Table Of ContentCITIZENS AND POLITICS
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/citizenspoliticsOOOOelde
Samuel J. Eldersveld
and Bashiruddin Ahmed
CITIZENS AND POLITICS
Mass Political Behavior in India
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
Chicago and London
v\% . ft i e. n
Samuel J. Eldersveld is professor of political science at the University of Michigan.
He is the author of Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis, which won the Woodrow Wilson
Award for the best book in political science in 1964.
Bashiruddin Ahmed is at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in
Delhi, India, and is coauthor of Caste, Race, and Politics: A Comparative Study of
India and the United States.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO 60637
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, LTD., LONDON
® 1978 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 1978
Printed in the United States of America
83 82 81 80 79 78 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Eldersveld, Samuel James.
Citizens and politics.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. India—Politics and government—1947-
2. Political participation—India. I. Ahmed, Bashirud¬
din, joint author. II. Title.
JQ298. A1E48 320.9’54’04 77-21395
ISBN 0-226-20280-1
To Lucy and Sam and Saleha
and
To the many young Indian students who walked the length and
breadth of India, who helped us ask the right questions, and who
faithfully recorded the answers
307714
Contents
Preface ix
1. The Research and Theoretical Context for the Study
1. Theoretical Foundations for Empirical Research on Indian
Politics 3
2. Electoral Change and Stability in India Since 1947 19
2. Mass Political Culture in India: Some Empirical Observations
3. Citizen Orientations toward Politics: India Compared to
the West 34
4. How Many Indian Cultures? Urban-Rural, Generational, and
Party Differences in Orientations to Politics 45
5. Cultural Differences and Uniformities by States 52
6. The Role of Parties in Mobilizing Support for the Emerging
Political Culture 61
3. Party Identification in India in Comparative Perspective
7. The Meaning of “Party” for the Indian Citizen: Theories
and a Suggested Analytical Model 73
8. Dimensions and Social Bases of Party Loyalty in India 80
9. Cognitions of the Indian Party System by Party Identifiers 94
10. “Party Space” and Citizen Images of the Party System 110
11. Party Identification, Political Exposure, and Systemic
Orientations 134
4. Political Involvement in India in Comparative Perspective
12. Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches: The Functions
of ‘ ‘Involvement’ ’ 159
13. The Extent of the Indian Citizen’s Engagement with the
Political Process 171
14. The Social Basis and Relevance of Political Involvement
in India 188
15. The Normative and Attitudinal Basis for Political
Involvement 201
16. Political Environment: The Context and Stimulus for
Involvement 217
17. Alternative Models for Explaining Political Involvement and
for Assessing its Impact 231
Vll
Contents
18. The Functions and Consequences of Political Involvement:
For the Party System, Social Conflict, Policy Decisions,
and Effective Citizen Action 253
19. Trends and Prospects in Indian Political Development 272
20. Epilogue: 1975 and Beyond 291
21. A 1977 Postscript: Democracy in India Has Roots 296
Appendixes 305
1. Description of the 1967 Study 307
2. The Major Indexes Used in the Study 314
3. The 1967 Questionnaire 316
Notes 325
Index 343
vm
Preface
T
his is a study of the Indian citizen’s involvement in the dem-
ocratic political process before the June 1975 Emergency. It is based on
national surveys of citizen attitudes and participation at the time of the
1967 and 1971 national elections. The major question we pose is, To what
extent has the Indian public accepted the norms of political democracy and
participated meaningfully in the democratic system? And, consequently,
what is the character of Indian political development at the mass level? In
exploring this problem we use a theoretical model of Indian political
development to interpret the data, leading to system-level generalizations
while describing individual-level relationships. Throughout we attempt to
evaluate the involvement of Indian citizens by comparing their involve¬
ment to that of citizens in the United States and other countries for which
national survey data are available. As such, our mode of analysis is
empirical, longitudinal, and comparative, and our contribution, we hope,
is system-theoretical. The unique data presented here, for one slice of
political time in India, 1967-71, are directly relevant for describing and
explaining the nature and extent of political development at that time. In
addition, these data provide a base for speculation, for understanding the
1975 crisis and possible future developments.
The events of June 1975 leading to the declaration of an emergency in
India have produced concern and shock, both sympathetic and critical,
throughout the world. From Independence in 1947 to the crisis of 1975 the
Indian system evolved as a free and open parliamentary democracy based
on massive citizen involvement. In the course of twenty-eight years the
apolitical, mainly illiterate, poor, rural Indian subject had become a
politicized citizen who was significantly committed to democratic norms
and who participated in democratic practices. India had become one of the
leading democratic political societies of the world. There are those today
who see the recent events as only a transitional phase leading to a modified
democratic system; there are others, however, who see these events as
having vital consequences and costs for Indian democracy, threatening the
viability of the democratic Indian polity itself. Scholars and supporters of
India will wait anxiously and impatiently for the return to democratic
practice. Here we wish to empirically demonstrate the character, accom-
IX
Preface
plishments, and potential of that democracy at the level of mass beliefs and
behaviors prior to the onset of the present crisis, to document what the
Indian democratic system has been, and what it still can be.
This is the first serious empirical effort to study mass political behavior
in India with national surveys. The development of a national survey
research capability for the study of politics in India took place over a
seven-year period, from 1964 to 1971. The idea for such a study was
generated in 1964 when we met in Delhi and began to collaborate in our
scientific study of mass politics. In 1965 our theories and research
strategies were first put to the test in the study of the Kerala state election of
that year. We mobilized a dedicated group of young interviewers in
Trivandrum through the auspices of Sukamaran Nayar and the political
science department of the University of Kerala. After that preliminary test
of our method and theory, we laid plans for the national survey at the time
of the 1967 Indian general election. That study was done in ten languages
and in most of the Indian states. This unique project required the recruit¬
ment, training, and deployment of an expert and linguistically diverse set
of interviewers (and later, coders). A similar research effort was mounted
by the Centre at the time of the 1971 election to the Parliament. The data
from these two studies are the basis for the analysis presented here. Our
initial analysis utilizes the 1967 cross-sectional data. After the 1971 survey
data became available, we placed those findings alongside the 1967 data,
where feasible, in order to demonstrate the stability or change in the
public’s orientations and behavior. In both of these studies our vantage
point was that of the Indian citizen, in 1967 and 1971, just after he went to
the polls to vote.
There are many to whom we owe a great deal in the furtherance of this
research. Our greatest debt is to Rajni Kothari, who was as involved in the
mundane tasks of raising funds and organizing the field work as he was in
articulating and shaping the empirical and theoretical concerns of the
election surveys. His understanding of Indian politics indeed provided the
basic framework for all the empirical work done at the Delhi Centre. But
for him none of the three election studies reported here would have been
possible. We likewise owe a considerable debt to our colleagues at the
Centre, particularly Dhiru Sheth, Ashish Nandy, and Ramashray Roy, who
all helped in great measure in both designing and carrying out the two
national studies. Their skill and determination went a long way in making
an otherwise difficult task relatively easy. Dwaine Marvick of UCLA
participated in all phases of the design of the 1967 study and contributed
greatly in the subsequent analysis of the data. Richard Park was an
intellectual stimulus to us at several stages of the project. Many others,
Indians and Americans, provided insights and suggestions over the last ten
x
