Corbridge, Stuart, John Harriss, and Craig Jeffrey. "Has India’s Democracy been a Success?". In India Today: Economics, Politics and Society, edited by Stuart Corbridge, John Harriss, and Craig Jeffrey, 140-158. Cambridge: Polity, 2013.

Corbridge, Stuart, John Harriss, and Craig Jeffrey. "Has India’s Democracy been a Success?". In India Today: Economics, Politics and Society, edited by Stuart Corbridge, John Harriss, and Craig Jeffrey, 140-158. Cambridge: Polity, 2013.

• Indian democracy has been astonishingly successful compared to its neighbors: Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The liberal and individual rights guaranteed in the 1950 Constitution have endured and been joined by a mandatory dedication towards improving the lot of all citizens and upholding a system of reservations for Dalits and Adivasi, and later lower castes (140).
• Political scientists argue that democracy cannot only exist through formal institutions, but also requires a culture of equality, an educated populace, robust civil society, and strong political parties. Others also contend that democracies need to be capitalist, especially since democracy is promoted through class conflict (141).
• India lacked the vast majority of these characteristics in 1947: it was a heavily divided and hierarchical society with low levels of education, only a single functional political party, a primarily rural workforce, low levels of economic growth throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and a semi-socialist economy (141).
• Substantive democracy is considered to consist of three conditions: individuals should be able to participate in political organizations that have a meaningful effect on their lives, social inequalities do not create major impediments to political participation, and a general atmosphere of involvement in public and political life (149).
• India lacked substantive democracy during the 1950s and 1960s, when Congress allowed upper and middle castes to dominate local politics through organized corruption, furthering the marginalization of lower castes and exposing them to violent reprisals should they attempt to participate in politics. This was exacerbate by a severe educational disparity, with most poor and lower caste people not understanding democratic institutions (149-150).
• Some democratization occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, as Indira Gandhi's populist economic policies encouraged greater political participation among the poor. Additionally, many of the wealthier lower castes began to participate in politics. The political system as a whole, however, remained deeply corrupt -- even as that corruption shifted to reflect new caste divisions -- with access to basic services or the judiciary restricted by malfeasance and incompetence (150-151).
• The 1990s have witnessed a massive expansion of political participation for Dalits and OBCs, but these gains have been restricted by continuing high levels of corruption and the deradicalization of lower caste movements in government. Many Dalit and OBC parties have failed to redress actual issues and instead focus on seizing power for personal gain and access to kickbacks and graft opportunities. They also tend to be dominated by upper clas Dalits or OBCs (154-155).
• The presence of the Indian National Congress helped prepare India for democracy, since it consisted of an organized group of local elites and educated persons from a wide variety of social and regional backgrounds. This lowered regional tensions in India, as opposed to Pakistan, where Punjabi domination of the Muslim League, government, and the army marginalized the Bengali majority of East Pakistan (142).
• The British form of colonial administration also served well to consolidate democracy, since it allowed a small group of elites in the center to effectively distribute patronage to dominated local areas by winning the support of local elites. This central system also emphasized rule of law and equality, even if it did not extend to localities (142).
• The colonial administrative system allowed the Congress leadership to keep the country governed and together while its top leadership worked on writing a constitution, building democratic institutions, and other matters (142-143).
• India's democratic success is demonstrated in four principle areas: the strength of core institutions, like the Supreme Court, the Electoral Commission, and the Indian Administrative Service (143); a general respect for human rights, even if this is abridged for religious minorities, and in certain Indian states like Kashmir or the Northeast (143-144); broad levels of public involvement in politics, especially through very active election campaigns, a trend increasing since the expansion of panchayat powers in the 1990s (144-146); and the involvement of Dalits and Other Backward Castes [OBCs] in politics since the 1990s (146-147).
• Each of these spheres of achievement remains compromised by significant deficiencies, primarily the consistent human rights violations in Kashmir and the Northeast, the use of paramilitary police forces to control dissent, the corrupt and nepotistic governance of political parties, and the frequent overreach of the Supreme Court on legislative matters (147).
• The authors claim that democracy has had a number of positive impacts on India. It was essential in allowing India to deal with demands for regional autonomy, preventing widespread communal and inter-ethnic violence, and preventing famine from occurring. It also allowed the proliferation of a diverse and free media environment, and the development of a robust civil society with many NGOs (147-148).
• The rise of Dalit and OBC political participation was most pronounced in Uttar Pradesh, where the Bahujan Samaj Party led by Mayawati Prabhu Das, pioneered the introduction of criminal penalties for discrimination against Dalits and channeled public resources towards improving the living conditions of Dalits and raising the public profile of Dalit heroes, like Bhim Rao Ambedkar (152).
• The ways in which democracy are discussed by Dalit and OBC movements in Uttar Pradesh are often very different than previous modes of conceptualizing democracy in India. The Samajwadi Party leadership, for example, discusses democracy as an ancient quality inherent in the Yadav caste, given to them by Krishna (153).
• This democratic expansion since the 1990s has done little to curb corruption, however, as new parties also engage in a deeply corrupt and ineffective administration that often fails to provide basic services. Discrimination against women and Muslims has also remained largely unaddressed. Much of the population feels alienated from politics (153).
• Dalit movements in Tamil Nadu have also faced significant barriers, with limited gains still leaving many Dalits dependent on an upper-caste-dominated  political system. While the Dalit Panther Iyakkam movement of the 1990s successfully gave Dalits access to democratic politics, it did not address the poverty and social dislocation that prevent many Dalits from substantive participation in Tamil Nadu politics or society (153-154).
• The contemporary Dalit Panther movement, represented by the Viduthalai Ciruthaigal Katchi, has watered down its radical platform since participation in electoral politics, its representatives have been accused of participation in endemic corruption, and is polarized along jati lines within the Dalit community (154).
• Madhya Pradesh has experienced a dramatic expansion of substantive democracy beginning in the 1970s, when the local branch of Congress tried to respond to the political grievances of the poor and lower castes by reducing corruption. During the 1990s, Chief Minister Digvijay Singh significantly expanding the funding and powers of panchayat raj, greatly increasing the level of democratic rule experienced by everyday citizens (155).
• Even here, the level of democratic change during the 1990s was limited. The new poor relief systems designed by Chief Minister Singh have been underfunded and poorly executed. Moreover, plans for a land reform program have been blocked by upper caste opposition, demonstrating the continued power of privileged groups in India (156).
• "India's democracy has been a success. Elections occur regularly, democratic institutions are strong, people are free to protest and civil rights are guaranteed. The media is lively and social movements are tolerated by the state. [...] Set against this picture must be the persistence of bureaucratic corruption, police harassment, an ineffective local and regional judiciary, and elite capture of local government councils" (157).