Challenges To Democracy In India: Insights of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar | Avatthi Ramaiah

Living in a democracy seems to be a dream of every one world over. But keeping democracy a democracy has been of a greater challenge today than ever before. In India, the challenges to democracy are increasing both in terms of number and complexity, with the emerging overt political patronage to India’s old enemies like caste, religious and linguistic hatred, clashing with the ideals of Indian Constitution such as justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. In this article an attempt is made to bring to light the conditions precedent for the successful working of democracy in India as voiced by the architect of the Indian Constitution Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

Democracy:

Democracy simply means the rule of people. It is a form of government which the people constitute, either by themselves or through their elected representatives, to govern themselves, to protect their basic human rights and dignity, to create opportunities for fulfilling their aspirations, and to protect themselves from the enemies within and outside their territory. According to Melissa Schwartzberg (2014), democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people. To Walter Bagehot, democracy is a “government by discussion.” (see Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 475). To John Dewey, “democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience” (Dewey, 2001: 101).

Democracy to Ambedkar is “a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed” (Ambedkar, vol. 17(3): 475). This definition brings to light two aspects of democracy: political and social. The “political” refers to a form of government, a representative government, chosen by the people through adult suffrage and periodical elections. He calls it a “political democracy”. However, the “social” refers to “more than a form of government. It refers to a “form of the organisation of society.” A democratically organised society has the following two essential characteristics: (a) “the absence of stratification of society into classes”, and (b) “a social habit on the part of individuals and groups which is ready for continuous readjustment or recognition of reciprocity of interests.” The lack of reciprocity of interests among groups and individuals produce anti-democratic results (Ambedkar, vol.4: 281). The “social” more specifically refers to “an attitude of respect and reverence (that the people have) towards fellowmen” (Ambedkar, vol.1: 57). This he calls it “social democracy”.

What is the relation between the political and the social in democracy? Although Ambedkar was in favour of representative democracy and periodic elections based on universal adult franchise, he found them inadequate to meet the demands of democracy (Ambedkar, vol.1: 45). He argued, “A democratic form of Government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy. The politicals never realized that democracy was not a form of Government: it was essentially a form of society.” Democracy to him is not about fighting election and forming government which only refers to the political democracy. It is much to do with the respect that people have towards one another in the society (Ibid.: 222).

For Ambedkar, social democracy means “a way of life which is based on the principle of liberty, equality and fraternity. These three principles are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. “Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.” If people could experience social democracy, they will naturally develop an attitude of respect and reverence towards one another irrespective of their socio-cultural and religious differences (Ambedkar, vol.13: 1216). In Democracy if liberty does not destroy equality and equality does not destroy liberty, it is because at the base of it there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore the root of Democracy.” (Ambedkar, vol.4: 283-284).

He argued that the government formed through political democracy can do no good to the society if the society does not recognise in true sense the principle of one-man, one-vote, one-value, and the constitutional ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. There cannot be a democratic Government unless the society for which it functions is democratic in its form and structure, he further argued. And a democratic government does not necessarily mean a good government. Good government means good laws and good administration. If those holding power in the government work only for the advantage of their own class of people and not for all others or for the downtrodden, they don’t represent a good government and there cannot be a democracy. If the mental disposition of the individuals is not democratic, democratic form of Government may easily become a dangerous form of Government (Ibid.: 282-283). Regarding the fate of democracy in an undemocratic society, the following statement of Ambedkar is worth noting:

“In a Society where classes clash and are charged with anti-social feelings and spirit of aggressiveness, the Government can hardly discharge its task of governing with justice and fair-play. In such a society, Government even though it may in form be a government of the people and by the people, it can never be a Government for the people. It will be a government by a class for a class. A Government for the people can be had only where the attitude of each individual is democratic which means that each individual is prepared to treat every other individual as his equal and is prepared to give him the same liberty which he claims for himself. This democratic attitude of mind is the result of socialization of the individual in a democratic society. Democratic society is therefore a prerequisite of a democratic Government” (Ibid.: 284).

It is therefore appropriate to conclude that political democracy is merely a means to realize its end goal, i.e., social democracy, and if the political democracy is not effectively used towards this end, it will only produce anti-democratic elements in the society which in turn may become a major cause for losing the political democracy.

Democracy as an ideal form of government:

Democracy is often considered the best of all the forms of government, because it is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, as articulated by Abraham Lincoln. And it is only in a democracy, the people have the voting power to throw away, of course in the subsequent election, the ruling government and its elected representatives when the latter did not perform as promised or as expected by the people. Yet, democracy is not free from limitations. It does have its inherent weaknesses. The fact that democracy demands many leaders, and the “many” always formed a rabble, the demos, democracy is distorted in itself. What will happen to democracy if the majority citizens vote for a dictator? Although the Constitution allows a majority vote to dismiss the government, one does not know whether the majority vote will always be right (Karl Popper, 2016). Again, the “many” in the context of multicultural societies like India always comprises of multiple communities and groups which differ from one another not only in their religious, caste, ethnic and linguistic background and ideological orientations, but also in the magnitude of socio-economic and political power that they enjoy and deprived of, and in their needs and aspirations, and methods they chose to achieve the same. In such a society, the possibility of the majority community oppressing the minority is immense and inevitable; conflict and violence would continue to remain a basic characteristic of democracy in such a society. Therefore, the ideals that can unite people from diverse background cannot be searched in any particular religion or caste or ethnicity. Any such attempt would only result in more conflicts and more violence among the communities. Instead, those ideals need to be universal, inclusive and liberative in nature.

Democracy in India:

With its own comprehensive Constitution, India has been a democracy since 1950. With its projected population of 1.43 billion in 2024, India continues to be the largest democracy in the world. India’s first Lok Sabha election (general election) was held in 1951-52. Its recent (18th) general election was held during April 19 – June 1, 2024, and the election results were declared on June 4, 2024.

The Indian democracy is based on the universal ideals such as justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as enshrined in the very Preamble of the Indian constitution. It is only when an individual experiences liberty, she can aspire for equality, and when she experiences both liberty and equality, she will naturally develop a sense of fraternity or we-feeling with fellow citizens. However, as noted earlier, “without fraternity, liberty and equality cannot become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them” (Ambedkar, vol.13: 1216).

Who is the constable that Ambedkar refers to? It is the State and its three organs, viz., the Legislature (to make laws), the Executive (to implement laws) and the Judiciary (to interpret laws and settle disputes) consisting of Supreme court as its head, and high court in each state. The success of democracy in India depends on how honest and efficient the members of each of these three organs are in performing their respective role.

Since the members of the Legislature of the Union (MPs) and of the states (MLAs), and the Members of the Executive (the Union Executive) which consists of Council of Ministers and Minister of states are those directly elected by the people, the need of conducting election in an absolutely free and fair manner assumes immense importance. After all, it is these honourable Members who make laws and implement them too. It is they who decide on everything for the entire nation. Whether the people failed to elect the right persons or the wrong ones managed to get elected, the loss is for the entire nation.

About the functioning of democracy in India, two contrasting views have emerged. One, according to Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and Lloyd Rudolph, “India’s democracy has proved substantial as well as durable. Electoral participation has been higher than in the United States, elections have been free and fair, governments have alternated at the Centre and in the states, free speech and association are constitutionally protected and widely practiced" (2008: 313). In contrast, Andre Beteille argued, “It is a paradox of our time that the rights of citizenship are better respected in monarchies such as Britain and the Netherlands than in democracies such India and Sri Lanka” (Beteille, 2012: 8). According to Gopal Guru:

“the democratic practice in the Indian context evolved into something that has been exactly opposite to the spirit of liberal democracy. The focus of political and electoral mobilisation, particularly by some political parties, has shifted from the need to promote an enlightened individual citizen to sliding down to group mobilisation based on caste and religious community. ….. This has been done with one single purpose, that of creating a political majority based on religion” (Guru, G. 2019: 9).

When political parties invoke India’s old enemies like religion and caste for mobilizing votes, the voters are more likely to be influenced by their religious sentiment and accordingly vote for such parties, not realizing how such a move would damage the secular fabric of India’s democracy.

Ambedkar on challenges to democracy in India:

According to Ambedkar, democracy depends not merely on free and fair election. It depends on a number of other conditions too. His views on challenges to democracy can be understood particularly from the three lectures that he delivered in three different occasions during late 1940s and early 1950s. The themes of these include: “Failure of Parliamentary Democracy Will Result in Rebellion, Anarchy and Communism”, delivered at D.A.V. College, Jullundar City (Punjab) on October 28,1951; “Conditions Precedent for the Successful Working of Democracy”, delivered at the Poona District Library, Poona on December 22, 1952; and “Constitution of India”, delivered as the Chairman of the Constitution drafting committee at the Constitution Assembly of India on 17th November 1949. His insights on democracy are found also in his “Writings and Speeches”. The following are the summary of his reflections as a political thinker and as a Parliamentarian on the various conditions that are necessary for a successful working of democracy in India, in other words, the challenges to democracy:

Condition No. 1: A strong opposition:

Democracy cannot thrive in a country that has a very weak opposition in the Parliament. When the opposition is not powerful, it gives scope for the leader of the Parliament, the Prime Minister (PM), to become an autocrat or a dictator. To Ambedkar, opposition and free and fair election are the two pillars of democracy. Indeed, “opposition is the key to a free political life” (Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 427). In a democracy, “the Government must justify every act that it does to those of the people who do not belong to its party”. He argued that when the ruling government does not honour this principle of democracy, the people or their representative can use two types of vetoes (rights) to control the government and its decisions. One, the long-term veto which the people can exercise through their votes after every five years. With the help of this veto, the people can prevent those candidates who did not perform well in the last five years from getting reelected. Two, the short-term veto which the elected representatives can use to oppose or challenge any decision of the government within the Parliament or State Assembly itself. But the use of veto power depends largely on how powerful is the opposition party. The ruling government does not want any ‘opposition’ at all. It is for this reason, Ambedkar argued that the “opposition is a condition precedent for democracy.” “…Opposition means that the government is always on the anvil”. A functional opposition is “the key to a free political life”. “… There must be someone to show whether the Government is going wrong. And this must be done incessantly and perpetually”, Ambedkar argued (Ibid: 477).

Condition No. 2: Free and fair elections:

Under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, the Election Commission of India (ECI) is vested with the responsibility of conducting free and fair elections. Ambedkar argued:

“Free and fair elections is the other pillar on which Parliamentary Democracy rests. Free and fair elections are necessary for the transfer of power from one section of the community to the other in a peaceful manner and without any bloodshed. …. Elections must be completely free and fair. People must be left to themselves to choose those whom they want to send to the Legislatures” (Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 427).

However, this condition of “free and fair election” is often alleged to have been compromised in a number of ways right from the first general election to the present day. Some of these include the following:

Role of Big Business:

According to Ambedkar, “Big Business’ is trying to play a great part in political life of this country. …. If moneyed people try to influence the elections by contributing to the election fund of any political party, what will be the result. If the party to which they have supported financially comes into power, they will naturally try to extract concessions for themselves either by modifying the present legislation or by influencing the party in power to legislate in such a manner as would be beneficial to their interests” (Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 427). This observation of Ambedkar in the 1950s overtly indicates that there is a nexus between business houses and political parties, and in this nexus the former exercises more control over the latter. Ambedkar referred to an interesting illustration from the Mahabharat:

“During the battle between the Pandvas and the Kaurvas, Bhishma and Drona were on the side of Kaurvas. Pandvas were in the right and the Kaurvas were in the wrong. Bhishma admitted this. When somebody asked Bhishma as to why he was supporting the Kaurvas if he found the Pandvas to be in the right. Bhishma replied that memorable sentence: “I must be loyal to the salt: If I eat the food of the Kaurvas, I must take their side even if they might be in the wrong” (Ibid.: 427-28).

Since then, this nexus seems to have strengthened further. The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced in 2017 seems to be the modern version of such nexus.

Government servants influencing the elections:

The government servants, particularly bureaucrats, function under the direct command of the Executive, the Union Executive, which consists of India’s President, the Vice-President, and the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as the head. They are in charge of implementing all government programmes. They include even those who are a part of the Election Commission. No election can be said to be free and fair if the government servants do not play their designated role honestly and as per the laid down procedures, particularly during election. Unfortunately, according to Ambedkar, the government servants in India, instead of playing an impartial role, “are influencing the elections in favour of the party which is feeding them and their dependents” (Ibid.: 428).

Recent challenges:

There are few other methods by which, it is alleged these days, the principle of free and fair election is compromised. These include: (a) the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections which can be misused; (b) hate speech to polarize voters on communal, caste, regional and linguistic lines; (c) use of fake and doctored videos as part of election campaign maligning the image of the contesting candidates, (d) false promises, cash inducement, and taking vows in holy water from the eligible voters to vote for a particular candidate; (e) misuse of government machineries such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and even the Election Commission of India (ECI) to intimidate the opposition party leaders and workers and malign the image of the party itself. Although each of these allegations is contested, it is certain that they are the potential threats to the much hoped ‘free and fair election’.

Condition No. 3: No glaring inequalities in the society:

Democracy cannot work successfully in a society that is ridden with glaring inequalities. According to Ambedkar, “There must not be a class which has got all the privileges and a class which has got all the burdens to carry”. In such a society, conflict is inherent, because although they are unequal classes in terms of the quantum of wealth they possess and political power they wield, they are equals in terms of their right to vote, and the value of their votes. A society organised with such social cleavages “has within itself the germs of a bloody revolution, and perhaps it would be impossible for the democracy to cure them”. And when decisions are taken in a democracy on the basis of the consent of the majority, “it is quite possible that if the privileged few will not willingly and voluntarily surrender their privileges, then the distance between them and the lower orders will destroy democracy and bring into existence something quite different” (Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 475-476).

Condition No. 4: Equality in law and administration:

Ambedkar emphatically asserted that there should be equality of treatment in the use of law and administration. But in reality, discrimination happens in regard to the use of legislation and decisions arrived on who should get what contract. He noted that when two individuals go to a particular officer or to the Minister concerned for his/her approval for securing a license in trading in a particular commodity, the Minster first favours only those applicants who belong to the party that he himself belongs to, although in terms of merit both should get the approval. This, for Ambedkar, is a discrimination in administration, and there is no equity. What would happen if a head of political party in a given locality may approach the District Magistrate in the district and ask him not to prosecute his party man although there are plenty of evidences against his man, and he may further tell him that he would refer the matter to the Minister and get him transferred to another place if he does not listen to him. This would certainly result in chaos and injustice in administration (Ibid.: 479).

Condition No. 5: Observance of Constitutional Morality:

Constitutional morality refers to the honesty of the elected leaders not to hold on to power ever. After all, democracy is against dynastic politics. Where there is democracy, there cannot be hereditary power. Therefore, Ambedkar said: “I am quite prepared to join that body of people who want to abolish the constitution, at any rate to redraft it. But what we forget is that we have a constitution which contains legal provisions, only a skeleton. The flesh of that skeleton is to be found in what we call constitutional morality.” He therefore argued that the elected leaders should not try to hold on to power forever, even though the people may make such a choice. Such an act of an elected leader goes against the spirit of what is called “constitutional morality” (Ibid.: 480).

Condition No. 6: No tyranny of the majority party over the minority party:

The members of a minority opposition party should not feel hurt or hit below the belt. Instead, they should feel safe and ready to debate without fear on the issues of their concern, as experienced by the Members belonging to the minority Labour Party in the Parliament of United Kingdom. Ambedkar observed that it is not a very happy thing to work in Indian Parliament. “There is hardly any motion, whether of adjournment or censure, which has been admitted for the debate.” “…if the government were constantly to oppose adjournment motions of the small community, such small minorities can never get a chance to ventilate their grievances”. The result is that “these minorities develop a contempt for Parliamentary people and develop a revolutionary spirit, something unconstitutional”. Therefore, the members of the majority party “must not act in a tyrannical manner” (Ibid.: 483). Doing so continuously will result in subversion of democracy.

Condition No. 7: Communal majority not a political majority:

Democracy cannot work effectively if a communal majority considers itself a political majority, and therefore entitled to rule. Such a consideration may result in the communal majority establishing itself a hereditary government and making a way open to the tyranny of that majority. Such a tyranny is not an imagination, but a lived experience of many minorities, Ambedkar asserted. To safeguard the minority communities from the tyranny of the majority, he proposed that the proportion or numerical strength of the minority to that of the majority in each state should be balanced in such a manner that the gap between the proportion of population of the minority and majority is kept to its minimum, so that the minority community does not feel threatened and found itself in a more precarious position. “The larger the State the smaller the proportion of the minority to the majority. … Therefore, creation of smaller States is a safeguard to the minorities” (Ambedkar, vol.1: 169).

Condition No. 8: Presence of moral order in society:

Democracy works better in a society where there is a moral order. The moral order of a society is based on the ethics which decides what is right and wrong for the given society. Laws are enacted and implemented by the government to ensure that the moral order is maintained in the society. However, in a democracy, “the moral order is always taken for granted” as if it always existed in the society and therefore the government, particularly its law, is not supposed to interfere in the social life of the people. But the law maker thinks that any law can be successful only when there is enough morality in the society. And “if there is no moral order in the society, the democracy will go to pieces as it is going now probably in our own country” (Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 483).

Condition No. 9: Presence of public conscience in society:

Without public conscience in the society, democracy cannot work successfully. To Ambedkar, public conscience means a “conscience which becomes agitated at every wrong, no matter who is the sufferer, and it means that everybody whether he suffers that particular wrong or not, is prepared to join him in order to get him relieved.” (Ibid.: 484). In other words, the society where the victims of injustice alone have to fight for justice is a society which is devoid of public conscience. Ambedkar argued that the Hindus in India do not have public conscience. The conscience that they have is not a public conscience, but a caste conscience. “Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot” (Ambedkar, vol.1: 50). When public conscience is absent, it “develops a revolutionary mentality in the society which puts democracy in danger” (Ibid.: 484-485).

Condition No. 10: People to place the country above their creed:

India is already ridden with a number of problems arising out of its social institutions such as castes and creeds which, to Ambedkar, are the old enemies of democracy. He expressed his concern over the new enemies of independent India, viz., the diverse political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Protecting India’s independence and its democracy is going to be a bigger challenge when these enemies gain momentum in politics. He doubted the integrity particularly of the leaders and asked, “Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy… probably be lost for ever” (Ambedkar, vol.13: 1214). Therefore, revolting against such a mind-set becomes a logical necessity to protect democracy.

Condition No. 11: Three things to maintain democracy:

If democracy is to be maintained not merely in form but also in fact, according to Ambedkar, three things are to be done:

One, people must hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving their social and economic objectives. It means that the people must abandon the bloody methods of revolution such as civil disobedience, non-cooperation and Satyagraha which were necessary when there were no constitutional means (Ibid.: 1215).

Two, the citizens should “not lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. … Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship” (Ibid.: 1215-1216).

Three, the people should not be content with mere political democracy. They must make the political democracy a social democracy as well. To Ambedkar, “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it a social democracy”. Indeed, the “roots of democracy are to be searched in the social relationship, in the terms of associated life between the people who form a society” (Ambedkar, vol.17(3): 519). If the citizens are denied of social democracy and left to suffer from inequality for long, they “will blow up the structure of political democracy” Ambedkar asserted (Ambedkar, vol.13: 1216).

Conclusion

Democracy as a form of government is not a permanent entity. It may be subverted and replaced anytime by dictatorship or any other form of government, if it is not protected from the various challenges articulated as above by Ambedkar. Unfortunately, such challenges seem to have increased over the years. For most of the leaders across party lines, democracy simply means contesting election, getting elected and forming government and carrying out activities as per the assigned portfolios. They seem to be ‘ignorant’ of the fact that social democracy, in other words “fraternity”, is the ultimate goal of democracy. Working towards this end therefore continues to remain a prerequisite to protect India’s political democracy, as articulated by Ambedkar. And fraternity cannot become a reality, unless all citizens, irrespective of their socio-cultural, religious, economic, regional and linguistic background, are able to experience liberty, equality and justice. It is for this reason, justice, liberty and equality precedes fraternity in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Protecting political democracy, ignoring the social democracy, is surely a road to dictatorship which is to be averted by all means as warned by Ambedkar.

On December 15, 2023, the Vice-President of India, Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, in his speech asserted, “I firmly believe that this great nation, the home to one sixth of humanity, blossoms and flourishes, (only) when the three organs of democracy, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive, act in tandem, and work together in harmony, ….in their respective domain”. He emphasised that while the exclusive power of each organ is to be respected, those at the helm of affairs of these three organs of democracy need to be enlightened on the necessity of working together. However, what will happen, for example, if the Executive influences the judiciary in the name of ‘working together’? Such acts may seriously affect the scope of achieving social democracy. The answer to the question why these three organs need to work together in harmony is the common responsibility which the Preamble of the Constitution casts on them, i.e., nurturing a sense of fraternity or oneness among all citizens. But this cannot be achieved merely by rhetoric and slogans such as “unity in diversity”. Unity in diversity may be a possibility. But certainly, “unity in disparity” cannot be possible. Therefore, the disparity issue is to be addressed first. For democracy to thrive and blossom, what is needed, of all, is an honest and corrupt-free legislature, executive and judiciary that are committed to realise the idealism enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and ready to address the challenges pointed out by Babasaheb Ambedkar.

(Author: Avatthi Ramaiah is a professor of sociology at TISS, Mumbai. Contact: raamaiah[at]gmail.com)

References:

• Ambedkar, B. R. (vol.1/1979), ‘Annihilation of caste’, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharashtra.
• _________ (vol.4/1987), “Riddle No. 22: Brahma Is Not Dharma: What Good Is Brahma?”, In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

• _________ (vol.13/1994), ‘Constitution of India’, In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
• _________ (vol.17(3)/2003), ‘Failure of Parliamentary Democracy Will Result in Rebellion, Anarchy and Communism’, In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
• _________ (vol.17(3)/2003), ‘Conditions Precedent for the Successful Working of Democracy’ In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
• Beteille, Andre (2012), Democracy and Its Institutions, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

• Dewey, John (1916), Democracy and Education, The Macmillan Company, New York.
• Guru, G. (2019), In Search of a Morally Sensitive Democracy, Economic and Political Weekly, (October 26), Vol. LIV, No. 43.

• Popper, Karl (2016), “The open society and its enemies revisited”, The Economist (2016 reprint): https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited (retrieved on Sept 01, 2024).

• Schwartzberg, Melissa, (2014). "Democracy". The Encyclopaedia of Political Thought: 851–862. doi:10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0248. ISBN 978-1-4051-9129-6.

• Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and Lloyd Rudolph (2008), ’New Dimensions of Indian Democracy’, in Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, "Explaining Indian Democracy: A Fifty-Year Perspective, 1956-2006", Oxford University Press, New Delhi.