April 13, 2005

India's democracy discussed at academies

But, scholar says, that 'democracy-mongering' is not an option.

By JENNIFER OCHSTEIN
Tribune Staff Writer
   CULVER -- India's democracy could be inspirational to surrounding countries.
   But you can't just shove democracy down people's throats and expect them to swallow.
   So says Sumit Ganguly, Tagore chair in Indian Cultures and Civilization and professor of political science at Indiana University in Bloomington. He is a native of India.
   Ganguly answered students' questions Tuesday about the world's largest democracy during the school's Global Studies Institute, a program offered at Culver Academies.
   "Democracy is difficult to impose," Ganguly said. "You can't import democracy. It must happen from within."
   He said that many may be impressed with India's democratic successes and how it has survived in a poor country. But India can only serve as a beacon.
   "But can India go about democracy-mongering?" Ganguly asked. "No. It cannot be imposed from above."
   Despite India's democratic government, he admitted later that in terms of the lower classes in India, things are not yet as they should be.
   India once adhered to a social caste system that divided the lower classes and the more affluent with a large gulf.
   But, he said, because of democracy, the process for that to change is under way.
   In answer to another question, because of democracy, India has not experienced some problems other poor nations that are not democracies have experienced.
   For instance, since the British left the country, he said, there have been no large-scale deaths due to famine.
   That is because with democracy and a free press, politicians know that if a famine situation weren't curbed immediately, the press would jump on it and government officials would be embarrassed and maybe voted out of office.
   "This is universal: no politician I know likes to leave office," Ganguly said.
   Also during the question and answer period:
·  Ganguly said that the U.S. could undermine the balance by selling substantially more weapons to Pakistan than to India, which would seem to Indians to undermine Indian security.
·  Ganguly said that another reason the balance between Pakistan and India could be strained is if the United States would not come down harshly on Pakistan for any incursions into Kashmir, an area of contention between the two countries.
·  Ganguly said that India does believe in diplomacy. However, it believes that diplomacy must be backed up by a hardy weapons program.
   After India lost a war with China in 1962, Indian officials have advocated diplomacy being backed up with might because "the world is a nasty place where an adequate defense level is vital to protect against countries that would do (India) harm."
·  Ganguly said that more affluent Indians are almost gleeful about the United States' situation in Iraq. Though, Indians, he said did not like Saddam Hussein, they did not think him to be an immanent threat. Now Indians are of the mind that the United States got itself into a mess, and the country should be able to get itself out of the mess.
·  Ganguly said that most Indians favor President George W. Bush, though, for two reasons. First, the administration routed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Indians saw the Taliban as a threat. Second, he said, the Bush administration has not asked India to give up its nuclear weapons program.