THE CLASSICAL DOCTRINE OF DEMOCRACY

18th Century philosophy of democracy: The democratic method is that

institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the
common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of
individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will. Let us develop the
implications of this.
 Existence of a Common Good that serves as a clear guiding principle for
policy decisions. This Common Good is easily definable and understandable
through rational argument.
 It is asserted that every normal person can recognize the Common Good
which is basically Universally Recognized. The primary reason for
individuals not seeing it is lack of awareness, and ignorance is considered a
removable obstacle.
 The Common Good is thought to provide clear and definitive answers to all
questions, categorizing social facts and measures as either "good" or "bad."
 Common Will: The existence of a Common Will is proposed, representing
the collective will of all reasonable individuals. This Common Will is seen as
identical to the common good, interest, welfare, or happiness of the
community.
 Agreement and Opposition: It is suggested that, in principle, all people
should agree on the Common Good and the Common Will. Disagreement is
attributed to differences in opinion regarding the speed at which the
common goal is to be achieved.
 Individual Responsibility: Every member of the community is expected to
be conscious of the common goal, discern between good and bad, and
actively participate in promoting the former and opposing the latter.
 Collective Control: The idea is presented that, collectively, all community
members control their public affairs based on their shared understanding
of the Common Good.

 Some affairs require special skills and techniques, so specialists may be

needed for management, but they act to carry out the will of the people,
similar to a doctor following a patient's will to get well.
 In a community with a division of labor, it's impractical for every citizen to
engage in all decisions. Important decisions can be made by individual
citizens through referendums, while the rest can be handled by elected
committees or assemblies that represent the will of the electorate.

 The committee or assembly, though not a legal representation, serves as a

practical representation of the people's will. Larger committees may
delegate responsibilities to smaller ones for various public affairs, including
a general-purpose committee (cabinet or government) for current
administration.

 The clarity of democracy depends on accepting certain assumptions, but

these assumptions are factual and require proof. It's easier to challenge
these assumptions than to affirm democracy as the best system.

1. There is no universally agreed-upon common good due to differing

interpretations among individuals and groups. This fundamental
disagreement on ultimate values cannot be reconciled by rational
argument.
2. Even if a specific common good were accepted, it wouldn't provide clear
answers to individual issues, leading to significant differences in
opinions and potential conflicts.
3. The utilitarian concept of the "will of the people" disappears because it
relies on the existence of a universally determined common good.
Utilitarians derived the will of the people from individual wills, and
without a common good, this concept loses its meaning, causing the
pillars of classical democratic doctrine to crumble.
4. The utilitarian meaning of the "will of the people" is typically rooted in
the idea that the collective decisions or choices made by a majority of
individuals in a society should aim to maximize overall happiness, well-
being, or the greatest good for the greatest number. In a utilitarian
context, the will of the people is often associated with achieving
outcomes that lead to the greatest overall satisfaction and benefit for
 the majority, emphasizing the utility or positive consequences of
collective choices.
In essence, the author acknowledges the challenges to the conventional idea of
the "will of the people" but suggests the need for a more realistic conception.
The term itself might be misleading once detached from its utilitarian meaning.
The author warns against blindly applying outdated theories to contemporary
democratic processes. While a collective will or public opinion may arise from
diverse factors in the democratic process, it lacks both rational unity and
sanction. The absence of a common "good" makes it challenging to attribute
ethical value to the outcomes, and even embracing democratic forms as
inherently valuable presents its own set of difficulties.
In practical terms, for an individual's will to be a respected political factor, it must
be more than vague impulses or mistaken impressions. People should have a
clear and informed stance, capable of critical analysis and logical inference. This
process should be independent of external influences like pressure groups and
propaganda. Assessing whether these conditions are met for effective democracy
requires a careful examination of conflicting evidence. Even if citizens' opinions
were clear and independent, and everyone acted rationally, the resulting
political decisions might not truly reflect the will of the people. Divided
individual wills could lead to decisions that don't align with what people actually
want, especially on qualitative issues.
Democracy doesn't guarantee a "fair compromise," and non-democratic
agencies might impose decisions more acceptable to the public, particularly on
issues without clear gradations. This statement suggests that in situations where
decisions don't have clear and easily measurable differences or gradations, non-
democratic agencies might be more effective in imposing decisions that are
generally acceptable to the public. This contrasts with democratic processes,
where reaching a consensus on such nuanced matters might be challenging due
to diverse and divided individual opinions.
In simpler terms, the passage discusses a shift in the traditional understanding of
democracy. The conventional idea was that "the people" have clear and rational
opinions on every issue, and they express these opinions by electing
representatives who then implement the people's views. However, the author
suggests reversing this process. Instead of the people directly deciding on issues,
the focus should be on electing individuals who will later make decisions. This
redefines the democratic method as an arrangement where individuals gain
decision-making power through a competitive struggle for votes.

The author argues that this new perspective improves the theory of democracy. It
provides a more practical way to distinguish democratic governments from
others. The process of electing decision-makers is emphasized rather than the
direct influence of the people on every issue.
Parliamentary monarchy like the English system is considered democratic
because the monarch is practically forced to appoint the same people that the
parliament would choose.
Constitutional monarchy where the monarch has the authority to appoint and
dismiss cabinet ministers without parliamentary influence, does not qualify as
democratic according to this definition.
The author is of the view that the role of the people is to produce a government,
or else an intermediate body which in turn will produce a national executive or
govt.
1. Machinery provided for an effective competition for the supreme office
2. Electorate isn’t ignorance of leadership- collectives exclusively act by
accepting leadership, which is more than just reflex
3. Even if there are strong and definite group-wise volitions remain latent
until they’re called to life by some political leader who turns them into
political factors. Relationship between local interests, public opinions
and their combined effect create the political situation
4. Political life has some competition, though perhaps only one, for the
allegiance of people. Competition for leadership defines democracy.
 5. Democratic method doesn’t guarantee more individual freedom than
other political methods in similar situations.
However, when everyone is free to compete for political leadership by
presenting themselves to public, it leads to significant freedom of
discussion and press, although this is not absolute, can be altered.
6. If the primary function of the electorate is to produce a govt., it should
also include the function of evicting it.
Electorates don’t control political leaders except by refusing to re-elect
them. Exceptions-Revulsion/Firing a minister
7. Even if issues, policies are decided through the will of the people, there
could also be a situation wherein a simple majority might distort the
will, rather than representing the will
Will of the majority is not the will of the people.
Proportional Representation is a voting system in a democracy. It might lead to
various issues and make it hard to form efficient govts. Suggest that we should
not quickly dismiss democracy as unworkable with proportional representation.
Instead, we should question if proportional representation is genuinely required
by democratic principles.
Proportional representation- No of seats a political party gets is roughly
proportional to the no. of votes they receive.
Popn- 200 ppl A-30%, B-20%
Seats-100 seats
A-30 seats from the 60 ppl that voted
B-20 seats from 40 ppl that voted
Argues that if the main purpose of voters is to choose leaders, then proportional
representation isn’t necessary. Democracy simply means gives power to those
who have more support, even if we might criticize this majority system for
reasons beyond the democratic logic.
The text is discussing the idea that when a physicist observes that a mechanism
behaves differently under various conditions, it suggests that the mechanism's
function depends on external factors. The author draws a parallel, stating that a
similar conclusion applies to the concept of democracy. Just as there are specific
conditions under which the classical idea of democracy works well, there are
also conditions where it might not be as effective. The paragraph introduces a
relativist view, suggesting that the success of democracy is relative to certain
social patterns and characteristics. The author emphasizes that there is no
universal argument for or against democracy in all situations; its success depends
on the specific conditions of each society.
 REGULATING THE ELECTORAL DOMAIN: THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF
INDIA

Establishment of the Election Commission of India (ECI):

Formed in 1950 with Sukumar Sen as the first Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
Unlike other state institutions, it doesn't derive its existence from a parliamentary
law but from the Constitution of India-state insti from Consti, not Parl.
Constitutional Framework:
Article 324 grants the ECI pre-eminence in superintendence, direction, and
control of elections.
Parliament has the power to make laws for election regulation (Article 327),
subject to the provisions of the Constitution, including Article 324.
Courts have interpreted Article 324 as a reservoir of powers, especially in the
absence of parliamentary legislation.
Contested Powers:
Ongoing contest between parliament and ECI over authority in electoral
governance.
Disputes center around rulemaking, rule application, and rule adjudication.
Tensions manifest in various aspects, including ECI's structure, election
administration, and electoral roll preparation.
Article 13 and Judicial Power:
Article 13 establishes that laws must be consistent with citizens' fundamental
rights.
The judiciary, using Article 13, has enhanced its power to scrutinize
parliamentary powers, exemplified by the 'basic structure doctrine.'
Right to Vote and Right to Know:
Judiciary links the right to vote with the fundamental right to freedom of
expression.
The citizen's right to know, including candidate details, is crucial for informed
voting.
The Supreme Court asserts that uninformed voting undermines democracy,
making the act of voting a form of speech and expression.
ECI's Powers and Citizen's Right to Know:
ECI's powers under Article 324 expanded as a reservoir of powers where the law
is silent.
The right to know the antecedents of a candidate is considered a fundamental
right of the voter independent of statutory rights.
Evolution of ECI's Powers:
Over the years, ECI's powers have deepened and widened, especially in ensuring
unharnessed and uncoerced voting during election time.
This summary captures the key points related to the establishment and powers of
the Election Commission of India, the constitutional framework, the contested
powers between parliament and the ECI, the role of Article 13, the right to vote
and know, and the evolution of ECI's powers.

Overview of Election Time:

Election times are distinct moments in the political life of democracies.
They have unique temporal rhythms and open up spaces for democratic
deliberation.
Elections constitute a "special time," characterized by a reversal/deferral in the
normal working of power, allowing for unfettered exercise of popular
sovereignty.
Legal Doctrine of Electoral Exceptionalism:
The legal framework of "electoral exceptionalism" suggests that the electoral
process may be subject to more stringent regulation than ordinary politics.
An extraordinary legal regime during election time is considered conducive to
reinforcing democracy by suspending institutional sovereign (where a body has
the authority to establish or change laws) power and releasing popular
sovereignty (citizens decide the law).
Legal Frameworks during Election Periods:
The Representation of the People Acts (RPA) of 1950 and 1951 provide the
statutory framework for elections in India.
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC), introduced during election time, empowers
the Election Commission to discipline political parties directly.
While legal frameworks for electoral offenses under RPAs come into effect after
elections, the MCC operates during the election period to control political parties.
Evolution of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC):
The acceptance of the MCC by political parties is seen as a voluntary act of
political morality.
The MCC has evolved from a set of mutually agreed "dos and don'ts" to a means
of restraining the party in power.
The Election Commission's role shifted from being a referee institution to a rule-
making and rule-enforcing body.
Role of the Election Commission:
The Election Commission, initially a referee, became an active player in the
electoral game.
The transition to an initiator role occurred in the 1970s, reinforced by revisions in
the MCC in 1979.
The Election Commission has been cautious about substituting the MCC with
statutory law, as it may limit its powers.
Concerns about Statutory Model Code:
A statutory model code might give the MCC the force of law but could limit the
Election Commission's powers.
The Election Commission prefers the MCC as supplementary legality, drawing
from the notion of necessity for effective electoral administration.

Educating Voters through Strategic Voter Education and Electoral Participation

(SVEEP)
Mozaffar and Schedler (2002) emphasize procedural certainty as crucial for
electoral governance in both democratizing and well-established democracies.
The trust in the electoral system is linked to the ability of the body administering
elections to ensure procedural certainty and regulate electoral competition.
Evaluation of electoral procedures focuses on maintaining the integrity of the
electoral system, and comparative studies identify standards for assessing
electoral integrity.
Scholars highlight the importance of procedural performance in studying
electoral practices in both authoritarian and democratic regimes.
Electoral malpractices in authoritarian regimes may occur at various stages of the
election cycle and may also result from non-electoral political processes.
Lack of electoral integrity can lead to serious consequences, including
diminishing legitimacy for political authorities and lower voter turnout.
The introduction of best practices in election administration aims to transform
election commissions into efficient management bodies, with a focus on
strategic voter education.
Strategic Voter Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP) is a voter education
program launched by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 2008 to enhance
voter participation and address the "democracy deficit."
  SVEEP aims to bridge the knowledge gap among voters and eliminate
indifference and apathy through persuasion and motivation, rather than
enforcing compulsory voting.
 SVEEP is distinctive as it moves away from enhancing the electoral space's
political morality and focuses on efficient governance.
 SVEEP initiatives, listed as best practices on the ECI website, have received
recognition, with some winning the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence
in Public Administration.
 The example of Jashn-e-Jamhuriat in Reasi district, Jammu and Kashmir,
highlights the program's success in increasing voter turnout and including
previously excluded groups in the electoral process.
 SVEEP's distinctiveness lies in its emphasis on voluntary civic engagement
and efficient governance, avoiding criticism and political contestations
faced by other initiatives.
 The program's success is illustrated by the increased voter turnout in
difficult-to-reach areas and the active participation of previously
marginalized groups.
The report concludes with a narrative from a specific district, emphasizing the
significance of voting as a promise extracted from those seeking votes, indicating
the voters' expectations for development and addressing their needs.

CONCLUSION:
1990s marked a transition from an 'interventionist' to a 'regulatory' state in
India.
Institutional rivalry characterized the 1980s, with contests between parliament
and Supreme Court over state power.
 Economic reforms in 1991 led to the rise of regulatory institutions like the
Election Commission of India (ECI).
 Political field decentralized with the shift to a multiparty system, favoring
Supreme Court, ECI, and President over Parliament and Prime Minister.
 Rudolphs describe the new 'regulatory roles' of institutions as a
'renegotiation of balance of power.'
 Yogendra Yadav notes a waning trust in institutions during the 1990s.
 Kapur and Mehta argue that political mobilization affected institutions
unevenly, strengthening some while weakening others.
 Kapur and Mehta identify the emergence of 'referee institutions' like the
ECI and Supreme Court.
 The term 'referee institution' implies the ECI's active role in determining
and reinforcing electoral rules.
 Former CEC James Lyngdoh's remarks suggest a shift in the ECI's
perception and role post-emergency, becoming a more assertive player.
 Period after the emergency witnessed institutions like the ECI recovering
and redefining their roles through innovative interpretations of existing
powers.
 Controversies around Article 324, the evolution of the Model Code of
Conduct (MCC), and innovations like SVEEP showcase the expanded role of
the ECI in the democratic space.
 THE THREE AGES OF INDIA’S DEMOCRACY-JAFFRELOT

Type of Regime:
Comparative studies highlight the need to qualify democracies.
Various hybrid forms of democracy exist, blending with other political genres.
Examples include "people’s democracies," "guided democracies," "illiberal
democracies," and "authoritarian democracies."
India's Democracy:

India, claiming to be the world’s largest democracy, experiences a trend of

evolving adjectives in its democratic description.
Adjectives have shifted over the years from "conservative democracy" to a
"democratization of democracy" and now a variant of "ethnic democracy."
Evolution of Indian Democracy (1950s-1970s):

The democracy framed by the 1950 Constitution was conservative.

Despite socialist rhetoric, leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru relied on local leaders and
regional heavyweights for election victories.
Patronage networks based on economic motives and upper-caste status were
crucial for electoral success.
This strategy of clientelism led to electoral victories but hindered the
implementation of Nehru's socialist agenda, like land reform.
Positive Discrimination Under Nehru:

Positive discrimination was limited during Nehru's tenure.

Scheduled Castes (SCs) benefited from quotas, while non-Dalit lower castes faced
resistance in seeking positive discrimination.
A commission in 1953 recommended quotas for Other Backward Classes (OBCs),
identifying them as primarily Shudras, but the Nehru government rejected the
report.
Nehru's government argued against institutionalizing caste-based quotas to avoid
empowering castes more likely than Dalits to challenge upper-caste dominance in
the Congress Party.
Indira Gandhi's Progressive Discourse:

Won 1971 elections with ambitious social promises.

Faced challenges due to the clientelist structure of Congress.
Admitted dependence on local notables for electoral support.
Suspended democracy during Emergency (1975-1977).
Utilized Emergency to redistribute land but remained socially conservative.
Post-Emergency Politics:

Opposition formed to bring down Indira's government.

Second Backward Classes Commission appointed by the opposition.
Indira returned to office in 1980, focused on growth strategy with private sector
support.
Democratization in Late 1980s:

Rajiv Gandhi defeated by a coalition of opposition parties in the late 1980s.

Coalition determined to end upper caste hegemony in politics.
Upper castes, including dominant Shudras, benefited from conservative
democracy.
Congress represented upper castes, Janata Party and Janata Dal favored lower
castes, especially OBCs.
Mandal Commission and OBC Reservation:

Janata government in 1978 appointed the B. P. Mandal Backward Classes

Commission.
Commission recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in civil service.
Reservation project shelved in 1980 but revived and implemented by V. P. Singh
in 1990.
Upper castes resisted, mobilized against reforms limiting public-sector job
opportunities.
Impact on Political Dynamics:

OBCs, previously marginalized, became a significant political force.

Resistance from upper castes led to a common front among lower castes.
OBC representation in the Lok Sabha doubled from 10% to over 20%.
Democratization continued even after the breakup of the Janata Dal in the early
1990s.
Evolution of Political Landscape:

Parties, including Congress, accepted the need to field OBC candidates.

New public policies defending lower caste interests implemented.
Congress, upon returning to power in 2004, set a 27% quota for OBCs in public
universities, sparking upper caste opposition.

Democratization Phase:
Described as a "silent revolution" in Indian democracy.
Resulted in the retreat of upper-caste, middle-class voters in the late 1990s and
early 2000s.
Followed by a counterrevolution led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
BJP's Role:

BJP emerged as the vanguard of the elite's revenge, leading a conservative

revolution.
Adopted the Hindutva ideology, dating back to the 1920s.
Initially conquered a few states in the 1990s and formed coalition governments
(1998–2004).
Truly gained the ability to govern independently in 2014, combining Hindutva
with populism under Narendra Modi.
Populist Politics Era (2014 Onward):

BJP's victory in 2014 marked a new era for India.

Rise of populist politics, with promises made during elections not translating into
policies.
Introduction of the concepts of "ethnic democracy" and "electoral democracy."
Ethnic Democracy Aspect:

Informed by the promotion of a Hindu definition of the nation, opposing the

secularism in the 1950 Constitution.
Opposition to Christian and Muslim minorities, especially victims of vigilante-
group violence.
Focus on the Indian variant of ethnic democracy, rooted in the Israeli concept.
Authoritarian Transition:

Modi government's promotion of a new form of authoritarianism.

Weakening of state institutions (chapter 8), distortion of the electoral process
(chapter 9).
Targeting minorities in an official and direct way, making Muslims second-class
citizens (chapter 10, 11).
India transitioning from a de facto Hindu Rashtra to an authoritarian Hindu Raj
(Hindu nation-state).
 NATIONAL POPULISM

Definition: Movement challenging mainstream politics in the West

Key Focus: Prioritizes culture and interests of the nation
Goal: Gives voice to people feeling neglected by distant elites
Historical Roots:

Deep and long-term currents

Gaining strength over many decades
Political Landscape Changes (Europe and the US):

Overview of political changes

Argument: National populism is a lasting phenomenon
Context for Writing the Book (2016):

Trigger Events: Trump's nomination and victory, Brexit vote

Shocking Moments: Trump defeating Hillary Clinton, Brexit vote for EU
withdrawal
Pundit Misjudgment: Predictions favored Clinton and Remain, but the unexpected
occurred
Data and Prediction Challenges:

Quoting W. Edwards Deming

Critique: Despite abundant data, failure to read public mood
Short-term focus overlooks historic shifts in politics, culture, and economics
National Populism Before Financial Crisis (2008):

Emerged pre-2008 financial crisis

Diverse Supporters: Not just 'angry old white men'
Examples: Le Pen in France, Salvini in Italy, Orbán in Hungary
Revolt Against Mainstream Politics and Liberal Values:

Brexit and Trump part of a larger trend

Challenge to mainstream politics and liberal values

National Populist Views:

Not anti-democratic in general.

Opposition to certain aspects of evolved liberal democracy in the West.
Misconceptions about National Populists:

Not all supporters are fascists aiming to dismantle core political institutions.
Majority have concerns about institutions not representing society and drifting
from citizens.
Public Dissatisfaction with Political Representation:

Before Trump's election, over half of white Americans without degrees felt
unrepresented.
Before Brexit, nearly half of Britain's workers felt voiceless in national
conversation.
Concerns Leading to Questioning of Trustworthiness:

Scandals over lobbying, 'dark money,' and exploitation of political positions.

Citizens openly questioning the trustworthiness of their representatives.
National-Populist Leaders and Illiberal Democracy:

Leaders like Viktor Orbán talk about creating an 'illiberal democracy.'

Raises concerns about democratic rights and the demonization of immigrants.
Desire for More Democracy:

National-populist voters seek more democracy, including more referendums.

Desire empathetic politicians giving more power to the people and less to
established elites.
Direct Democracy vs. Liberal Democracy:

National-populists lean towards a 'direct' democracy, differing from the 'liberal'

one.
Liberal democracy has become more elitist over time.
Legitimate Democratic Issues Raised:

Questioning elites' detachment from ordinary people.

Concerns about erosion of the nation-state's role.
Questions about the rapid absorption of immigration and societal changes.
Critique of the West's economic settlement leading to inequality.
International Nature of National Populism:
Movement is international, requiring exploration as a whole.
Learning from Europe's experiences with national populists.
Connections and Alliances:

Steve Bannon's tour of Europe, meeting with national-populist leaders.

Ties between Trump, Nigel Farage, and European populists.
Visits of controversial figures like Geert Wilders to the US.
Alliance named 'Europe of Nations and Freedom' bringing together national
populists from various countries.
Broad Trends Beyond Trump and Brexit:

Need to consider broader international trends beyond specific events.

Context of the Book:

Exploring the rise of populism in the wake of events like Trump, Brexit, and
European rebellions.
Addressing the interest and distortions in the ongoing debate about populism.
Current Issues in the Debate:

Identifying problems in the current discourse:

Distorted by flawed assumptions, bias, and a short-term focus.
Misleading claims about the roots of national populism.
Overemphasis on the impact of the financial crisis, austerity, and the refugee
crisis.
Biases in the Debate:

Noting biases among some writers:

Influence of sympathy for liberal and left-wing politics.
Quick condemnation instead of reflection.
Acknowledging Important Contributions:

Recognizing scholars like Piero Ignazi, Jens Rydgren, and Margaret Canovan for
providing valuable insights.
Critique of Reactions to Trump:

Examining reactions to Trump's election:

Criticizing focus on personality rather than understanding the roots of the
populist movement.
Highlighting concerns about authoritarianism and fascist labels.
Dismissal of Populist Voters:

Noting the dismissive attitude towards national populist voters:

Labelling them as extremists, racists, or 'fascists.'
Illustrating how derogatory terms like 'hillbillies' and 'deplorables' are used.
Short-Term Perspective:

Criticizing the collective obsession with the short term:

Questioning why Trump was elected, Brexit happened, and the rise of national
populists.
Highlighting the need to understand deeper currents beneath democracies.
Factors Influencing Trump's Victory and Brexit:

Analyzing factors attributed to Trump's victory and Brexit:

Influence of Steve Bannon, allegations of collusion, and social media
manipulation.
Emphasizing the importance of deeper trends and not just short-term influences.
Diverse Support for Populist Movements:

Rejecting simplistic conclusions about supporters:

Exploring the diverse alliance of middle-class and blue-collar workers.
Highlighting that not all supporters fit stereotypes, with examples of pro-LGBT
individuals.
Unhelpful Speculation on 'What Ifs':

Critiquing speculative scenarios:

Pointing out the unhelpfulness of 'what ifs' in understanding the current political
landscape.
Emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the reasons behind populist
support.
Call for a Deeper Understanding:

Proposing a focus on tracing the origins of populist revolts:

Advocating for a broader perspective beyond individual movements and leaders.
Formulating two broad arguments to provide a more sophisticated understanding
of the phenomenon.

The ‘Four Ds’

Elitism in Liberal Democracy:

Distrust of politicians and institutions due to the elitist nature of liberal

democracy.
Citizens feel they no longer have a voice in the national conversation.
Immigration and Ethnic Change:

Fears about the potential destruction of national identity and established ways of
life.
Concerns about cultural erosion by liberal politicians, transnational organizations,
and global finance.
Not solely grounded in objective reality, prevalent even in democracies with
lower immigration levels.
Neoliberal Globalized Economics:

Strong feelings of relative deprivation fueled by rising inequalities of income and

wealth.
Loss of faith in a better future, despite many supporters having jobs and average
or above-average incomes.
Profound sense of loss intertwined with perspectives on issues like immigration
and identity.
De-alignment and Weakening Bonds:
Weakening connections between traditional mainstream parties and the people.
Shift from stable politics with strong mainstream parties to more volatile and
unpredictable political systems.
De-alignment making politics more chaotic and less predictable.
Impact of the ‘Four Ds’ on National Populism:

Carve out considerable room for national populists by creating a "pool of

potential."
Large numbers of people feel voiceless, threatened by immigration and cultural
change, left behind economically, and disconnected from established politicians.
Analyzing the Trends:

The 'Four Ds' should be analyzed together, not as competing factors.

Unhelpful debate pits economics against culture, whereas real-life situations
involve complex interactions between cultural and economic concerns.
Debunking Binary Debates:

Arguments on whether it is "economics or culture" are overly simplistic.

Culture and economics often interact in complex ways; the longer-term approach
rejects a straightforward causal link between political turmoil and economic
crises.
Life Cycle of National Populism:

National populism existed as a serious force before the financial crisis.

Seismic events during the crisis exacerbated existing cultural and economic
divides but were not the sole origin of national populism.
National populists would still be a force to contend with even without the
financial crisis.

Argument on National Populism:

Long-term potential of national populism is the second broad argument.

The question arises whether political shocks like Brexit and Trump indicate the
end of political volatility or the beginning of a new period of great change.
Two Views on Political Change:

One view suggests that as countries recover from the financial crisis, people will
return to traditional parties due to generational change.
Another view argues that we are entering a new era of political fragmentation
and disruption, with national populism gaining momentum.
Generational Differences:

Millennials are often seen as more liberal and accepting of diversity than older
generations.
Despite economic challenges, Millennials in major democracies express more
liberal values regarding issues like homosexuality, immigration, and interracial
relationships.
Challenges to the "Last Howl of Rage" Argument:

National populism, seen as a "last howl of rage" from older generations, may not
necessarily decline in the long term.
Various factors, including ongoing ethnic change, rising inequality, and the impact
of automation, contribute to political fragmentation.
Concerns about the West's Future:

Rising public concern over immigration and ethnic change, divides in Europe on
the refugee crisis, emergence of Islamist terror, and public support shifts from
center-left social-democratic parties are mentioned as challenges.
National populists attract non-voters back into politics, and many young voters
lack strong allegiance to mainstream parties.
Global Political Developments:

Despite initial optimism after Emmanuel Macron's election, national populists

achieved breakthroughs in Germany, returned to government in Austria, and
formed coalition governments in Hungary and Italy.
Age Dynamics in National Populism:

Contrary to the belief that national populism is mainly supported by older

generations, the book argues that ties are being forged with significant numbers
of young people who feel left behind.
Cautious Prediction and Conclusion:

Quoting Lao-Tzu, the author suggests caution in predicting political

developments.
The fashionable claim that "populism has peaked" is challenged, and the book
concludes that national populism is likely to remain a significant force in politics
for years to come.

Towards Post-Populism:
Critiques of Liberalism:

Liberals criticized for prioritizing individuals over community.

Emphasis on dry, transactional, and technocratic debates.
Alleged neglect of national allegiances in favor of transnational ones.
Rise of 'Post-Populism':

Shift towards an era of evaluating the tangible impact of populist votes.

Emergence of a phase where voters assess if populists deliver meaningful change.
Questions and Scenarios:

What if Trump's promises on jobs and border protection aren't fulfilled?

Impact of protectionist measures leading to international trade wars.
Potential outcomes if Brexit fails to reform immigration and address economic
inequality.
Reactions if elected populists in France or Austria don't deliver on their promises.
Challenges faced by Eastern European populists like Viktor Orbán in managing
immigration.
Possible Outcomes:

Positive scenarios if populists achieve notable successes.

Examples include creating quality jobs, infrastructure development, and border
strengthening.
Impact of populist measures on issues like welfare, child allowances, and
language requirements.
National populists adopting aspects of traditionally left-wing policies, complicating
center-left politics.
Failure Scenarios:

Conventional belief that populist voters will drift back to mainstream seems
unlikely.
National populism's impact in shifting political systems to the right.
Paradoxical situation where electoral failure reflects success in broader terms.
Rise of 'national populism-lite' within the mainstream, influenced by populist
ideologies.
Desires and Values of Populist Voters:

Desire to shift away from Western liberal hegemony emphasizing individual

rights.
Push for values like communal obligations, national identities, stability, and
conformity.
Aim to reassert the will of the people over elitist liberal democrats.
Identification of values in national populism as a means to voice concerns and
effect change.
 POLITICS IN INDIA-ATUL KOHLI

Firm Roots of Democracy but Poor Governance: Despite facing significant

challenges such as a low-income economy, poverty, and ethnic diversity, India has
successfully established a democratic system. However, the quality of governance
provided by this democracy remains subpar, particularly at lower levels of
government.

Negotiation of Power Distribution: Understanding Indian democracy requires

examining how power is negotiated and distributed within society. This involves
analyzing leadership strategies, the design of political institutions, and the
interaction between the state and society. Indian democracy has managed power
conflicts through a delicate balance between centralization and decentralization,
ensuring the inclusion of both powerful and weaker groups.

Centralization and Decentralization: India, despite being relatively centralized,

exhibits significant decentralized traits. This is evident in the practice of
federalism, the growing power of state governments, changes in local
governance, and the evolving constitutional framework.

Phases of Indian Democracy: The early phase of Indian democracy, dominated by

leaders like Nehru, saw the establishment of democratic institutions and
practices, leveraging the inherited civil service and the popularity of the Indian
National Congress. However, the era of Indira Gandhi marked a shift towards
populism and personalism, challenging democratic norms and culminating in the
Emergency of 1975–77.

Resilience of Indian Democracy: Despite authoritarian tendencies during the

Indira Gandhi era, Indian democracy has shown resilience. Regular elections and
the recommitment of political groups to democratic principles, even after the
Emergency, underscore the strength of democratic institutions.

Politicization of Poverty: Indira Gandhi's tenure also witnessed the politicization

of poverty issues, aiming to broaden the scope of Indian democracy by addressing
the concerns of marginalized groups.

Contributions of Contributors: Various contributors explore different facets of

Indian politics, including Gandhi's role in shaping Indian identity, Nehru's
achievements, center-state relations, efforts towards social and economic
equality, and the dominance of the Congress Party in various states. These
contributions provide nuanced insights into the complexities of Indian democracy
and its evolution over time.
1. End of Congress's Dominance via Family Rule: The assassinations of Indira
Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi marked the end of Congress's dominance
through family rule. Despite these tragic events, India's democracy
remained resilient, with elections promptly held to select alternative
leaders.
2. Uncertain Quality of Governance: While democracy was firmly established
in India, the quality of governance remained uncertain due to the absence
of cohesive institutions amidst a rapidly politicizing society.
3. Third Phase of Indian Politics (Post-1990): This phase is characterized by
various national-level political experiments to find a substitute for the old
Congress Party rule. The decline of Congress's hegemony led to the rise of
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the growing significance of regional
and caste-based parties.
4. Rise of BJP: The BJP, a right-leaning, religious-nationalist party, mobilized
support at the national level by championing causes appealing to the
majority Hindu population. However, it had to moderate its religious
nationalism to broaden its electoral support and seek coalition allies.
 5. Regional and Caste-Based Politics: The rise of regional and caste-based
parties, alongside the BJP's ascent, reshaped Indian politics. Regional
identity emerged as a focus of mobilization, leading to the proliferation of
state parties and the intensification of caste politics.
6. Minority Governments and Political Instability: The third phase witnessed
minority national governments, contributing to some governmental
instability. Despite this, minority governments managed coalitional support
well, offering policy coherence and stability.
7. Fragmentation of Indian Politics: Political fragmentation has been a steady
trend in India since the decline of anti-colonial nationalism. This
fragmentation, accompanied by growing assertiveness of various
oppositional elites, poses challenges to forming cohesive majority
governments.
8. Mixed Quality of Governance: India's governance quality remains mixed,
with perceptions differing based on individual experiences. While India is
perceived as a moderately well-run country, many citizens encounter an
ineffective, corrupt, and venal state, particularly at lower levels of
government.
9. Challenges in State and Local Governance: State and local governments in
India often fail to govern effectively, resulting in distorted priorities,
corruption, and ineffective policy implementation. Decentralization efforts
like Panchayati Raj institutions face challenges related to political
competition and social mobilization.
These points highlight the complexity and challenges inherent in Indian
democracy and governance, reflecting the diverse political landscape and ongoing
efforts to address issues of representation, governance quality, and social
inclusion.
1. Shift in State's Economic Priorities: The Indian state has shifted from a
reluctant pro-capitalist stance with a socialist ideology to an enthusiastic
pro-capitalist stance with a neoliberal ideology over the last three decades.
This shift prioritized economic growth, leading to a closer alliance between
the state and business interests.
 2. Initiation of State-Capital Alliance: The acceleration of economic growth in
India began around 1980, initiated by Indira Gandhi's abandonment of her
socialist rhetoric and prioritization of economic growth. This led to a state-
capital alliance for growth that matured into a central feature of India's
political economy.
3. Impact on Inequality: While the state's embrace of capitalism resulted in
higher rates of economic growth, it also led to widening inequalities across
various dimensions, including urban-rural divides and class distinctions. The
shift towards a pro-capitalist stance shifted the balance of power towards
business and property-owning classes, exacerbating inequality.
4. Role of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi: Indira and Rajiv Gandhi played significant
roles in shifting the Indian state away from its socialist ambitions towards a
growth-promoting state that collaborated closely with the corporate
sector. This ideological shift had negative distributional impacts, reducing
the focus on land redistribution, tenancy reforms, primary education, and
public health.
5. Continuation of State-Business Alliance: Since about 1980, the state-
business alliance for growth has characterized India's development model,
with a further liberalizing shift in 1991 towards greater integration with the
global economy. The state supported Indian capital to compete globally,
contributing to growing inequalities by favoring winners of the new
economy without compensating those left behind.
Explanation:
The provided excerpt discusses the transformation of India's political economy
over recent decades, highlighting the shift in the state's economic priorities and
its implications for inequality. It argues that the Indian state, initially founded on
socialist principles, gradually embraced capitalism to prioritize economic growth.
This shift, initiated by figures like Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, led to a closer alliance
between the state and business interests, resulting in higher rates of economic
growth but also widening inequalities.
The excerpt suggests that the state's support for Indian capital and its role in
enabling it to compete globally have further contributed to growing inequalities,
as winners of the new economy benefit disproportionately without adequate
compensation for those left behind. Additionally, the reduction in focus on
redistributive policies like land reforms and the neglect of primary education and
public health exacerbate inequality.
Overall, the excerpt emphasizes the complex interplay between politics and
economics in shaping India's development trajectory, highlighting the need for a
nuanced understanding of the political determinants of economic growth and the
distributional consequences of neoliberal policies.
1. Public-Private Partnerships and Agriculture: Public-private partnerships
are absorbing public resources, while investments in agriculture have not
kept pace. Consequently, poorer states in India are left to their own
devices, exacerbating inequalities and hindering the benefits of economic
growth for the country's poor.
2. Four Phases of Economic Growth: R. Nagaraj's chapter delineates four
distinct phases of economic growth in India, providing a comprehensive
overview of the country's economic record.
3. Relationship between Indian Capitalists and the State: Vivek Chibber and
Adaner Usmani argue for a revised understanding of the relationship
between Indian capitalists and the state, shedding light on the dynamics
between economic interests and political power.
4. Effects of Labor Regulation and Trade Unions: Emmanuel Teitelbaum's
chapter explores the effects of labor regulation and trade unions on India's
economic prospects, contributing to ongoing debates in the literature.
5. Social Development and Governance: Several essays focus on social
development and governance issues in India. Prerna Singh highlights the
dismal state of public goods provision and social development, while John
Harriss reviews India's record of redistribution. Stuart Corbridge discusses
corruption, its political economy, and growing efforts to combat it.
6. Contrasting State-level Development: Disparities in poverty alleviation
across Indian states are analyzed. Kerala, West Bengal, and southern states
are noted for their effective poverty reduction strategies, attributed to
broader political bases and effective governance. In contrast, states like
 Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan lag behind due to narrow political
bases, factionalism, and ineffective policies.
7. Regional Disparities in Social Policy: Prerna Singh and John Harriss
compare regional disparities in social policy and redistribution. Singh
attributes variations in social development outcomes to the strength of
regional identity, while Harriss links differences in poverty alleviation to
caste/class representation and political competition in different states.
Explanation:
The excerpt underscores the complex interplay between economic development,
political dynamics, and social policy in India. It highlights the importance of public-
private partnerships, agricultural investment, and the evolving relationship
between the state and business interests.
Furthermore, it discusses the four phases of India's economic growth, shedding
light on the country's economic trajectory. The chapters by Chibber, Usmani, and
Teitelbaum delve into the intricate dynamics between Indian capitalists, labor
regulation, trade unions, and their implications for economic development.
The focus on social development and governance issues underscores the
challenges faced by India in providing essential public services and combating
corruption. The analysis of regional disparities in poverty alleviation emphasizes
the role of political factors, governance effectiveness, and historical legacies in
shaping development outcomes across Indian states.
Overall, the excerpt provides valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of
India's political economy and the diverse challenges it faces in promoting inclusive
growth and development.

Divergence in Developmental Performance: The developmental performance of

Indian states varies significantly across dimensions such as economic growth,
distribution, poverty alleviation, and governance quality. Understanding the
reasons behind this divergence is crucial but remains an under-investigated area
of research.
State-specific Dynamics: Essays in the volume focus on specific states, including
Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, and West Bengal. They analyze the
successes, limitations, and dynamics of redistribution politics and developmental
strategies in these states.
Typology of Indian States: A typology is proposed to analyze authority patterns
across states. Some states lack public purpose, characterized by ruling elites using
power for personal and sectional gains. Others use governmental authority more
constructively, falling into either left-leaning or right-leaning categories.
Neo-patrimonial States: States like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh exhibit neo-
patrimonial governance, characterized by under-institutionalized politics,
personalized leadership, politicized bureaucracy, and limited public policy focus.
Understanding the causes and consequences of such governance is crucial.
Left-leaning vs. Right-leaning States: Left-leaning states like Kerala and West
Bengal prioritize social democracy, mobilizing lower classes and castes and
incorporating their support into governance. In contrast, right-leaning states like
Gujarat focus on promoting economic growth through close collaboration with
business groups.
Progressive Politics and Governance: Left-leaning states like Kerala exhibit
generally progressive politics, with effective poverty alleviation efforts. The
synergy between left parties and social movements enhances anti-poverty
capacities, leading to more inclusive governance.
Pro-business States: States like Gujarat, under leaders like Narendra Modi,
actively promote business and industry. However, such efforts may be dependent
on the political fate of individual leaders and can be marred by issues such as
communal violence.
Explanation:
The excerpt highlights the diversity of regional developments in India and the
factors contributing to varying developmental performances across states. It
emphasizes the importance of analyzing state-specific dynamics, governance
structures, and political ideologies in understanding these differences.
The proposed typology categorizes states based on their governance patterns,
distinguishing between those lacking public purpose and those using
governmental authority more constructively. It underscores the need to
investigate the causes and consequences of neo-patrimonial governance in some
states, which prioritize personal and sectional gains over public welfare.
Moreover, the contrast between left-leaning and right-leaning states illustrates
different approaches to governance and development. Left-leaning states
prioritize social democracy and inclusive governance, while right-leaning states
focus on promoting economic growth through business-friendly policies.
Overall, the excerpt underscores the complex interplay between political
dynamics, governance structures, and developmental outcomes in shaping the
trajectory of Indian states. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for
formulating effective policies to promote inclusive and sustainable development
across the country.
India's Global Position: India's global position has evolved over the years,
influenced by its colonial past, nationalist aspirations, and strategic considerations
during the Cold War. Despite struggles to define its international stance, India
maintained a degree of strategic independence, avoiding full alignment with
either superpower.
Nationalism and Foreign Policy: Indian nationalism shaped its early approach to
the global economy, leading to a cautious stance on foreign investment and a
focus on domestic market-oriented production behind protective tariff barriers.
Neighborhood Challenges: India's significant international challenges have
emerged from its neighborhood, including conflicts with Pakistan and China.
Understanding the origins, characteristics, and resolution efforts of these conflicts
is crucial for analyzing India's security strategy.
Evolving Security Strategy: India's security strategy towards its neighbors and
major powers like the USA is influenced by ideational factors such as strategic
independence and structural factors like bureaucratic constraints on military
potential.
Nuclear Strategy: India's nuclear strategy, articulated post the nuclear tests of
1998, reflects its security calculus and evolving geopolitical dynamics. The chapter
by Kanti Bajpai delves into India's nuclear posture, including the factors driving its
nuclear weapons program and the nature of its arsenal and doctrine.
Changing Global Relationships: India's global relationships have undergone
significant changes in recent decades, marked by the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, India's nuclear status declaration, and warmer ties with the USA. These
changes reflect growing confidence in India as a global actor and recognition of its
global significance.
International Migration: Devesh Kapur's contribution focuses on the
characteristics and consequences of international migration on India. It examines
how migration affects the country of origin economically and politically, reshaping
conceptions of Indian citizenship.
Explanation:
The excerpt highlights India's changing global position and its implications for
foreign policy, security strategy, and international relations. It underscores the
role of nationalism, historical context, and strategic considerations in shaping
India's approach to global affairs.
India's stance during the Cold War, marked by nonalignment, reflected its efforts
to maintain strategic independence amidst superpower rivalry. However, shifts in
alliances and conflicts in its neighborhood posed significant challenges,
necessitating a nuanced security strategy.
The discussion on India's nuclear strategy and evolving relationships with major
powers like the USA demonstrates the complexities of India's global
engagements. Economic growth, military prowess, and diplomatic initiatives have
contributed to India's growing confidence and recognition on the world stage.
Additionally, the examination of international migration highlights the
interconnectedness of domestic and international dynamics, with migration
reshaping not only economic landscapes but also conceptions of citizenship and
identity.
Overall, the essays provide insights into India's multifaceted engagement with the
world, offering a comprehensive understanding of its global position, challenges,
and opportunities.
 DEMOCRACY IN HARD PLACES

Explanation:

India's Democratic Longevity: This point underscores the historical significance of

India's democratic journey, highlighting its resilience despite various internal and
external challenges. It emphasizes the foundational role of elections in sustaining
democratic norms and practices.
Democratic Decline Since 2014: The recognition of a discernible decline in India's
democratic standing post-2014 provides context to the ongoing discussion. It
signals a departure from previously established democratic norms, prompting
concerns among observers and scholars.
Conceptualizing the Decline: The distinction between democratic collapse and
erosion/backsliding clarifies the nature of India's current democratic challenges. It
suggests a gradual undermining of democratic principles rather than an abrupt
breakdown, necessitating a nuanced analytical approach.
Analytical Focus: By framing the discussion around key questions concerning
India's democratic trajectory, the chapter aims to offer comprehensive insights
into both its historical strengths and recent vulnerabilities.
Electoral Integrity: Despite broader concerns about democratic erosion, the
continued integrity of India's electoral process serves as a notable aspect of
resilience. It reflects the enduring commitment to democratic practices, even
amidst evolving political dynamics and institutional challenges.
Institutionalization of Competitive Elections: Competitive elections have long
been ingrained as the cornerstone of India's political landscape. This
institutionalization has led to a consensus among major political actors that
electoral means are the only legitimate way to attain power. While the debate
over whether elections suffice for democracy persists, there is unanimous
recognition of their central role in India's democratic framework.
Resilience of Electoral Principle Amidst Erosion: Despite ongoing democratic
erosion since 2014, the fundamental electoral principle remains intact in India.
While Prime Minister Modi has faced defeats in several state elections, there
hasn't been a concerted campaign challenging the integrity of the electoral
process, akin to what has been observed in other parts of the world.
Historical Perspectives on India's Democracy: Scholars like Barrington Moore and
Robert Dahl have acknowledged India's democratic credentials since the mid-20th
century. Despite initial skepticism due to its Asian and non-industrial revolution
context, India's sustained political democracy has defied conventional
expectations, earning recognition as a significant exception in democratic theory.
Theoretical Explanations for India's Democratic Longevity: A substantial body of
literature has sought to explain why India has maintained its democratic system
for so long, particularly in an environment that may seem unfavorable for
democracy. Various theoretical frameworks, comparative analyses, and empirical
datasets have been employed to understand India's unique democratic trajectory.
Distinction Between Electoral and Liberal Democracy: The chapter advances a
nuanced argument distinguishing between India's electoral vibrancy and its liberal
deficits. While India has excelled in conducting competitive elections, its
performance in upholding liberal democratic principles, such as civil freedoms,
minority rights, and institutional checks on executive power, has been lacking.
Impact of Modi's Regime on Democratic Deficits: Under the twice-elected Modi
government, liberal democratic deficits have widened alarmingly, marked by
erosion of civil freedoms, minority rights, and institutional constraints on
executive power. This erosion primarily affects the liberal aspect of democracy,
indicating a rollback of democratic deepening that was underway for decades.
In today's political landscape, discussions about the interventionist state may
seem redundant, as even ostensibly free-market states ( intervention – operate
w/o any govt intervention like regulations, regulated market-govt intervenes)
often intervene extensively in the economy. However, in India, the concept holds
specific significance.-India is diff from free market states
One key issue is the tension between the state and civil society. Some
argue that Indian society, as criticized by Ambedkar, is undemocratic and in
need of restructuring. They believe the state must intervene to bring
about social change since internal forces are insufficient. This implies a
state superior to civil society, acting autonomously.

But can a state truly be independent of civil society? And if so, wouldn't
such insulation lead to superficial democracy? The Indian
Constitution addresses this by granting the state formal autonomy( self-
governance) and empowering it to reform civil society and even establish
a new social order.
However, Regulations can be a tool of established interest so how can the
state avoid becoming the agent of the interests of people with power

However, a critical question arises: how can the state avoid becoming a tool
of established interests? The Constitution aims to prevent this by ensuring
that the law serves public rather than private interests. While many in the
Constituent Assembly believed in the state's impartiality, others, like
Ambedkar, doubted it in India's context.

In contemporary political discourse, we need to consider how states

balance intervention by state with preserving the democratic principles
and prevent being controlled by certain vested interests. This includes
examining the role of the state in addressing societal inequalities and
ensuring that the state’s actions serve the public good rather than narrow
interests.

The founding fathers/ constituent assembly didn't thoroughly consider the

implications of a neutral state. They were mainly concerned about the risk
of the state being controlled by powerful interests. K.T. Shah shared this
worry and suggested protecting the masses by embedding obligations of
the state in Fundamental Rights.

The idea was for the state to intervene for the benefit of the people,
guided by public reasoning. However, few foresaw that this state
intervention/regulations would become a battleground for different social
and economic classes. Despite doubts about the state's ability to remain
neutral and act in the public interest, the consensus was that it should
transcend class interests. There are doubts on the state’s ability to be
neutral but the consensus is that it should transcend class interest.

it was expected to maintain a democratic character while avoiding

manipulation by powerful interests .While some, like Ambedkar and Shah,
doubted this, most believed that the Indian state would serve the people
above all else. It was thought to be a blend of liberal democratic and
socialist principles, stemming from a mass democratic movement.

The third issue about the interventionist state was about how much it
should intervene-extent/ scope of their intervention. Once they sorted out
concerns about class interests and believed in the state's neutrality, the
founders focused on defining this scope. Although some, like Ambedkar
and socialists, wanted a stricter commitment, the agreed-upon principles
centered on minimum standards. For instance, the Socialist Party's 1948
'Draft Constitution' criticized the Indian Constitution for only promoting
'controlled capitalism' and called for more public ownership.

Others, like Kishorilal Mashruwala and Shriman Narayan Agarwal,

emphasized the state's role in tackling caste inequalities and ending
feudal landlordism. There was broad consensus on creating a welfare state
to regulate capitalism, addressing caste inequalities, and reducing feudal
control.-Article 31

Despite this consensus, the actual implementation of state intervention in

areas like social justice and equality was somewhat vague. Instead of
detailed legal provisions, the Constitution leaned on providing the state
with an ideological foundation reflecting these shared goals. Instead if the
Consti giving us detailed legal provisions, they give us an ideological
foundation
Our argument is that the idea of a reformist or socially revolutionary state
was rooted in the Constitution's ideology. Meanwhile, the Constitution also
included provisions for significant state intervention to drive development.
Ambedkar believed in an interventionist state to address caste issues,
while Nehru saw the state as a tool for building a modern society. This
creates a tension between two concepts of the state: one focused on social
reform and the other on economic development.
 ENGAGING WITH CASTE: ACADEMIC DICOURSES, IDENTITY POLITICS AND
STATE POLICY

INTRODUCTION
The concept of caste in South Asia, encompassing varna, jati, or zat, reflects intricate social
divisions and hierarchies with ancient roots. Western interpretations, simplifying these structures
into a hierarchical system based on Hindu texts, place Brahmins at the apex. Colonial
administration capitalized on this categorization, employing it as a tool to govern Indian society.
Such perceptions constructed India as fundamentally different from the West, justifying colonial
rule. Even influential Western thinkers like Marx and Engels were influenced by this view,
advocating colonial intervention. While recent historical research challenges colonial
perspectives, the enduring influence of caste theorizations shapes modern Indian identity,
impacting academic disciplines and societal narratives.
Caste and the Institutionalization of Democracy: The Moment of Politics
Caste, viewed as both institution and ideology, organizes social groups and justifies inequalities.
Contrasting with Western class-based systems, caste is depicted as rigid, hindering social
mobility. Core features include segmental division, hierarchy, and restrictions on various aspects
of social life. The distinction between varna and jati emphasizes the complexity of caste
dynamics, with Louis Dumont's structuralist perspective highlighting symbolic purity and
impurity. Unlike Western societies, caste separates status from power dynamics, with various
scholars extending and critiquing caste theories.
Caste Associations
Caste associations emerged in response to colonial modernization, evolving into modern entities
facilitating social mobility and politicization. They transformed into political groups, influencing
democratic politics and challenging traditional power structures. Land reforms and
developmental programs shifted power dynamics, empowering middle-level castes and reshaping
regional politics. The 1967 general election marked a shift towards regional politics, with
middle-level castes gaining prominence and shaping the political landscape.
Dalit Identity and State Policy, Caste from below
The 1980s saw the emergence of autonomous Dalit politics and the introduction of quotas for
Other Backward Classes (OBCs), sparking significant political controversy. While the shift
acknowledged caste as a legitimate aspect of state policy, it marked a departure from Nehruvian
ideals. This era raised theoretical questions about caste's role in democratic politics and state
policies, highlighting caste inequalities beyond the ritual domain and the consolidation of
middle-level caste groups.
Articulations of Caste from Below
Globalization and technological changes influenced the articulation of caste issues, with Dalit
movements emphasizing community rights and identity politics. Historical figures like Jyotiba
Phule and B.R. Ambedkar laid the groundwork for the Dalit movement, which gained
momentum amid rural transformations and challenges of modernization. Despite advancements,
caste-based discrimination persisted, indicating enduring power dynamics despite ideological
shifts.
 MINIMAL SECULARISM: LESSONS FOR, AND FROM, INDIA

Donald Smith's exploration of Indian secularism challenges the conventional

teleological perspective prevalent in liberal political theory. He critiques the notion
that India, as a non-Western nation, is merely lagging behind the West in the
evolution of its laws towards a predetermined endpoint. Instead, Smith advocates
for an alternative framework called minimal secularism, which offers a more
nuanced approach to assessing state-religion arrangements across different nations.
Minimal secularism, according to Smith, is anchored in liberal democratic values
and emphasizes the application of these standards to the diverse array of beliefs,
practices, and identities encompassed by the term 'religion'. Unlike traditional
views of secularism centered on the separation of religious and secular domains,
minimal secularism seeks to transcend this dichotomy by focusing on the
underlying principles of individual freedom and equality without privileging one
category over the other. It acknowledges secularism as a historically significant
and politically charged ideal while cautioning against its co-optation by actors with
anti-liberal or anti-democratic agendas, such as right-wing Hindus or xenophobic
Europeans.
Smith's arguments serve two primary academic audiences. Firstly, he challenges
Western secular political theorists to recognize that non-separationist practices in
non-Western states can align with liberal democratic norms, thereby urging against
ethnocentric comparisons. He suggests that different legitimate interpretations of
secularism can exist in practice, beyond the Western model. Secondly, Smith
addresses critiques of secularism by highlighting that secularism is not inherently
Western or Christian-centric. He emphasizes the role of religious identity as a
socially constructed phenomenon and underscores secularism's imperative to
navigate complex multicultural and multiracial dynamics.
Furthermore, Smith draws attention to two critical lessons from Indian secularism.
Firstly, he discusses the concept of 'thin religion' as an identity marker for national
majorities, implying that religion often serves as a unifying force in diverse
societies. Secondly, he examines the problematic legitimacy of sovereign claims
by secular state law, suggesting that tensions within Indian secularism may
foreshadow future challenges in a globalized world where both religious and state
legitimacy are increasingly questioned.
In essence, Smith's analysis offers a paradigm shift in understanding secularism,
urging scholars to move beyond ethnocentric perspectives and recognize the
diversity of interpretations and practices across different cultural contexts. His
insights prompt a reevaluation of traditional academic distinctions and offer
valuable lessons for navigating the complexities of multiculturalism, nationalism,
and secular governance in an increasingly interconnected world.
 SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF IDENTITY POLITICS: REDISTRIBUTION,
RECOGNITION, PARTICIPATION

Claims for social justice seem to divide into two types: claims for the redistribution of
resources and claims for the recognition of cultural difference. Increasingly, these two kinds
of claims are polarized against one another. Justice today requires both redistribution and
recognition. Neither alone is sufficient.
First, on the plane of moral philosophy, I propose an overarching conception of justice that can
accommodate both defensible claims for social equality and defensible claims for the recognition
of difference. Second, on the plane of social theory, I propose an approach that can accommodate
the complex relations between interest and identity, economy and culture, class and status in
contemporary globalizing capitalist society.
A “bivalent” conception of justice. A bivalent conception treats distribution and recognition as
distinct perspectives on, and dimensions of, justice. Without reducing either one of them to the
other, it encompasses both dimensions within a broader, overarching framework.
First, the distribution of material resources must be such as to ensure participants’ independence
and “voice.” Second, the institutionalized cultural patterns of interpretation and evaluation
express equal respect for all participants and ensure equal opportunity for achieving social
esteem. Both these conditions are necessary for participatory parity. Neither alone is sufficient.
The first one brings into focus concerns traditionally associated with the theory of
distributive justice, especially concerns pertaining to the economic structure of society and
to economically defined class differentials. The second one brings into focus concerns recently
highlighted in the philosophy of recognition, especially concerns pertaining to the status order
of society and to culturally defined hierarchies of status.
An approach called “perspectival dualism.” Here redistribution and recognition do not
correspond to two substantive societal domains, economy and culture. Rather, they constitute
two analytical perspectives that can be assumed with respect to any domain. These perspectives
can be deployed critically, moreover, against the ideological grain. One can use the recognition
perspective to identify the cultural dimensions of what are usually viewed as redistributive
economic policies. By focusing on the production and circulation of interpretations and norms in
welfare programs, for example, one can assess the effects of institutionalized maldistribution on
the identities and social status of single mothers.Conversely, one can use the redistribution
perspective to bring into focus the economic dimensions of what are usually viewed as issues of
recognition. By focusing on the high “transaction costs” of living in the closet, for example, one
can assess the effects of heterosexist misrecognition on the economic position of gays and
lesbians. With perspectival dualism, then, one can assess the justice of any social practice from
two analytically distinct normative vantage points, asking: Does the practice in question work to
ensure both the economic conditions and the cultural conditions of participatory parity? Or does
it, rather, undermine them.
It appreciates that neither claims for redistribution nor claims for recognition can be contained
within a separate sphere. On the contrary, they impinge on one another in ways that may give
rise to unintended effects
First, redistribution impinges on recognition. Virtually any claim for redistribution will have
some recognition effects, whether intended or unintended. Proposals to redistribute income
through social welfare, for example, have an irreducible expressive dimension; they convey
interpretations of the meaning and value of different activities, for example, “childrearing”
versus “wage-earning,” while also constituting and ranking different subject positions, for
example “welfare mothers” versus “tax payers.” Thus, redistributive claims invariably affect the
status and social identities of social actors. These effects must be thematized and scrutinized, lest
one end up fuelling misrecognition in the course of remedying maldistribution.
The classic example, once again, is “welfare.” Means-tested benefits aimed specifically at the
poor are the most directly redistributive form of social welfare. Yet such benefits tend to
stigmatize recipients, casting them as deviants and scroungers and invidiously distinguishing
them from “wage-earners” and “tax-payers” who “pay their own way.” Welfare programs of this
type “target” the poor--not only for material aid but also for public hostility. The end result is
often to add the insult of misrecognition to the injury of deprivation. Redistributive policies have
misrecognition effects when background patterns of cultural value skew the meaning of
economic reforms, when, for example, a pervasive cultural devaluation of female caregiving
inflects aid to single-parent families as “getting something for nothing.” In this context, welfare
reform cannot succeed unless it is joined with struggles for cultural change aimed at revaluing
caregiving and the feminine associations that code it. In short, no redistribution without
recognition.
Consider, next, the converse dynamic, whereby recognition impinges on distribution. Virtually
any claim for recognition will have some distributive effects, whether intended or unintended.
Proposals to redress androcentric evaluative patterns, for example, have economic implications,
which work sometimes to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries. For example, campaigns to
suppress prostitution and pornography for the sake of enhancing women’s status may have
negative effects on the economic position of sex workers, while no-fault divorce reforms, which
appeared to dovetail with feminist efforts to enhance women’s status, have had negative effects
on the economic position of some divorced women. Thus, recognition claims can affect
economic position, above and beyond their effects on status. These effects, too, must be
scrutinized, lest one end up fueling maldistribution in the course of trying to remedy
misrecognition. Recognition claims, moreover, are liable to the charge of being “merely
symbolic.” When pursued in contexts marked by gross disparities in economic position, reforms
aimed at recognizing distinctiveness tend to devolve into empty gestures; like the sort of
recognition that would put women on a pedestal, they mock, rather than redress, serious harms.
In such contexts, recognition reforms cannot succeed unless they are joined with struggles for
redistribution.
 1. Distribution of Material Resources:
 This means making sure that everyone has access to the things they need to be
independent and have a say in society ("voice").
 It's not just about giving out resources, but ensuring that people can use them to
participate in society and make their own choices.
 This addresses concerns related to how wealth and resources are shared in society,
including issues like economic inequality and class differences.
2. Cultural Patterns of Interpretation and Evaluation:
 This refers to how society's norms, values, and beliefs shape how people are
seen and treated.
 It's about making sure that everyone is respected and has an equal chance to be
valued and respected by others ("social esteem").
 This highlights concerns about how society views and treats people based on
their identity, such as their social status and cultural background.
3. Participatory Parity:
 This means ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in
society and be treated with respect and dignity.
 Both the fair distribution of resources and the fair treatment of people based
on their identity are important for achieving this balance.
 Neither one alone is enough to ensure that everyone can fully participate and be
treated fairly in society.
In simpler terms, the author is saying that for everyone to have an equal chance to participate in
society and be respected, we need to make sure that resources are shared fairly and that people
are treated with dignity and respect regardless of their background. Both of these things are
important and necessary for achieving a truly fair and inclusive society.
"Perspectival dualism" is an approach that looks at social issues from two different angles:
redistribution and recognition. Instead of thinking of these as separate things related to money
and culture, they're seen as two ways to understand any problem.
For example, let's say we're talking about welfare programs. Normally, we might only think
about how much money is being given out and who gets it. But with perspectival dualism, we
also look at how these programs affect people's cultural identities. Are they reinforcing
stereotypes or helping people feel respected?
Similarly, we can flip it around and look at economic issues from a cultural perspective. For
instance, think about LGBTQ+ rights. Instead of just focusing on legal rights or economic issues,
we consider how discrimination affects people's financial situations.
This approach helps us see that redistribution and recognition are connected. They don't happen
in separate bubbles; they influence each other. Sometimes, policies meant to help economically
can hurt culturally, and vice versa. So, by using perspectival dualism, we can evaluate whether
social practices support both economic fairness and cultural respect, or if they might actually
undermine them.
Simply put, when we try to redistribute resources, like money or benefits, it can unintentionally
affect how people are seen and treated in society. For instance, welfare programs aimed at
helping the poor can sometimes make them feel ashamed or judged, leading to social stigma.
This happens because society might view them as lazy or dependent on handouts. These
negative views can worsen the problem of poverty by making it harder for people to get ahead.
One reason for this is that our cultural beliefs about things like work and family can
influence how we see welfare programs. For example, if society values paid work more than
caregiving, it might unfairly judge single parents who receive welfare as not contributing
enough. So, when we're thinking about helping people in need, we also need to consider how
our actions might affect their dignity and how they're viewed by others. In other words, we
can't just focus on giving out resources; we also need to address the social attitudes and
stereotypes that can harm people's self-worth.

Imagine you're trying to make things fairer for a group of people by giving them more
respect and recognition in society. But sometimes, those efforts can actually end up making
their economic situation worse, even if that wasn't the intention. For instance, let's say there's
a campaign to stop prostitution and pornography to improve women's status. Sounds good, right?
But in reality, it might lead to fewer job options for sex workers, making their financial situation
even harder. Similarly, laws making divorce easier might seem like they empower women, but
they can sometimes leave divorced women financially worse off. So, even though recognition
efforts are important, we have to be careful because they can accidentally make things
economically unfair. Sometimes, they're just symbolic gestures that don't really fix the big
problems. So, it's essential to combine recognition efforts with actions that address economic
inequality to truly make a difference.
 RIGHTS THROUGH RESISTANCE: WHAT LIES BEYOND LEGALISM FOR THE
LGBT MOVEMENT?

The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement has gained significant benefits in
terms of formal equality and non-discrimination in employment and social policy in many
parts of the world. Starting out in the nebulous aftermath of the civil rights and the feminist
movements in the 1960s under the leadership of the New Left, the gay liberation movement was
distinct from the preceding homophile movement because it began to nurse ambitions of
identity politics and queerer possibilities of lifestyle choices. The lesbian (L) and gay (G)
parts of “LGBT” were distinct movements fighting for different rights till a combination of
historical circumstances such as the outbreak of AIDS and opening of courtrooms to legal
battles brought about a significant change in the course of their consolidation. The coming
together of these disparate struggles had two consequences. First, the LGBT communities in
addition to other groups with gender identities and sexual preferences came under the single
umbrella of “LGBT.” Second, using law as an instrument of claiming equal rights and non-
discrimination became predominant over queerer possibilities of questioning heterosexual
lifestyles in what some scholars call establishing assimilationism or homonormativity (Duggan
2003). Thus, the movement was variously seen as an issue of equality claims of a minority group
(Stulberg 2018), individual liberties (Yoshino 2000) or universalizing approaches in which
sexuality was seen as a continuum (Sedgewick 1990). Tilsen and Nylund (2010) argue that the
biggest gain of the assimilationist strand has been the integration into mainstream middle-
class lifestyle. The negative outcome of the predominance of assimilationist strategy has been
the relegation of the definition of “queer” from challenging that which is perceived as
normal (Rudy 2000) to fixed identity positions (Tilsen and Nylund 2010). The taming of the
queer reflects the watering down of priorities that the movement set out for itself. Forces of
counter-mobilization such as the religious right and cultural nationalism have been able to
narrow the agenda of the movement to questions based on equal rights in marriage and
non-discrimination, forgoing other priorities that matter to the various identities and
generations within the movement. In this context, this article examines the future trajectories
that the LGBT movement can reclaim from its own lost tracts of history that can revitalize the
discourse of various identities and their resistance as well as expand the agenda. In the
subsequent sections, the legal approach of the LGBT movement and the forces of
countermobilization that originated in its aftermath are examined. This is followed by a
discussion of the three possibilities of expanding the priorities of the movement and limiting the
forces of countermobilization. The final section concludes the main arguments and reminds us
why it is essential to explore queerer possibilities in the contemporary context.
This article examined how the assimilationist approach of demanding equality and non-
discrimination has dominated the LGBT movement globally using a historical approach. This
approach has used the human rights discourse as the framework and law as the chief
instrument of demanding rights from the state. The assimilationist approach has created
commendable achievements for the LGBT community worldwide such as decriminalizing
homosexuality, equality in marriage, non-discrimination in access to employment and social
policy, and, creating a tradition of comparative jurisprudence. However, radical approaches to
claiming rights through everyday acts and collective resistance remain marginalized. This
has created a fractured hierarchy within the subcommunities of the LGBT movement along the
lines of age and gender groups and their demands. Furthermore, judicial decisions have also
provoked backlash in the form of counter-mobilization through cultural nationalism and
political homophobia, both of which attempt to erode the rights and legitimacy gained
through assimilationism. In this context, what are the ways in which the movement can be
vitalized to bring out its plurality while maintaining meaningful social transformation? This
article argues for three possible approaches. The first is to limit the forces of counter-
mobilization from setting the agenda and narrowing the broad range of claims to single-
issue conflicts. Alliance formation with other civil rights organizations such as trade unions and
feminist groups would help to widen the priorities at the points of intersectionality. The second
approach is to reframe the issue using institutional frameworks such as law and medicine.
For example, medical terminology can make a clear distinction between gender disorders, sexual
dysfunction and SOGI related issues which would destigmatize sexualities whilst providing
medical care to those who need them. Additionally, the contemporary human rights discourse
uses existing rights framework to articulate the inclusion of the LGBT community into its fold.
Whilst this approach has its merits, new frameworks might be required if intersectionality is
to find expression in the legal discourse. Lastly, a return to politics and theory is the only
sustainable way the movement can move forward. Active politics through organized
movements and everyday resistance provides a framework to understand how the
movement is embedded in macroeconomic institutions like neo-liberal capitalism. An honest
introspection would also allow the LGBT movement to acknowledge that in claiming equal
citizenship within the existing framework, radical possibilities, such as queering social norms,
remain unexpressed in the mainstream discourse.
The LGBT movement, which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, has made
significant progress in gaining rights and reducing discrimination in many parts of the world. It
started in the 1960s after the civil rights and feminist movements. Initially, the movement
focused on identity politics and diverse lifestyle choices, but it shifted towards demanding equal
rights and using laws to fight discrimination, a strategy called assimilationism.
Assimilationism has brought important achievements like legalizing homosexuality, equal
marriage rights, and protection against discrimination. However, it has sidelined more radical
approaches and fractured the movement along lines of age and gender. Also, some groups, like
the religious right, push back against LGBT rights.
To revitalize the movement, three approaches are suggested:
1. Broadening the Agenda: By forming alliances with other civil rights groups and
addressing issues beyond just discrimination and marriage equality, like economic justice
and gender equality.
 2. Reframing the Issue: Using medical and legal frameworks to destigmatize LGBT
identities and integrate them more fully into society. This might involve creating new
legal frameworks that account for intersectionality.
3. Returning to Politics and Theory: Engaging in active politics and theoretical
discussions to understand how the LGBT movement is influenced by broader social and
economic forces, like capitalism. This also involves embracing radical possibilities, such
as challenging social norms.

TRANSITIONS, STAGNATIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS

The understanding of transitions within states involves telling stories that encompass starting
points, endpoints, and the expectations that lie between. This essay delves into the evolving
nature of the Indian State, examining it through the lens of its constituent states. It highlights a
continuous struggle between democratic principles and dominance across three key arenas:
party politics, caste dynamics, and governance. By observing these transitions over an
expanded timeframe and juxtaposing them with narratives from other states, we gain insights
into a broader trend. What emerges is a State marked by selective service delivery, rent-
seeking behavior, majoritarian mobilization, and political convergence.
Contrary to the predominant focus on national political power, the essay argues for scrutinizing
state-level dynamics, asserting that the essence of political power and its interaction with social
power is most evident here. While overarching political authority might influence lower-level
power dynamics, it largely operates by subsuming and aggregating existing local
arrangements. Thus, understanding the contestation between democratic ideals and dominance
necessitates examining variations across Indian states.
The Indian State has historically grappled with the tension between democratic principles and
systems of dominance. Democracy promised responsive governance, development, and
social equality, underpinned by universal suffrage and open political competition. However,
entrenched inequalities, particularly along caste, class, and gender lines, perpetuated
dominance, hindering democratic progress. The struggle between these two forces shapes the
trajectory of the Indian State, resulting in a complex interplay of democratic aspirations and
entrenched power structures.
This coexistence is far from harmonious. While democracy periodically challenges established
interests, dominance seeks to neutralize democratic impulses. The evolving nature of the
Indian State reflects the ongoing contest between these forces, characterized by fluidity yet
discernible patterns. Ultimately, the Indian State embodies a delicate balance between
democratic ideals and persistent systems of dominance, with neither fully prevailing over the
other.
The relationship between political power and social power deeply influences the character of a
state. To understand state power, we can examine three key sets of questions. First, within a
democratic framework, who holds political power? How do those in power relate to socially
dominant groups? How has this relationship evolved due to democratic processes? Second,
what are the outcomes of democracy for various social groups? Does the state meet the basic
needs of its citizens, and does it work to reduce inequality? Third, how are political choices
shaped? Do people have diverse options, or are choices limited by entrenched social
groups?
The first arena of contestation centers on the reproduction of social power into political power,
notably seen in the relationship between caste and state power. In many states, ritually
superior castes maintain dominance, while in others, there's a transition toward more
diverse representation, albeit often limited to middle castes. Despite some progress,
dominance by middle castes can be stable and resistant to further democratization. Additionally,
there's a limited transition from a politics of mere presence to substantive representation of
marginalized groups. Examples like Brahmin-Rajput dominance in Himachal Pradesh and
Uttarakhand or the political power consolidation by specific caste blocs in West Bengal illustrate
this link between ritual hierarchy and political influence.
The second arena pertains to the political economy of development. While democracy suggests
a redistributive impulse, dominant interests often seek to consolidate privileges. States vary
in their delivery of basic goods and services, ranging from poor to adequate provision.
Corruption also varies, from everyday petty corruption to high-level graft. Some states combine
selective delivery with targeted graft, often leveraging populist measures to maintain political
support. It notes that while some transitions away from upper caste dominance have
occurred, power hasn't necessarily trickled down to lower social orders. Moreover, it
critiques how the logic of dominance often sidelines substantive representation of
marginalized groups, reducing democracy to mere majoritarianism.
The third arena focuses on electoral competition, mapping the range of choices available to
voters. While the format of competition may vary, the depth of political choices differs, ranging
from shallow to substantive. Factors such as the configuration of social power, emergence of
new political parties, and internal competition among entrenched interests influence the
menu of choices. Periods of substantive choices at the state level challenge the logic of
domination, potentially improving governance and delivery of services.
Examples like the YSR regime in Andhra Pradesh or the collusion of state power with industries
in Karnataka and Jharkhand highlight these dynamics. Furthermore, it discusses the interplay
between electoral competition and political choices, showcasing how shifts in power
configurations can influence the menu of political options available to citizens.
In summary, the interplay between political and social power shapes the character of the state.
Understanding state power requires analyzing its relationship with dominant social groups,
the outcomes of democracy for various segments of society, and the nature of political
choices available to citizens. These arenas of contestation highlight the complexities of
governance and the ongoing struggle between the logics of democracy and domination.
 TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE INDIAN STATE AND ROLE
OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

Explain this in a simple yet deep manner wherein the points mentioned have a logical flow to them
not just standalone statements. Use the entire paragraphs to answer and sprinkle in the examples
given above as well but don’t make them the main point.

The Indian government has changed a lot in the last 20 years. This article looks at how people used to
describe the Indian government and finds that those descriptions don't work well anymore. Now,
there's a big conflict between two things: making money through markets and making decisions
through democracy. The policies that focus on making money often leave out a lot of people from
benefiting. So, the democracy part tries to include those left out. But why does it seem like everything
is okay in Indian democracy? The article says it's because the middle class, who have benefited a lot
from economic changes, make it seem stable. They've gained the authority to speak for everyone in
society.

1. Foundation of the Indian State: In 1947, India gained independence from colonial rule and
established a modern state based on secular principles. This meant separating religion from
government affairs. The adoption of a written constitution outlined governance rules, aiming to
unify a diverse population.

2. Expectations from the State: There was initial optimism that the Indian state would lead the
country towards modernization and unity. The constitution promised democracy, secularism,
and socialism, indicating a commitment to building a just and equitable society.

3. Different Perspectives on the State:

 State-Centric View: Some scholars see the state as having autonomy, able to enact
policies that benefit the broader population.

 Society-Centric View: Others argue that the state's failures stem from its close ties to
political elites and its inability to meet the demands of a growing democracy.

 Anthropological Perspective: This approach examines how the state interacts with
citizens at the local level, focusing on issues like corruption and social identities.

4. Contradictions in the Indian State*

 The state faces internal contradictions, particularly between market dynamics and
democratic ideals.
  Market-oriented policies often benefit certain sections of society while excluding others,
whereas democratic politics seeks to include marginalized groups.

 Despite initiatives like NREGA, social inequality persists, with the middle class wielding
significant influence.

5. Nature of Contradictory Institutions:

 Institutions regulating markets prioritize market-driven policies, reflecting the interests

of political elites.

 Democratic institutions face challenges in translating demands into policy outcomes,

leading to diluted versions of pro-poor initiatives.

 The dominance of market-centric institutions reflects the priorities of a small percentage

of the population, including the burgeoning middle class.

6. Contradictions at Different Levels:

 Contradictions exist between dominant capitalist classes at the national and state levels,
affecting economic growth trajectories.

 States with strong sub-national capitalists integrate quicker into national reforms, while
others resist due to local influences.At the state level, coalitions of regional capitalists
and middle-class elites influence economic policies using social identities like caste and
religion.

7. Outcome of Contradictions:

 Proactive measures to open up the economy have led to high economic growth but also
extreme social inequality.

 Despite social inequality, the Indian state appears stable, with a shift from one-party
dominance to a competitive multiparty system.

8. Social Collectives, Political Mobilization, and the Local State:

 Various social collectives, such as ethno-religious groups and caste associations, play a
significant role in political mobilization at the local level.

 These collectives often overlap in membership and wield influence through financial
resources and political donations.

 Despite conflicts, upper caste dominance persists, facilitated by membership in social

collectives like Jati Panchayats.

CONCLUSION
1. State Segmentation: The state isn't a single unified entity; it's divided administratively into
national, federal, and local levels. Moreover, it's fragmented not only by economic interests but
also by factors like caste, religion, ethnicity, and region.

2. Middle Class Influence: While the state isn't autonomous, its autonomy at each level is limited
by different socio-economic groups. These groups don't always have aligned interests. Despite
this, the middle class, which represents dominant interests, plays a significant role in shaping
policies and reforms.

3. Role of the Middle Class at the Macro Level: At the national level, the middle class has gained
legitimacy in representing society's interests. They often provide ideological support for
capitalist development, which is dominated by corporate and international capital.

4. Complexity Below the National Level: At lower levels of governance, such as states or local
municipalities, things get more complicated. Here, the middle class, while still benefiting from
capitalist development, often aligns its interests with social identities like religion, caste, or
ethnicity. This blurs the lines between state and market, allowing dominant interests to
influence state decisions.

5. Middle Class Identity: The majority of the middle class identifies with upper castes, with fewer
members from other backward classes and even fewer from marginalized groups like Dalits,
Adivasis, and Muslims.

6. Preservation of Status Quo: In a segmented state where various socio-economic groups hold
influence, the middle class plays a crucial role in maintaining the existing social order. They
often act as a stabilizing force, advocating for policies that benefit their interests and
perpetuate the status quo.
 THE INDIAN STATE CONSTITUTION AND BEYOND

evolving perceptions and criticisms of the Indian state since its inception:

1. Initial Enthusiasm: Initially, after India gained independence, there was great excitement about
the state's potential to bring about social revolution, as outlined in the Constitution. The state
was seen as a force for positive change and welfare.

2. Period of Skepticism: However, this enthusiasm soon gave way to skepticism, especially during
the time of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Critics began to perceive the Indian state as a
bureaucratic behemoth, characterized by excessive regulation and control.

3. Liberalization of the Economy: The 1990s saw the liberalization of India's economy, with the
state's role in facilitating economic growth becoming a subject of debate. Some viewed the
'Nehruvian' state, named after India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, as outdated and
hindering progress.

4. Contradictions in State Activity: Interestingly, while the state seemed to withdraw from welfare
policies, it remained active in promoting economic reforms. This created a paradox where the
state was active but not necessarily in the areas traditionally associated with its role.

5. Raising Questions: These contradictions and ironies prompt questions about the Indian state's
relationship with democracy and its adherence to constitutional principles. Scholars ponder
whether the state has strayed from the Constitution's vision and to what extent its perceived
shortcomings can be attributed to the Constitution itself.

FROM COLONIAL TO MODERN STATE

The passage discusses the formation of the post-Independence Indian state, highlighting its
roots in colonial governance, the framing of the Constitution, and subsequent post-
Independence practices. The state inherited certain characteristics from the colonial era,
including a logic of state intervention in public discourse and social order, structural aspects
like emergency powers, and a role in fostering capitalist production relations. However, the
Indian state also reflects national aspirations and democratic ideals forged during the freedom
movement. Democracy in India expanded beyond mere electoral processes to encompass
concerns for public welfare and contestability of competing ideological and material claims.
Despite challenges, such as state repression, the practice of politics continued to prioritize
societal struggles. Thus, the Indian state emerged as a complex amalgamation of colonial
legacies and democratic aspirations, shaping its post-Independence trajectory and practices.

STATE IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The nature of the state outlined in the Indian Constitution and the circumstances surrounding its
drafting. It suggests that the Constitution primarily focuses on practical governance rather than
articulating a cohesive theory of the state. The lack of extensive theoretical discussions among
the founding fathers, coupled with their emphasis on writing a constitution for a free India, led
to a spirit of compromise prevailing over ideological debates in the Constituent Assembly. This
approach resulted in a certain tentativeness in understanding the conception of the state within
the Constitution. Additionally, figures like Jayaprakash Narayan and Jawaharlal Nehru noted
the absence of revolutionary fervor and the prevalence of compromise during the Assembly's
debates. Nehru, in particular, highlighted the desire to avoid controversy and emphasized the
importance of focusing on the substantive content rather than theoretical labels.
Consequently, the passage suggests that understanding the type of state emerging from the
Constitution requires delving into its practical contents rather than relying solely on
theoretical frameworks.

OVERLAPPING CONCEPTIONS OF STATE

The complexities and debates surrounding the foundational principles of the Indian state,
particularly regarding democracy, welfare, and state intervention. It begins by highlighting the
shared aspirations of the Constituent Assembly members for a democratic and welfare-
oriented state, as articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. However, it points out divergent
interpretations of these concepts, with some emphasizing individual freedoms within
democracy, while others, like Ambedkar, advocated for the state to actively promote social
justice. The discussion contrasts the liberal-socialist perspective of Minoo Masani, who
prioritized individual liberties, with Ambedkar's vision of the state as an agent of societal change
and justice. This tension is reflected in the Constitution's blend of liberal-democratic and
welfare-oriented principles. Despite differing views, there was consensus on the need for state
intervention to address social inequalities and economic disparities. However, the scope and
nature of such intervention remained ambiguous, with varying degrees of emphasis on social
reform and economic development. Ultimately, the passage underscores the ongoing tension
between these overlapping yet distinct conceptions of the state's role as a catalyst for both
social transformation and economic progress within the framework of democracy and welfare.

THE NEHRUVIAN STATE

The conception and evolution of the Indian state, often referred to as the 'Nehruvian state',
which was deeply entrenched in the principles outlined in the Indian Constitution. Despite its
association with Nehru's leadership, this state model garnered significant support from key
figures like Patel and Ambedkar, who shared a vision of a modern, interventionist state
prioritizing economic development and secular democracy. This state model aimed at fostering
a strong, united nation-state, underpinned by secularism, the rule of law, and equal opportunity.
The Constitution endowed the state with directives to promote economic development
through planning and intervention, particularly in industrialization. However, it also displayed
a nuanced approach towards land reforms, distinguishing between agrarian and industrial
sectors. Critiques of the Indian state, from figures like Kothari and Nandy, often highlight its
interventionist tendencies, whether repressive or reformist, but the passage underscores the
importance of scrutinizing the constitutional conception of the state itself rather than merely
focusing on deviations from it. It suggests that debates about the Indian state should
interrogate its foundational principles, especially in light of economic liberalization efforts
since the 1990s, which are seen by some as a departure from the Constitution's interventionist
ethos towards a more pragmatic economic approach. Thus, the passage underscores the need
to critically examine the constitutional underpinnings of the Indian state to understand its
contemporary practices and challenges.

NEUTRALITY-INSTRUMENTALITY
The concept of the state's neutrality and its role as an instrument of change and development
within the Indian context. It begins by arguing that the state is perceived as neutral because it is
viewed as external to society, capable of adjudicating conflicts impartially. This neutrality is
reinforced by the democratic notion that the state is created by the people and represents
their will. Consequently, the state is seen as embodying the 'nation' and catering to the
interests of all. The passage then discusses how this neutrality enables the state to act as an
instrument for effecting development, welfare, and social reform. It can prioritize certain
objectives, such as industrialization or social justice, and employ state power to overcome
opposition and legitimize change. Furthermore, the passage suggests that society may lack the
capacity for development, requiring the state to intervene and allocate resources for specific
developmental purposes. Despite this interventionist role, the passage contends that the
Indian Constitution primarily envisions a neutral state, with provisions for social change
serving as enabling rather than obligatory measures. This balance between neutrality and
instrumentality is maintained to ensure that the state acts rationally and impartially, even in
matters of social change and the restriction of individual rights.

STATE AS FIELD OF CONTESTATION

The complex relationship between the Indian state and civil society, emphasizing the tension
between the state's neutrality and its instrumentality. It suggests that while the idea of a
neutral state elevated above societal biases aims to ensure democratic governance, the reality
often diverges. The state's interventions in civil society, particularly in matters like land
reforms and social legislation, reveal its struggle to balance neutrality with active
engagement. Furthermore, the state's actions are influenced not only by constitutional
principles but also by societal contestations, leadership dynamics, and democratic pressures.
Thus, the state emerges as a battleground shaped by competing societal forces, rather than
merely an extension of civil society. This dynamic interaction between the state and civil society
highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of the state's role and its response to societal
struggles. The passage calls for a deeper exploration of the radical potential within
constitutional discourse, acknowledging the state's centrality in negotiating diverse
interpretations of public interest amidst social divisions and competing interests.

RADICAL POSSIBILITIES
The radical possibilities inherent in reinterpreting the Indian Constitution's framework of
neutrality and instrumentality as a means to critique state practices. It suggests that the
Constitution's conception of the state is not fixed but subject to social contestations, allowing
for a critique of state actions based on both neutrality and instrumentality. Neutrality serves
as a safeguard against the state's inclination towards privileged sections, while
instrumentality provides a basis for critiquing state policies. The discourse further examines
historical debates surrounding constitutional principles like Fundamental Rights and
parliamentary supremacy, highlighting their ideological nature and manipulation by political
actors. It points out how amendments during Nehru-Indira Gandhi's era emphasized the
state's instrumentality for capitalist development, leading to a consolidation of this
conception in the 1970s. However, despite the state's strengthening coercive powers, it fails to
prioritize the welfare of the underprivileged. This prompts a dual critique of state practices:
favoring the privileged and neglecting the underprivileged. Ultimately, it argues for redefining
the source of the Indian state's authority, emphasizing the need to critically examine the
notion of 'the people' it claims to represent, which historically has been problematic due to its
lack of mediation.
 HOW WELFARE WINS: DISCURSIVE INSTITUTIONALISM, THE POLITICS OF
THE POOR, AND THE EXPANSION OF SOCIAL WELFARE IN INDIA DURING THE
EARLY 21ST CENTURY

The abstract outlines a study that investigates the significant expansion of social welfare in India during
the early 2000s, termed as the "quiet revolution" of our time. The key question addressed is why this
expansion occurred, especially considering India's history of fragmented social policies. The argument
posited revolves around the concept of the "politics of the poor," which encompasses both electoral
participation and contentious politics within India's political institutions. By integrating insights from
discursive institutionalism, Indian politics, and welfare literature, the study aims to understand how the
political practices of poor people influenced India's lawmakers to enact the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act, a flagship social welfare program. This analysis involves examining
parliamentary debates in English and Hindi, alongside tracing electoral behavior among India's poor
and considering the Maoist insurgency in the country's poorest districts. Overall, the study seeks to
elucidate the intricate interplay between political dynamics, public discourse, and policy outcomes in
India's social welfare expansion.

Alternative explanations for the expansion and consolidation of social welfare policies, particularly
focusing on India. It begins by acknowledging the argument that the "politics of the poor" played a
significant role in driving the expansion of social welfare in India. However, it suggests considering
alternative explanations to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

1. Diffusionist Factors: These explanations highlight how policy innovations spread globally, often
originating from multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank. However, it's argued
that characterizing countries like India as mere "policy-takers" oversimplifies the dynamics.
India has significant policy autonomy, and decisions are influenced by domestic political
considerations rather than just external pressures.

2. Structuralist Factors: This perspective emphasizes economic and demographic conditions as

drivers of social welfare expansion. While economic changes like liberalization may create social
dislocation, they don't fully explain why political elites choose to adopt social protections.
Simply put, economic transformations don't directly translate into welfare policies without
political decisions.

3. Institutionalist Factors: These explanations focus on the role of state institutions in welfare
expansion. While they shed light on how federalism and courts can influence social policies,
they may overlook broader political factors shaping welfare decisions. Institutional factors
alone can't fully account for the complexities of welfare expansion.

4. Mobilizational Factors: This perspective emphasizes popular mobilizations and social

movements in pushing for social welfare. While these movements certainly play a role, they may
not capture the full spectrum of political dynamics, especially considering the intertwined
nature of electoral politics and social movements.

Overall, the content argues that while each perspective offers valuable insights, none provide a
complete explanation on their own. Instead, a nuanced understanding requires considering the
interplay of political, economic, and social factors. In the Indian context, for instance, while economic
changes and social movements may create conditions conducive to welfare expansion, political
decisions and electoral considerations ultimately drive policy choices.
 ASYMMETRIC FEDERALISM AND THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE
IN NORTHEAST INDIA

The article explores the concept of asymmetric federalism, particularly focusing on its application in
northeast India, with a specific examination of Nagaland's special status under Article 371A of the Indian
Constitution. Drawing on the work of scholars like Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne I. Rudolph, it
investigates how this form of federalism contributes to India's state-nation building, enhances
democracy, and extends democratic justice in a region where loyalty to the Indian state is sometimes
tenuous.

Contrary to traditional views of state formation emphasizing monistic sovereignty, the article adopts
Rudolphs' perspective, which sees federalism as a negotiated and shared sovereignty process. It argues
that Article 371A serves as an innovative institution that empowers the Nagas in various aspects of
governance, including religious practices, customary laws, and land ownership. Despite this asymmetry,
recent incidents, such as the central government's intervention in Nagaland's petroleum and natural
gas regulation, raise questions about the limits of this constitutional arrangement and its implications
for democratic justice.

The article proceeds to address the deficiencies in existing literature regarding asymmetric federalism in
northeast India. It contends that Article 371A emerged as a response to the failure of earlier provisions
like the Sixth Schedule to accommodate Naga nationalist aspirations due to underlying meta-narrative
dissensus. This dissensus reflects conflicting narratives on democracy and sovereignty, complicating
efforts to negotiate Naga claims within a federal framework.

The discussion further explores Naga exceptionalism, negotiated sovereignty, and the quest for
democratic justice under Article 371A. It highlights the challenges and opportunities arising from this
constitutional arrangement, including the need for robust power-sharing mechanisms and greater
inclusivity among Naga tribes and women.

The conclusion emphasizes the evolving nature of asymmetric federalism and the imperative for
adaptive governance in response to internal diversities and external pressures. It advocates for a more
inclusive and flexible approach to federal arrangements, emphasizing democratic deliberation and
pragmatic engagement to address complex socio-political realities effectively.
 “ONE NATION,” BJP, AND THE FUTURE OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

The content discusses significant political developments in India, particularly following the reelection of
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in 2019 and their implications for federalism:

1. Policy Shifts Towards Centralization: The essay begins by highlighting the BJP government's
moves towards centralization, evident in the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir
and the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. These actions reflect a broader trend
towards centralizing power across political, administrative, and fiscal domains.

2. Impact on Federalism: The BJP's approach to federalism has evolved alongside changes in the
party system. Initially, when the BJP first came to power in the late 1990s, it governed within a
coalition government and adopted a more accommodative stance towards regional diversity.
However, with the consolidation of single-party dominance under the BJP, there's been a shift
towards a more unitary approach to federalism.

3. Tension with Fiscal Decentralization: The content also highlights tension between the BJP's
centralizing agenda and the trajectory of fiscal decentralization. While the party pushes for
centralization in various policy areas, there's an ongoing trend towards decentralization in
fiscal matters. This tension poses challenges to the practice of federalism in India.

4. Implications for the Future: The consolidation of single-party dominance under the BJP is
expected to have significant implications for the practice and ideology of federalism in India. As
the BJP asserts more central control, it may reshape the dynamics of federalism in the
country, potentially leading to a more unitary form of governance despite the federal
structure enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

In essence, the content discusses how the reelection of the BJP government in 2019 has accelerated
centralization efforts and reshaped the practice of federalism in India, posing challenges and
implications for the future governance of the country.
 THE WORKING OF COOPERATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE FEDERALISM IN
INDIA: UNDERSTANDING INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

The content discusses the dynamics of intergovernmental relations (IGR) within a federal system, with a
focus on India's federal democracy. Here's a breakdown of the main points:

1. Nature of Federal Constitution: Federal constitutions involve multiple levels of government with
exclusive and concurrent powers. Union-state coordination is crucial for policymaking in
shared domains, as well as for implementing centrally sponsored schemes and addressing
emerging policy areas.

2. COVID-19 Pandemic and Federal Response: The COVID-19 pandemic has tested federal systems
globally, including India's. Effective coordination between the union and states is vital in
managing the crisis. While India has shown efforts towards cooperative federalism, there have
been challenges and instances of disagreement in implementing central policies and
addressing issues like relief measures and healthcare provision.

3. Assessment of Indian Federalism: Despite its shortcomings, Indian federalism, including

intergovernmental relations, is considered generally functional and successful. There's room
for improvement, particularly in achieving a better balance between shared rule and self-rule,
and in enhancing political decentralization.

4. Future Directions of Indian IGR: There are divergent views on the future of intergovernmental
relations in India. Some argue for a shrinking role of the union government due to neoliberal
economic reforms, leading to greater reliance on state resources. Others highlight challenges
posed by capitalist globalization, raising concerns about growing disparities and the potential
erosion of welfare priorities.

5. Outlook for Indian IGR: Despite these challenges, the expectation is that Indian
intergovernmental relations will continue to operate within the framework of the
accommodative federal democracy outlined in the Constitution. Adjustments may be
necessary to address evolving political ideologies and governance dilemmas.

In essence, the content emphasizes the importance of effective coordination between the union and
states, explores the successes and challenges of Indian federalism, and discusses potential future
directions for intergovernmental relations within the country.
 UNITED IN DIVERSITY

This article examines the concept of constitutional asymmetry in federal systems, focusing on India's
federal structure. While India is often described as asymmetrically federal due to special provisions for
Kashmir and the status of small states in the north-east, the article challenges the notion that such
asymmetry is not crucial for India's unity or provides special protection for cultural or national
minorities.

The analysis reveals that while India does exhibit de facto asymmetry, formal constitutional powers
granted to individual states haven't been pivotal for maintaining India's cohesion. Moreover,
asymmetry hasn't led to significant safeguards for cultural minorities, contrary to normative political
philosophy, particularly influenced by debates in Canada and Spain.

Specifically, the article notes that although India's constitution acknowledges some degree of
asymmetry, particularly in the case of Jammu and Kashmir and the tribally dominated states of the
north-east, this hasn't been decisive for national unity or minority rights protection. The exceptions lie
in certain constitutional provisions for tribal communities in the north-east, but these aren't
representative of the broader federal mindset.

The linguistic reorganization of states in India accommodated linguistic differences but didn't provide
differential protection for regional languages or create coherent ethnic or cultural federal sub-units.
Unlike Canada, where linguistic and religious identities largely align within regions like Quebec, India's
diverse ethnic identities tend to intersect rather than compound.

Furthermore, an overemphasis on asymmetry in India's federal discourse risks sidelining other factors
like historical inheritance and nationalist unity. The early nationalist movement, exemplified by figures
like Jawaharlal Nehru, emphasized India's heterogeneous yet united identity. Indian public culture,
characterized by an open and blurred definition of self, accommodates diverse identities, albeit with
conflicts.

While asymmetry hasn't played a crucial role in India's cohesion historically, the article acknowledges its
potential significance in resolving the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. However, any asymmetrical
solution there would require careful consideration, given the region's unique internationalized status
and the need to balance recognition of distinct status within the Union with acknowledgment of past
grievances. This suggests a need for cautious exploration of new constitutional waters within the Indian
federation.