top of page
Search

Interrogating Modernity: India’s Path of Alternative Political Evolution

Updated: 4 days ago

As published in the Volume 2(2) of Ramjas Political Review


Abstract


This paper examines the evolution of democracy in India through the lens of alternative modernities, arguing that modernisation is not a uniform, linear process but is shaped by cultural and historical contexts. It situates the existence of multiple acceptable forms of democratic structures by contextualising India's democratic structure within a broader comparative framework, analysing how its electoral processes and secularism diverge from dominant Western models, and explores how subaltern thought affects the reinterpretation of modernity in India.


Keywords: Secularism, Voting, Modernity, Eurocentrism, Western framework


Introduction


Modernity is a concept that first emerged in the West and has since spread across the world through various practices, institutional frameworks, and, most significantly, as a discourse which critically examines the present (Gaonkar, 1999). The Western discourse on modernity does not emerge as a single, coherent framework; instead, it takes the form of a hybrid configuration consisting of different and conflicting theories, norms, and ideologies—every scholar on this subject has their version of that narrative, and each version casts a different light on modernity, wherein the contours shift depending on the angle of interrogation. To think in terms of alternative modernities is also the study of a particular angle of exploration. Alternative modernities can be said to be culture-specific and site-based readings of the Western mode of modernity (Gaonkar, 1999). Bhargava (2001), on the other hand, defines alternative modernity as the interaction of Western modernity with local cultural systems that lead to the emergence of a new phenomenon for which an analogue can be found in neither Western nor indigenous tradition. Various contemporary non-western societies retain resilient non-modern practices in addition to some thoroughly westernised modern variations, with alternative modernities co-existing in addition to these elements (Bhargava, 2001). 


In the Indian context, the rise of modernity has often been linked to colonial rule since industrialisation took place in that period, but it was after independence that “India’s modern nationhood” was conceived and implemented by Jawaharlal Nehru (Aiyar, 2014). The four key dimensions of this concept were democracy, secularism, socialism, and non-alignment; all of these concepts emerged from the West, except for non-alignment (Aiyar, 2014). However, on closer examination, it appears that these concepts have evolved from their original forms and have acclimatised to the Indian ethos (Blaser, 2009). This paper analyses how the Western concept of democracy has evolved through processes of alternative modernisation on being introduced to a non-Western country, India, and the deviation from its original form, as well as what implications this transformation holds for contemporary political systems and societal structures. First, it is proved with the help of an analysis of the democratic structure in the United States of America and India that while both countries are democracies, there is a certain divergence in practice, which emerges as a natural response to the cultural context that they are located in. Second, it is argued that much may be learnt by drawing parallels between the Western subjugation and “Westernisation as modernisation” school of thought by looking at subaltern thought, which is specific to the Indian context. Lastly, it is proposed that non-Western alternatives should also be taken into account by Western scholars for a more holistic view of political ideas.


A Non-Linear Approach to Democracy


Democracy, originally a Western method of collective decision-making, has evolved into a universal value, taking on distinct meanings in different contexts. While liberal democracy remains the ideal form, its manifestation varies across societies (Jaffrelot & Schoch, 2021). Numerous “hybrid” models have emerged, that blend liberal democracy with other political genres in response to specific political conditions; this has further led to the parturition of terms existing as a response to their political contexts, such as “people’s democracies,” “guided democracies,” “illiberal democracies,” or even “authoritarian democracies” (Jaffrelot & Schoch, 2021). India, one of the world’s largest democracies, is a representative democracy. 


Democracy, in the form it came to India, comprised certain structures, processes, and ideals that further developed on interaction with the polity. On a comparative analysis with a Western nation, the United States of America (USA), the Indian polity differs on several counts, two of which are discussed here. Firstly, both nations have a robust voting system in place; however, the USA system is relatively more flexible than India's. For instance, the USA offers plenty of methods to cast a vote, such as voting at poll booths on poll day, absentee voting through mail, and early voting in person (USAGov, 2024). In India, on the other hand, the only way to vote is by the traditional method of furnishing a valid voter identity card, choosing a candidate on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), and getting inked. While the multiple options do work to make voting more accessible in the USA, it must be noted that it also considerably prolongs the vote-counting process. While counting begins immediately after polls close, final results are seldom available on election night–in the 2020 presidential elections, over 101 million early or mail-in ballots were cast, compared to the 33 million in 2016, which overwhelmed the system (Ramani, 2024). India, on the other hand, while dealing with the number of voters being four times larger, declares the results on the same day due to the EVMs (Ramani, 2024). This contrast thus highlights the trade-off between accessibility and efficiency in electoral systems.


Secondly, India and the USA differ on the grounds of how the state interacts with religion. While both nations do not have an official state religion, their approaches to secularism diverge. In the USA, the state does not intervene in the religious affairs of the people; a strict separation between the state and religion is maintained, as upheld by the American courts in landmark cases such as Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Engel v. Vitale (1962). However, this view has grown into a contested topic in recent years. Recently, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order establishing a task force to end the “anti-Christian weaponisation of government” and “unlawful conduct targeting Christians” (The White House, 2025). While this does not outright declare Christianity as the State religion, it reorients the federal government’s stance on religious neutrality; if pursued aggressively, such policies could challenge the USA’s long-standing secular framework.


In contrast, the Indian model of secularism is characterised by what Bhargava (1998) terms “principled distance”, a model that does not strictly separate religion from the state but allows necessary state intervention to ensure the protection of basic fundamental rights. Unlike Western secularism, which evolved in response to conflicts between the church and the state, Indian secularism emerged in a society marked by deep religious diversity. India has thus developed a distinctively Indian and differently modern variant of secularism by balancing the claims of individuals and religious communities, since a strictly non-interference approach may not be feasible in a country where historical and social realities require a more engaged role for the state in mediating religious affairs (Bhargava, 1998). Therefore, it may be observed that democracy, though universally valued, takes different forms based on historical and political contexts, with India developing an alternative model.


India’s ongoing discussions on the adoption of the "One Nation, One Election" module for conducting elections also provide a compelling illustration of the country's approach to modernisation, which is neither linear nor homogenising (Das, 2023). Inspired by Western models from countries like Belgium, Sweden, and South Africa, this proposal reflects India's search for more efficient governance solutions in the face of its complex democratic landscape (Das, 2023). While holding the national and state elections simultaneously could potentially streamline the electoral process, reduce costs, and address voter fatigue, it could also present challenges regarding federalism, regional autonomy, and the diversity of interests across India’s various states. Thus, this proposal is a clear manifestation of India’s alternative modernisation; it does not simply adopt Western models of governance but adapts them according to its domestic realities and needs. 


This section, therefore, reflects India's broader approach to modernisation—not as a linear adoption of Western ideals but as a process of creative adaptation that accounts for its unique political, social, and historical realities. The notion of alternative modernities, however, is not just about reinterpreting Western models but also about challenging and redefining those models in the context of the country’s history of colonialism and social hierarchies. The next section thus deals with a more specific example of alternative modernity—the subaltern thought, which illustrates how India’s democratic evolution, like other forms of modernisation, reimagines Western ideas by taking inspiration from the experiences and struggles of marginalised groups.


Contributions of the Subaltern Thought


The modernist elite of Shanghai, including writers, artists, and political activists, actively engaged with and appropriated Western offerings such as modern education, cinema, fashion, and consumer culture.  (Gaonkar, 1999). However, this engagement was not characterised by “colonial mimicry”; rather, it took place in a cosmopolitan exchange and dialogue (Gaonkar, 1999). Even as they traversed the cityscapes, dazzled by and hungry for Western ideas, experiences, and cultural forms, they always remained certain of their identity as “Chinese”. Thus, in the face of modernity, one does not turn inward but moves forward, giving rise to what Gaonkar (1999) terms as creative adaptation. Non-Western people, the latecomers to modernity, have been engaged in these manoeuvres now for nearly a century (Gaonkar, 1999). In the Indian context, a new outlook was developed, called the subaltern thought, which was a response to the forces which claimed that modernity is a universally liberating force and highlighted how it may be exclusionary for certain groups like peasants, workers, women, and other subordinated groups who have been silenced or ignored in traditional historical accounts that prioritise the voices of the powerful and dominant groups (Chakrabarty, 1992). 


A parallel can be drawn between the subaltern groups and their subjugation by the dominant groups in Indian society and the Eurocentric subjugation of indigenous structures (Chakrabarty, 1992). Chakrabarty (1992) highlights how, by centring the voices and experiences of subaltern groups, subaltern thought provides a counter-narrative to dominant historical accounts that have historically marginalised or silenced these groups; subaltern thought thus plays a crucial role in challenging traditional historical accounts, and brings attention to the experiences, agency, and perspectives of subaltern groups. He further elaborates on how these groups, in the process of creating a niche for themselves, also partake in the creation of their alternative modernity. While it is true that many Western institutional frameworks were integrated into Indian governance by postcolonial elites to maintain stability, it is also important to recognise that colonial rule fundamentally reshaped indigenous structures, often forcing local institutions to adapt to external frameworks rather than evolve on their own terms. For example, the Dalit movement in India has reinterpreted democratic and constitutional principles to challenge caste oppression, demonstrating how marginalised communities engage with modernity on their terms. Similarly, feminist movements in India have also engaged with both colonial and Indigenous patriarchal structures, carving out enclaves for agency and rights within and beyond Western feminist paradigms. 


While gradual conversion does seem to take place, institutions where this happened on a larger scale, such as education, have still not recovered from the colonial imposition—this highlights the ongoing struggle between imposed structures and the efforts of subaltern groups to reclaim intellectual and cultural autonomy. Ultimately, subaltern thought reminds us that modernity has never been a uniform or singular experience. It has been contested, redefined, and appropriated in multiple ways by those in historically weaker positions. Recognising these alternative modernities is essential not just for historical accuracy but for envisioning a future where diverse experiences of modernity are acknowledged and valued.


Recognition of the Alternative


We have established in this paper that non-Western societies inherited from their Western counterparts specific versions of various political concepts, but they did not always preserve them in their original form; they often added something of enduring value to them and developed the idea further. However, Western theorists do not always recognise non-Western contributions. While Western scholars may have once justified focusing solely on history shaped by and within the West, it would be a grave mistake to conflate Western interpretations of these ideas with the entire doctrine; after all, a part cannot be mistaken for the whole. For a rich, complex, and complete understanding of political ideologies, one must examine how the secular idea has developed over time transnationally (Bhargava, 1998).


We may take the example of the local governance system endemic to India, Panchayats, to elaborate on the same. The concept of Panchayats has been incorporated into Indian polity in the form of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), which are formalised local self-government bodies established by the government to promote democratic governance at the grassroots level (Ministry of Panchayati Raj, 2025). Panchayati Raj Institutions have defined functions and powers related to local governance, development planning, and implementation of various schemes at the grassroots level. They play a role in rural development, resource allocation, and decision-making (Ministry of Panchayati Raj, 2025). Western political thought and institutions seldom engage with such governance structures, and non-Western contributions to democratic governance and alternative modernities remain largely absent from mainstream Western discourse (Getachew and Mantena, 2021).


The reluctance to engage with alternative modernities stems, in part, from entrenched Eurocentrism, which continues to frame Western institutions as the universal standard against which all others are measured. This perspective overlooks the reality that democratic ideals have been shaped and expressed in varied ways across different historical and cultural contexts. For instance, while Western democracy is often associated with liberal constitutionalism and representative governance, many non-Western societies, including India, have incorporated participatory and deliberative elements that predate colonial encounters. At the same time, it is important to note that most postcolonial democracies have integrated Western institutional frameworks, which makes it essential to analyse exactly what these participatory and deliberative elements entail and whether they exist independently of or merely in response to the Western models of political participation. 


Recognising these alternative modernities is crucial not just for historical accuracy but for ensuring a truly global discourse on democracy and governance. The failure to do so risks perpetuating a narrow and incomplete understanding of governance, in which only Western models are seen as legitimate or fully developed. A more inclusive approach, one that embraces the plurality of democratic experiences, is essential for constructing a richer and more dynamic global political discourse. Appreciating the various methods to practice democratic ideals is essential for a truly comprehensive understanding of these concepts on a global scale.


Conclusion


This paper builds a case to recognise alternative modernities practised in non-Western countries. In the first section, Indian democracy is specifically analysed within a broader international comparative framework on two counts: elections and secularism. It is observed that India espouses an alternative modernity—a system that has evolved from its original form but is no less authoritative or functional than the Western ideal; rather, this alternative version may be a better fit since it is customised to the country’s socio-political atmosphere. This demonstrates that modernisation is not a singular, Western-led process but rather a diverse, context-driven phenomenon. The rigid ideals of Western modernity may be downright exclusionary for certain groups. The next section talks about the rise of subaltern thought and how alternative modernities are purposive and deliberative processes which redefine such institutions in the context of the country’s history; entrenched in colonialism, casteism, and patriarchy, it works to make the political process more inclusionary for marginalised communities. The last section is a plea to recognise alternative modernities. It is by embracing the plurality of modernities that we move toward a more nuanced and inclusive discourse on democracy—one that acknowledges the legitimacy of diverse political evolutions rather than measuring them against a singular Western ideal.


Therefore, in the global discourse, India stands as evidence that democracy can thrive in a deeply diverse, postcolonial society without absolutely conforming to Western standards. It demonstrates that modernisation is adaptable—it does not require cultural homogenisation or a break from indigenous traditions. More broadly, India’s experience suggests that alternative modernities are not mere exceptions but part of a broader gamut of democratic evolution, shaped by distinct historical and cultural contexts. This has implications for other developing nations, showing that political and social modernisation need not imitate the West but can be rooted in local values and historical experiences. The narrative of alternative modernities serves as a reminder that the richness of human experiences and aspirations transcends any singular, Western-centric understanding of modernity.


References


Aiyar, M.S. (2014, November 26). A vision for India: Nehru’s idea of modern nationhood. Frontline- The Hindu.


Bhargava, R. (2001). Are there alternative modernities? In: N. N. Vohra (Ed.), Culture, Democracy and Development in

South Asia (pp. 9–26) Shipra Publications. 


Bhargava, R. (Ed.). (1998). Secularism and its Critics. Oxford University Press.


Blaser, M. (2009, November). Political Ontology. Cultural Studies, 873-896. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380903208023


Chakrabarty, D. (1992). Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for “Indian” Pasts? Representations, 37,


Das, Y.S. (2023, September 1). One nation, one election? India will enter a 3-country club. India Today.


Gaonkar, D.P. (1999, January). On Alternative Modernities. Public Culture 11(1), 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-


Getachew, A. & Mantena, K. (2021). Anticolonialism and the Decolonization of Political Theory. Duke University Press,


Jaffrelot, C., & Schoch, C. (2021). Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy. Princeton University


Ministry of Panchayati Raj. (2025, March 17). Introduction. https://panchayat.gov.in/en/about-department/introduction/


Ramani, S. (2024, November 15). The contrast between the U.S. and India on counting day. The Hindu.


The White House. (2025, February 6). Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Eradicates Anti-Christian Bias.


USAGov. (2024, September 17). Absentee voting and voting by mail. https://www.usa.gov/absentee-voting


The author, Laavanya Tewari, is a student at National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru.

Featured image credit: The Hindu

Comments

Your paragraph text (10)_edited.jpg
bottom of page