Comment in 150 words: Relation between ethnicity and democracy in India. (2014, 10 Marks)
Classical modernisation theory expected democracy to dissolve ethnic ties. In India the two have shaped each other instead. Competitive elections politicise ethnicity, and ethnic mobilisation in turn has widened, tested and sometimes strained democracy.
Democracy politicises ethnicity
Rajni Kothari‘s argument about caste applies here too: identities entering politics are themselves changed by it, becoming organised blocs that bargain. Kanchan Chandra (Why Ethnic Parties Succeed, 2004) explains the mechanism through patronage democracy. Where the state controls jobs and benefits, voters read candidates’ ethnic markers to judge who will favour them, and ethnic parties such as the BSP gain from this. Parties therefore field candidates from particular communities to capture their support.
Ethnicity deepens democracy
- Reserved constituencies and quotas for SCs and STs guarantee presence without separate electorates.
- Yogendra Yadav‘s “second democratic upsurge” of the 1990s saw lower castes, Dalits and tribes turn their identities into votes and office.
- Charles Taylor‘s politics of recognition explains why such groups seek dignity and cultural rights, and not only material goods.
Democracy accommodates ethnicity
Atul Kohli (“Can Democracies Accommodate Ethnic Nationalism?”, 1997) finds that self-determination movements in India follow an inverted U: they rise, peak and decline as the state concedes and leaders enter office. Arend Lijphart (“The Puzzle of Indian Democracy”, 1996) read India’s grand coalitions, linguistic states and minority rights as consociational. Chandra (“Ethnic Parties and Democratic Stability”, 2005) adds that ethnic parties stabilise democracy when identities are multiple and fluid, and destabilise it when institutions freeze them into one permanent cleavage.
Where the relation strains
- Majoritarianism: Christophe Jaffrelot (Modi’s India, 2021) describes a drift towards an “ethnic democracy” in which the majority community defines the nation. Only 24 Muslim MPs (4.4%) were elected in 2024, barely above the 2014 low of 22.
- Breakdown: in Manipur, the police, bureaucracy and legislature split along Meitei–Kuki-Zo lines, and elected government gave way to President’s Rule from February 2025 to February 2026.
- Legal limits: Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen (2017) bars electoral appeals to the religion, caste, community or language of candidates and voters alike, drawing a legal line around ethnic campaigning.
Ashutosh Varshney (Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life, 2002) shows that associational ties across communities keep this competition from turning into riots.
Conclusion
Democracy in India both breeds and tames ethnic politics. It stays healthy while identities remain overlapping and negotiable, and becomes fragile when one identity is made permanent and majoritarian.