18/01/2026
The discussion with Prof. Sanjeeb Mukherjee mukherjee was structured around three broad questions concerning democracy, governance, and institutional accountability in contemporary India.
The questions and the responses by Prof are as follows are as follows:
First, how democracy should evaluate administrative processes such as electoral roll revisions, particularly in contexts like Bihar and West Bengal where exclusions have continued to reappear despite public protests and documented discrepancies. The question focused on whether an administrative exercise, defended as lawful and routine, risks becoming democratically problematic when citizens are repeatedly called for hearings and made to prove their eligibility, especially when confusion and distress are widespread.
In response, Prof. Sanjeeb argued that democracy must assess not only the legality of administrative procedures but also their social impact. When the burden of verification shifts disproportionately onto citizens, especially marginalized groups, administrative processes can lose democratic legitimacy even if they remain formally lawful.
One of the key analytical points was the historical role of mass psychology in Indian politics. After the Mandal Commission (early 1990s) and the expansion of reservations for OBCs: Traditional social hierarchies were politically challenged. A counter-mobilization emerged. Prof. Sanjeeb described Hindutva politics as a response that reframed political identity around religion, created a new mass psychological base and shifted politics from socio-economic justice to cultural majoritarianism. This situates current developments within a long political trajectory, not as isolated events.
A central factual claim made was that India’s democracy has shown exceptional durability. India has sustained electoral democracy for approximately 75 years. This endurance is rare among post-colonial states. Prof. Sanjeeb contrasted India with several neighboring or comparable regions where democracy failed to consolidate.Prof. Sanjeeb referred to multiple cases to underline India’s exceptionality Pakistan for repeated military interventions, Bangladesh for coups and authoritarian phases, Sri Lanka for civil war and democratic breakdown. The comparison was used to argue that democracy in India has deep social and institutional roots, particularly through regular elections at multiple levels.
The discussion turned to the broader pattern of governance marked by sudden, disruptive decisions such as demonetization and the COVID-19 lockdown. The question raised was whether these measures reflect a governing style that uses disruption and fear to secure compliance, while framing hardship as national sacrifice, despite the absence of clear long-term outcomes such as the elimination of black money or corruption. A recurring concern in the discussion was the asymmetry between power and accountability. Institutions like the Election Commission are constitutionally protected to ensure independence from the executive. I implicitly raised a democratic dilemma: How does a democracy ensure accountability of independent institutions without undermining their autonomy? Prof. Sanjeeb stressed that the right to vote and change governments is the most tangible democratic power for ordinary citizens. Any perceived threat to electoral participation creates deeper democratic anxiety than economic hardship alone. This explains why issues like voter exclusion or electoral roll revisions provoke stronger public concern than many other policy failures. Prof emphasized that democracy cannot be reduced to formal legality alone; it rests fundamentally on active citizenship and continuous vigilance. Citing classical democratic theory, particularly John Stuart Mill’s assertion that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” he argued that when citizens disengage or become passive, democratic rights erode. Public protest, therefore, is not a threat to democracy but an essential democratic practice. Drawing on Gandhian traditions of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, Prof. Sanjeeb noted that resistance to unjust laws has historically been integral to democratic renewal. Peaceful protest, even when it challenges existing legal frameworks, remains a legitimate response when institutional mechanisms fail to address injustice.
The central theme of his intervention was the unequal burden of compliance in contemporary governance. Across policies such as Special Intensive Revision (SIR), citizenship documentation exercises (including in Assam), and other verification regimes, the costs of administrative compliance fall disproportionately on those with the fewest resources, migrant workers, landless labourers, Adivasi communities, and other marginalized groups. Prof. Sanjeeb responded to this by highlighting a critical constitutional inversion: whereas the state is expected to prove guilt or ineligibility, citizens are increasingly compelled to prove innocence, belonging, and citizenship, often through rigid documentary requirements.
He argued that this shift is not merely administrative but political. Disenfranchisement of marginalized voters, even at the margins of two or three percent, can significantly alter electoral outcomes. Since voting remains the primary democratic instrument available to marginalized communities, undermining access to the vote weakens democratic accountability itself. On economic policymaking, when he was referred to disruptive measures such as demonetization, the sudden COVID-19 lockdown, and public claims that currency depreciation strengthens the economy that these policies were framed through narratives of national interest and strong leadership, yet their material consequences , job losses, economic precarity, and social distress, were borne largely by informal workers and small economic actors. He was asked to enlighten on the question of the gap between headline claims and lived economic realities. Prof. Sanjeeb expressed concerns about the declining autonomy of intellectual and policy institutions. He noted that independent experts are increasingly sidelined in favour of politically aligned figures, weakening the credibility of advisory bodies such as the RBI and NITI Aayog. Universities and research institutions, traditionally spaces of critical inquiry, face administrative and political pressures that constrain dissent and academic freedom. He cited developments at institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Visva-Bharati, and the Indian Statistical Institute as indicative of this trend.
