Share |

A Theoretical Enquiry into the Relationship between Democracy, Development and Justice in India

I.         INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPTS                 
Democracy, development and justice have been cherished ideals of humanity. These three ideals have inspired many philosophers and practitioners both in the past and the present. The future of humanity depends on how the philosophy inspires the practice of these three ideals across the world.
Democracy has its origins in the Ancient Greece. It implied the rule of the mob in the ancient political philosophy. Plato and Aristotle classified Democracy as the perverted form of polity (the best form of government). However, the principles of democracy gained popularity during the French and American revolutions. The idea of Democracy reached the common man all over the world through the words of Abraham Lincoln: “the government of the people, by the people and for the people”[1]. But, the massive movement for democracy began, only during the early 20th century.
In the contemporary period, a number of thinkers have been postulating theories in relation to the growing demand for democracy across the world and the failure of democracy in some parts where it exists. Theorists continue to expound new ways of strengthening democracy. Over the time a number of theories have emerged to describe the meaning and content of democracy. And, the model that is more contemporary and relevant today is the participatory democracy. In the words of Carole Pateman, democracy implies: equal participation in the making of the decisions and equality of power in determining the outcome of the decisions.[2] So, democracy must be understood as ‘result oriented participation’ by the people in the functions of the government.
Development is relatively a new concept. It is a new approach in political science, but development as an essence always existed in the political philosophy. This concept deciphered from the writings of Plato’s version of justice and Laski’s ideas on rights. According to Plato, justice is attained when each member in the state, has a special contribution of his own to make in accordance with his natural capacities.[3] According to Laski, “Rights are those conditions without which no man can seek to be his best.”[4]
With the end of Second World War – as decolonization began – there emerged the difference between the developed nations, the colonizers, and the underdeveloped countries, the erstwhile colonies.  It (the end of II World War) also marked the beginning of serious interest among scholars and policymakers in studying and understanding better the development process as a basis for designing appropriate development policies and strategies[5]. Various models of development have been proposed to assist the emerging nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Similarly, justice has been a treasured ideal for philosophers and theorists from Plato to John Rawls and to Amartya Sen in the present times. Plato’s vision of Justice was completely philosophical. It encompassed justice as a complete virtue, a universal phenomenon unlike the narrow version of legal justice. John Rawls identifies justice as fairness equaling impartiality.
Thus the three ideals of democracy, development and justice have vast philosophical and theoretical foundations. (accompanied by practical experimentation.)
Seen individually,      
·         Democracy is a political objective
·         Development is an economic goal and
·         Justice is a social necessity.
Thus, these three ideals deal with three spheres of man’s life: social, economic and political. And since, man’s life cannot be divided into water-tight compartments as political, economic and social lives; so also, these three ideals cannot be defined without taking the other two into account. As an example, examine the meaning of democracy. Democracy implies political liberty and equality. However, democracy is incomplete without economic and social liberty and equality, which cannot be fulfilled without achieving development and justice.
Thus, the three ideals posses a unique characteristic; whereby, when one assumes a wider scope, it embraces the other two into its fold.





Complete Meaning And Scope

Democracy (Political)

Political Democracy

Political Development

Political Justice

Political Economic And Social Democracy

Development (Economic)

Economic Democracy

Economic Development

Economic Justice

Political Economic And Social Development


Social Democracy

Social Development

Social Justice

Political Economic And Social Justice

Similarly, development initially began as an economic concept. However, it is no longer confined to the economic growth though it includes it. Economic growth focuses exclusively on the expansion of only one choice-income; while, the concept of development embraces the enlargement of all human choices-whether economic, social, cultural or political.[6] It (development) is intrinsically inter-disciplinary, and brings within its fold issues of justice, equity, rights and political participation.[7] Qualitative improvement of life must be the end purpose of all the development activities.[8] According to Mahbub ul Haq, a leading Pakistani economist, development goals must be defined in terms of progressive reduction and eventual elimination of malnutrition, disease, illiteracy, squalor, unemployment, and inequalities.[9] All these stress the individual’s perception of development i.e., development with a human face. The core definition of development in the Human Development Reports of UNDP is ‘the enlargement of people’s choices’
Such deliberations inspired the United Nations to adopt the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ which do not aim at economic growth, but emphasise on improving the quality of life through reduction of poverty and hunger, improving health and education and attaining gender equality. Thus development includes in its fold social, political and economic development.
Justice as an ideal embraces the political and economic objectives along with the social objectives. Justice implies equality which includes social economic and political equalities. According to Amartya Sen, “if the demands of justice can be assessed only with the help of public reasoning, and if public reasoning is constitutively related to the idea of democracy, then there is an intimate connection between justice and democracy, with shared discursive features”.[10] Similarly, justice is incomplete if there are inequalities in the development process. Thus democracy and development become the intrinsic values of justice.
III.           PREAMBLE
What is the relationship between these three ideals in India? Before going to the practical analysis of this relationship, let us examine the theoretical framework given within the Constitution of India. The preamble of Indian constitution entails the basic philosophy of Indian constitution. It is based upon the famous ‘Objective Resolution’, drafted by Nehru and introduced in the Constituent Assembly in its first session on 13th December, 1946.
One of the objectives of the Resolution read as follows:
“Wherein shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India, justice, economic and political; equality of status, and of opportunity before the law, freedom of thought, expression”[11]
This very objective is again reflected in the Preamble of the Constitution. Let us examine the words enshrined in the Preamble. It reads:

"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
 JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
From the above, it can be depicted that the preamble of the Indian constitution puts justice as a goal to be achieved by the Indian state by adopting democracy as the nature of the state. The preamble does not make a mention of development. However, the idea of development can be found in the words of Nehru stating the objective of the Constituent Assembly:
“The first task of this Assembly (Constituent Assembly) is to free India through a new Constitution, to feed the starving people and clothe the naked masses and to give each Indian the fullest opportunity to develop himself according to his capability”[12].
This resolve reflected in the Resolution passed on the 22nd January 1947 and inspired the shaping of the Constitution into a dynamic document.
So, it is assumed, that development is the path to be taken by the democratic state to achieve the ideal of justice. Therefore, it is easier to draw a sequential order in which democracy leads to development and development to justice.

Preamble of Indian constitution gives justice the highest place, above the other stated goals of liberty, equality and fraternity. And the makers of the Indian constitution make it clear, the kind of justice they were aiming at. The preamble quotes “Justice: social, economic and political”.
It has been pointed out that the priority given to the concept of justice as compared to liberty, equality and fraternity and to social and economic as compared to political justice was deliberative. The order of the words indicates that the concept of social and economic justice was perhaps considered ‘the most fundamental norm’ of the constitution of India.[13] This order is also in confirmation with Aristotelian scheme of development of man from a social animal to political animal.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his concluding speech in the Assembly stated that “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life, which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity, which are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity.”[14] In totality, Justice is recognized within the substantial context and not the procedural one.
The research paper examines the entire trajectory of action to identify the problems that obstruct the achievement of this highest goal of justice endorsed by the Indian constitution. 

The Trajectory of Action to Achieve Justice






Social Justice

Economic Justice

Political Justice


Land Reforms

Poverty alleviation



Political failure

Economic failure

Social Failure






A.               Firstly, the goal itself has been neglected, which makes it difficult to achieve.
One of the foremost opportunities of achieving social justice in India came in the form of land reforms. However, Indian government under the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru failed to effectively implement the land reforms. Nehru was the forerunner of socialism in pre-Independent India, but when it came to him the opportunity to implement the principles of socialism, he failed miserably. The Report of the Task Force on Agrarian Relations said, “In no sphere of public activity in our country since independence has the hiatus between precept and practice, between policy pronouncements and actual execution been as great as in the domain of land reforms”.[15]
Official pronouncements of the Nehruvian era said that the main beneficiaries of the land reforms should be the poorest in the country side; in fact, it was to the richest farmers that the gains of the dissolution of feudal classes accrued.[16] There emerged reciprocity of interests between bureaucrats and legislators on the one hand and between bureaucrats and land lords on the other. Any effort to redistribute was done only on the paper, and not on the land. This inability on the part of the government had left a lasting impression on the social and economic profile of the people. Failure of land reforms has hindered social justice in several ways. Rural inequalities increased and thus the oppression of the class, caste continued.
Failure of land reforms had enormous significance for politics as well. The rich landlords made their way to the political positions of power and in turn shouldered the responsibility of protecting the interests of the rich peasantry. This domination of rural rich peasants lasted long enough to hinder any progressive change in the social fabric of the country. The Har Charan Singh Committee Report in Punjab submitted in 1973 made public how land intended for landless was being grabbed by prominent politicians and government officials at extremely low prizes.[17]In totality the idea of socialism was perverted into a protection of privilege rather than a pursuit of equality.[18] The experience of East Asia- especially China, South Korea and Taiwan- has shown that land reform is a key element for a rapid, industry driven growth.[19] Thus slow pace of agrarian reforms hindered industrial growth.
Thus failure of land reforms is one major drawback of Indian government embarking on the mission of social justice. Apart from the failure of the land reforms, there are other ways in which the government failed to implement social justice. If there has been any change in the social stratification, it is due to the migrations of the rich upper classes from the rural to the urban and from urban to foreign countries, leaving power and status vacuums to be filled up by the lower classes of the society.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has put up the following dimensions of social justice:
1.      Prevention of poverty.
2.      Access to Education
3.      Full Employment
4.      Social Harmony and non-discrimination
5.      Health
6.      Intergenerational justice
To understand the country’s stand on these criteria, we must look into the progress achieved by the government in the economic sphere. After proving that the government failed politically to establish social justice in the country through land reforms, it is now required to look into the economic role of the government and how it fared in the mission of development or the economic justice.
B.               Secondly, the path of development also has been corrupted.
The widening inequalities in India and the low performance of India on the human development index in opposition to its economic growth rates is the result of unequal development or unequal distribution of the assets/results of the development. Unequal development of India is reflected in the poverty, unemployment, leading to poor health and educational standards of life.
             In 2012, the Planning Commission of India (Tendulkar Committee) reported that 21.9% of all people in India fall below the poverty line[20]. According to 2010 data from the United Nations Development Programme, an estimated 29.8% of Indians live below the country's national poverty line[21]. According to ‘A 2012 poverty Development Goals Report’, in Southern Asia, only India is on track to cut poverty by half by the 2015 target date.[22] However by 2015, an estimated 53 million people will still live in extreme poverty and 23.6% of the population will still live under US$1.25 per day.
On the other hand, inequality has continued to increase–the Gini coefficient rose from 30.9 in 2005 to 32.3 in 2012–and growth of the bottom 40% has not yet fully caught up with the average.[23] The 2011 Global Hunger Index (GHI) Report places India amongst the three countries where the GHI between 1996 and 2011 went up from 22.9 to 23.7[24]
There are two important things to be clarified:
·                     Even though India succeeded in reducing the percentage below the poverty line, there is not enough achievement to celebrate keeping in view, the growing population. Even if the percentage of people below poverty line comes down to 20%, it still means 20 crores of the population. People living below poverty line are not just poor but extremely poor. Leave alone the basic needs of clothing and shelter; these people are under-nourished.  The numbers involving poor and those of the lower middle class whose struggle continues throughout life to meet their basic needs of life; is even enormous. Thus, we must understand that all the people who do not fall below the poverty line do not have better standards of life. There is a greater necessity to fix another line, which guarantees a decent living which includes: food shelter, clothing, education and health care.
·                     There is an urgent need to know how the poverty line is estimated. Earlier, the poverty line was measured on the basis of expenditure required for an optimum calorie intake. In 2011, the Suresh Tendulkar Committee defined the poverty line on the basis of monthly spending on food, education, health, electricity and transport. According to this estimate, a person who spends Rs. 27.2 in rural areas and Rs. 33.3 in urban areas a day are defined as living below the poverty line.
This has been criticised for fixing the poverty line too low. According to critics, the government has deliberately kept poverty line low. A low poverty line has enabled government to show that millions have moved out of poverty. A committee headed by former RBI governor C Rangarjan is working on a new methodology for defining the poverty line. The report is expected later this year.
On the one hand, the conditions of the poor are neglected and on the other hand they are left to the mercy of the market.  In the era of liberalization, the market has gained prominence and it has become one of the major institutions perpetuating injustice in India.[25]Markets exclude the poor as consumers if they do not have the money to buy what is on offer, and markets exclude the poor as producers if they lack the skills and resources that the markets value.[26] Not only the local markets have been operating against the poor, but also the force of international domination of finance, which has resulted from national policies of financial deregulation and created the possibility of large possibly destabilizing movements of speculative capital.[27]
One glaring shortcoming is the disappearance of equity and concern for (India’s) poor from the debates and discourse surrounding the formulation of economic policy.[28] The social sector share of GDP in India is very low. The government has neglected the role of social capital in social development. The government expenditure on health and education is bare minimum. While the spending on education and health has been raised consistently over the years, it still remains at a meager 1.29% and 0.51% of the GDP, respectively.[29]Salaries to public employees, defense and interest payments occupy major budgetary allocations in India.[30]  Obviously, there is nothing left to spend on the social sector.  Rehman Sobhan calls it a constrained allocative regime system.[31] This is one major drawback in the policy formulation. 
Secondly, the identification of the real targets of various policies is usually done in a hurried and haphazard manner. Beneficiaries of various policies in the urban areas are identified on the basis of the party affiliations and other partisan criteria.  Therefore, the needy lots are mostly out of their reach.
Thirdly, the policy execution is also hampered by corruption at various stages until it reaches to the common man.  Acknowledgement of this has been made by Rajiv Gandhi when he was the Prime Minister.  When asked (by A.B.Vajpayee) why is, that the Rupee he sends from Delhi doesn’t reach the common man, he answered that the Rupee gets scratched.  This one statement sums up the causes for the failure of the various poverty alleviation programmes in India. Unless we address both the philosophical and the institutional foundations of injustice, we may be doomed more into the future with an order which compounds injustice in the name of poverty alleviation.[32]
This can be witnessed through the “Garibi Hatao” programme of Indira Gandhi. Sadly for the millions floundering at the brink of poverty, disease or death, it was a make shift strategy for the continued survival of congress hegemony at a time when both Indian politics and economy were manifestly in the throes of a crisis.[33] Also, it was a measure to divert the attention of the people about the failure of land reforms and other lapses on the part of the government. Even after six decades of freedom what has India achieved? Even today, during elections, the common man looks for better livelihood-not in terms of comforts of life, but only for the basic needs like potable water, two meals a day and shelter. This means that the government of India on the one hand is thriving for growth rates; while on the other hand; the common man in poverty remains untouched.
A series of developmental studies since the early 70’s have highlighted that economic growth, by itself, has not lead to redistribution of assets or incomes and conditions of the poor has remained largely unaltered.[34] The meaning of development is to allow people to lead the kind of life they choose, and provide them with the tools and opportunities to make those choices. It implies removing the obstacles people face in their efforts to make the best possible use of their potential to lead the life of their choice.
Failure to alleviate poverty implies failure to achieve justice on the economic front or failure on the part of the government to implement economic justice. Development could not be achieved in its true sense and thus economic justice too.
C.                 Thirdly, if the goal and the path are not satisfactory, it shall be assumed that there is some inertia in the initiation of democracy itself.
If democracy must be measured in terms of development and the distribution of its assets, it can be concluded that democracy has failed or rather India itself has failed to effectively implement democracy.
Before analyzing the reasons for the failure of democracy, it is important to understand the meaning of democracy in the Indian context. India zealously took to democracy as the form of the government, soon after independence. The Constitution of India established a parliamentary democracy marked by universal adult franchise, periodic election to choose the government, majority rule, decentralization of power, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, etc. of all these principles, only regular elections stand out to sing the success saga of Indian democracy. Indeed periodic elections save the face value of Indian democracy.
However, democracy is not synonymous with voting alone. The effectiveness of ballots themselves depends crucially on what goes with balloting, such as free speech, access to information and freedom of dissent.[35] According to Robert A Dahl, political equality does not only imply universal suffrage, but also implies equality of opportunity of access to influence over decision makers[36]. In India, a common man has no role in policy making, policy implementation and policy evaluation. This is in spite of the fact that the target of the policy is that very common man.
A deeper analysis of the political process in India reveals the authoritative structure of the state in the guise of democracy. The Nehruvian world view had a contradiction at its centre between the rhetorical idea that the masses are the creators of history and a pragmatic mistrust of their ability to think rationally even about their most local needs.[37] This simply explains the reason, why the masses that were sought after to fight for freedom, were not made the share holders of that very freedom.
On the eve of independence, it was required that India should take strong steps to safeguard its sovereignty. Besides, Indians had to be protected from themselves: from their own primordial loyalties which could tear the society apart if government was devolved to them in unwisely large measure.[38] Thus, right from the beginning, India experienced the selective approach to democracy as far as it fulfilled the authority of the state. Democracy in India has thus taken the perverted form.
Weakened in caliber and fixed more and more by the politics of opportunism, the congress was slowly but subtly becoming even more of an organizational mainspring for corruption and self interest than Gandhi may have feared.[39] It is obvious that, Indian politics started deteriorating right from the days of initiation. A firm stand was not taken up by the politicians of the day. Even Nehru was aware of these flaws; he did not attempt to bring any reforms in his party. However, the drawbacks in the political system did not come to the day light under the Nehruvian veil of stability.[40]
It simply implies that though democracy was adopted as a form of the government, no effort has been taken for the democratization of the state. Here it is pertinent to know the meaning of democratization. Democratization may be defined in terms of the promotion and further development of democracy as an idea and as a method.[41] It means that if democracy is a principle, democratization is the knowledge and practice of that principle.
So, over the decades, devolution of powers has taken the reverse course. Instead of increasing the political participation of the citizens, the governments tried to segregate the common man from all the activities of the government. Also the common man in India started showing more and more political apathy. Thus what we witness in India is democracy only in the letter of the constitution and not in the spirit of the government.
Not only has democracy become unpractical among the people in general, but also among the members of the political parties and the political representatives. None of the political parties in India can boast of democratic means of electing its party chief. Also, most of the political parties have become hereditary assets. At the government level, major policy decisions are taken by only a selected few in the cabinet. Most of the MPs and MLAs remain outside the arena of policy making.
If democracy must be measured in terms of development and the distribution of its assets, and devolution of power to the people, it can be concluded that democracy has failed or rather India itself has failed to effectively implement democracy. However, this failure must not be attributed to the government, but to the people in general. Failure to achieve democracy is a social failure and not a political one. Because, ultimately, the constitution of India entrusted the task of building this nation to ‘We The People of India’.
One major cause for failure of democracy in India is that it takes into account only the political meaning and neglects the economic dimension to some extent and social dimension to a large extent.
According to Huntington, economic and social development would not materialize without a stable and well developed political system.[42] And a well developed political system comes through democratization. The problem here is that ‘democracy has been a gift from the elite to the masses than something the masses have secured for themselves’.[43] It can be safely concluded that the elite or the politicians have granted a particular version of democracy which suits their own interests rather than those of the people.
 This is why decentralization of democracy is yet to be realized in India. This was a cherished dream of the Father of the Nation. Agendas of decentralization are compromised by the fact that those who legislate decentralization are themselves inimical to surrendering the necessary power and patronage which goes with this process,[44] while, the people are still waiting to gain the democracy which will bring them better living opportunities. Every new government brings with it new hopes for the public, which starts watering down by the mid-term and by the end of five years the government becomes so intolerable that it is thrown out of power. This feature is described as “Iron Law of Politics” by Ashish Nandy.[45]
Despite, so many shortcomings, Democracy still enjoys stability in India, and so the Iron law. However, this stability does not owe to the regular elections, but to the psychological capacity (stability) that is deeply rooted in the structures of family and society, where Indians are trained to accept ‘what may come’. The common Indian masses do not go for revolutions easily. Indians (we) tend to give in to political authority too easily.[46] Indiahad a social system that had traditionally been flexible and capable of absorbing large shifts in the balance of social and political arrangements.[47] This is evident from the history of India, which illustrates highly stable social layers under different political regimes. However, this stability is camouflaging stagnation of the democratic practice in India. This stagnation continues as democracy does not have a sense of time built into its concept.[48]  The only way to rejuvenate democracy in India is through laying emphasis on the right education.
A.  Education
Indeed, education is an important medium that can change the political system in this country. Plato once said “it is government that need to flow from the education and not education from the government”. Indeed, he was very right. Education creates the awareness among the people about their rights and duties, and thus ensures a strong democracy. Political awareness is absolutely necessary to protect the country from political diseases like corruption, mis-rule and mal-administration.
Education does not simply indicate literacy. Literacy is only a technical qualification and not a qualitative quantifier for democracy. Improving the literacy rates is only a pre-requisite and not an achievement in itself.  Again in the words of Historian Romila Thapar, “Education is not just a qualification. Education is a state of mind.”[49] In India education has become a tool of attaining jobs and not knowledge.
However, the kind of education that we have in India is only a continuation of Macaulay’s system of education which had at its end the perpetuation of British Empire then and the domination of ruling parties now. The present system of education in India is only partially effective in creating that kind of atmosphere that induces political participation. Over the years, the education in India has only alienated the people from the politics. A general political apathy rules the educated sections in India.
Education system in India is devoid of the micro-level analysis of Indian government and politics. All the vital information, like, local area development funds, powers and functions of lower tier representatives including Mps and MLAs is not included or discussed in the curriculum at high school, or UG and PG levels. This can be summed up in the words of Amartya Sen as ‘Informational exclusion’[50]
The solution for this is that the education system in India must take up a practical approach to Indian government and politics. Theory and practical lessons must be framed, in order to induce greater level of awareness and participation in the political process. Participation must become a matter of behaviour rather than an obligation.
Another important concern is educational institutions especially universities in India have become the favourable grounds of political activities. There is an urgent need to differentiate between exploitation of the education system in the country for political usage and utilization of education for enhancing democracy. Political participation instigated through political manipulations must be differentiated from that of an educative one.
B.  Participation
According to Carole Pateman, “The major function of participation in the theory of participatory democracy is (therefore) an educative one, educative in the widest sense, including both the psychological aspect and the gaining of practice in democratic skills and procedures”. There is no educative element in the participation witnessed in Indian democracy. Moreover, it restricts the analytical/discretionary competence of the general public.
The kind of participation witnessed during the 2014 general elections is not a genuine participation but something the mood of election demanded or artificially induced participation. The proof of this is that this participation will not continue after elections. Money was the prime motive for many who participated in the rallies, campaigning and the meetings. Some participation from women was basically due to the fact that they gained some kind of policy benefits from that political party.
Overall, it can be concluded that political participation of true democratic standards is highly negligible in India. Once again, it is only education which can halt this kind of artificially mobilized participation and induce the genuine kind.
C. Transparency
Yet another way of improving the order of politics in India is the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act. Right to Information Act provides that any citizen may request information from a "public authority" which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publishcertaincategories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally. Measures must be taken to implement this second aspect of the Act. Information on the usage of Local Area Development Fund must be provided by the MPs and MLAs in their websites which should be accessible to the general public. This measure must be appended implicitly and explicitly to the RTA.
D. Electoral reforms
Elections should become the initial arena of enhancing participation in politics. Elections are central to the democratic method because they provide the mechanism through which the control of leaders by non leaders takes place.[51] Elections must be made a little more effective. More turn out for voting should be encouraged. Elections 2014 have given the voters a unique option: NOTA. Though, it won’t have any importance on the result of the elections, in the long term, it may be more effective in forcing political parties to field good candidates. However, this will be based on how many people utilised this option during this elections. This is another example of how political participation can demand for electoral reforms.
                                           èDemands for Transparency èDemocracy       è             
Education èParticipation èDemand for Electoral Reforms èDemocracyèDevelopmentèJustice
                                           èDemand for Social Capital è  Democracy.     è                     
Overall, re-vitalising the education system in India will boost political participation in its real sense. Political participation will bring in more demands for transperency in the government, which will cut down on corruption.
Greater participation will demand more budgetary allocations for social capital as well. In the words of Mahbub-ul-Haq, this will ensure recasting planning in terms of human development[52]. Development will become people-centered only with the participation of the common people in all the processes of development. The civil society should be vigilant enough to initiate, plan, identify the targets, implement and analyse the development programmes. UNDP Human Development Report 2004, ‘Cultural liberty in today's diverse world’, said, “Unless the people who are poor and marginalized can influence political action at local and national levels, they are unlikely to get equitable access to schools, jobs, hospitals, justice, security and other basic services.” A greater say in the prolical process like budgeting, policy frame work and implementaion, will ensure a true democracy.
The progress of a sound political system and democratic institutions are the pre-requisites for development and indeed a sine-qua-non for the benefits of development to be enjoyed by the majority of the people.[53] Such a development with a human face will bring with it greater opportunities for people to develop their natural capacities to their best use. And in such a society, where each one honestly performs those tasks which the place accorded to them requires, is the society where justice prevails[54].
1.      Bhargava, Rajeev, ed., ‘Politics and Ethics of Indian Constitution’, Oxford University Press, 2013.
2.      Blaug, Ricardo and Schwarzmantel, John, ed., ‘Democracy-A Reader’, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburg, 2004
3.      Chandra, Bipin, Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee Aditya, ‘India since Independence’, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 2008.
4.      Hasan, Zoya, Sridharan, E. and Sudarshan, R. ed., ‘India’s Living Constitution: Ideas, Practices, Controversies’, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2004.

  1. Jalal, Ayesha, ‘Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia. A Comparative and Historical Perspective’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.


  1. Kaviraj, Sudipta (ed.), ‘Politics in India’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1997.


  1. Kohli, Atul, ‘Democracy and Development in India-from Socialism to Pro-Business’, Oxford University Press, 2009.


  1. Kothari, Rajni, ‘Politics in India’, Orient Longman, Delhi, 1970.

9.      Pateman, Carole, ‘Participation and Democratic Theory’, Cambridge
10.  Rosen, Michael and Wolf, Jonathan, ed., ‘Political Thought’, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.
11.  Sen, Amartya, ‘The Idea of Justice’, Penguin Books, 2011.
      University Press, Cambridge, 1970.
1.      Mohapatra, Anil Kumar, ‘Basic Objectives and Values of the Indian Constitution’, Orissa Review, January – 2011, pp. 30-36.
2.      Pateman, Carole ‘Participatory Democracy Revisited’APSA, Perspectives on Politics,March 2012 | Vol. 10/No. 1, pp. 7-19.
3.      Pateman, Carole, ‘Participation and Democratic Theory’,

  1. Sobhan, Rehman, “Prioritising Justice in South Asia’s Development” South   Asian Survey, Vol.8, no.1, January/June 2001, pp.3-16.

Thorbecke, Erik, ‘The Evolution of the Development Doctrine, 1950-2005’,

[1]Lincoln, Abraham, “Gettysburg Address” (19 November 1863).

[2]Pateman, Carole, ‘Participation and Democratic Theory’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970,       p. 42-3.

[3]Field, G. C., ‘The Philosophy of Plato’, Oxford University Press, New York, 1951, p.85.

[4]Laski, Harold J., ‘A Grammar of Politics’, George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1970, p.91.

[5]‎, p.1

[6]Haq, Mahbub ul, ‘Reflections on Human Development’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1996, p.14.

[7]Hassan, Shaukat, “A Concept Paper” (Appendix) to Khanna, D.D. (ed.), ‘Sustainable Development: Environmental, Security, Disarmament and Development Interface in South Asia’, Society for Peace, Security and Development Studies, Macmillan, Allahabad, 1997, p.458.

[8]Rizvi, Gowher, ‘South Asia in a Changing International Order’, Harvard, 1993, p.132.

[9]Haq, Mahbub ul, “Employment and Income Distribution in the 1970’s: A New Perspective”, in Pakistan Economic and Social Review, June-December 1971, p.6.

[10]Sen Amartya, ‘The Idea of Justice’, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 326

[11] (First Day in the Constituent Assembly)

[12]Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd Jan, 1947, Vol. II p 316. 

[13]Kashyap, Subhash C., ‘The Framing of the Constitution and the Process of Institution Building’, in b.N. Pandey, general editor, A Centenary history of the Indian National Congress: Vol. IV 1947-1964, editor, Iqbal Narain, New Delhi, 1990, p. 85.

[14]Basu, D.D. Introduction to the Constitution of India, 18th Edition, p 24.

[15]Mishra S.K., and Puri, V. K., ‘Indian Economy’, Himalaya Publishing House, 2006, p.327.

[16]Kaviraj, Sudipta, “The Modern State in India”, in Doornobs, Martin and Kaviraj, Sudipta (ed.), ‘Dynamics of  State Formation: India and Europe Compared’, New Delhi, Sage Publications, 1997, p.54.

[17]Mishra, S.K. and Puri, V.K., ‘Indian Economy’, Himalaya Publishing House, 24th revised edition, 2006,p.328.

[18]Kothari, Rajini, “Caste and Modern Politics”, in Kaviraj, Sudipta (ed.), ‘Politics in India’, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.59.

[19]Reddy, C.Rammanohar, “1947-1997: the Balance Sheet”, in ‘India’, August 15, 1997. (Special Issue by The Hindu).


[21]Jay Mandal. "Poverty Reduction."

[22] ("India's poverty will fall from 51% to 22% by 2015: UN report – Times of India".

[23]‘India Development Update’,

[24]‘2011 Global Hunger Index Report’. International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI).

[25]Rehman Sobhan, “Prioritising Justice in South Asia’s Development” South Asian Survey, Vol.8, no.1, January/June 2001, pp.3-16, p.7.

[26]Menon, Krishna, Democracy and Development in India, May 26, 2011,

[27]Jayati Ghosh, “Developing Countries and the Dollar”, in Deccan Chronicle, October 3, 2003.

[28]C.Rammanohar Reddy, “1947-1997: the balance sheet”, in ‘India’, August 15, 1997, (Special Issue of The   Hindu).

[29]Banikinkar Pattanayak| Updated: Feb 18 2014, 13:51 IST (The Financial Express, February, 18, 2014) Budget 2014: Social sector programmes face delivery hurdles

[30]Rehman Sobhan, “Prioritising Justice in South Asia’s Development” South  Asian Survey, Vol.8, no.1, January/June 2001, pp.3-16, p.7.

[31]Rehman Sobhan, “Prioritising Justice in South Asia’s Development”South Asian Survey, Vol.8, no.1, January/June 2001, pp.3-16, p.7.

[32]Rehman Sobhan, “Prioritising Justice in South Asia’s Development” South  Asian Survey, Vol.8, no.1,   January/June 2001, pp.3-16, p.7.

[33]Jalal, Ayesha, ‘Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia. A Comparative and Historical Perspective’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, p.134.

[34]Mukherji, Indra Nath, “Stratergies of Poverty Alleviation in South Asia”, in S.D.Muni (ed.), ‘Understanding South Asia. Essays in the Memory of Late Professor (Mrs.) Urmila Phadnis’, J.N.U. New Delhi, 1994, p.271.

[35]Sen, Amartya, ‘The Idea of Justice’, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 327.

[36]Op.Cit., Dahl. Robert A., ‘A Preface to Democratic Theory’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1956, p. 145.

[37]Kaviraj, Sudipta, “The Modern State in India”, in Doornobs, Martin and Kaviraj, Sudipta (ed.), ‘Dynamics of   State Formation: India and Europe Compared’, New Delhi, Sage Publications, 1997, p.52.

[38]Kaviraj, Sudipta, “Introduction”, in Kaviraj, Sudipta (ed.), “Politics in India”, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.13.

[39]Jalal, Ayesha, ‘Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia. A Comparative and Historical Perspective’, Columbia University, 1995, p.40.

[40]Op.cit.,  Jalal, Ayesha, ‘Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia. A Comparative and Historical Perspective’, Columbia University, 1995, p.40.

[41]op.cit., Tornquist, Olle, ‘Politics and Development. A Critical Assessment’, Sage Publications, 1999, p.123.

[42]Huntington, Samuel P., cited by Tornquist, Olle, ‘Politics and Development.        A Critical Assessment’, Sage Publications, 1999, p.56.

[43]Keerawella, Gamini, “Political Framework of Regional Cooperation in          Post Cold War South Asia”, in Khanna, D.D. (ed.), ‘Sustainable Development: Environmental, Security, Disarmament and Development Interface in South Asia’, Society for Peace, Security and Development Studies, Allahabad, Macmillan, 1997, p.394.

[44]Sobhan, Rehman, “Prioritising Justice in South Asia’s Development” South Asian Survey, Vol.8, no.1, January/June 2001, pp.3-16, p.12.

[45]Nandy, Ashis, “The Political Culture of Indian State”, in Zoya Hasan, ‘Readings in Indian Government and Politics’, Vol.3, ‘Politics and the State in India’, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2002, p.77.

[46]Thapar, Romila,

[47]Kothari, Rajni, ‘Caste and Modern Politics’, in Kaviraj, Sudipta (ed.), ‘Politics in India’, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.58.

[48] Palshikar, Sanjay, ‘Democracy and Consttutionalism’, in Bhargava, Rajeev, ed., ‘Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2013, p.224.

[49]Thapar, Romila,

[50]  A phrase used by Amartya Sen enumerating the hindrances to democracy, in ‘The Idea of Justice’, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 327.

[51] Dahl. Robert A., ‘A Preface to Democratic Theory’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1956, p. 3.

[52]Haq, Mahbub-ul, ‘Reflections on Human development’, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1996, pp. 4-6.

[53]Rizvi, Gowher, ‘South Asia in a Changing International Order’, Harvard, 1993, p.132.

[54]Sabine, George. H., and Thorson, Thomas L. ‘A History of Political Theory’, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1973, p.65.