Democracy, Caste, Communalism and the Right to Vote: Justice Markandey Katju’s Argument
- Disenfranchising Millions: Katju Questions Democracy in India
- Justice Markandey Katju on democracy
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan SIR remarks
- Election Commission SIR India
Justice Markandey Katju examines Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s criticism of mass disenfranchisement and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), arguing that India’s caste- and religion-driven electoral politics has entrenched feudal forces and questioning whether democracy, as practised in India, is delivering better lives for its people…..
Disenfranchising millions
By Justice Markandey Katju
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting Judge of the Indian Supreme Court, while speaking at a moot court competition valedictory function at NALSAR, Hyderabad on Sunday last, spoke strongly against the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian voters by the Election Commission of India ( ECI ).
He also spoke against the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) by the ECI
Many retired judges, including a retired Chief Justice of India, have objected to Justice Bhuyan's speech, on the ground that the issues he has spoken about are sub judice in the Supreme Court.
But leaving aside the propriety of Justice Bhuyan's statements, I would like to deal with the matter from another perspective.
Justice Bhuyan's speech proceeds on the footing that democracy is good for India, and disenfranchising a large number of people goes against democracy, and is therefore something bad
In my opinion, not just millions of Indian voters, but almost 90% of them should be denied the right to vote, as they are not fit to vote. Democracy is meant for people with rational minds, but most Indians have feudal mindsets, full of casteism and communalism.
I explained this in an interview I gave to journalist Neelu Vyas at the time of the Bihar state assembly elections last year, when there were allegations of 'vote chori' ( theft of votes ).
Democracy in general, and in the abstract, is a fine, rosy word. But we have to see it not in general or in the abstract, but how it is actually practised in India.
Everyone who has even a little knowledge of Indian politics knows that in India politics runs largely on the basis of caste and communal vote banks. When 90% of our people go to vote, they do not see the candidate’s merit, whether he is a good person or bad, educated or uneducated, criminal or not, and whether if elected he will work for their welfare. They also do not have in mind whether unemployment or prices of essential commodities are rising. All they see is the candidate’s caste or religion ( or the caste or religion his party claims to represent ).
In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, almost half the MPs elected had criminal backgrounds.
What does this prove? It proves that most voters in India do not care to see whether the candidate they vote for is a criminal or not; they just see his caste or religion.
Phoolan Devi, who was a notorious dacoit who had killed dozens of people, was elected to the Lok Sabha just because she belonged to a backward caste, which was numerous in her constituency.
Casteism and communalism are feudal forces, which have to be destroyed if India is to progress, but democracy ( as practised in India ) further fortifies and entrenches them ( because it runs on their basis ). How then can democracy be said to be good for India?
The test of every political activity is one, and only one: does it raise the standard of living of the people? Does it give them better lives? From that perspective, it is obvious that democracy, as practised in India, does not give people better lives; rather it prevents them having better lives, by fortifying feudalism ( which in India takes the form of casteism and communalism ).
For example, how did it matter whether the DMK, the ADMK, or the newly formed TVK won the Tamil Nadu state assembly elections? It has mattered neither Tweedledum nor Tweedledee to the people of Tamil Nadu, because it will make no difference to the miserable lives of most Tamilians.
In my interview by Neelu Vyas I said there should be more vote chori, in the sense that most people of India should be deprived the right to vote, as they are unfit for it ( since they will vote on caste and communal lines ).
Even if elections in Bihar had been conducted fairly, most Biharis would still have voted on caste and communal lines. At most that may have resulted in change in leadership, Nitish Kumar being replaced by Tejasvi Yadav as the Chief Minister, but it would not have made any difference in the miserable lives of most Biharis.
As the slave girl Manthara said to Queen Kaikeyi in Ramcharitmanas :
“Koi nrip hoye hamein ka haani
Chedi chaand ka hoib rani”
i.e
“How does it matter to me who will be the next king (Ram or Bharat)
Will I cease to be a slave and become a Queen ?”
Democracy is an institution meant for people with rational minds. But the minds of most Indians is full of casteism and communalism. How then can it be said that democracy is suited to India? In my opinion, most Indians are unfit to vote, because even if there are fair elections, and even if the electoral rolls are correctly prepared, most of them will still vote on caste and communal lines.
Freedom and democracy are not ends in themselves, they can only be a means to an end, and that end must be raising the standard of living of the people, and giving them better lives. If democracy and freedom serves to achieve that end, they are good, but not otherwise.
In India, democracy further entrenches and fortifies casteism and communalism ( as it largely runs on their basis ). Casteism and communalism are feudal forces and huge barriers to our country’s progress, and hence have to be destroyed if India is to progress, but the type of democracy as practised in India, further strengthens and entrenches them.
Freedom in India includes the freedom to polarize society by our politicians, who incite and spread caste and religious hatred, to get votes.
So are democracy and freedom suited to India ?
The Chinese people have no democracy or freedom to criticize their government. There are no elections in China, and the Chinese leaders are totally focused on economic development, unlike our leaders who are focused on building a Ram Temple in Ayodhya, or cow protection ( to get votes ).
The result has been that China has become a second superpower, and has lifted about 85 crores of its 140 crore people out of poverty.
On the other hand, the vast majority of Indians are leading miserable lives, with massive poverty and unemployment, an appalling level of child malnutrition ( every second child in India is malnourished, according to the Global Hunger Index ), almost total lack of proper healthcare and good education for our masses, etc.
China's GDP is about $ 20 trillion, whereas India's GDP is said to be about $4 trillion (and many doubt even this figure).
In my opinion, democracy, as practised in India, is totally unsuited to India, and the solution to our massive socio-economic problems lie outside, not within, the framework of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Bhuyan's criticism ignores the realities mentioned above. He takes it for granted that democracy is good for India, though, as I have explained above, the reverse is the truth. Not just millions of Indians deserve to be disenfranchised, but almost 90% Indians deserve to be disenfranchised, as they are not fit to have the right to vote, being casteist and communal.
(Justice Markandey Katju is former Chairman, Press Council of India and former Judge, Supreme Court of India.)
FAQs
1. What is Justice Markandey Katju’s argument about disenfranchisement in India?
Justice Markandey Katju argues that the debate over disenfranchisement should go beyond the protection of electoral rights and examine how democracy actually functions in India. He contends that caste and communal identities heavily influence voting behaviour and argues controversially that most Indians are therefore not fit to exercise the right to vote.
2. What did Justice Ujjal Bhuyan say about mass disenfranchisement?
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has spoken against the disenfranchisement of large numbers of Indian voters and criticised the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, arguing that mass exclusion from electoral rolls raises serious constitutional and democratic concerns.
3. What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an electoral-roll revision exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India to verify and update voter lists. The process has generated significant debate over documentation, voter inclusion and the possibility of eligible citizens being excluded.
4. Why does Justice Katju criticise democracy as practised in India?
Justice Katju argues that Indian electoral politics is substantially influenced by caste and communal identities rather than issues such as employment, inflation, healthcare, education and living standards. In his view, this strengthens casteism and communalism rather than overcoming them.
5. What does Justice Katju say about caste and communalism in Indian politics?
Katju describes casteism and communalism as feudal forces that obstruct India’s social and economic development. He argues that electoral politics can reinforce these identities when political parties mobilise voters primarily through caste and religious affiliations.
6. Does the article argue that democracy and freedom are ends in themselves?
No. Justice Katju argues that freedom and democracy should be regarded as means to a larger objective: improving people’s standard of living and ensuring better lives. He questions democratic institutions when, in his view, they fail to achieve that objective.
7. What does Justice Katju say about China and India’s development?
Katju contrasts India’s democratic system with China’s political model and argues that China’s focus on economic development has contributed to a substantial reduction in poverty and rapid economic growth. His comparison is presented as part of his broader argument about whether India’s existing political system is capable of addressing its socio-economic problems.
8. What is the controversy surrounding Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks?
Some retired judges, including former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, have criticised Justice Bhuyan’s comments on SIR on grounds of judicial propriety, particularly because related matters are pending before the Supreme Court. Katju’s article sets aside that question of judicial propriety and examines the larger political and constitutional debate over democracy and disenfranchisement.
9. What is the central question raised by Justice Markandey Katju?
The central question is whether democracy, as currently practised in India, is strengthening social equality and improving living standards, or whether electoral politics is reinforcing casteism, communalism and other entrenched social divisions.
10. Why is the right to vote important in India?
The right to vote is a fundamental component of representative democracy and political participation. Any large-scale exclusion of eligible voters therefore raises serious questions about electoral legitimacy, equality and constitutional governance.
