Indian Democracy
‘Is Indian Democracy Alive and Kicking?’
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.”
This was the idea of Abraham Lincoln’s about democracy. Though very true in its basic form, does this idea hold true In the Indian context? After completing 62 years of being a ‘sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic’ and currently being in the 65th year of its independence, we can definitely call India a successful democracy for sustaining all the ups and downs in these years. The political traditions inherited from our history do not provide a sufficient explanation to this. India was ruled by outsiders, Moghuls and Englishmen, before its independence. Prior to that there are slight references of the common people being included in the functioning of the kingdoms that existed in Indian history. Colonialism was the crucible of India’s democracy. Western-educated leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru were inclined towards democracy. Considering the fatality rate of democracies in post-colonial settings, the political traditions inherited from the colonial past are clearly not a sufficient explanation. The democratic commitment of India’s leaders since independence has also made a major contribution to the survival of democracy in India.
Abraham Lincoln aptly defined democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This definition clearly underlines the basic tenet that, in this- form of government, people are supreme. The ultimate power is in their hands and they exercise it in the form of electing their representatives at the time of elections. With a billion people, the Republic of India is the world's largest democracy. India modeled its government on the British parliamentary system, with a healthy dose of influences from the United States and the rest of Europe. India is run by a parliament made up of two houses, (similar to the United States Congress, which comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives). These two
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.”
This was the idea of Abraham Lincoln’s about democracy. Though very true in its basic form, does this idea hold true In the Indian context? After completing 62 years of being a ‘sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic’ and currently being in the 65th year of its independence, we can definitely call India a successful democracy for sustaining all the ups and downs in these years. The political traditions inherited from our history do not provide a sufficient explanation to this. India was ruled by outsiders, Moghuls and Englishmen, before its independence. Prior to that there are slight references of the common people being included in the functioning of the kingdoms that existed in Indian history. Colonialism was the crucible of India’s democracy. Western-educated leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru were inclined towards democracy. Considering the fatality rate of democracies in post-colonial settings, the political traditions inherited from the colonial past are clearly not a sufficient explanation. The democratic commitment of India’s leaders since independence has also made a major contribution to the survival of democracy in India.
Abraham Lincoln aptly defined democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This definition clearly underlines the basic tenet that, in this- form of government, people are supreme. The ultimate power is in their hands and they exercise it in the form of electing their representatives at the time of elections. With a billion people, the Republic of India is the world's largest democracy. India modeled its government on the British parliamentary system, with a healthy dose of influences from the United States and the rest of Europe. India is run by a parliament made up of two houses, (similar to the United States Congress, which comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives). These two