Memories 

June 2017 at Gandhi Peace Foundation, Delhi 

Violence Against Women: Backlash and Resistance

 Violence Against Women: Backlash and Resistance

Webinar held on 25 November 24 organized by PUCL

By Dr Shalu Nigam, Vice President Delhi PUCL

 

Good evening to all of you. Today we have gathered here to celebrate 16 days of Activism on Gender Based Violence which commenced every year on 25 November the International Day of Violence Against Women and ends on 10 December the Human Rights Day. This campaign was launched globally during the decades of 1990s to highlight the centuries of oppression against women and that violence is the most pervasive breach of human rights worldwide. It advocates for the rights of women and demands the elimination of violence against women and girls (VAWG). The theme for the year 2024 is “Every 10 Minutes, a woman is killed. #NoExcuse. UNiTE to End Violence against Women”.

This year is also special because the world is approaching to celebrate the 30^th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action in 2025. This is the blueprint for achieving gender equality and women’s rights everywhere.  

The reports say that Nearly one in three women experience violence in their lifetime. Girls are at particular risk of violence—1 in 4 adolescent girls is abused by their partners.

In 2023 at least 51,100 women were murdered by their partners and family members.

16% to 58% of women globally experience technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Young people are the most affected.

70% of women in conflict, war, and humanitarian crisis, experience gender-based violence. In Gaza, the world has witnessed how women and children are specifically targeted and deprived of basic necessities such as food and medical aid. Historically, sexual violence is a common factor in all wars. The war machines work in a way to destroy women and children the most.

The data on the crime against women in India as recorded by the NCRB shows that India recorded 51 cases of crimes against women every hour and these are the reported cases.

And when I say VAW, it entails not only physical, economic, sexual, or psychological violence but also denial and discrimination of the rights of women everywhere. For example, the women in the tribal areas are being forcibly denied their rights to land and forests. We should also take these forms of violence into account. Rather, New India is every day witnessing severe forms of violence and simultaneously fierce resistance by women. These images (women resisting the demolition by bulldozer and the policeman holding a pistol towards the women voters in UP during the election in November 2024) of women’s resistance are etched in the history and memories of India of the 21^st century and will remind the future generations of the stories of oppression and resistance.

Moreover, globally with the rise in authoritarianism, women are facing severe backlash where misogyny pervades not only in the language and actions of political leaders but also among common men on the street and online. We have seen how sexism is threatening women in digital spaces.

We know how in recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision in Roe and Wade to deprive women of their abortion rights when Trump came into power.  Also, in 2024, a few hours after Donald Trump’s victory in elections in the USA, the far-right slogan “Your body my choice” spread around sparking the misogynist trend[1]. Messages such as “You no longer have rights” were sent to women users of social media. This onslaught of violent unchecked misogyny and resentment reveals that men do not treat women with dignity as equals. Rather, these men view women as inferiors.

 

In response, the 4B or 4 No’s digital movement started trending in the USA. This radical movement was initiated in South Korea earlier and propagates no sex, no dating, no marriage, and no procreation with men gained trend to combat the patriarchal state and conservative society[2]. It was started to combat the patriarchal state and the conservative society. This movement rejected the heteronormative expectations of state and society around women’s bodies and articulated the concerns around patriarchy, precarity, consumerism, and capitalism[3].

In Afghanistan, we all know how the Taliban is denying women their right to education. The reports say that in their rules for three years, the Taliban has deliberately deprived 1.4 million girls of their right to education putting the future of the entire generation in danger[4]. 

In Iran, a few days back, the world witnessed how a student was harassed for hijab by the dress code enforcers and she protested in a unique way. She was later arrested. The Iranian government later declared that the girl was mentally unstable. Several reports later say that Iran is planning to send women revolting against hijab to mandatory psychiatric facilities. Rather the hijab removal treatment clinics have been specifically set up to defend and forcibly enforce a piece of clothing on women[5].

Meanwhile multiple women political prisoners are facing the risk of execution in Iran based on false charges. The Center for Human Rights in Iran said that four women have been accused of manufactured charges of armed rebellion, a charge often used by authorities against dissenters and sentenced to death in July 2024[6]

After decades of deliberations on human rights and raising slogans such as Women’s Rights are Human Rights, a few handfuls of men are deciding what should women wear, when they should marry, and even controlling the wombs of women. India has also imposed such a ban when young Muslim girls were denied entry into the educational institutions because they insist on wearing hijab. So the question that arises here is that in a democracy how come a few men are deciding what women should do or not do. The women’s movement globally and locally is demanding various freedoms but the handful of men in power are doing exactly the opposite.

In recent years, within homes, digital spaces, or public spaces, violence is ever expanding not only in terms of numbers but also in its severity, scope, and outreach. When over the past few decades, the UN and other agencies have been generating literature and developing indexes to measure progress and empowerment, demanding safety and determining rights at the same time extreme form of violence is being normalized and legitimized.

Resistance and oppression continued simultaneously. With brutal violence, resistance becomes fierce leading to further violence and this spiral of violence against women continues.

In France, the case of Gisele Pelicot, a 72-year-old woman who was sedated, drugged, and raped by her husband and fifty other men for nine years, shows how women are deceived by the systems and institutions, which promise them safety, comfort, and justice. The trial of this case is still going on. However, the video records and the documents found during investigations presented before the court indicate the terrible nature of violence. This case has raised questions about consent, betrayal in marriage, digital violence against women, toxic masculinity, pornography, and pervasive rape culture. It shows how the masculine code operates, where none of the men invited to rape her complained against it. This case shows that any man can be a predator, or as Ms Pelicot says he can be any man in the family, among our friends.”

Important in this case is Gisele Pelicot’s reaction, her courage and determination to speak for all women victims and survivors of violence, despite being hurt, and her zeal to support the cause of survivors of violence are empowering. In her response to her ordeal, she said that she felt betrayed, broken, and completely destroyed. She precisely stated that the `shame should change sides’. She rightly challenged the system to ascertain that all men who stayed silent should be shamed for their violent acts.

The world has also witnessed how women in the Parliament of New Zealand resisted the anti-people law.

Globally, governments are paying lip services to the issue of women’s empowerment but they have failed to stop the culture of violence with impunity. The backlash is evident from the fact that when women become vocal in the public domain, in politics, in journalism, or women human rights defenders are targeted intentionally both online and offline. With increasing digitalization, videos of horrific crimes are being circulated around in the social media without any restriction or control.  The spectacle of brutal violence evokes sadistic pleasure and not only the bodies of women are objectified or commoditized but repeated pleasure is obtained in sharing such dreadful images while normalizing and legitimizing violence.

The misogyny is so deeply permeated that last week in India a huge crowd gathered in Patna to see the film trailer of movie Pushpa 2 which was deemed as a deeply misogynist movie by the critics. However, no such crowd gathered to demand justice against violence in Manipur.

The incidents of VAW that took place in Unnao, Hathras, Karnataka, the wrestlers’ case and various other cases show how justice remains elusive. The complaints or FIRs are not registered. The police and the administration stand with perpetrators of violence, rather women victims are being compelled to bow down to the demands of perpetrators and their families. The voices of women are being forcefully silenced. Women in many cases are penalized for demanding justice.

Not only in the case of Bilkis Bano but in many other cases we have witnessed how the rapists and murderers have welcome and garland after being released on bail. The society which still prefers sons is complicit in the crime when it takes pride in such violent toxic masculinity. The political parties which weaponize VAW to target their opponents is as guilty of the crime as the criminals themselves. The institutions such as the courts, police, the national commissions are much part of larger network which silence women complainants and therefore are guilty of crime.

The humanity is doomed when during the pandemic the political leaders decided to play Twitter Antakshri and those in their ivory towers clapped when thousands of women and children walked down the road for thousands of miles with no support or facilities and several women were forced to give birth to children on roads.

When women demanded Bekhauf Azadi, as we have witnessed during the Nirbhaya protest, the state denied autonomy to women by giving the law of love jihad.

Tragically, we are living in country where the judges rely on the divinity and not on the constitutional values while pronouncing judgements. More so, in the matters pertaining to women, religion, superstitions, myths and misogyny all work together deny justice. From Mathura to Manorama and Hathras case, we have witnessed how justice is denied to women. Women in police stations, courts, and communities are chasing justice but more they chase father it goes. The apathy, indifference and hostility exist within public spaces, in courtrooms, police stations, creating a disillusion of justice.

The more we the women demand rights, more the misogynist forces suppress our voices. And to counter such violence, in several cases, women have deployed diverse and unique methods as we have witnessed in the case of protests by Naga mothers or in the case of Akku Yadav, where the accused person was protected by the police and judiciary and yet he was murdered in the courtrooms by the survivors who were frustrated by the indifference of the system.

In India, generally, we assume that once the law is made, justice will follow. However, this is not happening. 

Ironically, in the contemporary situation we are living in a society where the pain and suffering are categorized into hierarchies based on the caste, sex or religion of the victim. Frequently women’s issues are sidelined. The pain of a woman who is raped in home day in and day out by her so-called protectors in no way receive sympathy or empathy from the state or society. Hence, all the institutions which silence the voices of women are complicit in crime because they embolden men and create a culture of impunity where men feel entitled to violate the mind, body and the soul of the women as per their whims and fancies.

Lastly, I will end with the point that there is debate on social media regarding `#Not All Men’ to depict that not all men are violent. It is in response to discussions regarding misogyny or abuse, which blame men as perpetrators. The proponents of this phrase ignored the feminist voices, which have been highlighting that violence is not a man versus a woman issue. Violence against women is about patriarchal oppression and the culture of impunity, which harms society at large. This is depicted from the responses of women who initiated the hashtag #YesAllWomen and #MeToo movement. In both these online movements, women shared their experiences of sexism, harassment and discrimination they faced because of persistent misogyny in some way or the other.

More specifically, in India, it is the culture that tolerates and promotes practices such as dowry violence, female foeticide, son-preference, honour killing, forced marriages, child marriages, witch hunting, widow discrimination, and girl-child discrimination is guilty of perpetuating violence with impunity.  All men and women who stay silent in situations of VAW are complicit in the crime. A few days back, a video was circulated on social media where a woman was raped on the road in the day light and no one came to rescue her. Hence, a society that tolerates misogynist speeches and sexist jokes every day is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity. `Not all men’ but `Yes, all men and women who stay silent’ propagate the culture of violence with impunity, and this should end.

So, what is the solution to stop violence – It is to speak out against violence. We women refused to be silenced till the VAW ends. While a multi-pronged approach is desirable and may go a long way to rethink laws and policies, we need to stop the culture of violence with impunity. Speaking out against violence is as important as supporting the survivors, their agency and resilience.  We don’t need false promises or lip services by the state. We demand concrete and collaborative actions to end violence against women. I will end with the slogan Leave no one behind by the UN.

In Solidarity and support to end violence against women, I end this session here. We can take further questions.

 

Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUBpNjGSgBU&ab_channel=IMPRIImpactandPolicyResearchInstitute

https://www.youtube.com/@dissentingvoices-r3v

---

[1] Ramos Andrew (2024) Misogynistic Social Posts, bullying of women and girls have spiked since election, CBS News, November 13, https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/misogynistic-phrases-bullying-women-girls-since-election/

[2] Lee, J., and E. Jeong, (2021). The 4B movement: envisioning a feminist future with/in a non-reproductive future in Korea. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(5) 633–644. 

[3] Shamim Sarah (2024) What is the 4B Feminist movement from S Korea that’s taking off in the US? Aljazeera.com, November 9, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/9/what-is-the-4b-feminist-movement-from-s-korea-thats-taking-off-in-the-us

[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/15/taliban-deliberately-deprived-1-4-million-girls-of-schooling-un

[5] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-plans-to-send-women-revolting-hijab-mandate-to-psychiatric-facilities-7020639

[6] https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/07/women-activists-increasingly-sentenced-to-death-as-political-executions-in-iran-surge/

Yes, All Men and Women Who Stay Silent Perpetuate the Culture of Violence with Impunity

https://countercurrents.org/2024/10/yes-all-men-and-women-who-stay-silent-perpetuate-the-culture-of-violence-with-impunity/ 

29/10/2024

Recently, there was a debate on social media regarding `#Not All Men’. This phrase is popularized online by mostly the Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) to depict that not all men are violent. It is in response to discussions regarding misogyny or abuse, which blame men as perpetrators. The proponents of this phrase ignored the feminist voices, which have been highlighting that violence is not a man versus a woman issue. Violence against women is about patriarchal oppression and the culture of impunity, which harms society at large. This is depicted from the responses of women who initiated a hashtag #YesAllWomen and #MeToo movement. In both these online movements, women shared their experiences of harassment and discrimination they faced because of persistent misogyny.

For centuries, women have been oppressed in patriarchal societies where violence and hegemony are used as tools to control them. Over the years, violence in private and public places against women has taken a virulent form. Violence not only physically affects victims; it also leads to emotional trauma, psychological scars, and the need for healing and closure. Moreover, violence implies not only an assault of the body, mind, or soul of a woman, but it also occurs when the conditions are being enabled to facilitate it and when the system—the state and the society—excuses it.

The women who try to raise their voices against such violence are ostracized, stigmatized, ridiculed, shamed, and alienated. The families, the communities, and all other social and legal institutions blame women. All efforts are made to silence women who defy patriarchal norms. Men and women in positions of authority within families, politics, society, or the legal system deploy all the strategies to silence women who raise their voices against violence. The arguments of discipline, love, sacrifice, honour, shame, and stigma are all made to compel women to `adjust’,  `forgive and forget’, or `move on’. Patriarchy conditions women to bear violence silently. It also trains women to sustain this culture of blaming victims for the violent acts committed by abusive men.

Also, the laws made to protect women from violence are appropriated to serve the masculinist order. The legal system, instead of punishing the abusers, discredits women survivors of violence. Myths and misogyny are propagated to portray the survivors of violence as liars and gold diggers. Victim blaming shuts the women’s voices of pain and suffering while ignoring the cries for justice. The moral compass of society works in a way to put the burden of guilt and shame on the victim of violence rather than shaming the abuser for their violent and criminal act. The androcentric courts are also guided by this patriarchal ideology, which silences the voices of women survivors of violence.

This system puts the entire burden of violence on women victims while evading to fix the accountability of a violent man, creating a culture of impunity. Violent men felt emboldened and entitled in such a culture because they knew that they would not be held liable for their criminal actions. Thus, society enables conditions where abusive men are excused for all their horrific, vile, and criminal actions.

Perhaps society fails to penalize men guilty of violence against women because these men are ordinary men. They are someone’s father, brother, husband, or son. This logic ignores the fact that a victim is also someone’s daughter, mother, wife, or sister, and more importantly, a human being and citizen endowed with rights. She deserves justice.

Not only in India, but across the world, women are discriminated against and alienated by the social and legal system. For instance, recently, the horrific experiences of Gisele Pelicot, a French woman, sedated and raped by her husband and dozens of other men for nine years, show how women are deceived by the systems and institutions, which promise them safety, equality, and justice. The trial of this case is going on. The video records and the documents found during investigations presented before the court indicate the terrible nature of violence. This case has evoked discussions relating to the prevalence of rape culture, consent, betrayal in marriage, pornography, and digital violence against women, and importantly, it shows how the masculine code operates, where none of the men invited to rape her complained against it. It shows that any man can be a predator, the one who is not just “someone met in a car park late at night” but “can also be in the family, among our friends.”

More importantly, Gisele Pelicot’s reaction, her courage and determination to speak for all women victims and survivors of violence, despite being hurt, and her zeal to support the cause of survivors of violence are empowering. In her response to her ordeal, she said that she felt betrayed, broken, and completely destroyed. She precisely stated that the `shame should change sides’. She rightly challenged the system to ascertain that all men who stayed silent should be shamed for their violent acts.

The cases of violence against women in India and worldwide depict how the families, communities, the law, the legal system, and society are complicit in the crime against women and create a culture of impunity where men feel entitled to violate the soul, the mind, and the body of women as per their whims and fancies. Therefore, the violent men and patriarchal society that silence women and embolden men, should all be held responsible for creating a culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, all women experience sexism, discrimination, misogyny, and violence in some way or another.

Yes, all men and women who stay silent in situations when violence is inflicted on women or refuse to acknowledge the persistent situation of discrimination against women are complicit in crime. 

Yes, all men and women who intentionally turn their faces away when a woman faces violence in a public or private space are guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, all men and women who intentionally indulge in fierce backlash against women’s rights while promoting misogyny and toxic masculinity, disseminating myths, knowing that cases of violence against women are increasing in terms of scope, outreach, and barbarity, are guilty of perpetuating the climate of injustice.

Yes, those backlashers who propagate the myth that women are liars and gold diggers to divert attention from the role of men and society should carry the burden of the guilt of creating the culture of violence with impunity. 

Yes, all families who silence the voices of women and prevent them from complaining encourage the culture of violence and impunity.

Yes, the families who turn away women in pain rather than supporting her are complicit in creating a culture of impunity.

Yes, the communities that compel women victims and survivors of violence to carry the burden of shame and guilt while excusing men for their violent crimes preserve the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the culture that tolerates and promotes practices such as dowry violence, female foeticide, son-preference, honour killing, forced marriages, child marriages, witch hunting, widow discrimination, and girl child discrimination is guilty of perpetuating violence with impunity.

Yes, those who welcome and garland the murderers and rapists are complicit in crimes against women.

Yes, the society that tolerates misogynist speeches and sexist jokes every day is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the media that propagates the misogyny 24/7 is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the businesses that objectify and commodify women for their profits are complicit in the crime of creating a culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the onus lies with society, which upholds and perpetuates patriarchal norms that favour men while silencing women for maintaining the culture of violence against women with impunity.

Yes, those who sideline `women’s issues’ believing that women’s pain and suffering are less important than all other problems in the world and should be attended to when all other problems are resolved, create a culture of violence against women with impunity.

Yes, the state, which has failed to enforce the laws and policies to facilitate conditions to eliminate violence against women, is complicit in the crime.

Yes, the state that has failed to allocate budget to provide services to the victims and survivors of violence is guilty of creating a culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the legal system, including the police personnel, the prison administration, the policymakers, the lawmakers, and enforcers, who discredit the voices of survivors of violence and deny justice to women, are complicit in the crime in creating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the police personnel who refuse to register the complaints of violence against women are complicit in crime and create a culture of impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and the judges who apply the arguments of divinity and politicize the law and the legal system to marginalize the oppressed are guilty of sustaining the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and judges, who instead of using the constitutional provisions, subjectively release the abusers, are reinforcing the climate of impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and judges who himpathize with the abusers for being young, or he has a family to support, and similar excuses uphold the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and judges who ignore the needs of the victims and their families for justice are complicit in perpetuating the culture of impunity.

Yes, the legal system that delays cases related to violence against women is guilty of perpetuating the culture of impunity.

Yes, all men and women in positions of authority who stay silent to uphold their vested gains when women’s rights are violated are guilty of contributing to the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, all men and women politicians and parliamentarians who refuse to acknowledge the increasing violence against women and choose to do nothing about it are complicit in the crime against women.

Yes, the political parties who sideline women’s issues and give tickets to men guilty of committing violence on women are complicit in creating the culture of crime against women with impunity.

Yes, all men are guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity when, in conflict situations, women’s bodies are being targeted to teach a lesson to the enemy.

Yes, when the institutions created to protect women fail to fulfill their obligations, these institutions are guilty of failing women and are creating the culture of impunity.

Yes, the army personnel guilty of rape, when shielded by their higher-ups; the system are responsible for creating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the system that has become immune to the screams of women facing violence is guilty of perpetuating violence against women with impunity.

Yes, `the shame should change sides’ as Gisele Pelicot stated.

Yes, the system of blaming the women who experience violence should change.

Yes, the culture of violence against women with impunity should change.

Yes, the state, society, and communities should fix the accountability of abusive men.

Yes, the perpetrators of violence should be carrying the burden of shame and guilt of committing the crime against women.

Yes, the patriarchal social and legal norms must change in the spirit of justice, and the culture of violence with impunity must be altered.

Yes, the system should facilitate the conditions necessary for the women who face violence to openly speak against it without any guilt or shame and promote the healing of survivors and victims of violence.

Yes, the structural oppression and systemic inequalities must end.

Yes, we need to smash patriarchy.

`Not all men’ but `Yes, all men and women who stay silent’ propagate the culture of violence with impunity, and this should end.

Adv. Dr. Shalu Nigam is a feminist lawyer and researcher working on gender, governance, and human rights issues. Her most recent book which is published in on Dowry is a Serious Economic Violence: Rethinking Dowry Violence Law in India.  

Strengthening the Idea of Participatory Democracy in the Indian Context

 

Mainstream, Vol 62 No 25, 26, 27, Jun 22, 29 & July 6, 2024 [Bumper issue]

Strengthening the Idea of Participatory Democracy in the Indian Context | Shalu Nigam

Saturday 22 June 2024

The results of the 18th general elections in India held in 2024 demonstrate that when the authoritarian state crudely exploits its authority, it is the common people who hold the power to end such repression, to revive the democratic spirit, and to save the idea of an egalitarian, secular, hate-free, diverse, and united India. However, the election process, as it exists today, has several problems, and is seriously impacting the concept of representative democracy. Therefore, in order to establish a strong democratic, republic, and plural India, or greater democratization, this work suggests that it is essential to move beyond the idea of representative democracy to the larger concept of participatory democracy. Strengthening people’s power or lok shakti through swaraj or self-rule as envisioned by the freedom fighters and the constitution makers is essential in the contemporary context. To rejuvenate the idea of participatory democracy, what is required is a two-step process. One, is to revitalize the decentralization process as promoted by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, and the second is to strengthen social movements and foster proactive citizenship by empowering the marginalized.

https://mainstreamweekly.net/article14797.html

The results of the 18th general elections in India held in 2024 demonstrate that when the authoritarian state crudely exploits its authority, it is the common people who hold the power to end such repression, to revive the democratic spirit, and to save the idea of an egalitarian, secular, hate-free, diverse, and united India. However, the election process, as it exists today, has several problems, and is seriously impacting the concept of representative democracy. Therefore, in order to establish a strong democratic, republic, and plural India, or greater democratization, this work suggests that it is essential to move beyond the idea of representative democracy to the larger concept of participatory democracy. Strengthening people’s power or lok shakti through swaraj or self-rule as envisioned by the freedom fighters and the constitution makers is essential in the contemporary context. To rejuvenate the idea of participatory democracy, what is required is a two-step process. One, is to revitalize the decentralization process as promoted by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, and the second is to strengthen social movements and foster proactive citizenship by empowering the marginalized.

The problems with representative democracy

Representative democracy, as practiced in India, entails holding periodic elections where representatives are elected by the people and the political parties play a central role in the process of governance. It is therefore important to ensure that the electoral process is free and fair [1]’ The Courts have clarified in several decisions that free and fair elections include the right of a voter to cast votes without fear, reprisal, duress, or coercion [2]. However, not all elections are being conducted fairly or freely [3]. Das in his controversial paper observed that the malpractices in the election process take various forms [4, 5]. Moreover, in the Chandigarh Mayor’s Election case [6], the Supreme Court observed,

“Elections at the local participatory level act as a microcosm of the larger democratic structure in the country. Local governments, such as municipal corporations, engage with issues that affect citizens’ daily lives and act as a primary point of contact with representative democracy. The process of citizens electing councillors, who in turn, elect the Mayor, serves as a channel for ordinary citizens to ventilate their grievances through their representatives – both directly and indirectly elected. Ensuring a free and fair electoral process throughout this process, therefore, is imperative to maintain the legitimacy of and trust in representative democracy.”

The Court further noted the importance of voters and their rights to state that,

“In order to maintain the purity of the electoral process, the “little cross” on the “little bit of paper” must be made only by the metaphorical “little man” walking into the “little booth” and no one else.”

Also, in the recent context, fingers have been pointed out at the Election Commission of India, which is a formidable institution responsible for conducting free and fair elections. It is supposed to be following the principles of transparency and openness, but allegedly it is acting in a secretive manner and acting unfairly [7]. Questions have been raised regarding the appointment of the Election Commissioners [8] and the methods of appointing members of the Election Commission of India [9]. All these incidents indicate that the problem with representative democracy is deep-rooted and needs thorough examination.

Scholars have also pointed out that representative democracy, in practice, has failed to address ground realities such as mitigating poverty, maintaining law and order, meeting the basic expectations of the poor, environmental protection, and providing basic services [10]. A Pew Survey conducted in 2023 [11] in 24 countries regarding the practice of representative democracy observed that 59 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with how their democracy was functioning, 74 percent thought that officials didn’t care, and 42 percent said that no political party in their country represented their views. The results show that people’s trust in representative democracy has declined over the years. Hence, representative democracy, though theoretically has a few advantages in terms of a democratic process, seems to have problems when implemented at the ground level.

The Idea of Participatory Democracy

Participatory democracy is about citizens’ engagement at the local level in the process of governance. It is a process of greater and more in-depth democratization. In some countries, it is seen as an alternative to representative democracy [12]. In his book, Democracy and Education, Dewey [15] wrote, “A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living or conjoint communicated experience.” For Dewey, democracy is `not simply and solely a form of government’ or a political institution, but a `way of life’. WEB DuBois [16] in the context of the USA propounded the idea of `abolition democracy’ and asserted that “the abolition democracy was the liberal movement among both labourers and small capitalists”. The aim was to abolish slavery. He described how black and white people work together to establish truly egalitarian democracy across race and class biases.

Participatory democracy empowers and educates those citizens who have been excluded from the process of decision-making through democratic citizenship [13]. Though scholars have recognized limitations with this model in terms of its neglect of power dynamics that operate in a structurally unequal society, focus on masculine values as it mirrors the gender bias that exists in society, and less attention on the learning dimension, it is argued that women when involved in the process, learn different skills through participatory democracy [14].

The deeply engrained idea of participatory democracy in the Indian context

The idea of participatory democracy is deeply embedded in the Indian context in the struggles against colonialism, the freedom movement, and the social and political processes that took place in post-colonial India. This idea of participatory democracy is about reimagining proactive citizenship for a robust and resilient democracy. More importantly, the makers of the Constitution, including Dr. BR Ambedkar and many other leaders, ensured the right to equality, liberty, and fraternity besides affirmative action in the Constitution to empower the marginalized to enable them to assert their rights in a hierarchical society.

For ages, social movements have been working around the idea of participatory democracy or the concept of `gram swaraj’ or village self-independence as articulated by MK Gandhi and represent the Indian democratic vision. Gandhi believed in the idea of voluntarism as the basis for an independent polity [17]. His legacy of Satyagraha, or seeking truth, is based on grassroot or barefoot politics where an individual observes self-restraint to serve the wider political sphere. Gandhi advocated for social action and the participation of common people while acknowledging equality in terms of their knowledge and capacities [18].

MN Roy [19] too expressed his disillusion with representative democracy and prioritized grass-roots radical democracy based on the notion of individual freedom and sovereignty. He deliberated against the idea of state ownership and a planned economy to argue that this would not end the exploitation of workers or would ensure the redistribution of wealth [20]. While drawing a connection between economic decentralization and political freedom, he visualized the idea of the people’s committees and explained that democracy will be effective only when power remains with the people, "that the individual is prior to society, and that freedom can be enjoyed by individuals." [21]

Jay Prakash Narayan also critiqued the idea of political representation by the political parties, or rajniti on the basis of his beliefs in Gandhian ideals and upheld the idea of people’s power, or lokniti, or lokshakti, which is about comprehensive, participative, and people-centred democracy based on the notion of decentralized politics and propagates the idea of social and economic justice [22]. He expressed his discontent with representative democracy based on the fact that centralized decision-making leaves the common people powerless [23]. His idea of a comprehensive democracy or `total revolution’ is grounded in the idea of the `non-party’ political process and imagined as empowering the common people in economic and political terms, which forms the base of polity from where authority flows upward on the conditions of transparency and accountability. It articulated the concept of participatory democracy in the people’s empowerment through everyday struggles for their rights and in collective struggles to harness collective wellbeing [24].

Later, several movements, such as the Bhoodan movement (land donation by the wealthy), the Sarvodaya movement (upliftment of all), the Self-Employed Women’s Association, or SEWA in Ahmedabad, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), in Rajasthan, and many others, were initiated based on these ideas of articulating the concept of participatory democracy. Many of these grass-root movements have been working before independence and initiated the `staggering diversity of innovative endeavour’ against globalization and a market-based economy where the state aligns itself with businesses and the corporate sector [25].

Different from NGOs based on the concept of welfare, philanthropic, or funded NGOs, the majority of these social movements had their origin in the freedom movement and have been existing as fragments of earlier social and political movements such as Gandhian, socialist, communist, and social reform movements as well as independent social and political activists [26]. Most of these are non-party formations, social action groups, and movements on various issues with the goal of democratizing and transforming the hierarchical, caste-based, patriarchal society [27].

These social movements are crowd-funded where people contribute through donations. For some, funding comes from people for whom these battles continue. In most of these social movements, the work is imagined in three dimensions of the Gandhian philosophy: Seva (services such as providing food to the starving and medical care to the needy), Nirman (development or running schools or dispensaries), and Sangharsh (struggles or speaking truth to the power) [28].

During the mid-1970s, many came together with the decline of institutional politics to protest against the emergency imposed by the then Indira Gandhi’s government [29]. Since then, these movements have created space for themselves, articulating the people’s concerns, during the times, when the political parties failed to fulfil their obligations toward the common people. These movements raised issues which were excluded and neglected by the politicians and advocated for the cause of the marginalized, abandoned by the bureaucracy [30]. These sustained movement politics articulated the discourse of constructive democracy as against the elite model of top-down development [31]. These movements expanded the notions of democracy and citizenship by challenging power equations.

The state, in itself, is an unfathomable entity, yet it is being held accountable through continuous persistence efforts made by proactive citizens, social movements, and civil society [32]. With rising subaltern participation and increasing grass-roots political movements, radical transformations in democratic structures are being made possible. Ackerman [33] described these kinds of socio-political reforms as “co-governance”, where citizens engage themselves with the state on a day-to-day basis.

Revitalising the Decentralization of Power Through Strengthening PRIs

The 73rd constitutional amendment during the 1990s has a checkered history, yet it was enacted to realize the provisions of Article 40 of the Indian Constitution, which is about strengthening the idea of self-governance [34]. This system is different than the khap panchayats (mostly caste-based organizations), which already existed in the village, and those which are not legitimized by the state. The purpose is to strengthen the Panchayati Raj system, which enabled the decentralization of power through gram sabhas (village councils), which has deeper implications for the human rights situations [35]. It has played a critical role in strengthening inclusive and participatory democracy by lending voices to women and marginalized sections of society in the decision-making process at the village level [36]. The Provision of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act in 1996 further paved the way for consolidating the idea of self-governance.

Experiences, over the decades, show that despite problems such as bureaucratic hurdles, elite dominance, political indifference, and inconsistency in implementation, the Panchayati Raj system has managed to transform the realities [37]. Though, currently, attempts are being made by the state to weaken the Panchayati Raj Institution through budget cuts and its merger with the Rural Development Ministry, scholars suggest that greater efforts should be made to strengthen the gram sabhas and, more importantly, take steps toward decentralization of powers [38].

Consolidating gains made by the social movements

Also, post-1990s, some of the social movements kept working in tandem on anti-people’s issues as a consortium or the civil society, which included a cluster of NGOs, autonomous organizations, social movements, academics, activists, intellectuals, and many other individuals and groups with progressive ideas [39]. Many of these movements transformed and collated at the crucial juncture when the postcolonial state transformed its nature from the `welfare state’ to the `neoliberal state’. Chandoke [40] is of the view that civil society is not an institution but rather a process whereby the actors work with the state and also monitor the monopoly and the power of the state. The civil society, hence, is constantly reinventing itself.

The initiatives by civil society played a significant role in documenting the effects of policies and legislation on people and ecology. The movement claimed that the Structural Adjustment Program, at the behest of the global financial institutions and forced upon the people as economic reforms, further devastated the poor while retaining the old political and social hierarchy. Hegemonic globalization redefined social and political processes at the global level while depoliticizing development and undermining grass-roots democratic movements to pave the way for the smooth functioning of transnational corporations.

It is because of the proactive citizens and the active civil society initiatives that the Indian government during the period from 2005 to 2013, enacted several progressive laws that effectively legitimized several social and economic rights, including a national law on the right to work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; the rights of tribals under the Forest Rights Act, 2006; and the right to food under the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, makes the enrollment, attendance, and completion of schooling of every child under fourteen the obligation of the state. Through many such social legislations, theoretically, the idea of citizenship has been expanded and made these rights justiciable against the state.

The politics of civil society lie not only in addressing cases of violation rights, but simultaneously, it is expanding the political space by converting the survival of the poor into the struggles for the economic, social, and political rights of individuals, groups, and communities. The issues of development are described within the framework of rights by these social movements. Poverty, as per this paradigm, is not an economic or individual issue but is related to a larger power and social structure-related issue where an individual is pushed to vulnerability by the reasons of injustice. The poor are vulnerable because they are exploited, and excluded from the process of governance.

The majority of civil society organizations are coordinating amongst themselves to build alliances on commonly agreed principles such as opposition to communal fundamentalism, caste discrimination, resistance against destructive neoliberal development policies, and building concrete alternatives [41]. The object is to redefine the content of the hegemonical development paradigm with a focus on transparent, democratic, people-oriented governance with devolution and decentralization of power. The object is to demand the accountability of the state and to create a new political space for self-governance based on horizontal structure while dismantling hierarchies in a graded society through a long-term social and political process.

This contestation of marginalization is creating a space where elites no longer remain as custodians of democratic processes and where common people collectively claim their rights to survive with dignity. Weaving in the language of rights, addressing the everyday survival needs of citizens is also an attempt to redress power asymmetries in an uneven, unequal society. Mobilizing marginalized and oppressed people on multiple common as well as diverse interests is construing plural spaces within the public sphere. This site to assert subalterns’ voices while negotiating for citizenship rights is aiding in social transformation by reimagining proactive citizenship.

After 2014, with the rise in Hindutva politics, the state abandoned citizens and supported capitalist classes. The Hindutva forces led by the BJP expanded the neoliberal regime to drive strength from Indian big businesses and championed structural adjustment programs [42]. The organic relationship between Hindutva politics and neoliberalism pursued the consolidation of both neoliberalism and the Hindutva fascist regime, converting the Indian secular state into a fascist theocratic Hindu Rashtra [43]. This socio-economic alienation of the citizens produces political distrust.

This period witnessed dissent by the citizens, such as the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, the Farmers’ Protests, and many more protests by the students and the common citizens against unemployment, corruption, the educational system, and so on. These movements restructured the political opposition during the period of profound fragmentation and disengagement [44]. The protest against the CAA in 2019-2020, and the mass mobilization during the lockdown, as evident by the farmers’ protests against the ruling regime, has re-kindled a heated debate on several issues, such as survival with dignity, culture, corruption, identity, federalism, dissent, democracy, and more importantly, the `idea of India’. The continuous resilience and resistance by the common citizens against the government’s failure to uphold the constitutional values are igniting change, depicting the power of the people, and indicating the strength of democracy as imagined by the makers of the constitution.

It is this idea of the power of the common people that is reflected in the elections in 2024, where the arrogant, power-hungry state has been held accountable by the people [45]. The ruling majority, to promote its chauvinist agenda [46], pitted one community against the other and created much hype around the construction of the grand Ram temple in Ayodhya on the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished. However, it lost the mandate in Faizabad itself. In fact, the people of the state of Uttar Pradesh rejected the false narrative of hate built around lies and hypocrisy while negating the idea of bulldozer justice. Yogendra Yadav in a video stated the verdict is the victory of the lok (people) over the tantra (administration or ruling power). Mander [47] wrote that the verdict of elections in 2024 depicts that though the masses of Indian voters have favoured democratic principles and justice, yet the clouds of fascism still hang around and that “the ideological project of hate thrives in hearts and minds.”

However, history has shown that the masses of Indian society have shown wisdom and maturity when they fought to defeat the colonial forces and the dark clouds that emerged during the Emergency. The idea of dissent and equal citizenship is deeply carved into the fabric of modern Indian society, which has emerged out of the history of colonial struggle [48]. Similarly, the election results in 2024 show that despite the entire state and communication apparatus being used by the ruling forces, the masses rejected the hate to unfetter the idea of an equal and free India. It indicates that forceful oppression could not dismantle the idea of India. People stood up against this idea of dominance; they stood for what was morally right. They stood for the country and its rich legacy, not the hateful dominant ideology.

Strengthening participatory democracy is essential in the contemporary context

In the contemporary situation, when authoritarianism is denting the idea of India in all possible ways, when the rights of voters are being hampered, the institutions such as Panchayati raj among others are weakened, when the funding of the many NGOs has been curtailed, the civil society members are being arrested, and the survival of the social movements is being threatened, besides empowering common citizens with the correct facts and information to make the right decisions while voting, it is also important to strengthen participatory democracy, where the common people as proactive citizens play a wider role through democratic participation.

This requires a two-step approach: one is consolidating the gains made under the constitutional 73rd Amendment and the similar progressive social laws made to decentralize power and empower the marginalized; and the second is promoting social movements while strengthening political rights and consolidating the concept of proactive citizenship.

In order to establish a strong democratic, republic, and plural India, or greater democratization, this work suggests that it is essential to move beyond the idea of representative democracy to the larger concept of participatory democracy, or strengthening people’s power or lok shakti through swaraj or self-rule as envisioned by the freedom fighters and the constitution makers over the ages. Decentralizing power while focusing on enforcing progressive social legislation, strengthening social movements, and fostering active citizenship by empowering the common people are all essential steps to strengthening the idea of participatory democracy. Or in other words, the `little man’ or the common citizens in a democracy need to be empowered to assert their power and claim their rights.

(Author: Shalu Nigam is a lawyer, activist and a researcher working on the gender, governance, and human rights issues)

References

[1] Indira Gandhi v, Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1
[2] PUCL v Union of India WPC 161/2004 decided on 27.09.2013
[3] Sarah Birch (2011) Electoral Malpractice, Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, UK
[4] Das, Sabyasachi (2023) Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4512936 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4512936
[5] Rashid Omar (2023) What the Ashoka University Professor’s Paper on BJP Manipulation in 2019 Elections actually say, The Wire, August 3, https://thewire.in/politics/ashoka-university-facultys-research-paper-on-bjp-manipulation-in-2019-election-triggers-row
[6] Kuldeep Kumar v. UT Chandigarh, SC Civil Appeal 2874/2024 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/4999/4999_2024_1_15_50631_Judgement_20-Feb-2024.pdf
[7] Devashayam MG (2024) Election Commission of India – Trust to be Earned not certified, The Wire, May 4, https://thewire.in/government/election-commission-of-india-trust-is-to-be-earned-not-certified
[8] Jaya Thakur v Union of India WPC 14/2024 Supreme Court https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenges-to-the-appointment-of-election-commissioners-act-2023-eci/
[9] Anoop Baranwal v Union of India 2023 https://www.scobserver.in/cases/anoop-baranwal-v-union-of-india-election-commission-appointments-background/
[10] Palanithurai, G. (2007). Participatory Democracy in Indian Political System. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 68(1), 9–20. 
[11] Pew Research Centre (2024) Representative Democracy Remains a Popular Ideal but People Around the World are critical about how it’s working, February 28 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/02/28/representative-democracy-remains-a-popular-ideal-but-people-around-the-world-are-critical-of-how-its-working/
[12] Fund A (2011) Reinventing Democracy in Latin America, Perspective on Politics, 9(4) 657-871
[13] Pateman Carol (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[14] Lupien P (2022) Participatory Democracy, Democratic Education and Women, Journal of Latin American Studies 54(4) 617-645
[15] Dewey John (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, The MacMillan Company, New York
[16] Dubois WEB (1935) Black Reconstruction: An Essay towards a history of the part which black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct democracy in America, 1860-1880, Harcourt Brace and Company, New York
[17] Agarwal SN (1946) Gandhian Constitution for Free India, Kitabistan, Allahabad
[18] Roy Aruna (2023) Economics: Where People matter in Social Entrepreneurship and Gandhian thought in the post-COVID World, edited by Bhatt, B., I Qureshi, DM Shukla, D.M., V Pillai, Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore
[19] Roy MN (1960) Politics, Power and Parties, Renaissance Publishers Private Ltd, Calcutta
[20] Roy MN (1947) New humanism Principles of Radical Democracy, In Beyond Communism, edited by Roy and Spratt, Renaissance Publishers, Calcutta
[21] Roy MN (1947) Marxism and Radicalism, In Beyond Communism, edited by Roy and Spratt, Renaissance Publishers, Calcutta p 117
[22] Narayan JP (1961) Swaraj for People, Akhil Barat Sarva Seva Sangh, Varanasi
[23] Narayan JP (1978) Toward Total Revolution, Vol 4 Edited by Brahmanand, Popular Prakashan, Bombay
[24] Narayan JP (1975) Total Revolution: Why and How? In A Revolutionary’s Quest: Selected Writings of Jayaprakash Naryan, Oxford University Press, edited by Bimal Prasad, Delhi
[25] Kothari Smitu (1999) Inclusive, just, plural, dynamic: Building a ’civil’ society in the Third World, Development in Practice, 9(3) 246-259,
[26] Sheth DL and Harsh Sethi (1991) The NGO Sector in India: Historical context and current discourse, Voluntas 2(2) 49-68
[27] Kothari Rajni (1984) Non-Party political process, Economic and Political Weekly, 19(5) 216-224
[28] Shetty Samarinita and Sneha Philip (2022) IDR Interviews: Aruna Roy, idronline.org, January 26, https://idronline.org/features/idr-interviews/interview-with-aruna-roy-social-activist-and-an-architect-of-indias-rti-act/
[29] Kothari Rajni (1988) Decline of Parties and Rise of Grassroot Movements, in State against Democracy: In Search of Humane Governance, Ajanta, Delhi 33-54
[30] Sethi Harsh (1984) Groups in a new politics of transformation, Economic and Political Weekly, 19(7) 305-316
[31] Sheth DL (2004) Globalisation and New Politics of Micro-Movements. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(1) 45–58.
[32] Nigam Shalu (2014) Asserting Rights, Reclaiming Entitlements: Revolution by Masses, countercurrents.org December 10, https://www.countercurrents.org/nigam101214.htm
[33] Ackerman John (2004) Co-Governance for Accountability: Beyond Exit and Voice, World Development 32(3) 447-463
[34] Singh, Hoshiar (1994). Constitutional Base for Panchayati Raj in India: The 73rd Amendment Act. Asian Survey, 34(9), 818–827.
[35] George Mathew (2003) Panchayati Raj Institutions and Human Rights in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(2), 155–162.
[36] Parthasarathy Ramya and Vijayendra Rao (2017) Deliberative Democracy in India, Policy Research Working paper 7995, World Bank https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/428681488809552560/pdf/WPS7995.pdf
[37] Banerjee, Rahul (2013) What Ails Panchayati Raj? Economic and Political Weekly, 48(30) 173–76
[38] Lakshmi, C. P. (2016). Present Scenario of Panchayati Raj In India. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 77, 1016–1022
[39] Asian Development Bank (2023) Civil Society Brief India, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/879896/civil-society-brief-india.pdf
[40] Chandoke Neera (2003) A Critique of the notion of the civil society as the Third sphere, In Does the Civil Society Matters: Governance in Contemporary India, Edited by Rajesh Tandon and Ranjita Mohanty, Sage Publications, New Delhi
[41] Sangvai, Sanjay (2007). The New People’s Movements in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(50), 111–117.
[42] Gopalakrishnan, Shankar (2006) Defining, Constructing and Policing a ‘New India’: Relationship between Neoliberalism and Hindutva. Economic and Political Weekly 41 (26): 2803–2813
[43] Banaji Shakuntala (2018) Vigilante Publics: Orientalism, Modernity and Hindutva Fascism in India, Journal of European Institute for communication and culture, 25(4) 333-350
[44] Nigam Shalu (2021) A year of Pandemic, Deadlock, Disaster and Dissent, countercurrents.org, March 25, https://countercurrents.org/2021/03/a-year-of-pandemic-deadlock-disaster-and-dissent/
[45] Raina Badri (2024) Cut Modi to Size: `We the People’ take back the ownership of republic, The Wire, June 6, https://thewire.in/politics/cut-modi-to-size-we-the-people-take-back-ownership-of-the-republic
[46] Varadarajan Siddharth (2024) Modi stands defeated but he’s not giving up his destructive plan for a thousand years raj, The Wire, June 6, https://thewire.in/politics/modi-stands-defeated-but-hes-not-giving-up-his-destructive-plan-for-a-thousand-year-raj
[47] Mander Harsh (2024) The People of India have spoken. What Changes now? Scroll.in, June 6, https://scroll.in/article/1068887/harsh-mander-the-people-of-india-have-spoken-what-changes-now
[48] Nigam Shalu (2023) The Right to Dissent in Sociolegal context: Reimagining Citizenship, Strengthening Democracy, IMPRI Insights, July 20, https://www.impriindia.com/insights/right-to-dissent-citizenship-democracy/