« Check out the Blog Mela | Main | Not that you would care... »

While celebrating our democracy, one cannot but note that India has failed to inspire its near-neighborhood to democracy.

Here, Tibet is chained by a vicious Chinese dictatorship, Pakistan likewise by its military. Maoists are razing Nepal, grenade-lobbing Islamists Bangladesh. Sri Lanka is devouring itself; Aung San Suu Kyi remains in jail. There is bloodshed in idyllic Bhutan and Maldives.

India’s strategic neighborhood is a political quagmire where we are seemingly without influence. Perhaps we cannot inspire China – neither, given relative Olympics achievement, apparently can China inspire India! – but what about the rest? Why isn’t inspiring liberal democracy – our greatest post-independence achievement – our principal neighborhood objective?

http://secular-right.blogspot.com/2004/11/democracy.html

where it is able to do so (as in Bhutan, Afghanistan and lately in Sri Lanka too), India does it, but the Indian Subcontinent has been the playground of powers way out of our weight class. I think its an achievement that we protected our own democracy against all odds.

Fair enough.

Of course, India now aspires to be a permanent member of the Security Council — how is that consistent with India only fighting within our weight-class?

Unless India has a clear domination — by which I mean a domination of ideas — in its neighborhood, its global political aspirations have only limited prospects. This is surely not worth celebrating.

India might be a democracy in the strict sense of the word, but India lacks a lot of basic insitutions which makes democracies functional.
India’s judiciary even if independent is almost completely run on bribes and not law. Courts are impotent to enforce basic property rights or punish the perpetrators of pogroms.
Case in point - People like Sajjan and Bhagat were till recently in the Parliament and Modi is still the Chief Minister.
We really dont have property rights in India. What we have is possession rights and might makes right in all property disputes.
You cant call the police without bribing them.
The only saving grace of India’s democracy is the robust and independent media.

To Mr. Mujahid:

While your specific critiques of Indian democracy are likely valid, its not clear if these flaws diminishes the overall vitality of our demcoracy.

We are, as we should be, an always-improving union — our imperfections do not negate our achievements.

It is in this context that one rejects the notion that we should satisfy ourselves with democracy at home — even as our neighboring people are deprived of its majesty. Indeed, the more we try to influence their ideas, the more we would be forced to maintain and improve our own standards.

This would create a democractic virtuous cycle — a dynamic really worth celebrating.

Regards.

Mujahid, do you mean to imply that there is any judiciary in the world that isn’t influenced by money or might?!

Corruption/bribery have less to do with the failure of democracy than with the flawed policies historically followed to tackle them.

You cite the case of Modi being in power inspite of his ‘pogroms’. Well, if the people from Gujarat have voted him back into power inspite of what he did (or did not!), how can that be a case of failure of democracy?

Sameer,
Its not a failure of democracy per se. It points to a lack of a Liberal Democracy in India.
For example Sajjan Kumar ( I am not sure of his name) and HKL Bhagat led violent mobs who massacred thousands of Sikhs in Delhi.
Both these gentlemen were later
elected to the Parliament from Delhi. For me thats a failure of the promise held by a democracy if not the per se failure of democracy as the elections were fair and the will of the people was carried out.
In the context of Iraq, the people in Iraq dont need a democracy like India where the Sajjan Kumars and Modis are rewarded by the public.
What they need are Liberal institutions like a robust and effective judiciary, rule of law etcetra.
If Iraq had free elections and they elected a tyrranical Shiite ruler who goes after Sunnis and Kurds, I am surely not going to cheer it, even though it might a success and the will of the majority of the people might have been carried out.

Mujahid:

You make a good point about our democracy sometimes throwing up people who don’t merit our respect.

But in what democracy does this not occur?

The real issue is whether or not India makes amends for her mistakes.

20 years after the Delhi riots, of which I am eyewitness, India accepted a Sikh as Prime Minister — without any fear about his faith.

I recall during the Gujarat pogroms, Syed Shahabuddin on PBS’ Newshour asked the viewers not to judge India harshly — because, I paraphrase this, she always finds a way to right her wrongs.

This ability is the true mark of India’s liberalism — and something that we should proudly export.

Regards.

mujahid or whatever your name is, its important to remember that India is a relatively young state and such ups and downs normal in the formative years.

you may have your reasons to be pissed off with India (which is fine, expectations are growing all the time), but What you do not seem to appreciate is the kind of crisis resolution and conflict avoidance that even this flawed system has achieved. One shudders to think, what would have happened in the absence of these conflict resolution mechanisms, perhaps we would have had Hitlers/Mussolinis/Stalins/ZiaUlHaqs coming forth. (Whatever you may think, Modi is not even in the same league as these worthies). Many a quiet revolutions have been achieved in India with a minimum of fuss and bloodshed. If it were not for the export of terrorism into our country, we would have been - who knows - ten years ahead of where we are now.

Ofcourse, one may also argue, that India never had a political dispensation that was liberal in the true sense of the word. Every govt. that we have had so far has had a tremendous tilt to the left with the overtones of authoritarianism and a thought process that considered that they had a monopoly over truth. It was almost as if it was being run by communists by proxy. In such an environment, it is very easy for the state to take away property rights, individual liberties and so on. Ofcourse, when the far right wins an election, they abuse these instruments of power that the communist proxies built for themselves. The media cries bloody murder, but one wonders, what kept them silent while these intruments of tyrannies were being built up ? Did they think that they/or the people whom they broadly agreed with shall be the only ones dealing power and pelf forever ?

This is not a fault of democracy or Indian democracy per se -rather the infiltration and domination of the communist and socialist way of thought in almost all spheres of public life. These philosophies are inconsistent with the idea of a liberal democracy, and hence the contradictions in the Indian system today.

Ofcourse there are lots of things to be done yet, but I dont think theres a case for wholesale rejection of the Indian system of governance.

>>>> Of course, India now aspires to be a permanent member of the Security Council — how is that consistent with India only fighting within our weight-class?

Everyone fights within their weight class, except the US and the UK which are super heavy weights picking on feather weights :-D Being a member of the SC is just a reflection of ground realities - economic size, trade, military power, legit. interests abroad and so on.

“This ability is the true mark of India’s liberalism — and something that we should proudly export.”
What liberalism are you talking about ? Self appointed charlatans of minority rights like Mr Shahabuddin continue to peddle the myth of India’s liberalism so they can continue to get appointed to cushy government positions.