Indian Democracy has Many Sides: Enlightening Gideon Rachman

There is a myth that intellectual insight gains greater credence if one attempts to counter popular perception. For most scholars in this age of info boom the best way to gain visibility is to project a view that runs contrary to what the mainstream is saying. Though variety of opinion is always enriching opposition merely for the sake of it can prove injurious to serious intellectual discussions. Gideon Rachman’s recent commentary on the weaknesses and limitations of Indian democracy is one such example of intellectual opposition. All opposing views are not necessarily relevant. This is not an exercise in criticizing Gideon but enlightening him!

Gideon has pointed out to four major weaknesses of Indian democracy:
Firstly, many members of the Parliament have criminal charges against them, which according to Gideon reflects the ‘much sleazier and more disreputable side of Indian democracy.
Secondly, despite being a democracy India will not emerge as a natural ally for other democracies and could be closer with dictatorships like Burma.
Thirdly, India still has high levels of poverty and illiteracy.
Finally, external terrorism and internal insurgencies threaten India’s democratic stability.
I would not make a point-by-point rebuttal of Gideon’s charges because the strengths of India’s democracy go much beyond his four point critical evaluation.
When India’s financial capital was under attack from terrorists, India’s political capital was conducting Assembly elections in November 2008. Where in the world will one part of the country have elections when another part is being attacked? Despite all internal insurgencies and several terrorist attacks democratic elections have not been postponed even for once in the country.
When the torture and G. Bay controversy is rocking the U.S., a terror suspect (Ajmal Kasab) is being tried in the court of law in India. I agree that some factions have attempted to derail the trail process but is there any other country which will try a terrorist, at Government’s expense? The Government of India has spend huge amounts of money for constructing an underground tunnel for transporting Kasab from his prison cell to the Court. To put issues into perspective, Kasab is not merely suspected of involvement in terrorist activities but was arrested while engaging in terrorist activities. COther countries might torture terror suspects, India puts terrorists to trial.
The Mumbai Police has been searching for burial grounds for the other nine terrorists killed during the operations in Mumbai. When the world is protesting civilian causalities in Government offensives, the Government of India is treating terrorists killed during operations with respect.
The charge that India will not emerge as a natural ally of other democracies is somewhat confusing to me. India follows Morgenthau’s narrative for defining her foreign policy goals and not Huntington’s perspective. If prioritizing foreign policy objectives on the basis of national interest undemocratic then no country can claim to be a democracy. Did anyone hear India referring to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute as a clash of Hindu-Muslim civilizations? National interest, rather than shifting ideological positions shape India’s foreign policy.
The charge that Naxals roam the country side freely is based purely on outside perception and lacks any on-the-ground experience. During the 1970s even men would not venture out into the streets in large parts of Bihar and West Bengal after sunset for the fear of Naxals. But now even in semi-urban cities the threat of Naxals has significantly receded and this observation is based on personal experience rather than academic analysis. I would say that local thieves and goons rather than the naxals are a more real and immediate threat for the people. As for the issue of internal dissensions, I think existence of such dissension qualifies India as a better democracy. Was not absence of opposition a characteristic of dictatorships? Or does Gideon wants India to suppress all dissension to qualify as a good democracy? To me the politically based dissension groups better than the 926 active hate groups in the U.S.
The U.S. was moved to elect Barak Obama, the first non-white man, as the President several decades after the country began its democratic journey. I would not burden Gideon with the diversity of people occupying India’s highest political offices but would present two interesting cases for him. India’s 14th P.M. H.D. Deve Gowda addressed the nation on the Independence Day in August 1996 in Hindi, a language of which he did not know a word. The script of his speech was written in Kannada which he then read out in Hindi. I know of no other democracy where popular mandate cuts across such diversity that a person is allowed to occupy the highest political office despite his non-mainstream character. Second interesting case is the opening of the 14th Lok Sabha. An Italian born Indian citizen makes way for a Sikh Prime Minister to be administered oath by a Muslim President. Can any democracy beat this diversity?
The illiteracy and poverty rates are an issue of concern for the country but the National and State Governments across Party lines have devoted resources for combating the problem. One of the factors contributing to the UPA’s victory in the recent elections was the success of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and loan wavier for indebted farmers. Moreover one can’t compare the poverty and literacy rates of China and India; all information and statistics emerging from China is officially controlled and there is not much scope of verifying it.
On the lighter side, if the illiterate population of India can exercise such thoughtful mandate what would be the quality of India’s democracy when the literacy rates improve? And I think electing Manmohan Singh twice is a much better bargain than electing George W. Bush twice.
The list goes on and on but I guess I have made my case. No individual or country has the right to establish benchmarks for another country’s democracy. Only the people of that particular country have that right – a basic dictum of popular sovereignty. The people of India have demonstrated the country’s democratic credentials and need no external certification for it.