Book Review |Indian Democracy by Suhas Palshikar | Zeeshan Husain

 Mitawali temple, MP, whose design is said to have inspired that of Indian Parliament 

The book under review is written by a seasoned political scientist whose work I am familiar with. Written in the context of present political situation (or crisis!) the purpose of the book is to reach ‘not only the experts, but also the larger reading public’ (p.9). The book consists of seven chapters along with a preface. Each chapter is neatly connected with the others.

The first chapter presents the different ways in which democracy in India is assessed. It starts beautifully by stating, ‘democracy is not only about electing a government... (and there should be) openness about who can become the ruler and about how the rulers treat the ruled’, (p.1-2). Democracy in India is evaluated on the basis of two major schools of thinking. First is to compare it with Western models of democracy and the second one is the assessment on the basis of taking India as a unique case.  It is argued at both the levels that democracy in India is part-success and part-failure. Despite many criticisms, many of those quite persuasive, Indians themselves believe that democracy is vibrant and kicking here (p.14).

The second chapter deals with the tension between the ideals of democracy and the independence of its institutions and narrates important points. First is the lack of trust in State apparatus: mainly police, civil servants, politicians, and political parties. Secondly, he recounts four major instances of institutional failures- imposition of the Emergency in 1975, the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the Babri Mosque demolition in 1992 and the genocide of Muslims in 2002. Third, is an unremitting tug of war among legislature, executive and judiciary along with the abject use of ‘special powers’ in ‘disturbed areas’ (p.27). Fourth is the elitist nature of democracy which excludes the bottom half of the population. At the end, Pashikar turns to history (the colonial past of the State) and society (extreme inequality of caste and religion) to explain why institutions become exclusionary.

The third chapter deals with the contested nature of the prevalent power arrangement vis-à- vis both the centre and the states. Three different and yet overlapping claims have been made by regions. The first one has been the demand for separate states mainly on the basis of separate language, culture, ethnicity like in the case of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, various states of North-East, Jharkhand, Uttrakhand, Chhattisgarh and Telangana. Second one is to highlight the socio- economic backwardness within a region e.g., the Marathwada region in Maharashtra. Though most regional parties remain within the contestation and mobilisation mode for such demands, some degrade into xenophobia. The third challenge to democracy is the most complicated: secessionism. We are well aware of this in case of Punjab, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Kashmir.

In the fourth chapter, Palshikar delineates two of India’s developmental models and the confrontations those models faced. He names the two models as ‘first consensus’ (command or state-controlled economy) and ‘second consensus’ (market or neoliberal economy). The ‘first consensus’ laid (over)emphasis on industrial development and this caused agitations in favour of agricultural economy since mid-1960s. From 1980s the ‘second consensus’ started to bear weight. Inability of any political party to make the State accountable to the poor and vulnerable sections of the population worries the author (p.82-85). Today, on the one hand, the state-capitalist nexus is working against the poor by divesting them of their lands (for example, Reliance SEZ in Raigad, Maharashtra), while on the other hand, a contradictory strand exists where smaller social movements are fighting for sustainable development.

The interconnection between democracy and social justice becomes the stuff of the fifth chapter. ‘Lower-caste’ based politics tried to address this inequality. It was VP Singh’s decision to implement Mandal Commission report around 1990 that was a shot in the arm for ‘OBC politics’. Both Samajwadi Party of Uttar Pradesh and Rashtriya Janta Dal of Bihar have stood firmly against communal politics of BJP by stopping rath yatra of LK Advani and never aligning with it for gaining political power, which the book misses to state. Upsurge of SCs or Dalits is often traced to Bahujan Samaj Party, the brainchild of Kanshi Ram. This party focuses not only on Dalits but also OBCs and Muslims. SP, BSP and RJD have changed the Indian political topography, a change which eludes many parts of India.

It is the seventh chapter which I found to be most telling. At the onset, a distinction is made between being Hindu and/or a Hindutva supporter. While the former is a personal matter of belief, the later is a political system like Zionism. Palshikar traces the history of Hindutva since colonial times (Savarkar and Golwalkar) which mutated itself under Congress rule (1950s to 1980s) before raising its tentacles again. Exclusively concentrated among the upper caste-middle class Hindus earlier, it has now increased its base (31% people voted for BJP in 2014). Its tacit support for violence against Muslims, regressive views on women, antipathy towards affirmative action for SC-ST-OBC, and tendency to lessen government expenditure on public welfare, together makes for a recipe for disaster. Palshikar could have written a little bit more about how BJP uses digital media as its propaganda machine.

The last chapter is where Palshikar is ruminating about democracy in India since its inception. He speaks about five paradoxes which are characteristic of the present form of Indian democracy with contradictory traits: (un)-careful execution of elections, (anti)-colonial state, (anti)-caste based politics, (not)-celebrating diversity of cultures, and (lack of)-developmental discourse in the agenda of all political parties. He warns against vigilantism and populism, which he calls ‘democracy’s diversions’.

I must say that Suhas Palshikar must be applauded for writing in an extremely lucid way without minimising the complexity of the topic at hand. His commitment for a secular India runs all along the text. At the end of the book there is his signature thought- “often powerful men project their whims and fancies in the name of rule of the majority”. Is it not the signature of Indian democracy too?