DEMOCRACY IN INDIA: A MYTH OR REALITY

*
Dr. Shaveta Begra
**
** Dr. Kuldeep Singh

India, in 1947, under the effective leadership of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru laid the foundation of
a democratic state, after independence. In 1936, Pandit Nehru declared that the basic objective of
freedom movement is the “establishment of a democratic state, a sovereign state which would
promote “full democracy” and usher in new economic and social order. The basic objective of
national movement was not just to attain freedom from the British rule. Nevertheless, it aims to
unshackle ourselves from various social evils and social and economic inequalities and
discrimination and uplift the deprived and down-troddens. Our founding fathers called for
establishment of a democratic polity based on parliamentary system for ensuring greater
accountability in governance.

Democracy is of paramount importance for achievement of sustainable human development. It is

instrumental in empowering people to demand and shape better policies, to express grievances,
to seek justice and to hold political leaders accountable. Societies consisting of strong democratic
institutions empower people to influence the governments in determining the development
objectives that are equitable and sustainable. Democracy, in particular, means that people’s
human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, promoted and fulfilled, allowing them to
live with dignity. People participates in decisions that affect their lives and can hold decision-
makers to account, based on inclusive and fair rules, institutions and practices that govern social
interactions. Women are equal partners with men in private and public spheres of life and
decision-making, and all people are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class,
gender or any other attribute. In a democracy, government formulate such economic and social
policies that are responsive to people’s needs and aspirations, that aim at eradicating poverty and
expanding the choices that people have in their lives and that respect the needs of future
generations. In essence, therefore, democracy consists of such processes that create and sustain
an environment for inclusive and responsive political processes and settlements.

*
Dr. Shaveta Begra, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, MCM DAV College for Women,
Sector 36, Chandigarh, begrapreeti@gmail.com
****
Dr. Kuldeep Singh, Assistant Professor, Centre for Police Administration, Panjab University, Chandigarh,
kuldeepnada23@pu.ac.in
Unfortunately, six decades after independence, the workability of the democratic system is
highly jeopardized. Competitive and confrontational politics has led to the decline of institutions
of governance. Intolerance, divisiveness, corruption, confrontations and disrespect to dissent are
increasingly eroding the vary bases of our socio-political system. In addition, some undemocratic
institutions attempt to malign and marginalise the socially and economic weaker sections of
society with the intent to occupy larger space than what is ideally feasible or constitutionally
permissible in a representative democratic system. Judicial activism is sought to be justified
because of the perceived decline in the effectiveness of parliamentary accountability. However,
frequent interventions of judiciary in the jurisdiction of the legislature will only contribute to
further eroding the authority of Parliament. (The Hindu, 2007)

The paper, therefore, focuses on understanding the concept of democracy. Further, it examines
the quality of democratic governance in India on the basis of three major parameters i.e. political
participation, accountability and transparency and protection of human rights.

DEMOCRACY: CONCEPT

The origin of the word “democracy” could be traced in the classical Greek literature in the fifth
century BC. The word democracy is derived from the Greek words ‘demos’, meaning people,
and ‘Kratos’ meaning power or rule i.e. ‘rule by the people’, although originally the Greeks used
it to mean the poor or the masses. In the fifth and sixth century BC, the Assembly in Athens
composed of 5,000 to 6,000 members and the Assembly decided almost all domestic matter on
the basis of simple majority vote. In the Assembly, member were not elected but chosen by lot
for the public office. Thus, every citizen was considered capable of holding a public office. It,
thereby refers to such a regime in which people participate in every aspect of government
functioning. Thus, popular participation was the basic indices of democracy in the Roman
political system(Beetham, 1994). Nevertheless, in present times, the nature and scope of
democracy has undergone tremendous transformation. The modern scholars have postulated
various definitions of democracy that focused on different dimensions of democracy.

J. Roland Pennock defined democracy as “rule by the people where ‘the people’ includes all
adult citizens and ‘rule’ means that public policies are determined either directly by vote of the
electorate and indirectly by officials freely elected…”. Pennock focused on the procedural aspect
of democracy. Further, Larry Diamond, Juan .J. Linz and S.M. Lipset defined democracy as a
“system of government that meets three essential conditions: meaningful and extensive
competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties) for all
effective positions of government power at regular intervals and excluding the use of force; a
highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies atleast
through regular and fair elections, such that no major (adult ) social group is excluded; and a
level of civil and political liberties – freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom to form
and join organizations – sufficient to ensure the integrity of political competition and
participation.” Hence, Diamond, Linz and Lipset highlighted the three basic characteristics of
democracy i.e. Competition, Political Participation and Civil and Political Freedoms. According
to Axel Hadenius, democracy refers to a political system that treated individuals as equal and
vested decision-making power with the people. He put forth three basic principles of democracy
i.e. principle of popular sovereignty, principle of freedom and principle of equality (Vanhanen,
1997). In nutshell, democracy calls for the establishment of such public institutions that manages
public resources and conduct public affairs to promote and protect the realization of public
rights. The three main ingredients of democracy, therefore, are (i) Electoral Representation;
(ii)Transparency and Accountability; and (iii) Protection of human rights

Nevertheless, the success of a democratic state is closely related to its governance processes.
Governance “consists of traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised.
This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the
capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the
respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social indicators
among them”. For this purpose, the World Bank has, therefore, developed the Worldwide
Governance Indicators that defined six broad dimensions of governance i.e (i) Voice and
Accountability; (ii) Political stability and absence of violence; (iii) Government Effectiveness;
(iv)Regulatory Quality; (v) Rule of Law and (vi) Control of Corruption(World Bank, 2002) i.
Hence, well-defined governance structures and processes reinforce the democratic character of a
nation.

FEATURES OF DEMOCRACYii

Below are some core democratic characteristics:

 i. “Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all
adult citizens directly or indirectly through their freely elected representatives.
ii. Democracy rests upon the principle of majority rule, which means that decisions are
made by majority and have to be accepted by all, but minority viewpoints are respected
and protected.
iii. Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralise
government to regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must
be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.
iv. Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human
rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under the law; and
the opportunity to organise and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural
life of society.
v. Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens of voting age.
vi. Citizens in a democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in
political systems that, in turn, protect their rights and freedoms.
vii. Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation and
compromise”. (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2011)

PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY

The following principles are sometimes referred to as the pillars or tenets of democratic rule.
They differentiate democratic rule from any other types of government. Any democracy around
the world can be evaluated on the basis of these principles. They include:

i. Citizen participation : It is imperative for adopting bottom-up approach in decision-

making process.
ii. Equality: Equality before the law provides equal opportunity to every individual without
regard to one’s race, gender, ethnic background, religion or whatsoever.
iii. Political tolerance: It is essential that political leadership should be mindful and
respectful of the interests of the minority during policy formulation.
 iv. Accountability: The elected leaders or public officials are answerable to the common
citizens regarding their actions, decisions or in decisions during the time they are or were
occupants of the public offices.
v. Transparency: The leaders must allow the public to access the information with regard to
the working of government. The people should be allow to obtain information regarding
administrative decisions taken for delivering public services.
vi. Regular, free and fair elections: Elections is the basic tool available to all citizens to
choose their leaders and electing the representative of their choice.
vii. Economic freedom: Economic independence creates the foundation on which the citizens
become vibrant and thus able to call their leaders to account for their actions or inaction.
viii. Control of the abuse of power: Abuse of power is corruption by government officials
which could be checked by way of separation of powers of the three arms of government
– the legislature, executive and the Judiciary –or by creation of institutions such as the
government ombudsman.
ix. Bill of rights: It seeks to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens by way of
ensuring that this protection is enshrined in the constitution of a given country.
x. Human rights: These rights include the right to life, the right to own property, the
freedom of expression, the freedom to associate, and the freedom to assemble, among
others.
xi. Multi-party system: multiple parties in a democracy is to widen the pool for choice of
the best candidate for political office
xii. Neutrality of state institutions: State institutions such as the police and the army should
be neutral and not take sides or be politically partisan.
xiii. Rule of law: It ensures law and order and the protection of citizens as they enjoy their
rights. (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2011)

CHALLENGES FACED BY DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

The paper, however, studied the three major challenges that have been the cornerstone of
democracy in India i.e. electoral system, peoples’ participation and human rights.

Democracy and Electoral System

Elections form the bedrock of the democracy. Since independence, India adopted the system of
conducting free and fair elections for election members of legislature, both centre and state, and
for important constitutional positions. The methodology of election is through universal adult
suffrage whereby any citizen above the age of 18 years is eligible to vote. In a democracy,
elections are instrumental in establishing ‘representative democracy’ in a nation. Elections
enable the people to choose their own representatives in the government. Thus, the elected
representatives are responsible for fulfilling public demands and aspirations. Ironically, elections
in India seem to have undergone radical transformations thereby demeaning the true spirit of
democracy. Elections system has been found to be suffering from several lacunae.

The multi-party system has been established for encouraging healthy political competitions and
for creating vibrant political environment. On the contrary, the political competition among
political parties has become a farce. The national election of 2014 is the recent evidence of this
glaring fact. No doubt, after a long time one party won majority, however, elections was more of
a presidential type election, where one strong leader was widely publicized. The political
competition among various parties, whether big and small, has been only to gain greater numeric
strength in elections in order to secure greater stake in formation of coalition government.
Further, with the emergence of many political parties based on caste, religion and regional
interest at the state level have jeopardized the voting behavior of the voters. It has been seen that
the percentage of vote casted for the winning candidate have reduced to 15%-20%. Thus,
currently, a party requires the support of 20% to 25% of its voters. This low voter turnout could
be attributed to lack of political education among the voters. Another important component
found missing among political parties is the ideological differences. More commonly, the
election manifestos of all parties are similar and promote regional and communal interests in
place of national programmes. Hence, the political system is, generally, based on narrow
political interests (Bardhan, 2016).

Lack of internal democracy among political parties is another important challenge to democratic
system. In India, over the years, party leadership structures have evolved hereditary lines. the
leadership in various political parties such as Congress party, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s party in
UP, Lalu Prasad Yadav’s party in Bihar, Prakash Singh Badal’s party in Punjab and so on
belongs to a single family; who just pass on the power, as a convention, to the next generation.
Not only this, in certain political parties at state level, parties possess one-leader dictatorship
such as Mamta Bannerjee in West Bengal, Mayavati in Uttar Pradesh, Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu
and so on. Thus, absence of internal political democracy created such power centres within the
party; where power lies with leaders and other members, by virtue, owe their loyalty to them in
place of party policies and principles. (Jha, 2012)

Criminalization is the process by which behaviors and individuals are transformed into crime and
criminals. It is, therefore, is an institutionalized process through which certain acts or behaviors
are termed as “crime” and “outlawed”. (Mclaughlin & Muncie 2013) Hence, the increasing
participation of criminals in political activities has led to criminalization of politics. The process
of criminalization of politics began in the north India in the 1950s. With the introduction of the
process of emancipation of the lower-castes after independence, the upper castes began to adopt
violent means in order to maintain their political hegemony. For this purpose, the politician’s
patron the muscleman who not only forced the people to vote in their favour: they also captured
polling booths, casted bogus votes and so on in order to ensure the political win of high caste
politicians. Consequently, politicians have to offer protection to such people with criminal
background. Gradually, such elements began to take part in mainstream politic to win
parliamentary and state assemblies elections. This phenomena of criminalization of politics have
assumed large dimension ever since. (Chakrabarty, 2008). The Association for Democratic
Reform analyses the magnitude to which criminalization has reached in politics in India. During
2014 Lok Sabha elections, 17 per cent of 5,380 candidates have declared criminal charges in
their affidavits submitted to the Election Commission and 10 per cent have declared serious
criminal charges such as murder and rape charges. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate S.P.
Udayakumar, Kanyakumari constituency, Tamil Nadu, faces the highest number of criminal
cases – 382 including 19 charges related to Attempt to Murder (IPC section 307) and 16 charges
related to sedition (IPC section 124A). He is closely followed by M. Pushparayan, also an AAP
candidate, Thoothukudi constituency, Tamil Nadu, with 380 criminal cases. In 2014 election,
out of the six national parties i.e. the Indian National Congress [INC], the Bharatiya Janata Party
[BJP], the Nationalist Congress Party [NCP], the Bahujan Samaj Party [BSP], the Communist
Party of India [CPI], and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI-M], the NCP has the
highest percentage of candidates with criminal candidates (57 per cent) followed by the CPI (M)
(40 per cent). The NCP also has the highest percentage of candidates with serious criminal
charges (39 per cent) followed by the BJP (18 per cent). The State-wise analysis of candidates
facing criminal cases shows that the state of Goa (32 per cent), Kerala (29 per cent), Bihar (26
per cent) and Jharkhand (26 per cent) has the highest percentage of candidates with criminal
background. On the other hand, the state of Rajasthan (6 per cent candidates face criminal
charges), Haryana (7 per cent candidates face criminal charges) and Assam (7 per cent
candidates face criminal charges) has the lower number of candidates. Thus, it is apparent that
the administration of our country is now in the hands of the criminals.(Nagarathinam, 2014)

Furthermore, in a democracy, the political framework, generally, reflect the relationship between
politics and social structures. This complex relationship between politics and social structure,
more often than not, turns the politics passive and reflect the influence of social forces. Presently,
India is in a transitional stage where the traditional social structures and relationships have to
merge with the modern democratic values and norms. On the contrary, the social structure in
India is based on the caste-system. Though westernization and modernization has weaken the
bonds of the castes; yet it has been seen that caste-system has deeply penetrated in the Indian
politics. The electoral politics in India has been highly based on caste considerations. At the time
of distribution of party tickets and formation of ministries, caste composition of constituencies
are primarily taken into consideration. The party tickets, in a constituency, are given to the
candidates belonging to the dominant caste in a local area so that voters develop a sense of
affiliation with the candidate contesting elections. In Haryana, the electoral maxim – “Jat ki beti
jat ko; jat ki vote jat ko” clearly highlights the bonds of the caste system. Also, during election
campaign, caste sentiments are highly exploited by political leaders to please the voters. The
roots of caste-based politics could be found in the Constitution of India also. Initially, the system
of reservation was introduced for the upliftment of people belonging to lower castes and classes.
The system was introduced for certain period; however, it continued to exist till date. This is so
because the political parties did not want to lose their supports i.e. vote banks in the areas
dominated by the voters belonging to Schedule castes and tribes. Thus, the practice of casteism
have again eclipsed the democratic values and processes in India.(Gulabsingh & Palekar, 2014).
In nutshell, electoral representation in the world’s largest democracy presents a dismal picture of
state of democracy. The democratic character of the nation has been found to be overshadowed
by undemocratic ways and means.

Democracy and People’s participation

People’s participation has become the basic tenet of good governance in modern democracies.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, “success of democracy is impossible without participation
of the people”. In a democratic set-up, people’s participation is one of the key component of
decision-making process. According to “Doctrine of popular sovereign”, people, in a
democratic set up, possess final authority and thereby have the right to participate in
administration. This, therefore, has called for a change from “Representative Democracy” to
“Participatory Democracy” and hence provides for “bottom-up rule”. Further, New Public
Management (NPM) also recognizes participation of people in administration as a technique to
increase efficiency and effectiveness of government. The government’s role has been
transformed from that of a change agent, a facilitator of people’s self development.
From the human development perspective, good governance calls for the establishment of
democratic governance. Democratic governance means that

i. “People’s human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, allowing them to live
with dignity.
ii. People have a say in decisions that affect their lives.
iii. People can hold decision-makers accountable.
iv. Inclusive and fair rules, institutions and practices govern social interactions.
v. Women are equal partners with men in private and public spheres of life and decisions-
making.
vi. People are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or any other
attributes.
vii. The needs of future generations are reflected in current policies.
viii. Economic and social policies are responsive to people’s needs and aspirations.
ix. Economic and social policies aim at eradication of poverty and expanding the choices
that all people have in their lives”.
In simple words, democratic governance is not just limited to casting votes; it is also concerned
with promotion of wider participation in institutions and formulation of rules that directly affect
people’s lives. The first HDR, 1990 stated that “people are the real wealth of a nation.” (United
Nations, 2002) This implies that people are not just the beneficiaries of economic and social
progress. However, they are also the “agents” who contribute towards the progress of all aspects
of development. The process of decentralization envisaged greater decision-making power with
the elected bodies at local levels; the bureaucrats, therefore, has to work with the non-officials at
all levels. Thus, in a democratic set-up, people’s participation is considered the third pillar of the
21st century human development strategy. It has been of paramount significance for dealing with
issues pertaining to human development such as protection of environment, promotion of gender
equality, fostering of human rights and so on. It must be noted that both participation and human
development mutually reinforce one another. (United Nations, 2002)
In India, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 has led to the establishment of
democratic decentralization at local level. Paradoxically, even after 20 years of the enactment of
the Acts, people’s participation has been limited only to voting. There is absence of any well-
defined mechanisms to ensure compliance of even the prescribed provisions of the Constitution
by the States. The elections are not regularly though it is imperative to hold them well before
the expiry of the prevailing elected body or before six months if the body is dissolved for some
reason, as required under 243 K and U. The States have to appoint a Finance Commissions after
every five years and their reports are required to be placed in the legislatures with the action
taken reports. Unfortunately, the States’ record in this regard has been dismal. Their record of
appointing the State Finance Commissions and actions on their reports shows complete
violations of Article 243 I and Y. The State legislatures have failed to make laws to ensure
maintenance of accounts and auditing of such accounts by panchayats and municipalities. (The
Hindu, 2015). Most States have not complied with the provisions of appointing gram sabhas (243
A), ward committees (243 sabhas) district planning committees and metropolitan planning
committees. The 2nd ARC in its report also highlighted the plight of DPC’s in all the States of
Indian Union. DPCs have not yet been constituted in many states including Punjab, even after 18
years. In state of Punjab, District Planning Committee Act was enacted in 2005 for the
establishment of district planning committees to encourage decentralized planning. It was in July
2006 that the Punjab Government ordered the District Commissioners of all districts to constitute
DPCs in their respective districts (The Tribune, 2006). The establishment of local institutions for
facilitating people’s participation still is a distant dream. In Ahmedabad, people’s ward
committees (PWC) have not been established as envisaged for local area self-governance in
urban areas. The Jawahar Lal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission provided that people’s participation
should be attained through PWCs. However, no act was passed by the State government to fulfill
this condition. The social activists lamented that in the absence of PWCs different stakeholders
did not get a platform to voice their concerns and participate in the process of revival of urban
life (Times of India, 2009).

Democracy and Human rights

Human Rights are derived from the principle of Natural Law. It is not the product of social order
and nor conferred upon the individual by the society. Human Rights are those fundamental and
inalienable rights which are essential for life as human being. It is inherent in our nature and
without which we cannot live as a human being. The philosophy of HUMAN RIGHTS is based
on Individual natural rights and social respect which are essential element for the human life, in
other word it is- respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. According to Louis Henkin,
“Human Rights are rights of individuals in society, which are deemed essential for individual
well being, dignity, and fulfillment, and that reflect a common sense of justice, fairness and
decency.” According to Article 55 of UNO Charter, “conditions or stability and well being which
are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self determination of people”. Thus, human rights are the bare minimum
rights and freedoms required for the existence and survival of human beings. (United Nations)

Human rights are the rights possessed by all human beings simply because they are human
beings. The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, Section 2 (d) defines human rights as the
rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.
However, this definition is not all-embracing; it does not include fundamental rights of
prohibition of employment of children in factories (Article 25), Protection of Minorities (Article
29), rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. This is, therefore,
evident that extent of the concept of human rights possess is highly extensive and is continuously
expanding

However, caste-ridden developing countries have witnessed gross violation of human rights both
by the people as well as by the State. Notwithstanding the serious international concern for
human rights, according to the rough estimates of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights,
at least half of the world’s people still suffer from serious violation or deprivation of their basic
economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights. These violations range from torture,
execution, rape, arbitrary detention, violence and disappearance to extreme poverty, slavery,
child abuse, famine and under nourishment and lack of access of clean water, sanitation and
health care. Hence, there are various manifestations of violation of human rights.

In India, most significant human rights violations have been witnessed amongst police and
security force abuses which includes extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; widespread
corruption at all levels of government resulting in denial of justice and separatist, insurgent &
societal violence. The security forces enjoy impunity for human rights violations because the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act or the Disturbed Areas Act have not been repealed till date.
Both Acts grant excessive powers to security forces in specified area and provide them with de
facto impunity for alleged crimes. Widespread protests against these laws were held in Jammu
and Kashmir and the north-east while concerns were expressed by the UN Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and by the UN Human Rights Council. However,
suspected perpetrators of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions in Assam (in
1998 and 2001), Manipur, Nagaland, Punjab (during 1984-1994) and other states, remained at
large. Other human rights problems included disappearances, poor prison conditions, arbitrary
arrest & detention, and lengthy pretrial detention. Further, widespread corruption infringes on
peoples’ rights. (Amnesty International, 2013)

Rape, domestic violence, dowry-related deaths, honor killings, sexual harassment, and
discrimination against women remained serious problems. According to National Crime Record
Bureau Report, 2013 approximately 24, 000 cases of rapes was registered in 2012. The recent
example of the barbaric act has been the Muruthal gang rape cases in Haryana in February, 2016.
The women were sexually assaulted by the Jat agitators demanding reservation from the
government. Women were allegedly gang raped by Jats during the agitation violence. (Hindustan
Times, 2016) Child abuse and forced and early marriage; Trafficking in persons, including
widespread bonded and forced labor of children and adults, and sex trafficking of children and
adults for prostitution are serious problems.

Caste-based discrimination and violence continued, as did discrimination against persons with
disabilities and indigenous persons. Religiously based societal violence remained a problem
Caste-based discrimination and neglect of tribal communities is also a continuing problem in
India. Communal violence killed over 60 people, mostly Muslims, and displaced tens of
thousands in Muzaffarnagar and Shamli districts of Uttar Pradesh state in 2014, both the central
and the state governments had not provided proper relief or justice. In June 2014, an
ultranationalist Hindu group organized violent protests in the western city of Pune against a
social media post derogatory to some Hindu historical and political figures. Some members of
the group, assuming that the anonymous post was the work of Muslims, arbitrarily beat and
killed Mohsin Shaikh who was easily identified as Muslim because of his prayer cap.(Human
Rights Watch, 2015)

Further, discrimination and violence based on gender identity and discrimination against persons
with HIV/AIDS continued. Forced labor and bonded labor were widespread. Child labor,
including forced child labor highlights the pervasive violation of human rights. (Human Rights
Watch, 2009). In addition, separatist insurgents and terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, the
Northeastern States and the Naxalite belt committed numerous human rights abuses, including
killings of elected political leaders, armed forces personnel, police, government officials, and
civilians. Insurgents were responsible for numerous cases of kidnapping, torture, rape, extortion,
and the use of child soldiers.

This juxtaposition of democracy and gross violation of human rights in India highlights the
shallowness of commitments made by the political leaders. The inbuilt administrative and
judicial impunity at all levels of government impedes the strenuous handling of such human
rights violations. Investigations into individual cases and legal punishment for perpetrators
occurred, but in many cases a lack of accountability due to weak law enforcement, lack of
trained police, and the overburdened and under resourced court system created an atmosphere of
impunity for the violators.
No doubt, international community is fully determined to prevent every type of violation of
human rights. Nevertheless, the role of national government in realization of human right is
crucial. Human rights involve relationship among individuals and between individuals and the
State. Thus, national government is pivotal in protection and promotion of human rights. Human
rights could be protected through adequate legislation, an independent judiciary, enactment and
enforcement of democratic institutions. More commonly, universal human rights standards and
norms find their expression in the democratic laws of most countries. Apparently, effective
enjoyment of human rights calls for the establishment of national infrastructures for their
preservation.

REFRENCES:

Books:

Chakrabarty, Bidyut (2008). Indian Politics and Society since Independence: Events, Processes
and Ideology. New York: Routledge Publications.

Jha, Parvin Kumar (2012). Indian Politics in Comparative Perspective. India: Pearson
Education.

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (2011). Concepts and Principles of Democratic Governance and

Accountability. Government of Uganda. www.kas.de

Vanhanen, Tatu (1997). Prospects of Democracy: A study of 172 countries. London: Routledge
Publications.

Edited Books:

David Beetham (ed.). (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: Sage Publications.

Mclaughlin, Eugene & Muncie, John (ed.) (2013). The Sage Dictionary of Criminology.
London: Sage Publication.
Research Journals:

GulabSingh, Sandeep & Palekar, S.A. 2014. “The role of caste in Indian Politics”. Research
Direction: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, Vol. I, Issue VIII, February, 2014.

Newspapers:

Bardhan, Pranab, India and the three ingredients of Democracy, The Telegraph, April 05, 2016.

Chatterjee, Somnath, Parliamentary democracy and some challenges, The Hindu, November 15,
2007

Hindustan Times, Possibility of rapes in Murthal during Jats protest: Haryana tells HC,
Hindustan Times, April 14, 2016

Nagarathinam, Nithya, Criminalization of Politics, The Hindu, April 30. 2014.

Rao, M Govinda, For truer democracy, the Hindu, November 2, 2015

Tribune News Service, Planning committees for districts soon, The Tribune, July 21, 2006.

Times of India, People’s Participation still a mirage in Democracy: Activists, Times of India,
April 11, 2009.

Reports:

Amnesty International, Annual Report: 2013,

http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-india-2013

Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015: India, www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-

chapters/india.

Human Rights Watch, Broken System - Dysfunction, Abuse and Impunity in the Indian Police,
2009, www.hrw.org

United Nations, Human Development Report, 1990, United Nations Development Programme,
www.hdr.undp.org. Last accessed on 2.09.2016

United Nations, Human Development Report, 2002, United Nations Development Programme,
www.hdr.undp.org. Last accessed on 2.09.2016.

Website:

www.worlbank.org, Accessed on 05 September, 2016.

www.pc.gov.in, Accessed on 05 September, 2016

i

ii