India proudly proclaims itself the world’s largest democracy. But a lack of real press freedom will ultimately hamper economic growth.
India likes to tout itself as the world’s largest democracy—a place of political freedom where all citizens have the right to free speech. Neighbouring China, in contrast, is typically characterized as a society that’s partly shut, with authoritarian rulers who work to curtail press freedom and political rights.
While both countries have experienced rapid growth over the past two decades, Western observers have often argued that India’s freer society will in the long run give it the edge in sustaining its economic growth. Yet in the past 20 years, China has been able to reduce its poverty rate from more than 60 percent to less than 20 percent, while half of India’s population is still living on less than $1.20 a day (and almost three-quarters live on less than $2 per day).
So why hasn’t democratic India been able to match Communist China’s ability to bring about a more economically equitable society? Freedom is supposed to stimulate thought and creativity, but it’s clear that it doesn’t necessarily assure equity. In addition, the benefits of India’s rapid economic growth are confined to a relatively smaller segment of the population—about 30 percent, or 350 million people—while the rest are either spectators or just hoping that the trickle-down effects will eventually improve their lot in life.
There are numerous and complex reasons for this. India compares itself to an elephant that takes steady but slow steps forward, and its defenders argue that its democratic system simply doesn’t permit quick policy decisions. This fails, though, to explain why the country is experiencing a rapidly widening gap between the rich and the poor, and why so many are being left behind.
While there are myriad reasons for India lagging behind its neighbour, there’s one explanation that comes up again and again in any discussion of India’s poverty—poor governance. India’s political system favours corruption and inefficiency at all levels of government. The ability to influence economic policy and derive special benefits rests with a few industrialists, while those who hold political power or who have sufficient financial muscle are able to unfairly and often illegally accumulate wealth with scant scrutiny by the press and the legal system.
In a healthy democracy, the public could rely on a free media to step in to expose the countless examples of corruption and abuses of power. Yet most ordinary Indians are hugely pessimistic about the country’s ability to reduce corruption among their politicians, bureaucrats and industrialists—and about the chances of the press playing any meaningful role in exposing wrongdoing. Sadly, they can be forgiven for being gloomy, because the press here has abdicated its rightful role as the guardian of democracy.
Photo Credit: Flickr / Pranav
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
MatthewTan
Abraham George:
Your motive is to tell the world that the “free world” with a “free press” should provide greater prosperity. And when it fails, you tell us that India does not have a free press.
Your argument is like those of religious fundamentalists: Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, terrorists/jihadists are not true Muslims.
Freedoms fundamentalists like you cannot live with the truth. Freedoms fundamentalists are a subset of religious fundamentalists.
Liu Xiao Bo is a non-issue in Asia because he is a NOBODY. Nobody in Asia is interested in a NOBODY who is of no significance in Asia.
Nothing to do with Indian press not wanting to offend China – which is the greatest nonsense because India’s mainstream press insults China everyday.
And India has recognised Tibet as part of China from Day 1 under Nehru, in 1950 by not supporting Tibet’s complaints against Chinese “invasion” in the United Nations. Nehru said that for the past 300 years no country had recognised Tibet as an independent nation, and had always regarded Tibet as part of China.
Check it up, please. You may want to start by reading up online Catholic Encyclopedia 1912 version, and online Britannica Encyclopedia 1911 version, which are untainted by Western propaganda against China rampant for in the past 60 years.
Simon
The author is helping you raise concern over an existing issue which, if dealt with, can help India grow and progress as a nation.
Stop getting offended and start your no sense quarrels and debates.
Vijay
Completely true. As powerful as media can be, India’s Free Press has never reformed or in the least ever been close to any exploitation. Lack of education on citizen rights leaves the country powerless. Freedom of speech has never been encouraged but only been used as a subtle means of revolt often with fear or fearful consequences. Typical Indian… will defend the nation but never give up their comforts to raise the country.
Fact is.. Indian press will only publish what we already know..
PM
I don’t know how closely and clearly Mr. Abraham George can see the India Media from New York, but I know that he has very little understanding about the Indian press. Like the freedom of expression, press freedom is also a relative term. Mr. Abraham George’s article could be a violation of law in some countries.
But in India- As a working journalist, I can say that- it is definitely not. Mr. George’s observations are very much subjective in nature. The much celebrated free press in the United States conveniently “cover “ unpleasant stories, at times under pressure from the authorities. Remember the wiki leaks
Yes , I agree, during the period of emergency, there were censorship. But if you take the history of independent India, by and large the press freedom has not been violated to the extent the author is hard trying to sketch. I think, this is why Indian democracy- in its own unique form- is surviving.
I request the Diplomat Editors to be little more responsible, before publishing something that is totally absurd.
P M
New Delhi
Andrey Davydov
total mess of an article composed from wiki and the supposedly unfree Indian press. It started with Indian poverty and did not fail to bring in Tehelka.
I would like to ask writer the question – which country in the world has totally free media?
US? The only media which was given access to Wikileaks Iraq files venerable New York Times was caught in trying to twist and hide the facts. Even moderate commentators had noted that NYT coverage was very much in line with Pentagon. No big wonder because NYT’s London editor is big supporter of Bush’s Iraq war based on lies about WMD.
UK? With Murdoch’s media empire? No words needed when all successive British PMs ask this nasty media baron for an audience.
France? Where three media magnates had met their friend Nicolas, interior minister and decided to make him president of the French republic effectively overselling him by relentless media campaign.
Russia and China are dictatorships according to the West, while the rest of media normally lack financial resources to provide sufficient gloabl coverage.
So I see Indian media is not much better or worse than her counterparts in different countries. It is reasonably free, operates with some limitations, has some drawbacks like sensationalism and obsession with Bollywood instead of covering really significant social problems in the country.
By the way by honesty indicator Indian media is way way beyond all Western media which was roundly discredited by propaganda of neocon wars and lies.
Seifi Abbas
There are problems of shelter, electric power and drinking water in India. Nothing will change unless these essential needs of the society are provided.India’s potential is enough to be a rich, clean,advanced and democratic state if politicians want to do work for the sake of people and not for their own pocket. Of course National Willingness and National Help are the must to approach Goals.
Seifi Abbas