Is there actual democracy in India?

By Chaudhary Sandeep Datta

India is known as the largest democracy in the world. People have been accorded fundamental rights to live with happiness while cherishing fruits of living in a free country.

India's eligibility to gain UN General Assembly's permanent membership is being increasingly supported largely due to democratic system of governance and its increasing role in world affairs. But what sort of democracy prevails anywhere is best answered by its republic.

Ask the poor middle class families, the children and the women if it is actually proving useful for them or it is existing only on papers to be used in political speeches, ahead of elections and in parliament.


Right to Live, Right to Equality before law, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Right to practice religion, Right to Livelihood are some of the fundamental rights given under the Indian Constitution to the citizens of the country. Right to Information and Right to Education are two of the most recent added fundamental rights. These are meant to define and show democracy prevailing in this part of the world.

But are Indians actually free to live in this country and enjoy democracy? It might sound offending if some fine day a child or an elderly person would ask the President or Prime Minister of the country to explain a layman what does democracy mean in true sense? The prompt reply may leave anyone of that stature embarrassed.


If Sheila Dixit, chief minister of Delhi, the national capital of India, is unable to provide a glass of clean drinking water even after nearly 15 years of rule, what can be expected of governments in other parts of the country? Perhaps, the countrymen need the Right to Accountability which should force officials and political leaders together to explain and pay for their inefficiency in actual terms.

Democracy should define a citizen's power to question the political representatives without fear of backlash or threat of any kind. It should be empowered to carry the power to put the leaders and officials, irrespective of the position, behind bars if they were found guilty of being inefficient or casual in ensure public welfare or causing corruption. The true democracy should offer people the power to question and make the might pay for it personally.

The leaders and the officials must be made to lead an ordinary person's life using the same basic facilities to live, if found guilty of impropriety at any time. They must have fear of public backlash not just after five years after being voted to power but during every day of their life as political representative or being in government office as official for public service.

Democracy does mean availability of facilities and opportunities to all without push and bribes. It does mean that the son of a poor labourer and the son of a rich businessman or politician are treated equally not just before the law but also before after being sent behind the bars.

Democracy does mean answerability and accountability to public of every official and politician. They need to be reminded that they are given certain degree of power to serve instead of ruling the people.

If an uprising is possible in less developed Africa and Middle East, it is very much possible in India anyday, anytime, and anywhere due to corruption and silencing of voices of justice. For, the world is changing and so is the people living in it.

The day is not far away when people in localities, towns, and rural areas will join hands and start punishing the corrupt leaders and officials on their own. They will make the leaders and officials pay for their follies by themselves and decide their rights in democracy on their own.

Perhaps, that will be the saddest day for India as a nation and democracy.

Former Supreme Court Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in his write up 'The Quality of Justice' (Feb 28, 2011) writes: Every instance of criticism that seeks to expose a government's operation against the people and their liberties is not a bid to overthrow it. That is not sedition but a patriotic mission on account of public commitment.

Pointing out the case of Dr. Binayak Sen, who has been imprionsed for life for allegedly being supporter of Maoists, Justice Iyer writes: "Dr. Binayak Sen has been found guilty of sedition. This charge is an extraordinary one and is based, according to newspaper reports, on his association wih certain Maoists. Dr. Sen has worked extensively in teh rural areas, providing medical assistance to the poor. He has a reputation for having sacrificed much of his time and his skills for the poor. This should be an important factor in considering the sentencing dimension of his guilt.

"....public commitment critical of the state administration should not be confused ith a traitor operation."