In practice, democracy as a principle seldom overpowers the notion of democracy as an administrative practice. It is no different in India. Questions about the state of democracy come up only around crises of procedures like those related to elections or institutions like Parliament. Few seriously examine what values should mark democracy in a country like India where pluralism, diversity and tolerance are necessary for society to survive.
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-democracy-election-9316842/
Due to the structural inequalities of Indian society, B R Ambedkar considered democracy a value that the Constitution must protect and guarantee. Gandhi did not favour the constitutionalisation of democracy which, according to him, has to be preserved in society as an essential value. He did not want to privilege and legalise democracy as a part of constitutional morality over a traditional, social morality. In his view, it was not a part of our natural sentiment. Rather, it was artificially cultivated or externally imposed — which is in contrast to the “real” democratic tradition in India that flourished through religious co-existence.
The state’s position as “guardian of democracy” resulted in many unpleasant episodes, including the proclamation of Emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975. What makes the present situation different from previous experiences is that the clout of certain kinds of organisations is no longer seen as abnormal. This happened during the Emergency as well – Sanjay Gandhi’s hold on the government is well-known. But the current regime has legitimised the sway of organisations like the RSS through popular means. The conditions of a working democracy may be the same for seven decades, but the principles and values have the potential to be altered.
by M H Ilia
09/05/2024