Grassroots
movements and online activism have gained momentum.During this phase
the civil society also plays role in awareness regarding cultural
preservation and organising activities,community engagement and
inclusivity,sustainable development,philanthropy and social welfare and
health related awareness regarding COVID-19 pendamic.
These are some of the main phases of the evolution of civil society
in India. However, it is important to note that civil society is not a static
or homogeneous entity, but rather a dynamic and heterogeneous one
that changes according to the historical and social context.
Roles and Responsibilities of Civil Society
in Indian Democracy
Civil society also has certain duties and obligations to uphold the
democratic values and principles, and to serve the public interest. Civil
society has to follow certain ethical and professional standards, such as
accuracy, fairness, balance, objectivity, accountability, transparency,

etc. Civil society also has to respect certain legal and constitutional norms
such as freedom of expression, right to information, privacy rights,
defamation contempt of court etc.
Civil society in India plays a crucial role in promoting democracy,
social justice, and development. It includes non-governmental
organizations, community groups, and individuals working together to
address various issues such as human rights, environment, education,
healthcare, and more. Civil society often acts as a check on government
power, advocates for marginalized groups, and raises awareness about
pressing issues.It also helps bridge gaps between the government and
citizens, facilitating communication and collaboration for positive change.
1. Informing the Citizens: Civil society plays significant role to
provides factual, accurate, and timely information to the public on various
issues and events that affect their lives. civil society reports on the
policies and actions of the government, the elections and voting process,
the budget and economic indicators, the social movements and protests,
the cultural festivals and celebrations, the sports competitions and
achievements, the health crises and pandemics, the environmental
challenges and solutions, etc.These are the some examples
♦ Public Health Awareness: NGOs like the Public Health
Foundation of India (PHFI) work to educate citizens about health risks,
diseases, and preventive measures through campaigns and workshops.
♦ Environmental Protection: Organizations like Greenpeace
India focus on informing the public about environmental issues such as
air and water pollution, deforestation, and climate change, leading to
greater awareness and collective action.
♦ Women’s Empowerment: Groups like the Self Employed

Women’s Association (SEWA) empower women through information
dissemination, helping them understand their rights and access to
resources.
♦ Transparency and Accountability: NGOs like the
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) provide citizens with
information about political candidates, their criminal records, and
financial backgrounds, promoting transparency in elections.
♦ Human Rights Advocacy: Civil society organizations like
Amnesty International India work to inform citizens about human rights
abuses, leading to increased awareness and advocacy for justice.
♦ Education Access: NGOs like Pratham focus on providing
information about the importance of education and the availability of
educational opportunities for underprivileged children.
♦ Social Justice: Organizations like the National Campaign on
Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) raise awareness about caste-based
discrimination, fostering discussions around social justice and equality.
♦ Consumer Protection: Groups like Consumer Voice educate
citizens about their rights as consumers, helping them make informed
decisions and holding businesses accountable for fair practices.
These examples highlight how civil society in India serves as a
valuable source of information, empowering citizens to make informed
decisions and actively participate in societal issues.
2. Educating Citizens: Civil society in india plays important role
to educate the people in different areas.Some highlighted areas are
exemplified as;
♦ Awareness Campaigns: Civil society organizations conduct
awareness campaigns on issues such as health, sanitation, and women’s
rights. For example, the “Swachh Bharat Abhiyan” campaign raised
awareness about sanitation and cleanliness.
♦ Adult Literacy Programs: NGOs like the National Literacy

Mission work to eradicate illiteracy by providing adult education,
empowering citizens with basic reading, writing, and numeracy skills.
♦ Child Education Initiatives: Organizations like Pratham
focus on improving primary education by conducting learning camps,
remedial classes, and innovative teaching methods.
♦ Digital Literacy: Civil society groups promote digital literacy,
enabling citizens to access information online. Initiatives like the “Digital
India” campaign aim to make technology accessible to all.
♦ Community Workshops: NGOs organize workshops on topics
like financial literacy, women’s rights, and vocational training, equipping
citizens with practical knowledge.
♦ Legal Awareness: Civil society raises legal awareness through
workshops and campaigns, helping citizens understand their rights and
access justice. For example, the “Bachpan Bachao Andolan” educates
about child labor laws.
♦ Environmental Education: Organizations like the Centre
for Science and Environment,Chipko movement educate citizens about
environmental conservation and sustainable practices.
♦ Civic Engagement: Civil society encourages citizens to engage
in local governance through programs like “Janagraha” that educate
about civic participation and transparent governance.
♦ Health Education: NGOs provide health education on topics
such as HIV/AIDS prevention, maternal health, and vaccination
awareness, improving public health outcomes.
♦ Rural Development Initiatives: Organizations like SEWA
focus on educating rural communities about agricultural practices, water
conservation, and livelihood opportunities.
These examples showcase how civil society in India actively

contributes to educating citizens, empowering them with knowledge
and skills to lead informed and productive lives.
3.Role of Civil Society in Empowering Citizens: Civil society
provides opportunities for participation, engagement, and action on
various issues and events that affect their lives.Civil society in India
empowers citizens in various ways:
♦ Advocacy for Rights: Civil society organizations like Amnesty
International India advocate for human rights and empower citizens to
raise their voices against injustices.
♦ Gender Empowerment: NGOs like SEWA promote
economic and social empowerment among women by providing them
with skills, resources, and a platform for self-reliance.
♦ Transparency and Accountability: Organizations like the
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) empower citizens by
providing information about political candidates’ backgrounds, enabling
informed voting decisions.
♦ Education and Skill Development: Initiatives like Pratham
focus on educating children and enhancing employability skills among
youth, empowering them for a better future.
♦ Environmental Stewardship: Civil society groups like
Greenpeace India empower citizens to take actions for environmental
protection through awareness campaigns and advocacy.
♦ Access to Justice: NGOs like the Human Rights Law Network
provide legal aid and empower marginalized citizens to access justice
and assert their rights.
♦ Health Awareness: Organizations like the Public Health
Foundation of India (PHFI) empower citizens with health information,
promoting healthier lifestyles and disease prevention.
♦ LGBTQ+ Rights: Civil society empowers LGBTQ+
individuals through organizations like The Humsafar Trust, which provides
support, advocacy, and awareness.
These examples highlight how civil society empowers citizens in
India by equipping them with knowledge, resources, and a platform to
engage actively in social, economic, and political matters.
4.Political Participation: Civil society plays a multifaceted role
in enhancing political participation and the electoral process:
♦ Voter Education: Civil society organizations conduct voter
education campaigns, explaining the importance of voting, the electoral
process, and how to register and cast a vote.
♦ Candidate and Issue Awareness: NGOs provide information
about political parties, candidates’ profiles, and their stances on various
issues, enabling voters to make informed choices.
♦ Debate and Dialogue: Civil society creates platforms for
citizens to engage in debates, discussions, and town hall meetings with
candidates, promoting open dialogue and exchange of ideas.
♦ Monitoring Electoral Integrity: Organizations monitor
elections for fairness, transparency, and irregularities, enhancing the
credibility of the electoral process and maintaining citizens’ trust.
♦ Advocacy for Electoral Reforms: Civil society advocates
for reforms in the electoral process, campaign financing, and electoral
rules to ensure a level playing field and greater accountability.
♦ Promoting Inclusivity: NGOs work to include marginalized
groups, women, and minorities in the electoral process, advocating for
their representation and participation.
♦ Voter Registration Drives: Civil society conducts voter
registration campaigns, ensuring that eligible citizens are registered to
vote and are aware of their voting rights.
♦ Promoting Inclusivity: NGOs work to include marginalized
groups, women, and minorities in the electoral process, advocating for
their representation and participation.
♦ Voter Registration Drives: Civil society conducts voter
registration campaigns, ensuring that eligible citizens are registered to
vote and are aware of their voting rights.
♦ Monitoring Political Promises: Organizations track
campaign promises made by candidates, holding them accountable for
delivering on their commitments once elected.
♦ Electoral Integrity Workshops: Civil society conducts
workshops on electoral integrity, educating citizens about how to identify
and report voter fraud or irregularities.
♦ Election Observation: NGOs deploy election observers to
polling stations to ensure transparency and adherence to electoral
procedures, which contributes to free and fair elections.
♦ Post-Election Engagement: Civil society continues to engage
citizens after elections, encouraging them to stay involved in governance
and hold elected officials accountable.
♦ Digital Engagement: Organizations leverage social media
and digital platforms to disseminate election-related information, promote
voter registration, and encourage political discussions.
In sum, civil society plays a vital role in promoting informed and
active political participation, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process,
and advocating for reforms that enhance the democratic experience for
citizens.
Funding Sources of Civil Society in
India
Civil society organizations (CSOs) in India are the various groups
and institutions that work independently of the state, voluntarily, and for
the public interest. CSOs include non-governmental organizations,
independent mass media, think tanks, universities, and social and religious
groups. CSOs play a vital role in Indian democracy, as they inform,
educate, empower, and engage the citizens. CSOs also act as a
watchdog of the government, holding it accountable and transparent.
CSOs in India depend on funds from different sources like
individuals, Indian foundations, state and central governments, and
foundations abroad. According to a report by the Centre for Social
Impact and Philanthropy at Ashoka University, the total funding received
by CSOs in India in 2017-18 was Rs 95,000 crore (about $13 billion),
of which 65% came from domestic sources and 35% from foreign
sources. The domestic sources included individual donations (Rs 36,000
crore), corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds (Rs 15,000 crore),
government grants (Rs 9,000 crore), and Indian philanthropic
foundations (Rs 6,000 crore). The foreign sources included grants from
foreign governments or multilateral agencies (Rs 12,000 crore), foreign
philanthropic foundations (Rs 7,000 crore), and other foreign sources
(Rs 10,000 crore).
Some of the prominent Indian foundations that fund CSOs are the
Azim Premji Foundation, the Tata Trusts, the Infosys Foundation, the
Reliance Foundation, the Nandan Nilekani Philanthropies, and the
Omidyar Network India. Some of the prominent foreign foundations
that fund CSOs are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford
Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Foundations,
and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Criticism of Civil Society in India
Criticism of civil society in India often revolves around various
aspects, despite its positive contributions. Some common criticisms
include:
1. Lack of Representation: Critics argue that civil society
organizations, particularly larger ones, may not be fully representative
of marginalized communities and might not effectively address the needs
of all sections of society.
2. Elite Dominance: Some civil society groups are accused of being
led by urban elites, which could lead to disconnect with the grassroots
and failure to address rural or economically disadvantaged issues.
3. Funding Dependency: There are concerns about civil society
organizations becoming heavily reliant on external funding, which might
compromise their independence and priorities.
4. Political Affiliations: Certain civil society groups are accused
of having political affiliations that could undermine their impartiality and
credibility in advocating for social change.
5. Lack of Accountability: Critics claim that not all civil society
organizations maintain a high level of transparency and accountability in
their operations, leading to mismanagement of funds and inefficiencies.
6. Agenda-Driven: Some civil society organizations are criticized
for having agendas that may not necessarily align with the larger interests
of society, potentially pursuing narrow ideological goals.
7. Overreliance on Activism: Critics argue that an excessive focus
on activism might overshadow other important roles civil society could
play, such as research, policy advocacy, and capacity-building.
8. Limited Impact: There are concerns that despite significant
efforts, some civil society initiatives might not result in substantial and
lasting impact on the ground due to various factors.
9. Fragmentation: The sheer number of civil society organizations
can lead to fragmentation and duplication of efforts, making it challenging
to achieve collective goals effectively.
10 Inconsistent Quality: The quality of work and outcomes can
vary widely among civil society organizations, leading to doubt about
the overall effectiveness of the sector.
It’s important to note that these criticisms are not universally applicable
to all civil society organizations and efforts. Many civil society groups
are actively working to address these concerns and improve their
effectiveness in contributing to positive social change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, civil society in Indian democracy acts as a catalyst
for informed participation, accountability, and inclusivity.India is a
pluralistic and federal country where the role of civil society is crucial
and significant.Despite of some criticism and shortcomings Its role is
important in raising awareness, advocating for policies, engaging citizens,
and ensuring transparency strengthens the democratic fabric. By bridging
the gap between government and citizens, civil society contributes
significantly to a vibrant and responsive democracy that reflects the
diverse needs and aspirations of the Indian populace.
4.4 GOVERN
GOVERNANCE AND INDIAN
VERNANCE
DEMOCRACY
Governance has been defined to refer to structures and processes

that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness,
rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-
based participation. Governance also represents the norms, values and
rules of the game through which public affairs are managed in a manner
that is transparent, participatory, inclusive and responsive.
The World Bank defines governance as the manner in which power
is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social
resources for development. It involves the institutions, policies, and
processes through which citizens and groups articulate their interests,
exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their
differences The Oxford English Dictionary defines governance as the
action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc.; the system by
which a state or other organization is governed.
According to Rhodes “Governance refers to self-organizing, inter-
organizational networks characterized by interdependence, resource-
exchange, rules of the game, and significant autonomy from the state”.
Of all the definitions of governance, the one made by the
Commission on Global Governance is one of the most representative
and definitive. In a research report titled Our Global Neighbourhood
issued in 1995, the commission defined governance thus: “governance
is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and
private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through
which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and
cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and
regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal
arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or

perceive to be in their interest.”
Thus the governance refers to the exercise of political and
administrative authority at all levels to manage a country’s affairs. It
comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which
citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights,
meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Specific reference
is made to democraticGovernance as “a process of creating and
sustaining an environment for inclusive and Responsive political processes
and settlements.” The institutional and human capacities for Governance
determine the way in which the effectiveness of public policies and
strategies is attained, especially in service delivery.
Good Go Gov ver nance
ernance
Good governance is the process of measuring how public institutions
conduct public affairs and manage public resources andguaranteesthe
realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and
corruption and with due regard for the rule of law. UN Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and Pacific indicates 8 majorCharacteristics
of good governance. It is participatory, consensus Oriented,
accountable, transparent, Responsive, effective and efficient, equitable
and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It Assures that corruption is
minimized, the Views of minorities are taken into account And that the
voices of the most vulnerable in Society are heard in decision-making.
It is Also responsive to the present and future needs of society.
Go
Gov ver nance in India
ernance
India is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic with a
Parliamentary form of government which is federal in structure with
unitary features. There is a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minster
as its head to advice the President who is the constitutional head of the
country. Similarly in states there is a Council of Ministers with the Chief

Minister as its head, who advices the Governor.
Constitution of India lays down certain Directive Principles of State
Policy, which though not justiciable, are ‘fundamental in governance of
the country’, and it is the duty of the State to apply these principles in
making laws. These lay down that the State shall strive to promote the
welfare of people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a
social order, in which justice-social, economic and political-shall form
in all institutions of national life. The State shall direct its policy in such a
manner as to secure the right of all men and women to an adequate
means of livelihood, equal pay for equal work and within limits of its
economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for
securing the right to work, education and to public assistance in the
event of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement or other
cases of undeserved want. The State shall also endeavour to secure to
workers a living wage, humane conditions of work, a decent standard
of life, and full involvement of workers in management of industries,
free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years,
promotionsof education and economic interests of scheduled castes,
scheduled tribes and other weaker sections; organisation of village
panchayats; separation of judiciary from executive; promulgation of a
uniform civil code for whole country etc. Thus these DPSP promote the
idea of welfare state and make the India as a socialist democratic state.
Indian governance and administration at the Central, state as well as
local level can be defined under the following heads.
1. Central and State Council of Ministers:
Central Council of Ministers: The Central Council of Ministers
in India is responsible for the executive functions of the central
government. It consists of the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers,
Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers.
♦ Prime Minister: The head of the Council of Ministers. The
Prime Minister is responsible for leading the government, making key

policy decisions, and representing India internationally.
♦ Cabinet Ministers: They head various ministries and are
responsible for policy formulation, decision-making, and administration
in their respective areas.
♦ Ministers of State: They assist Cabinet Ministers and may
have independent charge of certain departments or functions.
♦ Deputy Ministers: They assist Cabinet Ministers and Ministers
of State.
The Central Council of Ministers collectively participates in policy-
making, proposing legislation, and implementing government programs.
They meet regularly to discuss and decide on important issues.
♦ State Council of Ministers: Each state in India has its own
Council of Ministers, mirroring the structure at the central level. The
State Council of Ministers is headed by the Chief Minister, who is
responsible for the administration of the state. Similar to the central
level, there are Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, and Deputy
Ministers. The State Council of Ministers is responsible for managing
state affairs, implementing central government policies, and addressing
state-specific issues. Both the Central and State Councils of Ministers
play pivotal roles in governance, policy implementation, and decision-
making within their respective jurisdictions in India.
2. Secretariat and Departments at both level: India is a federal
structure of polity, where both central and state government makes and
execute the policies in their respective subjects defined by the
constitution. Central and State Secretariats in India serve as
administrative hubs responsible for the functioning of the respective
central government and state governments. Here’s a general overview

of how they work:
Central Secretariat:
♦ Structure: The Central Secretariat is located in New Delhi
and consists of various ministries and departments. Each ministry is
responsible for a specific area of governance, such as finance, defence,
health, education, etc.
♦ Roles and Functions: The Central Secretariat assists the
government in policy formulation, implementation, and decision-making.
It handles matters related to legislation, administration, and inter-
ministerial coordination
♦ Hierarchy: The structure includes ministers, ministers of state,
secretaries, and other officials. The Prime Minister is the head of the
government and is supported by various ministers and their respective
ministries.
♦ Coordination: The Central Secretariat ensures coordination
between different ministries and departments to facilitate effective
governance at the national level.
State Secretariat:
♦ Structure: Each state in India has its own State Secretariat,
located in the state’s capital. It consists of departments headed by
secretaries, who report to the Chief Secretary.
♦ Roles and Functions: The State Secretariat is responsible
for implementing policies and programs of the state government. It advises
the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers on governance matter
♦ Hierarchy: The Chief Minister is the head of the state
government and is supported by various ministers responsible for
different portfolios. The Chief Secretary, who is the highest-ranking
civil servant in the state, heads the State Secretariat.
♦ Coordination: The State Secretariat coordinates the activities
of different departments and provides administrative support to the state
government. It plays a key role in ensuring effective governance within

the state.
Both the Central and State Secretariats play crucial roles in the
governance structure of India by facilitating communication, coordination,
and execution of policies and programs at their respective levels of
government.
3. Divisional and District Administration: In India, the
administrative structure is organized into divisions and districts. Divisions
are larger administrative units that consist of several districts, while
districts are the primary administrative units responsible for local
governance and administration. Districts are further divided into sub-
districts called tehsils or taluks, which are then divided into villages or
towns. District collectors or deputy commissioners are the top
administrative officers in districts and play a key role in implementing
government policies and programs at the local level.
A divisional commissioner is the head of a division. He acts as a
supervisory and directorial officer and occupies an intermediate position
in the hierarchy between the district collector and the state secretariat.
A District Collector or Dupty Commissioner is the head of district
administration and the official agent of the state government in the district.
The District Collector belongs to the General Administration Department
of the state government (i.e. the State Secretariat) which is headed
politically by the Chief Minister and administratively by the Chief
Secretary. The collector is controlled and supervised by Divisional
Commissioner.
4. Role of Local Bodies: Local governance in India is facilitated
through local bodies, which are institutions responsible for governing
and administering specific local areas. These bodies play a crucial role
in decentralizing power and decision-making, ensuring that local
communities have a say in their own development. The two main types
of local bodies in India are:
→ Rural Local Bodies/ Panchayats: Panchayats are local self-
government institutions at the village, intermediate, and district levels.
They are responsible for local administration, rural development, and
grassroots democracy.73rd amendment of 1992 constitutional zed the
panchyet raj system in India.
♦ Three tier system: the act provides for at three-tier system of
Panchyet Raj in every state that is panchayats at village, intermediate
and district level.
♦ Gram Panchayat: Gram sabha or gram panchyet is elected
body at the village level, responsible for local governance, basic services,
and development activities.
♦ Intermediate Panchayat: At the intermediate (block/tehsil)
level, coordinates between gram panchayats and district panchayats.
However, a state having a population not exceeding 20 lakh may not
constitute panchyats at the intermediate level.
♦ Zila (District) Panchayat: At the district level, responsible
for district-wide planning and development.
♦ Reservation of seats: The act provide for the reservation of
seats for schedule caste and schedule tribe in every panchyet. This
provision of social inclusiveness at the grassroots level further
strengthens the idea of democracy and decentralization in India.
→ Urban Local Bodies:
♦ Municipalities: Municipalities are local self-government
institutions in urban areas, responsible for urban planning, infrastructure,
and service delivery.
♦ Municipal Corporation: In larger urban areas, it has more
autonomy and authority in governance and administration.
♦ Municipal Council/ Nagar Panchayat: In smaller urban

areas, responsible for local governance and services.
It’s important to note that the specific subjects and functions of
local bodies can vary from state to state in India, as local government is
a state subject. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments have
provided a framework for the functions and powers of rural and urban
local bodies, respectively, but the actual implementation can differ based
on local needs, state policies, and administrative structures.
5. Financial Administration: Financial administration in India
involves the management, allocation, and utilization of financial resources
at different levels of governance. It includes:
♦ Budgeting: Both the central and state governments prepare
annual budgets outlining revenue sources, expenditures, and fiscal
policies.
♦ Revenue Generation: Governments collect revenue through
taxes, duties, fees, and grants.
♦ Expenditure Allocation: Funds are allocated to various
sectors, ministries, and programs based on development priorities.
♦ Fiscal Responsibility: Governments aim to maintain fiscal
discipline, manage deficits, and ensure sustainable financial practices
♦ Financial Accountability: Transactions are audited by the
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to ensure transparency and
accountability.
♦ Transparency: Regular financial reports are published, and e-
governance is used to enhance transparency.
♦ Public Finance Management: Governments use fiscal
policies to manage economic growth, inflation, and public debt

responsibly.
♦ Financial Inclusion: Initiatives ensure access to financial
services for all citizens, including digital payment systems and direct
benefit transfers.
♦ Finance Commissions: The Finance Commission of India
and State Finance Commissions play pivotal roles in fiscal federalism,
revenue distribution, and financial management within India’s governance
structure. The Finance commission of India established under article
280 Recommend distribution of tax revenues between the centre and
states. It suggests principles for sharing grants-in-aid from the centre to
states. It also examines the financial needs of both the centre and states
and recommends revenue-sharing mechanisms and makes
recommendations to ensure fiscal balance and equitable
development.State Finance Commissions are established under Article
243(I) of the Constitution. Each state forms a Finance Commission to
recommend financial distribution between state government and local
bodies.
Overall, financial administration in India aims to ensure responsible
financial management, equitable resource allocation, and sustainable
development.
6. Execution of law and order at the centre and state level In
India:In India, law and order fall under the purview of the respective
Home Ministries at both the central and state levels. The Home Ministry
is responsible for overseeing and managing various aspects of internal
security, law enforcement, and public order within their jurisdiction. At
the central level, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is responsible for
matters related to internal security, law and order, border management,
disaster management, and various central police organizations. The

MHA coordinates with state governments on issues related to law and
order and provides support when needed.
At the state level, each state has its own Home Department or
Home Ministry, which is responsible for maintaining law and order within
the state’s borders. The State Director General of Police (DGP) is usually
the head of the state police force and reports to the Home Ministry.
The state Home Ministry collaborates with central authorities when
there’s a need for cooperation on matters of national importance or
interstate concerns. This division of responsibility ensures a balance
between central and state governments in maintaining law and order,
allowing for efficient management of security and public order across
the country.
7. Role of Constitutional and statutory commissions for of
weaker sections: Constitutional and statutory commissions in India
play a crucial role in advocating for the upliftment of weaker sections
and underprivileged communities. These commissions are established
to safeguard the rights, interests, and well-being of these marginalized
groups. Among these commissions the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, are
constitutional bodies. While National Commission for Backward
Classes, National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for
Women, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights are
statutory bodies. These commissions have the authority to investigate,
inquire into grievances, and recommend measures to address challenges
faced by these communities. They play a significant role in influencing
policy decisions, advocating for legislative changes, and promoting
inclusive development.
8. Integrated Judicial system: The integrated judicial system in

India consists of multiple levels of courts, including the Supreme Court
at the apex, High Courts in each state, and subordinate courts. This
structure ensures a hierarchical and organized approach to the
administration of justice across the country. The Supreme Court acts as
the highest authority in matters of law and interpretation, while the High
Courts and subordinate courts handle cases at regional and local levels.
This integrated system helps maintain consistency and coherence in legal
proceedings and decisions throughout India.
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of appeal in the
country. It has the authority to hear and decide on appeals from lower
courts and tribunals, as well as to interpret and uphold the Constitution.
The decisions of the Supreme Court are final and binding, and they set
legal precedents for the entire judicial system in India.
9. Welfare Schemes and social security: Welfare schemes and
social security programs in India are designed to provide support and
assistance to vulnerable and marginalized sections of society. Here’s a
brief overview of some major schemes;
♦ Public Distribution System (PDS): This program ensures
the distribution of essential food commodities like rice, wheat, and sugar
at subsidized rates to below-poverty-line families.
♦ Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (MGNREGA): MGNREGA guarantees 100 days of wage
employment in a financial year to rural households. It aims to provide
employment opportunities and enhance livelihoods in rural areas.
♦ Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY): PMAY aims to
provide affordable housing to urban and rural poor by offering financial
assistance for constructing or purchasing a house.
♦ Jan DhanYojana: This financial inclusion program focuses on

providing every household with a basic banking account, insurance
coverage, and access to credit facilities.
♦ National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP): NSAP
includes various schemes like Old Age Pension, Widow Pension, and
Disability Pension to provide financial assistance to elderly, widowed,
and disabled individuals.
♦ Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY):
PMMVY provides financial assistance to pregnant and lactating women
to ensure proper nutrition and health during their maternity period.
♦ Atal Pension Yojana (APY): APY is a pension scheme aimed
at ensuring a stable income for individuals in the unorganized sector
during their old age.
♦ National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM): NRLM
focuses on improving the livelihoods of rural poor through skill
development, capacity building, and access to credit and financial
services.
♦ RashtriyaSwasthyaBimaYojana (RSBY): RSBY provides
health insurance coverage for below-poverty-line families to help them
afford medical expenses.
♦ Swachh Bharat Abhiyan: This cleanliness and sanitation
campaign aims to make India open defecation-free and improve overall
sanitation and hygiene.
Good Go Gov ver nance in India
Good governance in India refers to a system of transparent,
accountable, efficient, and participatory administration that serves the
best interests of its citizens. Here are some key aspects of good
governance in India:
1. Transparency: Government actions, decisions, and processes

should be open and easily accessible to the public. Transparency helps
reduce corruption and builds trust between the government and citizens.
2. Accountability: Government officials and institutions are held
responsible for their actions and decisions. This ensures that public
resources are used efficiently and effectively.
3. Rule of Law: The government operates within the framework
of established laws and regulations. This ensures that all individuals,
regardless of their status, are treated fairly under the law.
4. Participation: Citizens have the right to participate in decision-
making processes that affect their lives. This can be through mechanisms
like public consultations, feedback mechanisms, and community
involvement.
5. Efficiency and Effectiveness: Government processes and
services should be streamlined to deliver results efficiently. Timely and
effective service delivery enhances public satisfaction.
6. Equity and Inclusiveness: Policies and programs should be
designed to address the needs of all segments of society, especially the
marginalized and vulnerable populations.
7. Decentralization: Power and decision-making are distributed
to local levels of government, allowing communities to have a say in
matters that affect them directly.
8. Ethical Conduct: Government officials should maintain high
ethical standards and integrity in their actions and decisions.
9. Technology and Innovation: The use of technology can
enhance transparency, efficiency, and accessibility of government
services. Innovation can lead to more effective solutions for governance
challenges.
10. Sustainability: Policies and programs should take into account

environmental, social, and economic factors to ensure the long-term
well-being of citizens.
11. Conflict Resolution: Mechanisms for peacefully resolving
disputes and conflicts should be in place to maintain social harmony.
Achieving good governance is an ongoing process that requires
commitment from both the government and the citizens. It is essential
for fostering development, ensuring the protection of rights, and building
a just and equitable society in India.
**********
Bibliography
1. Kohli.A: "India's Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State-
Society Relations"
2. Khilnani.S: "The Idea of India"
3. Chandra.B: "India's Struggle for Independence"
4. Mehta,Jayal Raghavan.S & Book: "The Oxford Handbook
of Indian Politics"
5. Béteille.A: "Democracy and Its Institutions"
6. Yadav.Y: "Democracy in India: An Overview"
7. Shastri.S : "The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation in
India"
8. Chhibber.P & Verma.R : "The Indian Voter: Who, Why, and
How?
9. "India: Democracy and Governance" by International Institute
for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA).
10. "State of Democracy in South Asia: A Report" by Centre for
the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung (KAS).
11. Habib.I: The National movement.
12 Venkatesrl E: Democratic Decentralization in India: Experiences,
Issues and Challenges.
13. M Laxmikant: Governance in India.
14. Guha.R: Makers of Modern India.

Political PDF M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political PDF M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FUNCTIONING OF

Zain Bin Hussain Batt (BALLB, M.A, NET, SET)

Jahangeer Ahmad Bhat ( M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D0

© All rights reserved.

Typeset & Cover Design in India by

2.3 DEMOCRACY AT THE GRASSROOT

P Evolution of Democracy at Grassroot Level

Democracy is a form of government in which the people have

Democracy in India is a complex and fascinating topic that has

The Westminster model of governance is a type of parliamentary system

1.4 INDIA’S DEMOCRA

Indian Democracy is one of the most vibrant and diverse political

The Nehruvian era in India, spanning from 1947 to 1964, was a

progress. From adopting universal adult franchise to implementing Five-

fundamental rights. The Constitution of India, which came into effect in

secularism. He believed in the power of democratic institutions to foster

and vision played a pivotal role in shaping India’s democratic institutions

2.2 WORKING OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY

Indian democracy in the post-Nehruvian era has been a

environmental concerns. Her critiques have called attention to the impact

Democracy at the grassroots level in India refers to the process of

3.1 NEO-LIBERALISM AND INDIAN

Neo-liberalism is an economic and political ideology that advocates for

of Indian democracy. He highlights the need for democratic governance

3.2 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND INDIAN

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary

[ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case

directed the government to take various measures to abolish the practice

intervention and respecting the authority of the elected representatives

3.3 COALITION POLITICS AND INDIAN

Coalition politics is a form of governance where multiple political parties

Coalition governments are prevalent in parliamentary

These perspectives from important political thinkers showcase the

3.4 SECULARISM AND INDIAN

Secularism is a political and philosophical principle that advocates

1. Religious Freedom: Secularism upholds the right of individuals

5) Legal Battles: Disputes over religious practices and places of

4.1 NAXALITE MOVEMENT AND INDIAN

Naxalite are a group of left radical communist and the supporter of

Origin and Historical Background of

resettlement and rehabilitation reveal that payment of compensation for

VI. Sexual Exploitation & False Charges against tribal:Tribal

due to the Maoists losing ground to the Indian forces. Furthermore, it

In these operations, the ISI seems to act as a third party, because

3. Military: Currently, the main instrument employed by the

4.2 MEDIA AND DEMOCRA CY

“Media” refers to various means of communication and information

entertainment, and educational programs.Television was introduced in

1. Print Media: This includes newspapers, magazines, journals,

Tiktok, Instagram reel, Social media platform like Facebook, Twitter,

clients to communicate their brand identity and message to the audience

Role and R esponsibilities of Media in

9. Public Accountability: Investigative journalism holds public

3) Sensationalism: Sensationalism in reporting for higher

12) Threats to Journalists: Journalists often face threats, attacks,

4.3 CIVIL SOCIETY AND INDIAN

Civil society means the entire range of organized groups and

Civil society in India derives its strength from the Gandhian

[ Pre-Independence Era: During British rule, civil society in

accuracy, fairness, balance, objectivity, accountability, transparency,

♦ Women’s Empowerment: Groups like the Self Employed

♦ Adult Literacy Programs: NGOs like the National Literacy

These examples showcase how civil society in India actively

Governance has been defined to refer to structures and processes