Decoding World’s Largest Democracy

How might India, with its projected 7.5% economic growth in 2024, leverage its influence to lead and shape democratic values globally? 

India's remarkable economic growth story is a result of removing decades-long hindrances rather than a sudden miracle. Both Congress and the BJP have played roles in this trajectory by progressively eliminating policies that stunted growth. It's essential to recognise that growth in India is not propelled by any single government but by the collective efforts of its people and society at large. The primary role of the government now is to ensure it doesn't hinder this growth, a sentiment shared across the political spectrum in India today.

Looking ahead to 2035, India's GDP per capita and overall GDP are projected to align closely with China's current status. While some perceive India as significantly behind China in terms of prosperity, it's crucial to acknowledge that India has consistently trailed China by about 10 to 12 years in its growth trajectory. This relatively short gap in the grand scheme of things indicates that India is on a steady path to catch up. By 2035, India's economic influence is expected to surpass its current status significantly. Unlike China, which presents a repressive governance model, India's democracy and freedom serve as attractive models for others to emulate. This attractiveness will likely elevate India's global influence to rival even that of the European Union, positioning it as a model for developing nations.

What role do you see India playing in the broader global democratic landscape?

As we project into the mid-2030s, India's potential as a 'Vishwa Guru' or a global leader becomes increasingly evident. Its economic power, combined with a democratic and free governance model, is set to make it the most influential country outside of the US-EU nexus. Developing nations, such as Ethiopia, Uganda, Cambodia, and Bolivia, will likely shift their focus from emulating China's model to looking toward India's path of democratic development. India's future influence will stem from its economic might and also its governance approach, making it an inspiration for the world.

How does Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership and India's diverse culture, economic growth, and evolving global role set its democracy apart from others?

India's democracy stands out not because of its institutions or leaders, but because of its people and society. Unlike other democracies, India's electorate is diverse and deeply rooted in its rich cultural and religious traditions. I know many Indians are fanatically devoted to Narendra Modi. He's a very successful politician, but in the end, he's no more or less a man than any other man. India's GDP per capita, at around $2,400 a year, sets a unique context for its democracy, distinct from countries like Germany or the United States where GDP per capita is significantly higher.

Elections in India are not just about transferring power; they are a reflection of the values and beliefs of its people. Religious faith, for instance, plays a significant role in Indian elections, with discussions around how leaders like Modi unite or leverage Hinduism for political gain. This dynamic is not simply due to a leader's strategies but also because of the electorate's deeply ingrained religious identity. In contrast, countries like Australia or the United States, with their post-religious societies, have different electoral issues and priorities.

When Modi speaks of "Ram Rajya" or uses religious imagery, it's not about claiming divine status but about connecting with a society where religious narratives are widely understood. In a society where more than 90% of people pray daily, these symbols resonate deeply. Western political analysts may perceive this as fundamentalist, but in the Indian context, it's a reflection of the cultural fabric. Modi isn't shaping a new India; he's navigating the complexities of a society deeply rooted in its traditions and beliefs.

How does India's Aadhaar system, empowering citizens with access to government subsidies and services, differ from China's Social Credit System, which penalises behaviour and compliance?

The Varieties of Democracy Institute in Sweden made a puzzling claim, equating India and China as both types of autocracies. This, however, is a misrepresentation of India’s' characters. Let's take a closer look at India's Aadhaar system as an example. Initially conceived by the previous Congress-led government and later implemented nationwide by the BJP-led government, Aadhaar faced its fair share of fears and allegations. Despite this, there has been a bipartisan consensus on its creation.

Now, consider how the Aadhaar system operates in India compared to China's national identification system. In China, where true autocracy reigns, your national ID card can dictate your daily life. If you fall out of favour with the government, they can mark your ID number, restricting your ability to travel, bank, or even post on social media. It's a tool for political control. In India, however, Aadhaar tells a different story. While having an Aadhaar number can make purchasing a train ticket easier, it's not used as a tool for political repression. Instead, Aadhaar facilitates direct benefits transfer, improves health records, and reduces corruption. In essence, it's not the technology of having a national ID number system that sets India apart from China, as both countries have such systems. It's the way the system is used. India's democratic institutions shape how Aadhaar is utilised, much like how a social security number functions in the US. So, while Aadhaar may seem similar to China's system on the surface, its actual role in society reflects the differences between India's democracy and China's autocracy.

Congratulations on your upcoming book on Indian Democracy! What inspired it, and could you share some excerpts?

I'm a bit embarrassed to say that congratulations on the upcoming book are a bit premature. I'm quite behind on my writing, and I do apologise for that. However, many people are eager to read the book, and I'm truly grateful for their interest. The main question I set out to answer with this book has puzzled political scientists for the past 25 years or so: How has India managed to remain a democracy despite its relatively low income levels? When we consider major postcolonial states, aside from a few small island nations whose democracies we might question due to limited study, India stands out as the only one. It is the only poor country to have maintained a democracy for a minimum of four decades. This is a fascinating intellectual puzzle: Why India and not these others? 

Some theories, such as British heritage, don't hold up under scrutiny. The argument that India's democracy stems from its British colonial past doesn't quite explain why Pakistan and Bangladesh, which share similar colonial histories, haven't had the same democratic success. So, I began to focus on Indian society itself, particularly the role of Hindu civil society. Civil society has been a key topic in political science, and the idea is that a horizontally organised civil society, where people are connected across society, promotes democracy. On the contrary, a vertically organised civil society, where people are connected in a top-down hierarchy, tends to undermine democracy. 

When we apply this theory to India, we see something interesting: India's civil society, primarily based on Hinduism, is surprisingly horizontal. While Western societies often associate religion with hierarchy, in India, the Hindu faith isn't organised in a strict hierarchy. Historically, Brahmins served as priests across multiple temples, cutting across various sects. Then, in the 19th century, Hindu reform movements like the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj further bridged the gaps between different Hindu groups. 

During the emergency in the mid-1970s, organisations like the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) played a crucial role. Despite debates on the RSS's democratic nature, its horizontal organisation of Hindu civil society provided a strong foundation for democracy during a challenging time. Organisations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), often labelled anti-democratic, contributed to this horizontal network. So, when India faced a potential dictator during the emergency, civil society was connected and able to resist. This strength of society, primarily rooted in the horizontal linkages within Hindu civil society, is why democracy in India survived. And that's the core thesis of my book. 

How does the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) demonstrate India's commitment to supporting persecuted communities and promoting inclusivity within its democratic framework, considering the recent grant of citizenship to thousands of individuals from neighbouring countries?

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), first introduced in 2019, is a compassionate and long-overdue step to address the serious issues faced by refugees. It acknowledges the reality that Sikhs cannot be sent back to Afghanistan, Hindus to Pakistan, or Christians to Bangladesh, as these countries systematically discriminate against their non-Muslim minorities. However, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chose to delay the implementation of the CAA until just before the 2024 elections. This timing, using a humanitarian law for political gain, seems inappropriate. The law itself is positive, but its manipulation for political motives raises concerns.

On another note, it's worth mentioning the Uniform Civil Code, a law promoted by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for decades. Initially driven by a sense of unfairness rather than a genuine desire to empower Muslim women, the Uniform Civil Code is still a necessary step forward. Despite its controversial implementation timing, credit is due to India for enacting beneficial laws, even if the motives behind them are less than ideal.

Moving to the perception of Muslims in India, it's essential to consider the context of Muslim in-migration and out-migration. Despite the discourse on Muslim repression in India, the country sees strong Muslim in-migration and very little out-migration. Survey data reveals that the vast majority of Indian Muslims are proud to be Indian, with over 98% expressing this sentiment. However, fewer than 10% report facing discrimination. This contrast raises questions about the widespread perception of Muslim repression. When we observe Muslims migrating from Bangladesh to India, it's not necessarily for higher incomes since both countries have similar GDP per capita. The reasons likely include factors such as freedom, opportunity, and possibly family ties, indicating that India offers a more favourable environment for Bengali Muslims.

How does India's diverse and culturally vibrant democracy stand out amidst global trends of fragmentation?

India's democracy isn't a direct continuation of ancient governance systems, contrary to what some might assume. While many countries try to connect their modern systems to ancient origins, such as America's Capitol building resembling a Greek temple, India's modern democracy is more closely linked to Western models. The founding fathers and mothers of India's democracy looked to examples like the United States and Western European democracies in the early 20th century. B.R. Ambedkar, considered the father of the Indian constitution, was influenced by his studies in the U.S., shaping India's democratic institutions.

Suppose we delve into the constituent assembly debates. In that case, we find discussions on whether India should have a powerful House of Commons like the UK or a Senate like the U.S., and whether it should be unitary like France or federal like America. These are the practical questions that shaped modern Indian democracy's structure. So, while ancient Indian democratic precedents are occasionally mentioned in these debates, they were not the driving force behind the institutions we see today. Instead, it's the American and Western models that form the backbone of India's democratic framework.

However, the electorate in India brings their ancient Hindu values into their democratic choices. The values from texts like the Bhagavad Gita influence how people vote and perceive their political leaders. While these values don't determine the fundamental institutions of Indian democracy, they certainly affect its content, orientation, and outcomes. The rich cultural heritage of India, including its Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain faiths, adds layers of depth to the democratic process. But it's important to recognise that modern India is a modern country, not a direct continuation of ancient civilizations.

When we talk about India's ancient cultural heritage, it's essential to question which India we mean. The ancient Hindu cultural area extended far beyond modern Indian borders, encompassing regions from Iran to Bali. So, if we talk about India's civilizational heritage, other countries like Myanmar or even Bangladesh can claim a connection. If history had taken different turns, with more successful Muslim conquests resulting in a Muslim-majority India like Pakistan or Bangladesh, would we still see the same heritage? It's a thought-provoking question that highlights the complexities of India's cultural and historical tapestry.

What does India's rise in the global democracy index, from 46th to 41st in 2023 with an increased score from 6.61 to 7.18, signify for its democratic evolution and international standing?

In the maze of global democracy rankings, India's recent move from 46th to 41st place on the Economist Intelligence Unit's scale since 2020 might seem like statistical noise. Yet, this shift needs a wider lens, considering a significant dip in India's rank from 2010 to 2020. Since 2014, with Mr Narendra Modi and the BJP in power, these indices have painted India's democracy as in flux, with assessments of decline. However, looking closer, these rankings reveal methodological flaws, vulnerable to biases that not only slip in but are magnified in their design. As someone versed in international indices and their challenges, I've closely examined these rankings and found them lacking robustness, raising doubts about their reliability. While noting India's modest climb in the ranking, it's crucial to tread cautiously with these numbers, recognising them as just one part of a complex picture. 

How do you interpret India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar's call for nations like the US and Germany, as well as international bodies, to respect India's due process of law and sovereignty regarding the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal?

Let's get this straight: when the Indian Ministry of External Affairs talks about someone like Donald Trump facing legal issues in the US, they don't say, "We hope the US respects the rule of law for Trump." It's just not something India or Germany or any other country does for the US. But when it comes to India, it seems like richer nations feel they can comment on internal matters. It's a leftover from colonial times, and it's something poorer countries have to deal with. Dr Jaishankar, a popular politician, often reacts strongly to foreign criticism of India. He's not alone in this—think of Putin or China's leaders. They all say, "How dare you criticise our country?" By doing this, India kind of aligns itself with these regimes. A better response might be to explain India's legal process. Show the facts, like how long it takes for a case to go through, and assure everyone that Kejriwal will be treated like anyone else in India. This could help maintain India's democratic reputation globally. Now, I'm not the Foreign Affairs Minister, so it's not my call. India has the right to defend its internal affairs, but it might be smart to also explain them to others, even if it feels unfair.

What impact do you foresee the 2024 Lok Sabha elections having on India's democratic future, given its diverse political landscape and evolving voter dynamics?

The upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections carry immense significance, not just for India's political landscape but for its democratic future. One key observation is the need for opposition parties to modernise. The BJP's success in past elections, notably in 2014 and 2019, was attributed to its adept use of modern campaign tactics, from social media to meticulous organisation akin to a marketing strategy. In contrast, the Congress party, and many caste-based parties, have been criticised for clinging to outdated governance models, including dynastic politics. The 2024 elections could catalyse change, urging opposition parties to embrace modern methods and present a stronger challenge to the BJP.

However, the resistance to change within traditional parties, particularly Congress, has been evident. Despite the lessons from past defeats, there seems to be a reluctance to let go of family-centric leadership models. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), initially showing promise as a modern opposition, has also faced criticism for centralising power, contradicting its initial ethos. The 2024 election, if the BJP secures a significant victory as expected, may be a wake-up call for these parties to shed old ways and embrace a more forward-thinking approach to politics.

In the broader context of Indian democracy, a robust opposition is essential for a healthy political system. Regardless of personal preferences, a single-party dominance can lead to complacency and stagnation. The hope is that the 2024 elections will spur a rejuvenation of the opposition, pushing for modernisation and innovation in political strategies. This, in turn, would not only ensure a more competitive political landscape but also enhance the accountability and dynamism of India's democratic institutions.