In today’s fast-paced world, India has stood out as the fastest-growing country in the world, with continual economic reforms and a booming technology sector. However, while India’s economy has been steadily growing, but India’s politics has not. It has been held back by corruption and inefficiency, two problems that are seemingly inevitable in any democratic government. This begs the question: should India’s political system be reformed or completely changed?

The Indira Gandhi Years

In 1947, India became independent from Britain and was plunged into chaos. The democratically elected government of Jawaharlal Nehru was overthrown by an army coup led by General Krishna Menon. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru returned to power two years later and remained until he died in 1964.
Nehru is considered the architect of modern India. He helped create a strong national identity for the country based on democracy and social equality while promoting capitalism, industrialization, and science. His daughter Indira Gandhi would go on to continue his legacy. She served as the third Prime Minister of India, first as Jawaharlal Nehru’s successor between 1964 and 1977 and then again from 1980-1984 after being voted back into office. She became popular with Indians because she had continued many of her father’s policies that promoted Indian democracy and India’s politics.
As the world leader of democracy during the 1960s, she worked closely with John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Her strength grew so much that opposition leaders often complained about a one-woman rule. Opposition against Indira Gandhi grew as well though due to a heavy crackdown on civil liberties which occurred during the emergency period from 1975-1977 when political opponents were arrested or sent into exile without trial.
Despite all this opposition, some argue that if it wasn’t for Mrs. Gandhi’s authoritarian rule, Indian democracy may have never taken hold at all; without her guidance, it might not have survived.

The Rajiv Gandhi Years

In the 1980s, India was experiencing rapid economic growth and its best days seemed to be ahead. Rajiv Gandhi was elected Prime Minister in 1984. Although Gandhi had little experience with the government before becoming PM, he acted decisively to reform India’s politics.
He made an effort to reduce corruption by establishing anti-bribery commissions and tightening restrictions on how much money candidates were allowed to spend on elections. He attempted to improve the standard of living for Indians by curbing inflation and initiating reforms that would allow for more foreign investment.
But throughout this time his ambitious reforms faced opposition from Congress party members who felt threatened by his popularity. His family also played a role in the frustration, as Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul were said to have disagreed with him at key moments.
And after his death in 1991, they became head of the Indian National Congress Party. Under their leadership, India’s Politics has continued to be plagued with scandal and corruption.

Plato and politics

India’s politics is not a question of right or wrong, but of right and left. Politicians can come from any party, so long as they are able to form coalitions that give them the numbers they need to put forth legislation. This is an example of Plato’s theory of justice as being a virtue balanced with power. Gandhi embodied this principle by being able to maintain her power within the Indian National Congress even after it fell under the control of Nehru’s followers.
To explain how justice and virtue, two separate concepts, can be balanced with power, Plato used an analogy of a ship. The first mate has to steer while keeping an eye on everyone else on deck to make sure they are doing their jobs. Without that balance of power, chaos reigns and no one can do their job efficiently.

Gandhi showed that those in positions of power must know when to assert themselves and when to step back; she found the right balance between her desire for control over Nehru’s followers and staying out of leadership roles until needed.

Plato also discussed another reason why balancing these three aspects was important – if there was too much power, then those who were tasked with making decisions wouldn’t want to share the burden. If there was too little power then nothing would get done because people couldn’t work together effectively. As Plato says sometimes we have less knowledge than we should like – humans aren’t perfect and can make mistakes – so it’s important to find a balance where you have enough power without taking on too much responsibility.

During Sonia Gandhi’s years, India saw many changes-some of which were good and some bad – but overall she maintained stability within India’s politics by maintaining a balance of virtues (power) and justness (justice). She doesn’t show, but always controlled congress. Doesn’t matter who is the prime minister, but she maintained control not from the front door but from the back one.

INC vs BJP

The Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party are two major political parties that emerged after independence, with the INC being the party of the freedom movement. The INC was founded by men like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who were idealists and visionaries, while the BJP was built on the foundations of older Hindu nationalist organizations, which had not been as enthusiastic about independence.

While both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, they represent two very different visions for what India should be. It is clear that many Indians feel strongly about one or another vision for their country- it is not uncommon to see people walking around wearing t-shirts bearing slogans promoting one or another party.

It may seem strange at first glance, but this has its roots in the history of modern India. The past few years have seen Rahul Gandhi take up more leadership responsibilities within the INC. With his charisma, intellect, and ability to connect with people, he might make an excellent leader. However, the question remains whether he will be able to convince voters of his worth if he can’t put together convincing results in elections this year.

It is important to remember that while Rahul Gandhi may be one of India’s most high-profile politicians, he has only been active on his party’s political stage for about 15 years now. It will take time to judge if he was right or not to take on such a large role, and how well he will perform under pressure. What we can see so far is that he has had some major successes and some failures; we need to wait until after the elections are over before it can be determined whether or not those failures have been rectified and whether Rahul Gandhi is ready for prime time.

Balancing an Ideological Stance with Practicality

The demand for good governance is universal. However, there are many different interpretations of what constitutes good governance. The India’s politics has been accused of being rife with corruption and nepotism, impeding the country’s economic growth and perpetuating poverty.

To many Indians, this is an unfortunate but not surprising state of affairs; it has been said that India is a poor country with a rich history. On the other hand, some observers would argue that the Indian political system is less susceptible to corruption because its representatives are more accessible than their counterparts in Western democracies.

The answer to this question will vary based on personal ideology as well as practicality. Corruption exists everywhere, and although it may be less prevalent in India than elsewhere, it still exists here.

Economic Liberty vs. Political Liberty

Political liberty is the freedom of people to participate in their government and be represented by elected officials. Economic liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to make economic decisions for oneself. India is a democratic country but operates with both political and economic liberty.

These liberties are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. For example, political liberalization has increased the number of elected representatives that are from lower castes which means that there is more representation for those who were previously disenfranchised due to their social standing.

The Indian constitution also restricts land ownership to rural farmers meaning that politicians cannot offer land as incentives or promises during elections.

The presence of both economic and political liberty allows individuals to enjoy a higher level of prosperity because they have the opportunity to start businesses without being heavily regulated or taxed by politicians.

Economically speaking, entrepreneurs create jobs that provide employment opportunities for others. Politically speaking, it can lead to better governance as opposed to regimes where only one person holds power. Both types of liberalism provide the opportunity for citizens’ self-expression and help countries develop economically

Rhetoric and Regionalism

The Congress party has been the largest Indian political party since independence and has led the Republic of India since 1947. The Indian National Congress was founded during India’s struggle for independence from Britain, and over its lifetime it went through many phases.

Since its inception, it has functioned as both a political party and an organization that promotes Gandhian ideals. It’s also been one of the two dominant parties in Indian politics for much of the time since independence. But lately, there have been increasing calls for change within the Congress Party itself, with some calling for Rahul Gandhi to take over from his mother Sonia Gandhi.

The party has also been criticized for its use of power. Power is something most politicians seek. They do so as a means to impose their will on others, but it’s also used as a way to benefit society and themselves while they are still in office. However, some believe that Gandhi’s Congress Party uses its power almost exclusively for its own benefits, rather than those of Indian citizens or other political parties.

The World at Large vs. Voter Nationalism

Politicians care about their constituents, and voter nationalism ensures that politicians will do what the people want them to do. They may not always agree with the majority opinion, but they are obligated to follow through on certain promises made during their campaign.
If they don’t follow through, then the electorate will most likely vote them out of the office and elect someone who is more attuned to the needs of the constituency. This is why it’s so important for politicians to work with people from all over the world; we need leaders that are open-minded and know how to compromise.
We also need leaders that are cognizant of issues going on around them and more globally aware. If a politician votes for something his or her constituency does not approve of, then that politician is likely to be voted out at some point down the line.
Many people criticize politicians for using voter nationalism, but it is actually an important tool used to balance government action with what voters want. In fact, democratic governments would be far less effective if they were controlled by bureaucrats who did not have to answer to citizens directly through elections.
Voter nationalism encourages politicians and bureaucrats to be aware of their constituents’ concerns and desires, so they can work together towards common goals. So, while voter nationalism may seem like an annoying aspect of democracy, it actually makes India’s politics much more efficient and effective overall.

ALSO READ: Gandhi Jayanti: A Time to Reflect on the Ideology of Mahatma Gandhi