essay on democracy in india

CBSE Class 10th
CBSE Class 12th
UP Board 10th
UP Board 12th
Bihar Board 10th
Bihar Board 12th

Top Schools

Top Schools in India
Top Schools in Delhi
Top Schools in Mumbai
Top Schools in Chennai
Top Schools in Hyderabad
Top Schools in Kolkata
Top Schools in Pune
Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

JEE Main Knockout April
Free Sample Papers
Free Ebooks
NCERT Notes
NCERT Syllabus
NCERT Books
RD Sharma Solutions
Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
NCERT Solutions
NCERT Solutions for Class 12
NCERT Solutions for Class 11
NCERT solutions for Class 10
NCERT solutions for Class 9
NCERT solutions for Class 8
NCERT Solutions for Class 7
JEE Main 2024
MHT CET 2024
JEE Advanced 2024
BITSAT 2024
View All Engineering Exams
Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
Top Engineering Colleges in India
Engineering Colleges in India
Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
Top IITs in India
Top NITs in India
Top IIITs in India
JEE Main College Predictor
JEE Main Rank Predictor
MHT CET College Predictor
AP EAMCET College Predictor
GATE College Predictor
KCET College Predictor
JEE Advanced College Predictor
View All College Predictors
JEE Advanced Cutoff
JEE Main Cutoff
MHT CET Result 2024
JEE Advanced Result
Download E-Books and Sample Papers
Compare Colleges
B.Tech College Applications
AP EAMCET Result 2024
MAH MBA CET Exam
View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

MBA College Admissions
MBA Colleges in India
Top IIMs Colleges in India
Top Online MBA Colleges in India
MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
BBA Colleges in India
XAT College Predictor 2024
SNAP College Predictor
NMAT College Predictor
MAT College Predictor 2024
CMAT College Predictor 2024
CAT Percentile Predictor 2024
CAT 2024 College Predictor
Top MBA Entrance Exams 2024
AP ICET Counselling 2024
GD Topics for MBA
CAT Exam Date 2024
Download Helpful Ebooks
List of Popular Branches
QnA - Get answers to your doubts
IIM Fees Structure
AIIMS Nursing
Top Medical Colleges in India
Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
Medical Colleges accepting NEET
List of Medical Colleges in India
List of AIIMS Colleges In India
Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
NEET College Predictor
NEET PG College Predictor
NEET MDS College Predictor
NEET Rank Predictor
DNB PDCET College Predictor
NEET Result 2024
NEET Asnwer Key 2024
NEET Cut off
NEET Online Preparation
Download Helpful E-books
Colleges Accepting Admissions
Top Law Colleges in India
Law College Accepting CLAT Score
List of Law Colleges in India
Top Law Colleges in Delhi
Top NLUs Colleges in India
Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

CLAT College Predictor
MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
AILET College Predictor
Sample Papers
Compare Law Collages
Careers360 Youtube Channel
CLAT Syllabus 2025
CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
NID DAT Exam
Pearl Academy Exam

Predictors & Articles

NIFT College Predictor
UCEED College Predictor
NID DAT College Predictor
NID DAT Syllabus 2025
NID DAT 2025
Design Colleges in India
Top NIFT Colleges in India
Fashion Design Colleges in India
Top Interior Design Colleges in India
Top Graphic Designing Colleges in India
Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
Top Interior Design Colleges in Bangalore
NIFT Result 2024
NIFT Fees Structure
NIFT Syllabus 2025
Free Design E-books
List of Branches
Careers360 Youtube channel
IPU CET BJMC
JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
IIMC Entrance Exam
Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
CA Intermediate
CA Foundation
CS Executive
CS Professional
Difference between CA and CS
Difference between CA and CMA
CA Full form
CMA Full form
CS Full form
CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
Master of Commerce (M.Com)
Company Secretary
Cost Accountant
Charted Accountant
Credit Manager
Financial Advisor
Top Commerce Colleges in India
Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
Top B.Com Colleges in India
IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
MCA Colleges in India
BCA Colleges in India

Diploma Colleges

Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
UPSC IAS 2024
SSC CGL 2024
IBPS RRB 2024
Previous Year Sample Papers
Free Competition E-books
Sarkari Result
QnA- Get your doubts answered
UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

NDA Application Form 2024
UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
CDS Application Form 2024
CTET Admit card 2024
HP TET Result 2023
SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
UPTET Notification 2024
SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

SSC CHSL 2024
UP PCS 2024
UGC NET 2024
RRB NTPC 2024
IBPS PO 2024
IBPS Clerk 2024
IBPS SO 2024
Top University in USA
Top University in Canada
Top University in Ireland
Top Universities in UK
Top Universities in Australia
Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

Study in USA
Study in UK
Study in Canada
Study in Australia
Study in Ireland
Study in Germany
Study in China
Study in Europe

Student Visas

Student Visa Canada
Student Visa UK
Student Visa USA
Student Visa Australia
Student Visa Germany
Student Visa New Zealand
Student Visa Ireland
CUET PG 2024
IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
DU Admission 2024
UP B.Ed JEE 2024
LPU NEST 2024
IIT JAM 2024
IGNOU Online Admission 2024
Universities in India
Top Universities in India 2024
Top Colleges in India
Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
Top Universities in Bihar
Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
Central Universities in India
CUET DU Cut off 2024
IGNOU Date Sheet
CUET DU CSAS Portal 2024
CUET Response Sheet 2024
CUET Result 2024
CUET Participating Universities 2024
CUET Previous Year Question Paper
CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
E-Books and Sample Papers
CUET Exam Pattern 2024
CUET Exam Date 2024
CUET Cut Off 2024
CUET Exam Analysis 2024
IGNOU Exam Form 2024
CUET PG Counselling 2024
CUET Answer Key 2024

Engineering Preparation

Knockout JEE Main 2024
Test Series JEE Main 2024
JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

Knockout NEET 2024
Test Series NEET 2024
Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

JEE Main One Month Course
NEET One Month Course
IBSAT Free Mock Tests
IIT JEE Foundation Course
Knockout BITSAT 2024
Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

IT & Software Certification Courses
Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
Programming And Development Certification Courses
Business and Management Certification Courses
Marketing Certification Courses
Health and Fitness Certification Courses
Design Certification Courses

Specializations

Digital Marketing Certification Courses
Cyber Security Certification Courses
Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
Business Analytics Certification Courses
Data Science Certification Courses
Cloud Computing Certification Courses
Machine Learning Certification Courses
View All Certification Courses
UG Degree Courses
PG Degree Courses
Short Term Courses
Free Courses
Online Degrees and Diplomas
Compare Courses

Top Providers

Coursera Courses
Udemy Courses
Edx Courses
Swayam Courses
upGrad Courses
Simplilearn Courses
Great Learning Courses

Democracy In India Essay

Democracy is regarded as the best type of government since it allows citizens to directly elect their leaders. They have access to a number of rights that are fundamental to anyone's ability to live freely and peacefully. There are many democratic countries in the world, but India is by far the biggest. Here are a few sample essays on the topic ‘Democracy In India’.

100 Words Essay On Democracy

200 words essay on democracy, 500 words essay on democracy.

Democracy is a term used to describe a form of government in which the people have a voice by voting. Democracy is an essential part of any society, and India is no exception. After years of suffering under British colonial control, India attained democracy in 1947. India places a great emphasis on democracy. India is also without a doubt the largest democracy in the world.

The spirit of justice, liberty, and equality has permeated Indian democracy ever since the country attained independence. As the world’s largest democracy, India has been a shining example of how democracy can foster progress and ensure rights for all its citizens.

In a democracy, the people have the ultimate say in how their government is run. They elect representatives to represent them in government, and they can hold those representatives accountable through regular elections. And finally, the rule of law is important in a democracy to ensure that everyone is treated equally before the law and that the government operates within its proper bounds. Democracy has been a recent phenomena in human history, only really taking root in the last few centuries. But it has quickly become one of the most popular forms of government around the world. India is one of the world’s largest democracies, with over 1 billion people living within its borders.

India's constitution serves as the foundation for its democracy. The Indian Constitution guarantees equality for all citizens regardless of caste, creed, or religion. It also establishes a system of representative government, with elected officials at the national, state, and local levels. And finally, it enshrines the rule of law by establishing an independent judiciary to interpret and uphold the Constitution.

There are many different types of democracy, but most modern democracies are based on the principles of popular sovereignty, representative government, and rule of law and public opinion.

There are two main types of democracies—direct and representative. Direct democracy allows citizens to participate directly in the decision-making process, while representative democracy allows citizens to elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. The advantages of democracy in India include the fact that it allows for greater participation of citizens in the political process, and it also provides checks and balances on the government. The disadvantages of democracy in India include the fact that it can be slow to make decisions and that it can be difficult to hold people accountable for their actions.

Features Of Indian Democracy

Sovereignty | One important aspect of Indian democracy is sovereignty. The absolute control a governing body has over itself without external influence is referred to as sovereignty. In India's democracy, people can also exert their power. The fact that Indians choose their representatives is remarkable. Furthermore, these officials continue to be accountable to the general public.

Political Equality | It is the foundation of Indian democracy. It also simply means that everyone is treated equally under the law. The fact that there is no discrimination based on caste, religion, race, creed, or sect is particularly notable. As a result, all Indian citizens have equal political rights.

Rule Of Majority | A key component of Indian democracy is the rule of the majority. Furthermore, the winning party creates and governs the government. In addition, the party with the most seats creates and governs the country. Most importantly, no one can object to majority support.

Socialist | Being socialist implies that the country continuously prioritises the needs of its citizens. The poor person should be offered numerous incentives, and their fundamental needs should be met by any means necessary.

Secular | There is no such thing as a "state religion," and there is no discrimination based on religion in this nation. In the eyes of the law, all religions must be equal; it is not acceptable to discriminate against anyone based on their religion. Everyone has the right to practise and spread any religion, and they are free to do so at any moment.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Democracy In India

There are many advantages and disadvantages of democracy in India. On the one hand, democracy gives everyone an equal say in how the country is run. This is particularly important in a country as large and diverse as India. On the other hand, democracy can also be slow and chaotic, and it can be difficult to get things done. One advantage of democracy in India is that it ensures that everyone has a say in how the country is run. This is especially important in a country as large and diverse as India.

There are many different languages spoken in India, and democracy ensures that everyone has a voice. Another advantage of democracy in India is that it leads to more stability than other forms of government. In a dictatorship, for example, one person has all the power. This can lead to them making decisions that are not in the best interests of the country. In a democracy, there are checks and balances in place so that no one person has too much power.

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Physics formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

PW JEE Coaching

Enrol in PW Vidyapeeth center for JEE coaching

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Accepted by more than 11,000 universities in over 150 countries worldwide

PTE Exam 2024 Registrations

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Certifications

We Appeared in

About Project
Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Democracy in India

List of essays on democracy in india, essay on democracy in india – short essay for children (essay 1 – 150 words), essay on democracy in india – 10 lines on democracy written in english (essay 2 – 250 words), essay on democracy in india (essay 3 – 300 words), essay on democracy in india – what is democracy (essay 4 – 400 words), essay on democracy in india – for school students (class 6, 7 and 8) (essay 5 – 500 words), essay on democracy in india – for college students (essay 6 – 600 words), essay on democracy in indian constitution (essay 7 – 750 words), essay on democracy in india – long essay for competitive exams like ias, ips civil services and upsc (essay 8 – 1000 words).

India is considered as the lighthouse that guides the democratic movement in the African–Asian countries. Democracy in India is backed by our written Constitution which consists of a list of all fundamental laws upon which our nation is to be governed.

January 26, the day on which our Constitution came into effect is celebrated as Republic Day and it was on this day that Democracy truly entered India.

Audience: The below given essays are exclusively written for school students (Class 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Standard) and college students. Furthermore, those students preparing for competitive exams like IAS, IPS and UPSC can also increase their knowledge by studying these essays.

Introduction:

Democracy in India can be defined as a government by the people, of the people and for the people. In India the government is formed by the citizens through their elected representatives.

Principle of Democracy in India:

In a democracy at least the fundamental rights of the individuals are guaranteed. The five principles by which the democracy in India works are Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic and Republic.

Enhancement Areas:

Some of the areas in which the Democracy in India can be improved include the eradication of poverty, encouraging people to vote and educate them about choosing the appropriate candidate, increasing literacy etc.

Conclusion:

Democracy in India is one of the biggest in the world and is celebrated worldwide. Given the wide range of culture and diversity, the need of the hour is that democracy is upheld without losing the diverse heritage of which the country is proud of. Democracy in India would be smooth when the emotions of every culture is acknowledged.

India is the largest democracy in the world. The citizens of the country who are above 18 years of age, elect their representatives in the Lok Sabha via secret ballots (general elections). They are elected for a period of 5 years and ministers are chosen from the elected representatives. India became a democratic nation in 1947 and thereafter the leaders were elected by the people of India. Different parties’ campaign using different future agendas and they emphasize on what they did for the development of people between the election periods. This way, the citizens can make an informed choice in selecting a particular representative.

The word democracy is derived from Greek and it literary means ‘power of the people’. The government is run by the people and it if for the people. The model of Indian democracy is followed by the entire Afro-Asian countries. Our form of democracy in India is much different from democracy of other nations like England and USA.

Although the democracy in India is much advanced, there are still some drawbacks which affect the healthy functioning of the system. These include religion and ignorance. Although we say India is a secular country, but there are still people present who believe in treating people from different religions differently. We have advanced from the ancient traditions like Sati but now a days, people kill each other over killing of Cow, which is considered as a sacred animal for Hindus. Other than these, much work needs to be done to reduce and eliminate poverty, illiteracy and gender discrimination among a list of many others.

India is the largest country in the world that follows the Democratic form of government. With a population of over a billion, India is a secular, socialistic, republic, and democratic country in the world. India is considered as the lighthouse that guides the democratic movement in the African–Asian countries.

Meaning of Democracy:

Democracy means ‘by the people, for the people, and of the people’. A democratic country is one whose government is made of the people, elected by the people to serve the people. The Indian country is governed by a parliamentary system of governance which follows the constitution of India. During the past 70 years, India has held regular elections for the legislative and parliamentary assemblies, reflecting the power of the election commission, who is regarded as the powerful authority.

Democracy in India has a very strong foundation that runs deep into the cultural and moral ethics. Thanks to the efficient leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, etc., whose contribution to a successful democratic India is immeasurable.

Principles of Democratic India:

Democracy in India follows five principles. They are:

a) Secular – A place where people are bestowed with the freedom of religion, to follow a religion of their own choice.

b) Social – Providing equality to everyone irrespective of their caste, creed, color, gender, and other differences.

c) Sovereign – A country that is free from the control of any foreign authorities or power.

d) Democratic – A country where the government is made for the people, by the people of the country with the representatives of people.

e) Republic – No hierarchy is followed while the head of the country is elected by regular elections and the power changes at a regular period of interval.

Not only does democracy in India mean that every citizen has the right to vote, but also it says that people – the citizens of India have full right to question the government if the government doesn’t ensure equality to its citizens in all spheres of life. While democracy in India is effective, we have a long way to go to become a successful democratic country. Illiteracy, poverty, discrimination, and other social issues should be eradicated completely to enjoy the real fruit of democracy in India.

The best definition of democracy has been described as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. India became a sovereign democratic nation back in the year 1947 and the country is still on the roads to development.

In true terms, democracy in India would mean a country wherein people can find quality and they have the freedom to express themselves. The ideal nation is going to be truly democratic and this leaves us with a baffling question. Is democracy in India truly established?

Given the state of turmoil which our nation is in, the question indeed has a palpable and sorry answer. To be honest, if democracy in India was legit, people will have the power to choose their destiny. While we do have a voting system in place which gives people the power to elect their representative, it is often seen to be grossly misused.

The Need to Educate and Enlighten:

If we want the largest democracy of the world to truly live up to the meaning of democracy; it is important to both educate and enlighten the masses. More and more people need to understand the power that has been vested in them. When the commoners understand the kind of influence they can have as far as choosing their political leader is concerned; it might help them think meticulously before putting in the vote and can sanctify the meaning of democracy in India.

There are so many people who do not even bother to register a vote. Are they not bothered about the outcome and progress of their nation? Unless, the right measures are taken to truly educate the mass about how democracy in India is the glorious future we should all dream of, things are least likely to change.

Handling the Flaws:

It’s been a long time since we became independent. So, it is important now to handle the flaws in the democracy in India. The seeds of corruption have been very deeply set in our country and one needs to do something as a start to combat the problem.

It is easy to whine and very hard to put up a fight. So, the right thing which you should do is ensure that you do your bit for the sake of improving the state of affairs of the country. Give in your best shot and be hopeful that things will change for the good as far as democracy in India is concerned.

When the people of the country start taking an active part in the welfare of the state, we will achieve the true meaning of democracy in India.

The word Democracy is derived from the Greek words ‘Demos’ and ‘Kratos’. Demos means People and Kratos means Power. Together put, it means People’s Power. Abraham Lincoln described Democracy as ‘Government by the people, for the people and of the people’. The emphasis on people clearly shows that Democracy is a people-centric form of government. Many consider it to be a superior form of governance as it ensures social and economic equality of every citizen in the country.

In India, a Democratic government was formed only after its freedom from the British rule in 1947. However, the practices of a Democratic system in India go way back. Both Rigveda and Atharvaveda have references of a system where the people gather as a whole and elect Kings.

Democracy in India is backed by our written Constitution which consists of a list of all fundamental laws upon which our nation is to be governed. January 26, the day on which our Constitution came into effect is celebrated as Republic Day and it was on this day that Democracy truly entered India.

Types of Democracy:

Democracy is of two types, Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy.

In Direct Democracy, all the people come together in a single place to elect the governing executives themselves. This is possible for small cities where the population is less and everybody can gather together at one place. Even today, Switzerland exercises a Direct Democracy system.

Indirect Democracy is exercised in countries where there is huge population, making it difficult for all to gather at one place. In this case, people elect representatives who in turn elect the governing executive. Hence in India, Indirect Democracy is practiced.

Five Principles of Indian Democracy:

Democracy in India operates on five important principles:

1. Sovereign: In our country, we Indians are the supreme power and are not controlled by any other foreign power.

2. Socialist: There is economic and social equality promised to every citizen of India.

3. Secular: Every Indian citizen has the freedom to practise his religion of choice.

4. Democratic: Our government is elected by the people.

5. Republic: Supreme power is held by the people and their nominated representatives, instead of a hereditary king.

Working of Indian Democracy:

India has a Federal government where there are separate State governments which come under a single Central government. Indian citizens elect their leaders by the system of voting. Both State and Central elections happen once in five years. Every citizen above the age of eighteen years has the right to vote irrespective of caste, color, creed, religion, gender and education.

Any citizen has the right to stand as a candidate for the post of President and Prime Minister irrespective of religion, gender and education. Elections happen through secret ballots. People elect their representatives of the State who in-turn elect the Head of State, the Chief Minister. Similarly, the public elect the members of the Parliament who in turn elect the Prime Minister.

Democracy in India has succeeded on contrary to the beliefs of many political scientists. Today, India is a pioneer of Democracy in Asia and all other Asian and African countries look up to us for Democratic inspirations.

India is a democratic nation. If you do not know what democracy means, one of the most popular definition has to be, “the government by the people, for the people, of the people.”

So, if we truly want our nation to be democratic and preserve the value of this term, it signifies the fact that the common people should all be a part of the development of the nation. The government should so function that their decisions help in the betterment of the country and the citizens.

Are we truly a democratic nation?

A lot of people argue as to whether or not we are truly democratic, we need to know that there is still a long way to go. As per the books of law and the great Indian constitution, we can see that we are one of the leading democratic countries. However, if you decide to go beyond the books, you will perceive the change. There is a long way to go because democracy has a wider and deeper meaning.

The True Meaning:

Democracy means that people elect the representatives who in turn take charge of the nation and help in the betterment and upliftment of the citizens. While in India, which is a top democratic country, we do have the power to elect our representatives, there is still a lot which needs to be done. Our elected representatives do not understand the importance of the office they are holding. This is why the country has failed to make the kind of progress which it may have otherwise made.

Along with this, it is also seen that there are a lot of unscrupulous means which are often used for the sake of electing representatives. There has to be even more control when it comes to voting and election. When people are clear about their role and they understand that it is with their influence and power that the future of the country can be improved, they are likely to put their power to right use.

How can we truly live up to the tag of democracy?

The change needs to begin with you. There are so many people who complain about how our country has made a mockery of democracy, however what one has to clearly understand is that democracy calls for an equal work by everyone. Remember rather than whining and blaming, you should make it a point to do something yourself.

Create an awareness campaign and try and explain people as to why and how they could bring a change in the nation and contribute towards justifying the tag of India being a true democracy. This awareness and education can be critical in pushing the right waves of change.

Choose leader wisely: It is also important to make sure that we are mindful of who we are choosing as our leaders. You should take the decision on the right parameters rather than being judgmental and getting hoodwinked by superficial factors. The right decision today can safeguard your tomorrow.

So in the end you should understand that democracy is definitely one of the founding pillars for any progressive nation, India is a democracy but we still have a long way to go. Both the individuals and the leaders need to understand the true meaning of democracy and then find the right ways to work around things.

There is no great bond than what ties people to their motherland. So you should make it a point to let the meaning and feeling of democracy seep inside your body and mind and then let it work the magic. Our country deserves our love and respect and definitely the undivided attention as well.

So, let us do our bit for true democracy.

Over a long period of time, India has been ruled by different rulers as well had different forms of government. However, post the British era, India has seen a constant form of government which is governed under the law as laid down under the constitution of India. Democracy is one such important feature of our constitution. Under democracy, the citizens of the country have the right to vote as well the members who in turn form the government.

History of Democracy

The earliest mention of the word democracy has been found in the Greek political texts dating back to 508-507 BC. It has been derived from the word demos which mean common people and Kratos which means strength.

Democracy in Indian Constitution:

Democracy through the constitution of India gives its nationals the privilege to cast a ballot regardless of their rank, caste, creed religion or gender. It has five equitable standards – secular, socialist, republic, sovereign and democratic. Different political organisations represent people at the state and national level. They proliferate about the undertakings achieved in their past residency and furthermore share their tentative arrangements with the general population.

Each citizen of India, over the age of 18 years, has the privilege to cast a vote. The government has always encouraged the individuals to make their choice and cast their vote. Individuals must know everything about the applicants representing the decisions and vote in favour of the most meriting one for good government.

India is known to have an effective democratic framework. In any case, there are some loopholes as well that dampen the spirit of democracy and should be dealt with. In addition to other things, the legislature must work on disposing of poverty, lack of education, communalism, gender discrimination and casteism with the end goal to guarantee democratic system in its obvious sense.

Importance of Democracy in Indian Politics:

Indian democratic government is described by peaceful conjunction of various thoughts and beliefs. There are solid collaboration and rivalry among different political organisations. Since the poll is the path of democratic system, there exist numerous political organisations and every organisation has their own agenda and thoughts.

Good Effects of Democracy:

The democracy has its own share of advantages as well as disadvantages for the common citizens of the country. First, it is instrumental in protecting the rights of the citizens and gives them all the right to choose their government. Additionally, it does not allow a monocratic rule to crop us as all leaders know that need to perform in case they want the people to elect them during the next elections as well. Hence they cannot assume that they have powers forever. Giving all the citizens right to vote provides them with a sense of equality irrespective of their caste, gender, creed or financial status.

The government so formed after democratic elections is usually a stable and responsible form of government. It makes the government socially responsible towards all citizens and the government cannot ignore the plight of its citizens. On the other side, the citizen also behaves in a responsible manner as they know that it is not only their right but their duty as well to choose the government wisely. They are themselves to be blamed if they do not get the government they had wished for it is they who have not rightly exercised their right to vote.

Ill Effects of Democracy:

Democracy, however, leads to misuse of public funds as time and again the elections are conducted at short intervals when we don’t get a stable government and there is infighting among the elected representatives. Also, though considered a duty, the people at times do not exercise their right to vote and a very less voting percentage is seen in many areas which do not give a fair chance to all contestants. Last, but not the least, unfair practices during elections dampen the very spirit of democracy.

A government who strive to be successful cannot overlook the majority of the population that work at fields and the middle class in India. The laws are confined by just thoughts and beliefs of the population. Majority ruling government keeps away from struggle and showdown and makes a peaceful climate for all to live a happy life.

However, at times it has been seen that the majority of the general population of our nation are ignorant and struggle to make their ends meet on day to day basis. Except if the nation is financially and instructively propelled, it will not be right to believe that the electorate will utilize their right to vote to the best advantages of themselves and the nation.

Introduction (Definition) and Concept of Democracy in India:

Democracy in India is the largest in the whole world. Democracy means that the citizens of that country have the power to choose their government. Based on that concept laid by Abraham Lincoln, democracy in India gives rise to a government which is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Since independence, our constitution has made sure that democracy in India is exercised in its truest form. The greatest of all the powers given to the citizens is their right to vote and maintain the fair establishment of democracy in India.

Not only that, but the system of democracy in India also gives every citizen the right to form a political party and participate in the elections. As you can see, the democracy in India focuses more on its common people than its ruling party.

Importance and Need of Democracy in India:

But why has the democracy in India gained so much hype globally? Well, with the second largest population in the world, we would have been a mess, if it were not for the democracy in India. There are people from so many religions, castes, and creeds that incorporating the system of democracy in India was the only way out to maintain peace in the country.

With so much cultural and religious diversity, democracy in India protects the citizens from unjustified partialities and favoritism. Democracy in India gives equal rights and freedom to every person regardless of their beliefs and standard of living.

The scheduled caste and scheduled tribes in our country had been out casted from the main society since ages. Democracy in India makes sure that they get as many opportunities and support from us as anyone else needs to grow and progress in life.

And to be honest, it’s not just the tribes and castes, in fact, in the absence of democracy in India, there would be so many disparities on gender and income levels. The allegedly weaker and less privileged sections of society including women, transgender, and physically handicapped would be mere space fillers in the country. Democracy in India empowers them with full rights and freedom of speech as well.

Types and Forms of Democracy in India:

Basically, there are two types of Democratic system practiced in the world. The same holds true in the context of our nation also. These two types of democratic systems are direct democracy and indirect democracy.

First, we will talk about direct democracy. In this kind of system, people directly participate in the process of picking their leaders. In fact, they are physically present during the whole process and collectively announce the name of their leader. As you can see, such kind of method is not feasible in the case of a large population. This is the reason why direct democracy in India has disappeared over the years. If at all, it is only followed in small villages and panchayat.

The second type of democracy is indirect democracy. The indirect democracy in India is the most popular alternative to form the government in the country. In this system, instead of getting involved directly, citizens of the nation participate indirectly in the process of electing their leaders. The biggest way to practice indirect democracy in India is by giving the votes during the election.

In the case of indirect democracy, the political parties pick a handful of their worthiest members and help them stand and fight in the elections. The common public gets to vote in favor of their favorite political leader. The one who gets the highest votes becomes the ruling minister in the respective region.

Democracy in India (Reality and Expectations):

Although ideally, all the procedures involved in the indirect democracy in India sound flawless, the ground reality is something else. Incorporating laws, in theory, is much easier than following in practical life. Same is the story with our country.

No matter how much we claim to have a fair and transparent system of democracy in India, we must admit that there are plenty of loopholes in reality. For instance, voting is done through Electronic voting machines (EVM).

The EVM topic has been the talk of the town for a while in India, especially during the recent elections. Allegedly, the ruling parties have been accused of interfering with the machines which led to a huge scam. In other words, it can be called nothing but a great dishonor to the indirect democracy in India.

Apart from that, we have a long history of violence and terror in the common public spread by the political parties, right before the major elections. This kind of shameful threating is specifically true in case of villages and small towns where people are made to vote at gunpoint for a particular party.

Moreover, democracy in India gives everyone equal rights to participate in the elections and in the process of voting. However, these right have been hampered on many occasions. A few years ago, women candidates in the political parties were not taken seriously. Even if they fought in the elections and won, their decision making was mainly carried out either by their husbands or by other political leaders in the same party.

The road to democracy in India has been uneven and tricky for the trans-genders as well. It wasn’t much before when they were crashed and killed just for trying to attempt and enter the political arena of the country.

That being said, things are changing at a considerable pace and for the better. There are more openness and acceptance in terms of people from other genders and age groups. The Election Commission is following strict measures to ensure a clean and fair system of democracy in India.

Democracy , Democracy in India , Political System

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

Like this post? Don’t forget to share it!

Here are a few recommended articles for you to read next:

Which is More Important in Life: Love or Money | Essay
Essay on My School
Essay on Solar Energy
Essay on Biodiversity

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

Donald Trump
Warren Buffett
Email Address
Free Stock Photos
Keyword Research Tools
URL Shortener Tools
WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

How To Win Friends
Rich Dad Poor Dad
The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
The Luck Factor
The Millionaire Fastlane
The ONE Thing
Think and Grow Rich
100 Million Dollar Business
Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

Mobile Addiction
Social Media Addiction
Computer Addiction
Drug Addiction
Internet Addiction
TV Addiction
Healthy Habits
Morning Rituals
Wake up Early
Cholesterol
Reducing Cholesterol
Fat Loss Diet Plan
Reducing Hair Fall
Sleep Apnea
Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

Subconscious Mind
Vision Board
Visualization

Law of Vibration

Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

Bob Proctor
Robert Kiyosaki
Vivek Bindra
Inner Peace

Productivity

Not To-do List
Project Management Software
Negative Energies

Relationship

Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

Body Language
Complainers
Emotional Intelligence
Personality

Social Media

Project Management
Anik Singal
Baba Ramdev
Dwayne Johnson
Jackie Chan
Leonardo DiCaprio
Narendra Modi
Nikola Tesla
Sachin Tendulkar
Sandeep Maheshwari
Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Essay on Democracy in India

Students are often asked to write an essay on Democracy in India in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Democracy in India

Introduction.

India, the world’s largest democracy, is a shining example of a democratic nation. Democracy in India ensures the participation of citizens in the country’s governance.

Democratic Principles

India follows democratic principles such as equality, freedom, and secularism. These principles are enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Democratic Processes

Democratic processes like elections allow citizens to choose their representatives. The Election Commission ensures free and fair elections in India.

Challenges to Democracy

Despite its successes, Indian democracy faces challenges such as corruption, illiteracy, and social inequality. These issues need to be addressed for a stronger democracy.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Democracy in India

India, the world’s largest democracy, is a shining example of the democratic process. The essence of democracy, “of the people, by the people, for the people,” is deeply ingrained in the Indian psyche.

Democratic Structure

India’s democratic structure is a federal one with a President as the head of state and a Prime Minister as the head of government. The Indian democracy is characterized by a multi-party system, where political parties compete for power in elections held every five years.

However, the Indian democracy is not without its challenges. The most prominent among these are corruption, political instability, and the lack of education among the masses. These issues often lead to a distortion of the democratic process and hinder its smooth functioning.

Role of Judiciary

The judiciary in India plays a crucial role in upholding the principles of democracy. It acts as the guardian of the constitution, ensuring that the rights and freedoms of citizens are protected against any infringement.

500 Words Essay on Democracy in India

India, often hailed as the largest democracy in the world, has a rich history of democratic governance that dates back to its independence in 1947. Democracy in India is not just a political system but a way of life, embodying the values of equality, justice, and freedom.

Historical Background

The roots of democracy in India can be traced back to the ancient times, where village assemblies known as ‘Sabhas’ and ‘Samitis’ were operational. However, the modern form of democracy was introduced by the British during the colonial period. Post-independence, India adopted a democratic republic model with a President as the head of state and a Prime Minister as the head of government.

Constitution: The Pillar of Democracy

Democratic institutions.

India’s democratic framework is supported by various institutions like the Parliament, Judiciary, and the Election Commission. The Parliament, consisting of two houses, is responsible for law-making. The Judiciary, independent of the executive and legislature, safeguards the rights of citizens and upholds the constitution. The Election Commission ensures free and fair elections, the heart of the democratic process.

Despite its robust democratic framework, India faces several challenges. These include political corruption, lack of transparency, and the misuse of power. The criminalization of politics and the role of money power in elections are major concerns. Additionally, social issues like casteism, communalism, and regionalism often disrupt the democratic process.

Democracy and Development

Future of democracy in india.

The future of democracy in India looks promising but challenging. The rise of information technology and social media has made the democratic process more transparent and participative. However, the misuse of these platforms for spreading fake news and hate speech is a concern. Strengthening democratic institutions, promoting political literacy, and ensuring greater transparency can help in deepening democracy in India.

Democracy in India is an evolving process. It has successfully withstood the test of time and has been instrumental in upholding the country’s unity in diversity. However, to ensure its continued success, it is crucial to address the challenges it faces and strive towards a more inclusive and participatory democracy. Democracy in India is not just about periodic elections, but about ensuring justice, liberty, and equality for all its citizens.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

Updated on
Jan 15, 2024

The oldest account of democracy can be traced back to 508–507 BCC Athens . Today there are over 50 different types of democracy across the world. But, what is the ideal form of democracy? Why is democracy considered the epitome of freedom and rights around the globe? Let’s explore what self-governance is and how you can write a creative and informative essay on democracy and its significance.

Today, India is the largest democracy with a population of 1.41 billion and counting. Everyone in India above the age of 18 is given the right to vote and elect their representative. Isn’t it beautiful, when people are given the option to vote for their leader, one that understands their problems and promises to end their miseries? This is just one feature of democracy , for we have a lot of samples for you in the essay on democracy. Stay tuned!

This Blog Includes:

What is democracy , sample essay on democracy (100 words), sample essay on democracy (250 to 300 words), sample essay on democracy for upsc (500 words).

Democracy is a form of government in which the final authority to deliberate and decide the legislation for the country lies with the people, either directly or through representatives. Within a democracy, the method of decision-making, and the demarcation of citizens vary among countries. However, some fundamental principles of democracy include the rule of law, inclusivity, political deliberations, voting via elections , etc.

Did you know: On 15th August 1947, India became the world’s largest democracy after adopting the Indian Constitution and granting fundamental rights to its citizens?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Very helpful essay

Thanks for your valuable feedback

Thank you so much for informing this much about democracy

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Democracy Essay for Students in English

Essay on Democracy

Introduction.

Democracy is mainly a Greek word which means people and their rules, here peoples have the to select their own government as per their choice. Greece was the first democratic country in the world. India is a democratic country where people select their government of their own choice, also people have the rights to do the work of their choice. There are two types of democracy: direct and representative and hybrid or semi-direct democracy. There are many decisions which are made under democracies. People enjoy few rights which are very essential for human beings to live happily.

Our country has the largest democracy. In a democracy, each person has equal rights to fight for development. After the independence, India has adopted democracy, where the people vote those who are above 18 years of age, but these votes do not vary by any caste; people from every caste have equal rights to select their government. Democracy, also called as a rule of the majority, means whatever the majority of people decide, it has to be followed or implemented, the representative winning with the most number of votes will have the power. We can say the place where literacy people are more there shows the success of the democracy even lack of consciousness is also dangerous in a democracy. Democracy is associated with higher human accumulation and higher economic freedom. Democracy is closely tied with the economic source of growth like education and quality of life as well as health care. The constituent assembly in India was adopted by Dr B.R. Ambedkar on 26 th November 1949 and became sovereign democratic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950.

What are the Challenges:

There are many challenges for democracy like- corruption here, many political leaders and officers who don’t do work with integrity everywhere they demand bribes, resulting in the lack of trust on the citizens which affects the country very badly. Anti-social elements- which are seen during elections where people are given bribes and they are forced to vote for a particular candidate. Caste and community- where a large number of people give importance to their caste and community, therefore, the political party also selects the candidate on the majority caste. We see wherever the particular caste people win the elections whether they do good for the society or not, and in some cases, good leaders lose because of less count of the vote.

India is considered to be the largest democracy around the globe, with a population of 1.3 billion. Even though being the biggest democratic nation, India still has a long way to becoming the best democratic system. The caste system still prevails in some parts, which hurts the socialist principle of democracy. Communalism is on the rise throughout the globe and also in India, which interferes with the secular principle of democracy. All these differences need to be set aside to ensure a thriving democracy.

Principles of Democracy:

There are mainly five principles like- republic, socialist, sovereign, democratic and secular, with all these quality political parties will contest for elections. There will be many bribes given to the needy person who require food, money, shelter and ask them to vote whom they want. But we can say that democracy in India is still better than the other countries.

Basically, any country needs democracy for development and better functioning of the government. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are considered to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests.

Let us Discuss These Five Principles in Further Detail

Sovereign: In short, being sovereign or sovereignty means the independent authority of a state. The country has the authority to make all the decisions whether it be on internal issues or external issues, without the interference of any third party.

Socialist: Being socialist means the country (and the Govt.), always works for the welfare of the people, who live in that country. There should be many bribes offered to the needy person, basic requirements of them should be fulfilled by any means. No one should starve in such a country.

Secular: There will be no such thing as a state religion, the country does not make any bias on the basis of religion. Every religion must be the same in front of the law, no discrimination on the basis of someone’s religion is tolerated. Everyone is allowed to practice and propagate any religion, they can change their religion at any time.

Republic: In a republic form of Government, the head of the state is elected, directly or indirectly by the people and is not a hereditary monarch. This elected head is also there for a fixed tenure. In India, the head of the state is the president, who is indirectly elected and has a fixed term of office (5 years).

Democratic: By a democratic form of government, means the country’s government is elected by the people via the process of voting. All the adult citizens in the country have the right to vote to elect the government they want, only if they meet a certain age limit of voting.

Merits of Democracy:

better government forms because it is more accountable and in the interest of the people.

improves the quality of decision making and enhances the dignity of the citizens.

provide a method to deal with differences and conflicts.

A democratic system of government is a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections. It permits citizens to participate in making laws and public policies by choosing their leaders, therefore citizens should be educated so that they can select the right candidate for the ruling government. Also, there are some concerns regarding democracy- leaders always keep changing in democracy with the interest of citizens and on the count of votes which leads to instability. It is all about political competition and power, no scope for morality.

Factors Affect Democracy:

capital and civil society

economic development

modernization

Norway and Iceland are the best democratic countries in the world. India is standing at fifty-one position.

India is a parliamentary democratic republic where the President is head of the state and Prime minister is head of the government. The guiding principles of democracy such as protected rights and freedoms, free and fair elections, accountability and transparency of government officials, citizens have a responsibility to uphold and support their principles. Democracy was first practised in the 6 th century BCE, in the city-state of Athens. One basic principle of democracy is that people are the source of all the political power, in a democracy people rule themselves and also respect given to diverse groups of citizens, so democracy is required to select the government of their own interest and make the nation developed by electing good leaders.

FAQs on Democracy Essay for Students in English

1. What are the Features of Democracy?

Features of Democracy are as follows

Equality: Democracy provides equal rights to everyone, regardless of their gender, caste, colour, religion or creed.

Individual Freedom: Everybody has the right to do anything they want until it does not affect another person’s liberty.

Majority Rules: In a democracy, things are decided by the majority rule, if the majority agrees to something, it will be done.

Free Election: Everyone has the right to vote or to become a candidate to fight the elections.

2. Define Democracy?

Democracy means where people have the right to choose the rulers and also people have freedom to express views, freedom to organise and freedom to protest. Protesting and showing Dissent is a major part of a healthy democracy. Democracy is the most successful and popular form of government throughout the globe.

Democracy holds a special place in India, also India is still the largest democracy in existence around the world.

3. What are the Benefits of Democracy?

Let us discuss some of the benefits received by the use of democracy to form a government. Benefits of democracy are:

It is more accountable

Improves the quality of decision as the decision is taken after a long time of discussion and consultation.

It provides a better method to deal with differences and conflicts.

It safeguards the fundamental rights of people and brings a sense of equality and freedom.

It works for the welfare of both the people and the state.

4. Which country is the largest democracy in the World?

India is considered the largest democracy, all around the world. India decided to have a democratic Govt. from the very first day of its independence after the rule of the British. In India, everyone above the age of 18 years can go to vote to select the Government, without any kind of discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, religion, gender or more. But India, even being the largest democracy, still has a long way to become perfect.

5. Write about the five principles of Democracy?

There are five key principles that are followed in a democracy. These Five Principles of Democracy of India are - secular, sovereign, republic, socialist, and democratic. These five principles have to be respected by every political party, participating in the general elections in India. The party which got the most votes forms the government which represents the democratic principle. No discrimination is done on the basis of religion which represents the secular nature of democracy. The govt. formed after the election has to work for the welfare of common people which shows socialism in play.

Online Courses
Unique Courses
Scholarships
Entrance Exams
Study Abroad
Question Papers

Click on the Menu icon of the browser, it opens up a list of options.
Click on the “Options ”, it opens up the settings page,
Here click on the “Privacy & Security” options listed on the left hand side of the page.
Scroll down the page to the “Permission” section .
Here click on the “Settings” tab of the Notification option.
A pop up will open with all listed sites, select the option “ALLOW“, for the respective site under the status head to allow the notification.
Once the changes is done, click on the “Save Changes” option to save the changes.

Essay on India's Democracy for Students in English

A democracy is a form of governance in which citizens exercise power by voting. In India, democracy retains a special position. Furthermore, India is without a doubt the world's largest democracy. In addition, India's democracy is rooted in its constitution. After suffering under British colonial control, India became a democratic nation in 1947. Most notably, Indian democracy has been infused with the spirit of justice, liberty, and equality since independence.

History of Democracy

The ancient Greeks are thought to have established the earliest example of democracy. This democracy type was employed in the 5th century B.C. and was formed in Athens, the capital. It was a flawless form of government that distinguished itself from the other governing systems common at the time, such as oligarchy and monarchy. It is crucial to highlight, however, that there are major distinctions between today's definition of democracy and the Athenian understanding of democracy.

A noteworthy difference is that in ancient Athens, those eligible to vote were only adult Athenian men; there was no participation of women, slaves, minors, or others. The model that followed Athenian democracy was the Roman model, which essentially functioned along the foundation of Athenian democracy and hence made no substantial adjustments. The first English parliament was established in 1265, ushering in the distinct feature of division of powers or the federal system.

India's Democracy

Our country has the most democratic government. Each person has equal rights to struggle for growth in a democracy. Following independence, India adopted democracy, in which individuals above the age of 18 vote, but these votes are not caste-based; people of all castes have equal rights to choose their government. Democracy, often known as the rule of the majority, states that whatever the majority of people decide must be followed or implemented, with the representative receiving the most votes having the most power. We may claim that where there are more literate individuals, the democracy is more successful; yet, lack of consciousness is equally detrimental in a democracy.

Higher human accumulation and economic freedom are related to democracy. Democracy is inextricably linked to economic sources of growth such as education, quality of life, and health care. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar established India's constituent assembly on November 26, 1949, and the country became sovereign democratic after its constitution went into force on January 26, 1950.

Characteristics of Indian Democracy

Sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a fundamental feature of Indian democracy. Sovereignty refers to a governing body's ultimate power over itself without external influence. People can exercise power in India's democracy. It is fascinating that Indians chose their representatives. Furthermore, these officials are still answerable to the broader people.

Equality in Politics

It is the bedrock of Indian democracy. It also simply implies that within the law, everyone is treated equally. It is also noteworthy that there is no discrimination based on caste, religion, race, creed, or sect. As a result, every Indian citizen has the same political rights.

Rule of the Majority

The rule of the majority is an important component of Indian democracy. In addition, the winning party forms and administers the government. Furthermore, the country is created and governed by the party with the most seats. Above all, no one can object to majority support.

Socialist Being socialist implies that the country always prioritises its inhabitants' needs. The impoverished should be provided with multiple incentives, and their basic needs should be supplied by all means necessary.

There is no such thing as a "state religion," and there is no religious discrimination in this country. All religions must be equal in the eyes of the law; it is not permissible to discriminate against anyone based on their religion. Everyone possesses

Challenges to Democracy

There are many obstacles to democracy, such as corruption, where many political leaders and officers do not perform their duties with honesty and instead seek bribes, resulting in a loss of confidence among citizens, which destroys the country. Anti-social elements- These are seen during elections when individuals are bribed and forced to vote for a specific candidate. Caste and community- where a large number of people value their caste and community, the political party chooses a candidate from the majority caste. We observe that wherever a specific caste wins elections, whether they do good for society or not, and in some circumstances, decent leaders lose because of a lower vote total.

More ESSAY News

CBSE to host virtual workshops for students, parents, teachers on career development

SSC-CGL 2024: How to apply for 17727 Central Government Posts

EPFO Recruitment 2024; 2859 Vacancies, Apply Online @epfindia.gov.in

Don't Block
Block for 8 hours
Block for 12 hours
Block for 24 hours
Dont send alerts during 1 am 2 am 3 am 4 am 5 am 6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 am 11 am 12 pm 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 pm 11 pm 12 am to 1 am 2 am 3 am 4 am 5 am 6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 am 11 am 12 pm 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 pm 11 pm 12 am

Indian Democracy: A Reflection of Aspirations and Achievements | Essay Writing for UPSC by Vikash Ranjan Sir | Triumph ias

Table of Contents

Indian Democracy: A Voyage of Aspirations and Triumphs

(relevant for essay writing for upsc civil services examination).

Indian Democracy, Aspirations, Achievements, Inclusivity, Transparency, Sustainable Development, Universal Adult Franchise, Economic Progress, Political Polarization, Social Inequalities

Indian Democracy is a vibrant, complex tapestry that reflects the diverse aspirations of its people. This post explores the achievements that have marked this democratic journey and the aspirations that continue to shape its path.

Aspirations: A Beacon for Democracy

Indian Democracy’s aspirations are a guiding light, reflecting the dreams of inclusivity, transparency, and sustainable development.

Achievements: Milestones Along the Way

From universal adult suffrage to remarkable economic growth, Indian Democracy’s achievements are many. They stand as testament to the nation’s commitment to its democratic principles.

Challenges: The Road Ahead

Despite its triumphs, Indian Democracy faces challenges. Political, social, and economic disparities continue to be areas of concern.

Conclusion: Democracy’s Ongoing Journey

Indian Democracy is an evolving journey of aspirations and achievements. Embracing its triumphs and addressing its challenges, India marches forward in its democratic voyage.

Indian Democracy, Aspirations, Achievements, Inclusivity, Transparency, Sustainable Development, Universal Adult Franchise, Economic Progress, Political Polarization, Social Inequalities.

Best Sociology Optional Coaching, Sociology Optional Syllabus.

Sociology Optional Syllabus Course Commencement Information

Enrolment is limited to a maximum of 250 Seats.
Course Timings: Evening Batch
Course Duration: 4.5 Months
Class Schedule: Monday to Saturday
Batch Starts from: Admission open for online batch

Book Your Seat Fast Book Your Seat Fast

We would like to hear from you. Please send us a message by filling out the form below and we will get back with you shortly.

Instructional Format:

Each class session is scheduled for a duration of two hours.
At the conclusion of each lecture, an assignment will be distributed by Vikash Ranjan Sir for Paper-I & Paper-II coverage.

Study Material:

A set of printed booklets will be provided for each topic. These materials are succinct, thoroughly updated, and tailored for examination preparation.
A compilation of previous years’ question papers (spanning the last 27 years) will be supplied for answer writing practice.
Access to PDF versions of toppers’ answer booklets will be available on our website.
Post-course, you will receive two practice workbooks containing a total of 10 sets of mock test papers based on the UPSC format for self-assessment.

Additional Provisions:

In the event of missed classes, video lectures will be temporarily available on the online portal for reference.
Daily one-on-one doubt resolution sessions with Vikash Ranjan Sir will be organized post-class.

Syllabus of Sociology Optional

FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIOLOGY

Modernity and social changes in Europe and emergence of sociology.
Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences.
Sociology and common sense.
Science, scientific method and critique.
Major theoretical strands of research methodology.
Positivism and its critique.
Fact value and objectivity.
Non- positivist methodologies.
Qualitative and quantitative methods.
Techniques of data collection.
Variables, sampling, hypothesis, reliability and validity.
Karl Marx- Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class struggle.
Emile Durkheim- Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society.
Max Weber- Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
Talcott Parsons- Social system, pattern variables.
Robert K. Merton- Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance, reference groups.
Mead – Self and identity.
Concepts- equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation.
Theories of social stratification- Structural functionalist theory, Marxist theory, Weberian theory.
Dimensions – Social stratification of class, status groups, gender, ethnicity and race.
Social mobility- open and closed systems, types of mobility, sources and causes of mobility.
Social organization of work in different types of society- slave society, feudal society, industrial /capitalist society
Formal and informal organization of work.
Labour and society.
Sociological theories of power.
Power elite, bureaucracy, pressure groups, and political parties.
Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology.
Protest, agitation, social movements, collective action, revolution.
Sociological theories of religion.
Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults.
Religion in modern society: religion and science, secularization, religious revivalism, fundamentalism.
Family, household, marriage.
Types and forms of family.
Lineage and descent.
Patriarchy and sexual division of labour.
Contemporary trends.
Sociological theories of social change.
Development and dependency.
Agents of social change.
Education and social change.
Science, technology and social change.

INDIAN SOCIETY: STRUCTURE AND CHANGE

Introducing indian society.

Indology (GS. Ghurye).
Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas).
Marxist sociology (A R Desai).
Social background of Indian nationalism.
Modernization of Indian tradition.
Protests and movements during the colonial period.
Social reforms.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The idea of Indian village and village studies.
Agrarian social structure – evolution of land tenure system, land reforms.
Perspectives on the study of caste systems: GS Ghurye, M N Srinivas, Louis Dumont, Andre Beteille.
Features of caste system.
Untouchability – forms and perspectives.
Definitional problems.
Geographical spread.
Colonial policies and tribes.
Issues of integration and autonomy.
Social Classes in India:
Agrarian class structure.
Industrial class structure.
Middle classes in India.
Lineage and descent in India.
Types of kinship systems.
Family and marriage in India.
Household dimensions of the family.
Patriarchy, entitlements and sexual division of labour
Religious communities in India.
Problems of religious minorities.

SOCIAL CHANGES IN INDIA

Idea of development planning and mixed economy
Constitution, law and social change.
Programmes of rural development, Community Development Programme, cooperatives,poverty alleviation schemes
Green revolution and social change.
Changing modes of production in Indian agriculture.
Problems of rural labour, bondage, migration.

3. Industrialization and Urbanisation in India:

Evolution of modern industry in India.
Growth of urban settlements in India.
Working class: structure, growth, class mobilization.
Informal sector, child labour
Slums and deprivation in urban areas.

4. Politics and Society:

Nation, democracy and citizenship.
Political parties, pressure groups , social and political elite
Regionalism and decentralization of power.
Secularization

5. Social Movements in Modern India:

Peasants and farmers movements.
Women’s movement.
Backward classes & Dalit movement.
Environmental movements.
Ethnicity and Identity movements.

6. Population Dynamics:

Population size, growth, composition and distribution
Components of population growth: birth, death, migration.
Population policy and family planning.
Emerging issues: ageing, sex ratios, child and infant mortality, reproductive health.

7. Challenges of Social Transformation:

Crisis of development: displacement, environmental problems and sustainability
Poverty, deprivation and inequalities.
Violence against women.
Caste conflicts.
Ethnic conflicts, communalism, religious revivalism.
Illiteracy and disparities in education.

Best Sociology Optional Coaching, Sociology Optional Syllabus, BEST SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL TEACHER, SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL TEACHER

Mr. Vikash Ranjan, arguably the Best Sociology Optional Teacher , has emerged as a versatile genius in teaching and writing books on Sociology & General Studies. His approach to the Sociology Optional Syllabus / Sociology Syllabus is remarkable, and his Sociological Themes and Perspectives are excellent. His teaching aptitude is Simple, Easy and Exam Focused. He is often chosen as the Best Sociology Teacher for Sociology Optional UPSC aspirants.

About Triumph IAS

Innovating Knowledge, Inspiring Success We, at Triumph IAS , pride ourselves on being the best sociology optional coaching platform. We believe that each Individual Aspirant is unique and requires Individual Guidance and Care, hence the need for the Best Sociology Teacher . We prepare students keeping in mind his or her strength and weakness, paying particular attention to the Sociology Optional Syllabus / Sociology Syllabus , which forms a significant part of our Sociology Foundation Course .

Course Features

Every day, the Best Sociology Optional Teacher spends 2 hours with the students, covering each aspect of the Sociology Optional Syllabus / Sociology Syllabus and the Sociology Course . Students are given assignments related to the Topic based on Previous Year Question to ensure they’re ready for the Sociology Optional UPSC examination.

Regular one-on-one interaction & individual counseling for stress management and refinement of strategy for Exam by Vikash Ranjan Sir , the Best Sociology Teacher , is part of the package. We specialize in sociology optional coaching and are hence fully equipped to guide you to your dream space in the civil service final list.

Specialist Guidance of Vikash Ranjan Sir

The Best Sociology Teacher helps students to get a complete conceptual understanding of each and every topic of the Sociology Optional Syllabus / Sociology Syllabus , enabling them to attempt any of the questions, be direct or applied, ensuring 300+ Marks in Sociology Optional .

Classrooms Interaction & Participatory Discussion

The Best Sociology Teacher, Vikash Sir , ensures that there’s explanation & DISCUSSION on every topic of the Sociology Optional Syllabus / Sociology Syllabus in the class. The emphasis is not just on teaching but also on understanding, which is why we are known as the Best Sociology Optional Coaching institution.

Preparatory-Study Support

Sociology Optional Syllabus, Sociology Syllabus, Best Sociology Optional Coaching, Sociology Optional Syllabus, BEST SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL TEACHER, SOCIOLOGY OPTIONAL TEACHER

Online Support System (Oss)

Get access to an online forum for value addition study material, journals, and articles relevant to Sociology on www.triumphias.com . Ask preparation related queries directly to the Best Sociology Teacher , Vikash Sir, via mail or WhatsApp.

Strategic Classroom Preparation

Comprehensive Study Material

We provide printed booklets of concise, well-researched, exam-ready study material for every unit of the Sociology Optional Syllabus / Sociology Syllabus , making us the Best Sociology Optional Coaching platform.

Why Vikash Ranjan’s Classes for Sociology?

Proper guidance and assistance are required to learn the skill of interlinking current happenings with the conventional topics. VIKASH RANJAN SIR at TRIUMPH IAS guides students according to the Recent Trends of UPSC, making him the Best Sociology Teacher for Sociology Optional UPSC.

At Triumph IAS, the Best Sociology Optional Coaching platform, we not only provide the best study material and applied classes for Sociology for IAS but also conduct regular assignments and class tests to assess candidates’ writing skills and understanding of the subject.

Choose T he Best Sociology Optional Teacher for IAS Preparation?

At the beginning of the journey for Civil Services Examination preparation, many students face a pivotal decision – selecting their optional subject. Questions such as “ which optional subject is the best? ” and “ which optional subject is the most scoring? ” frequently come to mind. Choosing the right optional subject, like choosing the best sociology optional teacher , is a subjective yet vital step that requires a thoughtful decision based on facts. A misstep in this crucial decision can indeed prove disastrous.

Ever since the exam pattern was revamped in 2013, the UPSC has eliminated the need for a second optional subject. Now, candidates have to choose only one optional subject for the UPSC Mains , which has two papers of 250 marks each. One of the compelling choices for many has been the sociology optional. However, it’s strongly advised to decide on your optional subject for mains well ahead of time to get sufficient time to complete the syllabus. After all, most students score similarly in General Studies Papers; it’s the score in the optional subject & essay that contributes significantly to the final selection.

“ A sound strategy does not rely solely on the popular Opinion of toppers or famous YouTubers cum teachers. ”

It requires understanding one’s ability, interest, and the relevance of the subject, not just for the exam but also for life in general. Hence, when selecting the best sociology teacher, one must consider the usefulness of sociology optional coaching in General Studies, Essay, and Personality Test.

The choice of the optional subject should be based on objective criteria, such as the nature, scope, and size of the syllabus, uniformity and stability in the question pattern, relevance of the syllabic content in daily life in society, and the availability of study material and guidance. For example, choosing the best sociology optional coaching can ensure access to top-quality study materials and experienced teachers. Always remember, the approach of the UPSC optional subject differs from your academic studies of subjects. Therefore, before settling for sociology optional , you need to analyze the syllabus, previous years’ pattern, subject requirements (be it ideal, visionary, numerical, conceptual theoretical), and your comfort level with the subject.

This decision marks a critical point in your UPSC – CSE journey , potentially determining your success in a career in IAS/Civil Services. Therefore, it’s crucial to choose wisely, whether it’s the optional subject or the best sociology optional teacher . Always base your decision on accurate facts, and never let your emotional biases guide your choices. After all, the search for the best sociology optional coaching is about finding the perfect fit for your unique academic needs and aspirations.

To master these intricacies and fare well in the Sociology Optional Syllabus , aspiring sociologists might benefit from guidance by the Best Sociology Optional Teacher and participation in the Best Sociology Optional Coaching . These avenues provide comprehensive assistance, ensuring a solid understanding of sociology’s diverse methodologies and techniques. Sociology, Social theory, Best Sociology Optional Teacher, Best Sociology Optional Coaching, Sociology Optional Syllabus. Best Sociology Optional Teacher, Sociology Syllabus, Sociology Optional, Sociology Optional Coaching, Best Sociology Optional Coaching, Best Sociology Teacher, Sociology Course, Sociology Teacher, Sociology Foundation, Sociology Foundation Course, Sociology Optional UPSC, Sociology for IAS,

🔎 https://www.instagram.com/triumphias

🔎 www.triumphias.com

🔎https://www.youtube.com/c/TriumphIAS

https://t.me/VikashRanjanSociology

Find More Blogs


			Modernity and social changes in Europe

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Why India’s Democracy Is Dying

Select your citation format:

India exemplifies the global democratic recession. India’s recent downgrade to a hybrid regime is a major influence on the world’s autocratization. And the modality of India’s democratic decline reveals how democracies die today: not through a dramatic coup or midnight arrests of opposition leaders, but instead, it moves through the fully legal harassment of the opposition, intimidation of media, and centralization of executive power. By equating government criticism with disloyalty to the nation, the government of Narendra Modi is diminishing the very idea that opposition is legitimate. India today is no longer the world’s largest democracy.

This is one of five essays in a special package on the state of India’s democracy.

N o country is a better exemplar of our global democratic recession than India. Most unlikely at its founding, India’s democracy confounded legions of naysayers by growing more stable over its first seven decades. India’s democratic deepening happened in formal ways, through the consolidation of civilian rule over the military as well as decades of vibrant multiparty competition, and informal ways, through the strengthening of norms around Electoral Commission independence and the increasing participation of women and other social groups in formal political life.

India has also witnessed two significant democratic declines: the 21-month period from June 1975 to March 1977 known as the Emergency and a contemporary decline beginning with Narendra Modi’s election in 2014. During Modi’s tenure, key democratic institutions have remained formally in place while the norms and practices underpinning democracy have substantially deteriorated. This informal democratic decline in contemporary India stands in stark contrast to the Emergency, when Indira Gandhi formally eliminated nearly all democratic institutions—banning elections, arresting political opposition, eviscerating civil liberties, muzzling independent media, and passing three constitutional amendments that undermined the power of the country’s courts.

About the Author

Maya Tudor is associate professor of government and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. She is author of The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan (2013) and Varieties of Nationalism: Communities, Narratives, Identities (with Harris Mylonas, 2023).

View all work by Maya Tudor

Yet democracy watchdogs agree that today India resides somewhere in a nether region between full democracy and full autocracy. While democracy-watching organizations categorize democracies differently, they all classify India today as a “hybrid regime”—that is, neither a full democracy nor a full autocracy. And this is new. In 2021, Freedom House dropped India’s rating from Free to Partly Free (the only remaining category is Not Free). That same year, the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project relegated India to the status of “electoral autocracy” on its scale of closed autocracy, electoral autocracy, electoral democracy, or liberal democracy. And the Economist Intelligence Unit moved India into the “flawed democracy” category on its scale of full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime. India’s democratic downgrading moved 1.4 billion of the world’s 8 billion people into the category of autocratizing countries. Its drop from Free to Partly Free fully halved the share of the world living in a Free country. 1 Wherever you draw the conceptual lines between the land of democracy, the sea of autocracy, and the marshlands marking the hybrid regions, our democratic world is considerably less populous without India among its ranks. The question of whether India is a democracy today is not just pivotal to our analysis of the country’s political future but to our understanding of democratic trends more broadly. India, this year the world’s most populous country, is where the global battle for democracy is being fought.

Some disagree that India has substantively deteriorated into hybrid-regime territory. Unsurprisingly, the Indian government has reacted with accusations of Western bias, calling India’s democratic downgrade “misleading, incorrect and misplaced.” 2 In August 2022, the Economic Advisory Council to India’s prime minister released a working paper calling out inconsistencies in democracy rankings. Yet there is reason why regime assessments, like a central bank’s interest rates, are best made by independent organizations. Notably, democracy watchdogs have not been shy about critiquing the quality of Western democracies.

But a minority of independent voices also resist India’s recategorization as a hybrid regime. In the article “Why India’s Democracy Is Not Dying,” Akhilish Pillalamarri writes that “cultural and social trends [in India today] are not necessarily evidence of democratic backsliding, but are rather evidence of social norms in India that are illiberal toward speech, individual expression, and criticism.” 3 So has India really departed the shores of democracy? And if so, is India’s transition into a hybrid regime reversible? The answer to both questions is yes.

What ’ s in a Name?

To evaluate India’s democratic downgrading, it is first necessary to define democracy, both because adjudicating the debate over India’s democratic decline rests on conceptual clarity and because democracy undoubtedly connotes normative legitimacy. Democracy is a concept that instantiates a system of government that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” to quote Abraham Lincoln. Clarity on the non-normative dimensions of democracy that operationalize this idea points us toward the criteria we can use to assess the state of India’s democracy.

Scholars mostly agree that five institutions are central to a country’s designation as democratic. Of these five institutions, elections for the chief executive and legislature are the first and most important. The second institutional pillar of democracy is thus the presence of genuine political competition . Countries where individuals have the right to vote in elections, but where incumbents make it difficult for the opposition to organize are not generally considered democracies. Democracy also requires governmental autonomy from other forces—such as a colonial ruler or powerful military elites—that can halt or wholly subvert democratic elections; this autonomy is the third institutional pillar.

Two more institutions are also conceptually crucial to democracy because they enable both citizens and independent branches of government to evaluate the government’s performance: civil liberties (both de jure and de facto), the fourth pillar, and executive checks, the fifth pillar. Many prominent scholars have correctly argued that definitions of democracy which do not include basic civil liberties are inadequate. 4 An independent press that enables the formation of critical public opinion is increasingly understood as being part of this civil-liberties pillar. The final institutional pillar of democracy, executive checks, is what prevents an elected head of government from declaring l’état, c’est moi. Democracy is a set of institutions that embed a practice of government accountability. This accountability takes two forms: vertical accountability between the people and the highest levels of elected government, typically elections and alternative political forces; and horizontal accountability between the executive and independent institutions, typically independent legislatures and courts that can constrain an elected executive from trampling on civil liberties.

Two important points follow from this five-pillar conceptualization of democracy that are germane to our assessment of India’s contemporary democratic decline. The first is that the scholarly definition of democracy has rightly expanded over time. In the past half-century, as authoritarian leaders have learned to adopt the window-dressing of democracy while quashing those institutions essential to its functioning, democracy watchdogs have wisely adapted by seeking to better assess whether government institutions embody accountability and whether institutional rights exist not just in law but in practice.

One specific way in which scholarly conceptions of democracy have expanded is a newfound understanding of the importance of institutional norms in buttressing democracy. As Nancy Bermeo prophetically wrote in these pages in 2016, we are living in an age of democratic backsliding characterized by the decline of overt democratic breakdown. Coup d’états are being replaced by promissory coups (presenting “the ouster of an elected government as a defense of democratic legality”); executive coups are being replaced by executive aggrandizement (“elected executives weaken checks on executive power one by one, undertaking a series of institutional changes that hamper the power of opposition forces to challenge executive preferences”); and election-day vote fraud is being replaced by preelection strategic manipulation (reflecting “a range of actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents”). In other words, democratic decline is assuming the form of an incremental undermining of democratic institutions wherein “troubled democracies are now more likely to erode than shatter.” 5

And the clearest signs of such democratic erosion are that elected leaders question the legitimacy of all opposition and use every available legal tool to undermine it. Drawing on a broad range of historical cases, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that unwritten rules and norms of behavior toward political opposition are the key to preventing such democratic deterioration. They argue that the two most important norms are opposition tolerance, meaning that political opponents are not treated as enemies but simply as political rivals, and forbearance, that is, limited use of the legal methods to steamroll opposition, such as executive orders, vetoes, and filibusters. 6 Contemporary democratic backsliders tend not to transform overnight to autocracies. Instead, democracies slowly die when opposition is no longer tolerated and when elected politicians use the full might of the law to quash rather than compromise with political opposition.

India’s contemporary democratic decline is a paradigmatic case of these crucial democracy-supporting norms sharply eroding. The formal institutions of India’s democracy (largely reflected in Freedom House’s political-rights category and corresponding to the elections, competition, and autonomy pillars of democracy) have remained relatively stable over the past decade. India’s civil-liberties ranking, in contrast, has eroded year on year since 2019, dropping from 42 (out of a possible 60) points in 2010 to 33 in 2023. It is this nine-point drop in Freedom House’s civil-liberties index that has moved India from the category of democracy (those generally score above 70) to the terrain of a hybrid regime (generally scoring between 35 and 70). And, as I detail below, the downgrade is warranted.

A second, related point is that the same regime can become autocratic in decidedly different ways at different points in time. And different regimes can be equally undemocratic, but for different reasons. Democratic recessions need not assume a dramatic form, like military coups or the kind of autogolpe that India witnessed under Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. In 2023, Freedom House classified both Iraq and Mali as Not Free and gave them the exact same score of 29—but for radically different reasons. Mali ranks low on political rights (8 out of 40 possible points) because the country has not yet returned to having regular elections after military coups. But Mali ranks high among full autocracies for civil liberties (21 out of 60 possible points) because its media are relatively independent and it has broad rights to dissent and free speech. By contrast, Iraq scores relatively high among full autocracies on political rights (16 out of 40 possible points) because it holds regular, competitive elections, and its various religious and ethnic groups maintain representation within the political system. Yet Iraq does less well on civil liberties (13 out of 60 possible points) because of frequently documented cases of militias depriving citizens and journalists of liberties. Countries can dip below the democratic threshold by declining sharply in some domains. But they can also dip into hybrid-regime territory by declining only somewhat across a broad range of indicators—and this is what we see in contemporary India.

Stable Rights and Declining Liberties

India’s democracy was never very high-quality. The formal exercise of autonomous, competitive elections with a broad range of civil liberties—while it did translate into a mass poverty-alleviation program and the world’s largest affirmative-action program—always had plenty of shortcomings. But democracy also had a built-in autocorrect feature, which allowed incumbents to be turned out of power. That autocorrect feature is endangered today in mostly informal ways. In terms of Freedom House’s political-rights score (encompassing the pillars of elections, competition, and autonomy), India’s average for the nine years before Modi came to power was the same as for the nine years since 2014. Incumbent turnover remains electorally possible but improbable because the Modi government has substantially eroded the de facto protection of civil liberties and executive constraints—the fourth and fifth pillars of democracy. It is the drop in India’s civil-liberties rating that accounts for its contemporary democratic decline.

The legal right to dissent, historically only erratically protected in Indian courts, remains legally in place while the practical possibility of vocal dissent free from overwhelming harassment has virtually disappeared. To be sure, India’s media, while generally vibrant and free, were sometimes censored before Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014. But today, while the media remain legally free to dissent, widespread harassment of independent journalism and concentrating ownership structures have meant that journalists and individuals practice a high degree of self-censorship. Checks on executive power, while formally in place, are rapidly falling away.

Radically constrained civil liberties. Since 2016, civil liberties have been curtailed, to some extent legally and to a significant extent practically. CIVICUS, an international organization that tracks global civil liberties in 197 countries, now classifies India as “repressed” on its declining scale of open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed, and closed. The downgrade from “obstructed,” which happened in 2019, meant that India’s civic space was, according to the organization’s website, one where “civil society members who criticise power holders risk surveillance, harassment, intimidation, imprisonment, injury and death.” Among its neighbors, India is now in the same ratings category as Pakistan and Bangladesh, and in a lower category than Nepal and Sri Lanka.

The Modi government has increasingly employed two kinds of laws to silence its critics—colonial-era sedition laws and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Authorities have regularly booked individuals under sedition laws for dissent in the form of posters, social-media posts, slogans, personal communications, and in one case, posting celebratory messages for a Pakistani cricket win. Sedition cases rose by 28 percent between 2010 and 2021. Of the sedition cases filed against citizens for criticizing the government, 96 percent were filed after Modi came to power in 2014. One report estimates that over the course of just one year, ten-thousand tribal activists in a single district were charged with sedition for invoking their land rights. 7

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was amended in 2019 to allow the government to designate individuals as terrorists without a specific link to a terrorist organization. There is no mechanism of judicial redress to challenge this categorization. The law now specifies that it can be used to target individuals committing any act “likely to threaten” or “likely to strike terror in people.” Between 2015 and 2019, there was a 72 percent increase in arrests under the UAPA, with 98 percent of those arrested remaining in jail without bail. 8

The frequent invocation of these strengthened laws is substantively new and has significantly chilled dissent. The state has intimidated opposition by broadly labeling criticisms of government policy as contrary to the national interest, or “anti-national,” and by employing an army of volunteers to identify problematic online dissent. BJP politicians have popularized the term “anti-national” in patterns that target individuals, causes, and organizations. 9 Academics were first to be targeted, with university administrators and faculty investigated, disciplined, or compelled to step down owing to their perceived political views. But such tactics were quickly broadened to include any high-profile dissenters.

India’s Muslim community, comprising 14 percent of the population, has suffered a particularly marked decline in civil liberties. Acts of anti-Muslim violence, including lynchings or mob killings, have risen sharply. According to IndiaSpend, bovine-related mob-lynching deaths (involving rumors of those handling beef, typically Muslims) have substantially risen as a proportion of violence in India since 2010, with 97 percent of bovine-related attacks between 2010 and 2017 occurring after Modi came to power in 2014. A majority of the victims of public killings are believed to have been Muslim. India’s largest minority now lives in a “widespread climate of fear” according to most independent international organizations reporting on such matters, including Human Rights Watch and the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom. 10 With Parliament’s passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019, discrimination against Muslims assumed legal form, specifically excluding Muslim refugees from a streamlined citizenship process. Observers believe this Act, together with a planned national register of citizens, will be used in tandem to disenfranchise Muslim voters who lack the paperwork to prove they are citizens. India’s only Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir, is experiencing a shutdown of its civil liberties that is in every major respect similar to India’s Emergency—a fact reflected in Freedom House’s separate categorization of Indian Kashmir as Not Free.

Constrained individual freedom to dissent is compounded by legal constraints on the freedom of assembly. A 2021 International Center for Not-For-Profit Law report assessing freedom of assembly in India found: “A punitive, security-focused approach has been increasingly deployed, amidst a growing trend of demonizing and criminalizing public protests, including the vilification of assembly organizers.” 11

The government has frequently barred access to the internet, the de facto means of coordinating protest. India not only leads the world in government-directed internet shutdowns, with 84 government-directed shutdowns in 2022, but these blackouts are typically imposed before and during protests to impede effective public coordination, often without clear criteria for suspension. 12 The report finds that while de jure protections for speech and assembly have eroded only marginally, de facto protections have significantly decreased.

The government’s critics in civil society are frequent targets of administrative harassment. In 2020, the Modi government tightened the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to choke civil society independence, targeting the logistics of foreign-fund transfers, limiting the nature of spending and the sharing of funds between NGOs, giving the central and state governments the right to suspend NGOs at discretion, and forbidding public servants from joining organizations. Government authorities have systematically used financial audits and tax-related raids on technical but fully legal grounds against a wide range of civil society groups, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Centre for Policy Research, the Ford Foundation, the Lawyers Collective, and Oxfam. 13

Over the last decade, Indian media have radically circumscribed their criticism of government due to outright intimidation and structural changes. Since 2014, India has fallen to 161st out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, ranking below Afghanistan, Belarus, Hong Kong, Libya, Pakistan, and Turkey. According to the organization, Indian journalists sometimes receive death threats and are frequent targets of social-media hate campaigns driven by troll farms affiliated with the government. Major media networks do not feel free to criticize the Modi government. One study analyzing prime-time television debates on the channel Times Now over three months in 2020 found not a single episode in which a debate criticized the Modi government in any form. A separate study of RepublicTV from 2017 through 2020 found coverage to be “consistently biased in favour of the Modi government and its policies.” 14 Modi himself has limited his interactions with the media, holding not a single press conference in the last nine years.

Practices such as selective licensing, the acquisition of independent networks by Modi-affiliated businessmen, and harassment of the few remaining independent outlets further undermine media independence. The government must grant a license to broadcast television, for example, and will deny licenses to critical domestic organizations. The government withheld a license from the founder of the news website Quint, Raghav Bahl (working in partnership with Bloomberg), for so long that he closed the company’s television division. Bahl was investigated and charged with money laundering in 2019 .

While the sheer number of news organizations in India would seem to indicate a thriving media, scrutiny of the functional ownership structure indicates otherwise. The independent Media Ownership Monitor finds in India “a significant trend toward concentration and ultimately control of content and public opinion.” 15 Mukesh Ambani, a businessman with close ties to Modi, directly controls media outlets followed by at least 800 million Indians. Another close Modi associate, Gautam Adani, acquired India’s last major independent television network, NDTV, in December 2022. 16 According to analysts, Adani’s acquisition of NDTV “marks the endgame for independent media in India, leaving the country’s biggest television news channels in the hands of billionaires who have strong ties to the Indian government.” 17 While there are a handful of smaller, determined sources of independent news left, they have faced tax raids and lawsuits for their reporting since 2013.

The government also targets international news organizations for their criticism, typically portraying critical foreign news reports as part of a plot to hold back India’s global ascendance. The Indian offices of the British Broadcasting Corporation were raided in February 2023, just weeks after the news organization released a documentary critical of the Modi government. Laws used under the Emergency were invoked just months ago to ban both the BBC documentary and any clips from circulating within India. As the raids occurred, BJP spokesman Gaurav Bhatia called the BBC the “most corrupt organisation in the world.” 18 When a few of the dozen Indian students I teach organized a private screening of this documentary at Oxford University, the fear among them was palpable. Invitees were asked to refrain from posting on social media and from exchanging WhatsApp messages, since videos have documented police asking individuals to unlock their phones during routine stops. 19

The loss of horizontal accountability. Legislative scrutiny of executive action has been waning in real terms during Modi’s government. Committees of India’s primary parliamentary bodies serve as a key check on the executive, closely examining and debating the merits of all bills. Committees scrutinized 71 percent of bills in the 2009–14 parliament before Modi came to power and just 25 percent of bills in the 2014–19 parliament under Modi’s first term. Since 2019, such scrutiny has declined to 13 percent, with not a single legislative bill sent to a committee during the 2020 pandemic. Some of India’s most important laws and political decisions in recent years—the imposition of a national lockdown with four hours’ notice, demonetization, farm laws—were passed without parliamentary consultation and over opposition protest. The Modi government also introduced a raft of legal amendments to weaken whistleblower protection. 20

The growing lack of executive accountability to Parliament is exacerbated by an increasingly quiescent judiciary. The Supreme Court is the custodian of India’s constitution and through it, of civil liberties. During the two decades before 2014, the independence of the Supreme Court was seen to grow mightily, earning it the moniker of the “most powerful apex court in the world.” 21 This has notably changed, with the central government controversially transferring independent-minded justices and minimizing norms that checked executive power. 22 Such moves prompted the four most senior members of India’s Supreme Court to hold an unprecedented press conference in 2018, warning that the chief justice’s unusual assigning of cases could be a sign of political interference. One of those four justices, Jasti Chelameswar, also penned an open letter to the chief justice, admonishing that the “bonhomie between the Judiciary and the Government in any State sounds the death knell to Democracy.” 23 The Supreme Court’s rulings on every major political issue that has come before it—the Ayodha temple, the Aadhar biometric ID system, habeas corpus in Kashmir, electoral bonds, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act—have gone in favor of the Modi government. This marks a break from the past. The practical difference between the Supreme Court during the Emergency and today is minimal. Some even argue that, today, an Emergency is simply “undeclared.” 24

Can Indian Democracy Be Saved?

Democracy in India, as elsewhere in the world, is not today dying through a military coup or the dramatic, coordinated mass arrests of opponents. Instead, autocrats have learned to talk democratically and walk autocratically, maintaining a legal façade of democracy while harassing opposition and shrinking space for loyal dissent. While India’s formal institutions of democracy are also under pressure—Modi’s most prominent political rivals have recently been disqualified from running in elections—it is primarily the inability of the ordinary citizen to read critical appraisals of government policy, to speak and assemble freely without fear of harassment as well as the absence of substantive checks on executive power that have transitioned India into a hybrid regime.

Although India’s democratic slide is real, it is not irreversible. While hybrid regimes are often stable, elections remain real moments of accountability, so long as the ballots remain secret and elections fairly monitored. Even wholly autocratic regimes with thoroughly honed policies of surveillance are subject to moments of effective protest because the very structures of autocratic power also prevent such regimes from gaining an accurate understanding of citizens’ concerns—what democracies do best. Recent protests against China’s zero-covid strategy, Iran’s morality police, and India’s farm laws have all highlighted the enduring possibilities of mass dissent.

1. Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2022 , https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf .

2. “‘Misleading, Incorrect, Misplaced’: Centre Reacts to India’s Downgrading in Think Tank Report,” The Wire, 5 March 2021, https://thewire.in/government/freedom-house-partly-free-government-reaction ..

3. Akhilesh Pillalamarii. “Why India’s Democracy Is Not Dying,” The Diplomat , 14 June 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-indias-democracy-is-not-dying/ .

4. Marc F. Plattner, “Globalization and Self-Government,” Journal of Democracy 13 (July 2002), 56–57.

5. Nancy Bermeo, “On Democratic Backsliding,” Journal of Democracy 27 (January 2016): 8–14.

6. Steve Levitksy and Dan Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (New York: Crown 2018).

7. On the cricket sedition charge, see “UP Invokes Sedition Against Kashmiri Students; Families, Activists Urge for Release,” The Wire. October 2021, https://thewire.in/rights/up-invokes-sedition-against-kashmiri-students-families-activists-urge-for-release ; on the rise in cases, seeKunal Purohit, “Our New Database Reveals Rise in Sedition Cases in the Modi Era.” Article 14, 2 February 2021, www.article-14.com/post/our-new-database-reveals-rise-in-sedition-cases-in-the-modi-era ; Supriya Sharma, “10,000 People Charged With Sedition in One Jharkhand District. What Does Democracy Mean Here?” Scroll.in, 19 November 2019, https://scroll.in/article/944116/10000-people-charged-with-sedition-in-one-jharkhand-district-what-does-democracy-mean-here .

8. “UAPA: 72% Rise in Arrests Between 2015 and 2019,” The Wire, 10 March 2021, https://thewire.in/government/uapa-72-rise-in-arrests-between-2015-and-2019 .

9. Meenakshi Ganguly, “Dissent Is ‘Anti-National’ in Modi’s India,” Human Rights Watch, 13 December 2019, www.hrw.org/news/2019/12/13/dissent-anti-national-modis-india ; A. Sharma and J. Pal, “Indian Twitter and Its Anti-Nationals,” University of Michigan unpubl. ms., 2020, http://joyojeet.people.si.umich.edu/antinationals .

10. Sandipan Baksi and Aravindhan Nagarajan, “Mob Lynchings in India: A Look at Data and the Story Behind the Numbers,” Newslaundry, 4 July 2017, www.newslaundry.com/2017/07/04/mob-lynchings-in-india-a-look-at-data-and-the-story-behind-the-numbers ; “Uttar Pradesh: India’s Muslims Victims of Hate Crimes Live in Fear,” BBC News,21 February 2022, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60225543 .

11. Vrinda Grover, “Assessing India’s Legal Framework on the Right to Peaceful Assembly,” International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, December 2021, www.icnl.org/post/report/assessing-indias-legal-framework-on-the-right-to-peaceful-assembly .

12. Murali Krishnan, “India: ‘Internet Shutdown Capital of the World,’” Deutsche Welle , 15 March 2023, www.dw.com/en/india-internet-shutdown-capital-of-the-world/a-64997062 .

13. Aakar Patel, Price of the Modi Years (Delhi: Vintage, 2022), ch. 5; Ganguly, “Dissent Is ‘Anti-National’ in Modi’s India.”

14. Christophe Jaffrelot and Vihang Jumle, “One-Man Show,” Caravan, 15 December 2020, https://caravanmagazine.in/media/republic-debates-study-shows-channel-promotoes-modi-ndtv .

15. Media Ownership Monitor, India, 2023, http://india.mom-gmr.org/en/ .

16. “BloombergQuint Gives Up After Three Years, Suspends TV Division,” 20 April, 2020, Newslaundry, www.newslaundry.com/2020/04/22/bloombergquint-gives-up-after-three-years-suspends-tv-division ; Reports Without Borders, India Country Report 2023, https://rsf.org/en/country/india . Anjana Krishnan, Reuters Institute, Oxford University, India Report 2022, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/india .

17. Astha Rajvanshi, “India’s Richest Man Is Buying a Major TV Channel. It’s a Blow to Independent Media in the Country,” Time, 1 December 2022, https://time.com/6238075/india-ndtv-gautam-adani-narendramodi/ .

18. Hannah Ellis-Petersen, “Indian Journalists Say BBC Raid Part of Drive to Intimidate Media,” Guardian, 18 February 2023, www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/18/indian-journalists-bbc-raid-media .

19. Umang Poddar, “Can the Police in India Force Someone to Hand Over Their Phone and Check Their Messages?” Scroll.in, 4 November 2021, https://scroll.in/article/1009529/can-the-police-in-india-force-someone-to-hand-over-their-phone-and-check-their-messages .

20. Sani Ali and Amber Sharma, “In Modi Era, the Role of Parliamentary Committees Is Getting Diminished,” Scroll.in , 16 September 2020; Zoya Hasan, “Indian Parliament Is Diminished by Official Disruption,” The Wire, 9 April 2023; “80 RTI Activists Killed Since 2014, Yet Modi Govt ‘Refuses’ to Implement Whistleblowers Act,” The Counterview , 12 December 2019.

21. S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002), 249.

22. Manu Sebastian. “ How Has the Supreme Court Fared During the Modi Years?” The Wire, 12 April 2019, https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-modi-years .

23. J. Chelameswar, “Bonhomie Between Judiciary, Government Sounds Death Knell to Democracy,” Scroll.in, 29 March 2018, https://scroll.in/article/873787/full-text-bonhomie-between-judiciary-and-government-sounds-the-death-knell-to-democracy .

24. Arvind Narrain, India’s Undeclared Emergency: Constitutionalism and the Politics of Resistance (Delhi: Westland Publications, 2021).

25. Ashutosh Varshney, “Democratic Unclogging,” Indian Express, 18 May 2023.

How to Stop India’s Authoritarian Slide

Rahul Mukherji

The BJP is ruling with a heavier hand than ever before, attacking opponents and silencing critics. Ironically, these may be the ideal conditions for a democratic revival—if the opposition seizes…

Volume 24, Issue 4

Separated at Birth?

Šumit Ganguly

A review of The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan by Maya Tudor.

Volume 25, Issue 4

India’s Watershed Vote: What It Means for the Economy

Rajiv Kumar

Modi promised “good days” to aspiring young Indians, and they voted for him in droves. But he is off to a slow start in carrying out the economic reforms necessary…

NCERT Books

Democracy in India Essay | Essay on Democracy in India for Students and Children in English

Democracy in India Essay: The vision expressed in the above lines stems from a deep desire to build a fair, just, progressive and inclusive society; A vision to transform the vast potential of a nation into opportunities for all.

‘Where the mind is without fear and head held high. Into that heaven, my father let my country awake’.

It was not a utopian imagination or wild wish, rather a pragmatic assessment of unlimited potential which a newly independent nation can unleash. With a rich and detailed constitution as the guiding light, a democratic India was poised for glory and greatness.

Students can find more English Essay Writing Topics, Ideas, Easy Tips to Write Essay Writing and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Democracy in India for Students and Kids in English

A Long Essay on the topic of Essay on Democracy in India is provided; it is of 450-500 words. A Short Essay of 100-150 words is also given below. The extended articles are popular among students of classes 7, 8, 9, and 10. On the other hand, students in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 can refer to short essays.

Long Essay on Democracy in India 600 Words in English

In the small journey as an independent nation, democracy has been the cornerstone of Indian success saga. From the time when doubts were cast on the ability of our survival as a nation to an era when powers across the global look for our guidance, India has travelled miles. The firm foundations of the largest functioning democracy in world have shown myriad results in an effort to create an empowered society.

The representative democracy of India draws strength from a rich constitution, institutions of integrity and a vibrant society. Though it may appear as a simplistic procedure of electing your representative through votes, the ethos it entails on the society is much richer and deeper. It strengthens and empowers ‘we the people’ and acknowledges the importance of each individual of society.

The smooth transition of governments witnessed by independent India on basis of power of ballots has been a testimony to the real functioning democracy. While our neighbors have struggled with political instability, Indian democracy has risen to become a role model at the global platform. In spite of multitude of problems like illiteracy, poverty, malnourishment and infrastructural deficit India has managed to ensure that political masters remain committed to the right cause.

The entitlement of universal adult franchise has been the base for our democratic success. With reduction of voting age from 21 to 18, Indian democracy was further strengthened as it recognized role of youth in nation building process. Irrespective of a stratified society, people of all caste, colour, creed, language religion, region queue up in a single line to express their choice on the Election Day. This equitous approach has been the strength of Indian democracy.

The functioning of our democracy has ensured that people judge the working of their representatives every five years. With votes, people attach expectations and aspirations. The anti-incumbency rates have many times justified the ‘real’ power of people. Democracy, as a means, ensures that the political position remains an instrument to serve needs of one and all in society.

Indian democracy has gone from strength to strength. With passing of 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts, democratic decentralization percolated to the grassroots. The Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions have brought governance closer to people. They have empowered the people by giving an elected forum to bring about local level development. Democracy brought new vibrancy through local governance to enable rapid socio-economic progress in the villages.

The rise of coalition polities also marks an indication that regional aspirations of the people are finding a legitimate forum. Political parties have become a medium for expression in an increasingly aware and demanding society. The synergy of several institutions has enabled the democracy to survive multiple onslaughts from different quarters. The judiciary continues to carry impeccable faith and trust of people for protecting their rights. Democratization of judiciary has brought it closer to people through the concept of Public Interest litigation(PIL).

Democracy is an empowering value. It multiplies the individual’s choice and opens plethora of opportunities for every person in society. Democracy believes in rule of law and our judiciaiy has thwarted every attempt by authoritative individuals or institutions to encroach upon personal rights of citizens. Through various landmark judgments, it has upheld the democratic flavour in the society. The election commission has functioned as the lifeline of Indian democracy with daunting challenges posed by each successive election. The institution has stood as a bulwark against any nefarious attempt to belittle the voice of people. With effective deployment of security machinery, polling related violence incidents have witnessed a decreasing trend.

The introduction of Election Voting Machines (EVM) is yet another effort to translate wish of people into genuine representation. It eliminates the mass scale bogus voting or invalidity of votes due to improper stamping. Indian democracy manages to exhibit strength of facing and overcoming any challenge to its survival.

The era of liberal markets and a vibrant civil society have increased the liberty of individual. It has brought an era when voice of people can no longer be drowned by the powerful and oppressive. Media Campaigns and NGOs take up issues of arbitrariness and injustice to any segment of society. The growing strength of media and civil society has been a vital influence to further Indian democracy. Rights of people in obscure villages or tribal belts were often neglected or trampled upon by insensitive apathy. Media campaigns have given voice to people to demand accountability from their representatives.

Right to Information has been a landmark change with potential to revolutionize the entire framework of secretive and inefficient governance. It furthers democratic ethos by arming individuals with right to demand accountability and transparency from the administration. The increasing use of e-governance and Information Technology platforms for delivery of services strengthens democratic access to values. The melting of interface eliminates the discretion of officials, which was a stumbling block in the democratic distribution of valfljes in society.

Though the journey in making democracy a way of life has seen glowing success, several challenges still raise their heads. The distribution of values in the society has been skewed and gaps multiplied post liberalization. It is here that that state needs to step up and play a leading role. State must channelize the resources towards building an inclusive society by creative use of energies of various players.

Media must maintain the standards and values expected from it as a repository of people’s hopes and aspirations. With sufficient self regulation to curb paid news and sensationalism, it must emerge as the voice of aam aadmi and enrich Indian democracy. The proactive work of civil society either through social audit of government programmes or highlighting administrative excesses must continue. A vital component of democratic ethos is the access to the resources for the benefit of community. The State has to uphold the rights of people, especially the marginalized and disempowered, to prevent vaporization of trust. The twist and governance deficit has already generated enough tensions for the nation to handle. Deepening the reach of democracy can be a crucial element of the strategy to handle the menace of Naxalism.

Education has to play a key role in furthering the reach of Indian democracy not only by encouraging the people to participate in the electoral process, but also by asking them to vote for growth and development. The highly stratified Indian society has given birth to casteism as a key distortion in the true reach of democracy. People often end up voting a caste, rather than casting their votes. Even political parties have built upon this divide to create vote-banks. This development militates against the spirit of democracy. While politics gets biased and blindfolded, the holistic development fails to materialize.

Education can raise awareness about the profile of candidate and the development orientation exhibited in his previous stay. Election Commission has to play a proactive role in this arena. It must also ensure that transparency in funding procedure and distribution of tickets becomes sine qua-non for contesting elections. The civil influence of money and criminalization has to be wiped off as a stain from the fabric of Indian democracy. The executive carries the deep responsibility of maintaining the vitality and richness of Indian democracy. Healthy parliamentary discussion and debates, inclusive policies and programmes and bringing transparency in functioning of administration are the essentials of a demanding society.

Short Essay on Democracy in India 150 Words in English

Legislations like Right to Education also restore the trust of citizens in the functioning of democracy. The need to bring in the culture of viewing politics as a medium to serve is imminent. The fruits of a growing India must reach all sections of society to maintain trust in this participative process. The planning has to ensure that people remain central in any plan and their voice is recognized in both planning and execution. The democratic decentralization of Panchayati Raj Institutions has to be empowered by autonomy of functions, functionaries and finances bestowed upon them.

Indian democracy has managed to survive challenges from several quarters over the years. With changing time of growing complexities and demands, the attitudinal change of respecting individuality and choice has to be evolved in every quarter. Democracy, as a value, should become the norm of daily functioning of individuals and institutions. Assertive citizens, empowered with information, cannot be denied with this fundamental virtue and any such attempt would only increase impatience and liberalism in the society. The progress of democracy, in spirit and functioning, has been a journey in India. The journey must continue as democracy can only enrich itself progressively. Obstacles, which challenge Indian democracy as a myth will vaporize, as the commitment of Indians is resolute. India democracy will continue to guide the progress of nation to a position of strength in global arena and in delivering an ‘inclusive’ society.

Democracy Essay

Democracy is derived from the Greek word demos or people. It is defined as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. Democracy is exercised directly by the people; in large societies, it is by the people through their elected agents. In the phrase of President Abraham Lincoln, democracy is the “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” There are various democratic countries, but India has the largest democracy in the world. This Democracy Essay will help you know all about India’s democracy. Students can also get a list of CBSE Essays on different topics to boost their essay-writing skills.

500+ Words Democracy Essay

India is a very large country full of diversities – linguistically, culturally and religiously. At the time of independence, it was economically underdeveloped. There were enormous regional disparities, widespread poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and a shortage of almost all public welfare means. Since independence, India has been functioning as a responsible democracy. The same has been appreciated by the international community. It has successfully adapted to challenging situations. There have been free and fair periodic elections for all political offices, from the panchayats to the President. There has been a smooth transfer of political power from one political party or set of political parties to others, both at national and state levels, on many occasions.

India: A Democratic Country

Democracy is of two, i.e. direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is only practical with relatively small numbers of people in a community organisation or tribal council. Whereas in representative democracy, every citizen has the right to vote for their representative. People elect their representatives to all levels, from Panchayats, Municipal Boards, State Assemblies and Parliament. In India, we have a representative democracy.

Democracy is a form of government in which rulers elected by the people take all the major decisions. Elections offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current rulers. This choice and opportunity are available to all people on an equal basis. The exercise of this choice leads to a government limited by basic rules of the constitution and citizens’ rights.

Democracy is the Best Form of Government

A democratic government is a better government because it is a more accountable form of government. Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts. Thus, democracy improves the quality of decision-making. The advantage of a democracy is that mistakes cannot be hidden for long. There is a space for public discussion, and there is room for correction. Either the rulers have to change their decisions, or the rulers can be changed. Democracy offers better chances of a good decision. It respects people’s own wishes and allows different kinds of people to live together. Even when it fails to do some of these things, it allows a way of correcting its mistakes and offers more dignity to all citizens. That is why democracy is considered the best form of government.

Students must have found this “Democracy Essay” useful for improving their essay writing skills. They can get the study material and the latest update on CBSE/ICSE/State Board/Competitive Exams, at BYJU’S.

CBSE Related Links

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Skip to main content
Skip to secondary menu
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Essay on Democracy in India | Democracy in India Essay for Students and Children in English

February 14, 2024 by Prasanna

Essay on Democracy in India: Of the people, by the people and for the people coined by the great president of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln represents the core values and principles of democracy. Democracy might not be the best form of governance in the world, but one thing is for sure, there is no alternative for democracy. Sure democracy has its own loopholes and problems, but at the core of this system, it values the qualities of equality and fraternity in society. The alternatives for democracy is authoritarianism, dictatorship or fascism, which at its core, does not guarantee the fundamental freedom and humanitarian values to people.

You can read more Essay Writing about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

Long and Short Essays on Democracy in India in English for Students and Kids

In this article, we have provided a long as well as short essay on democracy in India which will be of use for school students in their essay writing, tests, assignments, and project work.

Long Essay on Democracy in India 600 Words in English

The long essay on democracy is suitable for students of classes 7, 8, 9, 10, and competitive exam aspirants.

Democracy is the only known form of governance in the world that promises, in spirit as well, in reality, equality for citizens irrespective of cast creed gender, race or sex. The voice and the opinions of the people matter the most in a democracy. The ideal form of democracy is where the true power lies with the people and not with the leaders. A written constitution is the backbone of democracy through which every aspect of the country is governed. The constitution is the ultimate kingpin in a democratic country.

Debate, delegate and dissent are the three most important attribute of a democratic system. The democratic system is usually of two types, the presidential system (like the one in the USA) and the prime ministerial system (like the one in UK and India). But the core values in both the systems remains the same which are justice, equality, diversity, sovereignty, patriotism and the rule of law. Refer to another essay on democracy in India where each of the terms is explained in detail.

The three pillars of democracy are the legislature, executive and judiciary, where each of them works independently from each other, at least in spirit, if not in reality. Journalism or media is popularly known as the fourth pillar of democracy. If all the core values and systems of democracy are followed in its true form, a democratic system will truly be the best form of the systems of governance in the world. But the reality is far from the truth.

The equality and justice we talk about in the democratic system of governance hardly prevail across all the spectrums. There is discrimination based on caste, religion or race in every country, especially in India. The financially challenged section of people are discriminated in every sphere of life, in the worst case, they are not even awarded the basic dignity of life. But why does this happen? why is it that achieving equality is such a herculean task for countries? Well, the answer lies with the basic tendencies, characteristics and idiosyncrasies of human beings. Elitism is one of the reasons why inequality prevails.

The urge for the human being to succeed directly results in him or her to perceive the “unsuccessful” or the underprivileged in condescending limelight. Secondly, the capitalist economy that we follow allows each person to indulge themselves in a mad rat race to make money and achieve materialistic success. And the one on the bottom of the graph is seen as less by the ones on the top of the same graph. The caste system that prevails in India is also another contributing factor for inequality in the country.

So what are the remedies for these? In the subsequent part of this essay on democracy in India, we are going to give a substantial solution for certain prevailing problems.

How to achieve a perfect democracy?

Firstly it depends on the definition of a” perfect democracy” because different counties have different agendas and priorities and different definitions for democracy and developments. Here is an option that countries should explore to maintain the core values of a democratic system as previously mentioned in this essay on democracy in India.

Free and Fair Elections

One of the most celebrated and important parts of a democratic system of any country is its elections. This is the only time where the true and unfettered power lies with the people. An election symbolises that the people’s voices and opinions matter above anything else. And it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to cast his or her vote without fail.

In case they don’t vote at all, then morally they don’t have any right to question the governments and their policies. But not everything is hunky-dory as it should be. The rigging of elections, threatening of candidates, fake votes, missing ballots are some of the factors that are harming the objectives of elections. Governments should come up with stricter policies in place so that free and fair elections take place. Election, which is the first step of democracy, if in itself is corrupt, then the vision of achieving a truly democratic system will be flawed.

Short Essay on Democracy in India 200 Words in English

We have provided below a 200-word short essay on democracy in India for school and college test, homework, project work, case study and assignment for students. The short essay on democracy is suitable for students of classes 1,2,3,4,5,and 6.

To quote Winston Churchill, the late Prime Minister of UK during the 1940s “Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all others”. This statement reflects the thought that there is no alternative to democracy. It can be considered as a necessary evil for the human race. Democracy is a form of governance that allows even the poorest of the poor and the underprivileged of a country to become the leader of the same country. It is the perfect and fitting answer for hierarchical, nepotism and authoritarian form of governance where the leaders are appointed on the basis of a bloodline. In a democracy, leaders are not appointed but elected through majoritarianism and the love and support of the people. Some of the most successful democracies are also the most developed ones, such as India, USA, Germany, UK, NewZealand or Australia in contrast with authoritarian counties that are relatively struggling to develop and progress, such as North Korea, Libya, Egypt, etc.

The legislature, executive, judiciary and the media are the four fundamental pillars of democracy on which the country stands. Impairment in any one of the pillars will directly or indirectly affect the other three. These pillars are the self-appointed gladiators and guardians of the core values of democracy which are life, liberty, equality, fraternity, rule of law, diversity, sovereignty and patriotism.

10 Lines on Democracy in India Essay

The common man is the real kingmaker in a democracy
Executive, legislature and judiciary are the three pillars of democracy while media is considered as the fourth pillar
A free and fair election is a basic step and necessity in a democratic system
The public elects their representatives, who ideally should be the voice and eyes of the common man
Fraternity, equality, liberty and rule of law are some of the fundamental core values of a democratic system of governance
Athens, in Greece, is the oldest functioning form of democratic governance in the world
Democratic systems, ideally, are meant to be governed with policies and laws that favour the common citizen of the country
Authoritarianism, dictatorship and fascism are some of the unpopular alternatives for the democratic system of governance
Parliamentary, presidential and mixed are the three types of democracies that exist in the world
Democracy and republic are the two forms where the true power lies with the common citizens of the country

FAQ’s on Essay on Democracy in India

Question 1. Which is the oldest democracy in the world?

Answer: Tynwald, on the Isle of Man, is considered to be the oldest democracy in the world that dates back to the 9th century

Question 2. What is the difference between democracy and authoritarianism?

Answer: In a democracy, leaders are answerable and accountable to their people but that is not the case in authoritarianism

Question 3. Which is the largest democracy in the world?

Answer: With a population of 135 crore people, India is the largest functioning democracy in the world

Question 4. Which country is considered as the best democracy in the world?

Answer: With a strong democratic score of 9.87, Norway is considered as the best and strongest democratic system in the world.

Picture Dictionary
English Speech
English Slogans
English Letter Writing
English Essay Writing
English Textbook Answers
Types of Certificates
ICSE Solutions
Selina ICSE Solutions
ML Aggarwal Solutions
HSSLive Plus One
HSSLive Plus Two
Kerala SSLC
Distance Education

India’s Largest Career Transformation Portal

Essay on Democracy in India for Students | 500+ Words Essay

December 20, 2020 by Sandeep

Essay on Democracy in India: India is the world’s largest democracy. Our country is a secular, democratic republic, and the President is the head of state, and the Prime minister is the head of the government. Citizens elect their leaders by casting votes. The candidate with a majority of votes wins the election and gets into power. India’s five democratic principles are sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy and republic establishment.

Essay on Democracy in India 500 Words in English

Below we have provided Democracy in India Essay in English, suitable for class 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 school students.

As quoted by Abraham Lincoln, “Democracy” is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In other words, the absolute power to elect their representatives lies with the people who form the electorate. So, the power resides within the people and is expressed by their opinion and will. This kind of democracy, which is democratic, is most fitting in modern times. India is the world’s biggest democracy, with a population of more than a billion. India, a union of nations, is a republic with democratic capitalism, secularism, democracy and a parliamentary system of government. The republic is governed by the constitution, adopted on 26 November 1949 and put into effect on 26 January 1950.

Indian democracy has foundations which are very deep and solid. Our leaders like Mahatma Gandhi , Dr Rajendra Prasad, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru , Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi, etc., rightly hold the credit for this robust democratic base. Their contributions to Indian democracy’s progress have been incalculable. Our constitution has ensured that democracy is practised in India in its purest form since independence. The greatest of all the powers bestowed on people is their right to vote and to preserve a free democratic establishment in India. Not only that, but India’s system of democracy also gives every citizen the right to form a political party and take part in elections. As you can see, India’s democracy targets ordinary people more than its ruling party.

Types of Democracy in India

There are necessarily two types of Political system that are implemented around the world. The same also holds inside our country. These two forms of systems of democracy are direct democracy and indirect democracy.

Direct Democracy: Citizens engage directly in the process of choosing their representatives in this sort of scheme. They are, in fact, physically present in the whole cycle and collectively announce their leader’s name. As you can see, in the case of a large population, such an approach is not feasible. This is why, over the years, direct democracy in India has vanished. It is practised only in small villages and panchayat, if at all.

Indirect Democracy: India’s indirect democracy is the country’s most common option for forming the government. In this system, the nation’s people engage indirectly in the process of choosing their representatives, instead of being directly involved. Indirect democracy in India is best practised by giving the votes during the election. The political parties, in the case of indirect democracy, choose a few of their worthiest leaders and make them stand up and fight in the elections. The public at large gets to vote for their favourite elected official. The one who gets the highest votes in the respective region is the ruling minister.

Importance of Democracy in Indian Politics

Indian democratic government is represented through the peaceful combination of different beliefs and thoughts. There are strong cooperation and competition between various political organizations. Since the poll is the democratic system route, various political organizations exist, and each organization has its own agenda and thoughts. With so much ethnic and religious diversity, India’s democracy safeguards people from unwarranted prejudices and favouritism.

In India, democracy gives all equal rights and equality irrespective of their views and living standards. The expected caste and scheduled tribes in our country had since ages been thrown out of the main society. In India, democracy ensures that they get as many resources and support from us as everyone else does to develop and make progress in life.

Effects of Democracy

Democracy has its own share of benefits as well as inconveniences for the country’s ordinary people. Firstly, it is instrumental in defending citizens ‘rights and giving them the right to choose their government. Furthermore, it does not require a monocratic rule to crop us as all leaders realize that they do need to perform in case they want the people to nominate them during the next election. Therefore, they can’t believe they’ve powers forever. Providing all people with the right to vote gives them a sense of dignity irrespective of caste, class, religion or financial status.

Classroom Programme
Interview Guidance
Online Programme
Drishti Store
My Bookmarks
My Progress
Change Password
From The Editor's Desk
How To Use The New Website
Help Centre

Achievers Corner

Topper's Interview
About Civil Services
UPSC Prelims Syllabus
GS Prelims Strategy
Prelims Analysis
GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
CSAT Strategy
Previous Years Papers
Practice Quiz
Weekly Revision MCQs
60 Steps To Prelims
Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

Mains GS Syllabus
Mains GS Strategy
Mains Answer Writing Practice
Essay Strategy
Fodder For Essay
Model Essays
Drishti Essay Competition
Ethics Strategy
Ethics Case Studies
Ethics Discussion
Ethics Previous Years Q&As
Papers By Years
Papers By Subject
Be MAINS Ready
Awake Mains Examination 2020
Interview Strategy
Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

Daily News & Editorial
Daily CA MCQs
Sansad TV Discussions
Monthly CA Consolidation
Monthly Editorial Consolidation
Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

To The Point
Important Institutions
Learning Through Maps
PRS Capsule
Summary Of Reports
Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

NCERT Books
NIOS Study Material
IGNOU Study Material
Yojana & Kurukshetra
Chhatisgarh
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

UPSC Prelims Test Series
UPSC Mains Test Series
UPPCS Prelims Test Series
UPPCS Mains Test Series
BPSC Prelims Test Series
RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
Daily Editorial Analysis
YouTube PDF Downloads
Strategy By Toppers
Ethics - Definition & Concepts
Mastering Mains Answer Writing
Places in News
UPSC Mock Interview
PCS Mock Interview
Interview Insights
Prelims 2019
Product Promos

Indian Society

Make Your Note

Perspective: Bharat: The Mother of Democracy

16 Nov 2023
13 min read
GS Paper - 1
GS Paper - 2
Indian Constitution
Ancient Indian History
Salient Features of Indian Society

For Prelims: Indian Democracy, G20 Summit , P20 Summit, Public Digital Platform , SDGs

For Mains: Comparison of Indian Democracy with other world Democracy, Continuity of democracy in India over centuries.

What is the Context?

Recently the Parliament 20 (P20) summit was held in New Delhi. It is an engagement group led by the parliamentary speakers of the G20 countries. It aims to bring a parliamentary dimension to global governance under the theme "Parliaments for One Earth, One Family, One Future."

The event included an exhibition called "Mother of Democracy," highlighting India's ancient democratic traditions and values. India's democratic legacy, emphasizes the importance of equality , harmony, freedom, acceptability, and inclusivity , which have been integral to Indian culture from ancient times to the present.

How is India the Mother of Democracy?

The relationship between the ruler and the ruled, has been considered similar to that of a father and progeny.
The c oncept of Dharma (duty) is crucial in Indian democracy, encompassing the obligations of both the king (Raja Dharma) and the people (Praja Dharma).
Indian democracy's core values— harmony , freedom, acceptability, equality, and inclusivity —underpin citizens' dignified lives;
Familial importance is seen in democratic family structures, with inclusive decision-making; women's participation in assemblies reflects inclusivity in early democratic processes.
India's democratic foundation, rooted in history and societal values, emphasizes enduring democratic principles guided by Dharma , shaping the roles of both the rulers and the ruled;
The historical tradition of participatory democracy underscores public involvement in selecting and approving rulers, highlighting the ruler's likability and the importance of public consent, mirroring a caring father ensuring the people's welfare.
“Equality is the soul of democracy . Philosophers, saints and poets across India recognised this and preached its importance over centuries.

How have Democratic Institutions Evolved since Ancient Times?

The Rigveda , the world's oldest composition , and the Atharvaveda mention representative bodies like Sabha, Samiti, and Sansad, terms still in use today.
The Ramayana emphasizes governance for people's welfare, as seen in Rama's unanimous selection as king for Ayodhya.
The Mahabharata , highlighting Dharma, addresses ethics, morality, and governance, notably in Bhishma's advice to Yudhishthira on the battlefield, with the Bhagavad Gita offering ancient guidance on duties.
People's collective governance, a key feature in ancient Indian systems, manifested in Mahajanapada governance models: 15 Kingships with a council and 10 Republics where the Head was elected.
Texts like Ashtadhyayi highlight 'Loktantrik' institutions – Gana, Puga, Nigama, Janapada.
Jainism, dating back to the 7th century BCE, promotes pluralism through Anekanatavada , acknowledging that truth has multiple facets. This fosters co-existence and tolerance, aligning with democratic principles.
With non-violence as a core tenet , Jainism advocates peaceful co-existence , still followed in India today.
Bauddha Sangha, founded by Gautama Buddha in the 5th century BCE, exemplified early democratic practices. This monk community upheld Buddhist doctrines and democratic traditions , promoting open discussions and elections for leaders. Buddhist principles continue to shape democratic values in India.
Early India embraced participatory governance , electing a Mahasammatta (Great Elect) in the face of anarchy. The King, chosen by the people in a great hall, ruled as 'Vasettha' (head) for their protection in the Ganarajya, or People's State.
Buddhism's democratic principles influenced rulers, ensuring the adoption of democratic values in kingdoms. Inscriptions urged regular elections for prosperity and prevention of decline.
Democracy prioritizes citizens, as emphasized in Arthashastra, a 3rd-century BCE governance treatise by Kautilya , advisor to Chandragupta Maurya.
It asserts the ruler's happiness and welfare depend on the people's well-being , embodying India's enduring democratic principle of serving, not ruling.
Ancient Greeks noted democratic governance in various states. Indians had a commendable custom: no one as a slave, ensuring equal liberty. Global slavery ended 150 years ago, true democracy excludes it. But, India had never embraced slavery.
A state embodies democracy when equal rights and respect, protected by the law, ensure people's welfare.
Emperor Ashoka, post his victory in Kalinga, established such governance, promoting peace and wellbeing through systematic ministerial elections every five years. His ideals endure in India's national emblem, symbolizing democracy.
Democracy empowers officials to serve the people. Fa Xian observed Indian respect for people, Rule of Law, and public welfare.
Gopala was elected by people to replace unfit ruler.Inscriptions highlight the end of disorder and the principle of justice.
Democratic administration in India involves electing and holding accountable administrative officials, including guilds and town leaders.
Inscriptions in South India's Uthiramerur temple , from ruler Parantaka Chola I, affirm democratic elections and local self-governance a thousand years ago.
Sarv-sammati' is the democratic foundation, exemplified by Vijayanagar in South India, where Krishnadeva Raya's participatory governance, division into mandalams, nadus, and sthlas , emphasized self-governance at the village level—a model state for the people's benefit.
Padishah Akbar (1556 – 1605 CE) practiced inclusive governance , introducing "Sulh-i-Kul" to combat religious discrimination.
He fostered harmony with the syncretic religion "Din-i-Ilahi" and 'Ibadat Khana.' Navaratna counsellors aided pro-people initiatives, showcasing Akbar's advanced democratic ideals.
Chhatrapati Shivaji (1630-1680 CE), founder of the Maratha Empire, advocated for democratic governance. His Agya Patra outlined duties for the Ashtha-Pradhan, ensuring equal rights. Shivaji's lokatantra legacy persisted through his successors.
India's Constitution, crafted by the diverse Constituent Assembly led by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, establishes a modern, democratic Republic.
It outlines the powers and relationships of the Legislature , Judiciary , and Executiv e, ensuring equality and universal suffrage.
With numerous amendments, the Constitution evolves to resonate with the people, embracing inclusivity in a three-tier system of Union, States, and Local Self-Government.
India, a pillar of global democracy, has experienced 17 national elections , 400+ state elections, and over a million local self-government elections since independence.
The Election Commission , an independent body reporting to the President, ensures peaceful transfers of power, reflecting India's deep-rooted democratic ethos across all levels of governance.

What are the Sources that Help in Rediscovering Indian Democracy?

Rich Literary Heritage: Mahabharat and Ramayan , India's epics, greatly influence the concepts of democracy and dharma in Indian culture, serving as enduring sources of wisdom.
Democratic Values: India's democratic principles have persisted throughout its history, even through challenging times. The influence of both Western and traditional values has contributed to the modern Indian democratic system.
Continuity of Values: Despite historical challenges, India has retained its democratic spirit, and this spirit is reflected in its democratic structures , including the Constitution and governance practices.

What Role can India play as the Mother of Democracy?

India can play a crucial role as the "Mother of Democracy," nurturing fundamental values through its diverse cultural heritage. The country's rich history, influenced by epics like Mahabharat and Ramayan, contributes to the cultivation of democratic principles and enduring ethical values.
India can play a crucial role as the "Mother of Democracy" by fostering public awareness. With a rich democratic heritage, the nation serves as a beacon for promoting civic engagement, political participation , and a deeper understanding of democratic principles among its citizens.
India, as the Mother of Democracy in modern education, promotes democratic principles through a curriculum fostering critical thinking, inclusivity, and civic engagement, shaping generations with a strong democratic foundation.
India’s commitment aligns with G20 goals of economic stability and sustainable development. India's democratic ethos advocates open dialogue, human rights, and inclusive policies , contrasting with some global players.
India amplifies developing nations' voices , promoting equitable representation and diverse perspectives in decision-making . India underscores the global importance of democratic values, shaping discussions and policies for international cooperation and understanding.
India's presidency of the G20 reflects its commitment to democratic values and international cooperation. The country aims to lead by example and promote global democratic principles.
India's progress and vision are grounded in the collective strength of its people. The focus is on the power of collaboration, consensus , and unity to overcome challenges and achieve national and global goals.

Conclusion:

The Parliament 20 (P20) Summit in New Delhi showcased India's rich democratic heritage and core values to the world. The emphasis on inclusivity, equality, and harmony is central to Indian democracy.

India's role in the G20 demonstrates its commitment to democratic principles and its belief in the collective strength of its people to address global challenges. The country is working to inspire future generations to embrace these timeless democratic values through education and public awareness initiatives.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Q. Which one of the following factors constitutes the best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy? (2021)

(a) A committed judiciary (b) Centralization of powers (c) Elected government (d) Separation of powers

Q.The ancient civilization in Indian sub-continent differed from those of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece in that its culture and traditions have been preserved without a breakdown to the present day. Comment. (2015)

Essay on Democracy in India in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

Essay on Democracy in India: India is the largest democracy in the world. Ruled by various kings and emperors and colonized by the Europeans for centuries, India became a democratic nation post its independence in 1947. Thereafter, the citizens of India were given the right to vote and elect their leaders. The second most populous country and the seventh-largest country by area, India is the largest democracy in the world. Indian democratic government was formed after the nation attained independence in 1947. The parliamentary and state assembly elections are held every 5 years to elect the Central and state governments.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

India’s democracy is built on the idea of political equality. This means that all citizens are treated the same under the law, regardless of their religion, caste, creed, race, or any other differences. As a result, every Indian citizen has the same political rights and opportunities.

Long and Short Essay on Democracy in India in English

Here are long and short essays on Democracy in India in English to help you with the topic in your exams/school assignments. You can select any Democracy in India essay as per your need:

Essay on Democracy in India Essay 200 words

Democracy is a system of government that allows the citizens to cast a vote and elect a government of their choice. India became a democratic state after its independence from British rule in 1947. It is the largest democratic nation in the world.

Democracy in India gives its citizens the right to vote irrespective of their caste, colour, creed, religion and gender. It has five democratic principles – sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republic.

Various political parties stand for elections at the state and national levels periodically. They propagate about the tasks accomplished in their previous tenure and also share their future plans with the people. Every citizen of India, above the age of 18 years has the right to vote. The government is making continuous efforts to encourage more and more people to cast their votes. People must know everything about the candidates standing for the elections and vote for the most deserving one for good governance.

India is known to have a successful democratic system. However, certain loopholes need to be worked on. Among other things, the government must work on eliminating poverty, illiteracy, communalism, gender discrimination, and casteism in order to ensure democracy in the true sense.

Essay on Democracy in India Essay 300 words

Democracy is said to be the best form of government. It allows every citizen of the country to vote and choose their leaders irrespective of their caste, colour, creed, religion, or gender. The government is elected by the common people of the country and it won’t be wrong to say that it is their wisdom and awareness that determines the success or failure of the government.

Many countries have a democratic system. However, India is the largest democracy in the world. It runs on five democratic principles: sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republic. India was declared a democratic nation after it attained freedom from British colonial rule in 1947. Not only the largest, but Indian democracy is also known to be one of the most successful ones.

India has a federal form of democracy with a government at the center responsible to the parliament and state governments equally accountable for their legislative assemblies. Elections are held at regular intervals in the county, and several parties compete to get to the center and make their place in the states. People are encouraged to exercise their right to vote to elect the most deserving candidate, though caste is also a big factor in Indian politics.

Campaigns are carried out by different political parties to emphasize the work they have done for the development of people as well as their future agenda to benefit people.

Democracy in India does not only means providing the right to vote but also ensuring social and economic equality. While the democratic system of the country has received worldwide appreciation, many areas require improvement so that democracy can be formed in true sense. The government must work on eradicating illiteracy, poverty, communalism, casteism, and gender discrimination.

Essay on Democracy in India Essay 400 words

Democracy is government by the people, the people, and the people. The citizens in a democratic nation enjoy the right to vote and elect their government.

India is the largest democracy in the world. After being ruled by the Mughals, Mauryas, British and various other rulers for centuries, India finally became a democratic state after its independence in 1947. The people of the country, who had suffered at the hands of foreign powers, finally got the right to choose their own ministers by casting vote. Democracy in India is not limited to just providing the right to vote to its citizens, it is also working towards social and economic equality.

Democracy in India works on five democratic principles. These are:

Sovereign: This means free from the interference or control of any foreign power.
Socialist: This means providing social and economic equality to all the citizens.
Secular: This means freedom to practice any religion or reject all.
Democratic: This means the government of India is elected by its citizens.
Republic: This means the head of the country is not a hereditary king or queen.

Working of Democracy in India

Every Indian citizen, above 18 years of age can exercise the right to vote in India. There is no discrimination based on a person’s caste, creed, religion, gender, or education when providing the right to vote.

Candidates from several national and regional parties, including Indian National Congress (INC), Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party of India -Marxist (CPI -M), All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) fight for the elections. Candidates evaluate their work during the last tenure of these parties or their representatives and also the promises made by them in order to decide whom to vote.

Scope for Improvement:

There is a lot of scope for improvement in the Indian democracy. Steps must be taken to:

Eradicate poverty
Promote literacy
Encourage people to vote
Educate people on choosing the right candidate
Encourage intelligent and educated people to take up leadership roles
Eradicate communalism
Ensure impartial and responsible media
Monitor the working of the elected members
Form responsible opposition

Though democracy in India has been appreciated worldwide for its working there is still a lot of scope for improvement. The aforementioned steps must be taken to ensure smooth functioning of democracy in the country.

Essay on Democracy in India Essay 500 words

A democratic nation is one where the citizens have the right to elect their government. It is sometimes also said to be the “rule of the majority”. Several countries around the world run democratic governments, but India takes pride in being the largest democracy.

History of Democracy in India

India had been ruled by several rulers from Mughals to Mauryas. Each of them had its own style of governing the people. It was only after the country got independence from the colonial rule of the Britishers in 1947 that it became a democratic nation. It was then that the people of India, who had suffered tyranny at the hands of the British, attained the right to vote and elect their government for the first time.

Democratic Principles of India

Sovereign refers to an entity free from any foreign power’s control. The citizens of India enjoy sovereign power to elect their ministers.

Socialism means providing social and economic equality to all the citizens of India irrespective of their caste, colour, creed, gender, and religion.

Secular means the freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice. There is no official state religion in the country.

This means the government of India is elected by its citizens. The right to vote is given to all Indian citizens without any discrimination.

The head of the country is not a hereditary king or queen. An electoral college elects him.

The Working of Democracy in India

Every citizen of India above the age of 18 years has the right to vote. The Constitution does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their caste, colour, creed, gender, religion, or education.

There are seven national parties in the country, namely, Indian National Congress (INC), Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party of India -Marxist (CPI-M), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Besides these, a number of regional parties fight the elections to state legislatures. Elections are held periodically, and people exercise their right to vote to elect their representatives. The government is continually making efforts to encourage more and more people to use their right to vote to choose good governance.

Democracy in India is not merely about giving people the right to vote but ensuring equality in all the spheres of life.

Hindrances in the Working of Democracy in India

While the elections have been happening at the right time and a systematic approach is followed to conduct the same ever since the concept of democracy came into being in India there are many hindrances in the smooth functioning of democracy in the country. These include illiteracy, gender discrimination, poverty, cultural disparity, political influence, casteism, and communalism. All these factors adversely affect democracy in India.

While democracy in India has been appreciated worldwide, there are still miles to go. Factors such as illiteracy, poverty, gender discrimination and communalism that impact the working of democracy in India need to be eradicated in order to allow the citizens to enjoy democracy in true sense.

Essay on Democracy in India Essay 600 words

Democracy in India was formed after the nation was freed from British rule in 1947. It led to the birth of the world’s largest democracy. Under the effective leadership of the Indian National Congress, the people of India attained the right to vote and elect their government.

There are a total of seven national parties in the country – Indian National Congress (INC), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party of India -Marxist (CPI-M), All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Apart from these, many regional parties come forward for elections to state legislatures. Elections to the parliament and state assemblies are held every 5 years.

Here are the Democratic Principles of India:

Sovereign means independent – free from interference or control of any foreign power. The country has a government directly elected by the citizens of the country. Indian citizens have the sovereign power to elect their leaders by elections conducted for the parliament, local bodies, and the state legislature.

Socialist means social and economic equality for all the country’s citizens. Democratic socialism means attaining socialistic goals by way of evolutionary, democratic, and non-violent means. The government is making continual efforts to lessen economic inequality by decreasing the concentration of wealth.

This means the right and freedom to choose one’s religion. In India, one has the right to practise any religion or reject them all. The Government of India respects all religions and does not have any official state religion. It does not disgrace or promote any religion.

This means the government of the country is elected democratically by its citizens. The people of the country have the right to elect its government at all the levels (Union, State and local) by way of universal adult franchise, also known as ‘one man, one vote.’ The right to vote is given without any discrimination on the basis of the colour, caste, creed, religion, gender, or education. Not just political, the people of India also enjoy social and economic democracy.

The head of the state here is not a heredity king or queen but an elected person. The ceremonial head of the state, that is, the President of India, is elected by an electoral college for a period of five years, while executive powers are vested in the Prime Minister.

Challenges Faced by Indian Democracy

While the constitution promises a democratic state and the people of India have been entitled to all the rights a person should enjoy in a democratic state, there are a lot of factors that impact its democracy and pose a challenge to it. Here is a look at these factors:

Illiteracy among people is one of the biggest challenges the Indian democracy has faced since its inception. Education enables people to exercise their right to vote wisely.

The political parties usually manipulate people belonging to the poor and backward classes. They are often bribed to acquire their vote.

Apart from these, casteism, gender discrimination, communalism, religious fundamentalism, political violence, and corruption are among other factors that are a challenge to democracy in India.

Democracy in India has received appreciation from world over. The right to vote to every citizen of the country has been given without any discrimination on the basis of their caste, colour, creed, religion, gender, or education. However, the country’s huge cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity is a major challenge for its democracy. The differences sought to be created out of it are a cause of serious concern. There is a need to curb these divisive tendencies in order to ensure the smooth functioning of democracy in India.

Essay on Democracy in India FAQs

What is a short paragraph about indian democracy.

Indian democracy ensures equal rights for all citizens and operates on the principle of fairness and inclusion, allowing people to elect their leaders and have a say in the country's governance.

What is democracy 250 words?

Democracy is a system of government where people choose their leaders through voting. It values equality, freedom, and participation, allowing citizens to voice their opinions and make decisions collectively.

How do you write a democracy essay?

To write a democracy essay, begin with an introduction explaining democracy's principles, discuss its importance and challenges in the main body, and conclude by emphasizing its role in shaping a just society.

What is Indian democracy essay?

An essay on Indian democracy explores how India's diverse population participates in governance, emphasizing the importance of equality, diversity, and representation in its democratic system.

What is democracy short speech?

Democracy is a system where people have a voice in their government. It promotes fairness, freedom, and cooperation among citizens for a better society.

Please select class

Democracy Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on democracy.

Democracy is known as the finest form of government. Why so? Because in a democracy, the people of the country choose their government. They enjoy certain rights which are very essential for any human being to live freely and happily. There are various democratic countries in the world , but India is the largest one. Democracy has withstood the test of time, and while other forms have the government has failed, democracy stood strong. It has time and again proved its importance and impact.

Significance of a Democracy

Democracy is very important for human development . When people have free will to live freely, they will be happier. Moreover, we have seen how other forms of government have turned out to be. Citizens are not that happy and prosperous in a monarchy or anarchy.

Furthermore, democracy lets people have equal rights. This ensures that equality prevails all over the country. Subsequently, it also gives them duties. These duties make them better citizens and are also important for their overall development.

Most importantly, in a democracy, the people form the government. So, this selection of the government by the citizens gives everyone a chance to work for their country. It allows the law to prevail efficiently as the rules are made by people whom they have selected.

In addition, democracy allows people of various religions and cultures to exist peacefully. It makes them live in harmony with one another. People of democracy are more tolerant and accepting of each other’s differences. This is very important for any country to be happy and prosper.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

India: A Democratic Country

India is known to be the largest democracy all over the world. After the rule of the British ended in 1947 , India adopted democracy. In India, all the citizens who are above the age of 18 get the right to vote. It does not discriminate on the basis of caste, creed, gender, color, or more.

Although India is the largest democracy it still has a long way to go. The country faces a lot of problems which do not let it efficiently function as a democracy. The caste system is still prevalent which hampers with the socialist principle of democracy. Moreover, communalism is also on the rise. This interferes with the secular aspect of the country. All these differences need to be set aside to ensure the happiness and prosperity of the citizens.

In short, democracy in India is still better than that in most of the countries. Nonetheless, there is a lot of room for improvement which we must focus on. The government must implement stringent laws to ensure no discrimination takes place. In addition, awareness programs must be held to make citizens aware of their rights and duties.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on Democracy in India ( 150, 200, and 500 Words )

By Vijay Gupta

Updated on: September 21, 2023

In this article, I’m going to write an essay on democracy in India. That means those who are looking for it have come to the right place.

It’s a very important topic from the exam point of view, so I thought why I shouldn’t write an article on it. I wrote this essay in 200, 300, and 500 words. Now, you can choose one as per your suitability or preference.

Without wasting your time, let’s start the article.

Table of Contents

Essay on Democracy in India ( 200, 300, and 500 Words )

Essay on democracy in india ( 500 words ), 1. introduction.

Earlier, when India was not independent, it was ruled by the British. The British had occupied the country. They used to exploit its people by bringing whomever they wanted to power.

But, ever since India was freed from the clutches of the British, there was established democracy in India. It gave a new dimension to the country.

It not only made India a strong nation but also gave its people an opportunity to choose who would rule India. Today, the situation is such that the people of India can either bring anyone into the government or topple anyone’s government every five years.

There are many political parties in today’s India, but it only depends on its people who would power. All that is possible only because of its democracy.

2. Features of Indian Democracy

There are a lot of features of Indian democracy, and only because of them, It’s the largest democracy in the world. When India became independent, the biggest challenge in the country was who would lead the country and how he/she would do that.

Remembering that point, with the help of the constitution, democracy was established in India, in which the people of India became able to elect their leader.

They were given the freedom to use their votes to hand over the reins of India’s power to someone who would save the country from all problems and take it on the path of progress.

Democracy in India has many other principles and features such that no foreign power can interfere in any kind of incident happening in India, the Government of India can be selected only by the Indian people, the citizen is completely free to adopt or abandon any religion and many other features are there.

3. The effects of Indian Democracy

The effects of Indian democracy dominate India widely. In fact, democracy has affected India in many ways. Whatever is happening in India today is only because of its democracy.

Indian democracy has not only taught the people of India to use their powers properly but has also made them aware of many things.

Due to Indian democracy, today in India, different types of castes like scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward castes have got their rights and reservation in many areas.

It also hoisted the flag of equality among the people. Today, people of any religion in India are equal to each other and there is no discrimination here.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, Indian democracy allows its citizens to vote without any discrimination or coercion to choose the government of their choice.

Indian democracy is discussed all over the world, and it’s highly appreciated, but still many people in our country don’t know how to use it, nor are they well aware of it, that’s why we need to scatter its values to every person of India.

As a result, they can enjoy its fruit properly in the coming times.

Essay on Democracy in India ( 200 Words )

Indian democracy is divided into three parts, Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary where the judiciary is completely independent. In other words, no pressure can be made on it.

Here, the powers are divided among the individuals from top to bottom.

It’s a very big democratic country where people live without any discrimination. Actually, it’s such a country where it completely depends on its people who they will elect as their leader.

The democratic nature of this country allows its citizens to freely choose anyone irrespective of caste, color, appearance, gender, and religion. Apart from this, every person has the right to speak here and has equal rights.

Its democratic system not only allows the people here to elect a new government every five years but also strengthens the country in many ways. It means that here the public is easily able to replace the government if it doesn’t meet the needs of the citizens.

The sting of this system of India rings in the whole world.

Essay on Democracy in India ( 150 Words )

Indian democracy is one of the largest democracies in the world. As time passed, it became stronger. Various challenges changed its form.

In today’s time, it has many principles like equality, justice, liberty, and many others. In the democratic system of the country, the full right to choose their government has been given to its citizens. This system allows a fair and free election process throughout the whole country.

Apart from this, there is a provision in Indian democracy that the division of powers has been done from top to bottom. That means it’s fully federal.

Democracy should spread in India or the tasks under them should be conducted properly that’s why many non-governmental organizations and media are engaged in this protecting the rights of its citizens.

It’s getting stronger with the passage of time. The governments of our country are trying their best to keep it alive so that the rights of anyone may not violate.

Final words

Eventually, I hope that the article has proved to be very helpful for you. Here, the essay has been written in many formats after deep research. Now, you can pick one as per your need.

If you really liked this article, please share it with those who actually need it.

Vijay Gupta

Hello everyone, My name is Vijay Gupta and I belong to a very small town that is situated in district Hardoi, which is in Uttar Pradesh. 1. Education – I’ve completed my primary education from a private school that is situated in my hometown and upper primary, matric and higher secondary education have been completed from a government college. Well, I was an average student till class 5th, but I accelerated my preference towards studies from class six. Consequently, I passed out many classes with good positions. Even I passed out 12th with good marks ( 405/500 ) and topped my college. Due to getting good marks, I got a cheque of 500 rupees and was rewarded by the Principal of my college. After completing my 12th, I prepared twice for IIT ( Indian Institute of Technology ) from Aakash institute, but unfortunately, I failed to get selected into the best IIT colleges. But during the preparation, I was being graduated from CSJMU Kanpur. I completed my graduation in 2016 and now I’m pursuing an educational degree ( B.Ed. ). 2. Profession – Although I love teaching, but I also do blogging. Both are my favorite jobs.

bsf ro rm syllabus Pdf 2024

Easy Access to SRKR Syllabus PDF

labour inspector syllabus pdf download

Punjabi University Syllabus Pdf

ctet syllabus 2023-24 pdf download

ssc gd syllabus 2023-2024 in hindi pdf download

Nursery Class Syllabus PDF Download

ktu syllabus Pdf 2023-2024

Essay on Democracy for Students and Children in 1000+ Words

Here, you will read Essay on Democracy for Students and Children in 1000+ Words. It will include meaning, importance of democracy in India.

Table of Contents

Introduction (Essay on Democracy)

This is a very simple word known by all nowadays. Mostly in all countries democracy system is available. Public administration is called a democracy because the election of the people forms it.

Meaning of democracy

Under this, every adult citizen, using his vote, chooses a ruler who will help in the development of the country. Along with it, it will maintain the unity and integrity of the country, and protect it from all wars.

Democracy in India

At the same time, India’s democracy works on five main principles, such as sovereign, that there is no interference of any foreign power in India; it is completely free. Socialists, vote is to provide social and economic equality to all citizens.

Role of democracy in election and voting system of India

Elections to the Lok Sabha or to the Legislative Assembly, in which all citizens of the country unite and exercise their franchise and elect their representative, every citizen over 18 years of age in the country can use his vote.

Democratic Principles of India

India is a democratic country that primarily works on five democratic principles – such as sovereign, socialist, secularism and democratic which are below –

India is a democratic republic, which means that India’s government is elected by the citizens of India without any caste discrimination and economic inequality.

10 Lines on Democracy

However, in India’s democracy, all the factors like illiteracy, poverty, and unemployment need to be eradicated to strengthen the country’s democracy and strengthen the country’s development.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply, copyright protection, important links.

Your Article Library

Democracy in india: democracy in ancient and modern india.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Read this article to learn about the Democracy System in Ancient and Modern India!

Democracy in its broader sense denotes not only a political concept but also way of life in the society in which each individual is believed to be entitled to equality as regards his participating freely in the structures and institutions of the society is concerned.

In a narrower sense, democracy denotes the opportunity of the members of the society to participate freely in decisions in all realms of life which affect their lives individually and collectively. In its most restricted sense, the term (democracy) denotes the opportunity of the citizens of a state to participate freely in political decisions. Democracy, thus, seeks to set up an equalitarian society.

There are different kinds of democracy:

1. Political,

2. Social, economic and

Political democracy is delimited to adult franchise and elections for the choice of political leadership. Social democracy aims at c-eating a classless and casteless society and breaking down the social stratifications and prejudices. Economic democracy lays emphasis on a welfare state and revolts against concentration of wealth and economic disparities. Moral democracy is directed towards orientation of the popular attitude and thinking with the concepts of right and wrong conduct. The philosophy underlying democracy is fellow-feeling, brotherhood and good conduct.

Democracy in Ancient India:

The Rig Veda is so committed to democratic principles and ideals that it has made democracy a deity and aptly called it ‘Samjnana’. The term Samjnana means the collective consciousness of the people, the national mind to which the individual mind is to pay its homage as the source from which it derives its potency. The hymn addressed to Samjnana (in Rig Veda) called upon the people to gather in their assembly (Samgachchaddhvam) and speak there in one voice (Samvadaddhvam), in a union of minds (Sammanah), of hearts (Samachittam), of policy (Samanmantrah), and of hopes and aspirations (akuti).

Thus, democracy was taken to depend upon the ‘inner unity’ of its citizens and their emotional integration. The democratic principle was at work in different spheres of the public life—political, social and cultural. The democratic tradition of the Vedic era governed the entire growth of Indian polity through the ages.

Even where there was monarchy, it was a limited or constitutional monarchy, so that the pattern of monarchy remained fundamentally democratic. It was based on decentralisation and local autonomy. The people formed the following appropriate associations and groups to exercise their rights in self-government in an ascending order: kula (clan), jati (caste), sreni (guild), puga or pura (village community) and janapada (state).

Each group had its own rules and regulations and was working for democracy at its respective stratum of self-government. Some of the janapadas in ancient India were republican in form and some had monarchical organisation. But each of them often had an assembly (samiti)—the precursor of the modern parliament—which was attended by the high and the low together with a view to taking decisions about the affairs of the state. R.K. Mukherjee has remarked: “Side by side with the monarchy, there also developed the regular republican type of polity of which glimpses are given in different literary texts—Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain.” The Mahabharata has also mentioned some republics called Samghatagana.

Five Republican Unions were called: Andhakas, Vrishnis, Yadavas, Kukuras and Bhojas which constituted a Sangha or Union, with Sangha Mukhya as Union President. Similarly, in the Mahabharata, there is a reference to Ganas (republics) being governed by their councils of leaders called Gana-Mukhyas. All these Ganas (republics) had an extremely democratic constitution. Each had its own assembly (parishad).

The Jain and the Buddhist texts have also referred to many erstwhile republics and some republican confederations like Vajji (Vriji) consisting of nine Mallakis, nine Lichhavis and eighteen Gana Rajyas of Kashi-Koshal and other states. It has been mentioned that the death of Mahavira was condoled with a funeral illumination arranged by 36 republics of this Vriji Confederation.

The Lichhhavis were well-known republics of those times and were governed by the council of 7,707 Rajas, who were constitutional monarchs. The Sakha republic was famous for giving the Buddah to the world. Nearly 80,000 households constituted the ‘republic’ which had a parliament (parishad) of 500 members with a President or Raja. Some of the famous republics of the Buddhist era were: Vaisali, Pava, Mithila and so on. While the assembly served as a legislative body, there were executive and judicial functionaries of various sorts to implement their decisions. A single chief was elected as office-holder presiding over the assembly/state. He bore the title of Raja.

It is said that in ancient India, the people led a democratic way of living although political democracy did not exist in its full form. Incidentally, monarchy was also popular. After the sixth century, democratic organisations started declining. Kings and monarchs often remained engaged in wars. Since there was no strong monarch to uphold the solidarity and unity of the country, consequently a large number of principalities sprang up throughout the country. From the eighth century onwards, the Mohammedans launched their invasions till they established their rule in the twelfth century. The Muslim rulers were autocratic.

The British rule also was against democracy. 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 11. 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.

Democracy in Modern India:

Democracy in modern India is based on certain principles:

(1) That every individual has his potentialities, worth, and dignity;

(2) That everyone has the capacity to learn and manage his life with others;

(3) That an individual must abide by the decisions of the majority;

(4) That every individual should have a part in making decisions;

(5) That the control and direction of democratic action lies in the situation and not outside it;

(6) That the process of living is interactive and that all individuals work towards commonly recognised ends; and

(7) That democracy rests on individual opportunity as well as individual responsibility.

After independence, India decided to have democratic political system. This system is characterised by three elements: one, there is a high degree of autonomy; two, economic agents and religious organisations are free from political interference; and three, competition between various orders does not endanger integration but helps it.

Some people maintain that Indira Gandhi’s regime of 16 years-between January 1966 and October 1984-(minus three years of Morarji Desai and Charan Singh regimes) was not democratic but an ‘authoritarian’ regime which had three characteristics:

(1) It required obedience to the authority of the main power-holder(s).

(2) It suppressed organised opposition and public criticism (by declaring Emergency for two years).

(3) It had greater hold on the autonomous organisations.

Democracy: Useful Paragraphs on Democracy
Major Factors Promoting Democracy in India

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Menu
Sign in through your institution
Advance articles
Supplement series
Virtual issues
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Why Publish with Past & Present?
About Past & Present
About the Past and Present Society
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Terms and Conditions
Contact the Past and Present Society
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

I competing constitutionalism, ii constitution-making and judicial expectations, iii tribals and the making of the constitution, iv assembling india’s constitution-making.

< Previous

Assembling India’s Constitution: Towards a New History *

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Rohit De, Ornit Shani, Assembling India’s Constitution: Towards a New History, Past & Present , Volume 263, Issue 1, May 2024, Pages 205–248, https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtad009

Permissions Icon Permissions

The framing of India’s constitution was a critical event in the global history of both constitution-making and democracy. Conventionally it has been analysed as a founding moment. Its success against multiple odds has been explained as resulting from a vision and consensus among the elite over what would become a pedagogical text for an ‘ignorant’ and undemocratic public. This focus among academics on political elites, and an underlying assumption that constitutional details were beyond the public’s imagination, limited the scope of investigations largely to the Constituent Assembly debates. By directing the inquiry away from these debates towards hitherto unstudied documents, this article offers a paradigm shift in the method of research and understanding of India’s constitution-making. It explores the constitution as it emerged from beyond the Constituent Assembly through engagement with its making among diverse publics. In doing so, it shows that the Indian constitution was not simply founded and granted from above, but came about through many smaller acts of assembly away from the Constitution Hall. It was the public who set normative expectations and tried to educate the members of the Constituent Assembly, and this was critical for the constitution’s future reception and endurance.

As the clock struck eleven on 9 December 1946, the Constituent Assembly convened for the first time in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, to begin its prodigious task of framing a constitution for the soon-to-be-independent India. It was far from inevitable that the 205 Assembly members, among them ten women, who met that morning in what was described as ‘an atmosphere charged on the one hand, with enthusiasm, and on the other, with uncertainty’, would ultimately succeed in producing a constitution for India. 1

The legitimacy of the Constituent Assembly was not unquestioned at that point, and neither was the underlying scheme for its establishment and terms of reference, which had been set a few months earlier by the British Cabinet Mission. 2 The legislative assemblies of the provinces of British India chose the members of the Indian Constituent Assembly. These had themselves been voted into office in the 1946 elections on a very limited franchise that was structured along religious, community and professional lines according to the Government of India Act 1935, the last colonial constitutional framework for India, to which Indian leaders and political parties were fiercely resistant.

In the face of the imminent transfer of power, the political future of India, its people and territory remained uncertain. The partition of the subcontinent would be declared only six months later, when grievous violence between Hindus and Muslims was already on the rise across the country and even outside the Constitution Hall itself. Wide-scale illiteracy and poverty, and profound social divisions, made the task of framing a constitution for a democratic state in India whose authority would reside in the people all the more complicated.

The making of the Indian constitution was a critical event and a unique experience in the global history of constitution-makingand democracy. 3 Unlike in so many other Asian and African countries, where constitutions at the time of decolonization were largely a ‘parting gift’ of the colonial rulers, Indians wrote their constitution for themselves. 4 Most postcolonial democracies and their constitutions were short-lived, but while the Indian constitution failed to live up to many of its promises, over seventy years and against many odds it has played a key role in sustaining the biggest democracy in the world. Moreover, India set itself apart from Western democracies by writing its constitution on a grand scale, unprecedented in terms of its territory, population size, demographic complexity and the number of autonomous political units it sought to integrate into a single federal structure; and it enfranchised all its adults at a stroke. India’s constitution-making was not limited to shaping a new political structure, but was intended to transform the social and economic life of the people.

The conventional understanding has been that the Indian constitution was a product of elite consensual decision-making, and that India’s constitution-makers endowed it from above; it has been described as ‘a gift of a small set of India’s elites’. 5 In line with this view, studies of the making of the Indian constitution, both older and more recent, have focused their investigations on the three years of the Constituent Assembly debates in the Constitution Hall, between December 1946 and November 1949. These voluminous debates, spread over 5,546 pages in a set of five books, have formed their principal source for understanding the constitution-making process and its implications for India’s democracy. In the main, these studies have examined the transformative power of the ideas that were being advocated, and the politics of crafting an elite consensus around the constitution. 6 They have understood the document as a pedagogical text aiming to educate an ‘ignorant’ and undemocratic public. Indeed, scholars have largely assumed that constitutional politics and its details were beyond the imagination, interest or capacity of the Indian people, and that the constitution-making process did not occupy their concerns. 7 As a leading work on Indian democracy put it, ‘Most people in India had no idea of what exactly they had been given’. 8

Thus, most scholars have continued to work, albeit implicitly, on the assumption that the participation of the Indian public during the process of constitution-making was limited. 9 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Indian experience is seen as having little relevance for recent debates about the centrality of public participation in constitution-making. Reviewing recent scholarship on India’s constitution, Cheryl Saunders concludes that ‘there does not appear to have been any systematic attempt to engage the public directly with the process, which might, in any event, have been both difficult and tokenistic in the conditions of the time’. 10

Focusing primarily on the Constituent Assembly debates as it does, scholarship on the Indian constitution has relied substantially on the materials and terms of debate set by Granville Austin’s seminal book The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (1966). Drawing on this imagery of a cornerstone, scholars have conceived the writing of the constitution as a founding moment. 11 Thinking through this notion of a founding moment has meant that scholars examined what they saw as a moment of origin, aiming to build something new, based on a common purpose. The result is often viewed as monumental, and, like monuments, it was also fixed, or associated with a single place and moment. This has further contributed to a focus on the Constituent Assembly debates, narrowing the gaze to the Constitution Hall in New Delhi, often with the assumption that the key to understanding India’s constitution-making can be sought in the thoughts and actions of a small group as they finalized the text. 12

It is noteworthy that Austin also conducted extensive interviews with surviving members of the Constituent Assembly and consulted their private papers, although, perhaps relying on a statement made by the secretary of the Assembly, H. V. R. Iyengar, he observed that much of the work of constitution-makinghappened outside the Assembly, in informal conversations and private chats. 13 However, as Vikram Raghavan has pointed out, despite this insight Austin’s text itself ‘is a lot more dependent on [the Assembly debates] rather than his piercing into so-called informal spaces of Indian Constitution making’. 14

Furthermore, there were other formal and critical spaces of constitution-making at the time which remained obscured by scholars’ focus on the notion of founding and on the Constituent Assembly debates. When the Assembly embarked on theconstitution-making process, two-thirds of India’s future territory lay outside its legal jurisdiction. At that time, spread throughout the subcontinent were more than 550 princely states that covered about 45 per cent of its territory, with a population of nearly ninety-three million. Many of the states were in the process of framing their own constitutions, and the Assembly had no powers of framing any constitution for this territory. The making of the Indian constitution thus entailed assembling the constitutions of each of the princely states into a future constitutional order. In fact, diverse publics across the country read and deliberated on the anticipated constitution in a range of sites, including durbars (princely courts), in judges’ chambers and in tribal villages in deep forests. These facets of India’sconstitution-making have been ignored.

By turning the focus of inquiry away from the Constituent Assembly debates, this article offers a paradigm shift in the method of research and understanding of the making of India’s constitution. On the basis of a new and broad range of archival and other materials, the article offers the first historical inquiry into the making of the Indian constitution as it emerged beyond the Constitution Hall, through ceaseless dialogues and disparate interactions between princes and subjects, important representatives of state institutions and members of the public, many from the social margins, and the Constituent Assembly. This article suggests that the storeyed halls of the Assembly were only one of multiple spaces where the Indian constitution was being engaged with, debated, contested and produced. The members of the Assembly, it shows, were not the sole participants in the constitution-making process. The embryonic constitution had vibrant life outside formal legal chambers, which was critical for its future reception and legitimacy. The 5,546 pages of the Assembly debates represent a tiny sample compared with the thousands of pages of wide-ranging deliberations around the making of the constitution outside the Assembly.

It is suggested in this article that the making of the Indian constitution entailed a process of fitting together (‘assembling’) disparate but simultaneous constitution-making efforts across the country. The Indian constitution emerged from competing constitutionalisms at different places and orders of power that involved large and distinct publics. It was not, as we have been accustomed to think, simply or exclusively the product of the Constituent Assembly. The notion of assembling better represents the making of the Indian constitution, driven by contestations rather than consensus. 15 Various social groups and state officials reconstituted themselves as constitutional actors, seeking, in many ways, to make their history anew. This process created a surge in democratic aspirations and a politics of hope; it generated a sense of ownership in the constitution and thus decolonized it; and it created an order of expectation from it which meant that the process of its making and the political energies it unleashed did not conclude with its mere formal adoption. The resilience of the Indian constitution grew out of the fever of expectations for it from across the subcontinent.

To clarify, this article is not suggesting that the making of the constitution simply engendered public interest, or that it led to a proliferation of engagements with constitutionalism well beyond the Constituent Assembly in anticipation of the new constitution. Instead, it offers a fundamentally new perspective which inverts the perceived sequence of events, arguing that it was the proactive engagement with the issue among diverse publics from mid 1946 onwards that led to the burgeoning of constitutionalism and turned the making of the constitution into an open site of politics.

It was the public who set the normative expectations for the constitution, and who tried to engage and educate the members of the Constituent Assembly regarding their aspirations for it. Even though many of their ambitions for the constitution failed, this process prevailed in significant ways over the text and was key to its success. Exploring how diverse publics made purposeful efforts to insert themselves into the making of the constitution, and sometimes even to take charge of it, helps us to understand the constitution’s socio-political and cultural meaning, its early acceptance and use, and its endurance. Abstract constitutional ideas could not in themselves have guaranteed a successful transition into a new constitutional structure, which the notion of founding, focusing on the making of the text, cannot capture.

While the public’s initial engagement with the Constituent Assembly contributed in some instances to the shaping of the text before its enactment in January 1950, a focus on these early influences obscures the significance of their efforts. The public deliberations on the constitution created a sense of ownership of it by the people, and legitimized it. The constitution-making thus did not end at the moment of its founding, but remained an active site of public assembling in pursuit of their claims and aspirations. Prioritizing these processes of public engagement over those of the production of the constitutional text, this article explores how three sets of actors beyond the Constituent Assembly, among many others, engaged with it at the time of its making.

Section I explores constitution-making in the princely states. The princely (or Indian) states, which were not part of British India, retained varying degrees of sovereignty under the paramountcy of the British Crown. But with the imminent attainment of independence, all the rights that had been surrendered by the states to the British Crown were to return to them. At the beginning of the Constituent Assembly debates, the princes declared that ‘The entry of the States into the Union of India . . . shall be on no other basis than that of negotiation, and the final decision shall rest with each State’, and that the ‘Constitution of each State, its territorial integrity, and the succession of its reigning dynasty in accordance with the custom, law and usage of the State, shall not be interfered with by the Union’. 16 Thus, constitutionalism in the princely states posed a challenge to the making of the Indian Union, and these processes within the states often outpaced the making of the constitution in Delhi.

Section II focuses on the engagement of judges with the draft constitution as they were reimagining and attempting to shape an independent postcolonial judiciary. The success of the future constitution demanded a smooth transition of the organs of the colonial state to the postcolonial order. The state apparatus had to begin this transition even before the constitution was finalized, in the interim between independence and becoming a republic (1946–50), when much of the administration was in flux. Colonial state officials, many of whom were Indian, had in the past resisted reforms and held onto autocratic power. 17 Moreover, state organs like the judiciary had developed over time a strong sense of professional collective identity and acted on occasion to advance their own interest. 18 For them, transferring their loyalty to the new state and its constitutional order was not an obvious outcome.

Section III examines how people from the margins of Indian society and territory, the so-called ‘backward tribes’ (Adivasi), wrote themselves as constitutional actors. Converting the diverse peoples of India into a single ‘We, the people’ in whose name the constitution was to be enacted could not have come about simply through published pronouncement. Tribal people, like other groups of people across India, had their own imaginings and expectations of what the constitution and their relationship to it should be. Numerous tribal groups comprising at least 14 per cent of the population now put forward their own constitutional visions, for example asking for tribal-majority provinces where their ‘customary law [would be] supreme’ or demanding ‘rights of territorial unity and solidarity and self-determination’ within a province. 19 Uncovering the active and reflective engagement among people from the farthest social and territorial margins of India with making the constitution throws new light on this process and its trajectory in succeeding decades.

On 14 August 1947, while the ‘Entire Delhi [was] kept awake to witness the historic event of ushering in the freedom of India at the hour of midnight’ and ‘wild scenes of jubilation’ were witnessed across the city, His Highness the Rajadhiraj Sahib, ruler of Shahpura state, located in what is now Rajasthan, gave assent to his state’s new constitution. 20 The twenty-four-page constitution granted the people of Shahpura full responsible government based on universal franchise. It declared the ruling prince as constitutional head of state, with all his executive, legislative and judicial powers to be exercised through the State Council, its Assembly and the courts respectively. It contained a section entitled ‘Fundamental Rights including General Directions of State Policy’, which specified in its general preface that ‘Citizens of the State have the right to all these opportunities and conditions of life and work which are essential for a fuller and richer development of human personality’. 21 The jubilant people of Delhi, only 410 kilometres away, were yet to be the bearers of such rights. However, the inauguration of the Shahpura constitution did not prevent the prince from signing, the next day, the instrument of accession to the Dominion of India in the three areas of defence, external affairs and communications, as many other princely states did at the same time. The following month, the state’s reforms towards responsible government gathered further momentum as the post of dewan (chief administrator) was abolished and an interim government headed by a prime minister was formed. 22

Shahpura was a very small state almost 320 years old, with an area of 405 square miles and a population of only 61,173. Thus, in the annals of India’s constitutionalism, its efforts to establish a constitution might not seem significant. But it was just one among numerous princely states that were engaged with constitutional reforms and constitution-making processes which challenged India’s constitution-making and the endeavour to create a single union. Manipur, in the north-east, adopted a constitution which, on 26 July 1947, provided for fundamental rights and separation of powers, and recognized the maharaja as its constitutional head. 23 The maharaja of Patna declared the setting up of a representative constitution-making body on 24 October 1947, just at the moment when the first draft of the Indian constitution was ready. That same month, M. R. Jayakar, until the previous May a member of the Constituent Assembly, advised the Gwalior state Constitutional Reforms Committee not to depart, in their proposed constitution, ‘from the model now in vogue, for instance, at Mysore’. 24 This pattern, of general steps towards constitutions based on the principle of representative government, was repeated in numerous other princely states. These included Aundh, Banswara, Baoni, Baria, Baroda, Barwani, Benares, Berar, Bhavnagar, Bhopal, Bhor, Bikaner, Bilaspur, Cochin, Dhami, Dhenkanal, Gondwana, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Idar, Indore, Jaipur, Jammu and Kashmir, Jaora, Jhabua, Khairagarh, Kolhapur, Kotda, Kutch, Mayurbhanj, Miraj, Morvi, Mysore, Nagod, Narsingpur, Orchha, Palitara, Pallahara, Panna, Porbundar, Pudukkottai, Raigarh, Rajkot, Rampur, Ranpur, Ratlam, Rewa, Sailana, Sangani, Sangli, Sarangarh, Seraikella, Sitamau, Sohawal, Tehri-Garhwal, Theog, Travancore, Udaipur and Vadia. 25 Thus, by the mid 1940s, constitution-making processes had become the norm and occupied much of the political agenda in the princely states. So far we have traced sixty-two states that framed their own constitution, and 286 others that were involved in making constitutions for unions of states, which shaped the new constitutional landscape. This fact has gone largely unnoticed in the study of India’s constitutionalism. 26

These constitution-making processes within the states were driven by movements for popular government among local peoples. 27 From 1946 these processes became increasingly interlinked with India’s constitution-making. In the face of the imminent ending of paramountcy, both rulers and the people acted out of a sense of urgency and self-interest to frame their own constitutions: princely rulers were looking for ways to ensure the survival of their states, and the people were eager to secure popular government and democratic rights. In many states the constitution-making processes outpaced the work of the Constituent Assembly or progressed in parallel with it. The people of many princely states thus became the legal bearers of freedom of speech, for example, as well as freedom of religion and equality of opportunity irrespective of sex or community, two years before Indians across the subcontinent were granted such fundamental rights with the enactment of the constitution. By the mid 1940s, constitution-making within the princely states became the norm and occupied much of the political agenda. This article argues that these multiple constitution-making processes gradually transformed the nature of princely sovereignty and the aspirations of subjects. These developments within the princely states gave rise to widespread constitutional dialogue between rulers and constitution-makers within the states, and their engaged public. Constitutionalism in the princely states was like an insistent refrain to India’s constitution-making. In this iterative process, constitutionalism became the standard discourse through which to think about and act on political aspirations for democratic government. Moreover, driven by similar popular expectations, the numerous parallelconstitution-making processes in the states produced comparable constitutional templates that could ultimately be assembled into the new Indian constitutional fold.

The case of the rather autocratic and underdeveloped Rewa state, which was ‘bigger than Belgium and Holland’ and was the largest of the Central India states in both territory and population, provides evidence for this dynamic. 28 On 16 October 1945, on the first day of the Hindu holiday of Dussehra, Maharaja Gulab Singh of Rewa announced his intention to grant responsible government to the people of the state. He pledged to bring in a system of administration based on ‘adult franchise, common electorates and no weightage or special representation’ that would ‘provide for the protection of every religion and civilization’. 29 In the presence of 130,000 people, he stated that the viceroy of British India

gave out that a constitution-making body should be formed for the establishment of self-government in India, which body should include representatives of the States . . . It is very essential that the Rewa people should be able to take part in the work of constitution-making for all-India. It is therefore proper that the people of Rewa should be granted responsible government. 30

The maharaja explained that this would enable Rewa, ‘according to its tradition, to take a share in the future development of India maintaining at the same time the freedom of the Bandhavas [members of the clan of Rewa]’. ‘Rewa’, he concluded, ‘belongs to the Rewa people’, and a government for them and by them was their birthright. 31 Although some states had previously initiated political reforms, such proclamations and the subsequent appointment of constitutional committees were introduced and perceived to be linked to the impending setting up of the Indian Constituent Assembly.

Soon afterwards, the Crown representative deposed the maharaja. 32 However, the outgoing maharaja’s stated intentions were respected. His son, the new maharaja, was enthroned on 6 February 1946, and the same month the state issued a press communiqué announcing the appointment of a committee to frame a constitution for Rewa. 33

The search for a chairman for the Rewa Constitutional Reforms Committee was initially undertaken by the Crown representative’s office in New Delhi and the resident for Central India. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr M. R. Jayakar and Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar, all of them towering legal figures, were approached in turn, but none accepted the position. 34 Then Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, formerly an advocate-general of Madras, and Sir C. B. Mangaonkar, a former Bombay High Court judge, were invited. Sir Alladi agreed on the condition that, among other things, it would not preclude him from giving advice if consulted by a British Indian politician in connection with the forthcoming constitutional discussions. 35

The new Rewa government agreed to Alladi’s appointment, and on 1 April 1946 the new maharaja announced a Constitutional Reforms Committee for the establishment of popular government in the state. 36 But things changed soon after Sir Alladi delivered his plan for the process of framing a constitution for the state. He suggested that prior to convening the committee, its secretary should collect all the available reports, books, papers and information that might be useful to the committee, meet the state’s ministers and heads of department and gather their suggestions. He arranged to conduct the committee’s first meeting in either Madras or Bangalore, his places of residence. At this meeting, the committee was to set its programme and procedures, and compose a questionnaire to be issued and translated into Hindi. Sir Alladi intended to distribute the questionnaire ‘only to representative institutions and . . . only to such persons as by reason of their outstanding experience or position, may be expected really to give helpful information or suggestions to the Committee’. He also contemplated the setting up of subcommittees ‘for special purposes, such as Franchise, Finance and Taxation’. These subcommittees were to have the power to grant personal interviews to whoever wished to offer their opinion; however, he noted, ‘such interviews will have reference only to the points raised in the questionnaire’. Finally, he set his terms of employment, asking not to be required to proceed to Rewa until the cold weather season, and therefore to conduct the work of the committee and hold meetings at one of his homes. He also submitted a proposal for his remuneration, which was seen by the British resident to be ‘outlandish’. 37

Sir Alladi’s plan followed the blueprint of colonial reforms committees led by external experts who were to decide on future legislation and who invited the views of specified groups and leading individuals on the basis of limited terms of reference. It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that his plan for the Constitutional Reforms Committee aroused objections, even resentment, among the people of Rewa and its government. The pawaidars (landlords) protested that ‘We do not need a constitution drawn out of one’s bookish knowledge alone. We want a practical constitution that may suit us according to our needs and conditions. These cannot be ascribed from outside’. The members of the District Congress Committee, Baghelkhand, lodged a similar complaint and warned that they would not co-operate with the committee if it held its sittings outside the state. 38

The Rewa government also found Sir Alladi’s proposal ‘not altogether suitable’ and ‘most unsatisfactory’ on similar grounds. 39 Attuned to public opinion, it proposed an alternative plan for adoption by the Constitutional Reforms Committee: the committee was to hold all its meetings in Rewa state, and its headquarters were to be in Rewa town so as to make it accessible ‘to anyone in the State who desires to obtain information or put in statements, or other papers before the Committee’. 40 The Rewa government suggested that the chairman should

make a brief tour of the State with different members of the Committee or with officials in order to gain an overall idea of the accurate administration in the rural areas of the State, degree of development of the people, institutions and other matters relevant to this enquiry. He could also be brought in touch with the people in the different tracts of the State during his tour. 41

The prime minister of Rewa, moreover, was concerned that ‘the complete lack of knowledge of Hindi both of Sir Alladi and [of] his secretary’ would be a hindrance for non-English-speaking witnesses before the committee, and might prejudice its work. 42

In the face of public pressure to deliver on the maharaja’s promise to appoint a Constitutional Reforms Committee, and anxious that the committee should begin its work as early as possible, the Rewa government suggested an alternative chairman, Sir Hari Singh Gour. 43 He knew Hindi, and was familiar with local conditions. The election of Sir Alladi to the Constituent Assembly soon after provided a pretext for his dignified resignation as chairman of the committee before it had even been officially set up, and Sir Hari accepted the chairmanship on 26 August 1946. 44 A month later, the Rewa government appointed the Constitutional Reforms Committee, which was to recommend ‘the form of constitution most suited to the needs of the Rewa State’. 45 It began its work on 2 October 1946, and concluded its sittings after nearly eight months, on 25 May 1947. 46

The committee contacted the people of the state for their views on a future constitution, and, on 12 November 1946, published a questionnaire addressed to the public in the Rewa Gazette and in the weekly Prakash , both in Hindi and in English. 47 The committee ‘received 79 written replies bearing signatures of hundreds of persons. Printed replies were received through the Praja Mandal Offices [People’s Association] numbering 2,945 over the signatures or thumb impressions of different individuals’. 48 The chairman of the committee, Sir Hari, reported that many people had

expressed a desire to interview the Committee and place their views before it. To meet their desire and also to make an intimate study of the conditions prevailing in the State, the Committee undertook an extensive tour.

It interviewed 333 witnesses, although

many persons, sometimes the numbers running into thousands, used to be present at the meetings of the Committee held for the examination of the witnesses . . . Hindus, Muslims, Pawaidars and tenants, businessmen and labourers, backward classes and tribal people, have all placed their respective points of view before the Committee.

The chairman noted, moreover, that the committee was

received with great enthusiasm and courtesy from the people wherever we went. Their statements were characterised with utmost frankness which enabled us to appraise the true political situation in the State. 49

The questionnaire the committee designed, and the way it addressed the responses, represented a form of participatory constitution-making. It was composed of fifty-three questions, seeking feedback on issues such as whether a popular government should be established in stages, and what the status of the maharaja and the nature of his power should be. Some questions went into detail, such as how many members should compose the legislature; what the minimum age of a member of the legislature should be; and whether there should be reserved seats, for whom, and how candidates to these seats should be elected. One question asked what matters the legislature should not be authorized to consider; and the final, open question left space for additional comments. 50 The respondents were also requested to give details about themselves or the organization they represented.

Almost all the associations that submitted their views had already been formed in anticipation of the setting up of the Constitutional Reforms Committee. 51 The demands of marginal groups, such as Muslims, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (formerly known as untouchables), are particularly telling. Rewa’s Muslim Association objected that as a minority they would ‘not gain anything by the immediate introduction of full responsible government. Their fate [would] be sealed, and their miseries . . . perpetuated’. 52 They thus preferred the gradual implementation of a popular form of government in stages, and requested that the maharaja should remain as ‘constitutional sovereign’ because they were ‘more secure and safe in the hands of the Ruler[s] . . . who have, without exception, invariably followed the long established tradition of protecting . . . their Muslim subjects’. 53 They also asked for 25 per cent of seats in the future legislature to be reserved for them.

The Raj Gonds tribal group was also sceptical about a full responsible government, describing their exploitation by the people of the northern districts of Rewa who were educationally advanced and dominated the state’s services. They stated that ‘a Constitution affecting His Highness’s powers will not be acceptable to us’. They demanded reserved seats in the legislature, and that ‘Special steps should be taken to educate us to the level of other castes before we are asked to march along with them’. They noted that the committee’s questionnaire was not ‘intelligible’ to them, but they replied to the parts which they ‘have been able to understand’. Representatives of Scheduled Castes and ‘Depressed and Backward classes’ expressed similar concerns about a ‘party Government’ under which, in their view, the ‘socially and economically superior classes’ would have the advantage and their position would worsen. They therefore also favoured retaining the rule of the maharaja. In fact, maintaining the maharaja as a constitutional head was the one thing the diverse people of Rewa agreed upon. Even the Praja Mandal, which demanded full responsible government, stated that the ‘Maharaja is the living embodiment of the individuality and of the unity of the people of Rewa’. 54

In addition to the replies to the questionnaire, the committee was also in possession of copies of at least ten constitutions and constitutional acts that had already been framed by other princely states. 55 In its recommendations, the committee addressed the particular concerns of groups from the social margins of Rewa. ‘Any constitution which we frame’, stated the chairman, Sir Hari, ‘must not only meet the aspirations of the intelligentsia but also make due allowance for the objections of the less enlightened. A constitution is a political arrangement not an exercise in logic’. The committee recommended the establishment of a representative legislature and the introduction of a popular element in the executive; it suggested enfranchising in stages, with at first only 150,000 people, establishing local government institutions, and declaring fundamental rights. The maharaja was to remain as constitutional head. The committee saw these as ‘the first step on the democratic path’. 56

Upon the Constitutional Reforms Committee submitting its report on 27 May 1947, the Rewa government published it widely, inviting comments and suggestions from individuals and associations for consideration in the State Council before the maharaja announced his final decision. In the interim, elections to an Advisory Council with a majority of elected members took place in June 1947 on a franchise based on property and educational qualifications. The State Council was reconstituted ‘so as to find room for two non-Illakadar [landlord] Ministers’, though it had yet to be given statutory powers. 57 Groups among the illakadars and pawaidars expressed dissatisfaction with the Constitutional Reforms Committee and unsuccessfully demanded a round-table conference to devise a different scheme for an interim government. But the prime minister decisively rejected these demands.

It is not clear from the archival trail whether the new constitution for Rewa was inaugurated before the state became part of the United State of Vindhya Pradesh, which was composed of thirty-five covenanting princely states, on 4 April 1948. 58 At that point, a new process had begun, setting up a body to frame a constitution for Vindhya Pradesh. Framing its own constitution was often a precondition for a state to enter into a union, as well as a basic demand of its people. The Indian government, through the Ministry of States, facilitated the formation of unions of states out of contiguous princely states, seeing these new sovereign entities as stages in the process towards their ultimate merger with the Indian Union. The draft constitutions of covenanting states defined more clearly the relations between the unions of states and the Indian Union and dealt with the potential constitutional discrepancies between the two.

Rewa’s constitution-making story was one example of similar processes that took place at the time across the subcontinent. Although many of the newly produced state constitutions were short-lived, it was through these multiple overlapping processes of constitution-making that princely polities and people adopted constitutional language and used it to imagine their political future. Their assembling was an essential part of the making of the Indian Union. Moreover, the making of the Union hinged on the state apparatuses of the nascent Indian state, aligning with and transitioning into the new constitutional order. The judiciary, for example, which in anticipation of democracy was to become a separate, independent branch of the state, had a particular stake in the making of the constitution. Thus, judges across India, both as individuals and as a collective, engaged in an unprecedented manner with the constitution-making process and with the Constituent Assembly.

In June 1948, Sir Harilal Kania, the chief justice of the Federal Court of India, presided over the inauguration of the Guwahati High Court in the province of Assam and delivered a widely circulated public address. 59 This little-studied speech was highly unusual. Firstly, it marked the beginning of the practice whereby the chief justice of an appellate court in Delhi would inaugurate high courts in other parts of India, signalling its superior status. The Federal Court of India, over which Chief Justice Kania presided, was only a decade old and had a narrow appellate jurisdiction, and the judges of the high courts across India resented and actively contested its authority. 60 However, by early 1948, with the circulation of the draft constitution, it was clear that the Federal Court would be elevated to a Supreme Court, exercising wide jurisdiction over all courts in India, and its chief justice would become the face of judicial leadership. 61

Secondly, Chief Justice Kania’s speech broke a tradition of judicial reticence. In it, he offered a critique of the new nationalist governments, and made a case for judicial independence, aligning the goals of the judiciary with that of the national movement led by Gandhi. Observing that the country was in a ‘transitional phase’, he noted that the composition and powers of the legislatures had changed, and with the absence of a political opposition, laws were being approved at speed: often ‘more than half a dozen bills were approved in the course of an hour’. The decision to set up a high court in Guwahati had been taken in just a few weeks with little consultation. Kania famously noted, ‘in view of the fact that the opposition at present is negligible, the role of the judiciary . . . [is] all the more important’. 62 Describing the new powers of the high courts to issue writs as ‘the most powerful weapons which a citizen could claim for redress against . . . the executive’, he made the case for a judiciary that would be independent and free from executive control. The colonial judiciary, of which Chief Justice Kania had been a member since 1930, had rarely advocated for itself or criticized the government in public, other than in written judgments. 63

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, Chief Justice Kania addressed his expectations and apprehensions about the future constitution of India. On the basis of his year-long experience of working with the post-independent government, he recommended certain provisions to be written into the new constitution. Noting with dismay the growing tendency to ‘communalize judicial appointments’, or to privilege jobs for ‘persons belonging to the party in power’, he argued for judges to be appointed by the judiciary on ‘merit’ and experience. Since the high court was responsible for the administration of justice in the ‘public eye’, it needed to be the controlling voice in the selection of judges. 64

The Indian judiciary has been seen largely as a creation of the constitution, engaging with it after its promulgation. 65 However, as this section will demonstrate, Chief Justice Kania’s speech was one of several public and private initiatives by the Indian judiciary to shape the constitution from outside the Constituent Assembly while it was still being written. Indeed, newly discovered archival materials show that the experience of working with the postcolonial governments prompted almost all sitting judges from across the high courts and the Federal Court to push actively for changes in the draft constitution. In consideration of the anticipated effects of the proposed constitution on both the citizenry and the judiciary, and in the face of problems they encountered during the daily routine of the courts, they sought to ensure an autonomous judiciary in the future. The sparse scholarship on the drafting of the provisions regarding the judiciary pays no attention to this. Despite their sweeping impact, the Constituent Assembly debates on the judiciary have generally been described as brief, meriting little public attention, and as being a consensual technical exercise. 66 Indeed, at the time Assembly member N. G. Ayyangar expressed surprise during the debates that ‘so important an issue as the constitution and the functioning of the Supreme Court’ could take up so little time in the Assembly. 67 Reading only these debates leaves the impression that the Assembly simply accepted the recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Supreme Court. 68

This view of the judges as passive actors in the constitution-drafting process was heightened by the Federal Court’s reluctance to take on a publicly political role as an arbitrator for the Constituent Assembly. In June 1946, the British Cabinet Mission had recommended that the Assembly should consult the Federal Court on matters of constitutional importance. The chief justice of the Federal Court, Sir Patrick Spens, expressed ‘considerable doubt’ about the validity of such a consultation. He declared that the Federal Court, as a statutory body with limited powers, would not entertain any referrals from the Assembly unless its recommendations were binding; otherwise, it would be ‘useless and derogatory to the prestige of the Court’. 69

The judges were acutely conscious that the basis of their authority and legitimacy was about to be changed, and intervened in an attempt to influence the draft constitution, for which initially there had been little or no input from them. Upon reading instalments of the draft published in newspapers in February 1948, Chief Justice Ram Lall of the East Punjab High Court wrote directly to Jawaharlal Nehru, noting with concern that there were ‘glaring defects which had the potential of incalculable mischief’. Nehru forwarded Chief Justice Lall’s concerns to the Constituent Assembly Secretariat on 1 March 1948. The very next day, perhaps anticipating a flood of outraged correspondence, the Secretariat dispatched an official letter to all the high courts asking the judges for their comments on the draft constitution. 70

Close to a hundred high court judges offered individual feedback in addition to the collective statement from each high court. The comments ranged from terse paragraphs on a specific provision, to line-by-line commentary on the draft constitution taking issue with ‘clerical errors’ and defective wording, and extensive memorandums offering radically distinct visions for the constitution. 71

Chief Justice Bidhubhushan Malik of the Allahabad High Court offered the most extensive memorandum, emphasizing ways in which the postcolonial constitution needed to make a break from the past. His first priority was a new provision to restrict the practice of setting up special tribunals, which removed jurisdiction from the courts, particularly in political cases. These special tribunals were not to be bound by the procedural safeguards and rules of evidence that governed ordinary courts. Chief Justice Malik quoted Article 70 of the Irish Free State constitution, which stipulated that ‘No one shall be tried save in due course of law and extraordinary courts shall not be established’. He argued that the constitution should provide that ‘extraordinary courts’ should be convened only for the duration of a presidentially proclaimed emergency. 72 He criticized the continuation of the colonial practice of special legislation and ordinances that allowed for arrest or detention without trial, and demanded that the constitution should guarantee all accused the right to counsel. 73

While Chief Justice Malik offered a vision of a new constitutional order built on a break from the repressive legal practices of the colonial era, his colleague Justice P. N. Sapru imagined a new judicial architecture with a single supreme court divided into a court of appeal and a high court which could sit on benches across India. The provincial high courts would be abolished and the higher judiciary would be transformed into a single unified body supported by revenue from the Union government. Justice Sapru argued that such a scheme would provide a unified system of law and justice, avoid conflicts of law, protect the judicial administration from ‘provincial influences’, and evolve a uniform civil code. 74

However, the overwhelming majority of judges viewed the draft constitution as an attempt to restrict judicial powers and make them subservient to an elected government. The Calcutta High Court stated that the ‘most striking features of the draft constitution are the omission of any provisions to secure independence of the judiciary’. 75 The Allahabad High Court saw the draft as an ‘attempt to reduce the High Court to the position of a department in the provincial government’. 76

The judges almost unanimously protested that the subordinate judiciary, district and local courts, with which the majority of citizens interacted, remained under the supervision of the executive. Even the minimal protections under the Government of India Act 1935 that required the provincial governments to consult with the high courts over administering the subordinate judiciary had been removed. The Allahabad High Court wrote that it would be ‘suicidal’ to allow the provincial governments to have complete control over the subordinate judiciary, which included all civil, criminal and revenue courts in the provinces. 77 The Madras High Court also pointed out that the Government of India Act 1935 had gone further than the draft constitution in giving the high courts power to appoint their own staff and formulate their own conditions of service free from interference from the provincial government. The Madras High Court also recommended that no legislation affecting the judiciary should be introduced in the parliament or state legislatures without the prior approval of a body comprising the president, the chief justice of India and the chief justice of the province. 78

The opinions of judges were not confined to their chambers but echoed throughout the legal profession. The Calcutta Weekly Notes , a leading law reporter for the province of Bengal, was unequivocal in condemning the draft constitution for giving the ‘complete go-by to judicial independence’. As the editors remarked in the words of the fable, ‘we asked for a king and we got a stork’. 79

The bulk of the criticism focused on what appeared to be minor provisions regulating the conditions of service of judges, which they argued had implications for their independence. Chief Justice Lall noted that, unlike the Government of India Act 1935, which laid down the age of retirement as 60, the draft constitution left the power to raise the retirement age to the provincial legislature through ordinary legislation. While seemingly innocuous, this could incentivize judges desiring an extension to their service to canvass politicians and ‘strike at . . . the dignity and independence of the court’. Similarly, provincial ministers could weaponize the raising and lowering of the retirement age for judges, effectively giving them the power to dismiss ‘inconvenient and independent judges’. 80 The judges also painstakingly pointed out the implications for the independence of the judiciary of some of the provisions on qualifications, salaries and limitations on post-retirement practice. 81

Through sometimes caustic commentary, the judges offered an expansive vision of judicial autonomy which should not be compromised by a popularly elected executive. Justice T. I. Sheode of the Nagpur High Court elaborated this distinction lyrically, noting that the executive in a democratic state was bound to be a fluctuating body, ‘like the clouds it may come and go’, and therefore should not be allowed to exert its influence over the judiciary by arrogating to itself the power to control it. 82 Justice R. S. Pollock, also of the Nagpur High Court, expressed a fear that there was ‘little enthusiasm’ for a strong and independent judiciary within political circles in India. 83

With the formal circulation of printed copies of the draft constitution to the Federal Court and the high courts, the judges convened a conference of the Federal Court and the chief justices of all the high courts in Delhi, on 27 and 28 March 1948, to formulate a ‘collective opinion’ on the draft. This was the first gathering where judges across India presented themselves as a united front, authorizing Chief Justice Kania to convey their unanimity to the Constituent Assembly. 84 Both the organization of the conference in itself, and the memorandum they produced, showed that the judiciary viewed itself as a unified national entity, distinct from both central and provincial governments.

The memorandum reflected an awareness of the changed polity with a ‘democratic government’ in which the independence and integrity of the judiciary was of the highest importance to citizens who sought redress against ‘illegal acts and [the] high-handed power of the executive’. 85 The judges presented themselves as a body that had until now played an independent role in protecting the rights of individual citizens. They expressed concern over ‘a tendency . . . [to] detract from the status and dignity of the judiciary and to whittle down their powers, rights and authority’, which would only intensify as more power was devolved into the hands of political parties. 86

At the time of independence, the higher judiciary was the most Indianized branch of the administration, but with the coming of the universal franchise, the executive could claim greater representative legitimacy than the judiciary. What then would be the basis for judicial authority?

The joint memorandum expressed concern that since independence judicial appointments were being made according to ‘political, communal and party considerations’ and rarely on merit. When the chief justice of a high court proposed the names of judges to the premier and home minister of a province, his recommendations were not being forwarded to the Union government. 87 Instead, politicians were asking judges to be nominated who were expected to co-operate with the government, and, conversely, the judiciary was being used as a dumping ground for inconvenient politicians. The chief justices were aghast at being reduced to corresponding with junior bureaucrats on appointments, and felt that they were being treated as a minor government department. Thus, they unanimously recommended that the draft constitution be amended to allow the chief justice of a high court to forward recommendations directly to the president, who would appoint the judge in concurrence with the chief justice of India. This would allow a high court to avoid having to justify its recommendations to the provincial government in question, and would immunize it from local party and political considerations, giving the judiciary the final say on its own composition.

These recommendations arose from the judges’ own experiences with judicial appointments after independence. Under the Government of India Act 1935, an elected provincial premier had no say in judicial appointments; judges were appointed by the secretary of state for India. However, on the eve of independence the Home Ministry issued a memorandum of procedure that required the provincial chief minister, the provincial home minister and the Union home minister to be involved in the selection of judges. 88

The judges’ memorandum also offered a road map for insulating the judiciary from both the executive and the legislature by asking for a provision in the draft constitution according to which no former minister could be appointed a judge. It also suggested that members of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) should be barred from becoming permanent judges. This was a particularly audacious recommendation, given that a third of all high court judges had been recruited from the ICS and selected through the same appointment process as other high-ranking bureaucrats. The cadre of ICS judges included B. N. Rau, the adviser to the Constituent Assembly. By opposing the recruitment of judges from the ICS, the higher judiciary was strengthening the perception that ICS judges tended to favour the executive and that an independent judiciary should be drawn from the Bar. In a separate memorandum, Justice Sheode elaborated further, arguing that recruitment of the judiciary from the Bar provided both legal expertise and a spirit of independence. 89 The Congress had long demanded separation of the executive from the judiciary, but after assuming power had suddenly dropped their objections to ICS judges. 90

Judges felt that it was necessary to have uniformity of position, status and privileges across the high courts. Conditions of service had varied greatly in colonial India, with judges in smaller high courts like Nagpur and the Oudh Special Court receiving considerably lower salaries than their counterparts in Bombay or Allahabad. 91 The judges therefore demanded that the right to fix the jurisdiction of high courts, salary conditions, leave and pensions should be entrusted to the Union government and removed from the provincial executive. Their memorandum also required a constitutional guarantee against the reduction of judicial salaries, arguing that judges appointed before independence were entitled to the conditions of service they had been promised in the Indian Independence Act 1947. A reduction in salary would not only compromise the independence of the judiciary but make it harder for them to persuade distinguished lawyers to give up legal practice to become a judge.

The Constituent Assembly received thousands of submissions, but a unanimously endorsed memorandum from the entire judicial establishment had to be considered seriously by the drafters. The memorandum was circulated across the Home Ministry, the Law Ministry and the office of the constitutional adviser, B. N. Rau, and the consolidated comments were discussed in four cabinet meetings. The home minister, Sardar Patel, rejected the judges’ critique of judicial appointments, stating that it was not based on facts and that the new procedure was better in screening out ‘favouritism and communal considerations’. He noted that he had personally stepped in several times to check these tendencies, and asserted that by allowing for conversations between the political class and the judiciary, the new procedure eliminated the possibility of conflict and ‘bad blood’ between the executive and the judiciary, and attempts by the high court to circumvent provincial appointments. He opposed granting the chief justice power of veto over appointments. Patel’s comments in themselves gave ample evidence of the mistrust between the two branches as he attacked the judiciary for the ‘fundamental misconception [that] they seem to think that they alone are the custodians of what is right, what is just’. 92 While the judiciary made the case for checking political self-interest, Patel was calling for safeguards against the prejudices of a chief justice.

Unsurprisingly, the one suggestion with which Patel was in ‘entire sympathy’ was the recommendation that judges’ conditions of service should be regulated by central government to create uniformity. Unlike colonial India, where each high court was a largely autonomous entity, the political class envisaged the transfer of judges between provinces, with some politicians arguing for it to be the norm that judges should be appointed from outside the province. 93 While the Constituent Assembly had emphasized centralized authority shaping provisions for emergency powers, taxes, planning and federalism, it was the judges who pushed for the centralization of the judiciary.

Generally, the drafting of a constitution is understood as a linear process, with a draft being circulated for comments, suggestions being incorporated and the revised draft being debated and eventually promulgated by the constitution-making body. However, the Indian judiciary was able to draw upon its embeddedness within the state structure and personal connections with politicians to make repeated interventions for changes in the draft constitution. Even a year after the Constituent Assembly had debated constitutional provisions regarding the judiciary, judges across the various high courts were writing to the home minister demanding adjustments to salaries, the retirement age and the right to practise after retirement. 94 These repeated interventions, which included telephone conversations and lunches with judges, led to new amendments being forwarded to the Assembly for consideration. 95 At length, an exasperated B. R. Ambedkar, chair of the Constitution Drafting Committee, noted that all these points had been raised repeatedly through multiple memorandums, and that the provisions relating to the judiciary were among those ‘that [had] received the greatest and most serious consideration’ from the committee. For instance, he himself had withdrawn from discussion the clauses on judicial privileges originally scheduled for debate on 27 May 1949, to be enacted two months later incorporating changes based on suggestions made by several high court judges. 96

The judges used their physical and social proximity to the Constituent Assembly to intervene at multiple points in the making of the constitution to shape the Indian judiciary and its independence. But it was not only agents of the state apparatus who sought to have a say about the future constitution and their place in it. Even people who were distant from the Assembly geographically, politically and socially, from the so-called ‘backward, excluded and partially excluded areas’, made efforts to insert themselves into the process, and some even embarked on constitution-making of their own.

On 20 February 1947, three weeks after the Constituent Assembly had set up the Advisory Committee that was to report to it on fundamental rights, the protection of minorities, and a scheme for the administration of the tribal and excluded areas, a letter addressed to the committee arrived from the remote and sparsely populated ‘excluded area’ of Lahaul (Lahoul) and Spiti in the Kangra district of Punjab. The ‘petitioners’, it seems, were not even sure that the members of the Advisory Committee were aware of their existence. ‘The present petitioners’, they wrote, describing in detail their location,

belong to Lahoul, a tract of area bounded on the North by Chamba State, South Rohtang Pass and Kulu Sub Division, East Kashmir and Jammu State and Tibet and West Chamba State and Bhangal . . . it is situated at an elevation of 10 thousand feet above sea level.

They estimated that the combined population of Lahaul and Spiti was at most eighteen thousand, and noted that there was ‘no medical aid of any sort’, ‘no telegraph office in the area’ and ‘no veterinary hospital’. They demanded that ‘they should at once cease to remain as excluded areas, should have a special representation in the local bodies as well as provincial and central legislatures’, and that a ‘Special development department for these areas with the object of bettering economic, cultural, educational and political status should be created’. 97

The letter was timely. A week later, on 27 February, the Advisory Committee set up three subcommittees to make recommendations on the future administration of the tribal and excluded areas. Historically, the Government of India Act 1919 had made provision for the notification of areas that were excluded from the authority of the reformed provincial governments, which at that point afforded very restricted representation to Indians in the legislatures on the grounds that in these ‘backward areas’ the people were ‘primitive and there is as yet no material on which to found political institutions’. 98 The ensuing Government of India Act 1935 defined excluded and partially excluded areas to which no act of the federal or provincial legislatures applied unless the governor so directed. Again, the exclusion of these areas from the democratic reforms was based on the view that the state of development of the inhabitants ‘prevents the possibility of applying to them methods of representation adopted elsewhere’. 99 The three subcommittees were assigned to report, respectively, on the North-East Frontier (Assam) tribal and excluded areas, on the excluded and partially excluded areas other than Assam, to which Lahaul and Spiti belonged, and on the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. 100

The general note that was prepared for the meeting before the subcommittees commenced their work had presumed that ‘Areas where no system of representation is practicable must remain unenfranchised and the question arises as to the best way of administering the area’. Similarly, a few provincial governments, for example in the memorandum from Assam, advised that it was ‘too premature’ to think of a system of representative Government for some of the tribes of the excluded areas. The Punjab memorandum suggested that, ‘On account of its inaccessibility’, Spiti should not be brought ‘under the normal system of administration’, whereas the Lahaul area should no longer be considered an excluded area because ‘it is now reported to be well developed and suitable for inclusion in the general administration’. 101

The subcommittees toured the excluded and partially excluded areas, hearing from witnesses and representatives of many of the tribes, some of whom also submitted written memorandums. They also co-opted tribals from these areas as members of the subcommittees. The subcommittees submitted their separate and joint reports by 25 September 1947, and their recommendations were incorporated into the draft constitution of February 1948 but not discussed by the Constituent Assembly until September 1949.

A close reading of the subcommittees’ reports and recommendations, and of the Constituent Assembly debates, leaves the impression that the tribal people of India, especially those from the excluded and partially excluded areas, were almost oblivious to their future administration and constitutional position; their views and wishes are absent from these records. Moreover, the provisions for the administration of tribal areas, which were set out in the Fifth and Sixth schedules of the constitution, ultimately instituted new forms of exclusion of the tribal people from India’s democratic transition. In a departure from the original draft, the final provisions granted the governors, as the direct administrators of these areas, increased powers. The authority of the state legislatures, the tribe advisory councils that were to be formed in defined ‘Scheduled Areas’, and the district and regional councils in Assam was restricted. Assembly member Gopinath Bardoloi, who chaired the subcommittee on the North-East Frontier (Assam) tribal and excluded areas, explained to the Assembly that ‘the time may come when they may become fit to govern themselves’. 102 The press was broadly in agreement with the final provisions, suggesting that ‘there was danger, particularly in some Scheduled Areas, of the initiative allowed under the original Draft being misused . . . Moreover, elected tribal representatives are likely to be of the sophisticated type, out of touch with their more primitive fellows and susceptible to political influences from outside’. 103

Scholarship on the current dire conditions of India’s tribal people and on the complications of administering the tribal areas after independence largely traces the roots of the trouble to the constitutional arrangements made in 1947. Nandini Sundar, for example, argues that ‘many of today’s problems may be traced back to the anti-democratic and authoritarian impulses of some of the Constitution’s makers’, and also notes the racist nature of the Assembly debates, especially in relation to the Sixth Schedule, which lays down structures of governance for India’s north-eastern tribal regions. 104 In exploring how ‘past injustices were being written into the Constitution’, scholars have analysed the constitutional debates, and the politics that surrounded them, specifically relating to the Congress Party and its dynamics of marginalizing tribal leaders such as Assembly member Jaipal Singh Munda. 105 Shaunna Rodrigues has suggested that the Assembly’s ‘formulation and application of murky boundaries to demarcate among and across tribal communities within its territory deliberately avoided the pursuit of detailed knowledge and routinised administration of its subjects in these areas’. 106 This happened, as Rodrigues recognizes, despite members of the Assembly having at their disposal ample evidence and detailed knowledge about tribal views and expectations of the constitution.

The subcommittee on the North-East Frontier (Assam) tribal and excluded areas produced a volume in two parts containing 557 pages of evidence and memorandums submitted by a large number of tribal organizations. These were made available to the members of the Constituent Assembly. Moreover, we have thus far traced eleven folders from the archive of the Assembly containing close to fifteen hundred pages of memorandums from other tribal groups, and of correspondence between them and the Assembly, on the position of the tribal and excluded areas in the future constitution. We also found such documents in the private papers of Assembly members. These materials are clear evidence that tribal groups across India sought to make themselves legible to the Assembly, asserting their identities and fighting to include themselves in the constitution on their own terms. 107

On 10 December 1946, a day after the Constituent Assembly began its proceedings in Delhi, the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) People’s Association met in picturesque Rangamati, in eastern India, to discuss their concerns about the proposed constitutional changes. They had been ‘taken aback’ a day earlier when the colonial district commissioner and the raja of the Chakma tribes addressed a festival gathering on the subject of their plans for the constitutional changes but invited only the village headmen to attend a subsequent meeting at the raja’s palace to discuss these provisions. Many people who ‘were willing to give expression to their own opinions’ were left disappointed, and protested against the district commissioner’s limited attempts to gather public opinion, seeing the privileging of clan and village headmen as a ‘sinister attempt to suppress popular opinion’. 108 The district commissioner was following a long-established practice of soliciting the opinion of tribes through traditional authorities like chiefs and headmen, but by 1946 it was increasingly clear that the assumption that these traditional tribal authorities could speak for the people would be strongly contested and that the dominant discourse was one of democracy and popular representation.

Indeed, so powerful was the language of popular representation that traditional chiefs sought to co-opt it. Within a month, the Chakma raja’s relatives had formed the Chittagong Hill Tracts Hillsmen Association and had begun to make representations to the Constituent Assembly. The CHT People’s Association, which had been established six years earlier, pointed out that the Hillsmen Association consisted of merely twenty-one people and had been created to suppress public opinion and to elevate the raja’s authority in the future constitution. 109 The CHT People’s Association sent their own delegation to the Assembly, asserting that the people of the region wanted democratic self-government and not the autocratic form preferred by the Chakma raja. 110

Similar demands were echoed in the Khasi Hills, which were governed by twenty-five syiems (male chiefs of Khasi clans), whose positions had been recognized by the British through treaties. In August 1946, Constituent Assembly member and Khasi leader the Reverend J. J. Nichols Roy had drafted a constitution for the Khasi and Jaintia Hills that sought to introduce democracy progressively by co-opting the syiems and preserving some elements of traditional government. In stark contrast, the Myliem Khasi clan delegation told the Assembly subcommittee for the North-East Frontier (Assam) tribal and excluded areas that they did not want to engage with their syiem. They asserted that the syiems of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills had never held ‘sovereign powers’ over either the people or the land, that ‘The soil belonged to the people’, and that the syiems had to consult the people before they could speak for them. They argued that ‘independence comes to all, not only to the Syiems’. 111

In some places, tribes also contested the authority of the subcommittee and its procedures. A mass gathering of the Naga National Council in Kohima passed a resolution on 19 February 1947, just ahead of the appointment of the subcommittee, stating that a ‘constitution drawn [up] by people who have no knowledge of the Naga Hills and the Naga People [would] be unsuitable and unacceptable’. 112 They declared that they spoke on behalf of all Naga people and that the different tribes would not give evidence separately. 113 Arguing that ‘thrown among [four hundred million] Indian people, the one million Nagas and their unique system of life [would] be wiped out of existence’, the Naga National Council demanded an interim government similar to that headed by Nehru in Delhi, with a separate constitution and the option of revisiting their relationship with the Indian Union after ten years. Thus, tribal groups across the country, including the Lushai Hills, the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the Chotanagpur areas, pressed for territorial autonomy.

Tribal women also demanded rights in the future constitution and in contesting traditional tribal authorities. A thirty-member women’s delegation led by Bonily Khongmen and L. Shullai met the subcommittee in Shillong, protesting against the exclusion of women from political life by the Khasi syiems on the grounds of custom. They insisted that unless they were included, ‘there [would] be a rebellion from among women’. They demanded adult franchise and the right of women to vote for clan heads and syiems. They also asked for reserved positions for women in legislatures and in government employment, differentiating themselves from national women’s organizations, who had rejected affirmative action. 114

Similarly, while demanding universal franchise, the Mizo Mcheichhe Tangrual (Mizo Women’s Union), in its meeting with the subcommittee in Aizawl in the Lushai Hills, claimed that mere elections would be insufficient to achieve equality. While male Mizo leaders demanded that customary laws should be preserved, Kwatin Khuma, the president of the Women’s Union, argued that these laws should be radically changed, giving rights of inheritance to widows and daughters. She stated that the Women’s Union was placing itself ‘in line with other bodies who are struggling for liberty and freedom in its widest sense’. 115

Some tribal groups also worked at the national level to advance their views on the constitution by setting up an office next to the Constituent Assembly. Taking the lead, the All-India Excluded Areas and Tribal Peoples Association opened an office in the residence of Assembly member Professor N. G. Ranga during the first week of the Assembly debates. Their aim was to advance the ‘political rights and Constitutional Status’ of tribal people and all other people in these areas. The association followed the Assembly proceedings, appealing to central and provincial governments to set up special departments for tribal welfare and to elect Assembly representatives from the excluded areas. Their office was inaugurated by no less than Rajendra Prasad, the Assembly president. The introductory note in the Excluded Areas Bulletin , which the association published a fortnight later, stated: ‘The Problem of the Excluded Areas and the Tribal people has now become a burning topic . . . The constitution making body therefore requires at this juncture the voice and the advice of experts who have studied the problem with a political and humanitarian outlook’. 116 While the association had its roots within the Congress Party, it sought to build a tribal consensus by including tribal leaders from outside the Congress, including Jaipal Singh Munda, the CHT People’s Association and the Gurkha League. The association held many meetings in the Constitution House, where the Assembly and its committees sat, following the work of the committees and offering their expertise. 117 They demanded that the excluded areas and their people be integrated into the political mainstream, defying the decisions of the Congress leadership in the Assembly.

Tribal people were not waiting for a constitution to arrive: they were busy working out a constitutional framework for themselves. They did not passively respond to a process initiated from Delhi, but set their agenda at their own pace. Masses of tribal people, women among them, were involved in this process. Months before the Constituent Assembly convened, on 24 August 1946 over twenty thousand people from the Khasi and Jaintia Hills had gathered in the Students’ Field in Shillong to listen to the Reverend J. J. M. Nichols Roy presenting a plan for changes in the administration of the district. What was described as ‘the biggest political gathering in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills’ witnessed active debates that led to many alterations and additions to the plan. 118 This event was followed by public meetings in villages across the hills to consolidate demands, so that by the time the subcommittee came to visit the area the following year, most major political parties, chiefs and civil society groups had arrived at a common set of claims for the future of the state.

The constitution-making process was far more iterative and reflective than what is captured by the 5,546 pages of the Constituent Assembly debates. It was transformed by a mass of inputs and revisions which provided a training and testing ground for the constitution-making in Delhi. By the time the Assembly published the draft constitution in February 1948 and invited comments, the people in many princely states had already been consulted and expressed their views on the constitution. Concerned by their experiences of working with the post-independence government, the Indian judiciary had circumvented the standard processes of consultation on the draft to secure stronger constitutional guarantees of judicial independence. Reading the Constituent Assembly debates, it appears as if a handful of tribal representatives struggled to make their voices heard. But looking beyond the Assembly, as this article has shown, thousands of tribals, both women and men, were able to speak out, loudly making demands and requiring guarantees from the future constitution.

Indians at different sites and in different positions of power were thinking about the constitution, framing their claims within this language and transforming what constitutionalism would mean in independent India. The three sets of actors chosen as examples in this article, the rulers and people of Rewa, judges across India, and the thousands of tribal people in India’s north-east, represent a range of social and economic classes, though they form only a fraction of a far larger, and even more diverse, public who engaged with the making of the constitution. Focusing on the relationship between the public and the Constituent Assembly, and grounding the research in archival records from beyond the formal constitutional debates, this article shows that ordinary people understood very well the potential implications of the constitution for their lives, and as a result of their ongoing engagement, the constitution-making process itself became public. Constitution-making in the princely states in many cases preceded India’s constitution-making, the judges inserted themselves as commentators and critics of the constitution, and tribal groups contested the terms of their participation as dictated by the assembly.

However, scholars of India’s constitution have overlooked these public voices, mainly under the assumption that the constitution was beyond people’s imagination and that the key to understanding it lies in the making of the text. In contrast, if we draw into the foreground the constitutional engagements that took place away from the debates in the Constitution Hall, a new picture emerges. It renders somewhat redundant, for example, the question of either continuity with, or a break from, the colonial constitutional order. While diverse groups had indeed petitioned and made constitutional demands during colonial times, in 1946 new kinds of claims and involvements, on a far greater scale, turned the constitution-making process into a public experience, with the public beginning to own the constitution as a political practice, as a means of asserting themselves.

These constitutional demands from the public were not simply resolved through consensus or even by force; sometimes they were not resolved at all. But they remained the basis of agitation and mobilization, even after the promulgation of the Indian constitution, and continued to transform India’s constitutional text up to the present day. For example, while the Nagas’ demand for their own constitution was dismissed in 1950, it remained a basis of political struggle until the Indian government was forced to consider it as part of a peace agreement with Naga groups in August 2015. 119 Moreover, although the final provisions of the constitution disregarded the judges’ views on appointments, by the 1980s, through judicial interpretation, the judiciary was able to gain control over appointments, as they had pushed for in 1948. 120

Listening to voices from outside the Constituent Assembly it becomes clear that the constitution was not a textbook for educating the people into democracy, as it has been interpreted by scholars. Princes and people in states such as Rewa were already engaged in writing their own constitutions, and insisted that they did not need a constitution drawn out of ‘bookish knowledge’ and demanded a practical constitution. 121 Moreover, by looking at involvement in constitution-making at different sites and scales, such as the debates over minority claims and representation in the princely states, we may see how different outcomes were made possible by their involvement that are erased by an exclusive focus on the Assembly debates. Constitutionalism within the princely states, although it did not produce lasting constitutions within the states, generated a language and practices that a constitutional text constructed from the centre could not have created on its own. Viewed from the outside, judges saw the constitution as a document that could be constantly revised and improved through both public and informal processes. For tribals, constitution-making was about educating Assembly members in Delhi about their lives, conditions and requirements, and their older traditions of democracy.

Recovering this understanding of India’s constitution-making for this article entailed a work of assembly. Like an archaeological excavation of a mosaic, pieces of constitution-making were unearthed and fitted together to create a new pattern from the diverse elements, revealing a more comprehensive story of India’s constitution-making. The new picture no longer looks like a top-down endeavour driven by elite consensual decision-making produced for India’s ‘soil, which is essentially undemocratic’. 122 The new constitution came into being and was legitimized through many acts of assembling among people from diverse places and positions of power across India who, through engagement with the making of India’s constitution, reinvented themselves as constitutional actors and gained ownership over it.

For research assistance we thank Juhi Mendiratta. We are grateful to the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1575/22), the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University, and Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, for their support. We have presented versions of this article at the ‘Constitutions and Crises’ conference held at the University of Cambridge, March 2022; the NALSAR Lecture Series on Constitutionalism, March 2022; the ‘Democracy, Violence, and Constitutional Order in South Asia and Beyond’ conference held at Yale University, April 2022; ‘Beyond the Pale: Legal Histories on the Edges of Empires’, the Third Legal Histories of Empire Conference, held at Maynooth University, June–July 2022; and ‘Rebuilding: Tradition and Innovation’, the Fiftieth Annual Conference on South Asia, held at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, October 2022. We thank the organizers and participants for their engagement. We would particularly like to thank Stephen Legg, Karuna Mantena, Vatsal Naresh and Nandini Ramachandran.

‘Framers of India’s Constitution Meet: Proceedings Suffer from Lack of Realism’, Times of India , 9 Dec. 1946. The number of Constituent Assembly members who attended the first session is based on counting those who signed the register on that day: see Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings) (hereafter CAD ), 9 Dec. 1946, < https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C09121946.html > (accessed 4 Mar. 2023).

‘India: Statement by the Cabinet Mission’, Hansard , 5th ser. (Lords), cxli, cols. 271–87 (16 May 1946), < https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1946/may/16/india-statement-by-the-cabinet-mission > (accessed 4 Mar. 2023).

The recent focus on global histories of constitutions has largely neglected India’s postcolonial constitution-making: see, for example, Linda Colley, The Gun, the Ship and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions and the Making of the Modern World (London, 2021); Christopher Thornhill, ‘The Sociology of Constitutions’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science , xiii (2017).

H. Kumarasingham (ed.), Constitution-Making in Asia: Decolonisation and State-Building in the Aftermath of the British Empire (London, 2016); Charles O. H. Parkinson, Bills of Rights and Decolonization: The Emergence of Domestic Human Rights Instruments in Britain’s Overseas Territories (Oxford, 2007).

Sunil Khilnani, Arguing Democracy: Intellectuals and Politics in Modern India , Center for the Advanced Study of India Working Paper Series, no. 09-02 (Philadelphia, 2009). See also Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India (London, 1997), 34–5.

On the elite consensus perspective, see, for example, Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation , 1st edn (New Delhi, 1966); Madhav Khosla, India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy (Cambridge, MA, 2020); Tarunabh Khaitan, ‘Directive Principles and the Expressive Accommodation of Ideological Dissenters’, International Journal of Constitutional Law , xvi, 2 (2018); Sarbani Sen, The Constitution of India: Popular Sovereignty and Democratic Transformations , paperback edn (New Delhi, 2010). On the constitution’s underlying ideas, see, for example, Rajeev Bhargava (ed.), Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution (Delhi, 2009); Rochana Bajpai, ‘The Conceptual Vocabularies of Secularism and Minority Rights in India’, Journal of Political Ideologies , vii, 2 (2002); Uday S. Mehta, ‘Indian Constitutionalism: Crisis, Unity, and History’, in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford, 2016). For scholarship on methods of reading the Constituent Assembly debates, see Aditya Nigam, ‘A Text without Author: Locating Constituent Assembly as Event’, Economic and Political Weekly , xxxix, 21 (2004); Kalyani Ramnath, ‘ “We the People”: Seamless Webs and Social Revolution in India’s Constituent Assembly Debates’, South Asia Research , xxxii, 1 (2012); Vatsal Naresh, ‘Pride and Prejudice in Austin’s Cornerstone: Passions in the Constituent Assembly of India’, in Udit Bhatia (ed.), The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy (London, 2017). An exception to these is Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (New Delhi, 2019), which draws on a wide range of sources and materials from the nineteenth century onwards, arguing for a need to move away from the narrow frame of the formal constitution-making process.

This focus on elites and a corresponding absence of the general public in constitution-making was in conformity with the historiographical and legal view of this subject until the 1970s: see, for example, Todd A. Eisenstadt, A. Carl LeVan and Tofigh Maboudi, Constituents before Assembly: Participation, Deliberation, and Representation in the Crafting of New Constitutions (Cambridge, 2017).

Khilnani, Idea of India , 34.

For a few exceptions, see Ornit Shani, How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and the Making of the Universal Franchise (Cambridge, 2018), which examines public engagement with the draft constitution in the context of the preparation of the electoral rolls on the basis of universal franchise; Ornit Shani, ‘The People and the Making of India’s Constitution’, Historical Journal , lxv, 4 (2022), Saagar Tewari, ‘Framing the Fifth Schedule: Tribal Agency and the Making of the Indian Constitution (1937–1950)’, Modern Asian Studies , lvi, 5 (2022). A few scholars have noted that there were numerous responses from the public to the drafting of the constitution, but have not explored them: see Austin, Indian Constitution , 324; Ramachandra Guha, India after Gandhi: A History of the World’s Largest Democracy (London, 2007), 105, 789 n. 5; Rohit De, A People’s Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (Princeton, 2018), 2, 235 n. 5; Arvind Elangovan, ‘The Making of the Indian Constitution: A Case for a Non-Nationalist Approach’, History Compass , xii, 1 (2014).

Saunders infers this from Khosla, India’s Founding Moment : Cheryl Saunders, ‘Democracy, Constitutionalism, Modernity, Globalisation’, Jus Cogens , iv, 1 (2022), 15. See also Donald L. Horowitz, Constitutional Processes and Democratic Commitment (New Haven, 2021), 181–2.

For the most recent study, see Khosla, India’s Founding Moment . Consequently, several recent studies on comparative constitutional law situate the Indian constitution as part of a global conversation on the founding of constitutions.

See, for example, Rajeev Dhavan and Thomas Paul (eds.), Nehru and the Constitution (Bombay, 1992); Aakash Singh Rathore, Ambedkar’s Preamble: A Secret History of the Constitution of India (Gurgaon, 2020); Arvind Elangovan, Norms and Politics: Sir Benegal Narsing Rau in the Making of the Indian Constitution, 1935–50 (Oxford, 2019); Achyut Chetan, Founding Mothers of the Indian Republic: Gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution (Cambridge, 2022); Shaunna Rodrigues, ‘Abul Kalam Azad and the Right to an Islamic Justification of the Indian Constitution’, in Anupama Roy and Michael Becker (eds.), Dimensions of Constitutional Democracy: India and Germany (Singapore, 2020); Pooja Parmar, ‘Undoing Historical Wrongs: Law and Indigeneity in India’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal , xlix, 3 (2012).

Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi (hereafter NMML), H. V. R. Iyengar Oral History Transcript, no. 303, 129.

Vikram Raghavan, ‘Granville Austin and the Making of India’s Constitution’, Centre for Law and Policy Research Occasional Talks, no. 11, 7 Aug. 2015, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHPf6NIz60M > (accessed 4 Mar. 2023).

In thinking through the notion of assembling, we are drawing on Stephen Legg’s analysis of assemblage: in particular, Stephen Legg, Prostitution and the Ends of Empire: Scale, Governmentalities, and Interwar India (Durham, NC, 2014), 5–6; Stephen Legg, ‘Assemblage/Apparatus: Using Deleuze and Foucault’, Area , xliii, 2 (2011).

‘Text of Resolution Passed at Princes Meeting Held on 29 January 1947’, CAD , 28 Apr. 1947, < https://loksabha.nic.in/Debates/cadebatefiles/C28041947.html > (accessed 8 Mar. 2023). Earlier attempts to bring the princely states into an Indian federal structure under the Government of India Act 1935, the last colonial constitutional framework, ultimately failed.

Arthur Berriedale Keith, A Constitutional History of India, 1600–1935 (London, 1937).

See George H. Gadbois Jr, ‘The Federal Court of India, 1937–1950’, Journal of the Indian Law Institute , vi, 2–3 (1964). On other state organs, see, for example, on the army, Steven I. Wilkinson, Army and Nation: The Military and Indian Democracy since Independence (Cambridge, MA, 2015); on the bureaucracy, William Gould, Bureaucracy, Community and Influence in India: Society and the State, 1930s–1960s (London, 2010); Arudra Burra, ‘The Indian Civil Service and the Nationalist Movement: Neutrality, Politics and Continuity’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics , xlviii, 4 (2010).

‘Memorandum on the Adibasis of Jharkhand, Demanding Separation from Bihar on a Constitutional Basis, Requesting Final Decision before June 1948’; ‘Memorandum on the Case of the Mizo’: both NMML, C. Rajagopalachari Papers, V th Instalment, F.37/2, 422–31 and 415–21.

‘Birth of India’s Freedom’, Times of India , 15 Aug. 1947, 1; Shahpura State Constitution Act 1947: National Archives of India (hereafter NAI), Ministry of States, F.13/4/PR/1947 (copies were sold for Re 1 each).

Shahpura State Constitution Act 1947, 1.

Ibid .; secretary to the prime minister, Shahpura state, to deputy secretary, State Department, New Delhi, 12 Nov. 1947.

Manipur State Constitution Act 1947, < https://www.satp.org/document/paper-acts-and-oridinances/manipur-state-constitution-act-1947 > (accessed 7 Mar. 2023).

M. R. Jayakar, ‘Gwalior Note’, 29 Oct. 1947: NAI, M. R. Jayakar Private Papers, F.896.

On the Travancore constitution, see Sarath Pillai, ‘Fragmenting the Nation: Divisible Sovereignty and Travancore’s Quest for Federal Independence’, Law and History Review , xxxiv, 3 (2016).

Scholars mainly explored the constitutions of Travancore and of Jammu and Kashmir in the context of India’s transition to independence, and largely saw these two states as exceptions: see ibid ., 771. For a recent discussion of Kashmir’s constitution, see Shahla Hussain, Kashmir in the Aftermath of Partition (Cambridge, 2021), 41–65. Moreover, the question of constitutions and the princely states has largely been seen as an inter-war phenomenon which became irrelevant with independence.

See, for example, Robin Jeffrey (ed.), People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States (Delhi, 1978).

‘Report of the Constitutional Reforms Committee, Rewa’, May 1947, 9: NMML, All India States Peoples’ Conference Papers, F.151, 1947.

‘Rough Translation of His Highness the Maharaja of Rewa’s Proclamation on Dasera Day’, 1 Jan. 1946: British Library (hereafter BL), IOR/R/1/1/4236.

Ibid . In January 1945 the Rewa State Council had set up a committee under the chairmanship of the chief justice of Rewa High Court, Rai Bahdur P. C. Mogha, to make recommendations on making the state’s Raj Parishad (People’s Representative Assembly) more responsible and representative: Council Resolution no. 336, 23 Jan. 1945: BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

Until shortly before this pronouncement, Maharaja Gulab Singh had been in exile. According to the Crown representative, who stated that he knew nothing about the maharaja’s ‘desire for responsible government to be given to his people’, the maharaja was deposed because he breached one of the conditions he had accepted before returning to the state on 25 July 1944, according to which ‘all state business should be initiated in council and concurred by the British Resident’: Crown representative, New Delhi, to secretary of state for India, London, 1 Jan. 1946: BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236. On the maharaja’s exile, see, for example, Fiona Groenhout, ‘Loyal Feudatories or Depraved Despots? The Deposition of Princes in the Central India Agency, c. 1880–1947’, in Waltraud Ernst and Biswamoy Pati (eds.), India’s Princely States: People, Princes and Colonialism (London, 2007), 105–11.

Colonel W. F. Campbell, resident for Central India, Central Agency, Indore, to C. G. Herbert, secretary to His Excellency the Crown Representative, New Delhi, 27 Feb. 1946: BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

Ibid. ; Herbert to Campbell, 15 Mar. 1946: BL, IOR/R/2/442/161. It is noteworthy that in other states, such as Ratlam, none of the members of the Constitutional Committee were known legal figures.

Herbert to C. E. B. Abell, private secretary to the viceroy, 5 Mar. 1946: BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

‘A Draft Rewa Government Notification’, 25 Apr. 1946: BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar to Sir Conrad Corfield, political adviser to H.E. the Crown representative, New Delhi, 11 May 1946: BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236. Besides a study fee, Sir Alladi asked for a ‘reduced fee’ of Rs 1,000 a day when he was absent from Madras or Bangalore on committee business; provision for ‘taking a cook and another personal attendant’; and Rs 750 a day spent substantially on the committee’s work while in his place of residence: ibid .

Harol Lal Narmada Prasad Singh, president, Pawaidar Association, Rewa, to T. C. S. Jayaratnam, prime minister, Rewa state, 27 June 1946 (copy); Shambhu Nath Shukla, president, District Congress Committee, Baghelkhand, Rewa, to Jayaratnam, 27 June 1946 (copy): both BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

Jayaratnam, memorandum, 28 June 1946 (copy); Jayaratnam to Campbell, 6 July 1946: both BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

Jayaratnam, memorandum, 28 June 1946 (copy).

Jayaratnam to Campbell, 6 July 1946.

Ayyar to Corfield, New Delhi, 26 July 1946; Corfield to Ayyar, 19 July 1946: both BL, IOR/R/2/442/161.

‘Report of the Constitutional Reforms Committee, Rewa’, May 1947, 2.

Ibid . The committee met on twenty-three days in all.

The weekly Prakash was published between 1932 and 1949. Maharaja Gulab Singh sanctioned a grant of Rs 4,000 a year for its publication. It was a literary newspaper, but also covered news on policies of Rewa state. See A. U. Siddiqui, Indian Freedom Movement in Princely States of Vindhya Pradesh (New Delhi, 2004), 60.

Chairman of the Constitutional Reforms Committee, Rewa, to maharaja of Rewa, covering letter to ‘Report of the Rewa Constitutional Reforms Committee’. The printed submissions bore hundreds of signatures.

Ibid ., 1–2, 4.

President, State’s Muslim Association, Rewa, to the Honourable President, Reforms Committee, Rewa, with two attached documents: ‘Memorandum of Behalf of Muslims’ and ‘Caution in Goodfaith [ sic ]’, 30 May 1947: BL, IOR/R/2/442/161.

‘Report of the Constitutional Reforms Committee, Rewa’, May 1947, 18.

President, State’s Muslim Association, Rewa, to the Honourable President, Reforms Committee, Rewa, 30 May 1947. The association was established in September 1946.

‘Report of the Constitutional Reforms Committee, Rewa’, May 1947, 32–6.

Among these were copies of the constitutions of Barwani, Hyderabad, Indore, Jaipur, Jhabua, Orchha, Panna, Sailana, Sitamau and Udaipur.

‘Report of the Rewa Constitutional Reforms Committee’, May 1947, 39, 4, 42. It is noteworthy that there was disagreement among the committee’s members: some wanted fuller democratic reforms; one didn’t want democratic reforms at all.

Maharaja of Rewa to H. M. Poulton, resident for Central India, 15 July 1947: BL, IOR/R/2/442/161.

Government of India, White Paper on Indian States (New Delhi, 1948), 99. The rulers signed the covenanting agreement on 18 Mar. 1948. By an agreement dated 26 Dec. 1949, the rulers of the covenanting states of the United State of Vindhya Pradesh ceded to India with effect from 1 Jan. 1950.

Sir Harilal Kania, speech, All India Reporter (1948), 13–16.

George H. Gadbois Jr, Supreme Court of India: The Beginnings (New Delhi, 2018); Rohit De, ‘Emasculating the Executive: The Federal Court and Civil Liberties in Late Colonial India, 1942–1944’, in Terence C. Halliday, Lucien Karpik and Malcolm M. Feeley (eds.), Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complex (Cambridge, 2012).

Draft Constitution of India 1948, Art. 308.

Kania, speech, 13.

Abhinav Chandrachud, An Independent, Colonial Judiciary: A History of the Bombay High Court during the British Raj, 1862–1947 (New Delhi, 2015); De, ‘Emasculating the Executive’.

Kania, speech, 16.

See Alice Jacob, ‘Nehru and the Judiciary’, Journal of the Indian Law Institute , xix, 2 (1977); Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State (Chicago, 1987), ch. 3.

Arghya Sengupta, Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary (Cambridge, 2019), 14–18.

CAD , 29 July 1947, < https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C29071947.html > (accessed 8 Mar. 2023).

The Ad Hoc Committee was headed by Justice S. Varadachariar (retired from the Federal Court), Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, B. L. Mitter, K. M. Munshi and B. N. Rau: The Framing of India’s Constitution: A Study , ii (Bombay, 1967), appendix, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Supreme Court’, 21 May 1947’, 587–91.

Chief Justice Sir Patrick Spens to Sir John Colville, 10 Dec. 1946: BL, IOR/R/3/1/33.

Chief Justice Ram Lall to Jawaharlal Nehru, 1 Mar. 1948; Nehru to B. N. Rau, 1 Mar. 1948: both NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

‘Note on the Draft Constitution of India, Chief Justice and Judges of the Patna HC’, 16 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Chief Justice Bidhubhushan Malik, Allahabad High Court, ‘Comments on the Draft Constitution’, 24 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

The retention of preventive detention after independence despite having been opposed by the nationalist parties for decades was the subject of both public criticism and litigation: Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, ‘Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention’, Journal of the Indian Law Institute , iii, 4 (1961).

Justice P. N. Sapru, memorandum, 21 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Chief justice and judges, Calcutta High Court, memorandum, 19 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

D. S. Mathur, registrar, Allahabad High Court, note, 23 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Registrar, Madras High Court, to constitutional adviser, 23 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Extract from Calcutta Weekly Notes , liii, 18 (22 Mar. 1948): NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Lall to Nehru, 1 Mar. 1948.

‘Comments of the Chief Justice and the Honourable Judges of the Nagpur HC’, 17 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Justice T. I. Sheode, Nagpur High Court, memorandum, 11 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

Justice R. S. Pollock, Nagpur High Court, ‘Memorandum on the Draft Constitution’, 15 Mar. 1948: NAI, CA/21/Cons/48 I.

‘Memorandum Representing the Views of the Federal Court and the Chief Justices Representing All the Provincial High Courts in the Union of India’, Comments on the Provisions of the Draft Constitution of India (New Delhi, 1948), 20–8.

Ibid ., 21.

Abhinav Chandrachud, Supreme Whispers: Conversations with Judges of the Supreme Court of India, 1980–1989 (Delhi, 2018).

Justice Sheode, memorandum, 11 Mar. 1948.

Kailash Nath Katju, ‘Separation of the Executive and Judicial Functions’, Address to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta, 12 Sept. 1948, Indian Law Review , ii, 3–4 (1949).

Chief Justice Malik, ‘Comments on the Draft Constitution’, 24 Mar. 1948.

NAI, Ministry of Home Affairs, F.11/3/48, 1948.

V. Shankar, memorandum, 24 Apr. 1948: NAI, Ministry of Home Affairs, F.11/3/48, 1948.

Chief justice and judges of Allahabad High Court, memorandum, 18 July 1949; ‘Report of the Committee Appointed by the Judges of Calcutta HC, 1948’: both NAI, Sardar Patel Papers, F.2/308.

Chief Justice Malik to Shankar, 13 Nov. 1948: NAI, Sardar Patel Papers, F.2/308.

B. R. Ambedkar to Sardar Patel, 24 Nov. 1948; Sir Trevor Harries to Patel, 7 July 1949: both NAI, Sardar Patel Papers, F.2/308; CAD , 27 May 1949, < https://loksabha.nic.in/Debates/cadebatefiles/C27051949.html >; 30 July 1949, < https://loksabha.nic.in/Debates/cadebatefiles/C30071949.html > (both accessed 8 Mar. 2023).

Sri Swedev, Bazar Akhara Kallu, district of Kangra, to members of the Advisory Committee of the Constituent Assembly, 14 Feb. 1947: NAI, CA/27/COM/47 I.

Constituent Assembly of India, Advisory Committee, Tribal and Excluded Areas: Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas (New Delhi, 1947), 2, quoted from the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms of 1918 . For an analysis of excluded areas under the Government of India Act 1919, see Stephen Legg, ‘Dyarchy: Democracy, Autocracy, and the Scalar Sovereignty of Interwar India’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East , xxxvi, 1 (2016).

Constituent Assembly of India, Advisory Committee, Tribal and Excluded Areas: Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas , 3. The partially excluded areas, however, were generally included in the electoral constituencies, and by independence had representation in the provincial legislatures: ibid ., 1.

Ultimately, the subcommittee for the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan never functioned as these areas became part of Pakistan.

Constituent Assembly of India, Advisory Committee, Tribal and Excluded Areas: Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas , 9, 69, 14.

CAD , 6 Sept. 1949, < https://loksabha.nic.in/Debates/cadebatefiles/C06091949.html > (accessed 8 Mar. 2023).

‘Tribesmen in the Republic’, 12 Sept. 1949, newspaper cutting: NAI, Rajendra Prasad Papers, F.10; ‘Tribal Areas’, Hindustan Times , 7 Sept. 1949, 2.

Nandini Sundar, Subalterns and Sovereigns: An Anthropological History of Bastar (1854–2006) , 2nd edn (New Delhi, 2008), 183–90; here, 188. See also, for example, Ramachandra Guha, Savaging the Civilized: Verrier Elwin, his Tribals, and India (1999), in The Ramachandra Guha Omnibus (New Delhi, 2005); Sanjib Baruah, In the Name of the Nation: India and its Northeast (Palo Alto, 2020); Sangeeta Dasgupta, ‘Adivasi Studies: From a Historian’s Perspective’, History Compass , xvi, 10 (2018).

Parmar, ‘Undoing Historical Wrongs’, 491. For studies that focus on tribal engagement with the making of the constitution, see Ornit Shani, ‘We the People’, in Ravinder Kaur and Nayanika Mathur (eds.), The People of India: New Indian Politics in the 21st Century (Delhi, 2022); Tewari, ‘Framing the Fifth Schedule’; Nandini Sundar, ‘The Making of the Indian Constitution and Indigenous Rights’, unpubd MS. In addition to Munda, scholars have also paid particular attention to Assembly member J. J. M. Nichols Roy: P. R. Kyndiah, Rev. J. J. M. Nichols Roy: Architect of District Council Autonomy (New Delhi, 2013).

Shaunna Rodrigues, ‘Excluded Areas as the Limit of the Political: The Murky Boundaries of Scheduled Areas in India’, International Journal of Human Rights , xxv, 7 (2021), 1129, our emphasis.

This important facet of India’s constitution-making has barely been studied. For a few exceptions, see Shani, How India Became Democratic , 212–21; Shani, ‘People and the Making of India’s Constitution’; Sundar, ‘Making of the Indian Constitution and Indigenous Rights’; J. Zahluna, ‘Constituent Assembly and the Sixth Schedule: With Special Reference to Mizoram’, Indian Journal of Political Science , lxxi, 4 (2010), 1236–8; Rodrigues, ‘Excluded Areas as the Limit of the Political’; Tewari, ‘Framing the Fifth Schedule’.

‘Resolutions Adopted at the Annual Meeting of the CHT People’s Association at Rangamati on 10th December, 1946’: NAI, CA/27/COM/47/I.

‘Resolution Adopted by Executive Meeting of CHT People’s Association at Rangamati on 9th Feb. 1947’: NAI, CA/27/COM/47/I.

‘Delegation from CHT to Mr R. K. Ramdhyani, 27th February 1947’: NAI, CA/27/COM/47/I.

‘Proposed Draft Constitution of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills by Hon’ble Rev. J. J. M. Nichols Roy’, in Constituent Assembly of India, North-East Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee , 2 vols. (Delhi, 1947), ii, Evidence , pt ii , 183–90, 160, 162.

‘Memorandum on the Case of the Naga People for Selfdetermination and an Appeal to H.M.G. and the Government of India’, in Constituent Assembly of India, Northeast Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee , ii, Evidence , pt i , 248.

Meeting in the School Hall, Kohima, 19 May 1947, in Constituent Assembly of India, Northeast Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee , ii, Evidence , pt i , 181.

‘Witnesses Examined: Mrs B. Khongmen and 15 Others, Mrs L. Shullai and 15 Ladies’, Shillong, 12 June 1947, in Constituent Assembly of India: Northeast Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee , ii, Evidence , pt ii , 145, 146. Among the other women’s organizations that met the subcommittee were the Adibasi Mahila Sangh (Hazaribagh), the Mizo Women’s Union (Aizawl) and the Khasi Women’s Association (Shillong), and independent women representatives such as Miss Hansda (Santhal Parganas), Mavis Dunn Lyngdoh (Shillong) and Lalziki Sailo (Aizawl).

‘The Aim and Object of “Mizo Hmeichhe Tangrual” ’, 18 Apr. 1947, in Constituent Assembly of India: Northeast Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee , ii, Evidence , pt i , 66.

Office of the All-India Excluded Areas and Tribal Peoples Association, New Delhi, Excluded Areas Bulletin , no. 2, 30 Dec. 1946, 2: NAI, CA/27/COM/1947 I.

Working president of the All-India Excluded Areas and Tribal Peoples Association to secretary of the Constituent Assembly, 5 Mar. 1947: NAI, CA/27/COM/1947 I.

Constituent Assembly of India: Northeast Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee , ii, Evidence , pt ii , 191.

Jimmy Leivon, ‘Manipur: Nagas Endorse Demand for Separate “National” Flag and Constitution’, Indian Express , 10 Sept. 2019, < https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/manipur/manipur-nagas-endorse-demand-for-separate-national-flag-and-constitution-5983840 > (accessed 7 Mar. 2023).

Sengupta, Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary , ch. 2.

Harol Lal Narmada Prasad Singh to Jayaratnam, 27 June 1946 (copy): BL, IOR/R/1/1/4236.

CAD , 4 Nov. 1948, < https://loksabha.nic.in/Debates/cadebatefiles/C04111948.html > (accessed 8 Mar. 2023).

Month:	Total Views:
May 2023	2,584
June 2023	777
July 2023	889
August 2023	992
September 2023	903
October 2023	946
November 2023	1,088
December 2023	739
January 2024	956
February 2024	861
March 2024	996
April 2024	1,153
May 2024	1,403
June 2024	1,248

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

About Past & Present
Past and Present Blog
Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1477-464X
Print ISSN 0031-2746
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Essay Series
Expert Speak
Commentaries
Young Voices
Issue Briefs
Special Reports
Occasional Papers
GP-ORF Series
Books and Monographs

Browse by Topics

Progammes & centres.

SUFIP Development Network
Centre for New Economic Diplomacy
Centre for Security, Strategy & Technology
Urban Studies
Neighbourhood Studies
Inclusive Growth and SDGs
Strategic Studies Programme
Energy and Climate Change
Economy and Growth
Raisina Dialogue
Cape Town Conversation
The Energy Transition Dialogues
CyFy Africa
Kigali Global Dialogue
BRICS Academic Forum
Colaba Conversation
Asian Forum on Global Governance
Dhaka Global Dialogue
Kalpana Chawla Annual Space Policy Dialogue
Tackling Insurgent Ideologies
Climate Action Champions Network
Event Reports
Code of Conduct
ORF Social Media Advisory
Committee Against Sexual Harassment
Declaration of Contributions
Founder Chairman
Work With Us
Write For Us
Intern With Us
ORF Faculty
Contributors
Global Advisory Board
WRITE FOR US

A beeline for the ballots in Kashmir

Author : Ayjaz Wani

Expert Speak India Matters

Published on jun 20, 2024.

The high voter turnout in Kashmir Valley prompts the question: Does this indicate a return to normalcy, or is a more complex reality unfolding?

Source Image: NBC News

The voter turnout in the five Lok Sabha seats of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) stood at an impressive 58 percent, representing the highest poll participation in the last 35 years. Voting in the Kashmir Valley witnessed a remarkable 30-percent increase over the 2019 general elections tally. A record number of young people exercised their franchise, demonstrating growing confidence in the world's largest democracy.

After witnessing a high voter turnout and active youth participation, the Chief Election Commission of India is contemplating holding assembly elections to reinforce democracy in J&K.

After witnessing a high voter turnout and active youth participation, the Chief Election Commission of India is contemplating holding assembly elections to reinforce democracy in J&K. Despite the widespread belief that normalcy has returned to Kashmir, the voter turnout and the electoral outcome reveal a more intricate reality emerging in the Valley, largely driven by emotions and local socioeconomic issues.

From boycotts to ballots

Elections in J&K before 2019 saw boycott calls from separatists. Deserted polling booths and low turnouts due to fear of violence and stone pelting from separatists and their over-ground workers (OGWs) were a common sight. Pakistan’s covert support of terrorism and violence in the Kashmir Valley has historically kept Kashmiri voters away from the democratic process. For instance, the period around the 2017 by-elections to the Srinagar constituency recorded 200 incidents of violence in which eight people were killed. Consequently, the by-election registered a seven percent voter turnout, the lowest in 30 years. The violence also led to the postponement of the by-elections to the Anantnag parliamentary seat for two years. Similarly, in 2019, the combined voter turnout in three parliamentary constituencies in the Kashmir Valley was only 19.16 percent . Clashes between security forces and stone pelters led to zero voting in most polling booths in the restive south Kashmir areas.

However, the situation in the Kashmir Valley has changed significantly since the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A in August 2019. New security measures by the J&K Union Territory administration saw a drastic decrease in terrorism and related violence. With only 20 young individuals joining terrorist organisations, the number of locals joining terror outfits declined by 80 percent in 2023. However, nearly 70-80 active foreign terrorists are present in J&K, and security agencies need to devise a new counterterrorism strategy before the upcoming assembly elections. The recent terrorist attacks in the Jammu region and south of Pir Panjal over the last two years have created new security challenges, leading security agencies to focus more on countering foreign terrorism sponsored by Pakistan.

The situation in the Kashmir Valley has changed significantly since the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A in August 2019. New security measures by the J&K Union Territory administration saw a drastic decrease in terrorism and related violence.

Nonetheless, the significant improvement in the security environment particularly in Valley and the absence of stone-pelting and strikes by separatists has paved the way for the victory of ballots over bullets. The reducing influence of the separatist ideals and tougher anti-terrorist law has made the youth realise the importance of the democratic processes and the need to fill the political void with the representation of their own people —with whom they could resonate—in the government. Additionally, residents of the Valley felt that they lacked representation in the local administration, as bureaucrats who run the administration have become apathetic, and supremely powerful. Many people believe that Kashmiris are using their votes to express their discontent with the one-sided decisions made by New Delhi after 2019, especially regarding the region's socioeconomic development.

The voter turnout for the age group between 18-39 years in the three parliamentary seats of Baramulla, Srinagar, and Anantnag-Rajouri in the Kashmir Valley stood at 56.02 percent, 48.57 percent, and 54.41 percent , respectively. In the past three decades of militancy, the youth have finally recognised the urgency of addressing issues like combatting unemployment and fostering new opportunities. During the election, there was a surge in the participation of voters aged 18-39 in the Valley who voted against the BJP’s affiliated regional political parties. The Apni Party led by Altaf Bukhari and the Peoples Conference led by Sajad Lone are widely regarded as proxies of the BJP by the majority of the population in the Valley. The unpopular decisions made by New Delhi in 2019 were a major focus of the election campaign and led to increased participation of women in the elections. Despite this, they were satisfied with the peaceful atmosphere in the Valley and strongly hoped for it to continue."

From Jammat-e-Islami to Rashid’s victory

In a refreshing change during the recent Lok Sabha elections, members of the banned Jammat-e-Islami (JeI) were actively involved in the voting process across all three constituencies of the Valley. JeI, a sociopolitical and religious organisation advocating separatism and directly challenging the Indian state, had been the focal point of the Kashmir conflict for several years. The panel head of JeI expressed their readiness to contest upcoming assembly elections under the Indian Constitution if the ban imposed on it was lifted.

The results of the Baramulla parliamentary seat in Kashmir surprised regional mainstream parties and New Delhi with the victory of Abdul Rashid Sheikh, commonly known as Engineer Rashid. Rashid, confined in Tihar Jail for the past five years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on terror charges, clinched nearly 470,000 votes. He decisively defeated Omar Abdullah, the former Chief Minister, with a commanding margin of more than 200,000 votes. According to some journalists and Omar Abdullah , Rashid's victory will strengthen secessionists and reignite separatism. However, it is believed that Rashid was elected out of sympathy and determination. Rashid's campaign centred around seeking “ revenge of jail with the vote .” Many supporters think this victory would ensure Rashid’s release and allow him to truly represent their genuine concerns in the Parliament.

The results of the Baramulla parliamentary seat in Kashmir surprised regional mainstream parties and New Delhi with the victory of Abdul Rashid Sheikh, commonly known as Engineer Rashid.

Elected in 2019 from the Baramulla Lok Sabah seat, National Conference’s Mohammad Akbar Lone hardly raised any local issues of unemployment, electricity, and infrastructure in the Parliament. Disenchantment with the ‘VIP’ culture associated with other contesting candidates like Omar Abdullah also motivated voters to vote for Rashid. Most importantly, the areas under the Baramulla parliamentary seat have been more peaceful than South Kashmir and Srinagar for the last 12 years. Rashid's rallies attracted ample youth support even in the areas known for election boycotts.

The people of the Kashmir Valley have actively opposed Pakistan-backed terrorism, violence, and separatism. However, negative emotions and a potentially pessimistic stance towards New Delhi were still reflected in the voter turnout and results, especially in the Baramulla seat. Nevertheless, the people eagerly yearn for normalcy, improved livelihoods, and greater political participation at the Union Territory (UT) level which New Delhi needs to capitalise on through political dialogue.

Ayjaz Wani is a Fellow in the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation.

Domestic Politics and Governance
Abdul Rashid
Assembly elections
Chief Election Commission of India
Jammat-e-Islami (JeI)

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

Ayjaz Wani (Phd) is a Fellow in the Strategic Studies Programme at ORF. Based out of Mumbai, he tracks China’s relations with Central Asia, Pakistan and ...

Related Search Terms

Removal of Article 370
Omar Abdullah
Farooq Abdullah

Publications

Macron’s risky gamble

International affairs, jul 01, 2024.

The Dark Web as Enabler of Terrorist Activities

Terrorism | cyber security | cyber and technology.

International
Today’s Paper
Mumbai News
Chandigarh News
Bangalore News
Lucknow News
Ahmedabad News
Chennai News

EVM has passed every test, we should denounce attempts to undermine democracy: President

The president’s comments come in the wake of legal challenges to the use of evms, vvpats and other electoral procedures.

In her first address to Parliament after the formation of the 18th Lok Sabha, President Droupadi Murmu on Thursday said Indians had shown trust in democracy and that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) had passed every test.

“We should also feel proud when India conducts such a large election exercise without any major violence and disorder. Today, the whole world respects us as the Mother of Democracy. The people of India have always demonstrated complete trust in democracy and expressed full faith in the electoral institutions,” the President said.

She thanked the Election Commission for the conduct of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, in which around 64 crore voters participated.

“We need to preserve and protect this trust to sustain our robust democracy. We must realise that hurting the faith of people in democratic institutions and the electoral process is like cutting the very branch on which we all are sitting. We should collectively denounce every attempt to undermine the credibility of our democracy. We all remember those times when ballot papers were snatched and looted. To ensure the sanctity of the electoral process, it was decided to use EVMs. The EVM has passed every test, from the Supreme Court to the people’s court, in the last few decades,” Murmu said.

The President’s comments come in the wake of legal challenges to the use of EVMs, VVPATs and other electoral procedures. In one such case, the Supreme Court in April rejected the demand for a return to ballot papers or 100% counting of VVPAT slips.

In the past, Presidential addresses have mentioned the recently-conducted elections, but have not included a defence of EVMs. After the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, then-President Pranab Mukherjee congratulated the Election Commission for conducting the polls successfully. In 2019, after the Lok Sabha elections that year, then-President Ram Nath Kovind too congratulated the EC. In his address, Kovind said India’s democracy had matured and that frequent elections were impacting the pace and continuity of development works. He said there was a need for simultaneous elections. Incidentally, as former President, Kovind, chaired the government-appointed high-level committee on simultaneous elections which recommended ways to implement “one nation, one election” in March this year.

NEET UG: NTA had conducted a retest for selected 1563 candidates, who were initially awarded grace marks after they had claimed they suffered loss of exam time.

NTA released NEET UG retest results for 1563 candidates, with 813 appearing for the exam in six cities. Students could retain original scores or take the retest. Affected students will receive revised scores, while others will get original scores. NEET UG may be conducted online next year.

Parliament Session Live Updates: On NEET issue, LoP in Rajya Sabha Kharge suggests review of education system under SC supervision 31 mins ago
NEET-NET Row 2024 Live Updates: Supreme Court hears plea against OMR manipulation 50 mins ago
Mumbai News Today Live: Another dead body found in Lonavala after family of 5 drowns at Bhushi Dam 1 hour ago
Delhi News Live Updates: Delhi CM Kejriwal moves HC against CBI arrest in excise policy case 1 hour ago

Best of Express

Parliament Session 2024 Live Updates: Leader of the House in Rajya Sabha J P Nadda vs LoP Mallikarjun Kharge. (Sansad TV)

Buzzing Now

Emotional Hardik Pandya after India defeats South Africa in T20 World Cup 2024

Jul 01: Latest News

01 MPCB initiates measures to address Indrayani river pollution during Aashadhi Wari
02 12 detained as place of worship ‘vandalised’ in J&K’s Reasi
03 UNESCO finds Islamic State group-era bombs in Mosul mosque walls, years after the defeat of IS
04 Assam govt demolishes houses of rape accused, others Goalpara
05 Express News Quiz: Cricket, popstars and the collapse of reason
Elections 2024
Political Pulse
Entertainment
Movie Review
Newsletters
Web Stories
T20 World Cup
Express Shorts
Mini Crossword
Premium Stories
Health & Wellness

Work & Careers
Life & Arts

Transcript: Martin Wolf on democracy’s year of peril

Transcript: Martin Wolf on democracy’s year of peril on x (opens in a new window)
Transcript: Martin Wolf on democracy’s year of peril on facebook (opens in a new window)
Transcript: Martin Wolf on democracy’s year of peril on linkedin (opens in a new window)
Transcript: Martin Wolf on democracy’s year of peril on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Martin Wolf and Jonathan Derbyshire

This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: ‘Martin Wolf on democracy’s year of peril’

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Marc Filippino Good morning from the Financial Times. It’s Marc Filippino here. Regular listeners will know that for every Sunday this month, the News Briefing is gonna do something a little bit different. We’re running a series about the outlook for democracy hosted by the FT’s chief economics commentator, Martin Wolf. He’s been talking to leading political thinkers about what this year — a pivotal year for democracy — has in store for the liberal democratic system. So here goes, Martin Wolf, Democracy’s Year of Peril.

Martin Wolf I know you’ve gotten too little space. Though online, of course, we could run an infinite number of columns.

Jonathan Derbyshire This is true. There is not an infinite amount of absolute capacity.

Martin Wolf That’s what I mean, AI can replace our job. We have an AI bot and it zips through, does the editing and (inaudible) No, I’m not recommending this as a strategy any more that I’m gonna ask ChatGPT to write my next column.

Jonathan Derbyshire I’m Jonathan Derbyshire, the FT’s executive opinion editor, and this is a special final edition of Martin Wolf’s series: Democracy’s Year of Peril . The idea behind this series was to look at the dangers facing liberal democracy during a year of elections. In 2024, billions of citizens across more than 50 countries will be asked to cast their votes. And since work on this project began, we’ve had surprise elections called in the UK and France and results from elections in India, South Africa, Mexico and for the European parliament.

So, Martin, how if at all of your concerns about the peril in which liberal democracy finds itself evolved over the past year?

Martin Wolf That’s a very good question. And one should perhaps add that with the UK election, it’s just a matter of timing within the year. We knew it was gonna happen this year. It could have been later. That was a surprise. But the French parliamentary election really is a surprise. It was not required. It was Emmanuel Macron taking one of his very characteristic gambles. So we’ve got another really important election that hadn’t been expected.

If we look at what has happened so far, one would have to say one election, and it’s a very important election I would regard as the second most important this year, has come out really much better from my point of view than expected, and that’s India. I discussed this in the series with Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, and he’s also delighted. We went into it with the expectation that Narendra Modi would achieve a landslide victory, possibly one sufficiently large for him to change the constitution easily. And that’s not what’s happened. He has lost a lot of seats. He doesn’t have a majority in parliament with his own party, the BJP. He’s in coalition and despite overwhelming advantages in terms of money, in terms of press and broader media coverage, in terms of his own talents as a campaigner, which are remarkable, very important parts of India turned against him. And he’s now sort of been stripped back to being a perfectly normal human. And I think that was wonderful. I mean, very, very encouraging. That’s the biggest encouraging thing that’s happened.

The other events, the Mexican election is more or less as expected, I think very worrying. But there we are. The European parliament is more or less what was expected. The right have done very well, but they’re not gonna actually run the parliament. But that’s a very important harbinger of problems for the European Union to come. And of course, the really big one, the election in the US remains very, very close.

Jonathan Derbyshire As well as speaking to Raghuram Rajan in earlier episodes of this series, Martin, you spoke to Robert Kagan, Anne Applebaum and Fiona Hill. What broad conclusions did you take away from those conversations about what we’re calling democracy’s peril?

Martin Wolf Well, I think they reminded us that these are deep structural dangers, and they remain so on many different dimensions. I mean, I think it’s clear — that’s why I wanted to talk to him — that Bob Kagan is the most alarmed and alarmist in the sense and that it was his subject that he believes — and I find his arguments extremely persuasive — that the election in front of America in November between Donald Trump and Joe Biden could be an absolutely decisive election for the future of the democratic republic that the Trumpians, if you like, the people around him, have a well-designed project to transform the republic from a democracy into an autocracy. He’s also very concerned that this could cause nullification crises, essentially, in particular that if the election is reasonably close, not decisive one way or the other, they will not accept the outcome. And that could include states which will not accept the outcome. And this could lead to violence and real disarray. Therefore, this is a crisis of the system, not in the system. And I think that view is, to my mind, frighteningly persuasive, which is why I wanted him.

Anne Applebaum’s story is also very interesting, but we focus quite a bit on Poland. And there we have good news and bad news. The good news and we’ve all been, it’s another of the good news stories, though it happened last year in which the rightwing conservative populist movement was overthrown and a new coalition was formed under Mr Tusk. That was very cheering. But of course, one of the things that happens with rightwing demagogic or even leftwing demagogic, that’s not really different. governments, populist governments with autocratic leanings, is that they infiltrate institutions that have to be independent. And the most important probably are the law and the media. And I think the lesson I get from Anne is that undoing the damage of a real destruction of the organs of the neutral state, broadly defined, reversing that is very, very hard.

And for Fiona, finally — Fiona Hill — I think what we get is we are in a sort of real battle with autocrats. And the autocrats are clever, some of them are very clever, Vladimir Putin is the one she knows best. They are very, very good at suborning public opinion in our societies through the media, through social media. And lots of people believe in the lies. And in a way, the real danger is not just that they make people believe in lies, but they make people believe there is no truth. Nobody is to be trusted. And distrust, fundamental distrust in the body politic, really doesn’t make democracy very workable. So those are, to me, the big things I got out of this. Of course, there are lots of detail as well.

Jonathan Derbyshire Let’s try and pick out some of the detail. Let’s stick with Anne Applebaum and her discussion of the challenge that faces Donald Tusk’s centre-right government in unwinding the national populist assaults on democratic and independent institutions. It seemed to me the most important point Anne made was that speed is of the essence here.

Martin Wolf Yes. I mean, I’ve been thinking about this also in the US case, which I’ll come to in a moment. Yes. And it’s quite difficult if you don’t control the whole government. And Tusk doesn’t, but they’ve done a pretty good job in . . . you can sort of challenge whether this is the right thing to do, I think it is the right thing to do, in sorting out state media. But the legal institutions are far more difficult because the predecessor government not only put their people in, it changed the structure in complicated ways to make it very difficult to reverse. So it is important to act quickly, but depending on how much control you have, it can also be very hard. And this, I think, is what the Poles have been finding. There is a possibility that reversing the damage will take two terms. And of course, you have to win again. And if you’re not doing very well, that might become difficult. So as I said in Poland, it’s a striking case that they still have support.

One of the points that comes out of the American experience — and I think Bob Kagan mentioned this — is Donald Trump clearly did a number of things which were, to me, just obviously illegal. And there are, I think, four major cases against him, if I remember correctly. The one that’s come to trial in which he’s been found guilty is actually far and away the most trivial. The fundamental case on his attempt to overturn the election, which seems to me an overwhelming significance, now seems, is extremely unlikely to come to trial before the election, partly because the Supreme Court is holding it up over this unbelievable assertion that the president can do whatever he likes, including overturning the election. I just find this unbelievable. And there’s also the Georgia state case, which is very important there. Also, the case about the documents, which seemed to me less true, but the Georgia state case is the second most important because he very specifically tried famously to suborn the outcome of the Georgia election. That’s also not coming to trial.

So one would have to say the law’s delays have meant that the legal systems have been ineffective in curbing the behaviour of a president and ex-president. Congress has been also ineffective because it has not convicted him of impeachment cases, and the last of which was about actually his attempt to overthrow the election, which seems to me about as clear as anything could possibly be. So you would have to say it would have been wonderful if they could have acted quickly and effectively. And they made the decision, which seems to me pretty obvious, that Donald Trump is not a suitable candidate for election as president, given the way he’s behaved. But that is not going to happen. So it’s going to be decided in the electoral process again, which inevitably so many other subjects are going to become central. So acting quickly is very important and very difficult.

Jonathan Derbyshire This is something you alluded to earlier. There is a big difference between the way Trump campaigned in 2016 and the way he’s campaigning in 2024. And one of the differences is that there is a network of rightwing think-tanks intellectuals around Trump preparing an authoritarian program for governing. Now our colleague Edward Luce wrote about the Heritage Foundation, which has published something called Project 2025 , which he rather memorably described as a war and piece of authoritarianism. This is an alarming development, isn’t it?

Martin Wolf Yes, I think there are two aspects of this, presumably many more from my perspective. The first is Donald Trump’s instincts as an authoritarian were obvious. I wrote already in 2016 a column under the headline Donald Trump is how great republics meet their end , and I was comparing what was happening to the US with what happened to the last truly great republic, the Roman Republic in the first century BC, and there are echoes. Of course, things are very different. There are very clear echoes between the periods and the way in which the Caesars, Julius and Octavia, succeeded in overturning the Republic while keeping all its apparent institutions. And what made that a more credible fear is that, as Alexander Hamilton himself explains in describing the presidency, he actually modelled the presidency on the institution of the Roman dictator, which was supposed to be a temporary institution but is permanent in the US.

And it is true the president has all sorts of implicit powers which can be used to overthrow democracy. For instance, he is the commander-in-chief. Well, if you command the army, and the army accepts that you’re the legitimate authority, it’s very difficult to see what stops you. Ultimately, it has to be the character of the people, the character of the people in the army and the character of the president. So this has been a worry always but Trump was on his own. He didn’t have a group of people who were supporting him. Not really. And he still was looking for respectability. So when he got into power, he put in fairly traditional Republican figures in the major positions. He made their lives miserable. Yes, he got his way on some important things, but he pursued in many ways a fairly traditional Republican program of tax cuts, deregulation. Obviously he had some wild things like the attack on Nato, but he didn’t actually pull right out. And of course, the secretaries of state for defence he had were all pretty conservative. So he was boxed in, as it were.

Now that’s gone. He clearly has a lot of people around him who have indeed developed a program for an autocracy, by which I mean the suborning of some key independent institutions, the civil service, which they condemn as being the deep state because they don’t understand the idea that the state doesn’t belong to the party that won the election. It belongs to the people, and the civil servants are servants of the people. And the American state has some very, very loyal servants of this kind whom they despise because they are. And when they talk about overturning the deep state, they mean the Department of Justice, institutions like the CIA and the FBI, of course, and the armed forces. I mean, that’s the state. And so that’s really profound. So they are attacking core independent institutions that protect you against an autocratic order, an order in which the head of government is a head of state, can basically do whatever he wants to anybody.

But the other thing that is striking to me is how profoundly new and different these ideologies are. So you normally associate the Republicans, well you go back, you could associate with Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. But let’s not go back to really great past presidents. But you would think of them as supporting the free market, personal freedom, the rule of law, obviously, the western alliance, I mean, you know, the most obvious. Now these people are completely different. They are socially reactionary, profoundly so. They really believe in the idea of an authoritarian, mighty state. You know, their heroes seem to be people like Orban at best and Putin at worst. They have absolutely no interest in the western alliance because they don’t feel they share anything with the democratic allies, and they have a plan for putting people into all the positions that will open up, and they plan to open up a lot more of them who are personally loyal to this project and above all, to Donald Trump. They see the great leader as the person they follow.

Now, I want us to be really brutally clear. If you have a political party which is fundamentally loyal to a leader, that’s the overriding feature of it. The leader defines what is true and what is the interest of the state. And it defines, most crucially in this case, what is true as who is the legitimate president now, which is Donald Trump, because he won the last election. And they agree with that, even though they really in their hearts know it isn’t true. And they also believe that the application of the law to him, and this has been shown most recently in the reaction, for instance, of the speaker of the House to the verdict in the New York case, which is that the law was fundamentally misused and abused, which is an attack on the very idea of the rule of law. A party with those characteristics, Führerprinzip, the leader is right, the belief the state and the party are one under the control of the leader, that independent legal institutions operating independently is unacceptable, this is fascism, there’s no doubt about it. And so there’s no doubt about it. So in my view, we are looking at something completely different and how far you will go in practice, how much the federal constitution and the states will protect this, who knows? But this is a very different proposition from 2016.

Jonathan Derbyshire I want to pick out two points from what you’ve just said. The first is the fascism question. So your suggestion is that we do have a name for this kind of authoritarian populist politics, and it’s fascism. You put that in your conversation with Anne Applebaum. You put that to her and she was resistant, and I found that rather interesting.

Martin Wolf Yes, I think. Well, there are two points. It’s a provocative term, and of course it is. And it’s perfectly understandable that you don’t necessarily want to get into this battle. And it may also be because as soon as people think of fascism, they’re saying, well, what you’re really accusing them of being is Nazis. Anne is much more subtle and her reasoning is more subtle. But as we know very well, you can be fascist without being Nazi. Mussolini wasn’t, for example, but very different.

I wrote a column a little while ago on a wonderful essay by the great Italian scholar intellectual, Umberto Eco, on an article he wrote in the, I think, in the early 1990s, so it’s quite old, called Ur-Fascism , in which he listed the sort of characteristics of fascism as a generic type of movement. And I argued that the echoes of that in contemporary authoritarian populism, and most obviously in the US, are really pretty clear. Now, it may be impolitic to use this word, and I’m certainly not saying that a Trump administration will be Nazi. That would be ridiculous, because, as I said in that column, the whole phenomenon of fascism in the early 20th century was different because it involved militarised, organised parties with hyper-nationalist objectives and really warfighting as a central element in their ideology. And that’s not true of what we’re seeing now. But it’s certainly true that there are some absolutely core fascist tropes in both the ideologies and the planning behind what we’re seeing in some of these movements and very clearly, I think, in the modern Republican party.

But the more important point than the label, it’s what I think is clear based on the label, is to recognise the sort of project it is. And this is not a normal constitutional project. And some of the intellectuals in this movement very clearly don’t care, because they think the constitution gets in the way of the sort of government and society they want.

Jonathan Derbyshire Bob Kagan has a very interesting answer to this question about the novelty or otherwise of Trumpism. Kagan argues, and I’m quoting him, Martin, that this rebellion against liberalism, which is what Trumpism is, has long historical roots, going back to the Founding Fathers, specifically to the anti-liberal reaction to the universalism of the founders. So for Kagan, this is a distinctively American story.

Martin Wolf Well, I was very interested in this view. I’m not persuaded it’s uniquely American, because if you look at the last two centuries since universalist ideas and essentially universalist liberal democratic ideas emerged as central elements in our politics and was clearly — I don’t want to get into the details — but by the 18th century, there was a lot of that about. And where it would end up, nobody knew. And there was . . . obviously there were many different strands. But one of the characteristics of those two centuries is there have been anti-liberal reactions. There was an anti-liberal reaction after the fall of Napoleon as the monarchs of Europe tried to restore the principles of legitimism. That’s an anti-liberal reaction. The way Germany was united by the conservatives was itself an anti-liberal reaction, because the dominant forces in Germany in the early 19th century pushing for unification were actually liberals. And Bismarck seizing said we can do this better using the traditional conservative institutions. And so that was an anti-liberal reaction.

I believe I was going through the history of these all these countries as I understand them, they all had and have to this day very powerful anti-liberal elements. These emphasise on the whole the need for traditional social hierarchy, particularly between men and women, traditional social behaviours, sexual particularly, the need for the sense of national unity around a legitimate leader, a figure of some kind. So that’s reaction against, if you like, global universalism. So I think that you can think of the history of the last 200 years as a battle. It’s complex, very complex. But the battle between liberalism and anti-liberal elements is a sort of recurrent theme. America is story-specific because new society, which gained a huge world power. It had this very special problem of a mass, a chattel slavery system, which was there, was in the system. It had hyper-individualistic premises, but because of its Christian roots and the importance of Christianity, this was always challenged in some important ways. So I don’t deny there are special aspects of America, and I don’t deny that there are aspects of this they’ve been fighting over for the last 250 years. And one of them, the slavery issue, led to a colossal civil war, and it led also to attempts to nullify the encroachments by the federal government and the federal judiciary. So all that is true, but I don’t think it’s unique to America at all. It’s just different in the way it plays out.

It’s not so different in France. For example, don’t forget the French also consider themselves to be universalist. So they went with that in a big way. It’s slightly different in other places, it’s more particularised. But the big point is when has it become really dangerous to the functioning of the Republic, to the continuity of the Republic? I would say it obviously did over the slavery issue. The issue of civil rights in the 60s was clearly a colossal one, and you could imagine it going in other ways. There was a huge fight in the 30s over the role of the US as a liberal hegemon in the world. That was a big part of it. And there was this colossal isolationist movement. So that was another of these huge battles of being liberals and anti-liberals in this sense, global universalists because America had become the world’s greatest power. And we have it now.

But I’m inclined to think, though Bob is of course, a greater expert, that the outcome of this election could see either a genuine domestic turmoil or victory for anti-liberal forces, which hasn’t actually ever happened in the history of the Republic. So though they’re always there, the anti-liberals have never won an outright victory. Will they now? I think that’s a very interesting question. Probably very difficult given the strength of the forces in the country. So for this 50/50 on the other side, but the least I would say, it’s a lengthy answer, but I would say that while this has always been there, it’s been there in all the modern western countries at some point. It’s always been there in the US, but there’s some times that are much more critical than others, and surely he agrees that this is one of them.

Jonathan Derbyshire You asked both Kagan and Applebaum about the extent to which there are significant economic factors driving popular support both for Trump in the US and for national populist formations around the world. Interestingly, both of them resisted this suggestion. Kagan, for example, sees the Trumpian rebellion as rooted ultimately in race, while Applebaum thinks that populist, authoritarian movements are principally inspired by a sense of persecution and the loss of an imagined past. Has your view of the role played by economic and other factors shifted at all over the past year?

Martin Wolf I think the view I have of this is, I think, a little different, but it’s not shifted so much that I agree with these people entirely. I mean, I accept — and this is one of the great pleasures of talking to people like these — is that one approaches questions of this kind, which are obviously incredibly multi-faceted and complex, from the particular intellectual lens one has. And these are historians and political scientists, and I’m an economist. So this is where I start. But the question I have vast amounts of evidence to support me in my hypothesis in the book I wrote on this, we just published last year, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism . But I would say something like this, and it still remains my view. I don’t think that the . . . so take slavery, particular issue, very important issue, because attitudes to slavery and associated with that to race, which is obviously derived ultimately from the situation of the Black Americans as slaves, African-Americans as slaves, was, of course, rooted in an economic system. There’s no doubt about that. It was an economic system. And it was an economic system that generated enormous wealth for a very small number of people in the southern states that the plantocracy who wished to be and thought of themselves almost as if they were feudal lords. And they wanted and needed an ideology that would support their position in the societies where there were Black slaves and a very large number of poor Whites. And it was very important for them to obtain the loyalty of and support of the poor Whites, because they were the ones who are going to be the soldiers. They were the ones who are actually going to fight, and therefore they had to have a cause to believe in.

And now I’m not saying that this was something that they worked out as a sort of design, but the aim, quite obviously, was to create an ideological system in which the poor Whites could feel their identity was with the plantocracy, and very definitely not with the Blacks. And that ideology, of course, is racism. Racism is an ideology, and as a political ideology, it’s fantastically convenient for a plutocracy which wants to do whatever it can, operate as freely as possible, pay as little as tax as possible. If you can get lots of poor people to identify with it in the context of a system in which the demand for universal suffrage becomes very, very powerful. And I think that’s a general point. So the plutocracy in any democratic system has to find a way of getting a vast number of people to support it, even though they’ve got all the wealth. And there are basically two ways of doing this. One: have a really successful economy in which everybody feels things are going pretty well for me. And these people in charge are great, and we like and trust them because they’re doing very well for us. And that is, if you like, a sort of liberal, conservative, social democratic way of handling that problem.

The other way of handling that problem is identity. And since the identity can be played by everybody, it’s played by the right and it’s played by the left. And you focus on identity politics. And culture is an essential element in identity politics. So to me, identity politics are not just something that is out there, which is primary, it is also something that is fabricated. Now, of course, there are some very noteworthy intellectuals who have put forward this proposition, and one of them is called Karl Marx. But he wasn’t entirely wrong about the nature of politics. I just don’t think at a very basic level that you can think of these cultural conflicts as fundamentally independent from the interests of the people at the top of the system and somehow independent of all that and independent of economic interests and economic performance. So if these US, for example, had generated very widely shared, very rapid rises in wealth and income across the whole of the society, really the whole of society, and these huge upheavals hadn’t occurred, which I discussed in my book, deindustrialisation, the rise of precarious styles of work and all the rest of it, and associated with this some genuinely huge changes in the class structure of our societies towards the university educated, if none of these things have happened, which are economic at core, I don’t believe we will be where we are now. But the truth is, we’re not gonna be able to rerun the experiment. So we don’t know. But I think their point of view is perfectly understandable. I just don’t think it is complete.

Jonathan Derbyshire Now, this is the second podcast series you’ve done for the FT on the crisis in what you call in your most recent book democratic capitalism. If we came back to this studio this time next year, what do you think would be keeping you awake at night? The same crisis in our democratic institutions? Or are there other looming problems set to consumers?

Martin Wolf Well, I think it is quite possible we would be concerned very much with the consequences of a decisive upheaval in US politics. And as I’ve frequently written, the US has been the central country in the world system since it entered the second world war. And if it makes a fundamental shift in its role in the world and its own ideological stance, then that will transform the world profoundly in immense number of ways. Just take one tiny example. Obviously, all the far-right parties in Europe will feel they have a friend, and the people who vote for them will feel we’re in line with the most powerful country in the world, and this is the best way to be aligned to it. So I think it will immensely strengthen the far right in Europe. It could well mean we give up Ukraine to Putin. That’s a fundamental power shift. It could make the functioning of the EU in the western alliance disappear. Basically, both would be under great threat. So these are huge dangers directly. And I think people just underestimate how absolutely central US power has been to the world order and getting rid of it, or even worse, for it to flip is going to be unbelievably profound.

But beyond that, of course, we have some huge issues which won’t be helped. I’ll just mention the one, you know, turning the United States in the direction I said will not necessarily make relations between the US and China any easier. In fact, they look like seem likely to make them far worse. So we could be in the middle of a colossal trade war, I mean, really colossal trade war with unknown consequences. I mean, clearly, all this, if it happens, would mean probably abandoning any serious attempt to deal with climate change. And I become increasingly convinced that the risks associated with climate change have been underestimated. And the transformation is happening more quickly and more dangerously than we thought even three or four years ago. And we’re probably very swiftly moving towards irreversible tipping points, which could be monstrous. I mean, we are getting temperatures in important parts of the world, it’s summer. Levels at which people really can’t survive and certainly not work. So the destabilisation of the world system, the possibility of a far worse and even more nationalist head-on conflicts between the US and China, and what’s gonna happen to the global environment in this sort of world. I mean, they’re all, seem to me, pretty big concerns.

Jonathan Derbyshire Thank you, Martin. It leaves me to thank the people who helped make this series. It was produced by Sandra Kanthal. Production help was provided by Sonja Hutson. The sound engineer was Nigel Appleton and the executive producer is Manuela Saragosa. The FT’s global head of audio is Cheryl Brumley.

Promoted Content

Comments have not been enabled for this article.

International Edition

Share full article

An illustration of houses and trees under a microscope.

How ‘Rural Studies’ Is Thinking About the Heartland

What’s the matter with America’s rural voters? Many scholars believe that the question itself is the problem.

Credit... Photo illustration by Pablo Delcan

Supported by

By Emma Goldberg

June 29, 2024

Kristin Lunz Trujillo grew up proud of her family’s way of life. She spent summers getting ready to show cattle at the county fair. During the school year, she rushed home after class to feed the chickens on her family’s corn and soybean farm. Neither of her parents went to college, but they encouraged their daughter when she decided to go to Carleton, a liberal arts school a two-hour drive from their farm in Minnesota.

Despite being physically close to home, Ms. Lunz Trujillo was surprised by how foreign her upbringing seemed at the college. She was dismayed when she checked out the farm club and learned that its members wanted to brew kombucha, not milk cows. When an art history teacher asked students which famous paintings they’d seen in person, Ms. Lunz Trujillo stayed quiet, because she had never been to an art museum. This sense of cultural alienation molded her research when she became a political scientist: What is rural identity? How does it shape a person’s politics?

This year, Ms. Lunz Trujillo, now an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina, was reading a new, best-selling book that cited her research to explore those same questions. But this recognition didn’t bring the thrill she might have expected.

Kristin Lunz Trujillo, leaning on a white wooden fence, surrounded by trees.

“It seemed to be more of a hit piece on rural America,” she said.

Published in February, “White Rural Rage,” by the journalist Paul Waldman and the political scientist Tom Schaller, is an unsparing assessment of small-town America. Rural residents, the authors argued, are more likely than city dwellers to excuse political violence, and they pose a threat to American democracy.

Several rural scholars whose research was included in the book immediately denounced it. In a critical Politico essay, Nick Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College, wrote, “Imagine my surprise when I picked up the book and saw that some of that research was mine.” Ms. Lunz Trujillo excoriated the book in an opinion piece for Newsweek as “a prime example of how intellectuals sow distrust by villainizing” people unlike them.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Write an essay on Democracy in India || Short paragraph on Democracy in India || #extension.com
Essay On Democracy in India
Democracy in India Essay
Essay on Democracy in India
Essay on Democracy in India
Essay on future of democracy in india/ democracy in India / essay in English/ English essay

VIDEO

Essay on "Democracy" in English with quotations//Democracy in Pakistan
essay on democracy in english/democracy essay/essay on democracy
write an ESSAY " democracy " for class 10 and 12 ( FSc ) for toppers students 800 word's #essay
Democracy, Election and Governance Session 1 Module1 Constitution of India Introduction Part1
democracy india
ESSAY (DEMOCRACY)/80 WPM/516 WORDS

COMMENTS

Essay on Democracy in India for Students and Children
Essay on Democracy in India - First of all, democracy refers to a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. Democracy holds a special place in India. Furthermore, India without a doubt is the biggest democracy in the world. Also, the democracy of India is derived from the constitution of India.
Democracy In India Essay
100 Words Essay On Democracy. Democracy is a term used to describe a form of government in which the people have a voice by voting. Democracy is an essential part of any society, and India is no exception. After years of suffering under British colonial control, India attained democracy in 1947.
Essay on Democracy in India
Essay on Democracy in India (Essay 3 - 300 Words) Introduction: India is the largest country in the world that follows the Democratic form of government. With a population of over a billion, India is a secular, socialistic, republic, and democratic country in the world. India is considered as the lighthouse that guides the democratic movement ...
Essay on Indian Democracy in 100 and 200 Words for ...
Essay on Indian Democracy in 200 Words. India has the largest democratic system in the world, which is evidence of its unwavering commitment to plurality and tolerance. It was founded in 1950 with the ratification of the Constitution and is based on the ideas of justice, equality, and freedom. India's democratic system depends on periodical ...
Essay on Democracy in India
500 Words Essay on Democracy in India Introduction. India, often hailed as the largest democracy in the world, has a rich history of democratic governance that dates back to its independence in 1947. Democracy in India is not just a political system but a way of life, embodying the values of equality, justice, and freedom.
Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words
Must Read: Consumer Rights in India. Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10. Sample Essay on Democracy (250 to 300 words) As Abraham Lincoln once said, "democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people." There is undeniably no doubt that the core of democracies lies in making people the ultimate decision-makers.
Democracy Essay for Students in English
India is considered the largest democracy, all around the world. India decided to have a democratic Govt. from the very first day of its independence after the rule of the British. In India, everyone above the age of 18 years can go to vote to select the Government, without any kind of discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, religion ...
Democracy in India
History of democracy in India. After gaining independence from Britain in 1947, the government was initially dominated by the Indian National Congress Party ('Congress'). The party was heavily identified with independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, who was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist in 1948. Watch the event recording.
Essay on India's Democracy for Students in English
A democracy is a form of governance in which citizens exercise power by voting. In India, democracy retains a special position. Furthermore, India is without a doubt the world's largest democracy. In addition, India's democracy is rooted in its constitution. After suffering under British colonial control, India became a democratic nation in 1947.
Indian Democracy: A Reflection of Aspirations and Achievements
Conclusion: Democracy's Ongoing Journey. Indian Democracy is an evolving journey of aspirations and achievements. Embracing its triumphs and addressing its challenges, India marches forward in its democratic voyage. #4 The Art and Science of Answer Writing for SOCIOLOGY by Vikash Sir @TriumphIAS #upsc #sociology.
Why India's Democracy Is Dying
India today is no longer the world's largest democracy. This is one of five essays in a special package on the state of India's democracy. N o country is a better exemplar of our global democratic recession than India. Most unlikely at its founding, India's democracy confounded legions of naysayers by growing more stable over its first ...
Democracy in India Essay
Long and Short Essays on Democracy in India for Students and Kids in English. A Long Essay on the topic of Essay on Democracy in India is provided; it is of 450-500 words. A Short Essay of 100-150 words is also given below. The extended articles are popular among students of classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Democracy Essay
There are various democratic countries, but India has the largest democracy in the world. This Democracy Essay will help you know all about India's democracy. Students can also get a list of CBSE Essays on different topics to boost their essay-writing skills. 500+ Words Democracy Essay. India is a very large country full of diversities ...
Essay on Democracy in India
Short Essay on Democracy in India 200 Words in English. We have provided below a 200-word short essay on democracy in India for school and college test, homework, project work, case study and assignment for students. The short essay on democracy is suitable for students of classes 1,2,3,4,5,and 6.
Essay on Democracy in India for Students
Essay on Democracy in India: India is the world's largest democracy. Our country is a secular, democratic republic, and the President is the head of state, and the Prime minister is the head of the government. Citizens elect their leaders by casting votes. The candidate with a majority of votes wins the election and gets into power.
Perspective: Bharat: The Mother of Democracy
India, a pillar of global democracy, has experienced 17 national elections, 400+ state elections, and over a million local self-government elections since independence. The Election Commission , an independent body reporting to the President, ensures peaceful transfers of power, reflecting India's deep-rooted democratic ethos across all levels ...
Essay on Democracy in India in English for Children and Students
Essay on Democracy in India Essay 200 words. Democracy is a system of government that allows the citizens to cast a vote and elect a government of their choice. India became a democratic state after its independence from British rule in 1947. It is the largest democratic nation in the world. Democracy in India gives its citizens the right to ...
Democracy Essay for Students and Children
People of democracy are more tolerant and accepting of each other's differences. This is very important for any country to be happy and prosper. Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas. India: A Democratic Country. India is known to be the largest democracy all over the world. After the rule of the British ended in 1947 ...
Essay on Democracy in India ( 150, 200, and 500 Words )
Essay on Democracy in India ( 150 Words ) Indian democracy is one of the largest democracies in the world. As time passed, it became stronger. Various challenges changed its form. In today's time, it has many principles like equality, justice, liberty, and many others. In the democratic system of the country, the full right to choose their ...
Essay on Democracy in India
Indian Democracy Essay 10 Lines (100 - 150 Words) 1) India enjoys a democratic form of government. 2) In democracy people are allowed to choose the government for them. 3) India is a democratic country since its independence in 1947. 4) Among several countries in the world, India is registered as the largest democracy.
Essay on Democracy for Students and Children 1000+ Words
Under which every citizen of India was given the right to choose his ruler on his own free will, while under democracy, permission to use his vote by removing the feeling of inequality spread on caste, religion, gender, color, sects etc. . Democracy in India. India is one of the world's largest democratic countries, where people have the right to choose their favorite representatives.
Essay On Democracy in India
Essay on Democracy in India - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. India is the largest democratic country in the world. Democracy is defined as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. However, true democracy has been challenging to achieve in India. When India first held democratic elections in 1952 after ...
Democracy in India: Democracy in Ancient and Modern India
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. Democracy in Modern India: Democracy in modern India is based on certain principles: (1) That every individual has his potentialities, worth, and dignity;
3 survey results that tell us what Indians think about democracy
The India-specific survey-based findings offer us a few serious indications to evaluate people's views, perceptions, and anxieties about democracy in the country. Three key results of the survey ...
Assembling India's Constitution: Towards a New History
On the elite consensus perspective, see, for example, Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, 1st edn (New Delhi, 1966); Madhav Khosla, India's Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy (Cambridge, MA, 2020); Tarunabh Khaitan, 'Directive Principles and the Expressive Accommodation of Ideological Dissenters', International Journal of ...
A beeline for the ballots in Kashmir
After witnessing a high voter turnout and active youth participation, the Chief Election Commission of India is contemplating holding assembly elections to reinforce democracy in J&K. Despite the widespread belief that normalcy has returned to Kashmir, the voter turnout and the electoral outcome reveal a more intricate reality emerging in the ...
EVM has passed every test, we should denounce attempts to undermine
In her first address to Parliament after the formation of the 18th Lok Sabha, President Droupadi Murmu on Thursday said Indians had shown trust in democracy and that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) had passed every test. "We should also feel proud when India conducts such a large election exercise without any major violence and disorder. Today, the whole world respects us as the Mother ...
2024 Indian general election
General elections were held in India from 19 April to 1 June 2024 in seven phases, to elect all 543 members of the Lok Sabha. Votes were counted and the result was declared on 4 June to form the 18th Lok Sabha. On 7 June 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi confirmed the support of 293 MPs to Droupadi Murmu, the president of India. This marked Modi's third term as prime minister and his first ...
Transcript: Martin Wolf on democracy's year of peril
I wrote a column a little while ago on a wonderful essay by the great Italian scholar intellectual, Umberto Eco, on an article he wrote in the, I think, in the early 1990s, so it's quite old ...
How 'Rural Studies' Is Thinking About the Heartland
In a critical Politico essay, Nick Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College, wrote, "Imagine my surprise when I picked up the book and saw that some of that research was mine."

Top Schools

Products & Resources

Colleges & Courses

Predictors & E-Books

Predictors & Articles

Top Courses & Careers

Quick Links

Diploma Colleges

Upcoming Events

Other Exams

Top Countries

Student Visas

Engineering Preparation

Medical Preparation

Online Courses

Top Streams

Specializations

Top Providers

Democracy In India Essay

100 Words Essay On Democracy

Features Of Indian Democracy

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Democracy In India

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

PW JEE Coaching

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

PTE Exam 2024 Registrations

Download Careers360 App's

We Appeared in

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Democracy in India

No comments yet.

Billionaires

Book Summaries

Digital Marketing

Internet Marketing

Law of Attraction

Law of Vibration

Motivational Speakers

Productivity

Relationship

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Social Media

Website Development

Privacy Overview

Essay on Democracy in India

100 Words Essay on Democracy in India

Democratic Principles

Democratic Processes

Challenges to Democracy

250 Words Essay on Democracy in India

Democratic Structure

Role of Judiciary

500 Words Essay on Democracy in India

Historical Background

Constitution: The Pillar of Democracy

Democracy and Development

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

This Blog Includes:

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Connect With Us

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Essay on Democracy

What are the Challenges:

Principles of Democracy:

Let us Discuss These Five Principles in Further Detail

Merits of Democracy:

Factors Affect Democracy:

FAQs on Democracy Essay for Students in English

Essay on India's Democracy for Students in English

History of Democracy