215

CHAPTER- V
 216

A DISCOURSE ON DEMOCRACY
(RAJNI KOTHARI)

This chapter will try to make a polemical understanding of the

intellectual orientation ofRajni Kothari about his ideological standpoint
of Indian democracy. To be sure, Rajni Kothari's intellectual thrust has
been to defend the structure and function of the Indian multiparty
parliamentary democracy, which faces legitimation crisis, when it is
related to the contemporary acquisitive capitalism. Intellectually speaking
, he is a radical liberal who visualizes the change from within through the
conscious intervention of the masses in the regulation and articulation of
stagecraft by peaceful means. He realizes that the constitution of India is
regulated by the ideological condition of democracy, secularism and
democratic socialism; but the material and social conditions of the Indian
social formation do not allow these ideas fully realized. The state is so
strong, coercive and repressive that it breaks the ground for realization
of democratic values. Even in normal times democracy and democratic
institutions are made functionally dysfunctional by the hegemonies and
centralist power of the Congress party till the period ofRajiv Gandhi.
The hegemony of the Congress party was established by
Nehruji and Indira Gandhi; although the former was concerned with
"socialism with human face " whereas the latter was responsible for the
development of "cult of personality " within the congress party. The
congress was a centralist party which combines political democracy with
economic democracy within the structure and context ofthe Indian social
 217

formation; but authoritarian personality of Indira Gandhi eroded the cult

of democratic norms in June 197 5 when an entemal emergency was
promulgated and all oppositional currents were suppressed by her. One
can say that "authoritarism" or "cult of personality" is the illegitimate
offspring ofliberal democracy whose conditions of existence are regulated
by civil liberties and political freedom. It happens when power is
considered as an end, not as means to achieve larger social goals and
purposes. Thus, during the emergency period, the political system lost its
institutional mooring and its sensitivity.
The hegemony of the congress party was more seriously
challenged after 1977. The rise of Janta Party in 1977 was to assert the
fact that democracy, as a way of life and as form of government, has to
be preserved because the survival of man kind in the age of nuclear
holocaust depends upon democracy. The major function of democratic
institutions has to protect human freedom, rights,liberty and property.
After the fall of socialism and dictatorship of proletariat in U.S.S.R, the
domain of freedom and critical consciousness, the conception of
democracy has been accepted as a moral rule throughout the world. In a
plural society , like ours, democracy is a matter of life and death. In the
age of collective insecurity and collective threat to human survival,
democracy has become a source of hope and progress without which
human survival become an impossible task. The modem technocratic and
bureaucratic state has to be opposed by democracy and socialism.
Democracy emphasises basic equality of opportunity whereas
elitism believes that all opportunities are fundamentally unequal because
of differential attributes.Further, democracy implies rule of majority
whereas, elitism means rule by minority. But we can argue that in reality
 218

majority rule is impossible. Modem democracy does not expect that

majority would actually rule. Democracy implies that the positions of
power are finally open to all. What democracy implies is the equality of
opportunity. In competition only winners world rule. But winners of the
race are accountable to the electorate citizens require protection from the
governors as well as from each other, to ensure that those who govern
pursue policies that are commensurate with citizens' interest as a whole.
Prof. Kothari pleads for protective democracy whose principles can be
derived from his writings. The first feature is that sovereignty ultimately
lies in the people, but is vested in representatives who can legitimately
exercise state functions. Second feature is that regular elections, the
secret ballot, competition between factions, potential leaders or parties
and majority rule are the institutional bases for establishing the
accountability of those who govern. The third feature is that state power
must be impersonal that is to say that power should be divided among
the executive, the legislature and judiciary. The fourth feature is that there
should be provisions to defend freedom and equality before law in the
form of political and civil rights or liberties, above all, those connected
to free speech, expression, association, voting and belief. The fifth element
of the protective democracy is that private lives should be free from the
risk of violence, unacceptable social behavior and unwanted political
interferance. The other conditions include development of a politically
autonomous civil society, private ownership of the means of production,
competitive market economy etc.
The history of the idea of democracy is curious, the history of
democracies is puzzling. There are two striking historical facts. Firstly,
nearly everyone today says that they are democrats no matter whether
 219

their views are on the left, centre or right political regimes of all kinds in,
for instance, western Europe, the eastern bloc, Latin America and Asia
claim to be democracies. Democracy seems to bestow an "aura of
legitimacy " on modem political life. Secondly little is said about
democracy from ancient Greece to Eighteenth Century Europe and North
America. The wide spread adherence to democracy as a suitable fonn for
organizing political life is less than a hundred years old. In edition, while
states today may be democratic, the history of their political institutions
reveals the fragility and vulnerability of democratic arrangement. The
history of the twentieth century western Europe alone makes tllis clear:
Fascism and Nazism came very close to obliterating democracies.
Thus one can argue that Prof. Rajni Kothari stresses the need
to defend the ideological nlirage of liberal democracy which has three
elements:
(a) Constitutionalism (b) Parliamentarismand (c) Competitive
multi - party system.
He tries to create a meaningful association between the demands of
social justice with individual civil and political liberty. Prof. Kothari would
like to argue that Marxism has wrongly assumed that with the abolition of
private property, class and state will disappear. The political mathematics
of socialist countries has demonstrated the creation of monolithic -
bureaucratic state and more coherent and self -serving governing elite.
Liberal democracy is not a contradiction in term, as the Marxist
theoreticians have maintained, but it guarantees the existence and
persistence of freedom and liberties.
It seems that following Schumpeter, Dahl and Sartori, Prof.
Rajni Kothari adopts a nllnimal definition of democracy as a set of rules
 220

which establish who is authorized to take collective decisions and which

procedures are used to choose them.Rules of democracy include the
majority principle, civil rights and political rights, freedom of speech,
association, one vote per citizen, choice between real alternatives at
election, competitive model of different parties which is opposed to
classical model of participatory democracy etc. Indian society is a plural
society in which only the multi party competitive democracy can solve
the problems of multiple contradictions. Modern ethos is individualistic,
so no amount of rational argument will bring about an all embracing general
will . The cultural orientation is reinforced by diversification of modern
industrial society which makes it harder to form common interests. In this
situation, the only solution would be to mandate delegates to vote on
specific issues. The existence of social and economic inequalities erodes
the citizen's allegiance to shared values. We can address the two main
issues raised by various intellectuals: (a) The need to extend democratic
control to a number of areas within society in a peaceful manner and (b)
to ensure that political equality consists of more than the fonnal entitlement
of one vote one citizen.
The starting point for every scheme for lnunan emancipation
is the individual with his passions (to be channed or tamed) his interests
(to be regulated or co-ordinated) and with his needs (to be satisfied or
repressed). Prof. Rajni Kothari would like to say that the public culture of
a democratic society is committed to seeking fonns of social co-operation
which can be pursued on the basis of mutual respect between free' and
equal partners. The ideal model of democratic society was a centripetal
of society which has not just one center of power but a plethora of them
and which deserves the name of policentric society or polyarchy. But the
 221

issue is less a question of who votes? than of where does one vote ?
Technocracy and democracy are antithetical. Further, bureaucracy and
democracy are antithetical. The necessary precondition for any democratic
government is the guarantee of civil liberties, will, freedom of press,
freedom of assembly and equal distribution of resources. These are ideal
conditions of democracy ; but in reality the bulk of history is the history
of Fratricide or what Hegel would like to say the immense slaughter
house.Political slogan like "Garibi Hatao" a slogan given by Indira Gandhi
, was pregnant with evocative power, not with any precise meaning.
The destruction of the bourgeois state does not mean the
suppression of all its ground rule, but a profound transformation of its
apparatus. This thesis is implied in the writings of Rajni Kothari, but it
seems that he is not so kind to tell us which ones to be retained and
which bad ones will be done away with . Shall we keep universal suffrage
but not the freedom of opinion? or shall we keep freedom of opinion but
not a multi-party system ? or shall we keep a multi-party system but not
the legal protection of civil right ? The biggest dilemma is whether politics
is not every thing and, whether politics is not for every one or politics is
for every one. It seems that there is an antagonism between the state and
democracy. But following Hegel,we can say that what is reasonable is
real and what is real is reasonable. Political philosophy can be complete,
mature, perfect etc. If the world itselfhas become mature, complete and
perfect. Max Weber makes a distinction between ethics of conviction
and ethics of responsibility. Ethics of conviction stands for absolute
values and it does not compromise with reality. Prof. Kothari, it seems,
stands for ethics of conviction in politics.Ethics of responsibility denotes
moral approach which judges particular situation in a pragmatic fashion.
 222

In other words, it stands for moral consideration and pragmatic action.

Politics is governed by an ethics of responsibility because if it were
governed by an ethic of conviction , it would, in fact, be unpolitical.
Thus, it seems, that the entire political discourse of Rajni Kothari has
shifted from the epistemological and ontological position of parsons to
the epistemological position of Habermas.
Prof. Rajni Kothari in his volmninous texts makes the following
statements about the sense and essence of Indian state,democracy and
polity while taking the international politics into account:
(1) "Politics is a competitive enterprise : its purpose is the
acquisition of power for the realization of certain goals and its process is
one of the identifying and manipulating existing and emerging allegiances
in order to mobilize and consolidate positions. The important tiling is
organization and articulation of support and where politics is mass based,
the point is to articulate support through the organizations in which the
masses are to be found"_(!)
(ii) The prevailing dichotomy between tradition and modernity
has created a curious cognitive hiatus -in ideological thinking as well as
in much of the social science theorising between society on the one hand
and polity on the other. The former is conceived, as if by defmition, as
traditional and the latter as "modem" and developmental. In reality,
however, this is a false approach to the phenomenon of modernization ;
It is especially misleading when the phenomenon takes place in the
context of democratic politics. Politics and developmental institutions do

(1) Rajni Kothari (ed) : Caste in Indian Politics ( New Delhi : Orient
Longman Ltd, 1986) p. 4
 223

not anywhere function in a vacuum. They tend, of necessity, to fmd bases

in society either through existing organizational forms or by invoking
2
new structures that cut across these forms." ( )
(iii)" The essential test of India's strategy of social change lies in
this criterion of traditionalization of modernity. And the rest of the great
social system of India with its proverbial capabilities of absorption and
tolerance also lies in the same criterion : will to prove pliable enough to
imbibe the new system of values and institution as vital traditions in
which the old is sought to be wholly replaced by the new. The rejection of
a such a dichotomy forms the point of departure of the collection of
3
papers presented in this volume." ( )
(iv) "Gandhiji was without doubts the builder of the Indian nation.
His main achievement was to shift the basis of the anticolonial movement
from class to nation_,(4)
(v) "When India became independent, it faced four major tasks:
national integration , economic growth, social justice and political
democracy ,(5)
(vi) "There IS a close relationship between political
institutionalization and national integration . An operating democracy will
not only legitimize the process of dissent and alienation as anti-dotes to

(2) Ibid., P. 3
(3) Ibid., P. 23
(4) Rajni Kothari (ed.): STATE AND NATIO-BUILDING: A Third
world perspective (New Delhi: Allied publishers private limited, 1976)
p. 196
(5) Ibid., P.l95.
 224

the growth of highly concentrated " pentagons of power" even in the

formally democratic politics; it will also lead to a more real integration of
center and periphery by both the induced and self propelled participants
of the poor and tmder privileged strata of society" (6)
(vii) " India's nation - builders therefore, adopted a strategy of
transformation that was open , democratic and based on acceptance of
diversity and dissent. That was, at once, bold and necessary : bold in
design but necessary because there was no other way of these diverse
elements".(?)
(viii) "The main characteristic of the system was its centripetality
through open interaction : a strong and visible " center towards which
the various "peripheries" were drawn through the competitive
mechanisms of democratic politics. ,( 8)
(ix) "The fact is I was neither pro-congress in the sixties nor pro-
opposition in the seventies and eighties. Except of course in the sense
that , not being cast in a mold of critical analysis and always keen on
democratic norms and the system's 'performance' in favor of the goals
it had set out before itself, I have never hesitated in offering ideas and the
proposals of the both better perfonnance of the system and its restructuring
for making it more truly democratic participant, equitable, decentralized
and the like"( 9).

(6) Ibid. 'p. 18

(7) Ibid. , p.194.
(8) Ibid. , p. 208
(9) Rajni Kothari : POLITICS AND PEOPLE Vol. I (Delhi : Ajanta
Publications, 1989) p.XV
 225

(x) "Gandhi provided both a concentration of "charismas" and its

dispersal by resort to traditionalist symbols of identity and cohesion that
forced all the reactions of the congress rank and file to fall in line. ,(1 O)
(xi) " In giving to the country and its institutions such strength, and
character, a critical role was played by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime
Minister of India. Although it is easy to exaggerate his role and although
it is doubtful what he could have accomplished had he not had the great
inheritance of the national movement and its organization to stand upon,
there is no doubt that putfor Nehru and his long tenure in office, it would
have been difficult to consolidate the gains of independence in the manner
in which this has been done. Nehru's role has been two fold: By the sheer
force of his personality, he managed to hold the cotmtry together to arrest
disruptive forces and to take to the road of far reaching social change. By
symbolising a nation's unity in one man for such a long time . India avoided
the painful convulsions through which less fortunate new nations have
had to pass. But far more important was Nehru's other and more concrete
role of having given roots and legitimacy to the institutions adopted by
the country as well as to the modem purposes to which they are put. He
patiently and doggedly worked to this.end. As I have argued elsewhere,
the contribution ofNehm was not to have started a revolution but to have
. . ,(11)
gtven nse to a consensus.
(xii)" 1967 revealed something more basic, a combination of social
conflicts within the traditional caste-hierarchy and widespread public
discontent with the national congress itself around issues of rising prices,

(1 0) Ibid. , p. 5
(11) Ibid. , PP. 31-32
 226

the high handedness of both congress bosses and officialdom, corruption,

growth of large pockets of proverty of which the administration had no
clue and above all, a leadership that had failed to inspire confidence in
the people. In the meanwhere, the opposition had begun to acquire teeth
and there was talk of a "Changeover" from congress rule. This plus the
attempts by the "Syndicate" to checkmate Indira Gandhi, produced major
currents of change, above all within the conr:,'Tess party, which led to the
most dramatic electoral outcome , that of 1971 . By this time a clear shift
in both the social basis of Indian politics and its party and governmental
apparatus began to take place. Riding on the crest of social discontents
and turmoil, Indira Gandhi both symbolized mass aspiration and in the
end betrayed them, putting a lid on the very process of politicization that
she had spearheaded, party out of a sheer attempts to survive in power at
any cost, both for herself and her hairs.There followed in quick succession
the emergency, the disastrous failure of the latter to provide a clear
alternative, the Bonapartiest return of secular messiah in 1980 only to
produce even more discontent and the final denouncement there upon
giving rise to a state based upon communal and chauvinist appeals on the
one hand and the promise of a technological paradise brought through
borrowed capital and transferred knowledge on the other. In the meanwhile
the whole development project on which the country had placed such
faith turned out to be a source of growing disparities, discord and
2
disenchantment in the society, ecology and ethnic balace"(1 ).
(xiii) "The Indian system can be conceptualized as a system of one
party dominance (which, it may be noted, is very different from what is

(12) Ibid. PP. XVI- XVII

 227

generally known as a one party system). It is a competitive party system

but one in which the competing parts play rather dissimilar roles. It consists
of a 'party of consensus ' and 'parties of pressure' . The latter function
on the margin and indeed the concept of margin of pressure is of great
importance in this system. Inside the margin are several opposition groups
and parties , dissident groups from the ruling party, the other interest
groups and important individuals. These groups outside the margin do
not constitute alternatives to the ruling party. Their role is to constantly
pressurize, criticize , censure , and influence it by influencing opinion and
interest inside the margin , and above all exert a latent threat if the ruling
groups too far away from the balance of effective public opinion and if
the functional system within it is not mobilized to restore the balance , it
3
will be displayed from power by the opposition" (1 )
(xiv) "Fortunately or unfortunately for India (I think fortunately)
neither the capitalist path nor state socialism, both of which are based on
the same techno-economic design, is available given our factor propositions
and resource situation and given the context of world which as a whole
is feeling the acute scarcity of the resources needed for sustaining the
modem way of life" . It is necessary to tum this constraint into an
advantage and to evolve an alternative to these two paths. There is urgent
need to shift the class structure of society, involve the people by placing
real power in their hands ( not just mobilizing them from above in the
Leninist Fashion or giving them a false sense of participation as in liberal
14
democracies )and evolve an institutional design for this purpose ,( )

(13) Ibid. PP. 22-23

(14) Ibid. P. 208
 228

(xv) " It is important to understand the nature of the transition that

the shift from Congress hegemony to the assumption of power by the
Janta coalitions represents. It is, rather, a transition which is itself an
instnunent of change an essential stage in national development during
which some major tasks have to be fulfilled , something called for by the
accumulated perversion and inertia of the operating system which had
gone as tray in the hands of insensitive and irresponsible leaders, a
necessary intervention in an attempt to move towards a remodeled
system"(15)
.
(xvi) "The generation change " that was heralded by the coming of
Rajiv Gandhi did not change this ; if anything, these tendencies have
become stronger. Not having been enmeshed in the interest alignments
of the previous govemments, it had the opportunity of initiating urgent
remedial measures to deal with the social institution, recast plan priorities
and make the political process more accountable and open ; enabling the
victims of under developmental to find a place in the system. Instead it
moved in the opposite directions ill- equipped to perceive the nature of
the deteriorating social scence and disdainful situation of "politics" , it
decided to tum its back on the masses and pin all faith in the emerging
6
ideology the world over- teclmological modemization''(1 )_
(xvii) "The history of politics in India is a story of a tragedy that
began in hope . The modem secularist welfare state was an act of thrust
implanted into an old culture it reflected the dynamic interaction of the

(15) Rajni Kothari : POLITICS AND PEOPLE , VOL II (Delhi : Ajanta

Publications, 1990) p. 255
(16) Ibid. p. 461
 229

system -world and a reawakened Indian politics was to be the binding

mechanism, the ethical space for the resolution of conflict in a society
full of diversity of identities. The genius of the first two decades lay in
the ability to create a new of model nation-building, building based on
spectrum of institutions which could channel individual drives and
ambitions at various levels"(l?)_
(xviii) "Nationalism has often been charcterised as essentially
negative in its connotation - directed against external targets The opposite,
view- point is that which thinks of nationalism as a cementing forces that
pervades vast differences and distinction and provides a basis for the new
nation states. India's distinctiveness lay in drawing upon both the negative
and positive connotations into one common electric framework of nation
- building that was to include all sections of society, an all secretarial
divides and to some extent provide the motive force for its external out
8
world looking prospective" 0 ).
(xix)" It is a truism that we live in an age of democratic consciousness
. people are "on the move" every where. Age old hegemonies have either
crumbled or are being challenged. Ideological doctrines fashioned to
perpetuate and control are being widely questioned. All this is known
. . . . . ,(19)
and IS gammg recogmhon .
(xx) "Democratic intervention is inconceivable in the absence of
dialogue. Dialogue may not lead to perfect or permanent resolution of

(17) Ibid. PP. 438 - 439

(18) Ibid. PP. 499
(19) Rajni Kothari: STATE AGAINST DEMOCRACY (London: Aspect
Publications Ltd. 1990), p. i.
 230

conflicts and differences but to abolish the possibility of dialogue would

20
inevitably rule out the possibility of democratic intervention ,( ).
(xxi) "Central to this scenario of social and political erosion is in the
sharp decline in the legitimacy and authority of what was till recently
considered the key institutions of civil society, namely the modern state.
Both the conception of state as a negative good in which an authoritative
assumption of disproportionate power was considered essential for order
and security and the more positive conception of the state as an instrument
of liberation and transfonnation have, of late, suffered a decline in
ere d1"b"l"ty"
11 (21)

(xxii)" It appears as if the state has become a source of munificence

and blunder indeed, sacrilege all around. The decade from the mid-
seventies to mid eighties saw this being systematized through a close
22
links between financial, bureaucratic and political elites" ( )
(xxiii)" There is need to move beyond both the liberal and marxists
world view both of which are the offshoots of the same philosophical
pedigree of the enlightenment and nineteenth century (mechanistic)
humanism. Those , like John Rawls who have argued for rescuing the
liberal doctrine from hedonistic and positivistic streams of thought have
been driven by a noble thought which , however, is unrealizable. For
liberalism contained within it self through its close interwing with the
eighteen century theory of infinite progress and the nineteen century
paradigms of science and techno-economic development, the seeds of its

(20) Ibid; p. 12
(21) Ibid; p. ii.
(22) Ibid; p. 99.
 231

demise. on the other hand , the principal critic ofliberalism namely marxism
has suffered from the same basic inadequacies despite the early Marx
who was deeply concerned with the issues of human alimentation and
commodity fetishism. These early writings of Marx have been resuscitated
by Lukacs and his followers in Hungry and elsewhere and further
developed and reformulated by members of Frank Furt school like
23
Habermas and reformers of the Marxist school it self like Gramsci"( )
(xxiv) "We need a new theory of democracy that can comprehend
the incapacities of existing institutional and ideological models, identify
the reason for this in capacity in a fast changing global historical setting
and provide a framework of active interventions at different level of
world reality to deal with an altogether new human agenda. At present ,
we have no theory of democracy. The erstwhile(Now defunct) theory
that emanates from the west was based on atomistic, a view of both the
individuals and the state, too homogenous; a conception of social and
cultural reality and too grounded in the competitive ethos of bourgeois
capitalism. Neither the socialist attempt to establish a welfare state nor
the communist model of" people's democracy" has been able to cope
with the new consciousness of rights and dignities of diverse population
that has emerged all around the world and particularly in the "Third
World" (24 )

(xxv)"The unfolding dialectic of world history is entering its most

comprehensive and perhaps most problematic phase at once unnerving
and creative. It heralds a process of mutation in human affairs: in the

(23) Ibid.,p.l51.
(24) Ibid., P IV.
 232

structuring of global power relations, in the encounter of civilizations in

25
several other areas such as class, region , etlmicity and religion "( )
(xxvi) "Fundamentally, the vision that infonns the grassroots model
of mass politics( as against the parliamentary or Presidential or party
model of mass politics) is one in which the people are more important
26
than the state" ( )
(xxvii) "The paradoxes seem unending. fndustrialization was
expected to put an end to the condition of scarcity for mankind as a whole
. In fact it has made even basic means of existence more scarce and
inaccessible for an increasing munber of human being. Modem education
was expected to lead to continuous prot,rress and enlightenment and
liberation for aU . In fact it has produced a world dominated by experts
and bureaucrats and technocrats - a world in which ordinary human being
feel themselves powerless and find themselves manipulated by forces
beyond their control. ,( 27 )
(xxviii) "As I see it , what Gandhi was trying to attain for his
people was to raise their consciousness to contain nothing less than the
will to fight for the autonomy and dignity of man- against the encroaching
forces of imperialism, the centralized state, a technological civilization
and a view of man and nature and work which led to a continuous process
28
of manipulation at all levels ,( )

(25) Rajni Kothari: TRANSFORMATION AND SURVIVAL(London:

Aspect publications Ltd. 1990) p. 3
(26) Ibid; P. 212
(27) Ibid ; P.5
(28) Ibid ; P. 57
 233

Politics stand for the acquisition and control of of state

power which , in Indian context, has developed four functions such as
repression, regulation, transformation and reforms. There are many
problems which have emerged in modem times. The names of problems
are : Community participation in decision making process, rights and
responsibility of women and child, the threat of collective annihilation of
people, communities nations, natural resources and life, system of
knowledge and wisdom etc. These problems are the products of creation
of scientific state and technological rationality which considers man as a
means and not an end. The enonnous growth in the fimction of government
and corporate organization under the impact of technological revolution
have posed a problem for the participatory democracy. The above
mentioned ideological and philosophical system of capitalism has come
into reality due to its interaction with western philosophy which creates
a dualism between essence and existence and between freedom and
necessity as Marx has demonstrated. The essence of Western philosophy
lies in separation between man and nature, body and mind and intellect
and feeling. Due to abnormal 1:,rrowth of technological rationality, which
is a product of positive philosophy, capitalism no longer depends on the
habits of theft and saving as were highlighted in the conception of the
protestant ethic. It depends on technological rationality and it operates in
the form of multinational company. Rise of bureaucratic elite and
technological elite as a upper middle class , has posed a problem for the
decentralization of democratic process. It is happening because of the
fact that the basic values culture of scientific hwnanism freedom, equality,
a classless society- are increasingly subjected to concentration of power
in a few hands. The modem India is in a state of Turmoil There is an
 234

There is an enormous growth of consciousness of masses which had been

historically suppressed specially under the British Raj. Next to it, the
modem theory of development has become an institutional mechanism
for the reproduction of hegemonic ruling class. The democratic processes
, which are based on elements of federalism, decentralization ,
participation , equality, face a process of gradual erosion cycles of
expectations followed by uncertainty and disenchantment , takes place
every few years. In variety of ways the institutional debate got revived,
first after the emergency which gave a big jolt to a complacent nation
that had been taken for a ride on the slogan of socialism, but really after
Indira Gandhi's triumphant and arrogant return to power in 1980 which
gave a new lease to life to centralized politics and the undermining of
immediate and grassroots processes. Further Indira Gandhi responded
the conclave of opposition chief Minister by setting up the Sarkaria
Commission. The bureaucracy, too has been under attack in a sense that
it was subjected to all kinds of pressure ranging from legal harassment to
outright repression by the police in league with local vested interest or
through a subtle process of co-operation by use of massive government
patronage.
Almost twenty years of sustained democratic functioning
(1950-1969)was followed by periods of rapid twists s and turns : a short
but decisive period during which the style and idioms of Indian politics
were radicalized producing in its wake,a protest ( 1969) and then of sudden
suspension of the political process ( 1975-1977), its dramatic restoration
(1980) and subsequent stagnation (after 1980). Although the congress,
and Janata government announced welfare policies aiming at bridging
the gap between urban and ruler areas , in reality the distribution of
 235

resources and talents has continued to be in a reserve direction. Thus

there exist a dualism between theory and practice in modem Indian polity.
This is not only found in the congress party, but also in all parties. The
Janta government turned out to be another mixture of democratic
declaration and undemocratic practices. The same is the case with
"National Front Government" and Bhartiya Janta Party Government".
The Bhartiya Janta Party projects itself as a charismatic party because it
has created a hope in disappear and has provided an ideological tool of
salvation for the people who witness many forms of rupture between
theory and practice. The multiple contradictions which have emerged in
the modem Indian society and polity due to its plural and diffused social
formations could only be reduced through a decentralized humane
governance. A meaningful social and economic development along with
the ideology of social justice can be generated by democratic socialism.
Mrs. Indira Gandhi created a highly centarlized political order which
resulted into the development of center at the cost of underdevelopment
of peripheries. In the eyes of Prof. Rajni Kothari , the same happened
with J anata cabal sitting in Delhi with an enormous gap at lower levels
and a consequent increase in the distance between it and the people.
Thus Indian Political system has been stagnant for many years and now
it fmds itself in a deadlock. Neither the authoritarian nor the West minister
style of parliamentary democracy seems to work.In opinion of Prof.
Kothari no restructuring along an alternative framework of development
is possible without opening up the democratic structure and moving it
close to the base. Unless people do not participate in the democratic
structure we can not create a just and egalitarian social order. The
development programmes from above can not create a democratic socialist
 236

society unless bureaucracy becomes committed and responsible for the

negation of uneven and imbalanced development which is taking place in
the India society. There two opposite temptations that the center and
states must respectively avoid one is the Bismarchian notion of a direct
appeal to the lower level without permitting intermediate structure to grow.
The version of this is populism. The other danger is in the opposite
direction, namely the growth of regional overlords which stagnate the
process of democratic set up.
Unlike U.S.A, the Indian union did not emerge as a
federation of states, but adopted a federal form only as a constitutional
fonnula in order to opertionalize the pluralist mode of cultural expression
of Indian society. Democracy may mean either "rule by the people" or
"self rule". The major defect in the present Indian political system is the
existence of oligarchic character of political structure. The irony of the
modem history is that every party claims itself to be egalitarian but its
actual character is hierarchical. Thus there is a need to fonnulate minimmn
criteria by which alternative forms of democracy can be judged. Two
criteria can be laid down. The first is openness and flexibility of society
where individual freedom has the maximum scope to flourish. The second
criterion is the need of unity and stability of the system. Freedom can not
endure without unity and stability of society. Thus both criteria are
complementary. Unity without freedom is a coercive unity. Organic
people's democracy based on the monolithic-party and a guided democracy
based on a military dictatorship are an expression of unity minus individual
freedom and creativity. Thus one can say that rebelliousness is a
phenomenon that takes place where both freedom and stability are lacking.
Experience with the working of democracy in many countries has revealed,
 237

them. Not all of them have led to undemocratic results; indeed some
have only stren!,rthened democracy by challenging authoritarian tendencies
in their societies. In other places, direct action has resulted in subversion
of democracy Italy, Spain, various Latin American countries, Indonesia,
Turkey and Pakistan are a few example of the process of subversion of
democracy. Even the French system has given rise to periodic outbursts
of Bonapartism. In England and the United states too, direct actions
have occasionally taken place, though this has more often not been in
defense of democratic right. Democratic theory also suffers from excessive
fonnalism: parliamentary democracy versus direct democracy, state aided
culture versus cultural freedom; party politics vs non-party politics. In
fact real democracy exists in the mind of men and women. So the real
problem is: how to enlighten them. Some liberals argue that there should
be cultural freedom while other stress cultural planning through
government as a source of enlightenment of the people. The successful
functioning of an institution depends upon the extent to which the value
system implied by it, becomes operative. The anomaly in Indian society
is that the values embodied in traditional institutions continue to persist,
and on the one hand the modem values have not yet been institutionalized
on the other The result is that politicians exploit and manipulate the
traditional structures like caste, region, language and religion which serve
there interest - be it political or material. The traditional institutions also
work as a pressure group politics in Indian democracy.
Thus, Prof. Rajni Kothari generates the concepts of self-
government and participation as a workable definition of democracy.
Its distinction from parliamentary democracy is that it considers both the
rights and responsibility of individual as inalienable, its emphasis is less
 238

on exact institutional patterns and more on individual creativity. It belives

in individual participation in decision making processes (not only in tenns
of casting of votes only) There are three point worth-noting. Firstly,
participation is not an end in itself, it is only a means to an end. The end
is to produce a certain quality of the mind that is co-operative behaviour
or what kant calls "categorical imperative". Secondly, participation is a
process. It has to be viewed more as as method of reading decisions
flexible in its working and producing a certain quality of human
intercourse. In this sense it is akin to the idea of democracy which is also
not simply a mechanism of govemment but of method of reading decisions.
Thirdly, the need in present condition is to distinguish participation based
on individual self-consciousness and that based on a collective ego. For
Kothari participation means-individual self-consciousness, not class
consciousness of Marx or collective consciousness of Durkheim. In
conformity with J.S.Mill's thesis, Rajni kothari says that liberty has to be
preserved as much against the constraint of social prejudice. The
consensus of mind is more important than the constrain that is imposed
by the communist philosophy of dictatorship of proletariat. One may say
that direct democracy is impossible in modem large -scale society. But,
as kothari says the applicability of an institution does not necessarily
involve the rejection of the ideal that the institution fulfilled unless, of
course, the ideal is itself surrendered on other grounds.
Representative democracy is certainly a step towards such
a realization but it falls far short of the goal as a result of the rigidity of
the institutional patterns and the inevitable power concentration to which
it gives rise. The need is to devise channels of participation for the
individual which could transcend the limitations of representation
 239

individual which could transcend the limitations of representation

democracy. Direct democracy should not be understood in terms of its
formal institutional structure as it existed, for example , in Athenian
democracy. In fact Prof. Rajni Kothari has conceptualized participatory
or direct democracy in terms of its spirit not in the term of formal laws
and social hierarchy. Participatory democracy fosters a true unity or
organic solidarity as distinct from what Durkheim calls a "mechanical
solidarity". The danger to participatory democracy is more acute in
societies where democracy tends to be equated with the paternalistic
notion of the welfare state and where individual is in danger of being
emasculated before the advance of a perfect state. The upshot of the whole
argument is what activation and development of an infrastructure of
autonomous and self governing groups are able to influence the decision
making process .It is the closest approximation to the spirit and substance
of direct democracy. Under modem conditions, its institutional scheme is
different from the primitive practice of a general meeting of an amorphous
and undifferentiated mass. Such a view of democracy is both in consonance
with the human nature as realized in the process ofbiological evolution. The
concept that liberal and democratic values could become real and
permeates existing institutions only on the basis of a concept of public
opinion, is not without ambivalence. By itself public opinion is not enough
to preserve democracy. Indeed public opinion can itself become despotic
for the individual. Only enlightened public opinion - based on discussion
and deliberation of ideas, can serve the purpose of participatory or direct
democracy. Participatory democracy will also involve the moral, cultural
and aesthetic freedom of writers and artist.
Direct democracy is also associated in the popular mind
 240

with unanimity in the decision making process. But if care is not taken,
unanimity by eschewing competition and criticism will be degenerated
into a perpetual oligarchy. The stress often laid down on the need for
unanimity in discussions on Panchayati Raj in this country points precisely
to such a danger. Such an approach leads to a coercive order. The general
consensus without resort to elections may be reached by primary groups
and also by secondary groups that would work as a continuum between
the individual and the state. This involves the representation from lower
to higher levels. Thus the assumed theory of direct democracy , advocated
by Prof. Rajni Kothari,does eliminate the importance of intermediary
agency that is secondary groups which will connect individual to that of
state.
The Concept of representation implied in a decentralized
democracy would differ from the concept as used in representative
democracy. A representation is no longer considered alienated from the
independence of the community he or she represents. Rather community
takes and provides accountability.But the fact in Indian case is that with
the passing of the tall man of Indian politics who occupied positions of
authority at so many levels both inside and out side the government and
with the gradual closure of the political process within the congress and
the under mining of state and local body and other autonomous institutions
under Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the centralizing tendencies inherent in the
constitution which was based on the Westminister model, came to the
forefront. To dismiss the role of a large mass of the people from the active
political process is to ignore the principal character of modem society,
which is steeped in democratic tradition by continuous contrast with
authoritarian political process.
 241

welfare state etc. have all been demonstrated to be irrelevant to the world
we live in and the problems that such a world encounters. The need is to
transform the basis of democratic cosmology from , what Althusser calls
the typical ideological and repressive state apparatuses, to the life
experienced by ordinary men and women in all societies. The teclmological
and bure_aucratic apparatuses have made our lives too complex and
problematic. Now the entire function of modem education is to what
Althusser calls produce and reproduce the trained, efficient and disciplined
labor force which is essential for the smooth fimctioning of modem
capitalism in India. Further, it could be noted down that those working
in the institutions of learning including those in the social sciences tend
to be increasingly alienated from social reality Over specialization and
compartmentalization lead to the fonnation of what Marcuse calls "one-
dimensional man". Restoration of the concept of "totalman" envisaged
by Karl Marx, could only be found in what Prof. Rajni Kothari called
"the direct democracy."
What is happening in India and elsewhere , should be
evaluated on the basis of clear understanding of the relationship between
the modes of technology and agents of social interventions and modes of
popular participation of the common people in the decision making process.
This evaluation is essential because technocratic mode is a mode that
limits participation and does not enhance it. Technology is becoming a
substitute for politics.Now the modem capitalism runs its business on.
What Foucault, a French historian, calls" political teclmology of body"
and "political teclmology of sex ". There is a tendency of erosion of
political currency in Indian politics.During NehruJi's times nationalism
was the main factor of articulation of democratic politics, and tllis factor
 242

was the main factor of articulation of democratic politics, and this factor
was enough to establish the congress hegemony in Indian parliamentary
politics. When Mrs.Indira Gandhi came to power; she established her
hegemony or domination of congress and projected herself as a messiah
of poor and minorities, Harijan etc by manipulating bureaucratic and
managerial apparatus. There was an excessive concentration of power in
her hand, the chief manifestation of which could be seen during the
emergency period. Even Morarji Dasai's Janata Government could not
democratize the entire socio- economic processes; through this party
had promised to establish an alternative political culture to socialize the
citizens of Indian society.
With coming in power ofMrs.Indira Gandhi in 1980, the
ideology of the left of the center was replaced by liberalization of industry.
This process got a further libidinal energy through the technological
modernization by the Rajiv Gandhi's Government. The "left of the center"
ideology was further got a dialectical shock by V.P. Singh government
with its the political agenda of Mandalization of society and by A.B.
Bajpayee's government by putting the political agenda of communization
of society. Thus, we can see how there is a progressive degeneration of
Indian politics and democracy. Now it has fallen into the traps of caste,
language, region, although it could be forcefully argued that the manifest
interest of nationalist leaders were to create a new state in a secular, non
communal manner. Born out of the pyres of one of the biggest cmmnunal
holocaust in history, it accepted the secular character in which a
considerable role was assigned to politics and to parties for moderating
social conflicts especially those based on caste or communal lines.
On the economic front it has now become fairly clear that
 243

which was sufficient to look after the consumer needs and life styles of
the upper middle classes. There after as the pressures for redistributive
policies grew, the belief, in a positive state which had earlier produced
the infrastructure was gradually given up and with the policy of
liberalization on the one hand and the rising power of local coalition
between businessman, administrators,contractors, and politicians on the
other, the development process was directed in such a manner that kept
large sections of the people out of it. Elections have become in themselves,
the apparatus of the statusquo and self perpetuation rather than of change.
Prof. Rajni Kothari argues that till 1967, there was politics
of consensus and one party (ie congress) dominance. The 1967 election
highlighted a shift of power both within the conf,rress and between congress
and opposition parties. The dialectics of power started in 1971 and
1972,When Mrs. Indira Gandhi got a massive electoral victory on the
ideological populism of "Garibi Hatao".Rebuilding consensus was the
major task for Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The loss of consensus arises out of
two conflicting phenomena, a heightened sense of expectations around
increasing populist a appeals and declining fonnance of the system and
an elite that is highly centralized and hence takes recourse to populist
slogans. According to Prof. Kothari such a convergence of expectations
and centralization have destabilized most third world societies. They have
been destabilized because the politics of confrontation and polarization
takes an ontological primacy over a politics of consensus based upon
fundamental values and goals. Indira Gandhi's contribution to the Indian
political process was to inculcate in the masses a desire for change at a
time. when twenty years of democratic functioning had instilled in them
an awareness of new values and of the possibility of change in social
 244

structures and attitudes that were at one time held to be sacrosanct. She
was able to do this by passing her appeal on an undefined genre of
radicalism b:rrounded in a purposely diffuse populist rhetoric and dramatic
over tones to socialism. The resulting mix of populism, personalized
authority, national self- aggrandisement provided the ground to establish
congress hegemony which is equal to her personal hegemony. She had
broken down the nerves of various factions and power blocs, pressure
group, tactic and countervailing forces within congress party. She was a
charismatic leader who had typical Bonaparist appeal - savior of the
down- trodden and idol of the privileged. During the emergency period
(1975-77) it appeared that she can make a muscular attack on all
oppositional currents and factional party-politics. At times, it seemed
that she is the march of "God" on the earth so far as the questions of
nationalism, secularism and socialism are concerned in Indian society.
The resultant effects of centralized, hegemonic and bureaucratic power
system are as follows.
(i) There was a new ideological crystallization of various social
forces and political parties.
(ii) popular social unrest produced what Habermas calls, a
legitimization crisis in the capitalist system.
(iii) Poverty and disparities got accentuated and even the traditional
access to community resources got eroded. As a result of it the congress
party lost its popular support among "dalit" and "tribals".
(iv) In the new historical conjecture, the congress was left with no
choice but to create a new social base primarily among the middle classes
and among the diffused and unstructured masses whose level of anxiety
neurosis was rather high and among whom newer commitments had not
 245

neurosis was rather high and among whom newer corumitments had not
yet emerged.
(v) The side effect of new strategies was the emergence of
communalism coached in the language of the unity -in-danger. Hindu
symbolism started working even among the poor , among the lower castes
and among the hill people .It is quite interesting that immediately after the
army action in Punjab , Mrs. Gandhi said openly in Garhwal that the
Hindu dhanna was under attack. Thus there was a communalization of
politics.
(vi) There is a development of technological model of state especially
during the period of Rajiv Gandhi.
(vii) There is a geometrical increase in violence and terror of the
state along with development of chauvinist sentiment in order to maintain
its stability.
(viii) There is a ' politics of survival'. This politics was essential for
establishing dominance over electoral sprectum.
(ix) Virtually the left of center political philosophy vanished without
trace when Mrs. Gandhi came to power in 1980. Trade union movement,
tribal movement, youth movement etc. depended on the politics of survival
or what Lanin calls " the philosophy of economism."
(x) There was a development of what Louis Althusser calls the "
cult of personality"at the cost of erosion of institutional apparatuses in
Indian democratic political order. This was assisted by the phenomena of
corruption, gangsterism and murders.
(xi) The overall consequences of such a brand of politics , the ideology
of a strong and centralized state and the cult of personality have damaged
the true spirit of democracy and brought the country close to ruin.
 246

been backed by world capitalism on the one hand and sophisticated military
hardware on the other. Whether the trend towards disunity and
fragmentation and the growth of regional sub- nationalism will be arrested
or accentuated, will depend on the nature and dimension of politics of
survival.
(xiii) True politics demands the operationalization of the process of
regenerating our democratic consciousness or what Rajni Kothari calls,
participation, decentralization and equality as a major tenants of
participatory democracy. The questions of relationship between liberty
and equality is yet to be examined in the light of collapse of communism
in Soviet Union. Decentralization does not mean more economic transfer
of investment from urban and rural areas, but also political
decentralization.

In sum, we can argue that intellectual and political leaders

for too long have been obsessed by a fear of the weakening of central
authority and the need to build a powerful center which can deal with
threats from inside and outside. Based on a legitimate concern for
safeguarding the independence of what still a fragile state operating in a
hostile international environment and reinforced in this belief by memories
of a long history of disunity and foreign conquests, these intellectuals
and politician have tended to confuse the need for unity vis-a-vis in outside
world, with the need for centralization Vis-a-vis the rest of country ;
with our country. The decentralization of power, and material interest can
only solve the forces of multiple contradictions which have appeared in
the form of inequality, regional imbalance, regional disparties and urban
imbalances etc. Technological modernization- a politics ofRajiv Gandhi,
 247

will produce the phenomenon of alienation of labor forces from the

production system: The resultant effect is that we, still , have a colonical
model of butraucracy and democracy which perpetuate the ideas and
interests of a ruling class. Thus we have to strive for a mission and the
mission is democratization of society, polity, economy and culture so that
we can derive what Althusser calls "a unity in complexity".
 250

the other. Weber has explained this development of liberal democracy

and economy at macro level primarily through the master concept of
rationalization process, anchored in his concept of inner-worldly asceticism
of the protestant religion. In his essay 'politics as a vocation' Weber has
explained those conditions which were conducive to the rise and expansion
of liberal democracy in the western society. He has, however, also
witnessed the growth of dehumanization process inherent in modem
industrial order. Thus, Weber can be pitted against Weber. This is the
point where critical theorists criticize Weber. But it does not mean that in
reaction, critical theorists will become more Marxists than Marx. In fact,
they maintain the gravitational point of their theory by making a love
marriage between Hegel, Marx, Weber and Freud. It is a fact that critical
theorists have narrowed down the two ideological lines : Liberalism and
Marxism. At micro level, Prof. Rajni Kothari bridged the ideological gap
between Indian liberal thinkers and Marxist I communist thinkers by
bringing Gandhian model- in form of third alternative-at the forefront.
Prof Kothari, puts this thesis in the following arguments: (I) the present
constitutional discourse is a predominantly nationalist-cum liberal
bourgeois discourse, (II) the inherant tension between two- radical promise
and conservative practice, provides the leitmotif of political pressure and
response in contemporary India; (III) another tension, inherent in the Indian
political discourse, is between nationalist aspirations and commitment on
one hand, and liberal virging on socialist assertions in dealing with the
people on the other, (IV) around each of these facts, there has been a kind
of radical rights and a radical left. Positive and creative nationalist has
given place to the rhetoric of "nation-in-danger", "threat to national Unity"
and the derivative demand for a "strong centre" and for a strong and hard
 251

nation-state that would emerge on the world science as a powerful regional

superpower, in the process of suppressing all pluralist aspirations and
deviant voices, This runs cotmter to the radicalizations of the liberal left
rhetoric of social justice, human rights and more militant concepts
associated with the revolt of the peripheries and the region aganist the
centre; and (V) this debate is inherent in the discourse over the nature and
structure of the constitutional instruments that we have given ourselves.
There is a gap between promise and performance in all political parties
starting from right to left via centre. There is, in fact, "crisis ofperformance
which is product of "crisis of leadership". In fact, the ideological gap
between liberal and Marxists can be narrowed down by accepting a third
model-Gandhian model-which belives in providing an alternative to free
markets and state socialism.
Thus, the history of ideology, like love, is something about
which all of us think we know something once we are old enough. We
can divide our topic, "The constitutions of modem ideology : a discourse
analysis of the intellectuals ofDelhi" into two parts: (a) western modem
ideology and (b) Indian modem ideology.
(A) Western modern ideology

The history of modem ideology of west is reflected in the

writings of Marx and Marxists one the one hand and Weber and critical
theorists on the other. The ideologies of rationality, equality, liberty,
nationalism, democracy and socilaism are treated as the valued components
of the mass struggle/movement, since ideological tradition and continuity
largely rest on the collective memory of old struggle such as the French
Revolution, Russian Revolution etc. These movements reflect the
credential of "history from below" or "history of comman people". Now,