Unit 27: Democracy and Development in India - An Exhaustive Assessment

Introduction to the Assessment of Democracy and Development in India

The academic discourse surrounding democracy and development in India is characterized by two contradictory assessments. One perspective argues that both democracy and development have succeeded in the Indian context, while the alternative view suggests that both have failed. These assessments examine these phenomena both as independent entities and as interdependent variables, exploring whether they are fundamentally compatible or inimical to one another. This unit provides a comprehensive overview of these assessments, distinguishing between procedural and substantive democracy and exploring their various models, strategies, and historical evolution.

The Historical Evolution of Indian Democratic Institutions

India's democratic system was not a sudden post-independence creation but evolved through a series of colonial-era legislative steps. These institutions began to grow under British rule due to internal demands within India and pressure from sections of the English political establishment. Key milestones in this evolution include the Government of India Acts of $1909$, $1919$, and $1935$. Following the exhaustive deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, democracy was formally established in post-independence India on January $26$, $1950$, with the enforcement of the Republican Constitution. India specifically opted for a parliamentary form of government to build a modern nation-state founded on the principles of universal adult franchise and periodic elections, choosing this path over a village-level governance model based on Gandhian principles.

Procedural vs. Substantive Models of Democracy

The assessment of democracy varies significantly based on the indices used for measurement. There are two primary models of democratic indices. The first is procedural democracy, which is institutional and minimalist. It measures democracy based on the presence of specific institutions, such as political parties, associations, periodic elections, universal adult franchise, and formal leadership. The second model is substantive or effective democracy, which views the procedural/electoral model as an insufficient indicator. Substantive democracy looks beyond the electoral mechanism into the social space, focusing on redistributive justice, human capabilities, entitlements (such as education, health, and infrastructure), social capital (trust, values, norms), civil society, human rights, and governance factors like participation, accountability, efficacy, and transparency.

The Procedural Perspective: Participation, Competition, and Modernization

Adherents of the procedural model generally view Indian democracy as a success. This assessment relies on two main criteria: participation and competition. Participation is measured by voter turnout and the percentage of votes polled by various parties, while competition is indicated by the frequency of elections and the number of political parties contesting them. Scholars utilizing this approach, such as Rajni Kothari, M. Franda, Paul R. Brass, Field, and Myron Wiener, often employ survey methods and statistical analyses—including correlation, coefficient, and regression analysis—to identify dominant trends. This is sometimes referred to as ecological analysis when it integrates socio-economic and political data from specific constituencies. However, some critics argue these survey-based analyses can be error-packed, lack qualitative depth, and fail to account for the periods between elections. Modernization theory, central to this early period, posits that socio-economic modernization, including urbanization, mass media spread, education, and wealth, would eventually lead to a stable democracy and the disappearance of traditional divisions like caste and religion.

Challenges to Procedural Democracy and the Modernization Thesis

In the decades following independence, the optimistic projections of modernization theory were frequently challenged. Selig Harrison notably predicted a "dangerous decade" for India in the $1960s$ due to linguistic and ethnic violence. This decade and the $1970s$ saw escalating conflict, leading to the defeat of the Congress party in several state assembly elections in $1967$ and the eventual imposition of Emergency from $1975$ to $1977$. The political executive responded to public discontent with authoritarianism and the personalization of institutions. While some scholars viewed the Emergency as a mere aberration, others criticized the behavioralist/structural-functional modernization thesis for prioritizing the survival of the nation-state over deeper democratic values.

Substantive Democracy: Social Agenda and Capability

Critiques of procedural democracy are rooted in the substantive view, which argues that while formal institutions are necessary, they are not sufficient conditions for a true democracy. Beetham argued for a "social agenda of democratization," suggesting democracy must be grounded in the reality of society rather than just electoral competition. Conversely, Fareed Zakaria has criticized the substantive model for using normative terminology like "good governance" and wide-ranging rights instead of focusing on descriptive democracy. Niraja Jayal highlights the relationship between the state and democracy, arguing that an effective state requires a strong civil society to counter potential authoritarianism. Jayal characterizes the Indian state as an interventionist, developmental state rather than a pure welfare state, noting that particularistic interests can sometimes hijack democratic projects in the absence of universal citizenship criteria.

Identity Politics and the Deepened Democratic Content

The rise of identity politics and new social movements—including those involving Dalits, OBCs (Other Backward Classes), women, tribals, and environmental issues—has shifted focus toward substantive democracy. Ashutosh Varshney views this as a process of "deepening democracy," suggesting that India is becoming more democratic as diverse groups assert their identities. However, some scholars from India's peripheries, such as the North-East, provide a critique of the nation-state perspective. Sanjib Baruah, in his book "India Against Itself," proposes a "province-state" alternative. These developments coincide with an increased focus on governance, social capital, and human rights as the primary indicators of a functioning democracy.

Democratic Decentralization and Local Governance

The $73^{rd}$ and $74^{th}$ Constitutional Amendments represent a significant shift toward democratized decentralization. By transferring $29$ subjects to local bodies and mandating the inclusion of women, OBCs, and Dalits at the grassroots level, these amendments aimed to break the monopoly of dominant social groups in local self-governance. However, challenges remain, such as female members of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) often acting as proxies for male family members. Additionally, the influence of crime and money has at times eroded the credibility of local democracy. In his book "Democracy and Discontent: India's Crisis of Governability," Atul Kohli examines these dynamics across three levels: the nation, the state, and the district, moving beyond the traditional "top-bottom" approach.

Regional Variations and the Crisis of Governability

Scholars have noted that democracy is not uniform across India. Patrick Heller uses the concept of "disaggregated democracy" to show that Kerala has a higher degree of democracy than other parts of the country, attributed to its "robust civil society," "effective state," and progress in health, education, and distributive justice for subaltern groups. In contrast, Atul Kohli argues that Indian democracy faces a "crisis of governability," caused by a disjuncture between weakening institutions and multiplying demands from undisciplined political mobilization and class conflicts. Rajni Kothari observed that while the state was an "accommodationist" and consensus-building entity during the first two decades post-independence, it became increasingly populist and personalized after the $1970s$, with the executive undermining democratic institutions.

Theoretical Perspectives: Political Economy and Consociationalism

L.I. and S.H. Rudolph analyzed the relationship between the Indian state's political economy and democracy using the concepts of "demand polity" and "command polity," noting that the nature of the economy, rather than the regime type, dictates the polity. To explain how India's diversity hasn't led to its collapse, Arend Lijphart provides a "consociational interpretation." This theory suggests that power-sharing among ethnic groups via four conditions—coalition government, cultural autonomy, proportional representation, and minority veto—explains the success of the Indian system. Lijphart points to the Congress system, federalism, and protective discrimination as evidence. However, Paul R. Brass criticizes this model, arguing it is inapplicable to India's modern history and noting that internal squabbling within alliances often threatens such power-sharing arrangements.

Conceptualizing Development: Economic Growth vs. Human Capability

Development is traditionally defined by economists as growth in per capita income and Gross National Product (GNP). Sociologists and political scientists linked it to modernization and nation-building processes, such as urbanization and the formation of political institutions. Amartya Sen provides an influential alternative model, arguing that GNP and per capita income are insufficient. In Sen's view, development must be measured by the expansion of human capabilities and entitlements, which include education, health, infrastructure, and liberty.

The Relationship Between Democracy and Development

The debate on the compatibility of democracy and development remains polarized. Deepak Nayyar identifies a tension between economic development and political democracy in India, noting that while the poor are included in the democratic process, they are excluded from the market. Nayyar divides the state's role into three phases: $1947$-$1966$ (consensus and state-led management), $1967$-$1990$ (erosion of consensus, populism, and patronage), and $1990$-onwards (liberalization). He argues that in the current phase, economics and politics are moving in opposite directions, as people lack the entitlements required for market participation. Pranab Bardhan argues that democracy and development are irreconcilable in India because the state is paralyzed by conflicting interests among proprietary classes (industrial capitalists, rich farmers, and professionals) and "turmoil from below" by disadvantaged groups. Conversely, Amartya Sen maintains that democracy and development are complementary; freedom is an essential ingredient for development, and democracy is most effective when people possess the capabilities to participate fully.