To make independence meaningful, the lives of Indians were to be reorganised around the two political values of democracy and republicanism. Democracy was to undo India’s complex unevenness. Embedded in the nation’s official name, republicanism was to become a way of life of the Indian people.
The forms taken by Indian democracy over six decades have made western models of democracy appear unfamiliar. Most Indians have become democratic and at least some Indians have regularly complained of an excess of democracy. Interestingly, while democracy has received extensive attention, India’s republicanism has remained under-emphasised.
India does not really possess a republican sensibility. Indians live in a republic but scarcely live a republican way of life. We have celebrated the nation’s republican identity for sixty-two years without seriously considering the virtues of republicanism. Indian republicanism appears underdeveloped.
India’s democracy obscures its republicanism. School texts tell India’s prospective citizens that India became a democracy to remove inequality among its people. They also tell us that India is a republic because the head of its state is elected by the people. This lesson is deceitful because it is half told. The right of electing the head of the state implies equality among people. Thus we have a condition: we are taught that Indian democracy is pursuing the annihilation of inequality, but it is not sufficiently emphasised that we are all already equal. Every individual person, as citizen, is always equal to all other persons as citizens – this is the insistent beauty of republicanism. India’s republican declaration promised this to all Indians.
This condition causes democracy to gain a disproportionate moral edge in the popular imagination, which comes at the cost of republicanism. Indian democracy, Pratap Bhanu Mehta recently observed, is a feat of improvisation. One of its innovations is that it pursues eventual equality by creating competing inequalities. It structures state institutions and political culture such that people as groups compete to be identified as deprived or ‘backward’ in order to eventually become equals with each other. This may be the most effective route to attaining a general equality of conditions. But it is harmful to ignore at least three of its side-effects.
One, democracy enables politics to consume the public imagination by pushing alternative anchors of communal life – a civic or communitarian ethos, for instance – to the margins. Politics has more or less become the only palpable subject of discourse in Indian public life. Its dominance discourages civic initiatives by ever presenting the danger of turning them into political conspiracies. It is one of the main reasons why civic concerns are rarely taken seriously in India.
Two, democracy virtually stunts the growth of civic individualism. The privileging of groups, though necessary for correcting historical wrongs, somewhat de-legitimises the emphasis on the individual. Democracy paints individualism in a general negative. It encourages the conflation of the individual with the group, ignoring that the individual cannot to be lost to the group.
Indian democracy disservices its own future by disallowing the possibility of the individual to transcend her group being; It does this by preventing the ideas of freedom, equality, justice and responsibility from acquiring the subtlety that would be urgently needed when disenchantment with group being sets in. It is useful to note that progressive ideas are generally articulated by individuals – Marx, Ambedkar or Gandhi – who identify with groups but also transcend them in order to emancipate societies.
Three, the over-presence of politics and the de-emphasis of individualism deepen the already pervasive moral crisis of India’s public life. By restricting the scope of an individual’s public existence, Indian democracy compels individuals to apologise for thinking responsibly about civic duties. This anti-individual common sense of democratic politics arrests everyday citizen initiatives in public lives and punishes those who persist for their conviction.
Democracy also deters individuals from dissenting against corrosive influences of tradition on personal grounds. If you marry outside your caste, region or religion, it is not your personal preference but the social impact of your act that has greater chances of acceptance.
The under-emphasis and the underdevelopment of Indian republicanism beg questions. Was the term Republic used in the Preamble only to make that text lofty, like the now hollowed-out term Socialism? Was the farsightedness of the Constitution-makers partial: soundly anticipating the transformations democracy would bring about but missing out on the harm it might do to republicanism?
It is also possible that Indian democracy disfigures itself by undermining republicanism. It enables groups and classes at the lowest rungs of India’s complex unevenness to become political rulers. But this doesn’t necessarily change the grammar of political rule. Indians elect the head of the state. It is a republican practice because it negates hereditary claims on rule. But in the more consequential exercise of their right to vote, Indians also turn nouveau elites into hereditary claimants of power. Though we exercise our democratic right to vote, we undermine our own republican values.
Democracy in India hardly empowers the individual for her moral worth, for what she can potentially achieve. Individuals find their own lives worth living if the value of their existence is affirmed by an external source. All great republics have acted as that external source of affirmation to their citizens. Its absence in India prevents the idea of individual worth, rights and all, from becoming personal and experiential in public life. Indians find themselves vulnerable and incapable of achieving much individually because the civic radars that could receive their concerns for their merit are either weak or non-existent. My vulnerability is exposed each time I am threatened by the boorish man for suggesting he mustn’t spit anywhere at his heart’s content, or by the group that plays loud music in Mumbai’s local trains – for civic reasons of maintaining hygiene or public sanity – and I find no support from the bystanders.
But Indian democracy undermines republicanism in more artful ways. Because India’s public life is deceptively unresponsive to the individual’s moral worth, traditional frames of reverence, with their hierarchical codes intact, continue to condition human interactions. Thus, the patriarchs and the high commands continue at the centre and are dutifully replicated in other spheres of life. Their families and uninspiring offspring may prosper in politics or proliferate elsewhere without having their legitimacy questioned.
Democracy may cause yesterday’s disadvantaged to become today’s rulers. But the new rulers often do not challenge the hierarchy. Doing so would clear the space for genuine human dignity based on an already existing equality that the republic acknowledges. Sadly, they see their mobility as the end of radicalism. Democracy thrives, republicanism suffers.
The virtual absence of India’s republicanism makes Indian people, abstract and susceptible to being played around, more important than Indian citizens. However, as the crisis of India’s public life deepens, the anxiety it generates is bound to seek purposive expression. Emphasising the country’s republican identity would not resolve the crisis, but it could make it less acute. It would also offer Indian democracy a foil against its own undesirable excesses.
But this would need remembering that India would remain a republic on 27 January too. It would need some meaningful living with that fact.
The author is with the School of International Studies, Central University of Gujarat at Gandhinagar, India.
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
I don’t agree with the author. I know, based on a past PM of India’s utterances, that India is a democracy as well as a Banana Republic. he used to keep lecturing something about “hamein Banaana Hai, hamein Dikhaana hai ….” Mr Rajiv Gandhi i believe. So looks like India is a democracy and this kind of republic both. The reason is that Indians allow this type of nonsense and believe in caste and religion and not on human ability and decency. They were probably in the past having a proud cultural tradition; today seeing their Bollybood, I think they are just nouveau riche craqss consumerists with not many morals and apapthetic.
Funny how a whole webpage have been observed and written on Indian republican-ism by someone who belongs to a state where there is hardly any diffrence between dictatorship and republic. Aiming for a perfect world is impossible but it would have been appriciated if the blogger would have put his meaningful time implementing what their neighbour has achieved with the limited republicanism.
I dont get surprised now a days when Pakistani brothers in US and Australia say that they are Indian because this is how ashamed they feel representing their country.
Learn good things to uplift the nation first rather than critisizing other nations.
What is this new word republicanism? Funny this writer is all confused.
Learn the meaning of the word republic and what it implies.
I will summarize for you the difference between a democracy and republic: democracy == rule of the people (ie majority opinion trumps minority) ; republic == rule of LAW (ie Law protects even minority opinion and majority can do nothing about it, ie even majority is under the law)
India is a republic, albeit a bad one. For example even if the majority Hindus decide that India should be declared a Hindu Nation and not a secular one, they can not. Even the 2/3 majority of parliament can not do this. That’s why it’s a republic.
What is the definition of Republicabism? Never ever heard of anyone lliving recpublicansim and I live in the US. The author seems utterly confused.
Though I do agree with the writer that republicanism is ignored in India, I will say that democracy and individual freedom has led to a large extent cast barriers in Indian cities.This has in turn started republicanism taking root in large cities, which is observed recently.
It is high time we in pakistan at least make an attempt to understand why have we failed so miserably while our neighbour has made very good progess in all facets. If we refuse not to look around, we cannot blame anyone.
I disagree with this type of home-made characterization of democracy.It is not in the ambit of democracy ‘s functionary to empower the individual’s moral worth. Morality is a derivative of cultural traditions and conventional belief system. So,therefore, it functions as a mouthpiece of a society – regardless of “good” or “bad”.
You are little confused Mr Mishra.Democracies never promised Indians that it will remove inequality becouse the Governing System that removes inequality among its people is Communisim .Democracy simply providies the means to remove inequalities among the people.Those who put an effort to move up regardless of their Gender,race,religon do move up and live quite comfortably in India.But there are some people who unfortunatly believe that government has to provide means for them to catch up with those who worked hard to move up,thats not how democracy works.A republic guarranties all the rights in return of certen conditions.There are no free lunches.You have to go to school and attain execelence to become a Doctor and ones you become a doctor you make more money then a peon,who never went to a school or ever worked hard enough to make as much money as the doctor did.So in a democracy and a republic which only Gurranties a constitution a person will have to work and climb a ladder to remove inequalities.India is the Bigest Democracy in the world and is a republic too becouse it has a constitution too,which gurrenties all civil rights to its citizens.
If India is the world’s largest democracy, then what about the democratic plebiscite right of kashmir??
If you give beggar a precious diamond , then there is all chances are there. The diamond could be stolen or he may be killed for it. So is the case with Indian democracy. The people of India are given democracy without understanding its worth or means to protect it.
“The privileging of groups, though necessary for correcting historical wrongs, somewhat de-legitimises the emphasis on the individual.” indeed succinctly stated.
Thanks you Mr. Atul Mishra for penning a superbly articulated article and Dawn for publishing it. Author through crystal clear analysis has breathed refreshing clarity in to a complex issue. So important for a region where vast majority are thoroughly confused with democratic and republican polity. “people as groups compete to be identified as deprived or ‘backward’ in order to eventually become equals with each other” hits nail on its head. Groups competing for the tag of backwardness willy-nilly are enabling rampant corruption often justified to correct “historical injustice” . If anyone dares to identify this elephant the room it could result in politically devastating reaction. The effect of the refusal to recognize the elephant in the room is for all too apparent.
This is unnecessary nitpicking — election is the essence of BOTH democracy AND republicanism — whether presidential or parliamentary.
Let Rahul come and elected as Permanent PM everything will be alright.
After every 5 yrs one has to strive for being PM requires to feed the Politicians and overlook mass!!!.
Pandering to minorities and using caste calculations to gain votes goes against republicanism. As long as Indian democracy is nothing but a trading of votes by elites of a caste, and bargaining for power, the individual human is of little consequence. With dynastic form of democracy where parties do not elect leaders or elect them in sham elections, the individual does not amount to much. Thanks for your insights.
Interesting article and loads of insight! But why is it posted here. In Pakistan we neither understand Democracy nor Republicanism!
Yet Pakistanis have sacrificed the most for both democracy and the republic. We have lost three democratically elected prime ministers (all Shaheeds if you ask me) to dictatorial regimes and in the hope the the Islamic republic will be a welfare state and will bring equality for all, we have sacrificed thousands of our citizens in fighting wars of the others that were not necesssary.
This is too esoteric to comprehend. If republicanism in essence is the rule by elected people, India is there. The leg room for individual rights within republicanism is a different cup of tea. That casteism, regionalism & communalism are being promoted to win the elections is a very sad reality. Reservations and affirmative actions will & do help in uplifting those specific section which they target. There will be a price to pay in terms of individual equality. However these actions will prove to be more beneficial in the long run. The greater danger is that vested interests will try to perpetuate the caste & communal fault lines in the society.
Very interesting article. The author has touched upon a subject which is rarely debated in India. However, reading it does make one marvel at the author’s deep insight.
India’s republicanism was stifled by in its infancy itself by the political leadership of newly independent nation. Socialism was the in-thing in the early years of the free nation, and all emphasis was on the collective progress, social justice and empowerment of oppressed groups. Republicanism sounded just too American to the taste of political leadership of those days and hence abhorred.
Indian’s parliamentary democracy also favored groups over individuals. Republicanism thrives better in a presidential democracy where the achievements and ambitions of individuals are in sharp focus as opposed to the parliamentary democracy.