This stimulating volume explores a major paradox in Indian politics -- the existence of a high level of political violence and the country′s success in sustaining a democratic political system. Myron Weiner addresses the central issues of Indian politics through an exploration of the problems of ethnicity, economic growth and equity, supplemented by a critical assessment of India′s democracy and some of its central institutions.

On the post independence developments in political, socioeconomic, and communal relations in India.

We are dealing with a new political form of society whose specificity comes from the articulation between two different traditions. On one side we have the liberal tradition constituted by the rule of law, the defence of human rights and the respect of individual liberty; on the other the democratic tradition whose main ideas are those of equa identity between governing and governed and popular sovereignty. There is no necessary relation between those two distinct traditions but only a contingent historical articulation....Let's not forget that, while we tend today to take the link between liberalism and democracy for granted, their union, far from being a smooth process, was the result of bitter struggles. — Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox. The Unity in Diversity is based on multi wheel and not on mono wheel system. Truth has one face while the untruth has many faces. Truth does not seek for any excuse while the untruth always searches for an excuse. Truth cannot be divided; it is the same for one and all. There has been a growing paradoxical environment in the country not genuinely but due to lack of reasoning and reconciliation which are the offshoots of ego, misunderstanding and confrontation. Today, paradoxes in our democracy are multiplying manifold. Time, we need to take them seriously, search for solutions. These paradoxes include Diversity & Division, Fundamental Duties, Governance and Citizens Moral Values and Human Development. I have analysed them in depth and endeavoured to show their patenting effects in the democratic functioning driving towards haywire and disorderliness. This is setting a negative concept for the future generations, the responsibility for that rests on the present generation.

The first thorough study of the co-existence of crime and democratic processes in Indian politics In India, the world's largest democracy, the symbiotic relationship between crime and politics raises complex questions. For instance, how can free and fair democratic processes exist alongside rampant criminality? Why do political parties recruit candidates with reputations for wrongdoing? Why are one-third of state and national legislators elected--and often re-elected--in spite of criminal charges pending against them? In this eye-opening study, political scientist Milan Vaishnav mines a rich array of sources, including fieldwork on political campaigns and interviews with candidates, party workers, and voters, large surveys, and an original database on politicians' backgrounds to offer the first comprehensive study of an issue that has implications for the study of democracy both within and beyond India's borders.

A central current in the history of democratic politics is the tensions between the political culture of an informed citizenry and the potentially antidemocratic impulses of the larger mass of individuals who are only marginally involved in the political world. Given the public's low level of political interest and knowledge, it is paradoxical that the democratic system works at all. In The Paradox of Mass Politics W. Russell Neuman analyzes the major election surveys in the United States for the period 1948-1980 and develops for each a central index of political sophistication based on measures of political interest, knowledge, and style of political conceptualization. Taking a fresh look at the dramatic findings of public apathy and ignorance, he probes the process by which citizens acquire political knowledge and the impact of their knowledge on voting behavior. The book challenges the commonly held view that politically oriented college-educated individuals have a sophisticated grasp of the fundamental political issues of the day and do not rely heavily on vague political symbolism and party identification in their electoral calculus. In their expression of political opinions and in the stability and coherence of those opinions over time, the more knowledgeable half of the population, Neuman concludes, is almost indistinguishable from the other half. This is, in effect, a second paradox closely related to the first. In an attempt to resolve a major and persisting paradox of political theory, Neuman develops a model of three publics, which more accurately portrays the distribution of political knowledge and behavior in the mass population. He identifies a stratum of apoliticals, a large middle mass, and a politically sophisticated elite. The elite is so small (less than 5 percent) that the beliefs and behavior of its member are lost in the large random samples of national election surveys, but so active and articulate that its views are often equated with public opinion at large by the powers in Washington. The key to the paradox of mass politics is the activity of this tiny stratum of persons who follow political issues with care and expertise. This book is essential reading for concerned students of American politics, sociology, public opinion, and mass communication.