Explaining India’s deviant democracy

Since independence, India has been home to widespread poverty and illiteracy, low levels of economic development and vast ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity. Scholars refer to it as the most surprising case of democratic endurance in the world. They also describe it as a ‘deviant’ case of democratic transition and consolidation.

The country has also beensurrounded by authoritarian regimes – from military juntas in Bangladesh, Burmaand Pakistan to absolute monarchy in Nepal and the communist regime in China.But today India’sdemocracy is robust and vibrant. It is the only stable democracy in South Asia.Research from the University of Sheffield, in the UK sets out to document andexplain this democratic exceptionalism.  

The paper surveys thedominant explanations of democratisation in the academic literature, anddescribes how the case of India differs. It examines the period of democratictransition in India,the influence of British colonial rule, the adoption of the constitution in1950 and the role played by the army. The author focuses on both India’soriginal move to democracy after gaining independence, and the country’ssurprising and unexpected consolidation of democracy since then.

The author finds that India’sunexpected move to democracy can be explained both by the administrative and politicalframework established by British rulers and by the ideology and organisation ofthe Indian nationalist movement. Specific examples include:

• The 1909 Morley-Mintoreforms and the 1919 Montagu-Chelmsford reforms,which established legislative councils and incorporated Indians into theBritish administration.
• The introduction by the British of elections(using a variety of electoral systems) and of consultations (in whichevidence was taken from representatives of many sub-sections of society).
• The inclusive ideology of the Indian NationalCongress, which gave concessions to socially disadvantaged groups (such asuntouchables and tribal populations) and absorbed their leaders into theadministration.

• The incorporation of the military into theadministrative (but not the political) domain.
• The incorporation by the Indian government of theprincely states (of which there were more than 500, comprising almost athird of the Indian population).

The institutions of theBritish Raj – the military, police and civiladministration – formed the basis of Independent India. But the Indian NationalCongress adapted them to the new democratic system. Indian nationalism replacedthe authority of the colonial state.

Some writers have argued thatIndia’ssuccessful democratic consolidation has resulted from a willingness toaccommodate protest movements. Others have argued that India succeededthrough repression of minorities and separatist movements. Thispaper challenges both of these explanations, concluding that Congresspursued centralised economic development alongside acceptance of local powerstructures and political patronage. The political system offered most minoritygroups a chance of participation, whilst encouraging politicians to seek broadsocial coalitions. The author argues that India’s size and ethnic diversityhas proved to be advantageous rather than problematic – producing dynamicelectoral politics.