Since India's move to democracy in 1947, many have questioned the success, or lack thereof, of the democratization process, its advantages and detriments, the effect on society, and its role in religious conflict. There are contradictory and mixed assessments of the state of political, economic, and social democracy in India today. Some feel that no democracy is perfect, and despite its many imperfections, India has achieved democratic successes that ought to be envied by many so-called emerging democracies in Latin America and Asia - not to mention the failing ones in Africa. It can be acknowledged that governing 900 million people by democratic means is a major accomplishment.
[...] An optimistic democracy advocate could argue that in the future, India's political system will benefit its economy in the long run. India's economy is very open and becoming much more service-oriented - a sign of a developing nation at large. Furthermore, the impending information revolution will largely benefit India due to the nature of its technology and market. Conversely, a pessimistic opponent to the claims of India's success might argue that the very system of democracy and political framework is on the verge of collapse. [...]
[...] Jawaharlal Nehru believed in a rational, secular, socialist state embodying European-style nationalism and bureaucratic centralization Regarding the extent to which India has served its citizens, answers vary from at all' to ‘very much so'. Is India succeeded as a democracy? Has the democracy benefited its citizens? story of contemporary Indian politics is often recounted, in its popular and academic versions, in terms of an impending catastrophe: it is the story of the decline and collapse of the democratic edifice, of growing apathy and widespread indifference, and of a resultant loss of popular legitimacy for the political system.” (Yadav, 140) When we think about whether or not India's democracy has benefited it's citizens, we must ask which citizens, for it has most certainly benefited the rich while often overlooking the poor. [...]
[...] For example, the number of election officials overseeing the process is 4.5 million--roughly the population of Ireland. In a India, such expenditures actually constitute a significant percentage of the Gross National Product. The political system of democracy is the ultimate single consumer in India, contributing little or nothing tangible in return. What history demonstrates is that democracies should be introduced or developed only after economic takeoff. However, India has true democracy, and it received its democracy 'before' it had developed a strong economic base, and because of that it can hardly take off economically. [...]
[...] number of basic changes in Indian politics over the past two decades that have substantially altered conditions within parties, relations among parties, and state-society relations.” (Manor, 93) In the interest of time and space, I will not specifically discuss the details of these changes. analysis of federal parliamentary systems such as India is an especially challenging task (due to varying balances of power within the federal systems, three or more institutional levels with its own political struggles, and the lack of uniformity of political parties or movements in different areas)” (Brass, 304) There have been two overarching views of India, its people, and its government. [...]
[...] Therefore, it has been asserted that democracy came to India at the wrong time. The financial support of the infrastructure of democracy in a First World Nation is intimidating, however to sustain the infrastructure of a democracy in an already poor nation is virtually an economic catastrophe. That financial drain includes everything from "party" support to campaign expenses. While all of that money is in circulation, its use adds nothing to the GNP as it is spent on "support services" rather than on producing products. [...]
using our reader.