essay on indian constitution and democracy

Essay on Constitution of India

500+ words indian constitution essay for students and children in english.

A Constitution is a set of rules and regulations guiding the administration of a country. The Constitution is the backbone of every democratic and secular fabric of the nation. The Constitution of India is the longest Constitution in the world, which describes the framework for political principles, procedures and powers of the government. The Constitution of India was written on 26 November 1949 and came into force on 26 January 1950. In this essay on the Constitution of India, students will get to know the salient features of India’s Constitution and how it was formed.

Constitution of India Essay

On 26th January 1950, the Constitution of India came into effect. That’s why 26th January is celebrated as Republic Day in India.

How Was the Constitution of India Formed?

The representatives of the Indian people framed the Indian Constitution after a long period of debates and discussions. It is the most detailed Constitution in the world. No other Constitution has gone into such minute details as the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution of India was framed by a Constituent Assembly which was established in 1946. Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected President of the Constituent Assembly. A Drafting Committee was appointed to draft the Constitution and Dr B.R. Ambedkar was appointed as the Chairman. The making of the Constitution took a total of 166 days, which was spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days. Some of the salient features of the British, Irish, Swiss, French, Canadian and American Constitutions were incorporated while designing the Indian Constitution.

Also Read: Evolution and Framing of the Constitution

Features of The Constitution of India

The Constitution of India begins with a Preamble which contains the basic ideals and principles of the Constitution. It lays down the objectives of the Constitution.

The Longest Constitution in the world

The Indian Constitution is the lengthiest Constitution in the world. It had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules at the time of commencement. Now it has 448 articles in 25 parts and 12 schedules. There are 104 amendments (took place on 25th January 2020 to extend the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies) that have been made in the Indian Constitution so far.

How Rigid and Flexible is the Indian Constitution?

One of the unique features of our Constitution is that it is not as rigid as the American Constitution or as flexible as the British Constitution. It means it is partly rigid and partly flexible. Owing to this, it can easily change and grow with the change of times.

The Preamble

The Preamble has been added later to the Constitution of India. The original Constitution does not have a preamble. The preamble states that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic. The objectives stated by the Preamble are to secure justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens and promote fraternity to maintain the unity and integrity of the nation.

Federal System with Unitary Features

The powers of the government are divided between the central government and the state governments. The Constitution divides the powers of three state organs, i.e., executive, judiciary and legislature. Hence, the Indian Constitution supports a federal system. It includes many unitary features such as a strong central power, emergency provisions, appointment of Governors by the President, etc.

Fundamental rights and fundamental duties

The Indian Constitution provides an elaborate list of Fundamental Rights to the citizens of India. The Constitution also provides a list of 11 duties of the citizens, known as the Fundamental Duties. Some of these duties include respect for the national flag and national anthem, integrity and unity of the country and safeguarding of public property.

Also Read: Difference between Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties

India is a republic which means that a dictator or monarch does not rule the country. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Citizens nominate and elect its head after every five years.

Related Read: Constitution of India – 13 Major Features

The Constitution serves as guidelines for every citizen. It helped India to attain the status of a Republic in the world. Once Atal Bihari Vajpayee said that “governments would come and go, political parties would be formed and dissolved, but the country should survive, and democracy should remain there forever”.

We hope that this essay on the “Constitution of India” must have helped students. For the latest updates on ICSE/CBSE/State Board/Competitive Exams, stay tuned to BYJU’S. Also, download the BYJU’S App for watching interesting study videos.

Also Read: Independence Day Essay | Republic Day Essay | Essay on Women Empowerment

Frequently Asked Questions on Constitution of India Essay

Who is the father of our indian constitution.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is the father of our Indian Constitution. He framed and drafted our Constitution.

Who signed the Indian Constitution?

Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the first person from the Constitution Assembly to have signed the Indian Constitution.

What is mentioned in the Preamble of our Indian Constitution?

The preamble clearly communicates the purpose and emphasis the importance of the objectives of the Indian Constitution.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Essay on Democracy in India for Students and Children

500+ words essay on democracy in india.

Essay on Democracy in India – First of all, democracy refers to a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. Democracy holds a special place in India. Furthermore, India without a doubt is the biggest democracy in the world. Also, the democracy of India is derived from the constitution of India. After suffering at the hands of British colonial rule, India finally became a democratic nation in 1947 . Most noteworthy, Indian democracy since independence is infused with the spirit of justice, liberty, and equality.

Features of Indian Democracy

Sovereignty is a vital feature of Indian democracy. Sovereignty refers to the full power of a governing body over itself without outside interference. Moreover, people can exercise power in Indian democracy . Most noteworthy, people of India elect their representatives. Moreover, these representatives remain responsible for common people.

The democracy in India works on the principle of political equality. Furthermore, it essentially means all citizens are equal before the law. Most noteworthy, there is no discrimination on the basis of religion , caste, creed, race, sect, etc. Hence, every Indian citizen enjoys equal political rights.

Rule of the majority is an essential feature of Indian democracy. Moreover, the party which wins the most seats forms and runs the government. Most noteworthy, no-one can object to support of the majority.

Another feature of Indian democracy is federal. Most noteworthy, India is a union of states. Furthermore, the states are somewhat autonomous. Moreover, the states enjoy freedom in certain matters.

Collective responsibility is a notable feature of Indian democracy. The council of Ministers in India is collectively responsible to their respective legislatures. Therefore, no minister alone is responsible for any act of their government.

Indian democracy works on the principle of formation of opinion. Furthermore, the government and its institutions must work on the basis of public opinion. Most noteworthy, public opinion must be formed on various matters in India. Moreover, the Legislature of India provides an appropriate platform to express public opinion.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Ways to Strengthen Democracy in India

First of all, people must stop having a blind belief in the media. Many times the news reported by media is out of context and exaggerated. Most noteworthy, some media outlets may propagate the propaganda of a particular political party. Therefore, people must be careful and cautious when accepting media news.

Another important way to strengthen the Indian democracy is to reject the consumer mentality in elections. Several Indians view national elections like consumers buying a product. Most noteworthy, elections should make Indians feel like participants rather than separatists.

People in India should make their voices heard. Furthermore, people must try to communicate with their elected official all year-round instead of just during elections. Therefore, citizens must write, call, email, or attend community forums to communicate with their elected official. This would surely strengthen Indian democracy.

Huge voter turnouts is really an efficient way to strengthen democracy in India. People must avoid hesitation and come out to vote. Most noteworthy, large voter turnout would signify a substantial involvement of the common people in Indian politics.

In conclusion, the democracy in India is something very precious. Furthermore, it is a gift of the patriotic national leaders to the citizens of India. Most noteworthy, the citizens of this country must realize and appreciate the great value of democracy. The democracy in India is certainly unique in the world.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [{ “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “State any two features of Indian democracy?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Two features of Indian democracy are the rule of the majority and collective responsibility.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “State any one way to strengthen democracy in India?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”:”One way to strengthen democracy in India is to reject the consumer mentality in elections.”} }] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on Constitution 500+ Words

The Constitution of India serves as the guiding star of our nation, shedding light on the path to justice, equality, and democracy. Furthermore, it is a remarkable document that molds our country’s destiny, guaranteeing that India maintains its status as a diverse and vibrant democracy. In the following essay, we will delve into the Constitution of India, examining its significance, history, and the fundamental principles that distinguish it as truly exceptional.

The Birth of the Constitution:

The Constitution of India, adopted on January 26, 1950, marked the moment when India became a republic. Furthermore, it was the culmination of years of dedicated effort by a distinguished assembly of minds known as the Constituent Assembly. Notably, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect, played an indispensable role in shaping this significant document.

Guarantor of Rights:

One of the most important aspects of the Indian Constitution is that it guarantees fundamental rights to its citizens. These rights ensure that every Indian is treated fairly and has the freedom to express themselves, practice their religion, and more.

Equality for All:

The Constitution promotes equality in all aspects of life. It does not discriminate based on caste, religion, gender, or place of birth. This principle of equality helps India embrace its diversity and promotes unity among its people.

Democracy in Action:

India is the world’s largest democracy, and the Constitution is the backbone of this system. It outlines how our government works, from elections to the roles of the President, Prime Minister, and Parliament. Every citizen’s vote matters, making India a true democracy.

Directive Principles of State Policy:

The Constitution includes directive principles that guide the government on how to create a just and equal society. These principles focus on eradicating poverty, providing education, and improving the living conditions of the people.

Amendments and Evolution:

The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be amended or changed to suit the evolving needs of the country. This flexibility allows us to adapt to new challenges and make improvements as necessary.

Fundamental Duties:

While the Constitution grants rights, it also emphasizes the importance of responsibilities. It outlines fundamental duties that every citizen should follow to help maintain peace and harmony in the country.

Safeguarding Justice:

The Constitution also established the judiciary as a separate and independent branch of government. The Supreme Court, with its judges, ensures that the laws are followed and justice is served.

Diversity Respected:

India is known for its diversity in languages, religions, and cultures. The Constitution acknowledges and respects this diversity, allowing people to freely practice their religions and preserve their traditions.

Conclusion of Essay on Constitution

In conclusion, the Constitution of India is not just a legal document; it’s the soul of our nation. It embodies the dreams and aspirations of millions, ensuring that India remains a diverse, democratic, and inclusive country. The principles of justice, equality, and freedom that it upholds are the very values that make India a shining example to the world. As citizens of this great nation, it’s our duty to uphold and protect the Constitution, for it is our guiding light towards a brighter and more equitable future. The Constitution of India is not just a piece of paper; it’s the heart that beats within our nation, uniting us all in the spirit of democracy and progress.

Also Check: Simple Guide on How To Write An Essay

Essay On Indian Constitution

Table of Contents

Short Essay On Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of India and is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world. It was adopted on 26th November 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950. The Indian Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly and is a testament to India’s commitment to democracy, justice, and equality for all its citizens.

• Federal System of Government: The Indian Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with powers divided between the central government and the states. This helps to ensure that the government is accountable to both the central government and the states, and prevents any one level of government from becoming too powerful.
• Fundamental Rights: The Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to all its citizens, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and personal liberty. These rights serve as a safeguard against discrimination and oppression and are considered sacred and non-negotiable.
• Directive Principles of State Policy: The Indian Constitution also lays down certain Directive Principles of State Policy, which serve as a guide for the government in its policies and decision-making. These principles include promoting social and economic justice, promoting international peace and security, and protecting and improving the environment.
• Independent Judiciary: The Indian Constitution establishes an independent judiciary that acts as a guardian of the Constitution and ensures that the government and other public institutions are held accountable. The judiciary is also empowered to interpret the Constitution and resolve disputes between the central and state governments.
• Separation of Powers: The Indian Constitution follows the principle of the separation of powers, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government having separate and distinct powers and responsibilities. This helps to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch of government and promotes accountability and checks and balances.
• Secularism: The Indian Constitution enshrines the principle of secularism, which means that the government must be neutral with respect to religion. This ensures that all citizens are free to practice their own religion and that no one religion is given preferential treatment over another.

In conclusion, the Indian Constitution is a remarkable document that serves as the foundation of India’s democracy and is a source of pride for the country. It guarantees fundamental rights, establishes a federal system of government, promotes social and economic justice, and ensures the independence of the judiciary. The Indian Constitution is a living document that has been amended several times to keep pace with changing times and the needs of the people, and it remains a shining example of India’s commitment to democracy, justice, and equality for all.

Long Essay On Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is a document of great importance to the country. It not only lays down the fundamental law of the land but also outlines the rights and duties of citizens. This essay will take a look at the history, structure and contents of this important document that has guided India for decades. We’ll also explore how it has evolved over time and what role it plays in modern times.

Introduction

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions, and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is the longest constitution in the world.

The Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, and came into effect on 26 January 1950. The date 26 January was chosen to commemorate the Purna Swaraj declaration of independence of 1930. With its adoption, the Union of India officially became the modern and contemporary Republic of India replacing the Government of India Act 1935 as the country’s fundamental governing document. The Constitution declares India a sovereign, socialist, secular republic with an independent judiciary.

It was drafted by the Constituent Assembly between 1946 and 1949 under leadership of Dr B R Ambedkar as Chairman of its Drafting Committee. The members repudiated earlier treaties with Britain (the 1858 Government of India Act) and especially rejected ideas about a centralised state contained in previous constitutions such as that proposed by Sir Edward Coke in 1628 or even that which had been used to govern British colonies such as Australia (the 1900 Australian Constitution).

Underlying these decisions was a belief that power should devolve more widely through society so as prevent any one group from having too much control over others; this was thought necessary given historical events such as colonialism and communal violence. Federalism was also another

Historical Overview of the Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles and the duties of citizens. It is the longest constitution in the world. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is widely regarded as its chief architect.

The Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, with a Preamble, 22 parts containing 448 articles and 8 schedules. It came into effect on 26 January 1950 with George VI as head of state for India. The last amendment to the Constitution of India was made in 2019. Some of the major amendments include abolition of untouchability and introduction of right to property as a legal right.

The Constitution declares India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens justice, equality and liberty and endeavours to promote fraternity among them. The words “socialist” and “secular” were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment. India celebrates its Constitution Day on 26 November every year.

Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens

The Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens are mentioned in the Constitution of India. They are defined as the basic rights and duties of every citizen of India.

The Fundamental Rights include the right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to life and personal liberty, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and right to constitutional remedies.

The Fundamental Duties include duties towards the nation, such as maintaining harmony among different sections of society, promoting integrity and common good, protecting public property, safeguarding environment, etc.

Every citizen is entitled to these rights and duties. It is the duty of every citizen to uphold the Constitution and strive towards the welfare of the country.

Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy are a set of guidelines for the Indian Parliament to use when creating legislation. They are found in Part IV of the Constitution of India. The principles are based on the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and were added to the Constitution by Jawaharlal Nehru during the drafting process.

The Directive Principles are not enforceable by courts, but they are considered fundamental in the governance of the country. The principles cover a wide range of topics, including social welfare, education, economic development, and civil rights.

Some of the more notable Directive Principles include:

– Promoting equality and prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of caste, race, religion, or gender – Establishing a minimum wage – Providing free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 – Protecting workers’ rights, including the right to form unions – Promoting environmental conservation – Agrarian reform and improving conditions for rural workers

Role of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

The Prime Minister of India is the chief executive of the Government of India. The President of India appoints the Prime Minister, who also has to be the leader of a party with a majority in the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament).

The Prime Minister and his/her Council of Ministers are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. The Prime Minister is also responsible for appointing various key officials, such as the Governors of State Banks and other important financial institutions.

The Cabinet is a body of senior ministers, usually numbering around 20, headed by the Prime Minister. It advises and helps him/her in policy formulation and decision-making. All decisions taken by the Cabinet are collective decisions taken by all its members.

The role of the Prime Minister has evolved over time. In the initial years after independence, Jawaharlal Nehru was both the Prime Minister and the de facto leader of the Congress Party. Over time, however, this changed and there was a separation between the two roles. Indira Gandhi was perhaps the most prominent example of a Prime Minister who was also head of her party.

Legislature and Judiciary

The Constitution of India vests the legislative power of the Union in the Parliament which consists of the President, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The President has the power to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session. The Parliament has power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India.

The Constitution also establishes an independent judiciary which consists of the Supreme Court, High Courts and other subordinate courts. The Supreme Court is vested with the power of judicial review and it can declare a law made by Parliament as unconstitutional if it violates any provision of the Constitution. The High Courts are vested with original jurisdiction over matters relating to their respective states while subordinate courts deal with matters relating to local areas.

Distribution of Powers between Centre and States

The Constitution of India provides for a federal system of government, whereby power is distributed between the central government and the states. The distribution of powers between the Centre and the states is as follows:

The Parliament of India has the power to make laws for the whole of India with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Union List. The Union List contains 100 items (as opposed to 97 in the original Constitution), which include defence, foreign affairs, currency, banking, communications, etc.

The Parliament of India also has the power to make laws for any part of India with respect to any matter not enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List. In other words, Parliament can make laws on any subject not expressly reserved for the states. However, before making any law on a matter not enumerated in these lists, Parliament must obtain the consent of the President.

The State Legislature has exclusive power to make laws for its state with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List. The State List contains 66 items (as opposed to 61 in the original Constitution), which include police, trade unions, agriculture, irrigation, local government, etc. In addition, each state has been given residuary powers, which means that it can legislate on any matter not expressly reserved for either Parliament or itself.

The Concurrent List contains 52 items (as opposed to 47 in the original Constitution), which include education, forests, trade disputes, marriage and divorce, electricity, etc. Both the Centre and the states can make laws on these matters, but in the case of a conflict between the two, the law made by Parliament shall prevail over that made by any state legislature.

Emergency Provisions in Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India contains a number of provisions for dealing with emergencies. Article 352 of the Constitution empowers the President to declare a national emergency. A national emergency can be declared on the grounds of internal disturbance or external aggression.

Internal disturbance refers to a situation where the security of India is threatened by internal factors such as riots, armed rebellion, etc. External aggression refers to a situation where the security of India is threatened by external forces such as war, invasion, etc.

Once a national emergency is declared, the President can exercise his/her discretionary powers to deal with the situation. These powers include suspending the fundamental rights of citizens, imposing censorship on the media, and detaining persons without trial.

The Constitution also provides for state emergencies under Article 356. A state emergency can be declared if the President is satisfied that there is a breakdown of law and order in a state or that the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Once a state emergency is declared, the President can assume direct control over the administration of the state. The President can also dismiss the state government and impose president’s rule in the state. Under president’s rule, all executive and legislative powers are vested in the hands of the central government.

The Constitution contains certain safeguards to prevent abuse of power during emergencies. For instance, Article 358 suspends all Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution during an emergency but expressly states that Articles 20

Amendment Procedure

The Constitution of India can be amended in two ways. The first way is by a simple majority of the Parliament. The second way is by a special majority, which requires a two-thirds majority of the Parliament, as well as the approval of at least half of the state legislatures.

The Indian Constitution is a unique document with many important principles and values embedded within it. It has been an essential foundation for India’s growth and stability since independence, providing citizens with the rights to freedom, equality, justice, and dignity. The constitution provides a comprehensive legal framework that guarantees civil liberties while protecting fundamental rights of all individuals regardless of race, religion or gender. In short, the Indian Constitution is not only the cornerstone of our democracy but also serves as an example around the world on how constitutional law can be used to protect liberty and promote progress in society.

Manisha Dubey Jha is a skilled educational content writer with 5 years of experience. Specializing in essays and paragraphs, she’s dedicated to crafting engaging and informative content that enriches learning experiences.

Related Posts

Essay on importance of yoga, essay on cow, climate change essay, essay on slaver, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal of Constitutional Law
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1.introduction, 2.the constitution and historical imagination, 3.time: founding moments, serialized epics, and everyday postscripts, 4.liberalism with indian characteristics: individuals and communities, 5.conclusion: freedom, discipline, and the paths not taken.

• < Previous

The Indian Constitution: Moments, epics and everyday lives

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rohit De, The Indian Constitution: Moments, epics and everyday lives, International Journal of Constitutional Law , Volume 18, Issue 3, October 2020, Pages 1022–1030, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaa077

• Permissions Icon Permissions

I submit that a Constituent Assembly not only frames a constitution, but also gives people a new framework of life. Dakshayani Velayudhan, Dec. 9, 1946, in 1 Constituent Assembly of India Debates

January 26, 2020 marked the seventieth anniversary of the Indian Constitution. Official celebrations focused on memorializing the “fundamental duties” of the citizen in the constitution that range from “respecting public property and adjuring violence” to “respecting the national flag and national anthem.” In striking contrast, hundreds of thousands of Indian citizens gathered in the streets protesting the changes to the citizenship law by affirming constitutional values of equality, liberty, fraternity, and justice through public recitations of the preamble. 1 The current government-led crisis of the Indian constitutional system has been described as “death of the constitution by a thousand cuts” 2 and is being met with an exceptional resilience of constitutional patriotism from ordinary citizens. Perhaps for the first time since its promulgation, the Constitution is being reflected in popular culture and celebrated in film, song, and poetry. 3

Taking stock on the sixtieth anniversary of the Indian Constitution, political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta noted that constitutions, “not only allocate authority, define the limits of power or enunciate values, they also constitute our sense of history and shape a sense of self,” but despite the centrality of the Constitution to Indian social and political life, it remained “ill served by our historical imagination.” 4 In contrast, the last decade has witnessed an efflorescence of historically inflected writing, both scholarly and popular, on the Indian constitution. 5 Madhav Khosla, Ornit Shani, and myself recognize, in our respective work, that the promulgation of the Indian Constitution was a transformative moment for democracy in India, and is a resource for theorizing democracy more generally. As all three authors emphasize, this shared assumption marks a break from Indian scholarship, which saw the Constitution as a “superstructure” or as incidental to Indian politics; it is also a break from Western political theory which viewed the constitution as derivative and the Indian democratic experience at best as an anomaly. For Khosla, the Indian constitution is the “paradigmatic democratic experience in the 20th century, in much the same way in which Tocqueville’s America was for the 19th century.” 6 Ornit Shani notes that the Indian experience of universal adult franchise, irrespective of qualifications, predated not just the postcolonial world, but also the United States and France. I point out that the imbrication of constitution into daily life and the judicialization of politics have a considerably longer history in India than in most of the world. 7 Liberalism, democracy, industrialization, and social equality might have emerged sequentially in the west, but the Indian republic sought to achieve all goals simultaneously.

While differing in their emphasis on the process of change, the three books complement each other. Khosla excavates a shared constitutional vision at the moment of founding that makes visible the political apparatus of democratization, i.e. the codification and explication of rules as a pedagogical project, the emergence of a centralized overarching state, and focusing on the individual as the unit of representation. Shani argues that it was “practical rather than ideological steps,” through the bureaucratic task of implementing universal franchise, that “transformed the meaning of social existence in India” and laid the groundwork of electoral politics. 8 My work documents the use of constitutional remedies in courts and the emergence of constitutional rhetoric on the streets by ordinary people, arguing that the constitutional order was not a gift by enlightened politicians or benevolent judges but was produced and reproduced in everyday encounters by ordinary citizens. 9 Despite the text of the Indian Constitution reproducing several features of colonial legislation, and the institutions of the police, army, bureaucracy, and judiciary continuing with the same personnel and practices, all three authors rebut the idea that the Indian Constitution is an inevitable outgrowth of the colonial legal and bureaucratic frameworks. 10 Khosla distinguishes constitutional codification from colonial projects of codification, arguing that rights were marginal to the nationalist movement and colonial debates over representation were focused on group/communal identities. 11 Shani demonstrates how colonial bureaucrats, when tasked with expanding franchise even minimally, showed reluctance to enfranchise voters, shunned publicity, and found a range of administrative objections to expanding the voter’s list. In contrast, from 1948 onwards, in anticipation of changing legal authorities, the bureaucrats devised new precedents, overcame procedural hurdles, and actively publicized the process of turning citizens into voters. 12 I show how the judicial constitutional remedies in the new constitution gave Indian courts wide powers of judicial review and empowered citizens with the tactics and language to challenge a previously unimaginable range of governmental action both in the courts and on the streets. All three authors forcefully rebut the challenge to demographic non-representativeness (the unelected and largely upper caste Assembly members, the colonial bureaucracy, civil society groups, and litigants) by showing how the processes of constitution writing, electoral registration, and constitutional litigation opened up fields of action for the larger population by rewiring vocabularies, political imaginations, and expectations.

Along with these shared and complementary visions, these three books represent a heterogeneity of methods, archives and causality and offer different (and occasionally contradictory) answers to the nature of India’s constitutional experiment.

Between December 1946 and November 1949, over 300 members of the Indian Constituent Assembly met and deliberated over a constitutional draft in Delhi. For Khosla, this is a distinct moment of founding when “India’s political elite converged on a set of liberal constitutional values without the inheritance of any major liberal traditions.” 13 Khosla rejects not only arguments of colonial continuity, but also claims that these were products of a self-interested compromise over a transfer of power or that they were rooted in a long history of Indian liberal (and radical) thought. 14 While these claims can be contested, Khosla’s maneuver separates a future-oriented “constitutional moment” from everyday politics, allowing for a focus on the ideas themselves without reducing it to contingent maneuvering of interest groups. For instance, he shows how Nehru and Ambedkar, despite differing on their understanding of social and economic needs, came together in adopting a centralized state as the instrument of power for social and economic transformation and freedom, despite two decades of debates over provincial autonomy and village government. 15 One of the strengths of Khosla’s work is his deftness in placing the Indian debates on franchise, representation, and citizenship within the canon of political theory. Khosla’s narrative stops with the promulgation of the constitutional text by the Constituent Assembly, but he notes that the framework did not “exhaust its democratic character and carry the full weight of legitimation.” 16 The provision of universal adult suffrage and ease of constitutional amendment through constitutionally prescribed forms allowed for a democratic sovereignty in the future. Khosla suggests that the ease of amending the Indian Constitution through future parliaments was in recognition of the unelected nature of the Assembly and the absence of a process of ratification. 17 However, the first amendments to the Indian Constitution, circumscribing the rights to free speech and property and nullifying judicial verdicts, were made by the unelected Constituent Assembly in 1951. 18 According to Khosla, at the birth of the Indian republic, people were yet to transition from subjecthood to citizenship, but would do so through a democratic constitution. 19

In contrast, Ornit Shani argues that Indians became voters, and democratic subjects, before they became citizens. Shani focuses on the making of the Indian electorate through the preparation of the first draft electoral roll in anticipation of the Indian constitution. Moving away from the “ivory tower” of the Constituent Assembly, Shani shows how the “institution of electoral democracy,” which preceded the constitutional deliberations by politicians, was the product of a dialog between professional bureaucrats and ordinary people. She argues that it was the institutionalization of procedural equality in a deeply hierarchical society ahead of the constitution that made India’s democracy legible and legitimate to its people. 20 Shani’s archive is the little studied Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly, which was tasked with preparing an electoral roll for the new republic and bureaucratized the idea of equality for the purpose of voting.

As the deliberations began in the Constituent Assembly in 1946, both the territory of the future republic and the people who would constitute it remained undefined. The decision to partition British India into two states led to the greatest human displacement in history, resulting in the migration of 15 million people and millions of deaths. A patchwork of semi-autonomous princely states made up a third of the territory in South Asia, and their sovereigns continued to negotiate the status of their territories and subjects within the Indian union even after the promulgation of the Constitution. 21 The shifting populations and boundaries complicated the process of creating a list of voters and generated struggles for citizenship that were informed by the constitution being drafted and led to changes in the draft provisions. Shani reads the press notes issued by the Secretariat, the ensuing discussions in press, and the letters from the public as a “serialized epic of democracy” which allowed ordinary people to insert themselves as protagonists and “contribut[e] to the democratization of feelings and imagination.” 22 Similarly, administrative debates about funding and preparing a national electoral roll welded together 600 jurisdictions into a democratic federal structure and forged a common idea of Indianness. Most strikingly, Shani charts the transformation of a colonial bureaucratic imagination into one with an unprecedented “measure and tenacity of inclusion,” with state officials registering refugees in camps, homeless people, women in seclusion, and people living in remote areas. Through this new inclusive process they transform and democratize forms and procedures of democratic participation. The production of an electoral roll of 170 million people supported the notion that sovereignty resided in people with actual names and addresses (even though it might record that so-and-so slept under a tree), rather than being a faceless entity. Shani’s key intervention is to show that ordinary people did not react to the constitution-making process, but that constitution-making and everyday struggles were co-constitutive processes. For instance, she shows how the provisions on a centralized electoral commission and the principle of non-discrimination over place of birth emerged through struggles of internal migrants trying to get themselves into the electoral roll before the constitution was completed.

While Khosla’s narrative ends with the promulgation of the Constitution, and Shani’s runs parallel to the process of constitutional drafting, mine seeks to show how the Constitution after its promulgation “came so alive in popular imagination that ordinary people attributed meaning to its existence, took recourse through it and argued with it.” 23 What happens after the overarching centralized state with ambitions to restructure society and economy through codified rules, as Khosla describes, begins to intervene in everyday life? How do people who are not included in the electoral rolls or, more commonly, unable to protect their interests electorally, protect themselves? I argue that, almost as soon as it is promulgated, the Indian Constitution begins to operate as an organizational assumption for citizens and a background threat to the state through processes driven by some of its most marginal citizens. 24 I show this by looking at the use of the new constitutional remedies against attempts to transform the daily life of citizens, be it food practices, drinking habits, shopping, or sexual behavior. 25 While the book draws on judicial records, the central figure is not the judge but the litigant, who was able to insert themselves into an elite conversation and compel the state to respond. In contrast to the “serialized press notes” discussed by Shani, the site of encounter was not chosen by the state, and bureaucrats and politicians (including the constitution founders) are surprised and exasperated when being asked to abide by constitutional procedure. This point was acutely made when Durgabai Deshmukh, a liberal lawyer and constitutional drafter, faced with sex workers asserting their right to practice their profession, demanded that the constitution be amended to exclude them and that “notions of freedom undergo a change.” 26 It is clear that neither judges nor politicians exercise a monopoly on constitutional meaning, as ordinary Indians persist in their claims even after a judicial negation, or in anticipation of constitutional change. Like Shani, I draw inspiration from Robert Cover in recognizing that constitutions exist in a normative universe constructed by the “force of interpretive commitments, some small and private, others immense and public” and seek to bring the smaller actors to light. 27 Despite the centrality of the judicial archive, it was clear that judges did not control the final meaning of the constitution, as groups held onto constitutional interpretations and advanced claims counter to judicial visions.

In one of his final speeches to the Constituent Assembly, Dr Ambedkar worried that “democracy in India was only top dressing on a deeply undemocratic society.” 28 Not only was Ambedkar intimately familiar with the exclusions and violence of a caste society, he had also led two decades of negotiations with both the British and the Congress Party to create a more inclusive playing field but to little avail. How did the constitutional order provide a way for a more democratic society? Khosla gives the clearest answer to this question by suggesting the constitution centered on the individual in exclusion of other identities as the unit of representation, as demonstrated by dropping communal electorates based on religion. He suggests that even the constitutionally mandated special provisions made available to Dalit and tribal communities are framed on the “social and educational backwardness of a group,” which might have applied to certain castes at the time of independence, but were not innate to the group’s conditions. 29 His approach highlights the limitations of reading the Constitution as a document of shared consensus. The Constitution drafters, particularly women and Dalit members, were acutely aware of deep-seated inequalities in society and sought to harness state instruments to transform it. Central to this was an awareness that formal equality was not only insufficient but also dangerous, in that it could be used to hamper the state’s efforts to ameliorate social conditions. 30

The withdrawal of demands for communal representation and the disaggregation of caste and religious minorities are more a product of political machinations in the assembly than a commitment to liberalism. 31 There were only two Muslim members in the Assembly until June of 1947, when the Muslim League members took their seats. As several scholars have shown, the members of the League were outnumbered, had their loyalties and credibility attacked, and were outmaneuvered in committee meetings. 32 Aditya Nigam suggests that reading the constituent assembly debates as an event rather than a text makes visible how within the assembly the “liberal abstract notion of unmarked citizenship” was deployed in a desire for homogeneity rather than democracy and often silenced the articulation of a community-based grievance. 33

Shani’s work also focuses on the production of an unmarked procedurally equal citizenship, but her archive foregrounds the close relationship between community identity and the paradigmatic form of individual representation. The process of bureaucratic enumeration comes dazzlingly alive through the letters and public engagement that the constituent assembly are flooded with. While some are from individuals, a majority seem to come from a range of identity-based associations (a hybrid between traditional caste organizations and modern civil society groups) and, in expanding their liberal unmarked right to franchise, they make claims that are based on group identities. Take, for instance, the Assam Citizen’s Association Dhubri, which attempted to secure the voting rights of refugees, but lobbied to remove the constitutional restrictions preventing them from buying tribal land and pushed for state aid to support minority-run educational institutions. 34 The mobilization for individual representation was facilitated by community organizations. As Shani points out, some communities were unable to represent themselves, and tribal areas in Northeast and Central India, the Andamans, and the state of Jammu and Kashmir were not given the direct franchise. 35

Group identities entered my book in unexpected ways. As I tabulated challenges to particular laws, I noticed a clustering of petitions by individuals belonging to the same community, even in cases that were seemingly unconnected to ascriptive identities, such as commodity controls. It soon became apparent that in caste society, ascriptive identities and economic structures were closely linked, and the ability to litigate was greatest for those with access to informational networks or resources through community organizations. In many instances, what appeared to be claims for individual rights such as the right to drink, on closer examination seemed to be have been funded or organized by a community whose economic interests had been affected. As the archive made clear, not all communities in the 1950s had equal access to litigation, with landless laborers and Dalits , who made up a substantial portion of the population, being underrepresented. However, the acts of litigious citizens opened up pathways of rights for others less able to litigate and caused state officials to anticipate challenges and take constitutional norms as “organizational assumptions” to be followed or evaded. 36 Liberal theory treats liberty, property, and community as separate concepts, but in the Indian case they seem to be inextricably linked to constitutional design.

Despite these limitations and differences, all three authors agree that the Indian constitutional experiment was unprecedented for the time and in terms of its success. The two contemporaneous constituent assemblies in Pakistan and Israel were unable to agree upon a constitutional document, and neither has had the same degree of longevity or popular support. The longevity of the Indian Constituent Assembly is tied both to promise of the constitution and its framework of disciplining politics. For instance, attempts to challenge either the codification of rules or the overarching centralizing state were defended with a range of instruments within the constitution, from the provision of emergency to preventive detention laws. 37 While elections and electoral participation were celebrated, state elites were invested in using elections to discipline politics, curbing other forms of civic protest, and to thwart political engagement that had developed during the national movement. 38 Judicial victories were rare, narrow, and often reversed; moreover, the litigator was frequently castigated as a representative of a “private interest” against “national interest,” and the most effective strategies were where the litigant could, to paraphrase Hannah Arendt, frame their private interest as a general one. 39 As John Dunne notes, the globalization of representative democracy rooted in a bureaucratic statist structure erases more radical alternatives. 40

Given that the triad of features that our books identify and theorize faces increasing challenges in India, one direction for the emerging scholarship on the Indian Constitution is to explore the paths not taken. Kalyani Ramnath, for instance, suggests that the range of disparate opinions within the Constituent Assembly presents an opportunity to examine the different ways in which the constitutional text and polity could have been structured. 41 Khosla engages at some length with the Gandhian genealogy of thinking state power, but there remain other alternatives, including the federal proposals from the Dravidian parties and the princely states, Ambedkar’s radical economic plans including land nationalization, or the more robust imagination of fundamental rights in the Karachi Charter of 1932. Upendra Baxi describes constitutionalism in a threefold way: (i) as a corpus of texts signaling the original intention to fashion a new political formation that seeks to write society through law; (ii) as a set of ongoing interpretive practices within an authoritative community (be it bureaucrats, lawyers, or judges); and (iii) as a site for articulating insurgent orders of expectations from the state. 42 As we look towards the next decade of scholarship on the Indian Constitution, one hopes to see the recovery of more voices, imaginations, archives, and strategies covering the breadth of Baxi’s definitions of constitutionalism.

Rohit De & Surabhi Ranganathan, We are Witnessing the Rediscovery of India’s Republic , N.Y. Times (Dec. 27, 2019), https://nyti.ms/3iAyfeo .

Tarunabh Khaitan, Killing a Constitution by a Thousand Cuts: Executive Aggrandizement and Party-State Fusion in India , 14 Law & Ethics Hum. Rts . 49 (2020).

Suanshu Khurana, Ekkta Malik & Tanushree Ghosh, Poets, Singers and Writers on what the Constitution Means to Them in Letter and Spirit , Indian Express (Jan. 6, 2020), https://bit.ly/3c0qWKB; Article 15 ( Zee Studios, 2018).

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, What is Constitutional Morality? , 615 Seminar India ( Nov. 2010), https://bit.ly/3hyADkL .

This selection of monographs reflects both an interest in constitutional founding as well as constitutional narration for both legal and lay publics. On the constituent assembly and the moment of founding, see Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (2019) ; Arvind Elangovan, Norms and Politics: Sir Benegal Narsimha Rau and the Making of the Indian Constitution (1935–1950) (2019); The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy ( Udit Bhatia ed., 2017); Akash Singh Rathore, Ambedkar’s Preamble: A Secret History of the Constitution of India (2020); Sandipto Dasgupta, Legalizing the Revolution: Decolonization and Constitutionalism in the 20th Century (2020); Niraja Gopal Jayal, Citizenship and Its Discontents: An Indian History (2013) . On narrating constitutional jurisprudence, see Chitranshul Sinha, The Great Repression: The Story of Sedition in India (2019); Abhinav Chandrachud, A Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (2017); Anuj Bhuwania, Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India (2017); Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock and Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution (2016); Pooja Parmar, Indigenity and Legal Pluralism in India: Claims, Histories and Meanings (2015), Kalpana Kannibiran, Tools of Justice: Non Discrimination and the Indian Constitution (2012). For an analytical overview, see Arun Kumar Thiruvengadam, The Indian Constitution: A Contextual Analysis (2018).

Madhav Khosla , India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy 6 (2020).

Rohit De, A People’s Constitution: The Everyday Life of the Law in the Indian Republic 4 (2018).

Ornit Shani, How India Became Democratic? Citizenship and the Making of the Universal Franchise 5 (2019).

De , supra note 7, at 3.

On the colonial constitutionalism argument, see Rannabir Sammadar, The Materiality of Politics: The Technologies of Rule (vol. 1) (2007); Sumit Sarkar, Indian Democracy: The Historical Inheritance , in The Success of India’s Democracy 21 (Atul Kohli ed ., 2001); Anil Kalhan, Constitution and “Extraconstitution , ” in Colonial Emergency Regimes in Postcolonial India and Pakistan 89–120 (Victor Ramraj & Arun K. Thiruvengadam eds., 2010).

Khosla , supra note 6. On the way the postcolonial legal order has attempted to integrate its colonial past, see Rahela Khorakiwala, From the Colonial to the Contemporary: Images, Iconography and Performances of Law in India’s High Courts (2019); Rohit De, Between Midnight and Republic: Theory and Practice of India’s Dominion Status , 17 Int’l J. Const. L. 1213 (2019).

Shani , supra note 8, at 32–51.

Khosla , supra note 6, at 18. Moving away from quantitative and game theory models for constitutional success, Khosla’s book is part of an emerging field of interest in Asian constitutional foundations. See Constitutional Foundings in South Asia (Kevin Yl Tan & Ridwan Ul Hoque eds., 2021); The Sri Lankan Republic at 40: Reflections on Constitutional History, Theory and Practice (Asanga Welikala ed., 2012); Maryam Khan, What’s in a Founding? Founding Moments and Pakistan’s “Permanent Constitution” of 1973 , in Founding Moments in Constitutionalism 201–21 (Richard Albert, Nischal Basnyet & Menaka Guruswamy eds., 2020); Constitution-Making in Asia: Decolonisation and State-Building in the Aftermath of the British Empire (Harshan Kumarasingham ed., 2016).

For an example of the compromise model of constitution making in British colonies, see Charles Parkinson, Bill of Rights and Decolonization: The Emergence of Domestic Human Rights Instruments in Britain’s Overseas Territories (2007). For arguments identifying antecedents of the Indian Constitution in Indian intellectual history, see Christopher Bayly, Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire (2011); Sukanya Bannerjee, Becoming Imperial Citizens: Indians in the Late Victorian Empire (2013) ; Elangovan, supra note 5; Jayal, supra note 5; Mithi Mukherjee, India in the Shadows of Empire: A Legal and Political History (1757–1950) (2009) . For an overview of radical or socialist antecedents to the Indian Constitution, see Rohit De, Constitutional Antecedents , in The Oxford Handbook to the Indian Constitution 17 ( Sujit Choudhary, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta eds., 2015); Kama Maclean, The Fundamental Rights Resolution Nationalism, Internationalism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Interwar Moment , 37 Comp. Stud. S. Asia, Afr. & Middle E. 213 (2017). For a scalar lineage, see Stephen Legg, Dyarchy: Democracy, Autocracy, and the Scalar Sovereignty of Interwar India , 36 Comp. Stud. S. Asia, Afr. & Middle E. 44 (2016).

This builds on Uday Mehta’s argument that the Indian constitution, distinct from the American or French traditions, transforms power from “a traditional concern with establishing the conditions for freedom to a concern with sustaining life and its necessities”: see Uday S. Mehta, The Social Question and the Absolutism of Politics , 615 Seminar India ( Nov. 2010), https://bit.ly/2Rrq8oP . The Partition casts a shadow over these politics, with concerns of “fissiparous tendencies,” bringing those who would have preferred a more decentralized polity towards a consensus over a centralizing transformative state.

Khosla , supra note 6, at 156.

Khosla sets this up in contrast to the difficulty of constitutional amendments in the United States, which were promulgated after a widespread ratification process. See id . at 158.

Nivedita Menon, Citizenship and the Passive Revolution: Interpreting the First Amendment , Econ. & Pol. Weekly 1812 (2004); Arudra Burra, Freedom of Speech in the Early Constitution: A Study of the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill , in The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy , supra note 5, at 130.

Khosla , supra note 6, at 158.

Shani , supra note 8, at 5.

There were ninety-three seats reserved for representatives of princely states within the Assembly, though there was a lively debate about whether these members should be nominated by the prince or selected through popular representation. Several representatives took their seats well after the draft of the Constitution was finalized. The largest state, Hyderabad, was unrepresented in the Constituent Assembly, as it did not accede to India until after 1950. The princely states were also sites of experimentation for constitutional forms since the late nineteenth century: constitutionally mandated affirmative action was first introduced in Mysore in the early twentieth century; Aundh experimented with Gandhian decentralized government; and Manipur offered universal franchise and a stronger bill of rights. Given the possibility of joining an Indian union since the 1930s, the princely states had been debating various forms of federalism. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was the only state in the Indian union which was permitted to have its own constituent assembly and flag. On princely states, see Barbara Ramusack, The Indian Princes and Their States (2004); Manu Bhagavan, Princely States and the Making of Modern India: Internationalism, Constitutionalism and the Postcolonial Moment , 46 Indian Econ. & Soc. History Rev. 427 (2009). On Mysore and Baroda, see Manu Bhagavan, Soveriegn Spheres: Princes, Education and Empire in Colonial India (2003). On constitutional experiments in Baroda, see Rahul Sagar, How and Why the First Constitution in Modern India was Written , Scroll ( Jan. 19, 2020), https://bit.ly/3c7LAIY . On the Travancore Constitution, see Sarath Pillai, Fragmenting the Nation: Divisible Sovereignty and Travancore’s Quest for Federal Independence , 34 Law & History Rev. 743 (2016). On Hyderabad, see Kavita Saraswathi Datla, Sovereignty and the End of Empire: The Transition to Independence in Colonial Hyderabad , 3 Ab Imperio 63 (2018). On Manipur, see S. K. Bannerjee, Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 , 19 Indian J. Pol. Sci. 35 (1958). On Aundh, see Indira Rothermund , The Aundh Experiment: A Gandhian Grass-roots Democracy (1983).

De,   supra note 7, at 9.

Id. at 218.

I took a conscious decision to not look at more obviously political cases in this book. I discuss them in Rohit De, Rebellion, Dacoity, and Equality: The Emergence of the Constitutional Field in Postcolonial India , 34 Comp. Stud. S. Asia, Afr. & Middle E. 260 (2014). See also Rohit De, How to Write Constitutional Histories: The Constitution of Everyday Life , Asian J. Comp. L. ( forthcoming 2020).

Letter from Durgabai Deshmukh, Member, Planning Commission and Chairperson Central Social Welfare Board, to Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India (Sept. 7, 1954) (on file with the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library).

Robert M. Cover, Foreword: Nomos and Narrative , 97 Harv. L. Rev . 4 (1983).

B. R. Ambedkar, Nov. 4, 1948, in 7 Constituent Assembly of India Debates , https://bit.ly/33EZ4co (last visited Oct. 1, 2020).

Khosla , supra note 6, at 150.

Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts,   supra note 5 ; Kalpana Kannabiran, Tools of Justice: Non-Discrimination and the Indian Constitution (2012). Significantly, India Const . art. 15 not only provides a nondiscrimination clause and protects special measures for women, children, and classes with certain social and educational markers, but also specifically casts a horizontal responsibility of non-discrimination upon fellow citizens by throwing open schools, wells, shops, temples, and private establishments that had been sites of caste exclusion. The Constitution also provided for the rights of linguistic and religious minorities, while specifically granting freedom to groups that had been unfree, by abolishing untouchability, human trafficking, and forced labor.

On the changing idea of minorities, see Anupama Rao , The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India (2009); Faisal Devji, Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea (2013). O n politics within the assembly, see Upendra Baxi, The Little Done, The Vast Undone: Some Reflections on Reading Granville Austin’s The Indian Constitution , 9 J. Indian L. Inst. 323 (1967).

Iqbal Ansari, The Politics of Constitution Making in India , in Minority Identities and the Nation State 113 (D. L. Sheth & Gurpreet Mahajan eds., 1999); Shefal Jhai, Rights Versus Representation: Defending Minority Interests in the Constituent Assembly , Econ. & Pol. Weekly 1579 (2003); Shefali Jha, Representation and its Epiphanies: A Reading of Constituent Assembly Debates , Econ. & Pol. Weekly 4357 (2004); Rochana Bajpai, The Conceptual Vocabularies of Secularism and Minority Rights in India , 7 J. Pol. Ideologies 179 (2002); Shabnum Tejani, The Necessary Conditions for Democracy: BR Ambedkar on Nationalism, Minorities and Pakistan , Econ. & Pol. Weekly 111 (2013).

Aditya Nigam, A Text Without Author: Locating Constituent Assembly as Event , Econ. & Pol. Weekly 2107 (2004).

Shani , supra note 8, at 176.

As Shani has shown elsewhere, Indian Muslims faced a more difficult time establishing citizenship and documents. See Ornit Shani, Conceptions of Citizenship in India and the “Muslim Question , ” 44 Mod. Asian Stud. 145 (2010). On the documentary burdens on Indian Muslims of partition, see Vazira Zamindar, The Long Partition: Refugees, Boundaries, Citizenship (2007).

For an illustration on how litigation by petty bureaucrats opened up possibilities for other groups, see Rohit De, A Republic of Petty Bureaucrats: Upendra Baxi and the Pathologies of Civil Service Jurisprudence , 9 Jindal Global L. Rev . 335 (2018).

Sandipto Dasgupta argues that the length and complexity of the Indian constitution are the result of an elite desire for legalism and procedural certainty to contain popular politics in the future, particularly over questions of property. See Sandipto Dasgupta, “A Language Which Is Foreign to Us”: Continuities and Anxieties in the Making of the Indian Constitution , 34 Comp. Stud. S. Asia, Afr. & Middle E. 228 (2014).

Dipesh Chakrabarty, “In the Name of Politics”: Democracy and the Power of the Multitude in India , 19 Pub. Culture 35 (2007).

Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition 34 (1958).

John Dunne, Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy (2d ed. 2018) (I am grateful to Tejas Parashar for the reference).

Kalyani Ramnath, “We The People”: Seamless Webs and Social Revolution in India’s Constituent Assembly Debates , 32 S. Asia Res. 57 (2012).

Upendra Baxi, Outline of a Theory of Practice of Indian Constitutionalism , in Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution 92, 92–118 (Rajeev Bhargava ed., 2008).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• I·CONnect
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1474-2659
• Print ISSN 1474-2640
• Copyright © 2024 New York University School of Law and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Essay on Constitution of India

Students are often asked to write an essay on Constitution of India in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Constitution of India

Introduction.

The Constitution of India is a significant document that outlines the country’s political code, structure, procedures, and powers. It is the longest written constitution in the world.

The constitution was adopted on 26th November 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the chief architect.

It declares India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. It also provides for a parliamentary system of government which is federal in structure.

The Constitution of India serves as the guiding light, ensuring justice, equality, and fraternity among its citizens.

250 Words Essay on Constitution of India

The Constitution of India, the world’s lengthiest written constitution, is the supreme law of India. It lays the framework demarcating fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers, and duties of the government institutions, and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and duties of citizens.

Historical Background

Drafted by the Constituent Assembly, which was elected for undivided India, the Constitution was adopted on 26th November 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950, replacing the Government of India Act (1935). The drafting committee, chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, is credited for the constitution’s formulation.

Features of the Constitution

The Constitution declares India a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic, assuring its citizens justice, equality, and liberty, and promoting fraternity. It provides a parliamentary system of government, federal in structure with unitary features.

Amendments and Adaptability

The Constitution is a living document with a dynamic approach. As of 2021, it has been amended 105 times, reflecting its flexibility. The amendment procedure is detailed in Article 368, allowing changes to meet the evolving socio-political needs.

The Indian Constitution is not merely a legal document but a vehicle of the nation’s life. It reflects the aspirations and values of its people. Despite its imperfections and criticisms, it has served as a robust framework guiding India’s progress and upholding its democratic ethos.

500 Words Essay on Constitution of India

The Constitution of India is a symbol of the nation’s sovereignty, outlining the framework that defines political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions, and sets out the fundamental rights, directive principles, and duties of citizens. Adopted on 26th November 1949 and put into effect on 26th January 1950, it replaced the Government of India Act (1935) as the governing document of India.

Historical Background and Framing of the Constitution

The decision to frame a constitution for India was made in 1934 by the Indian National Congress. The drafting committee, chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, was constituted in 1947. The committee took nearly three years to draft the constitution, drawing inspiration from various sources including the British, American, Australian, Canadian, and Irish constitutions, as well as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Features of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is the world’s lengthiest written constitution, with a preamble and 470 articles, which are grouped into 25 parts with 12 schedules and five appendices. It declares India a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavors to promote fraternity among them.

The Constitution provides for a parliamentary form of government, which is federal in structure with unitary features. It also provides for a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Rajya Sabha), and a Lower House (Lok Sabha). The President of India is the head of state, while the Prime Minister is the head of government.

Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights

The Directive Principles of State Policy, on the other hand, are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These principles, though non-justiciable, aim to establish social and economic democracy, complementing the political democracy guaranteed by the fundamental rights.

Amendments to the Constitution

The Constitution of India has a provision for amendments to maintain its relevance. These amendments are carried out under Article 368. Till now, the constitution has been amended 104 times, reflecting the dynamic nature of the constitution.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• About Project
• Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Democracy in India

List of essays on democracy in india, essay on democracy in india – short essay for children (essay 1 – 150 words), essay on democracy in india – 10 lines on democracy written in english (essay 2 – 250 words), essay on democracy in india (essay 3 – 300 words), essay on democracy in india – what is democracy (essay 4 – 400 words), essay on democracy in india – for school students (class 6, 7 and 8) (essay 5 – 500 words), essay on democracy in india – for college students (essay 6 – 600 words), essay on democracy in indian constitution (essay 7 – 750 words), essay on democracy in india – long essay for competitive exams like ias, ips civil services and upsc (essay 8 – 1000 words).

India is the largest country in the world that follows the Democratic form of government. With a population of over a billion, India is a secular, socialistic, republic, and democratic country in the world.

India is considered as the lighthouse that guides the democratic movement in the African–Asian countries. Democracy in India is backed by our written Constitution which consists of a list of all fundamental laws upon which our nation is to be governed.

January 26, the day on which our Constitution came into effect is celebrated as Republic Day and it was on this day that Democracy truly entered India.

Audience: The below given essays are exclusively written for school students (Class 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Standard) and college students. Furthermore, those students preparing for competitive exams like IAS, IPS and UPSC can also increase their knowledge by studying these essays.

Introduction:

Democracy in India can be defined as a government by the people, of the people and for the people. In India the government is formed by the citizens through their elected representatives.

Principle of Democracy in India:

In a democracy at least the fundamental rights of the individuals are guaranteed. The five principles by which the democracy in India works are Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic and Republic.

Enhancement Areas:

Some of the areas in which the Democracy in India can be improved include the eradication of poverty, encouraging people to vote and educate them about choosing the appropriate candidate, increasing literacy etc.

Conclusion:

Democracy in India is one of the biggest in the world and is celebrated worldwide. Given the wide range of culture and diversity, the need of the hour is that democracy is upheld without losing the diverse heritage of which the country is proud of. Democracy in India would be smooth when the emotions of every culture is acknowledged.

India is the largest democracy in the world. The citizens of the country who are above 18 years of age, elect their representatives in the Lok Sabha via secret ballots (general elections). They are elected for a period of 5 years and ministers are chosen from the elected representatives. India became a democratic nation in 1947 and thereafter the leaders were elected by the people of India. Different parties’ campaign using different future agendas and they emphasize on what they did for the development of people between the election periods. This way, the citizens can make an informed choice in selecting a particular representative.

The word democracy is derived from Greek and it literary means ‘power of the people’. The government is run by the people and it if for the people. The model of Indian democracy is followed by the entire Afro-Asian countries. Our form of democracy in India is much different from democracy of other nations like England and USA.

Although the democracy in India is much advanced, there are still some drawbacks which affect the healthy functioning of the system. These include religion and ignorance. Although we say India is a secular country, but there are still people present who believe in treating people from different religions differently. We have advanced from the ancient traditions like Sati but now a days, people kill each other over killing of Cow, which is considered as a sacred animal for Hindus. Other than these, much work needs to be done to reduce and eliminate poverty, illiteracy and gender discrimination among a list of many others.

India is the largest country in the world that follows the Democratic form of government. With a population of over a billion, India is a secular, socialistic, republic, and democratic country in the world. India is considered as the lighthouse that guides the democratic movement in the African–Asian countries.

Meaning of Democracy:

Democracy means ‘by the people, for the people, and of the people’. A democratic country is one whose government is made of the people, elected by the people to serve the people. The Indian country is governed by a parliamentary system of governance which follows the constitution of India. During the past 70 years, India has held regular elections for the legislative and parliamentary assemblies, reflecting the power of the election commission, who is regarded as the powerful authority.

Democracy in India has a very strong foundation that runs deep into the cultural and moral ethics. Thanks to the efficient leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, etc., whose contribution to a successful democratic India is immeasurable.

Principles of Democratic India:

Democracy in India follows five principles. They are:

a) Secular – A place where people are bestowed with the freedom of religion, to follow a religion of their own choice.

b) Social – Providing equality to everyone irrespective of their caste, creed, color, gender, and other differences.

c) Sovereign – A country that is free from the control of any foreign authorities or power.

d) Democratic – A country where the government is made for the people, by the people of the country with the representatives of people.

e) Republic – No hierarchy is followed while the head of the country is elected by regular elections and the power changes at a regular period of interval.

Not only does democracy in India mean that every citizen has the right to vote, but also it says that people – the citizens of India have full right to question the government if the government doesn’t ensure equality to its citizens in all spheres of life. While democracy in India is effective, we have a long way to go to become a successful democratic country. Illiteracy, poverty, discrimination, and other social issues should be eradicated completely to enjoy the real fruit of democracy in India.

The best definition of democracy has been described as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. India became a sovereign democratic nation back in the year 1947 and the country is still on the roads to development.

In true terms, democracy in India would mean a country wherein people can find quality and they have the freedom to express themselves. The ideal nation is going to be truly democratic and this leaves us with a baffling question. Is democracy in India truly established?

Given the state of turmoil which our nation is in, the question indeed has a palpable and sorry answer. To be honest, if democracy in India was legit, people will have the power to choose their destiny. While we do have a voting system in place which gives people the power to elect their representative, it is often seen to be grossly misused.

The Need to Educate and Enlighten:

If we want the largest democracy of the world to truly live up to the meaning of democracy; it is important to both educate and enlighten the masses. More and more people need to understand the power that has been vested in them. When the commoners understand the kind of influence they can have as far as choosing their political leader is concerned; it might help them think meticulously before putting in the vote and can sanctify the meaning of democracy in India.

There are so many people who do not even bother to register a vote. Are they not bothered about the outcome and progress of their nation? Unless, the right measures are taken to truly educate the mass about how democracy in India is the glorious future we should all dream of, things are least likely to change.

Handling the Flaws:

It’s been a long time since we became independent. So, it is important now to handle the flaws in the democracy in India. The seeds of corruption have been very deeply set in our country and one needs to do something as a start to combat the problem.

It is easy to whine and very hard to put up a fight. So, the right thing which you should do is ensure that you do your bit for the sake of improving the state of affairs of the country. Give in your best shot and be hopeful that things will change for the good as far as democracy in India is concerned.

When the people of the country start taking an active part in the welfare of the state, we will achieve the true meaning of democracy in India.

The word Democracy is derived from the Greek words ‘Demos’ and ‘Kratos’. Demos means People and Kratos means Power. Together put, it means People’s Power. Abraham Lincoln described Democracy as ‘Government by the people, for the people and of the people’. The emphasis on people clearly shows that Democracy is a people-centric form of government. Many consider it to be a superior form of governance as it ensures social and economic equality of every citizen in the country.

In India, a Democratic government was formed only after its freedom from the British rule in 1947. However, the practices of a Democratic system in India go way back. Both Rigveda and Atharvaveda have references of a system where the people gather as a whole and elect Kings.

Democracy in India is backed by our written Constitution which consists of a list of all fundamental laws upon which our nation is to be governed. January 26, the day on which our Constitution came into effect is celebrated as Republic Day and it was on this day that Democracy truly entered India.

Types of Democracy:

Democracy is of two types, Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy.

In Direct Democracy, all the people come together in a single place to elect the governing executives themselves. This is possible for small cities where the population is less and everybody can gather together at one place. Even today, Switzerland exercises a Direct Democracy system.

Indirect Democracy is exercised in countries where there is huge population, making it difficult for all to gather at one place. In this case, people elect representatives who in turn elect the governing executive. Hence in India, Indirect Democracy is practiced.

Five Principles of Indian Democracy:

Democracy in India operates on five important principles:

1. Sovereign: In our country, we Indians are the supreme power and are not controlled by any other foreign power.

2. Socialist: There is economic and social equality promised to every citizen of India.

3. Secular: Every Indian citizen has the freedom to practise his religion of choice.

4. Democratic: Our government is elected by the people.

5. Republic: Supreme power is held by the people and their nominated representatives, instead of a hereditary king.

Working of Indian Democracy:

India has a Federal government where there are separate State governments which come under a single Central government. Indian citizens elect their leaders by the system of voting. Both State and Central elections happen once in five years. Every citizen above the age of eighteen years has the right to vote irrespective of caste, color, creed, religion, gender and education.

Any citizen has the right to stand as a candidate for the post of President and Prime Minister irrespective of religion, gender and education. Elections happen through secret ballots. People elect their representatives of the State who in-turn elect the Head of State, the Chief Minister. Similarly, the public elect the members of the Parliament who in turn elect the Prime Minister.

Democracy in India has succeeded on contrary to the beliefs of many political scientists. Today, India is a pioneer of Democracy in Asia and all other Asian and African countries look up to us for Democratic inspirations.

India is a democratic nation. If you do not know what democracy means, one of the most popular definition has to be, “the government by the people, for the people, of the people.”

So, if we truly want our nation to be democratic and preserve the value of this term, it signifies the fact that the common people should all be a part of the development of the nation. The government should so function that their decisions help in the betterment of the country and the citizens.

Are we truly a democratic nation?

A lot of people argue as to whether or not we are truly democratic, we need to know that there is still a long way to go. As per the books of law and the great Indian constitution, we can see that we are one of the leading democratic countries. However, if you decide to go beyond the books, you will perceive the change. There is a long way to go because democracy has a wider and deeper meaning.

The True Meaning:

Democracy means that people elect the representatives who in turn take charge of the nation and help in the betterment and upliftment of the citizens. While in India, which is a top democratic country, we do have the power to elect our representatives, there is still a lot which needs to be done. Our elected representatives do not understand the importance of the office they are holding. This is why the country has failed to make the kind of progress which it may have otherwise made.

Along with this, it is also seen that there are a lot of unscrupulous means which are often used for the sake of electing representatives. There has to be even more control when it comes to voting and election. When people are clear about their role and they understand that it is with their influence and power that the future of the country can be improved, they are likely to put their power to right use.

How can we truly live up to the tag of democracy?

The change needs to begin with you. There are so many people who complain about how our country has made a mockery of democracy, however what one has to clearly understand is that democracy calls for an equal work by everyone. Remember rather than whining and blaming, you should make it a point to do something yourself.

Create an awareness campaign and try and explain people as to why and how they could bring a change in the nation and contribute towards justifying the tag of India being a true democracy. This awareness and education can be critical in pushing the right waves of change.

Choose leader wisely: It is also important to make sure that we are mindful of who we are choosing as our leaders. You should take the decision on the right parameters rather than being judgmental and getting hoodwinked by superficial factors. The right decision today can safeguard your tomorrow.

So in the end you should understand that democracy is definitely one of the founding pillars for any progressive nation, India is a democracy but we still have a long way to go. Both the individuals and the leaders need to understand the true meaning of democracy and then find the right ways to work around things.

There is no great bond than what ties people to their motherland. So you should make it a point to let the meaning and feeling of democracy seep inside your body and mind and then let it work the magic. Our country deserves our love and respect and definitely the undivided attention as well.

So, let us do our bit for true democracy.

Over a long period of time, India has been ruled by different rulers as well had different forms of government. However, post the British era, India has seen a constant form of government which is governed under the law as laid down under the constitution of India. Democracy is one such important feature of our constitution. Under democracy, the citizens of the country have the right to vote as well the members who in turn form the government.

History of Democracy

The earliest mention of the word democracy has been found in the Greek political texts dating back to 508-507 BC. It has been derived from the word demos which mean common people and Kratos which means strength.

Democracy in Indian Constitution:

Democracy through the constitution of India gives its nationals the privilege to cast a ballot regardless of their rank, caste, creed religion or gender. It has five equitable standards – secular, socialist, republic, sovereign and democratic. Different political organisations represent people at the state and national level. They proliferate about the undertakings achieved in their past residency and furthermore share their tentative arrangements with the general population.

Each citizen of India, over the age of 18 years, has the privilege to cast a vote. The government has always encouraged the individuals to make their choice and cast their vote. Individuals must know everything about the applicants representing the decisions and vote in favour of the most meriting one for good government.

India is known to have an effective democratic framework. In any case, there are some loopholes as well that dampen the spirit of democracy and should be dealt with. In addition to other things, the legislature must work on disposing of poverty, lack of education, communalism, gender discrimination and casteism with the end goal to guarantee democratic system in its obvious sense.

Importance of Democracy in Indian Politics:

Indian democratic government is described by peaceful conjunction of various thoughts and beliefs. There are solid collaboration and rivalry among different political organisations. Since the poll is the path of democratic system, there exist numerous political organisations and every organisation has their own agenda and thoughts.

Good Effects of Democracy:

The democracy has its own share of advantages as well as disadvantages for the common citizens of the country. First, it is instrumental in protecting the rights of the citizens and gives them all the right to choose their government. Additionally, it does not allow a monocratic rule to crop us as all leaders know that need to perform in case they want the people to elect them during the next elections as well. Hence they cannot assume that they have powers forever. Giving all the citizens right to vote provides them with a sense of equality irrespective of their caste, gender, creed or financial status.

The government so formed after democratic elections is usually a stable and responsible form of government. It makes the government socially responsible towards all citizens and the government cannot ignore the plight of its citizens. On the other side, the citizen also behaves in a responsible manner as they know that it is not only their right but their duty as well to choose the government wisely. They are themselves to be blamed if they do not get the government they had wished for it is they who have not rightly exercised their right to vote.

Ill Effects of Democracy:

Democracy, however, leads to misuse of public funds as time and again the elections are conducted at short intervals when we don’t get a stable government and there is infighting among the elected representatives. Also, though considered a duty, the people at times do not exercise their right to vote and a very less voting percentage is seen in many areas which do not give a fair chance to all contestants. Last, but not the least, unfair practices during elections dampen the very spirit of democracy.

A government who strive to be successful cannot overlook the majority of the population that work at fields and the middle class in India. The laws are confined by just thoughts and beliefs of the population. Majority ruling government keeps away from struggle and showdown and makes a peaceful climate for all to live a happy life.

However, at times it has been seen that the majority of the general population of our nation are ignorant and struggle to make their ends meet on day to day basis. Except if the nation is financially and instructively propelled, it will not be right to believe that the electorate will utilize their right to vote to the best advantages of themselves and the nation.

Introduction (Definition) and Concept of Democracy in India:

Democracy in India is the largest in the whole world. Democracy means that the citizens of that country have the power to choose their government. Based on that concept laid by Abraham Lincoln, democracy in India gives rise to a government which is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Since independence, our constitution has made sure that democracy in India is exercised in its truest form. The greatest of all the powers given to the citizens is their right to vote and maintain the fair establishment of democracy in India.

Not only that, but the system of democracy in India also gives every citizen the right to form a political party and participate in the elections. As you can see, the democracy in India focuses more on its common people than its ruling party.

Importance and Need of Democracy in India:

But why has the democracy in India gained so much hype globally? Well, with the second largest population in the world, we would have been a mess, if it were not for the democracy in India. There are people from so many religions, castes, and creeds that incorporating the system of democracy in India was the only way out to maintain peace in the country.

With so much cultural and religious diversity, democracy in India protects the citizens from unjustified partialities and favoritism. Democracy in India gives equal rights and freedom to every person regardless of their beliefs and standard of living.

The scheduled caste and scheduled tribes in our country had been out casted from the main society since ages. Democracy in India makes sure that they get as many opportunities and support from us as anyone else needs to grow and progress in life.

And to be honest, it’s not just the tribes and castes, in fact, in the absence of democracy in India, there would be so many disparities on gender and income levels. The allegedly weaker and less privileged sections of society including women, transgender, and physically handicapped would be mere space fillers in the country. Democracy in India empowers them with full rights and freedom of speech as well.

Types and Forms of Democracy in India:

Basically, there are two types of Democratic system practiced in the world. The same holds true in the context of our nation also. These two types of democratic systems are direct democracy and indirect democracy.

First, we will talk about direct democracy. In this kind of system, people directly participate in the process of picking their leaders. In fact, they are physically present during the whole process and collectively announce the name of their leader. As you can see, such kind of method is not feasible in the case of a large population. This is the reason why direct democracy in India has disappeared over the years. If at all, it is only followed in small villages and panchayat.

The second type of democracy is indirect democracy. The indirect democracy in India is the most popular alternative to form the government in the country. In this system, instead of getting involved directly, citizens of the nation participate indirectly in the process of electing their leaders. The biggest way to practice indirect democracy in India is by giving the votes during the election.

In the case of indirect democracy, the political parties pick a handful of their worthiest members and help them stand and fight in the elections. The common public gets to vote in favor of their favorite political leader. The one who gets the highest votes becomes the ruling minister in the respective region.

Democracy in India (Reality and Expectations):

Although ideally, all the procedures involved in the indirect democracy in India sound flawless, the ground reality is something else. Incorporating laws, in theory, is much easier than following in practical life. Same is the story with our country.

No matter how much we claim to have a fair and transparent system of democracy in India, we must admit that there are plenty of loopholes in reality. For instance, voting is done through Electronic voting machines (EVM).

The EVM topic has been the talk of the town for a while in India, especially during the recent elections. Allegedly, the ruling parties have been accused of interfering with the machines which led to a huge scam. In other words, it can be called nothing but a great dishonor to the indirect democracy in India.

Apart from that, we have a long history of violence and terror in the common public spread by the political parties, right before the major elections. This kind of shameful threating is specifically true in case of villages and small towns where people are made to vote at gunpoint for a particular party.

Moreover, democracy in India gives everyone equal rights to participate in the elections and in the process of voting. However, these right have been hampered on many occasions. A few years ago, women candidates in the political parties were not taken seriously. Even if they fought in the elections and won, their decision making was mainly carried out either by their husbands or by other political leaders in the same party.

The road to democracy in India has been uneven and tricky for the trans-genders as well. It wasn’t much before when they were crashed and killed just for trying to attempt and enter the political arena of the country.

That being said, things are changing at a considerable pace and for the better. There are more openness and acceptance in terms of people from other genders and age groups. The Election Commission is following strict measures to ensure a clean and fair system of democracy in India.

Democracy , Democracy in India , Political System

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

Like this post? Don’t forget to share it!

Here are a few recommended articles for you to read next:

• Which is More Important in Life: Love or Money | Essay
• Essay on My School
• Essay on Solar Energy
• Essay on Biodiversity

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

• Donald Trump
• Warren Buffett
• Email Address
• Free Stock Photos
• Keyword Research Tools
• URL Shortener Tools
• WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

• How To Win Friends
• Rich Dad Poor Dad
• The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
• The Luck Factor
• The Millionaire Fastlane
• The ONE Thing
• Think and Grow Rich
• 100 Million Dollar Business
• Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

• Mobile Addiction
• Social Media Addiction
• Computer Addiction
• Drug Addiction
• Internet Addiction
• TV Addiction
• Healthy Habits
• Morning Rituals
• Wake up Early
• Cholesterol
• Reducing Cholesterol
• Fat Loss Diet Plan
• Reducing Hair Fall
• Sleep Apnea
• Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

• Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

• Subconscious Mind
• Vision Board
• Visualization

Law of Vibration

• Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

• Bob Proctor
• Robert Kiyosaki
• Vivek Bindra
• Inner Peace

Productivity

• Not To-do List
• Project Management Software
• Negative Energies

Relationship

• Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

• Body Language
• Complainers
• Emotional Intelligence
• Personality

Social Media

• Project Management
• Anik Singal
• Baba Ramdev
• Dwayne Johnson
• Jackie Chan
• Leonardo DiCaprio
• Narendra Modi
• Nikola Tesla
• Sachin Tendulkar
• Sandeep Maheshwari
• Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

• Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

• Skip to main content

India’s Largest Career Transformation Portal

Essay on Democracy in India for Students | 500+ Words Essay

December 20, 2020 by Sandeep

Essay on Democracy in India: India is the world’s largest democracy. Our country is a secular, democratic republic, and the President is the head of state, and the Prime minister is the head of the government. Citizens elect their leaders by casting votes. The candidate with a majority of votes wins the election and gets into power. India’s five democratic principles are sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy and republic establishment.

Essay on Democracy in India 500 Words in English

Below we have provided Democracy in India Essay in English, suitable for class 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 school students.

As quoted by Abraham Lincoln, “Democracy” is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In other words, the absolute power to elect their representatives lies with the people who form the electorate. So, the power resides within the people and is expressed by their opinion and will. This kind of democracy, which is democratic, is most fitting in modern times. India is the world’s biggest democracy, with a population of more than a billion. India, a union of nations, is a republic with democratic capitalism, secularism, democracy and a parliamentary system of government. The republic is governed by the constitution, adopted on 26 November 1949 and put into effect on 26 January 1950.

Indian democracy has foundations which are very deep and solid. Our leaders like Mahatma Gandhi , Dr Rajendra Prasad, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru , Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi, etc., rightly hold the credit for this robust democratic base. Their contributions to Indian democracy’s progress have been incalculable. Our constitution has ensured that democracy is practised in India in its purest form since independence. The greatest of all the powers bestowed on people is their right to vote and to preserve a free democratic establishment in India. Not only that, but India’s system of democracy also gives every citizen the right to form a political party and take part in elections. As you can see, India’s democracy targets ordinary people more than its ruling party.

Types of Democracy in India

There are necessarily two types of Political system that are implemented around the world. The same also holds inside our country. These two forms of systems of democracy are direct democracy and indirect democracy.

Direct Democracy: Citizens engage directly in the process of choosing their representatives in this sort of scheme. They are, in fact, physically present in the whole cycle and collectively announce their leader’s name. As you can see, in the case of a large population, such an approach is not feasible. This is why, over the years, direct democracy in India has vanished. It is practised only in small villages and panchayat, if at all.

Indirect Democracy: India’s indirect democracy is the country’s most common option for forming the government. In this system, the nation’s people engage indirectly in the process of choosing their representatives, instead of being directly involved. Indirect democracy in India is best practised by giving the votes during the election. The political parties, in the case of indirect democracy, choose a few of their worthiest leaders and make them stand up and fight in the elections. The public at large gets to vote for their favourite elected official. The one who gets the highest votes in the respective region is the ruling minister.

Importance of Democracy in Indian Politics

Indian democratic government is represented through the peaceful combination of different beliefs and thoughts. There are strong cooperation and competition between various political organizations. Since the poll is the democratic system route, various political organizations exist, and each organization has its own agenda and thoughts. With so much ethnic and religious diversity, India’s democracy safeguards people from unwarranted prejudices and favouritism.

In India, democracy gives all equal rights and equality irrespective of their views and living standards. The expected caste and scheduled tribes in our country had since ages been thrown out of the main society. In India, democracy ensures that they get as many resources and support from us as everyone else does to develop and make progress in life.

Effects of Democracy

Democracy has its own share of benefits as well as inconveniences for the country’s ordinary people. Firstly, it is instrumental in defending citizens ‘rights and giving them the right to choose their government. Furthermore, it does not require a monocratic rule to crop us as all leaders realize that they do need to perform in case they want the people to nominate them during the next election. Therefore, they can’t believe they’ve powers forever. Providing all people with the right to vote gives them a sense of dignity irrespective of caste, class, religion or financial status.

Try AI-powered search

• India’s constitution helped sustain the world’s biggest democracy

But 70 years after it was adopted, the liberal democratic order is under threat

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

India’s Founding Moment. By Madhav Khosla. To be published in February by Harvard University Press; 240 pages; $45 and £36.95.

Revolutionary Constitutions. By Bruce Ackerman. Belknap Press; 472 pages; $35 and £28.95.

I Am the People. By Partha Chatterjee. Columbia University Press; 208 pages; $25 and £22.

R AJMOHAN GANDHI was a teenager when newly independent India adopted its constitution at the end of 1949. “It was a sacred thing, our common religion,” he says on the document’s 70th anniversary. Now a historian and based in Illinois, he sips milky chai as he recalls how the republic’s secular-minded founders sought to forge a modern, democratic country.

British imperialists had ruled India by dividing their subjects into groups, notably of Hindus and Muslims. They let only a tiny, moneyed elite take part in politics. The drafters of the constitution wanted radical change. Its 395 provisions ended up decreeing equal rights for all individuals. All adults, some 160m men and women, could vote; untouchability was abolished; rights to private property, free speech and belief (among others) were enshrined. The courts were to be independent.

Many had doubts about this project. Could a giant democracy with so many diverse and poor people really hold together? Most of its voters were illiterate. Trauma lingered from the bloody partition of Muslim-majority Pakistan in 1947. India’s incorporation of its princely states had also been painful. Moreover, none of those vaunted liberal ideas was rooted in traditional society. Bhimrao Ambedkar, the chief drafter of the constitution, said bluntly that he despised life in the villages—where most people lived—as a “sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism”.

The biggest threat to the new order was posed by extremists who claimed to speak for the Hindu majority (then some 85% of India’s population, now 80%). The likes of Nathuram Godse, a zealot who shot dead Mr Gandhi’s grandfather, Mohandas Gandhi, called the republic’s leaders sell-outs, soft on Pakistan and needlessly concerned with the interests of non-Hindus. “India must be a Hindu land, reserved for Hindus,” wrote Vinayak Savarkar, who coined the term “Hindutva” for the politics of promoting Hindu interests above all.

Such figures hated the constitution’s special treatment of Muslim-majority Kashmir, which was given semi-autonomy. Extreme Hindu groups, notably the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ), wanted nothing secular in the document. There were “very strong cries for a Hindu state”, Mr Gandhi remembers. “That Indian leaders said ‘No, it will be a secular state’—it was a wonderful thing,” he says with a smile. Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister, rejected religious rivalry as “a medieval conception which has no place in the modern world”.

Seventy years on, how healthy is India’s liberal order? In his forthcoming, tightly argued book, “India’s Founding Moment”, Madhav Khosla captures the pressures on those who wrote the constitution, many of which persist today. He marvels at the “inexplicable survival” of constitutional democracy, while worrying about its future in India and beyond.

Mr Khosla thinks the constitution’s endurance derived from the popular legitimacy earned by those universal rights, and from widespread trust in the rule of law. In his book on constitutions around the world, Bruce Ackerman says it helped greatly that strong, charismatic Indian leaders showed restraint by respecting the law themselves. Crucially, Nehru deferred to the authority of the courts and the constitutional process. His daughter, Indira Gandhi, did so much less; in Pakistan, those in power have rarely felt so obliged.

It is unclear how long all this will last. Narendra Modi, an unabashed Hindu nationalist and for much of his life an ardent activist in the RSS (others are pictured on the previous page), has been dominant as prime minister since 2014. He is undoubtedly popular, was handily re-elected to a second five-year term in May, and has shown himself ready to smash old norms. He has celebrated Savarkar as a national hero. Parliamentarians in his ruling party even praise Godse, the assassin of Gandhi.

They had a dream

Mr Modi has undermined the constitution that Mr Khosla celebrates. In August he scrapped Article 370, ending Kashmir’s autonomy, while suspending democratic rights there, detaining political leaders without trial and imposing military rule. The rest of India, including the Supreme Court, offered barely a squeak of protest. That episode suggests “democracy is failing”, as majoritarianism supplants the principle of protecting individual rights, reckons Pratap Bhanu Mehta, another expert on the constitution.

Partha Chatterjee’s book on populism in India offers a similar warning. He notes how elected populists, especially in regional governments, have long distributed jobs and handouts to voters. More invidious, he says, is the rise of “ideological” populists, who whip up the majority religious group against the rest. He counts Mr Modi among them, saying he pushes a “homogenised culture of Hinduness”, spreading Hindi nationally (to the dismay of speakers of Tamil, Bengali, English and other tongues) while vilifying Muslims as “deviant”. For his part, Mr Gandhi thinks India’s current rulers consider the constitution to be packed with “foreign”—ie, secular—ideas.

Are they exaggerating? Not really. The more leaders talk about group interests rather than individual rights, the more reason there is to fear that the law may not be applied equally to all. For Muslims, especially, there are creeping reasons to worry. Violent communal attacks are on the rise. Court judgments can seem biased.

A symbolic case is in Ayodhya, a disputed holy site where a mob of Hindu extremists demolished a mosque in 1992, sparking lethal riots. For years courts had refused to grant either Muslims or Hindus exclusive claim to it, but in November the Supreme Court ruled that, after all, the land would be handed over for a Hindu temple. Meanwhile a government-sponsored bill, now in parliament, seeks to amend the law on citizenship. It would explicitly make religious status a condition for nationality, letting Hindus (and members of some other faiths) who flee from nearby countries become Indians—but not Muslims (see article ).

Such ugly developments should sound an alarm. If Mr Khosla is correct, respect for individual rights and a liberal democratic order have helped keep India stable. Undermining them, and reverting to religious divide-and-rule, will not serve it well. Ambedkar, who dreamed that a democratic constitution would gradually make society more tolerant, would be downcast today. ■

This article appeared in the Culture section of the print edition under the headline “Unite and rule”

Culture December 14th 2019

• The case for migration—in pictures
• The classical musicians who were enlisted in the cold war
• An opera in a soup kitchen, featuring homeless singers
• The different languages of impeachment

From the December 14th 2019 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from Culture

Why many French have come to like “Emily in Paris”

Even if they may not want to admit it

“The Perfect Couple” and the new map of Moneyland

Depictions of the super-rich on screen reflect the times

What should “inclusion” include at the Paralympics?

The games make a virtue of their diversity. But there’s still room to grow

The information wars are about to get worse, Yuval Noah Harari argues

The author of “Sapiens” is back with a timely new book about AI, fact and fiction

Arnold Schoenberg was one of classical music’s most important rebels

But, 150 years after his birth, he is underappreciated

Despots and oligarchs have many means to meddle in American politics

The extent of the foreign-influence industry may surprise you

Democracy is derived from two Greek words “demos” meaning people and “kratos” meaning rule. Democracy is a system of government where the supreme power is vested in the people.

The people have the right to choose their representatives and take part in the decision-making process. The government protects the individual rights and is accountable to the people.

Democracy upholds the principles of equality, freedom, fraternity, human rights, individual autonomy and justice.

Besides being a political system, democracy also promotes social, economic and cultural aspects of the society. Democracy aims to ensure equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens to achieve their full potential.

• 1 Democracy: A philosophical perspective
• 2 Democracy: Evolution
• 3 Democracy: Types
• 4 Democracy: Indian context
• 5 Democracy: Challenges
• 6 Democracy: The best form of government
• 7 Democracy: Supreme Court Judgements

Democracy: A philosophical perspective

Democracy believes in the inherent worth of every individual and upholds their dignity of life. It enables the citizens to participate in the decisions which determine their life and livelihood.

First philosophical principle underlying democracy is the social contract theory, where individuals give up their rights in a voluntary manner in exchange for the protection provided by government.

John Locke, Father of Modern Democracy said, “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.”

Concept of common good is another underlying principle, individual well-being flows from the well-being of the whole society. This results into functioning of  a just and equitable society.

Democracy: Evolution

• Athens, a city-state in ancient Greece started a system of direct democracy. A small group of male citizens voted directly on the laws.
• Magna Carta of 1215 signed in England laid foundation to modern day representative democracy.
• Constitution of 1787, United States established a federal system of government with emphasis on separation of powers.
• Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Russia formed the first communist government based on the principle collective community ownership of resources.
• End of World War-II in 1945, decolonized many parts of the world which pursued democracy as a form of government.
• Fall of Berlin Wall and collapse of Soviet Union in 1990, spread the idea of democracy to formerly authoritarian states.
• Arab Spring in 2010, called for greater political and social autonomy and established democratic governments.
• Rise of social movements, civil rights movements and quest for economic justice continues to evolve the idea of democracy.

Democracy: Types

Factors such as population size, cultural diversity, political culture and history of the country often determine the choice of democratic system.

• Direct Democracy: Citizens directly vote on laws and participate in public affairs. For example, City-States of Ancient Greece.
• Representative Democracy: Citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. It is of two kinds- Parliamentary and Presidential Democracy. For example, India, United States, France.
• Presidential Democracy: President is the head of the state and head of the government and is directly elected by the people. Strict separation of powers between executive and legislature. For example, United States.
• Parliamentary Democracy: Head of the government is elected by the people and head of the state is a ceremonial figure. Executive is accountable to legislature. For example, India.
• Consensus Democracy: Decision making is made through consensus among all members of governing body instead of majority vote. For example, Swiss Cantons.
• Semi-Direct Democracy: A greater degree of people participation through plebiscites, initiatives, referendums than in representative democracy. For examples, Liechtenstein

Democracy: Indian context

With 1.3 billion population, India is the world’s largest democracy. Indian Constitution follows a Parliamentary form of Democracy with executive being accountable to legislature.

Characteristics features of Indian democracy are-

• Popular Sovereignty: Asserts that people are the ultimate source of authority which is reflected in the Preamble, ‘ We, the people of India’.
• Universal Adult Suffrage: All the citizens above 18 years old are eligible to elect their representatives, reflects inherent worth of every individual.
• Rule of law: Notion that no one is above law and all are subject to the same law.
• Separation of power: Ensures checks and balances between various organs of the government and prevent abuse of power.
• Independent Judiciary: Upholds rule of law and protects individual rights.
• Free and Fair elections: Independent constitutional body carries out elections in a free, fair and transparent manner.
• Multi-Party System: Reflects the diverse opinions, ideologies and voices and ensures a thriving democracy.
• Secularism: State maintains principled distance from all the religions this fostering harmony in the society.
• Free Press: A fundamental right under Article 19 ensures free flow of information to the public.
• Independent Civil Society: Pressure groups, civil society organisations, NGOs promote social justice and human rights.

Democracy: Challenges

• Political instability: Frequent elections and incongruent political ideologies lead to unstable and weak governments.
• Crony Capitalism: Erodes public trust and undermines rule of law and propagates politico-administrative nexus.
• Delay in decision making: Democratic processes need consensus building and compromise which is a slow process.
• Populism: Representatives cater to their short term political goal and may not take decisions based on the needs of the people.
• Backsliding on minority rights: As decision making is based on majority, it may create a sense of disengagement and apathy towards minority sections.
• Downward spiral of Media: Easier manipulation of news, spread of misinformation and fake news undermine public trust.
• Lobbying: Undue influence on political parties by powerful groups to benefit a select few.

Democracy: The best form of government

Charles Bukowski said, “The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.”

• Individual rights: Protects basic rights and ensures individual autonomy. Fundamental rights are granted by the constitution and guarded by the independent judiciary.
• Representative and Participative: Citizens have the opportunity to elect their leaders and participate in decision making.
• Accountability: Mechanism to hold executive accountable to their actions by the legislature.
• Multiple Stakeholders: CSOs, NGOs and media are vigilant and promote transparency in a democracy.
• Peaceful Transfer of Power: Inherently ensures stability and avoids violence in comparison to monarchy.
• Dissent: Citizens voice their concerns through democratic process to protect their individual autonomy.

Democracy: Supreme Court Judgements

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Propounded Basic Structure doctrine which upheld important features of democracy such as separation of powers, federalism, and judicial review.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Only when central government has compelling reasons it can dismiss a state government, upholding quasi-federal nature of Indian democracy.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Reiterated the basic principle of democracy which is rule of law. As a result election of Prime Minister to the office has been challenged.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Ruled that the right to personal liberty and due process of law are fundamental rights.
• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union Of India (2017): Ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right which emphasizes on dignity of life of every individual.

Ensuring strong democratic processes and institutions to enjoy the public trust , promoting social and economic justice, combating corruption, encouraging participation of multiple stakeholders can improve the quality of democratic governance.

Related articles:

1. India, democracy and the promised republic

2 .Democracy and its structural slippages

3. Preserving democracy in India

Type your email…

Search Articles

Prelims 2024 current affairs.

• Art and Culture
• Indian Economy
• Science and Technology
• Environment  & Ecology
• International Relations
• Polity &  Nation
• Important Bills and Acts
• International Organizations
• Index, Reports and Summits
• Government Schemes and Programs
• Miscellaneous
• Species in news

All India Open Test(Simulator X)

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Indian Democracy in 100 and 200 Words for School Students in English

• Updated on  
• Jan 27, 2024

Essay on Indian Democracy: A democracy is a form of government in which voters utilize their right to vote. India has been colonized by Europeans for centuries and has been ruled by several kings and emperors; democracy is highly valued there. Democracy has a special position in India, a country that has seen many monarchs and emperors as well as centuries of European colonisation. Indeed, India is the largest democracy in the world. Check out the sample essay on Indian Democracy in 100 and 200 Words for school students in English. 

Also Read: Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

Essay on Indian Democracy in 100 Words

The world’s largest democracy, India’s, is a vibrant fabric of unity and variety. It was formed in 1950 on the tenets of freedom, justice, and equality. The political structure of India allows for a multiparty system, guaranteeing the representation of different ideas. Elections regularly enable people to select their leaders, promoting a concept of participatory governance. Notwithstanding obstacles, the democratic spirit persists, encouraging diversity and defending individual liberties. The cornerstone that directs the country’s democratic culture is the Indian Constitution . The democracy of India is a shining example of the tenacity of democratic institutions and the dedication to promoting a pluralistic society.

Also Read: Sources of the Indian Constitution: Detailed Notes for Competitive Exams

Essay on Indian Democracy in 200 Words

India has the largest democratic system in the world, which is evidence of its unwavering commitment to plurality and tolerance. It was founded in 1950 with the ratification of the Constitution and is based on the ideas of justice, equality, and freedom. India’s democratic system depends on periodical elections where people can exercise their right to vote and guarantee that different ideas are represented in the multi-party system.

The capacity of Indian democracy to accept a wide range of linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity within a single political framework is one of its main advantages. The Constitution serves as the cornerstone, offering a strong legal system that protects individual liberties and prevents arbitrary authority.

The democratic spirit endures despite obstacles like socioeconomic inequality and regional complexity. Regular elections at all governmental levels promote the peaceful handover of power and strengthen the democratic values of responsiveness and accountability.

Beyond its political system, India is devoted to democracy. It includes an independent court, a thriving civil society, and a free press—all essential elements that support the nation’s democracy.

To sum up, India’s democracy is a dynamic and developing framework that embodies the country’s commitment to promoting unity among diversity. It acts as a lighthouse, illustrating the tenacity of democratic principles and the ongoing quest for a fair and inclusive society.

Also Read: 11 Features of Democracy in India

Ans: Indian democracy empowers citizens to actively participate in the decision-making process. It fosters inclusivity, diversity, and social justice, ensuring that the voices of a billion people are heard.

Ans: The evolution of Indian democracy is a dynamic process marked by constitutional amendments, electoral reforms, and societal changes. From its inception in 1950, the system has adapted to the needs of a growing and diverse nation. 

Ans: Despite its strengths, Indian democracy faces contemporary challenges such as corruption, political polarisation, and issues related to social and economic inequality. Understanding and addressing these challenges is crucial for sustaining a healthy democratic system. Efforts towards electoral transparency, accountable governance, and fostering civic engagement play a vital role in overcoming these obstacles.

Related Reads:

Follow Leverage Edu for more interesting topics on essay writing . 

Nidhi Mishra

Nidhi Mishra is a seasoned senior content writer with more than eight years of diverse experience in the field of education. Her varied career encompasses work in teaching, training, counselling, developing curriculum, and content creation. Nidhi has a solid background in education and has developed her abilities to meet the diverse needs of students, especially students who want to study abroad. Throughout her career, Nidhi has been an invaluable resource to students with their test-taking efforts, offering thorough career assistance and insightful advice on how to navigate the complexity of the system of education. Her speciality is creating interesting and educational content that is specifically designed to fulfil the needs of students who want to pursue higher education abroad. Together with her wonderful writing skills, Nidhi's love of education has allowed her to produce content that has a lasting impression on readers, educators, and students alike. She is committed to providing high-quality, timely, and insightful content because she believes that education can empower people.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

The Authoritarian Roots of India’s Democracy

• Tripurdaman Singh

Select your citation format:

India is now widely considered to be drifting into the realm of “electoral autocracy,” steadily falling lower in democracy indices, with study after study seemingly confirming the erosion of the country’s democratic credentials since Narendra Modi took power in 2014. But this, this essay argues, is an ahistorical contention that rests on shaky political and constitutional foundations, and suffers from a high degree of temporal myopia. An historical perspective would suggest that Indian democracy remains within the broad continuum it has inhabited since 1950, and that there is little to indicate that this continuum is anything but intact.

This is one of five essays in a special package on the state of India’s democracy.

U pon returning from the first session of the Imperial War Cabinet in May 1917, Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner, who had served there as representative of India’s hereditary princes, wrote a long and rather extraordinary note to Austen Chamberlain, the secretary of state for India. Candidly observing that “the desire for self-government in any educated people is a simple elementary fact of human nature” and arguing for the introduction of the franchise in India, the maharaja resolutely declared: “Self-government is government of the people; that is democracy, as opposed to autocracy.”

Years before the (very limited) franchise first became reality, 1  Singh, despite being a hereditary autocrat committed to dynastic rule, could perceive with remarkably clear-eyed prescience the inevitability of some form of democracy in India given the structural conditions of British rule and direction of political events. His argument was simple. “Step after step has been taken and is being taken by the British Government which tends towards the same end,” he noted, observing that “the spread of the English language and Western education; the extension of railways and telegraphs; the creation of a sense of unity among the various peoples; and the steady admission of Indians to some of the highest offices of State, are all preparing the way for representative government.” 2

About the Author

Tripurdaman Singh is an Ambizione Fellow at the Geneva Graduate Institute’s Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy. He is a historian and the author of several books, including Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India (2020).

View all work by Tripurdaman Singh

My argument, with the benefit of hindsight, is simpler still. Step after step has been and is being taken that tends toward the opposite end: an inevitable authoritarianism interspersed with democracy. 3  Even the founding figures of Indian democracy could see, given the burdens of history and the challenges of establishing the incipient republic, the necessity of some level of authoritarianism in the constitution (adopted in 1949) that would bring it into being. 4

As Sunil Khilnani once remarked, “democracy is the most historical of political forms” 5 —and history has both facilitated and constrained Indian democracy in multiple ways, molding it into a distinctive, hybrid form in which a certain authoritarianism is a structural feature. This is not meant to minimize the serious contemporary challenges democracy faces in India, but to emphasize that many of them are rooted in its history—and that recent condemnations tend to either forget or ignore this history outright.

India, I assert, remains as much a democracy as it ever was. I offer four related contentions: that a certain authoritarianism is embedded in India’s political and constitutional structure; that a normative comparison with the West is thus futile; that the coalition era from 1989 to 2014 skews perceptions about the default nature of Indian democracy; and that much recent criticism can be explained by the “Tocqueville paradox.” 6

Concentrating Power

India’s constitution, unlike its U.S. counterpart, is not animated by the impulse to limit political power and secure public freedom. On the contrary, it is dominated by the idea of constituting and enabling political power, and channeling it for socioeconomic reform. 7  This is explained in part by the circumstances of India’s birth—the violence and upheaval of partition, the pressures of establishing political sovereignty, a largely uneducated and destitute population with limited knowledge or experience of democracy, deep-seated social divisions and hierarchies; and in part by the desires and predilections of its founding figures—their overriding concern with unity, their commitment to socialism and transformative social justice, and their need to bolster and secure their own power.

National unity and the “social revolution” thus form the key strands of the constitutional enterprise, creating a state that is explicitly committed to achieving social, economic and political justice. 8  In the words of India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the founders were freeing India “through a new constitution to feed the starving people and clothe the naked masses.” 9  And of course, that could not be done without securing the state that was to do it. One need not be a true believer in Hannah Arendt’s dictum—that attempts to solve social questions through political action are invariably antithetical to freedom 10 —to recognize that such social-revolutionary zeal inexorably required substantial restrictions of civic freedoms and the licensing of coercive state power to redress socioeconomic inequities (and arguably even to regulate social identities).

The constitution thus, right from the outset, enshrined centralization and executive supremacy, sanctioned the use of state power, and retained the “bureaucratic authoritarianism” of its colonial predecessor. 11  It empowered the center vis-à-vis the states, enabling it to create and dismember provinces at will (Articles 2 and 3) or to impose its writ through president’s rule under Article 356. It empowered the executive vis-à-vis the legislature, allowing it to routinely usurp legislative functions through ordinances (Article 123) and to dictate when the legislature is summoned or prorogued, as long as more than six months do not elapse between two sessions (Article 86). It empowered the state vis-à-vis the citizen, hedging in and qualifying the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III in the pursuit of state security and social uplift. Land reform and redistribution necessitated evading the right to private property; positive discrimination entailed constraining the right to freedom from discrimination; state security implied engirding the right to freedom of speech. 12  With the passage of the Tenth Schedule (the antidefection law, which forces individual legislators to vote according to party diktats on pain of disqualification) in 1985, the constitution cemented the grip of party bosses on legislative parties and emasculated individual legislators. 13

One could argue, as B.R. Ambedkar forcefully did in the Constituent Assembly, that this was inevitable, even desirable—that political freedom was incomplete without social and economic equality; that it was social and economic equality that would actually produce the conditions for democracy to flourish. One might even go so far as to say that centralization and concentration of power were needed to extricate state authority and social identities from local power structures founded on caste and community, 14  or that an activist and capacious state demonstrated a constitutional commitment to the public, and that ignoring social inequities may have been inhumane or tantamount to condoning oppression in India’s setting. In other words, we needed a strong state to deliver what the constitution had promised, and that strong state needed protection for it to be able to deliver on its promises. That may indeed be the case, but it is also largely irrelevant.

The truth is that concentration of power and its use by the executive are thus, by design, baked into India’s constitutional order and institutional structure. The broadly defined social goals and nebulous criteria of “security of the state” do not really matter—they are vessels into which multiple contemporary ideas can be poured or removed, categories subject to creative interpretation given the flavor of the times. What matters are the facilitation of executive power, the generation of legitimacy for that executive power, and the harnessing of executive power—not the social questions being answered. These questions themselves can change, and rather rapidly at that, as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s stint in power is amply demonstrating. And the “interests of the security of the state” are perennially available as a constitutional base.

In effect, India’s constitution enables and underpins a vast armory of coercive laws that it places at the executive’s disposal, and creates a political structure dedicated to promoting executive power. Somnath Lahiri, a Communist member of the Constituent Assembly, described the fundamental-rights provisions as having “been framed from the point of view of a police constable” and taunted leaders of the Congress party in the Constituent Assembly, saying that they wanted even more power than the British government. 15

Where the underlying plumbing was originally unavailable, it has been created through constitutional amendments. The first of these started the ball rolling in 1951 by clipping individual rights and providing for a vast array of repressive laws (including one against sedition) even before the inaugural general election. At that point, Prime Minister Nehru even argued that the government’s social agenda, backed by a legislative majority embodying the wishes of the people, must take precedence over constitutional provisions and civil liberties. 16  Rather than enlarging civic freedom, governments have found ways of constraining it to widen the ambit of political power.

Every government, to the extent that it can command a substantive majority in the legislature, has ruthlessly used state force to push its agenda for social transformation and promote its version of state security. Yesterday it was Indira Gandhi, today it is Narendra Modi. Tomorrow may bring someone else. One may agree or disagree with the agenda being put into action; it does not really matter. The same concentration of power is available if a leader can muster a legislative majority. And given the Tenth Schedule, such a majority, once mustered, is relatively easy to shepherd along. Hardly surprising, then, that the political theorist Uday Mehta termed Hobbes “the largely unacknowledged mentor of Indian constitutionalism.” 17  This kind of authoritarianism comes constitutionally sanctioned, even constitutionally mandated; antidemocratic tendencies operate through constitutional means, hindering the establishment of “legality and legislative primacy.” 18

Given this structural situation, it is hardly surprising to find governments using the powers they have been granted for the purposes for which they have been granted them. This is particularly important because, as recent assessments of Indian democracy argue, India’s current democratic deficits lie not in the electoral arena—where competition continues to be largely free and fair as judged by the criteria of contestation and participation—but in the erosion of nonelectoral freedoms and civil liberties, especially the freedoms of expression and association. 19  Such an argument is not only ahistorical, it also rests on shaky constitutional and political ground. It gives the impression that India had an expansive domain of civic freedom that the BJP government has been steadily constricting since 2014—an impression as shaky as the foundations it rests on.

India has never actually had such an expansive domain of civic action. What space it did have was subjected to executive approval, and even that shrank steadily, as India’s postcolonial leaders moved right away to enclose the remaining civic commons with a ruthlessness that would have caused eighteenth-century British parliamentarians to blush. The first piece of legislation passed in democratic India, for example, was the Preventive Detention Act, while the first constitutional amendment took a sledgehammer to fundamental rights. The reasons behind these moves—high-minded or not—are immaterial. What is material is that these freedoms are, and have been since the beginning, heavily constrained and dependent on the capriciousness of the executive. The legal and constitutional tools to squeeze them when desired have always existed, have been used regularly, and have remained unchallenged by parties of all stripes. India has, and has always had, a constitutional structure relatively inhospitable to extraparliamentary democracy.

As an example, think of a legal instrument such as the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, which enables the state to confiscate the property of alleged gangsters on the orders of a bureaucrat, without the need of any sanction from the courts or the prosecutor 20 —a law now emblematic of India’s political climate. Having been on the books since 1986 and used haphazardly over the years, it has now achieved notoriety in the hands of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who has used it with renewed ferocity to seize (and then, using urban-planning laws, demolish) properties in what is considered the most egregious example of India’s current antidemocratic upsurge—with negligible judicial interdiction. This begs an obvious deeper question: What does forty years of this law say about India’s constitutional settlement?

I am not suggesting that these freedoms were entirely absent, nor am I suggesting that they have not shrunk. What I am suggesting here is that they have always been unstructured, available when, and to the extent that, the executive has loosened its grip—expanding and contracting as per the executive’s determination to intervene in social questions. Democratic backsliding is, at least on this score, a misnomer in my opinion, given that the boundaries of the playing field are yet to be altered—and this movement is part of a continuum within which Indian democracy has historically oscillated without (at least as yet) going out of bounds at either end.

Outside the Capital

The period between 1989 and 2014, referred to rather euphemistically as the coalition era, generally seems to form the backdrop against which arguments for India’s democratic deficit—or its drift into electoral autocracy are made. This, I contend, skews perceptions about the nature of democracy and political power in India, providing a powerful rhetorical tool to direct attention to the post-2014 period but saying little about why the coalition era proved especially profitable for the extraparliamentary aspects of democracy.

The post–Rajiv Gandhi era in Indian politics, beginning in 1989, brought economic liberalization, the shattering of Congress hegemony, the rising assertiveness of OBC (Other Backward Classes) groups, and escalating communal tension. OBC demands and determination combined with the implementation in 1990 of the Mandal Commission report (1980) brought about a deepening of the representative character of India’s legislative institutions (and bureaucratic institutions, to a certain extent), as the proportion of OBC legislators almost doubled. This demonstrated the capacity of mobilized social groups (but importantly, not individuals) to resist and renegotiate power relations within India’s democratic structures. Concurrently, first V.P. Singh’s Janata Dal and then new caste-based and region-based parties smashed Congress’s dominance, especially in the crucial northern states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, resulting in splintered mandates at the national level and leading to the need for multiparty coalitions as no single party could muster a legislative majority.

By their very nature, coalitions prevented concentration of power and provided for a wider dispersal of executive authority. This diluted government control, creating space for a variety of institutions to exert degrees of independence—the courts, but especially, bodies such as the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Inevitably, a greater degree of liberalism and a wider domain of civic action ensued. Globalization brought a dash of added glamor. It is little wonder that when plotted on a graph, India’s democracy indices peak in the late 1990s and the 2000s at the height of the coalition era. 21  These peaks, however, had rather prosaic underlying causes.

In the states, where mandates were not splintered, things were very different. There, with concentration of power made even more acute by the Tenth Schedule, and thus largely secured against backbench rebellion and intraparty conflict, chief ministers—especially those from regional parties who also doubled as party bosses—quickly transformed themselves into “supreme leaders” and pioneered a “Chief Minister model of governance.” 22  Personalization of authority, capture of state institutions, symbiotic relationships with the bureaucracy, political violence, intimidation of opponents and dissenters, the malicious use of First Information Reports (the first reports of possible crimes, written by police) and false cases, and widespread surveillance were key parts of this model, which was replicated across multiple states. 23

This indeed became the de facto, tried-and-tested model for running a government—first fashioned in the states, and then implemented in the center once a legislative majority was mustered in 2014. That Narendra Modi was a chief minister who ran his state on this model for more than a decade is not insignificant. I am unaware (perhaps because I am a historian and not a political scientist) of major theoretical explorations of this phenomenon, but as the journalist Rama Lakshmi once wrote: “If you have covered Indian states long enough, you would know that this is how several chief ministers govern—like regional satraps and chieftains . . . . Many in the Delhi commentariat chose to look the other way because a lot of this was happening during haloed coalition years in the centre.” 24

At this point, I am not even going into the criminality, corruption, and gangsterism that became a regular feature of politics in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; the political violence and thuggery in places like West Bengal and Kerala; or the state-sanctioned use of extrajudicial violence in Punjab, Kashmir, Bombay, and the like. I am only pointing out the cementing and overt manifestation of authoritarianism in India’s political structure during the coalition era. While the dispersal of power allowed institutions to exert a degree of independence in Delhi, unprecedented concentration of executive authority caused supposedly independent institutions to completely collapse or surrender in the states. Thus the coalition era, in that sense, was a mixed blessing as far as the quality of Indian democracy went. So, what indeed does all this imply?

A Singular Experience

In his book  India’s Founding Moment,  the political theorist Madhav Khosla argues that India’s constitutional experience was singular, its founding the response to a unique and exceptional set of questions. The peculiar and specific historical conditions of the constitution’s creation, both domestically and globally, Khosla wrote, “should encourage us to see it as the paradigmatic democratic experience of the twentieth century.” 25  To do so, however, requires accepting that the normative foundations, and therefore the political and constitutional structure, of Indian democracy are distinct.

At their heart lay questions about the realities of India’s condition and its suitability for democracy. And these were answered with significant local innovations to the transplanted Westminster system to acclimatize it to local soil, which was vastly different from Britain and the white-settler dominions. Allowing the executive to legislate in place of the legislature, in peacetime and without the declaration of an emergency—executive power at legislative expense, unheard of in Westminster—was only one of these local innovations. There were many, collectively transforming India’s Parliament into what Harshan Kumarasingham called an “Eastminster,” 26  a beast very different from Westminster beyond the likeness of superficial institutional forms.

What I am getting at here is this: If we accept the normative singularity (or at least specialness) of India’s democratic experience, and the specificity of its conditions, then it follows that normative comparisons with the older democracies of Western Europe and North America are relatively unproductive. For example, in counting the number of journalists jailed, what meaningful comparison is really possible between a country with a constitutional commitment to freedom of the press, such as the United States, and a country such as India, where it is legally and constitutionally permissible for a bureaucrat to seize your property on accusations of that you are a gangster? Indian democracy should thus be assessed on its own terms.

On its own terms, the formal practices of Indian democracy remain intact, even if one could argue that its substance is threatened by the bureaucratic authoritarianism underpinning it. By the standards of electoral contestation and voter participation, as Ashutosh Varshney has observed, “India’s democratic vitality has held steady.” 27  In states such as Delhi, Bihar, and West Bengal, smaller and more poorly resourced parties have roundly defeated the BJP. Voter turnouts remain high. No one disputes the validity of results. Space for well-organized civil society action, even in a relatively inhospitable institutional context, remains available, if diminished, as demonstrated by the 2020–21 farmers’ protests.

The informal practices of democracy—civic action and liberal freedoms of expression and association—may well be constrained, but that is, and has been, a feature of Indian democracy and not a bug. An overt manifestation of authoritarianism is embedded in India’s constitutional structure and political culture, where it is threaded tightly with democracy and grounded in history and pragmatism. Crucially, this is accepted by all shades of political opinion. No party or social movement has yet sought to challenge or promised to undo the legal and constitutional architecture on which such authoritarianism is premised—one can only assume that it enjoys a degree of political consensus.

The reign (I use this word deliberately) of Nehru saw bloody battles over territorial sovereignty in Hyderabad, Kashmir, Manipur, and Nagaland; India’s worst anti-Muslim violence in Hyderabad in 1948, which claimed thousands of lives; the constitutional clipping of civil liberties via the First Amendment; and draconian legislation such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The reign of Indira Gandhi saw the Indian Air Force bombing its own citizens; mass relocation of villagers in Mizoram; the Emergency (1975–77) and rampant anticonstitutionalism; forced sterilization; blood-letting in Punjab; a massacre of Muslims in the Nellie area of Assam; and Operation Steeplechase and brutal anticommunist violence in West Bengal in the early 1970s. Consider what those eras might have looked like if social media, camera phones, 24-hour news cycles, the internet, and mass information flows had existed; if Twitter feeds across the world had been flooded with videos and testimonies from places such as Nagaland in 1956, at the height of the insurgency; Bastar (then part of Madhya Pradesh) in 1966, during the police massacre of tribal people; or Bengal in 1971 during Operation Steeplechase.

1. The franchise was first introduced in India by the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, embodied in the Government of India Act, 1919. The first election was held in 1920, with just over a million people eligible to vote.

2. Maharaja Ganga Singh to Austin Chamberlain, 15 May 1917 (Copy), Royal Archives, PS/PSO/GV/MAIN/15906.

3. For further context see: Tripurdaman Singh,  Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India (New Delhi: Penguin, 2020; London: Bloomsbury, forthcoming 2024); Tripurdaman Singh, “How India’s Founding Fathers Built an Eastminster Democracy,” Times of India,  22 January 2022.

4. Singh, “How India’s Founding Fathers Built an Eastminster Democracy.”

5. Sunil Khilnani, “1950’s: Era of Wrong Turnings,”  India Today, 2 July 2007.

6. For the uninitiated, a brief overview of the Tocqueville paradox is provided by Scotty Hendricks, “The Tocqueville Effect: Why We’re Always Angry about Something,”  Big Think, 27 August 2016,  https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/the-tocqueville-effect-and-why-well-always-find-new-controversies .

7. See Uday S. Mehta, “Indian Constitutionalism: Crisis, Unity, History” in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta,  The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2016), ch. 3; Uday Mehta, “The Social Question and the Absolutism of Politics,” India Seminar,  www.india-seminar.com/2010/615/615_uday_s_mehta.htm .

8. The speeches around Nehru’s “Objectives Resolution,” especially those by Nehru, Ambedkar, and M. R. Masani are instructive in this regard. See  Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 1, 16 and 17 December 1946. On the key strands, see Granville Austin,  The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999).

9. Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 2, 22 January 1947.

10. Hannah Arendt,  On Revolution (London: Penguin, 1990). One could, on that score, as easily refer to Nozick and the idea that patterned principles of distribution are fundamentally inimical to liberty. See, Robert Nozick,  Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2001).

11. See Ayesha Jalal,  Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 13–25.

12. See Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

13. See M. R. Madhavan, “The Absurdity of the Anti-Defection Law,”  The Hindu,  26 February 2021,  https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/the-absurdity-of-the-anti-defection-law .

14. Madhav Khosla,  India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2020).

15. Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 3, 29 April 1947.

16. See Singh,  Sixteen Stormy Days.

17. Uday S. Mehta, “Constitutionalism” in Niraja Gopal Jayal and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, eds.,  The Oxford Companion to Politics in India  (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011), 19.

18. Anil Kalhan, “Constitution and ‘Extraconstitution’: Colonial Emergency Regimes in Postcolonial India and Pakistan” in Victor V. Ramraj and Arun K. Thiruvengadam, eds.,  Emergency Powers in Asia: Exploring the Limits of Legality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 89–120.

19. Ashutosh Varshney, “How India’s Ruling Party Erodes Democracy,”  Journal of Democracy 33 (October 2022): 104–18; Ashutosh Varshney, “Modi Consolidates Power: Electoral Vibrancy, Mounting Liberal Deficits,”  Journal of Democracy 30 (October 2019): 63–77.

20. See, for example, Omar Rashid, “Behind Yogi Adityanath’s Crackdown on ‘Mafia’ in Uttar Pradesh Lies Gangsters Act,”  Outlook India,  updated 16 April 2023,  www.outlookindia.com/national/-special-law-through-which-bjp-cracked-down-on-gangsters-like-atiq-ahmad-in-uttar-pradesh-news-278842 .

21. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Database,  www.v-dem.net .

22. See Rama Lakshmi, “Narendra Modi Is Ruling India as if It Was Another State and He Is Still a Chief Minister”  The Print, 8 February 2021,  https://theprint.in/opinion/narendra-modi-is-ruling-india-as-if-it-was-another-state-and-he-is-still-a-chief-minister/600796/ .

23. Lakshmi, “Narendra Modi Is Ruling India As If It Was Another State,” and, for example, “‘I Have 211 Cases Against Me”—Nakkeeran Gopal on His Battle with Criminal Defamation,”  NewsMinute,  20 May 2015,  https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/i-have-211-cases-against-me-nakkeeran-gopal-his-battle-criminal-defamation-30613 .

24. Lakshmi, “Narendra Modi Is Ruling India as if It Was Another State.”

25. Khosla,  India’s Founding Moment, 6.

26. Harshan Kumarasingham,  A Political Legacy of the British Empire: Power and the Parliamentary System in Post-Colonial India and Sri Lanka (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012).

27. Varshney, “How India’s Ruling Party Erodes Democracy,” 106.

Copyright © 2023 National Endowment for Democracy and Johns Hopkins University Press Image Credit: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Further Reading

Volume 32, Issue 4

India’s Endangered Democracy

• Šumit Ganguly

Shortcomings in governance and electoral administration may be accelerating India’s slide to autocracy. Were these flaws embedded in Indian democracy from the start?

Volume 32, Issue 1

The Three Faces of the Indian State

• Madhav Khosla
• Milan Vaishnav

India’s Constitution has long seemed stable, but the rise of an ethnic, absolute, and opaque state is changing the constitutional order in momentous and disturbing ways.

Volume 19, Issue 1

The Democracy Barometers (Part II): Surveying South Asia

• Peter R. deSouza
• Suhas Palshikar
• Yogendra Yadav

While the people of South Asia, especially those with higher levels of education and exposure to the media, prefer democracy to authoritarianism, they are willing to relax some of the…

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Indian Society

Make Your Note

Perspective: Bharat: The Mother of Democracy

• 16 Nov 2023
• 13 min read
• GS Paper - 1
• GS Paper - 2
• Indian Constitution
• Ancient Indian History
• Salient Features of Indian Society

For Prelims: Indian Democracy, G20 Summit , P20 Summit, Public Digital Platform , SDGs

For Mains: Comparison of Indian Democracy with other world Democracy, Continuity of democracy in India over centuries.

What is the Context?

Recently the Parliament 20 (P20) summit was held in New Delhi. It is an engagement group led by the parliamentary speakers of the G20 countries. It aims to bring a parliamentary dimension to global governance under the theme "Parliaments for One Earth, One Family, One Future."

• The event included an exhibition called "Mother of Democracy," highlighting India's ancient democratic traditions and values. India's democratic legacy, emphasizes the importance of equality , harmony, freedom, acceptability, and inclusivity , which have been integral to Indian culture from ancient times to the present.

How is India the Mother of Democracy?

• The relationship between the ruler and the ruled, has been considered similar to that of a father and progeny.
• The c oncept of Dharma (duty) is crucial in Indian democracy, encompassing the obligations of both the king (Raja Dharma) and the people (Praja Dharma).
• Indian democracy's core values— harmony , freedom, acceptability, equality, and inclusivity —underpin citizens' dignified lives;
• Familial importance is seen in democratic family structures, with inclusive decision-making; women's participation in assemblies reflects inclusivity in early democratic processes.
• India's democratic foundation, rooted in history and societal values, emphasizes enduring democratic principles guided by Dharma , shaping the roles of both the rulers and the ruled;
• The historical tradition of participatory democracy underscores public involvement in selecting and approving rulers, highlighting the ruler's likability and the importance of public consent, mirroring a caring father ensuring the people's welfare.
• “Equality is the soul of democracy . Philosophers, saints and poets across India recognised this and preached its importance over centuries.

How have Democratic Institutions Evolved since Ancient Times?

• The Rigveda , the world's oldest composition , and the Atharvaveda mention representative bodies like Sabha, Samiti, and Sansad, terms still in use today.
• The Ramayana emphasizes governance for people's welfare, as seen in Rama's unanimous selection as king for Ayodhya.
• The Mahabharata , highlighting Dharma, addresses ethics, morality, and governance, notably in Bhishma's advice to Yudhishthira on the battlefield, with the Bhagavad Gita offering ancient guidance on duties.
• People's collective governance, a key feature in ancient Indian systems, manifested in Mahajanapada governance models: 15 Kingships with a council and 10 Republics where the Head was elected.
• Texts like Ashtadhyayi highlight 'Loktantrik' institutions – Gana, Puga, Nigama, Janapada.
• Jainism, dating back to the 7th century BCE, promotes pluralism through Anekanatavada , acknowledging that truth has multiple facets. This fosters co-existence and tolerance, aligning with democratic principles.
• With non-violence as a core tenet , Jainism advocates peaceful co-existence , still followed in India today.
• Bauddha Sangha, founded by Gautama Buddha in the 5th century BCE, exemplified early democratic practices. This monk community upheld Buddhist doctrines and democratic traditions , promoting open discussions and elections for leaders. Buddhist principles continue to shape democratic values in India.
• Early India embraced participatory governance , electing a Mahasammatta (Great Elect) in the face of anarchy. The King, chosen by the people in a great hall, ruled as 'Vasettha' (head) for their protection in the Ganarajya, or People's State.
• Buddhism's democratic principles influenced rulers, ensuring the adoption of democratic values in kingdoms. Inscriptions urged regular elections for prosperity and prevention of decline.
• Democracy prioritizes citizens, as emphasized in Arthashastra, a 3rd-century BCE governance treatise by Kautilya , advisor to Chandragupta Maurya.
• It asserts the ruler's happiness and welfare depend on the people's well-being , embodying India's enduring democratic principle of serving, not ruling.
• Ancient Greeks noted democratic governance in various states. Indians had a commendable custom: no one as a slave, ensuring equal liberty. Global slavery ended 150 years ago, true democracy excludes it. But, India had never embraced slavery.
• A state embodies democracy when equal rights and respect, protected by the law, ensure people's welfare.
• Emperor Ashoka, post his victory in Kalinga, established such governance, promoting peace and wellbeing through systematic ministerial elections every five years. His ideals endure in India's national emblem, symbolizing democracy.
• Democracy empowers officials to serve the people. Fa Xian observed Indian respect for people, Rule of Law, and public welfare.
• Gopala was elected by people to replace unfit ruler.Inscriptions highlight the end of disorder and the principle of justice.
• Democratic administration in India involves electing and holding accountable administrative officials, including guilds and town leaders.
• Inscriptions in South India's Uthiramerur temple , from ruler Parantaka Chola I, affirm democratic elections and local self-governance a thousand years ago.
• Sarv-sammati' is the democratic foundation, exemplified by Vijayanagar in South India, where Krishnadeva Raya's participatory governance, division into mandalams, nadus, and sthlas , emphasized self-governance at the village level—a model state for the people's benefit.
• Padishah Akbar (1556 – 1605 CE) practiced inclusive governance , introducing "Sulh-i-Kul" to combat religious discrimination.
• He fostered harmony with the syncretic religion "Din-i-Ilahi" and 'Ibadat Khana.' Navaratna counsellors aided pro-people initiatives, showcasing Akbar's advanced democratic ideals.
• Chhatrapati Shivaji (1630-1680 CE), founder of the Maratha Empire, advocated for democratic governance. His Agya Patra outlined duties for the Ashtha-Pradhan, ensuring equal rights. Shivaji's lokatantra legacy persisted through his successors.
• India's Constitution, crafted by the diverse Constituent Assembly led by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, establishes a modern, democratic Republic.
• It outlines the powers and relationships of the Legislature , Judiciary , and Executiv e, ensuring equality and universal suffrage.
• With numerous amendments, the Constitution evolves to resonate with the people, embracing inclusivity in a three-tier system of Union, States, and Local Self-Government.
• India, a pillar of global democracy, has experienced 17 national elections , 400+ state elections, and over a million local self-government elections since independence.
• The Election Commission , an independent body reporting to the President, ensures peaceful transfers of power, reflecting India's deep-rooted democratic ethos across all levels of governance.

What are the Sources that Help in Rediscovering Indian Democracy?

• Rich Literary Heritage: Mahabharat and Ramayan , India's epics, greatly influence the concepts of democracy and dharma in Indian culture, serving as enduring sources of wisdom.
• Democratic Values: India's democratic principles have persisted throughout its history, even through challenging times. The influence of both Western and traditional values has contributed to the modern Indian democratic system.
• Continuity of Values: Despite historical challenges, India has retained its democratic spirit, and this spirit is reflected in its democratic structures , including the Constitution and governance practices.

What Role can India play as the Mother of Democracy?

• India can play a crucial role as the "Mother of Democracy," nurturing fundamental values through its diverse cultural heritage. The country's rich history, influenced by epics like Mahabharat and Ramayan, contributes to the cultivation of democratic principles and enduring ethical values.
• India can play a crucial role as the "Mother of Democracy" by fostering public awareness. With a rich democratic heritage, the nation serves as a beacon for promoting civic engagement, political participation , and a deeper understanding of democratic principles among its citizens.
• India, as the Mother of Democracy in modern education, promotes democratic principles through a curriculum fostering critical thinking, inclusivity, and civic engagement, shaping generations with a strong democratic foundation.
• India’s commitment aligns with G20 goals of economic stability and sustainable development. India's democratic ethos advocates open dialogue, human rights, and inclusive policies , contrasting with some global players.
• India amplifies developing nations' voices , promoting equitable representation and diverse perspectives in decision-making . India underscores the global importance of democratic values, shaping discussions and policies for international cooperation and understanding.
• India's presidency of the G20 reflects its commitment to democratic values and international cooperation. The country aims to lead by example and promote global democratic principles.
• India's progress and vision are grounded in the collective strength of its people. The focus is on the power of collaboration, consensus , and unity to overcome challenges and achieve national and global goals.

Conclusion:

The Parliament 20 (P20) Summit in New Delhi showcased India's rich democratic heritage and core values to the world. The emphasis on inclusivity, equality, and harmony is central to Indian democracy.

India's role in the G20 demonstrates its commitment to democratic principles and its belief in the collective strength of its people to address global challenges. The country is working to inspire future generations to embrace these timeless democratic values through education and public awareness initiatives.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Q. Which one of the following factors constitutes the best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy? (2021)

(a) A committed judiciary (b) Centralization of powers (c) Elected government (d) Separation of powers

Q.The ancient civilization in Indian sub-continent differed from those of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece in that its culture and traditions have been preserved without a breakdown to the present day. Comment. (2015)

• Our Selections

• About NEXT IAS
• Director’s Desk
• Advisory Panel
• Faculty Panel
• General Studies Courses
• Optional Courses
• Interview Guidance Program
• Postal Courses
• Prelims Test Series
• Mains Test Series (GS & Optional)
• ANUBHAV (All India Open Mock Test)

Daily Current Affairs

• Current Affairs MCQ
• Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
• Previous Year Papers
• Down to Earth
• Kurukshetra
• Union Budget
• Economic Survey
• Download NCERTs
• NIOS Study Material
• Beyond Classroom
• Toppers’ Copies
• Student Portal

India as the mother of democracy

• Recently, the External Affairs Minister stated that India has initiated activities through its cultural centres abroad to emphasise the message that India is the mother of democracy.

About a democracy

• In a democratic country, people themselves select and elect a representative as their leader. 
• As Abraham Lincoln famously expressed, democracy is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. 
• It is a political system where people are supreme and freedom of choice is its core.
• The term ‘democracy’ originated from the Greek term ‘d?mokratía’ which means “rule of the people”. 
• Direct democracy is the one in which the eligible citizens directly and actively participate in the political decision-making. 
• Indirect democracy is the one in which the sovereign power remains with the eligible citizens and the elected representatives exercise the political power; this type of democracy is also known as democratic republic or the representative democracy .

What makes India ‘the mother of democracy’?

• One of the ancient civilizations was in India. The existence of Sabhas and Samitis throughout the Vedic Period is where India’s history of democracy begins.
• The word Gana also means numbers and Ganarajya will therefore mean the rule of numbers or the rule of many.
• The Buddhist texts (Jatakas) also refers to the existence of many autonomous clan with a non-monarchical form of government in sixth century B.C. Notable among them were Shakyas of Kapilavastu, Lichchhavis of Vaishali, the Videhas of Mithila, etc. 
• “There is a small but famous village in Tamil Nadu, called Uthiramerur . An inscription on a rock here, some 1,100 or 1,200 years old, amazes the world. This rock inscription is like a mini-Constitution. It explains in detail how the gram sabha should be conducted and what should be the process of selection of its members,”.
• The 12th-century Anubhav Mandapam of Bhagwan Basaveshwara . Here, free debate and discussion was encouraged.
• The democratic India believes in the principles of equality, liberty, justice and fraternity . 
• India has a pluralistic and consultative tradition that very few societies, if anybody at all, can match. 
• The people from any caste, creed, sex, religion, and region have an equal right to vote and choose their representatives. 
• Since its inception, India has taken a progressive stance. 
• Indians have granted women the right to vote, protected every citizen’s fundamental rights, and incorporated the principle of the separation of powers. 
• Indians have also incorporated principles like secularism, which are still not widely practiced in other democracies, into the Indian Constitution from the beginning. 

Features of Indian democracy

• India has a parliamentary form of government based on a universal adult franchise.  
• The executive authority is responsible to the elected representatives of the people. Parliament for all its decisions and actions. Sovereignty rests ultimately with the people.
• The legislature, which is made up of the elected government, is collectively accountable to the elected government. 
• In an Indian democracy, the Council of Ministers, both in the states and the centre, is collectively responsible for their respective ministers. 
• The judiciary is independent of the executive. It is the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. 
• At the apex of the entire judicial system exists the Supreme Court of India. Each State has its own High Court. 
• A code of civil and criminal laws applies to the whole country.
• In India, neither the parliament nor the judiciary have any precedence over the Constitution. 
• In contrast to many other nations, India has a written constitution which clearly defines the roles, powers, and obligations of the several departments of government and sets down the limitations within which they must operate.
• The Fundamental Rights of every Indian citizen include the freedom of speech, expression, belief, assembly and association, migration, and choice of occupation or trade. 
• These rights also protect every Indian from discrimination on grounds of race, religion, creed or sex, and are enforceable in courts of law.

Challenges faced by Indian Democracy

• The major challenge faced by democracy is the heterogeneous composition of the country as Indian society is divided on the basis of caste, religion, etc. 
• People in India still vote in favour of caste, community or religion. 
• Criminalisation of politics and political violence also create hindrance in the smooth functioning of democracy.
• Manipulation of people’s verdicts by the political parties is still practised.
• Factors such as corruption, women’s issues, caste issues, political strategies etc. affect politics at the national and the state level in the country. 
• Illiteracy is a major factor which can affect the smooth functioning of democracy in the country.
• Poverty too affects the successful running of democracy. 
• Political and communal violence has gained serious proportions in the country. 
• The role of the citizens of India is most important for its democracy. 
• For a successful working of democracy, it is the right as well as the duty of every Indian to choose and elect the appropriate representative for the country.
• Civil society has to go beyond the nation-state to renew the idea of the Earth as an imagination. 
• India needs a new rethink around peace. It has to go beyond the official text of security and borders.

• News In Short-10-09-2024
• New Machine Safety Norms to Affect MSMEs
• US-India Partnership for Semiconductor
• India and UAE MoU for Nuclear Cooperation
• Challenges to road safety in India

Headlines of the Day

• Headlines of the Day 11-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 10-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 09-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 07-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 06-09-2024

Other News of the Day

Call for Papers | 1-Day International Conference on 75 Years of the Constitution of India” by RGNUL, Patiala: Submit by Sep 25

• Call for Papers Opportunities Webinars and Conferences
• September 11, 2024

About RGNUL

The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab Act, 2006 (Punjab Act No. 12 of 2006). The Act incorporated a law university of national stature in Punjab, thereby fulfilling the need for a Centre of Excellence in legal education in the modern era of globalisation and liberalization. The University acquired the approval of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in July 2006.

In May 2015, the University became the first and only NLU to get accreditation by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with an ‘A’ grade. In 2018, RGNUL was amongst the four NLUs to have been granted autonomous status by the University Grants Commission. The University has been ranked among the top 10 law schools in India under the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The University is currently emphasising research, training, and consultancy in various contemporary legal interests and envisages to be a research-intensive university in times to come.

CCLG is an interdisciplinary centre, established with a vision to contribute to the study, research and understanding of constitutional law and governance. Pursuant to the objects of the university contained in S.4 of The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab Act, 2006, the university has a commitment ‘to disseminate legal knowledge and legal processes and their role in national development by organising lectures, seminars, symposia, workshops and conferences.

The Centre encourages students to participate in these events and engages them in free and meaningful debates in the field of constitutional law and governance. The aim of the Centre is to emerge as an influential think tank for national and international issues in the field of constitutional law and governance and promote constitutional values.

About the Sponsor- Think India

Think India is a pan-India student-led initiative that aims to bring together the country’s best talents and inspire young Indians to serve society. The initiative was started in 2006 by students from IISc, IIM B, and other top institutions in Bengaluru, India.

As of today, Think India has MOUs & presence across IITs, NITs, NLUs, etc. Recently, Think India entered into an MOU with NIT Jalandhar, Punjab. Think India has actively collaborated with platforms like G20, Y20, institutes like IIT Kharagpur, IIT Roorkee, etc in organising academic events, & actively provides internships with lawyers, Parliamentarians, and policy-making firms.

About the Conference

The One-Day International Conference on the “Working of the Constitution of India: 1950-2025”, being organised by the Centre for Constitutional Law and Governance (CCLG) at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, serves as a significant platform for scholars, advocates, policymakers, and students to engage in meaningful discussions on the evolving landscape of constitutional law in India in the face of modern-day conundrums.

The conference aims to explore the dynamic interplay between a variety of disciplines and the Constitution of India, offering a deep dive into how the ideals shape and respond to contemporary global and national issues.

In keeping with the CCLG’s commitment to fostering a comprehensive understanding of constitutional governance, the conference will cover a broad spectrum of themes such as the interplay between the Constitution and human rights, environmental protection, societal structures, the Indian economy, Indian polity, management practices, trade and commerce and advancements in science and technology.

These discussions will not only offer critical insights into the pressing issues of today but also pave the way for innovative approaches to upholding constitutional values in an increasingly complex world.

Participants will have the opportunity to present papers, engage in discussions and collaborate on research that aligns with the themes of the conference. The conference aims to generate scholarly discourse that will contribute to legal literature, influence policy-making and promote the principles of justice, equality and democracy in India and beyond.

Target Audience

• Academicians and Researchers from law and related disciplines.
• Advocates and Judges.
• Government Officials and Policymakers.
• Representatives from Non-Governmental Organisations.
• Students and Scholars of law and related disciplines.
• Constitution and Women
• Constitution and Human Rights
• Constitution and Environment
• Constitution and Indian Economy
• Constitution and Society
• Constitution and Indian Polity
• Constitution and Management
• Constitution and New Education Policy
• Constitution and Science & Technology
• Constitution and Trade & Commerce
• Any other theme relating to the Constitution of India

Formatting Guidelines

• File must be in Microsoft Word editable format.
• The Citation style to be followed is OSCOLA.
• Font: Times New Roman, Size: 12, Spacing: 1.5, Alignment: Justified
• Title must be size 14 font and bold.
• In-text citations and endnote referencing is to be followed.
• Footnoting must be avoided to the extent possible.

General Guidelines

• Abstracts have to be submitted by filling out this form.
• Submission must be an original work of the author and empirical studies would be given preference over doctrinal research.
• A maximum of two authors are allowed per paper.
• A brief bio-note (maximum 150 words) should be attached to the abstract, detailing the designation and institutional affiliation of the author(s).
• The abstracts will be double-blind reviewed before acceptance for presentation, subject to submission of full paper in a timely manner.
• The selected papers will be invited for presentation at the conference and will be published in the form of an edited volume after plagiarism check and double-blind peer review.
• A self-declaration must be submitted along with the full paper regarding the originality of the work and that it has not been published/sent for publication anywhere else.

Submission Guidelines

Abstract: The abstract must range between 300 to 500 words, outlining the methodology and the tentative outcomes of the research. The abstract should be on a topic of contemporary interest related to above themes.

Full Paper: The word limit for full paper submission is 6000-9000 words. The paper must consist of an Introduction, Research Methodology, Literature Review, Results & Discussion, and Conclusion

Important Dates

• Last Date for Submission of Abstract: 25th September 2024
• Intimation of Selection of Abstract: 30th September 2024
• Last Date to Pay Registration Fee: 10th October 2024
• Submission of Final Paper: 10th November 2024
• Date of the Conference: 26th November 2024

Registration Procedure

The registration fee is Rs. 590/- (including GST) for online presentations. For offline presentations, the registration fee is Rs. 2360/- (including GST) which will cover both food and accommodation. Co-authors shall register individually. Payment link will be shared separately with the abstract selection confirmation email.

Click Here to Register .

Contact information.

Queries regarding the conference, including registration and administrative questions, should be directed to [email protected] or Kshitij Pratap Singh (+91 63883 31764).

The brochure is here .

You might like

Online Certificate Course on Intellectual Property Rights by Legal Research and Analysis: Enrol by Sept 14

Online Certificate Course on Advanced Legal Research and Writing by Simulegum: Enrol by Sep 13

Call for Paper | Presentation & Expert Discussion on Child Independent Lawyers in India by MNLU, Mumbai: Submit Abstract by Sep 15

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Post Comment