![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The article seeks to explain the resilience of India's democracy in terms of the persistence of significant legislative output and policy continuity despite noisy adversarial politics. The article analyses this argument on the basis of a comparison of two different national regimes – one by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government (NDA), 1999–2004, and the other by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), 2004–2009. Despite their rather different approaches to citizenship – the former, based on Hindu nationalism, and the latter, a more inclusive, ‘secular’ conception of citizenship – there is considerable convergence in legislative regimes, institutions to safeguard the interest of minorities and public subsidy for the Haj pilgrimage. Turning subjects into citizens – no doubt with a sharp eye to their electoral potential – has become accepted practice by both competing coalitions. Despite its occasional breakdown, the paradoxical juxtaposition of adversarial politics and policy continuity is achieved because of the existence of a broad inter-party consensus on one coherent and meaningful citizenship regime and the high trust in which mediating institutions like the Supreme Court and the Election Commission are held.
Notes
1. In terms of system characteristics, India meets Merkel's 11 criteria of embedded democracy, namely, elected officials, inclusive suffrage, right to candidacy, correctly organized, free and fair elections, press freedom, freedom of association, individual liberties, equality before the law, horizontal separation of powers, and civilian rule (Merkel 2004, 42).
2. See the following for partial explanations of India's democracy: Lijphart (1996) for power sharing and institutional design, Mitra and Singh (2009) for turning rebels into stake-holders, Vora and Palsikar (2004) for popular mobilization and Nandy (1970) for political culture.
3. It should be noted here that in the members of the Rajyasabha, those raising Islamic slogans were themselves Hindu, and that the two presiding officers of the House were Muslim. These cross-pressures constitute the decisive, countervailing forces of India's politics. Legislative output is measured by the ratio of laws passed divided by the tenure of a given Lok Sabha (the lower house of the national Parliament). See the last column in .
4. During 1999–2004, the Congress party and its allies had a big gap in seats between the leading Congress party (114 seats in the Lok Sabha) the AIADMK (10), and the RJD (seven); during the subsequent electoral period 2004–9, the Congress had 145 seats to 21 of the RJD. As for the NDA, the centre-right BJP had 182 seats in 1999–2004 to TDP's 27, and in the subsequent period, the BJP had 138 compared to 12 for the SHS and 11 for the BJD.
5. Marshall (1950) had argued that that citizenship acts as an integrative political tool able to counterbalance social inequality or, in other words, able to balance formal equality and existing inequality through the provision of equal opportunities. On citizenship in India, see Baruah (2009), Gupta (2003), Oommen (1997) and Rodrigues (2005).
6. See Rudolph and Rudolph (1987) for the multiple roles of the state.
7. This refers to Public Interest Litigation whereby the judiciary allows individuals (including the judiciary itself) to petition for judicial intervention for the defence of environment, displaced and vulnerable citizens and minority rights, among other issues considered salient by the judiciary.
8. See Mitra and Singh (2009) for survey findings on high trust in the Election Commission and the Supreme Court but low trust in politicians and the police. This explains the simultaneity of resilience of the democratic system and its occasional breakdown.
9. For the definition and a brief summary of the literature, see Mitra (2008).
10. Citizenship may have had its origin in political struggles and political philosophy, but as the constitution treats it, it is essentially a legal concept. The Indian Constitution employs it in Part II (Articles 5–11). While drafting this section, the Constituent Assembly sought to figure out who would, as of 1950, have a right to Indian nationality and citizenship. The absence of racial distinctiveness as a necessary condition for citizenship was explained by a crucial exchange in the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD)..Citizenship proved to be amongst the most disputed issues, debated for almost two years and with more than 120 amendments moved during the sittings of the Constituent Assembly. This trend carried on both in further policy initiatives and in their interpretation.
11. A recent survey of the Indian electorate showed that 89 of those interviewed said that they considered themselves to be citizens of India. Even in Jammu and Kashmir, despite the strife that has blighted political life in that State, a majority of respondents claimed to be citizens of India. See Mitra (2010, 48).
12. The sources on which the empirical parts of the paper build include the ‘Report to the People’, the ‘Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), 2005, Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006.
14. Ministry of Human Resource Development, http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=23895&kwd.
16. ‘One of the arguments used against the NREGA is that it has made farming difficult because far labour have to be paid higher wages. This complaint is in fact one of the strongest endorsements the NREGA could receive. It is a law designed to support the poorest, and this criticism indicates that the NREGA has increased the bargaining power of rural labourers’ (Roy and Dey 2009, 11).
17. The strategic connection between the solicitude to live down the stigma of Hindu extremism – as in the incidents at Ayodhya (1992) and Godhra (2002) that blighted the public image of the BJP is of great significance.
18. In 1978, the Janata Party under Morarji Desai led the coalition (24th March 1977–28th July 1979)!
19. When asked ‘[s]uppose there were no parties or assemblies and elections were not held – do you think that the government in this country can be run better?’ in 2004, 72% of Indians argue in the opposite. But the number of Muslims, at 73%, making the same argument in favor of retaining the democratic structure, is even higher than the average. (See Mitra and Singh 2009, 107.)
20. The game theoretically minded might wish to conceptualize policy stability in terms of a Nash equilibrium, or, even better, a dynamic equilibrium around which competing parties, factions, and interest groups compete.
21. Notice the rituals of display of temper by backbenchers, and the intervention of party leaders to restore order in Note 2.