What do you think?
Rate this book
The Burden of Democracy
Positing the quest for self-respect as democracy's deepest aspiration, this essay explores how inequality and the crisis of accountability have together impeded collective action to achieve such an end. To recover the sense of moral well being and responsibility, the author suggests, is the core of the democratic challenge before India.
After nearly seven decades of its existence, there is a pervasive feeling that India's democracy is in crisis. But what is the nature of this threat? In this essay, republished now with a new foreword from the author, Pratap Bhanu Mehta reminds us what a bold experiment bringing democracy to a largely illiterate and unpropertied India was. He argues that the sphere of politics has truly created opportunities for people to participate in society. Looking at various facts, he also finds that persistent social inequality on the one hand and a mistaken view of the state's proper function and organisation on the other have modified and hindered the workings of democracy and its effects in innumerable ways. Posting the quest for self-respect as democracy's deepest aspiration, this essay explores how inequality and the crisis of accountability have together impeded collective action to achieve such an end. To recover this sense of moral well-being and responsibility, Mehta suggests, is the core of the democratic challenge before us.
Optimistic, lively and closely argued, The Burden of Democracy offers a new ideological imagination that throws light on our discontents. By returning to the basics of democracy it serves to illuminate our predicament, even while perceiving the broad contours for change.
After nearly seven decades of its existence, there is a pervasive feeling that India's democracy is in crisis. But what is the nature of this threat? In this essay, republished now with a new foreword from the author, Pratap Bhanu Mehta reminds us what a bold experiment bringing democracy to a largely illiterate and unpropertied India was. He argues that the sphere of politics has truly created opportunities for people to participate in society. Looking at various facts, he also finds that persistent social inequality on the one hand and a mistaken view of the state's proper function and organisation on the other have modified and hindered the workings of democracy and its effects in innumerable ways. Posting the quest for self-respect as democracy's deepest aspiration, this essay explores how inequality and the crisis of accountability have together impeded collective action to achieve such an end. To recover this sense of moral well-being and responsibility, Mehta suggests, is the core of the democratic challenge before us.
Optimistic, lively and closely argued, The Burden of Democracy offers a new ideological imagination that throws light on our discontents. By returning to the basics of democracy it serves to illuminate our predicament, even while perceiving the broad contours for change.
192 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
63 people are currently reading
1195 people want to read
About the author
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
13 books69 followersPratap Bhanu Mehta is President, Centre Policy Research, New Delhi, one of India's top think tanks. Before he started engaging with contemporary affairs, he taught political theory at Harvard, and briefly at JNU.
He has written extensively on intellectual history, political theory, law, India's social transformation and world affairs. He writes regularly for the Indian Express. He is the recipient of the Infosys Prize, the Adisheshiah Prize and the Amartya Sen Prize.
He believes the purpose of writing is to provoke thinking not to provide instruction.
Source: http://indianexpress.com/profile/colu...
He has written extensively on intellectual history, political theory, law, India's social transformation and world affairs. He writes regularly for the Indian Express. He is the recipient of the Infosys Prize, the Adisheshiah Prize and the Amartya Sen Prize.
He believes the purpose of writing is to provoke thinking not to provide instruction.
Source: http://indianexpress.com/profile/colu...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
June 16, 2020
In 1947, Indian democracy came into existence, the most radical change the subcontinent had ever experienced. This brought with it a lot of hope and optimism but also many challenges. One of the biggest challenges being the inheritance of a largely inegalitarian society. Indian experience of democracy has been different from other mature democracies in the sense that Indian society experienced political revolution before undergoing a social revolution. The inheritance and persistence of a deeply unequal society, according to the author has been the achilles heel of Indian democracy.
An insightful analysis that wrestles with many pertinent issue that plague our democracy. Mehta, in this very intense study of Indian democracy examines the Indian psyche, both at an individual and collective level. He argues that the persistence of these multiple interests groups(castes, communities, economic groups, etc) and the failure of our politics to instill a truly democratic culture has prevented and continues to prevent India from realising its full potential. In the process he criticizes Congress For it's inability to use it's early influence by using the state to bring about truly lasting changes and also for consequently creating a statist culture, while also warning us of the possible threat of Hindu nationalism(well, we all know how that ends). For a society that constitutes multiple interest groups constantly competing amongst themselves for power and resources, formation of a common ideology and vision is constantly lacking.
The author explores this theme and it's effects on our social interactions as well as our interactions with the state. Mehta, has managed to compress his analysis of individual, society, state and politics in this essay. It would be interesting to read a follow up that analyses these issues in the light of the massive developments in the Indian political scene i.e the rise of Hindu nationalism.
An insightful analysis that wrestles with many pertinent issue that plague our democracy. Mehta, in this very intense study of Indian democracy examines the Indian psyche, both at an individual and collective level. He argues that the persistence of these multiple interests groups(castes, communities, economic groups, etc) and the failure of our politics to instill a truly democratic culture has prevented and continues to prevent India from realising its full potential. In the process he criticizes Congress For it's inability to use it's early influence by using the state to bring about truly lasting changes and also for consequently creating a statist culture, while also warning us of the possible threat of Hindu nationalism(well, we all know how that ends). For a society that constitutes multiple interest groups constantly competing amongst themselves for power and resources, formation of a common ideology and vision is constantly lacking.
The author explores this theme and it's effects on our social interactions as well as our interactions with the state. Mehta, has managed to compress his analysis of individual, society, state and politics in this essay. It would be interesting to read a follow up that analyses these issues in the light of the massive developments in the Indian political scene i.e the rise of Hindu nationalism.
December 13, 2014
An excellent read. Very thought provoking, beautifully written, convincingly argued, and meticulously dealt with the subject in hand. It illustrated in great depth the aspects in which the Indian society is lagging and the reasons which are preventing us from making the best use of our political system.
Every Indian is bound to despair reading the utter chaos the politics is going through, and has always gone through for that matter. This short essay to a great extent explains the probable cause of this chaos which is very hard to think of otherwise. The inequality embedded in our society which forms an integral part of our personality and shapes the image we see in the mirror, the author argues, is deciding the course our democracy is taking. The main driving force for all the nuisance we see around us, is the quest for identity -- which in India is synonymous to power. Power politics, minority appeasement proposals, developmental schemes which look perfect on paper but never see the light of the day are in part because of the same problem. Politicians exploit this fact and fill their vote banks.
The problems faced by the political parties are also lavishly explained which all made perfect sense.
I have always been in a turmoil as to which of the two- left or the right appeal to me as a better system of government. But the discussion on the topic in this book has been the most productive out of the lot. The author rightly points out the drawbacks and merits of both the ideologies and leaves it to the reader to make his choice.
The book may not provide the answers to some of the most tough questions staring at us, but it surely does provide the reader with the tools that are inevitably required in order to reach some solution.
A super satirical line which I was greatly amused to read regarding the pre reform economy of India is as follows -
"India runs perfect markets and states: the only trouble is we run a market like a state, and state like a market."
One can find very amusing (and sad, beyond doubt) one-liners in the book!!
Every Indian is bound to despair reading the utter chaos the politics is going through, and has always gone through for that matter. This short essay to a great extent explains the probable cause of this chaos which is very hard to think of otherwise. The inequality embedded in our society which forms an integral part of our personality and shapes the image we see in the mirror, the author argues, is deciding the course our democracy is taking. The main driving force for all the nuisance we see around us, is the quest for identity -- which in India is synonymous to power. Power politics, minority appeasement proposals, developmental schemes which look perfect on paper but never see the light of the day are in part because of the same problem. Politicians exploit this fact and fill their vote banks.
The problems faced by the political parties are also lavishly explained which all made perfect sense.
I have always been in a turmoil as to which of the two- left or the right appeal to me as a better system of government. But the discussion on the topic in this book has been the most productive out of the lot. The author rightly points out the drawbacks and merits of both the ideologies and leaves it to the reader to make his choice.
The book may not provide the answers to some of the most tough questions staring at us, but it surely does provide the reader with the tools that are inevitably required in order to reach some solution.
A super satirical line which I was greatly amused to read regarding the pre reform economy of India is as follows -
"India runs perfect markets and states: the only trouble is we run a market like a state, and state like a market."
One can find very amusing (and sad, beyond doubt) one-liners in the book!!
January 30, 2018
I (the author) asked a Japanese businessman with considerable interests in India - Why India was not a more attractive destination for investment, why the Indian economy was not doing better and so on. The answer he gave was surprising. Government controls, bad labour laws, poor infrastructure were all an impediment to the growth, as we all know. But he suggested that in the final analysis, the Achilles heel of Indian industry was going to be the quality of human relationships. He did not mean just the obvious fact that managers and labour are probably extremely socially distant. But more surprisingly, he argued, it was the quality of relations within the managerial hierarchy, where he had the distinct impression that if you scratch the top, you will find more energies devoted to undercutting each other, than to thinking collectively and over the long run. The acuteness of status competition overrides the professional imperatives of strategic thinking. There can be little unity of purpose without underlying social reciprocity."
Last year I read Francis Fukuyama's famous The End of History and the Last Man, that talked at length about the role of dignity/self-esteem in society and politics. PB Mehta independently, presents an excellent theory of why India's society and politics is the way it is - Why do Indians lack civic sense ? Why are we Indians an extremely envious people ? Why is identity politics so strong in India ? Why is our politics so short-sighted ? by putting social inequality and social distance at the core of the problems. And it fits in wonderfully well. I just wish this book were longer and the author explored solutions too.
When I pick up a really short book (<150) pages I feel some guilt that maybe I am picking it up just to increase my book-count. Add to that my impression that PB Mehta's language is not lucid and takes some effort. And unfortunately this delayed my reading this gem of a 100-page book by one of our finest intellectuals. I hope you dont make the same mistake. Go for it !
Last year I read Francis Fukuyama's famous The End of History and the Last Man, that talked at length about the role of dignity/self-esteem in society and politics. PB Mehta independently, presents an excellent theory of why India's society and politics is the way it is - Why do Indians lack civic sense ? Why are we Indians an extremely envious people ? Why is identity politics so strong in India ? Why is our politics so short-sighted ? by putting social inequality and social distance at the core of the problems. And it fits in wonderfully well. I just wish this book were longer and the author explored solutions too.
When I pick up a really short book (<150) pages I feel some guilt that maybe I am picking it up just to increase my book-count. Add to that my impression that PB Mehta's language is not lucid and takes some effort. And unfortunately this delayed my reading this gem of a 100-page book by one of our finest intellectuals. I hope you dont make the same mistake. Go for it !
May 1, 2023
The reference to the Indian democracy evokes a mixed emotion amongst many of us. At one end is a thriving ‘democratic mobilization’ democracy best explained through the prism of the 5-yearly electoral cycle and image of a 90-100 year old Indian citizen coming to the book on the back of her young grandson, eager to have her say in the functioning of the nation. At the other end is a sort of feeing that while the political mobilization is thriving, it hasn’t given the dividends that the founding fathers or the dreamy eyed citizens would have imagined as they went about building the Indian state.
While each of us have our own theories about the reasons why, most of us also probably recognise that we don’t really know the full answer.
Bhanu Pratap Mehta’s “The Burden of Democracy” doesn’t purport to provide the answers. However it doesn’t force one to introspect along a range of social, political and personal dimensions as one expands views on what are the real diseases ailing the Indian democracy.
Mehta argues that the economic inequality (which in historic periods has been tightly intertwined with social inequality) pervades all aspects of human life. Thus a peon in the office is a peon outside too and that is what defines his social persona. This form of social humiliation takes away from any equality that the universal adult suffrage provides.
He points out that the political revolution in India preceded a social revolution. Hence the millennia-old fault lines, which have determined economic and social standings, have produced a sort of competitive politics such that the focus is on cornering a limited set of resources to the exclusion of others. Combine this with an absence of a moral code of ethic as citizens where citizens have no concept of reciprocity towards the country and you have a situation where there is a crab mentality - if I can’t climb up, I am fine to pull you down.
One of Mehta’s point is that the leaders of the freedom movement were driven by considerations of nationalism as opposed to considerations of establishing a democracy. Hence, he believes there is no grand design behind the Indian democracy as against say the French or American democracies.
To this I say that the Constituent Assembly spent months debating the form of government and governance in India. And thereafter they settled on a democracy based on universal adult suffrage, thereby taking away one any form of discrimination on the basis of caste, class, gender, wealth or education. This by itself the grandest of designs, something which took the Americans several centuries to get to!
The whole point of the book is to generate a debate on Indian democracy, not to get the reader agree to the author’s point of view. And in that, it succeeds plenty.
While each of us have our own theories about the reasons why, most of us also probably recognise that we don’t really know the full answer.
Bhanu Pratap Mehta’s “The Burden of Democracy” doesn’t purport to provide the answers. However it doesn’t force one to introspect along a range of social, political and personal dimensions as one expands views on what are the real diseases ailing the Indian democracy.
Mehta argues that the economic inequality (which in historic periods has been tightly intertwined with social inequality) pervades all aspects of human life. Thus a peon in the office is a peon outside too and that is what defines his social persona. This form of social humiliation takes away from any equality that the universal adult suffrage provides.
He points out that the political revolution in India preceded a social revolution. Hence the millennia-old fault lines, which have determined economic and social standings, have produced a sort of competitive politics such that the focus is on cornering a limited set of resources to the exclusion of others. Combine this with an absence of a moral code of ethic as citizens where citizens have no concept of reciprocity towards the country and you have a situation where there is a crab mentality - if I can’t climb up, I am fine to pull you down.
One of Mehta’s point is that the leaders of the freedom movement were driven by considerations of nationalism as opposed to considerations of establishing a democracy. Hence, he believes there is no grand design behind the Indian democracy as against say the French or American democracies.
To this I say that the Constituent Assembly spent months debating the form of government and governance in India. And thereafter they settled on a democracy based on universal adult suffrage, thereby taking away one any form of discrimination on the basis of caste, class, gender, wealth or education. This by itself the grandest of designs, something which took the Americans several centuries to get to!
The whole point of the book is to generate a debate on Indian democracy, not to get the reader agree to the author’s point of view. And in that, it succeeds plenty.
November 23, 2016
A delightful, albeit slightly difficult read, only because of the various aspects that the author has so skillfully wrapped in a nutshell of this essay. The points are extremely well made and the book leaves you with a perspective that you cannot unsee, a lens that will probably inject itself over everything you see in the Indian context from here on. That's what it did for me atleast. The author hits the nail on the head and brings out behaviors and practices in India which hide in plain sight. The dance od democracy that he has woven through simple narratives of everyday life in this vastly diverse landmass is a pleasure to witness when experienced through the approaches described in this book. From a beginner's perspective, it gives you a comprehensive idea about all that is right and wrong with the democratic implementation in India, all the while not leaning too heavily on either side, despite being titled a little negatively. Read it to understand Indian democracy specifically, its exceptional merits and its seemingly inevitable pitfalls.
September 24, 2018
The Burden of Democracy is a highly technical and sophisticated written essay on the concept of democracy. Intended for scholars, the English is highly technical and the words heavy. A lot can be done by using simpler words. The book explores the various facets of democracy, inequality and institutionalisation of the political parties. Do read with a dictionary and lot of patience, shirt book but a long read.
October 27, 2015
It is not a book but a long essay. So I think shortcomings in the writing can be forgiven because of it.
March 31, 2018
A brilliant essay on Indian democracy .Although relatively short if compared to an average book but the writing is intense and compels you put all you concentration in to grasp the underlying connotations.
Overall a great perspective on the state of Indian democracy as we see it and what role its various players have come to I.e. The Indian state, its political parties, its politicians and above all its citizen.
It throws an analytical light on why there is so much lack of collective problem solving , overshadowed by identity based activism and politics .
It also discusses the sheer apathy of the normal Indian towards the public space where the behaviour can range from indifferent to atrocious
A must read to start building a view on why we are the way we are.
Overall a great perspective on the state of Indian democracy as we see it and what role its various players have come to I.e. The Indian state, its political parties, its politicians and above all its citizen.
It throws an analytical light on why there is so much lack of collective problem solving , overshadowed by identity based activism and politics .
It also discusses the sheer apathy of the normal Indian towards the public space where the behaviour can range from indifferent to atrocious
A must read to start building a view on why we are the way we are.
August 4, 2017
This is an excellent essay on Indian democracy. Author first highlightes the achievements & then critically analyses the issues plaguing the India state & civil society.
Authors analysis provides deep insights which are essential to comprehend the experiment as spectacular as Indian democracy is.
Judicial part is conspicuously absent. Also language is little difficult which is actually a hallmark of Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
Authors analysis provides deep insights which are essential to comprehend the experiment as spectacular as Indian democracy is.
Judicial part is conspicuously absent. Also language is little difficult which is actually a hallmark of Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
September 30, 2018
A unique take on the way democratic process has evolved in the context of India. Rather than getting into the intricacies of institutional and structural difficulties which impedes the functioning of democracy, Mehta primarily focuses this account on the idea of self and how it finds different expressions in the context of India. It’s more of a moral psychological account of Indian democracy. A fresh perspective indeed! Not to be missed!!!
July 21, 2020
First published in the year 2003, this book by Pratap Bhanu Mehta is reflection of our times, mixed with suggestions on how to proceed towards a better India by cultivating a more inclusive and dignified democracy.
Such an insightful read, and a book which still remains relevant.
I will come back to it once again to remind myself of the task that lay ahead in terms of nation building, and to be true to our failures and remain modest of our achievements.
Such an insightful read, and a book which still remains relevant.
I will come back to it once again to remind myself of the task that lay ahead in terms of nation building, and to be true to our failures and remain modest of our achievements.
Read
September 20, 2021A much needed deliberation on institutional democracies with all its pros and cons. The psyche of the stake holders and the primordial philosophy behind democracy as a political thought gets a careful and incisive deliberation here in this book.
December 3, 2018
Link:- True Wonderer
“Democracy draws much of its potency from its ability to grant individuals civic standing. But in a society marked at all levels by Invidious distinctions of status, politics will often take the form of a competitive quest for dominating others, not a collective enterprise to solve practical problems” ~Pratap Bhanu Mehta
And therein lies the root cause to the ills we face, the burden is Social Inequality, not just on paper but in practice, in the way we conduct ourselves, in our psyche. The ones who were denied power, now want it at all levels, the ones who had it will resist any change to keep it, the ACTUAL USE of that power for the COLLECTIVE GOOD of all, nobody gives a damn about. In a nutshell, we are quite the Assholes to each other, and we should cut that shit right now if we need this country to work at its best. Quite a pipe-dream but there it is.
This extended essay by Pratap Bhanu Mehta is quite insightful from a sociological standpoint on the evolution of our democracy since 1947, as per its use since that time. The function of the state as explained by Mr.Mehta was to ensure that everybody stands equal before the law, thereby making everybody inherently equal in terms of opportunity, justice and self-esteem. Well, that was the Idea anyways, he explains that the coming up of parties who claim to be representatives of dalits and many other social groups who were deemed undesirable in the power structure is actually good for the country, people like Lalu Prasad and Mayavati, are actually contributing in making our country more democratic in the true sense. They might be despicable individuals with private motives at the community’s expense, they might be corrupt, but they are a voice of people who had none. Well, shit, is all I have to say about that.
The other burden is not being self critical and taking corrective actions. Even if the vested interests of collective groups hampering the workings of the system could be set aside, we never evaluate our policies by their consequences, just by their intent. Which is as idiotically inefficient way of working as it sounds. The Gita’s message of “Only intentions and not consequences matter” is quoted by Mr. Mehta as our democracy’s way of function, well the actual message is more akin to “Do your duty (‘Karma/Dharma’) without worrying about the result” which is not exactly the same thing we are doing. The state initiates policy towards an important goal social or economic and allocates resources to the said policy or institute and that’s that, the work instead of being realized as getting started is considered done. Tch tch tch , without effective oversight our state’s institutions will never improve in their function, the opposition should come in handy here, it’s a democracy after all, but again everybody is busy trying to sidle up to desirable communities as vote banks and ass-kissing the dictatorial structure within their own parties instead of seeing the big picture.
This was an interesting read specially the part where Mr.Mehta suggests that our treating of our fellow man should be practical and not socially biased. An employee employer relationship, bound by civility and contract defining clear functions, in all streams of our society, rather than it being a Master-slave kind of behavior, that we normally see. Everybody deserves the same respect outside their jobs or at the very least the same indifference we award to others, you don’t own anything outside the functions or services promised to you by the employee’s contract.
Not that lengthy of a read, though it did take me some time to finish it. As it rightly should I think, so go ahead, stop and reflect on this, it gives perspective to a great many things.
“Democracy draws much of its potency from its ability to grant individuals civic standing. But in a society marked at all levels by Invidious distinctions of status, politics will often take the form of a competitive quest for dominating others, not a collective enterprise to solve practical problems” ~Pratap Bhanu Mehta
And therein lies the root cause to the ills we face, the burden is Social Inequality, not just on paper but in practice, in the way we conduct ourselves, in our psyche. The ones who were denied power, now want it at all levels, the ones who had it will resist any change to keep it, the ACTUAL USE of that power for the COLLECTIVE GOOD of all, nobody gives a damn about. In a nutshell, we are quite the Assholes to each other, and we should cut that shit right now if we need this country to work at its best. Quite a pipe-dream but there it is.
This extended essay by Pratap Bhanu Mehta is quite insightful from a sociological standpoint on the evolution of our democracy since 1947, as per its use since that time. The function of the state as explained by Mr.Mehta was to ensure that everybody stands equal before the law, thereby making everybody inherently equal in terms of opportunity, justice and self-esteem. Well, that was the Idea anyways, he explains that the coming up of parties who claim to be representatives of dalits and many other social groups who were deemed undesirable in the power structure is actually good for the country, people like Lalu Prasad and Mayavati, are actually contributing in making our country more democratic in the true sense. They might be despicable individuals with private motives at the community’s expense, they might be corrupt, but they are a voice of people who had none. Well, shit, is all I have to say about that.
The other burden is not being self critical and taking corrective actions. Even if the vested interests of collective groups hampering the workings of the system could be set aside, we never evaluate our policies by their consequences, just by their intent. Which is as idiotically inefficient way of working as it sounds. The Gita’s message of “Only intentions and not consequences matter” is quoted by Mr. Mehta as our democracy’s way of function, well the actual message is more akin to “Do your duty (‘Karma/Dharma’) without worrying about the result” which is not exactly the same thing we are doing. The state initiates policy towards an important goal social or economic and allocates resources to the said policy or institute and that’s that, the work instead of being realized as getting started is considered done. Tch tch tch , without effective oversight our state’s institutions will never improve in their function, the opposition should come in handy here, it’s a democracy after all, but again everybody is busy trying to sidle up to desirable communities as vote banks and ass-kissing the dictatorial structure within their own parties instead of seeing the big picture.
This was an interesting read specially the part where Mr.Mehta suggests that our treating of our fellow man should be practical and not socially biased. An employee employer relationship, bound by civility and contract defining clear functions, in all streams of our society, rather than it being a Master-slave kind of behavior, that we normally see. Everybody deserves the same respect outside their jobs or at the very least the same indifference we award to others, you don’t own anything outside the functions or services promised to you by the employee’s contract.
Not that lengthy of a read, though it did take me some time to finish it. As it rightly should I think, so go ahead, stop and reflect on this, it gives perspective to a great many things.
March 3, 2018
"The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate fervor"- Yeats
Democracy in India, aptly defined in the above saying. Or is it just our perception? Friends, this book demands a lot of attention and I'm talking about conscious efforts fellas. Abstract thinking and understanding of reality veiled behind so many layers of curtains is the highlight of this book
What does a normal human being want? He/she wants money? Clothes? Home? Yes, yes and yes but are these things enough? Is it all we need? If yes, then why do we want more money, bigger house, better clothes? Well there's one thing that always subtly exists when one mentions all this stuff and that is recognition. We do what we do because in some way or another, it is linked to our social standing and it is very important to us. In India, do you think that all of us give every human being a bare minimum recognition of a fellow being? There are instances that wont agree with this and caste system is an example of this institutionalized indifference pervading in our society. This precisely is the reason that all the problem that we have in democracy here. We had a political revolution which was not preceded by a social revolution and not one can take place of other or make up for other. In US and France, social revolution which made them achieve a consensus on important issues such as healthcare and education. India's experimentation with democracy has provided us with limited results is just an after effect of what we didn't do before
Since, access to any sort of power or money has become the new way of asserting your identity, statism and corruption has been rampant in our country. The sorry fact is not this that everybody wants their share of state resources and power, it is that creation of value through entrepreneurship which involves critical thinking and creativity has been waning and now is almost dead. Since independence, business in India has been always about who has gt their bureaucratic part under control rather than who has got a brand new idea to solve the problems of people
When we compare ourselves with the other countries around the world, their is a stark difference that we notice between their healthcare services and ours. Another field in which this difference is clearly visible is education which also explains why today everyone wants to send their kids outside for education. The state of these facilities here highlight the lack of political mobilization as far as the subjects are concerned. In various candid interviews also, politicians have accepted this that investment in these two sectors has never provided a win to the investing party. Historically, subsidies, direct benefits or any other kind of perks whose benefits are directly visible to the people has provided the political dividend that the parties have been seeking. Instead of long term broad consensus, short term one-upmanship has been the proven formula for success in politics in India and the only fault of political parties, if any, is that they are like those parents who are expected to know what's better for their kids(people) assuming that they consider the population their kids. Public discourses in these subjects start with good intentions and oriented towards solution but soon they turn into a conflict of intentions which ends up with one throwing allegations at another and the counter-party more focused on defending oneself rather than thinking about the solution
The book explains all these problems in detail and provides a wonderful stint of cultural flaws of Indian and how democracy has just given us with the opportunity to mend them rather than repairing everything on itself
"Any discourse on any subject should not become a prisoner to its own good intentions"- Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Democracy in India, aptly defined in the above saying. Or is it just our perception? Friends, this book demands a lot of attention and I'm talking about conscious efforts fellas. Abstract thinking and understanding of reality veiled behind so many layers of curtains is the highlight of this book
What does a normal human being want? He/she wants money? Clothes? Home? Yes, yes and yes but are these things enough? Is it all we need? If yes, then why do we want more money, bigger house, better clothes? Well there's one thing that always subtly exists when one mentions all this stuff and that is recognition. We do what we do because in some way or another, it is linked to our social standing and it is very important to us. In India, do you think that all of us give every human being a bare minimum recognition of a fellow being? There are instances that wont agree with this and caste system is an example of this institutionalized indifference pervading in our society. This precisely is the reason that all the problem that we have in democracy here. We had a political revolution which was not preceded by a social revolution and not one can take place of other or make up for other. In US and France, social revolution which made them achieve a consensus on important issues such as healthcare and education. India's experimentation with democracy has provided us with limited results is just an after effect of what we didn't do before
Since, access to any sort of power or money has become the new way of asserting your identity, statism and corruption has been rampant in our country. The sorry fact is not this that everybody wants their share of state resources and power, it is that creation of value through entrepreneurship which involves critical thinking and creativity has been waning and now is almost dead. Since independence, business in India has been always about who has gt their bureaucratic part under control rather than who has got a brand new idea to solve the problems of people
When we compare ourselves with the other countries around the world, their is a stark difference that we notice between their healthcare services and ours. Another field in which this difference is clearly visible is education which also explains why today everyone wants to send their kids outside for education. The state of these facilities here highlight the lack of political mobilization as far as the subjects are concerned. In various candid interviews also, politicians have accepted this that investment in these two sectors has never provided a win to the investing party. Historically, subsidies, direct benefits or any other kind of perks whose benefits are directly visible to the people has provided the political dividend that the parties have been seeking. Instead of long term broad consensus, short term one-upmanship has been the proven formula for success in politics in India and the only fault of political parties, if any, is that they are like those parents who are expected to know what's better for their kids(people) assuming that they consider the population their kids. Public discourses in these subjects start with good intentions and oriented towards solution but soon they turn into a conflict of intentions which ends up with one throwing allegations at another and the counter-party more focused on defending oneself rather than thinking about the solution
The book explains all these problems in detail and provides a wonderful stint of cultural flaws of Indian and how democracy has just given us with the opportunity to mend them rather than repairing everything on itself
"Any discourse on any subject should not become a prisoner to its own good intentions"- Pratap Bhanu Mehta
July 20, 2015
An indispensable book to know the problems plaguing Indian democracy and where the experiment of democracy has failed and where it has succeeded. This book argues that Indian society and it's constituents are mutually exclusive and unequal in every respect, economically, socially, politically, culturally, morally, ethnically - and this uneven playing field on which republic of India was created, produced factionalism and in-fighting. Indian democracy was not founded on a bed of social transformation like American (at least within a race) or French democracy and therefore intense protracted fights of dominance and superiority ensued.
This book, on the above premise, successfully argues that Indian democracy is not a pillar of collective, cohesive, pluralistic action and enjoyment of the choices that democracy brings with it, but a competitive battle ground of a myriad of interest groups. There is little long-term or strategic policy deliberations or research and therefore ad-hoc, exigent policies have grabbed the entire spectrum.
Most importantly Pratap Bhanu Mehta notes that individuals in Indian society do not acknowledge each other. There is no reciprocity and shared bond between citizens. This is expected when there is no shared interest among the citizens. And the reason of this is that the society is inherently unequal. No political or social efforts were taken to rectify this innate flaw within Indian democracy. The result is before us. We have scant regard for public places and law and order. Corruption is not only because of greed, but also because of the status that it provides. When law and order fail to catch the corrupt individuals, the impunity gives them an aura of heightened status. And when such string of incidences continue to happen, it becomes a culture, rather than coincidence.
As far as policy and it's discussions are concerned, Indian democracy is yet to shed it's primordial instinct of combativeness and competition. For example, no one will contest that education - at the minimum, public education - and health require not only a greater funding but also due diligence from executives and implementation on ground. Government after government, the grim reality remains unchanged and unchallenged. There is not even pressure groups which can influence the policymakers, exert some force on parliament to take a strategic view of this apathy and try to collectively fix the problem. All efforts of transparency and accountability end up adding one more layer of superintendence.
Democracy is guided by political parties. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that democracy is in shamble when intraparty democracy doesn't even exist. There is no broad, encompassing objective of social/political/economic transformation and everything the political parties offer can be summed up in one basis - struggle to go to the top and remain there, at the expense of others. The reciprocity and acknowledgement and a shared fellow bonding, is completely missing. Indian democracy strives on competition between political parties and interest groups, and all of them, share a common consensus to not change the status quo. This is the painful reality of Indian democracy. Perhaps hope and imagination can give us new directions to unhinge the potentials of democracy. That is the choice and responsibility that democracy provide.
This book, on the above premise, successfully argues that Indian democracy is not a pillar of collective, cohesive, pluralistic action and enjoyment of the choices that democracy brings with it, but a competitive battle ground of a myriad of interest groups. There is little long-term or strategic policy deliberations or research and therefore ad-hoc, exigent policies have grabbed the entire spectrum.
Most importantly Pratap Bhanu Mehta notes that individuals in Indian society do not acknowledge each other. There is no reciprocity and shared bond between citizens. This is expected when there is no shared interest among the citizens. And the reason of this is that the society is inherently unequal. No political or social efforts were taken to rectify this innate flaw within Indian democracy. The result is before us. We have scant regard for public places and law and order. Corruption is not only because of greed, but also because of the status that it provides. When law and order fail to catch the corrupt individuals, the impunity gives them an aura of heightened status. And when such string of incidences continue to happen, it becomes a culture, rather than coincidence.
As far as policy and it's discussions are concerned, Indian democracy is yet to shed it's primordial instinct of combativeness and competition. For example, no one will contest that education - at the minimum, public education - and health require not only a greater funding but also due diligence from executives and implementation on ground. Government after government, the grim reality remains unchanged and unchallenged. There is not even pressure groups which can influence the policymakers, exert some force on parliament to take a strategic view of this apathy and try to collectively fix the problem. All efforts of transparency and accountability end up adding one more layer of superintendence.
Democracy is guided by political parties. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that democracy is in shamble when intraparty democracy doesn't even exist. There is no broad, encompassing objective of social/political/economic transformation and everything the political parties offer can be summed up in one basis - struggle to go to the top and remain there, at the expense of others. The reciprocity and acknowledgement and a shared fellow bonding, is completely missing. Indian democracy strives on competition between political parties and interest groups, and all of them, share a common consensus to not change the status quo. This is the painful reality of Indian democracy. Perhaps hope and imagination can give us new directions to unhinge the potentials of democracy. That is the choice and responsibility that democracy provide.
May 13, 2016
Indians love to exhort in the fact that India is a nation of contradictions. In fact, it is readily apparent to the outsider, the contradictions that embody the nation state called India. From the very birth of this nation, people have raised hue and cry that it won't survive at all. And they were are all, in their own way, justifiable. But India chose to beat those odds, and for extra points, settled on Democracy as its chosen mode of government.
And it was the most important choice that was ever made. Perhaps, it was, as P.B.Mehta cheekily points out, the result of the British Colony having produced too many lawyers affluent in the Western model of governments. But the choice of Democracy was not intuitive nor was it the result of a revolution as in the case of France or America. It was much a vehicle of social change as it was the result of one.
The idealism associated with State and Democracy in the beginning days of independence, was very high indeed. But now, it has devolved to a point where
There are very few people you can come across that won't fault the government for whatever issue they have, on in some manner, indirectly imply that the state should be more authoritative and have more punitive powers. And it is not surprising that recently, the Modi government is looked upon to provide exactly that kind of governance. Never mind that India survived only because BJP was kept at bay.
There are various contradictions in India's choice of government. And more to the point, there is no clear consensus on what Democracy actually means. There is the issue of Politics of Inequality, politics of caste, Identity politics, low caste mobilization, and the issue of widespread corruption.
P.B.Mehta examines all of these, claims that India needs a much stronger moral anchor for the Democracy to be better than it is today, quoting the US as an example. He deconstructs the psychology of both lower caste mobilization and also studies why there isn't actually a social reform happening every time an oppressed society is elected to power. The pointer at the fact that there is a goal of power and not equalization or of opportunity to their community, is succinct.
The exploration of the results of India's in-egalitarian society effacing it's individuals and the derivation of the micro politics of corruption based on this injustice, as an effort to prove their worth and to assert their authority, is particularly mind-blowing.
This is the smallest book on my shelf, yet the one that made me think the most. What I have mentioned here is really a miniscule amount of what is contained in the book. It is sure to make you ask uncomfortable questions and at times, merely make your jaw drop in the awe of scholarship of P.B.Mehta.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see if he has written anything on Nationalism.
And it was the most important choice that was ever made. Perhaps, it was, as P.B.Mehta cheekily points out, the result of the British Colony having produced too many lawyers affluent in the Western model of governments. But the choice of Democracy was not intuitive nor was it the result of a revolution as in the case of France or America. It was much a vehicle of social change as it was the result of one.
The idealism associated with State and Democracy in the beginning days of independence, was very high indeed. But now, it has devolved to a point where
There are very few people you can come across that won't fault the government for whatever issue they have, on in some manner, indirectly imply that the state should be more authoritative and have more punitive powers. And it is not surprising that recently, the Modi government is looked upon to provide exactly that kind of governance. Never mind that India survived only because BJP was kept at bay.
There are various contradictions in India's choice of government. And more to the point, there is no clear consensus on what Democracy actually means. There is the issue of Politics of Inequality, politics of caste, Identity politics, low caste mobilization, and the issue of widespread corruption.
P.B.Mehta examines all of these, claims that India needs a much stronger moral anchor for the Democracy to be better than it is today, quoting the US as an example. He deconstructs the psychology of both lower caste mobilization and also studies why there isn't actually a social reform happening every time an oppressed society is elected to power. The pointer at the fact that there is a goal of power and not equalization or of opportunity to their community, is succinct.
The exploration of the results of India's in-egalitarian society effacing it's individuals and the derivation of the micro politics of corruption based on this injustice, as an effort to prove their worth and to assert their authority, is particularly mind-blowing.
This is the smallest book on my shelf, yet the one that made me think the most. What I have mentioned here is really a miniscule amount of what is contained in the book. It is sure to make you ask uncomfortable questions and at times, merely make your jaw drop in the awe of scholarship of P.B.Mehta.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see if he has written anything on Nationalism.
April 12, 2015
Back then, when India got her independence, the political scientists had predicted that India as a democratic state wouldn't last for long for obvious reasons. Yet, after six decades of attaining her independence, India has now got the distinction of world's largest functioning democracy.
Then how has been "Democracy in India is a phenomenon that, by most accounts, should not have existed, flourished or , indeed, long endured." proved to be wrong?
Searching for the answer to that, in this erudite essay, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a learned professor of Philosophy and law and governance, has tried to dissect the nature and state of Indian democracy.
The tone of this essay is very academic in nature, and clearly, expects a certain level of maturity in its reader - say, students pursuing PhD in Political Science. In order to refrain from any specifics, Mehta has based most of his arguments on generalities, often bordering abstruse abstractness.
A good read, nevertheless.
Mehta warns in the introduction, "The aim of the essay is to hopefully enlighten, but not instruct; those looking for 'solutions' will be disappointed."
So, don't expect any answer. Just, get enlightened.
Liked the quote -
Then how has been "Democracy in India is a phenomenon that, by most accounts, should not have existed, flourished or , indeed, long endured." proved to be wrong?
Searching for the answer to that, in this erudite essay, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a learned professor of Philosophy and law and governance, has tried to dissect the nature and state of Indian democracy.
The tone of this essay is very academic in nature, and clearly, expects a certain level of maturity in its reader - say, students pursuing PhD in Political Science. In order to refrain from any specifics, Mehta has based most of his arguments on generalities, often bordering abstruse abstractness.
A good read, nevertheless.
Mehta warns in the introduction, "The aim of the essay is to hopefully enlighten, but not instruct; those looking for 'solutions' will be disappointed."
So, don't expect any answer. Just, get enlightened.
Liked the quote -
India has worked not because of 'unity in diversity', the presence of locus of identity beneath differences, as the state is fond of telling us. We have flourished rather because we are 'diverse in our unities', each able to imagine a connection with others in his/her own way.
June 4, 2022
An incisive analysis of the problems of Indian democracy. The author charts a lack of true democratic feeling in the public sphere, despite democracy's resounding success for over 70 years. The topics discussed include, firstly, Self-respect as the basic demand for all communities, which is rendered more difficult by the hierarchical nature of Indian society. This The desire for democracy is
in its basic essence a desire to have one's self-worth recognized. A society without reciprocal forms of mutual recognition is a prime candidate for being a corrupt society because people will compensate for their experience of powerlessness and lack of affirmation of their worth through a competitive exercise of power. Many communities purposely privilege their own members based on majoritarian tendencies, and when they get the recognition they so seek: they refuse to extend it to others.
We have never had anti-caste politics, but rather anti-UC politics; because UCs had the power. The doctrine of equality in the constitution was a propagandistic way of ensuring that the suppressed castes did not revolt, and the UCs could maintain their privilege. State power is not enough for Dalit empowerment, we need more representation in the private sphere.
Before the British Raj, castes could rise in the heirarchy by seizing political power. What used to take place was a postiional change for certain groups, instead of a steady challenge of caste itself. This has always existed in India. Whether Sanksritization or Kshatriyatization. It was momentarily suppressed during the Brahman-British Raj, but came to the fore again after Independence and Mandal.
New inequalities have also been created. Look at the master-servant relation even in urban areas as an example of the inequality that pervades society. To be a servant should be in Tocqueville's words: 'Within the terms of the contract, one is servant and the other is master; beyond that, they are two citizens and two men'. However, this is not the case in India. To be of a higher rank is not just to command a higher income or allowances in India. It is to have a panoply of social privileges that are denied to those of a lower rank. This breeds servility, resentment and cycles of tyranny. To advance in rank is a necessity to get a social standing or even basic respect. It is this lack of a basic recognition that dooms the project of democracy. Organizations don't work together, they are too busy trying to undercut their superiors and kick at their inferiors. The logic of caste still prevails, and no common purpose exists.
Does democracy need a moral anchor that it itself cannot provide? The US had a shared base of moral ideas, hence 19th century democracy was a success there, whereas it failed in 19th century France, due to the radically different ideas. Perhaps we too need this.
Statism is common in India, there is a belief that the state can and should do everything. At independence there were no institutions that could rival the state in importance, Bania civilization was looked down upon. A moralising contempt for the market was shared across the ideological spectrum. The state has been a framework, has kept India together, but it has failed to deliver the distributionist policies it promised. Zamindari was abolished, but dominant castes were created. Rather than rectifying social inequality it has worsened it. It has stymied productivity. It provides for particular parties and not others. The state instead of being a supervening institution, is a member of the fight, with a web of social relations. India runs perfect markets and states; the only trouble is that we run a market like the state and a state like the market.
The state is also unaccountable. It does not give attention to the results of policy, when the policy has passed. Indian democracy is also strangely non-deliberative. There is none or not much public discussion of policy, even in broad strokes. The govt does not acknowledge citizens. The peculiar phenomenon of representation without taxation has worsened this. There are layers and layers of bureacracy which worsens accountability. Division of responsibility is destruction of responsibility. We need a way of seeing a direct link between our resources being spent and our things we get in return. We don't see this, maybe because a true shared public sphere really doesn't exist that strongly. Perhaps more local bodies would help here. While PRI was a noble endeavour, all it has done is create 3 new layers of government and bureaucracy.
The party system needs to be reformed. The impractical limiting of funding, only creates more black money as parties choose the alternative economy to get funds. The lack of internal party democracy makes sure that party elites can retain their power, but also ensures that no new leaders are recruited. Parties remain parties of particular social bases, not ideological. There is a lack of free flow of information in undemocratic parties which makes the party weaker. Ethnification of the party system is the result.
Written in 2003, the author opines that there was an ideological stalemate because no grand narratives exist. In 2022, of course a regressive communal narrative is the dominant one. Long-term projects also do not matter to politicians, because they do not yield substantial short-term results. There is a fundamental lack of ideological debate and long-term thinking, but more state-sponsored bribery.
Will growth bring more equality? Nope. The communists did not recognise importance of growth. Nor did they recognize poverty alleviation. What they recognized was inequality and feared it. But LPG did lead to growth and a new middle class. This needs to be distributed more evenly.
The author advances some tentative solutions: Create institutions for education, bring suppresseds into the private sphere too. Like dalit civil servants, create dalit entrepreneurs. Create links between resources and allocations. Grant citizens the basic self-respect due to them as citizens of a democracy. It is a new relationship between the public and private sphere that is lacking.
in its basic essence a desire to have one's self-worth recognized. A society without reciprocal forms of mutual recognition is a prime candidate for being a corrupt society because people will compensate for their experience of powerlessness and lack of affirmation of their worth through a competitive exercise of power. Many communities purposely privilege their own members based on majoritarian tendencies, and when they get the recognition they so seek: they refuse to extend it to others.
We have never had anti-caste politics, but rather anti-UC politics; because UCs had the power. The doctrine of equality in the constitution was a propagandistic way of ensuring that the suppressed castes did not revolt, and the UCs could maintain their privilege. State power is not enough for Dalit empowerment, we need more representation in the private sphere.
Before the British Raj, castes could rise in the heirarchy by seizing political power. What used to take place was a postiional change for certain groups, instead of a steady challenge of caste itself. This has always existed in India. Whether Sanksritization or Kshatriyatization. It was momentarily suppressed during the Brahman-British Raj, but came to the fore again after Independence and Mandal.
New inequalities have also been created. Look at the master-servant relation even in urban areas as an example of the inequality that pervades society. To be a servant should be in Tocqueville's words: 'Within the terms of the contract, one is servant and the other is master; beyond that, they are two citizens and two men'. However, this is not the case in India. To be of a higher rank is not just to command a higher income or allowances in India. It is to have a panoply of social privileges that are denied to those of a lower rank. This breeds servility, resentment and cycles of tyranny. To advance in rank is a necessity to get a social standing or even basic respect. It is this lack of a basic recognition that dooms the project of democracy. Organizations don't work together, they are too busy trying to undercut their superiors and kick at their inferiors. The logic of caste still prevails, and no common purpose exists.
Does democracy need a moral anchor that it itself cannot provide? The US had a shared base of moral ideas, hence 19th century democracy was a success there, whereas it failed in 19th century France, due to the radically different ideas. Perhaps we too need this.
Statism is common in India, there is a belief that the state can and should do everything. At independence there were no institutions that could rival the state in importance, Bania civilization was looked down upon. A moralising contempt for the market was shared across the ideological spectrum. The state has been a framework, has kept India together, but it has failed to deliver the distributionist policies it promised. Zamindari was abolished, but dominant castes were created. Rather than rectifying social inequality it has worsened it. It has stymied productivity. It provides for particular parties and not others. The state instead of being a supervening institution, is a member of the fight, with a web of social relations. India runs perfect markets and states; the only trouble is that we run a market like the state and a state like the market.
The state is also unaccountable. It does not give attention to the results of policy, when the policy has passed. Indian democracy is also strangely non-deliberative. There is none or not much public discussion of policy, even in broad strokes. The govt does not acknowledge citizens. The peculiar phenomenon of representation without taxation has worsened this. There are layers and layers of bureacracy which worsens accountability. Division of responsibility is destruction of responsibility. We need a way of seeing a direct link between our resources being spent and our things we get in return. We don't see this, maybe because a true shared public sphere really doesn't exist that strongly. Perhaps more local bodies would help here. While PRI was a noble endeavour, all it has done is create 3 new layers of government and bureaucracy.
The party system needs to be reformed. The impractical limiting of funding, only creates more black money as parties choose the alternative economy to get funds. The lack of internal party democracy makes sure that party elites can retain their power, but also ensures that no new leaders are recruited. Parties remain parties of particular social bases, not ideological. There is a lack of free flow of information in undemocratic parties which makes the party weaker. Ethnification of the party system is the result.
Written in 2003, the author opines that there was an ideological stalemate because no grand narratives exist. In 2022, of course a regressive communal narrative is the dominant one. Long-term projects also do not matter to politicians, because they do not yield substantial short-term results. There is a fundamental lack of ideological debate and long-term thinking, but more state-sponsored bribery.
Will growth bring more equality? Nope. The communists did not recognise importance of growth. Nor did they recognize poverty alleviation. What they recognized was inequality and feared it. But LPG did lead to growth and a new middle class. This needs to be distributed more evenly.
The author advances some tentative solutions: Create institutions for education, bring suppresseds into the private sphere too. Like dalit civil servants, create dalit entrepreneurs. Create links between resources and allocations. Grant citizens the basic self-respect due to them as citizens of a democracy. It is a new relationship between the public and private sphere that is lacking.
February 2, 2017
Before anyone starts, it's an essay on democracy, contradictions of democracy and analysis of ideology of democracy specific to India.
Once the different sections of the essay is kept in mind then the book reading becomes a delight and interlinking of the concept sheds light to the thought of reader of what the author is trying to convey. Yes, I had to read it twice.
So, just FYI the sections are :
1.Introduction
2.Democracy & the politics of self respect
3.Caste & Politics- Anti-caste or Anti-uppercaste?
4.The new culture of inequality
5.State & Democracy
6.Non-deliberative democracy & the crisis of accountability
7.Political parties
8.Ideological Stalemate
happy reading !
Once the different sections of the essay is kept in mind then the book reading becomes a delight and interlinking of the concept sheds light to the thought of reader of what the author is trying to convey. Yes, I had to read it twice.
So, just FYI the sections are :
1.Introduction
2.Democracy & the politics of self respect
3.Caste & Politics- Anti-caste or Anti-uppercaste?
4.The new culture of inequality
5.State & Democracy
6.Non-deliberative democracy & the crisis of accountability
7.Political parties
8.Ideological Stalemate
happy reading !
January 5, 2015
Book putted down the actual problem of Indian democracy in well mannered, by which any reader of this book can interpret these real problems in back of his mind. Politics based on caste, absence of self respects in society , inequality among peoples and paralysis condition of states are real problems of Indian politics.
Indian politics actually needs renovation to be based on peoples values and their development purposes and not to be based for the fight of power.
Indian politics actually needs renovation to be based on peoples values and their development purposes and not to be based for the fight of power.
October 3, 2020
Pratap Bhanu Mehta is a political scientist and President of Centre for Policy Research who has served many committees under the Indian government, and has also taught in New York University, Harvard University and JNU. In this very short book, he had presented an impartial analysis of his dense ideas on the fault lines in Indian democracy, emphasizing on the prevailing inequalities among Indians in terms of region, gender, religion, caste and economic.
I often tell my friends that democracy is not only one man one vote, but democracy is all about a state ensuring access to equal opportunities for everyone with relevance to every individual's socio-economic needs. Seventy years after independence, in today's India, democracy stands for hope; a hope that promises liberty, equality, freedom and dignity. But, would the same democracy bring the same level of liberty, equality, freedom and dignity to the bonded labors, landless peasants, deprived untouchables? Can they share the same level of hope from this seventy year old liberal democracy, as their privileged counterparts? The answer is no.
In mere 150 pages, the author articulated the number of factors which stymied the Indian democracy. He begins with the element of caste-politics which played a prominent role in social mobilization, but failed to be effective in the political mobilization towards universal issues such as healthcare, education and employment. Strikingly, unlike many other elite intellectuals, Pratap Bhanu Mehta acknowledges the need for caste-politics without dismissing its importance in India's societal construct, but being critical of its purpose and priorities in Indian polity. Other factors he had discussed as a barrier for democracy are the corruption, lack of accountability, insurgence of communal politics, unwarranted centralization of power and prevalence of hierarchies and weak democratic setup within political parties.
The essay on the economic inequality is a gem. He lays out two policies of economic redistribution which can guarantee progress to the underprivileged. He argues that, though the idea of ensuring representation through affirmative action in state power in order to empower the marginalized has a merit to it, it is limited in scope since the state has finite resources and the extent to which a state can expand its capabilities are limited and also that, most of wealth will be generated outside the state in a liberalized economy. Secondly, he advocates for the funds from all the disinvestments to be earmarked for social polices and welfare schemes such as education, healthcare and nutrition under state.
To summarize, this book highlights the need for inclusiveness, accountability, logical discussions, trouble free access to market economy and social transformation for a working and 'full fledged democracy' in an inegalitarian society like India.
I often tell my friends that democracy is not only one man one vote, but democracy is all about a state ensuring access to equal opportunities for everyone with relevance to every individual's socio-economic needs. Seventy years after independence, in today's India, democracy stands for hope; a hope that promises liberty, equality, freedom and dignity. But, would the same democracy bring the same level of liberty, equality, freedom and dignity to the bonded labors, landless peasants, deprived untouchables? Can they share the same level of hope from this seventy year old liberal democracy, as their privileged counterparts? The answer is no.
In mere 150 pages, the author articulated the number of factors which stymied the Indian democracy. He begins with the element of caste-politics which played a prominent role in social mobilization, but failed to be effective in the political mobilization towards universal issues such as healthcare, education and employment. Strikingly, unlike many other elite intellectuals, Pratap Bhanu Mehta acknowledges the need for caste-politics without dismissing its importance in India's societal construct, but being critical of its purpose and priorities in Indian polity. Other factors he had discussed as a barrier for democracy are the corruption, lack of accountability, insurgence of communal politics, unwarranted centralization of power and prevalence of hierarchies and weak democratic setup within political parties.
The essay on the economic inequality is a gem. He lays out two policies of economic redistribution which can guarantee progress to the underprivileged. He argues that, though the idea of ensuring representation through affirmative action in state power in order to empower the marginalized has a merit to it, it is limited in scope since the state has finite resources and the extent to which a state can expand its capabilities are limited and also that, most of wealth will be generated outside the state in a liberalized economy. Secondly, he advocates for the funds from all the disinvestments to be earmarked for social polices and welfare schemes such as education, healthcare and nutrition under state.
To summarize, this book highlights the need for inclusiveness, accountability, logical discussions, trouble free access to market economy and social transformation for a working and 'full fledged democracy' in an inegalitarian society like India.
October 1, 2023
Indian Democracy is an enigma. One cannot simply put Indian democratic set-up into a water-tight compartment, as compared to American or other western democracies. Post-Independence, the biggest experiment was carefully curated for a largely uneducated and rural population, by handing them the right to choose, right to participate and right to decide their government. The democratic framework, as Mehta argues was not destined to be a success considering that the Indian sub-continent had just faced huge participation and no prior experience of how a representative form of government would work. But the democracy worked well enough for all these decades, though there were some systemic issues which plague out democratic dream. Mehta very incisively argues each of such issues, which are "burdens" considering the title in fulfilling our collective aim of a more robust democracy. This long essay, does not seem to give any conclusive or practical answer to any issue raised, but does a phenomenal job at calling spade a spade. Caste politics is especially well-discussed in the book. Democracy is essentially a philosophy borne out self-respect which is attached to an individual. Just as slavery, or untouchability is an anathema to a democratic structure, one cannot discuss democracy without considering that humans place some intrinsic value to their lives. Such intrinsic value is inherent to their nature to choose among alternatives, which democracy provides. Mehta's essay is not particularly dense on research, though one has to appreciate that the writing is realistic and borne more out of experience of being exposed to the current state of affairs. He seems to have drawn a lot of inspiration while discussing the idea of classical democracy from Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian and political writer. The author terms Indian political set-up as extraordinarily non-deliberative and losing sight of long term policy decisions. While the successes that the dawn of democracy has brought in such as, giving the marginalised a voice or an opportunity to have upward mobility, participate in political arena, providing support for economic growth on all fronts etc. the author does not shy away from pointing out the failures of democracy. The narrative of the essay feels excessively pessimistic at places.
Read
May 15, 2021Meditation upon how structural injustices and inequalities profoundly shape our sense of self and its social possibilities, how we politically organise, and how we view our fellow citizens.
What has shaped our politics? When one's position in society permeates the whole of one's social being and the scope of social possibility, what good is political equality?
What prevents us from collective action? Why is there less pressure on the government to
deliver a whole range of crucial services like health and education?
Mr. Mehta argues that the answer lies in the quality of relationships we have with each other. The unfathomable distance between different social sections of society.
"A society that is adept at humiliating its members is more likely to make them adept at humiliating others than teach them about justice... Will not a system that had perfected the art of humiliation produce a competitive and violent politics in turn, bereft of any reciprocity?"
The essays trace "the psychic distortions and compromises produced by living in a society whose members do not acknowledge each other as equals in some basic sense".
"...in deeply inegalitarian societies there will be little honest appraisal of merit or genuine achievement, because most find it difficult to believe that others’ achievement can be anything other than another means of dominating them"
"Individuals and groups expend inordinate energy to colonize or capture government
institutions in seeking to promote their interests over others; there is much activity in politics, but little of it is directed to public purposes that all can share."
Subsections of the text include:
Democracy and the Politics of Self-Respect
Caste and Politics: Anti-Caste or Anti-Upper-Caste?
The New Culture of Inequality
State and Democracy
Non-Deliberative Democracy and the Crisis of Accountability
Political Parties
Ideological Stalemate
What has shaped our politics? When one's position in society permeates the whole of one's social being and the scope of social possibility, what good is political equality?
What prevents us from collective action? Why is there less pressure on the government to
deliver a whole range of crucial services like health and education?
Mr. Mehta argues that the answer lies in the quality of relationships we have with each other. The unfathomable distance between different social sections of society.
"A society that is adept at humiliating its members is more likely to make them adept at humiliating others than teach them about justice... Will not a system that had perfected the art of humiliation produce a competitive and violent politics in turn, bereft of any reciprocity?"
The essays trace "the psychic distortions and compromises produced by living in a society whose members do not acknowledge each other as equals in some basic sense".
"...in deeply inegalitarian societies there will be little honest appraisal of merit or genuine achievement, because most find it difficult to believe that others’ achievement can be anything other than another means of dominating them"
"Individuals and groups expend inordinate energy to colonize or capture government
institutions in seeking to promote their interests over others; there is much activity in politics, but little of it is directed to public purposes that all can share."
Subsections of the text include:
Democracy and the Politics of Self-Respect
Caste and Politics: Anti-Caste or Anti-Upper-Caste?
The New Culture of Inequality
State and Democracy
Non-Deliberative Democracy and the Crisis of Accountability
Political Parties
Ideological Stalemate
July 24, 2017
Pratap Bhanu Mehta is one of the leading public intellectual in contemporary intellectual traditions . He has come up with one of the uncommon sight of 'burden of democracy'. The reason I say uncommon is because of his ability to invade into the core of the problem which when investigated comprehensively look so obvious but surprisingly went unnoticed by the common readers. In this initial course of the book the reader may find himself bogged into complexity of writing style. But as soon as reader becomes familiar with PB Mehta style of writing, his method of raising arguments and ability to explore dimension missed by daily newspaper readers, he/she will surely start developing interest into the issues he so minutely and succinctly brings out in this essay. My personal favourite sub topic of this long essay is 'State and Democracy', 'Political Parties' and 'Ideological Stalemate'. For instance how he he goes into the root of the problem of 'burden of democracy' arising out from the lack institutionalization of intra party democracy in our political parties. Further, in the broader context the author is trying to place the importance of 'self respect' of human being at the center of his argument in order to make democracy functional in a deeply divided society cutting across many dimension of hierarchy for e.g. caste, class, patriarchy. Having said that readers who are looking into the deeper of meaning democracy and the challenges faced by the democratic society, this book is a must read.
August 28, 2018
Finally finished it.
PB Mehta has his own reputation for having a language that's hard to navigate through. First few pages were challenging in this regard. Also, as it's a very short book, many dense ideas don't find space for much elaboration or examples.
But, once you settle into it, it's a treat to read.
This book provides many thought provoking ideas, new insights into working of indian politics and why it is the way it is. The section on caste politics is a gem. It explains why even after providing equality of individuals through democratic rights, the caste remains prominent tool of collective mobilization instead of mobilization on shared universal issues; how anti caste movements in effect became anti upper caste movements. And unlike most other elitist thinkers, Mehta doesn't dismiss the need of caste politics, but recognizes the need and inevitability of caste politics.
Similarly, Mehta explains why the economic reforms agenda hasn't found a social base of its own, the limitations of the Left and its preference for poverty than equality. Some of these ideas are not entirely new, but the way author has presented them, helps you make a clearer understanding.
Other issues covered are the paradox of great demand of statism (increasing role of state in every aspect) while at the same time no pressure on it to provide basic services ; the working of political parties and how they result in skewed democracy ; need for new kind of affirmative action based on market et al.
Overall, a must read.
PB Mehta has his own reputation for having a language that's hard to navigate through. First few pages were challenging in this regard. Also, as it's a very short book, many dense ideas don't find space for much elaboration or examples.
But, once you settle into it, it's a treat to read.
This book provides many thought provoking ideas, new insights into working of indian politics and why it is the way it is. The section on caste politics is a gem. It explains why even after providing equality of individuals through democratic rights, the caste remains prominent tool of collective mobilization instead of mobilization on shared universal issues; how anti caste movements in effect became anti upper caste movements. And unlike most other elitist thinkers, Mehta doesn't dismiss the need of caste politics, but recognizes the need and inevitability of caste politics.
Similarly, Mehta explains why the economic reforms agenda hasn't found a social base of its own, the limitations of the Left and its preference for poverty than equality. Some of these ideas are not entirely new, but the way author has presented them, helps you make a clearer understanding.
Other issues covered are the paradox of great demand of statism (increasing role of state in every aspect) while at the same time no pressure on it to provide basic services ; the working of political parties and how they result in skewed democracy ; need for new kind of affirmative action based on market et al.
Overall, a must read.
September 16, 2021
THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY BY PRATAP BHANU MEHTA
‘Discussion of Indian politics suffer from a kind of over-attribution to democracy.’…actually we, as people (Indian), do this in order to glamorise and criticize as per our convenience and circumstances…sometimes worried about the decay of democratic values and other times being overly democratic…
‘’When we praise or blame democracy, we are often like the person looking for his lost key under the lamp post, not because he has lost it there, but because it is bright there.’’
It’s an essay wherein the Author has analysed many issues adversely affecting our evolution as a democratic state.
Role and status of people as well as the State functioning within and outside the premises of democratic institutionalism.
The Author emphatically declares ‘Inequality’ as one of the biggest burden of democracy and also as explanation for many of our discontents. The failure of the State and its various policies to bring about the equality at economic and social level.
Democracy and the Politics of Self-Respect, Caste and Politics, Non-deliberative Democracy and the Crisis of Accountability, Ideological Stalemate are major heads discussed by the Author very closely and insightfully.
Great read for those interested in Democracy and Politics or Politics=Democracy or Politics…depending upon the intent as the Author puts in- ‘Just like the state is satisfied with its own intent, we are often satisfied with our own.’👍
‘Discussion of Indian politics suffer from a kind of over-attribution to democracy.’…actually we, as people (Indian), do this in order to glamorise and criticize as per our convenience and circumstances…sometimes worried about the decay of democratic values and other times being overly democratic…
‘’When we praise or blame democracy, we are often like the person looking for his lost key under the lamp post, not because he has lost it there, but because it is bright there.’’
It’s an essay wherein the Author has analysed many issues adversely affecting our evolution as a democratic state.
Role and status of people as well as the State functioning within and outside the premises of democratic institutionalism.
The Author emphatically declares ‘Inequality’ as one of the biggest burden of democracy and also as explanation for many of our discontents. The failure of the State and its various policies to bring about the equality at economic and social level.
Democracy and the Politics of Self-Respect, Caste and Politics, Non-deliberative Democracy and the Crisis of Accountability, Ideological Stalemate are major heads discussed by the Author very closely and insightfully.
Great read for those interested in Democracy and Politics or Politics=Democracy or Politics…depending upon the intent as the Author puts in- ‘Just like the state is satisfied with its own intent, we are often satisfied with our own.’👍
July 13, 2021
Quite a dense book that expects a basic level of familiarity with issues that plague the Indian democracy. Dense, but well written and comprehensible, the book has helped me think a little deeper about the Indian state of affairs.
A few points I found interesting:
1. Theory that groups in inegalitarian societies identify themselves either through domination/humiliation of other groups or subservience to other groups. Hence, much of the movements in India are of the kind where one group is trying to displace another, rather than attempting to fight for justice or any other such principle. For instance, caste movements led by a certain group tend to be unconcerned about the castes that face even greater discrimination than the original group. In that sense, these movements aren't anti-caste, but are anti-upper caste or in favour of a specific caste group.
2. It isn't that well-meaning individuals aren't joining politics, but the issue is that laudable actions aren't incentivized by the electorate. Improving health and education yield long term benefits that aren't conducive to gaining votes. Hence, politicians prefer to go for either handouts or eye-catching development projects (e.g. a hydroelectric project). Both of which are also conducive to corruption.
3. Nehru's emphasis on land reform and an overambitious industrial policy shaped the attitude of the electorate towards the state. The state wasn't seen as an agent of upliftment and consequently, governments weren't judged by the metric of social work and policy.
A few points I found interesting:
1. Theory that groups in inegalitarian societies identify themselves either through domination/humiliation of other groups or subservience to other groups. Hence, much of the movements in India are of the kind where one group is trying to displace another, rather than attempting to fight for justice or any other such principle. For instance, caste movements led by a certain group tend to be unconcerned about the castes that face even greater discrimination than the original group. In that sense, these movements aren't anti-caste, but are anti-upper caste or in favour of a specific caste group.
2. It isn't that well-meaning individuals aren't joining politics, but the issue is that laudable actions aren't incentivized by the electorate. Improving health and education yield long term benefits that aren't conducive to gaining votes. Hence, politicians prefer to go for either handouts or eye-catching development projects (e.g. a hydroelectric project). Both of which are also conducive to corruption.
3. Nehru's emphasis on land reform and an overambitious industrial policy shaped the attitude of the electorate towards the state. The state wasn't seen as an agent of upliftment and consequently, governments weren't judged by the metric of social work and policy.
December 26, 2021
Mehta coherently describes the constraints faced by Indian Democracy, linking them to the key themes of politics, caste, self-respect, morality, accountability. The concern, he states, first lies at the most basic level, where questions like - "What is this democracy for?", and "What brings about social acceptance and self-esteem for minorities?" should be considered. Then, and only then, does one address subjects such as nationalism, caste politics, political parties, social responsibility, and their shortcomings.
The "Burden" of our democracy is one that weighs down upon us all, and arguably, serious change is required even today, with a deteriorating democracy index and bleak outlooks given the current threats that are present. Overall, a good book to encourage thought, for any Indian, by diving into what it means, and what could be better, living in the worlds largest democracy.
The "Burden" of our democracy is one that weighs down upon us all, and arguably, serious change is required even today, with a deteriorating democracy index and bleak outlooks given the current threats that are present. Overall, a good book to encourage thought, for any Indian, by diving into what it means, and what could be better, living in the worlds largest democracy.
May 11, 2024
This is an important book which demands multiple reads. Pratap Bhanu Mehta is one of our most important thinkers and this book contains some of his best ideas distilled in a highly readable form. The book examines the phenomenon that is Indian democracy and identifies the burdens on it. From institutional impediments, to sociological constructs to historical wrongs, Mehta tactfully covers 70 odd years of Indian history with remarkable succinctness. You cannot help but marvel at certain insights and the ease with which the prose flows in the book. A terrific book for all interested in Indian democracy
October 12, 2017
Simple issues which we are already knowing (if you happen to read similar stuff before this book). I felt as always he expressed the points in a very fantastic way in his own style. For language purpose its nice read,in order to learn different style. but when it comes to knowledge level,its okay okay kind of book.
Having said so,I always appreciated Bhanu Pratap Mehta's work.Though it is short book and one can easily finish it within a day, but it gets boring sometimes . view seems to be a socialist one.
Having said so,I always appreciated Bhanu Pratap Mehta's work.Though it is short book and one can easily finish it within a day, but it gets boring sometimes . view seems to be a socialist one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews