CHAPTER 9

Democracy and Development

What is the relationship between democracy and development? Is democracy the best way to achieve economic development? What is the best political system for achieving economic development and enduring prosperity? The answers are not obvious. The road from experience to understanding is not straightforward, and requires rigorous analysis of data. Indians have always believed that democracy is good for development (Sen 1999). This chapter will consider both the normative and the empirical side of these questions. It will argue, first, that democracy is inherently desirable; second, that the empirical record of authoritarian developing states is about as mixed as that of democratic states; and finally, that only democratic institutions give any promise of tilting economic development policies toward the interests of the poor.

Concept of democracy: The institutional sketch of a democratic system is that the polity adopts a constitution that defines maximal political rights and liberties, and defines the status of citizenship. The constitution prohibits the establishment of laws that limit or constrain the constitutional rights and liberties of citizens, or that create inequalities in basic rights among different groups of citizens. The constitution further creates a legislative process through which elected representatives engage in a majoritarian process of debate and legislation. Representatives are elected and can be removed by the electorate, and the legislative process is itself governed by majoritarian voting rules. Legislation cannot contravene the constitution, and a separate supermajoritarian process for revision of the constitution is established. India is the world’s largest democracy with exceptional diversity.

Democracy is most likely to emerge and survive when certain social and cultural conditions are in place. The American political scientist Fukuyama (2014) has argued that liberal democracies, with their political freedom and economic success, have three important pillars: a strong government, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. Rajan (2016) would add a fourth: free markets. Both democracy and free enterprise create and thrive on competition. But, whereas democracy treats individuals equally, the free enterprise system empowers them on the basis of their income and assets. It is critical to note, however, that in any democratic society there are some people, especially the minority, who will have their views or opinions overridden by the majority. In this regard, for democracy to prevail fully, there is a need for tolerance and respect for different and opposing opinions. In fact, the very admission that there are some views that are going to be suppressed means that democracy is relative, and therefore, differs from one place to another.

Concept of economic development: Development can be considered as the objective of moving toward a state relatively better than what previously existed. In this regard, development could mean any positive change in life. An important point to note, however, is that development is a process and not a once-off event, since it is considered as a progression from what existed previously. As such, development should always occur and be maintained to ensure that people have a positive change in life. Positive change may include access to better health, higher income, greater individual freedom, more opportunities, better education and housing, as well as a richer quality of life. Thus, development is by definition and practice a radical and commonly turbulent process that is concerned with far-reaching and rapid change in the structure and use of wealth, and which, to be successful, must transform.

Economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitably to democracy. The argument, in its simplest form, runs like this: Economic growth produces an educated and entrepreneurial middle class that, sooner or later, begins to demand control over its own fate. Eventually, even repressive governments are forced to give in (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs 2005). Modernization is a syndrome of social changes; once set in motion, it tends to penetrate all aspects of life, bringing occupational specialization, urbanization, rising educational levels, rising life expectancy, and rapid economic growth. These create a self-reinforcing process that transforms social life and political institutions, bringing rising mass participation in politics, and in the long run, making the establishment of democratic political institutions increasingly likely. Today, we have a clearer idea than ever before of why and how this process of democratization happens (Inglehart and Welzel 2009).

The Indian context: In the context of India’s economic development, the basics are provided in the constitution itself. The Preamble calls for justice, social, economic, and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. The Directive Principles of State Policy aim at promoting the welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order in which justice, social, economic, and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. The state shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities, not only among individuals but also among groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.

Nature-given resources—land, water, forest, and minerals—belong to the people and these must be managed as such. Only then there would be human security and dignity. The development process in India should harness the vital elements—material sufficiency, human dignity, democracy, and participatory governance. Such development would involve equitable change in the community, especially in how resources are used, the functioning of institutions, and the distribution of resources in the community. Balanced development could lead to prosperity and equity.

Democracy and Economic Development

The nexus between democracy and development has been one of the most contested issues. Those in support of the linkage argue that the two—democracy and development—are intertwined and depend on or lead to the other. Opposing views, however, claim that the two concepts are independent of each other, and can easily be achieved without necessarily depending or leading to the other. Democracy offers freedom of choice, everywhere from the polling booth to the supermarket. But that freedom of choice is hardly a prerequisite for economic growth. On the contrary, it often seems to hinder it. India has languished under democratic leadership, while Chile and South Korea, both dictatorships until recently, are success stories (Pennar 1993). Authoritarian regimes around the world are showing that they can reap the benefits of economic development while evading any pressure to relax their political control. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in China and Russia. Although China’s economy has grown explosively over the last 40 years, its politics has remained essentially stagnant. In Russia, meanwhile, the economy has recently improved even as the Kremlin has tightened its political reins (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs 2005). “Today, capitalism thrives without democracy, as the rapid growth charted by China’s communist leaders amply demonstrates. Nor does democracy ensure growth for the world’s leading industrialized nations. Many are mired in recession or sluggish recovery, and democratic governments from Italy to Japan have been damaged by scandal and are not delivering growth” (Singh 2009).

Over the near term, authoritarian governments, especially those that offer citizens economic rights, such as the protection of private property, can achieve strong results. But while the evidence shows that democracy does not lead to growth, it makes a powerful case that growth leads to democracy. Growth leads to democracy for two reasons: (i) As a small slice of the population is enriched, the rest of the citizens agitate for their fair share at doing better, and (ii) such privilege is granted only in democracies. Then, too, rising incomes at first go toward needed goods and investment, then later toward more and more of what economists call luxury goods, such as higher education. A more educated population tends to demand political and civil rights, and so democratization begins (Heo and Tan 2001).

Authoritarian governments have accomplished economic growth through rigid controls from the center, as South Korea, Singapore, and numerous other regimes have done. But larger nations such as China have decentralized the process, and rapid gains have been achieved. The example of other economically successful dictatorship countries strongly suggests that the push for more freedom will intensify in China. Only decentralization akin to the federalism that boosted American’s early growth is likely to bring about both a growing economy and wider freedom. All governments inevitably play a role in ordering people’s lives, but how they do so is critical in determining not only how free people will be, but also how prosperous. For most economists, less government rather than more is preferable on the grounds that it leaves individualism unhindered and promotes economic efficiency. Few, however, take as extreme a view as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, who has been a leading apostle of the minimalist view of government.

In real life, such minimalism does not exist, because as democracies have evolved, their role in determining economic outcomes has deepened. Increasingly, both the size and effectiveness of government is being challenged, and nowhere more so than in developing nations. It is important to note that function, rather than size, defines the government’s role in the economy. These days, more and more economists believe that it is politics, policies, and institutions that help or hurt growth. It is these arrangements that are overwhelmingly responsible for economic performance. In developing countries, streamlined regulations are such policy-steps that may encourage new business formation. Similarly, burgeoning bureaucracies and interests groups in both developing and industrial nations can throw sand in the economic gears and lead to political paralysis or instability. And political instability is one surefire predictor of poor economic performance. Economic growth and political stability are deeply interconnected (Hussain 2014). The uncertainty accompanying political instability reduces investment and encourages capital flight in developing countries, while among industrialized nations, instability leads to poor policy choices. Growth and prosperity cannot long be sustained in an environment that is undemocratic. The democratic system is an imperfect one, but it is the most desirable one.

Governance is a prerequisite for democracy and development. Development stagnation and obstacles to democratization stem from a failure to undertake the necessary steps for establishing a system of rules that legitimate political choices and political behavior. In short, the elements of good governance provide opportunities for democratization and development in a more sustainable fashion. In this respect, getting politics right means a set of normative and institutional changes that transcend the liberal democratic model. Good governance—in the long run—lays the foundation for a liberal form of democracy. According to Nayyar (2001) “market economy and political democracy cannot and should not be separated from each other as if they constitute two different worlds. In every society, economy and polity are closely inter-twined.”

“The essence of the tension between the economics of markets and the politics of democracy must be recognized. In a market economy, people vote with their money in the marketplace. But a political democracy works on the basis of one-person-one-vote. The distribution of votes, unlike the distribution of incomes or assets, is equal. One adult has one vote in politics, even though a rich man has more votes than a poor man, in terms of purchasing power, in the market. This tension may be compounded by a related asymmetry between economy and polity. The people who are excluded by the economics of markets are included by the politics of democracy. Hence, exclusion and inclusion are asymmetrical economics and politics. The distribution of capabilities is also uneven in the economic and political spheres. The rich dominate a market economy in terms of purchasing power. But the poor have a strong voice in a political democracy in terms of votes. And there is a mismatch. Governments are accountable to their people, whereas markets are not. In a democracy, of course, governments are elected by the people. But even where they are not, the state needs legitimation from the people, most of whom are not rich or are poor. The task of reconciliation and mediation is obviously difficult but clearly necessary” (Nayyar 2001).

Svante Ersson and Jan-Erik Lane (1996) come to the conclusion that the interaction between democracy and the quality of life is stable over time. The negative findings are that it has not been possible to establish a stable relation between democracy and economic growth or between democracy and degree of income equality. The other expert opinion comes from Srinivasan (1997); on the basis of an extensive review of the literature on democracy and development, he concludes, “While arguments have been made for and against the instrumental role of political democracy in promoting economic development, neither theory nor empirical evidence supported the arguments that democracies will not be able to raise domestic savings and taxes to the extent required for rapid growth and to avoid diversion of tax revenues to wasteful consumption, etc. Theory and empirical evidence also did not support the hypothesis that authoritarian regimes, regardless of their character, will promote development and avoid waste”. The only conclusion that one can derive from theory and evidence is that (Guhan 1998):

1. I.a market economy, by and large, is the most appropriate form of economic management from the perspective of development, and
2. II.while democracy is to be treasured for its own sake as a bastion of liberty, and a market economy might make it possible to sustain democracy over extended periods of time, authoritarianism is not necessarily inconsistent with the use of markets for economic management and for promoting development.

Apart from democracy being an intrinsic value, it could have a mutually reinforcing interaction with human development; it has not proved to be an obstacle to growth, fair income distribution, or prudent fiscal management, nor have authoritarian governments necessarily scored better on any of these counts. Besides, an important fact of history should be taken into account, namely, that while authoritarian regimes have coexisted with market economies, democracy has not been able to go along with command systems, which suggests that sustaining democracy could be a good way to insure the stability of market economies as well (Guhan 1998). Issues of democracy and development have an empirical manifestation; since World War II over a 100 nations have undergone a variety of processes of political and economic development. Sirowy and Inkeles (1990) conclude that there is little support for a strong positive causal relation between democracy and development. Przeworski and Limongi (1993) arrived at a similar conclusion. It is reasonable, however, to work on the assumption that democratic institutions are compatible with effective economic development.1 Acemoglu et al. (2014) have argued that “democracy increases future GDP by encouraging investment, increasing schooling, inducing economic reforms, improving public good provision, and reducing social unrest”. In their estimation, there is little support for the view that democracy is a constraint on economic growth for less developed economies.

There is a thought that democracy is a development friendly political system. In a democratic system the authority of the state is elected by the people of that state, so it is expected that the elected authority will focus on development for its people. Sometimes democracy goes against development, and this happens courtesy of “popularism.” Many a time the government of a democratic country misuses the country’s wealth for earning popularity, as popularity earns votes.

Deficiencies in accountability and checks and balances have led to many democracies degenerating into havens of corruption, where the powerful always triumph. Indeed, the relationship between democracy and development is often problematic; in this sense, developing countries often accuse proponents of democracy of placing the “democratic cart” before the “economic horse.” It is argued that democracies have great difficulty in taking rapid and far-reaching steps to reduce structural inequalities in wealth, whether they be based on class, color, ethnicity, religion, or a combination of them.2

The main mechanism by which democracy is thought to hinder growth is pressure for immediate consumption, which reduces investment. Only states that are institutionally insulated from such pressures can resist them, and democratic states are not. “In a nutshell, democracy is indeed a key predictor of development. Development, however, can still be achieved through other means.” This is aptly stated by President Edgar Lungu of Zambia in June 2017 that “Democracy is a very expensive game, but the people of the country have to decide how best to make democracy a bit cheaper and focus resources to develop the country.” (Sikuka 2017). A democracy in name alone is little to celebrate if it does not improve the quality of life of its citizens.

Democracy and Development in India

“India is the largest democracy in the world as its population is second highest only after China. When elections come, it is also the noisiest” (Desai 2019a). In a federal polity like India that co-exist with democracy, constitution mandates policies, laws, and regulations allocated between the center and the states. Such power sharing and decentralization of government has historically proved to be a powerful impetus to growth and development. To be effective in promoting growth, federalism must be “market-preserving.” There is more to a form of federalism in the allocation of tax revenues, that tilted towards the centre and assigning more spending obligation to the states. Along with political stability comes flexibility and the opportunity for change. Democracy in India protects whole panoply of individual rights constitutionally. Meanwhile, political parties battle for control. Businesses and individuals compete for profit, advancement, and prestige. And social institutions, from houses of worship to institutions of learning, compete for loyalty and support. Nowhere, but in democracies do such competing interests exist. This juxtaposition of certainty and flux is, ultimately, the best guarantor of economic well-being. A democratic polity cannot long survive in an environment in which there is no economic growth, since different groups would be constantly warring over how to split a pie unchanged in size.

Economic development and its main determinants of success are the quality of institutions and policies of a country. The biggest hurdle facing India are her vested interests, which are very strong, and reform will only succeed if it can break the hold of such vested interests. The problem is how to initiate institutional changes within a democratic framework where the rules of the game are complex and different from those in a more autocratic regime. Politics is different from industry, and the populism of politics is rather obdurate in not obeying the rationalism of economics. Policies are just the short-run forms of institutions, and every society needs a good blend of policies and institutions. According to Nayyar (2001), the Indian experience with democracy and development since independence may be divided into three phases:

1. I.From 1947 to 1966 the strategy of development was shaped by a political consensus and characterized by a long-term perspective. The spirit of nationalism meant that there was less need to manage conflict, and there was a conscious effort to accommodate the poor even if it was long on words and short on substance.
2. II.From 1967 to 1990 India witnessed a qualitative change in the interaction of economics and politics. Economic policies and economic development were strongly influenced by the compulsions of political democracy. Those with a political voice made economic claims on the state. But the process of mediation and reconciliation had long-term economic and political consequences,
3. III.From 1991 onward, the country was characterized by an absence of consensus and a presence of short-termism; the economics of liberalization and the politics of empowerment seemed to be moving the economy and the policy in opposite directions. The need for conflict resolution was greater than ever before. But the task had become more difficult. And, strangely enough, the effort was much less.

It was now admitted that the economic policy of the government was leading to the development and growth of an exclusively elitist system. Corrections were required and that can be done only by enabling the government to play a more proactive role. In sum, the economics of liberalization and the politics of empowerment represent an unstable, if not volatile, mix. Ultimately, empowerment was a more potent force than liberalization (Nayyar 2001).

According to Bardhan (2010), “More generally, the tension between the participatory and procedural aspects of democracy is the fundamental dilemma of democratic governance and development in India.” He further emphasizes that it is democracy that has constantly generated and renewed pressure for welfare programs for the poor, even though “leakages” continue to be excessively high. It has also encouraged rights-based activism in the area of information, jobs on rural public works, food and education, and forest land rights, which, at the least, makes more numbers of poor people politically aware of their entitlements to the benefits of development. It is also the case that all around India some localized green shoots of the positive effects of democratic governance on development are now becoming visible—in social service delivery, in social audits of malfeasance in public programs, in citizen associations demanding better infrastructural facilities, and in some regulatory reforms and measures of fiscal responsibility. There are faint signs that in some areas the electorate has started rewarding the economic performance of their elected leaders. In the context of democracy and development in India, the challenge is to “live without illusions, and yet not to be disillusioned.”

Despite political difficulties and uncertainties often plaguing India, the country’s vibrant democratic structure is a help rather than a hindrance to economic growth. January 24, 2010, marked the diamond jubilee of the Election Commission of India. Elections have become India’s institutionalized “political common sense.”2 “India has strengthened its political democracy by giving constitutional sanctity to the Panchayati Raj in rural and municipal bodies in urban areas, creating 0.3 million elected units of local self-government to which have been elected no less than 3.2 million members, as many as 1.2 million of whom are women and 86,000 of whom hold office as president or vice president of their respective local bodies” (Sardana 2010).

Indian voters have realized the power of their votes. In contemporary India, voters understood that they could now evict nonperforming governments and retain performing ones. As a result, political parties are concentrating on governance and development by focusing not so much on caste and religion as on class and regional factors (Kadekodi 2015). The reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1988.3 appears to have reduced the impact of such appeals in the form of class and regions in comparison to those of giving opportunities and building capabilities, be it for education, health services, improved living conditions, or enhancing livelihoods. Many state governments such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, West-Bengal have responded by spending increasing sums on economic and social projects. These expenditures have certainly added to people’s well-being.4

But corruption, greed for money and power are not good for India’s democracy. Rao (2015) has stated that “corruption has entered the judiciary as well. Elections have become increasingly expensive and the preserve either of the wealthy or the corrupt or of those willing to repay for the investment they have made in the process of winning the election”. “The problem is not democracy or universal suffrage. It is the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to design schemes for government spending in a way that makes theft of funds possible.” “India must do away with the discretionary powers of the government, establish transparent mechanisms for government spending, and drastically reduce the role of the public sector.”

One must realize that democracy essentially is a consensus-building process on issues of contemporary concern. Every government has to function in the public interest. A policy implementation framework has to result in the widest good. Even discretion has to be in the public interest, which has to reflect the widest good. India’s progress will come through the implementation of laws and never through exceptions to the laws. It is well to remember that democracies have given enduring and prosperous economies (Liberhan 2015).

According to Rajan (2016), while strong institutions—an independent judiciary, opposition parties, press freedom, and a vibrant civil society—prevent government excess, India’s “checks and balances” require what might be called a “balance of checks.” For example, India must not have an appellate process so slow that it halts necessary government measures. The most heartening development is that more people across India are becoming equipped to compete, and more of the young entrepreneurs are unwilling to kowtow to the government as a matter of course. If India is to have prosperity and political freedom, it must also have economic inclusion and a level playing field. Access to education, nutrition, health care, finance, and markets for all its citizens is a moral imperative, precisely because it is a precondition for sustainable—and democratic—economic growth.

The mere abidance by the ritual of going to elections periodically does not make for a vibrant democracy. India has achieved much through its democracy but it has many more miles to go. There are three challenges that must be taken note of:

1. I.“The quality of elections in the “third tier” of government, in village and urban bodies, must be improved to get democracy to the grassroots.
2. II.Political parties must become democratic internally.
3. III.Money in elections is distorting democracy. Huge amounts of money are required to campaign nowadays” (Maira 2010). The increasing amounts of money flowing to the media for advertisements and even paid editorials add to the distortion of the process of democracy and election.

“The quality of the public discourse in India, whether within elected bodies like the parliament or in the media, is deteriorating. The other challenge is to improve the delivery of public services. For India, the choice is not between democracy and results. India must have both. Therefore, it requires models of governance and management that will produce results through democratic processes. Consensus building and management are teachable and learnable skills” (Maira 2010).

“Some scholars argue that democracy is needed to keep a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural, and multireligious country like India intact. India’s rapid economic growth in the context of a democracy is on the whole without parallel. Democratic incumbency is, however, a significant drawback to Indian development. Politics in India has become more consensual and less elitist but at the same time more corrupt and self-serving. Coalition and patronage politics of social factions have combined to make government expenditure a variable outside political control.”5 India wants better economic opportunities (employment), well-being (health care), quality of life (drinking water, road, and public transport), and security (police and women empowerment). “Urban India also desires a better city life with environmentally conscious urban governance (less traffic and pollution), and rural India is looking for solutions that will fix the slump of growth that the agriculture sector in India faces today (access to water and electricity, availability of loan and subsidies, higher price realization)” (Raj and Sastry 2019).

Given the diversity of its languages, religion, ethnicity, and culture makes India the most diverse country in the world, steering a democracy on the development road is no different from driving a car. It is clear that a crisis of governance afflicts India. Establishing a strong sense of credibility in the government and developing adequate capacity for enforcement must be addressed to ensure the success of India’s democracy. The purpose of the food security program was to reduce misery, but the program was also good for India’s economic growth and democracy. Overall, health reform will probably make India richer as well as more secure. Being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor is not the key to economic growth and also not good for the success of democracy. On the contrary, making the economy fairer would also make it richer. Paul Krugman has opined, “Goodbye, trickle-down; hello, trickle-up.”6

Conclusion: Elections in India, the world’s largest democratic exercise in terms of the number of voters, are a validation of the hypothesis that with all their faults, democracies deliver the best results in terms of economic growth over the long term (Vembu 2019). Democracy, at times, can be the sum of contradictory pressures. People will never stop thinking about themselves and their societies in identity terms. But people’s identities are neither fixed nor necessarily given by birth. Identity can be used to divide, but it can also be used to unify. That, in the end, will be the remedy for the populist politics of the present (Fukuyama 2019). A democratic polity accords to a popular mandate its highest honor. The debate on the threat that populism poses to democracy has been kindled once again, this time by the 46th chief justice of India. On June 20, 2019, addressing, chief justices and judges of nations that constitute the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Ranjan Gogoi argued that the erosion of the edifice of law can begin with surging populism; the consequences of this cannot be desirable for democracy.7 The National Democratic Alliance, which has been reelected in May 2019 with a stronger mandate, has had a history of friction with the judiciary, insisting that the executive have a role in the appointment of judges.

The basic human desire for individual freedom, which is central to the promise of liberal democracy, lives on in different forms within different political cultures. The world’s strongmen are unlikely to change that (Bremmer 2019). A country as large and as diverse as Europe, with as many religions as one can wish for, plus the multicolored, rich Hinduism, has never been conquered by a single ruler. It was democracy that unites the Doab and Punjab with Bengal and Assam plus the South. No region, no language can ride roughshod over others. Democracy allows disputes and complaints to be resolved peaceably. “India has set up mechanisms for reconciliation, such as federalism with the statutory Finance Commission, a judiciary that is unitary, and the Election Commission holding regular elections where millions express their voice. Even over the last 72 years, there have been deep divisions in the country but democracy has provided the answer” (Desai 2019b).

In this context, it is well to remember the big unqualified emergence of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council as India’s first federal institution—genuinely federal and fully functional. Maybe India can bring about a balance between the vote bank equations leading to the flowering of democracy and growth (Sardana 2010). “India has, over the decades, emerged as a leading light in the democratic world on two counts—the masses here have proven their ability to oust well-entrenched regimes from power and have demonstrated their wisdom in opting for clean governance, assurance of development, and national stability and security. And this has happened in spite of that typically Indian social phenomenon of caste and creed affinities ruling the political turf”.8

Endnotes

1. 1.Umich. n.d. “Democracy and Development.” http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Democracy%20and%20development.pdf, (accessed April 20, 2019).
2. 2.A new triangle: India, China and the US. https://www.india-seminar.com/2006/557/557%20ashutosh%20varshney.htm, (accessed on February 6, 2020).
3. 3.The Constitution (Sixty-First Amendment) Act, 1988. http://legislative.gov.in/constitution-sixty-first-amendment-act-1988, (accessed on January 1, 2020).
4. 4.Social Sector Expenditure of States Pre & Post Fourteenth Finance Commission (2014-15 & 2015-16), 2019, NITI Aayog, New Delhi. https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-07/Social%20Sector%20Expenditure%20of%20States_%20Paper.pdf, (accessed on January 1, 2020).
5. 5.Assessing Development And Democracy In India Politics Essay. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/assessing-development-and-democracy-in-india-politics-essay.php, (accessed on January 1, 2020).
6. 6.Komlik, O. August 9, 2014. “Paul Krugman: ‘Inequality is a Drag… Goodbye, trickle-down; hello, trickle-up.’” Economic Sociology and Political Economy. https://economicsociology.org/2014/08/09/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag-goodbye-trickle-down-hello-trickle-up/, (accessed April 22, 2019).
7. 7.Editorial Board. June 21, 2019. “Chief Justice Gogoi Is Right to Highlight the Growing Distance between the ‘Public Will’ and the Judiciary,” The Telegraph. https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/chief-justice-ranjan-gogoi-is-right-to-highlight-the-growing-distance-between-the-public-will-and-the-judiciary/cid/1692812, (accessed July 17, 2019).
8. 8.Democracy on test (Comment: Spy’s Eye), Business Standard, March 24, 2019. https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/democracy-on-test-comment-spy-s-eye-119032400088_1.html, (accessed January 1, 2020).