First few words about definition of Western democracy, maybe I have different perception of it. No doubt it's admirable and on the large effective political system which evolved over considerable time since late medieval bourgeois revolutions. Whatever people may think about conditions in the West for real competition for power between different classes (many think it's plutocratic democracy where ruling cliques monopolized mass media and party machines of few large parties which naturally restrict dissidence and prevent rocking the boat) it's undeniable that the West achieved considerable results in recent centuries. Western democratic system apparently facilitated scientific and technical progress which helped the West to colonize almost all the known world to the beginning of 20th century. After devastating two world wars the West had emerged stronger than its erstwhile adversary Communism and had won the Cold War. Now with current economic crisis some tempt to think that the very foundations of Western democracies are shaken. But in context of this article we may leave the question of the West's destiny and capacity for inherent necessary changes open and turn our attention to India.  

Indian democracy is the curious case, first of all it's inherently different from what we see in the homogenized West. In many aspects it's complete opposite of the Western societies and democratic system was developed here under different conditions and served not seldom for different purposes.

India from beginning of 19th century till 1947 was British colony and Indian democracy and society was peculiar creation of both Indians and British colonizers. For example take the caste which now permeates the whole fabric of Indian society. Undeniably this was ancient Indian institution but it was spread in few areas in the north which underwent thorough Aryanization long ago. In other parts of the country before British Raj there were no castes at all, in Western and Southern India as well as along the whole Himalayan region people did not regard caste as identification mark.

British colonizers after 1818's victory over Marathas had acquired Paramountcy in the subcontinent. So they started to think how to rule their extensive dominion especially after 1820 when ad-hoc administration of soldiers gave the way to political control heavily influenced by prevalent social ideas at home. The colonizers' first desire was simple - to anglicize (westernize) Indian population, this approach held upper hand up to Great Rebellion of 1857. Basic idea of course was natural backwardness and conservatism of Oriental societies and they were expressed by historian James Mill in his "History of British India" and utilitarian-inspired reforming official Thomas Macaulay. They energetically argued for purge of "horrific customs" like Sati and the cult of Thugs at the same time wanted to create class of Indians "English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect" who would be their natural collaborators. No need to say that these "ambitious hopes were frustrated by Indian intransigence, untrustworthy intermediaries, penny-pinching and the many expedient compromises of everyday reality".[1]          

After great shock of Indian mutiny in 1857 British realized they need the system more firmly rooted in Indian traditions. So they embarked on mammoth process of systematization of their knowledge about Indian society and gradation, calibration of different social groups. The process was like as Maria Misra had put it in her "Vishnu's crowded temple":

Thus policy of establishing hierarchies (or as some might say "divide and rule") had gathered steam towards the end of 19th century and curiously resulted in casting Indian castes and natural differences in stone. If majority of Indians did not know about caste (it's Portuguese word applied to Indian varnas) they knew very well about jatis. Jati is a clan or a sort of professional guild bound by close relationships and sometimes common ancestry. There are thousands of jatis in India, many moved freely up and down social ladder in pre-British era. These jatis were arranged by British in four castes. Of course people resisted labeling them as backward or oppressed castes and used forgeries and pseudo-scientific treatises to claim more noble descent. Note: Misra in her book gives many examples of "sanscritization", I as historian know also many forgeries, for example treatises about mysterious Kalabhras (rulers of South India in 4-6 centuries who left almost no definite information and thus provided rich ground for wild speculations).

Thus India of 20th century became a unique society where, of course, democracy and the rule of law exist, yet where an individual's status is determined to large extent by his (her) origin and supposedly traditional identities of caste and religion. As Misra think this "remarkable coexistence of formal equality with notions of hierarchy and difference that helps to explain the distinctiveness of modern India. .. Its democracy is vibrant, its elections great public tamashas (festivals), its politicians spectacles in themselves - if not always edifying ones".

It's true, Indian politicians are always interesting to watch. Just another day in humoristic program on NDTV there was "presentation" of one the most notorious politicians in northern India, Sadhu Yadav. He recently left Rashtriya Janata Dal, a party led by his sister Rabri Devi and her husband, current Railways minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. Now he represents biggest hope for ruling Congress party in the poorest Indian state Bihar. Rabri Devi's puppet was presenting him in peculiar (and very funny to listen) Hinglish, with lots of "hai" and "na", which is distinctive speech marks for uneducated people.

Lalu is synonymous for corruption, in 1990s he embezzled many millions of the state fodder fund. After his indiction and enjailing he had put his allegedly illiterate wife Rabri Devi, mother of 9 children, on the throne of Bihar and she ruled as Lalu's proxy for 9 years till 2005. Of course the family is important for Indian politicians and Lalu's and Rabri's families were ruling clans in Bihar, occupying important posts under their regime.

In Man Booker-prize winning novel "The White Tiger" by Aravind Adiga there is vivid description of life and politics in poorest regions of India. He was cautious enough to change many circumstances so he cannot be sued over defamation but otherwise it's very close to truth:

Let's return to our Sadhu Yadav's NDTV presentation. Portly politician in traditional kurta-pyjama with unshaven chin looks fierce and strong, he nurtured political ambitions long ago and had many differences with Lalu in the past. Now Lalu calls him "a traitor". Rabri Devi's puppet continues: "Sadhu Yadav has only 5 issues from his wife and many more with Indian Penal Code - article 147, 148, 149, 343, 567... For dacoitry (banditism), extortion, kidnapping, rioting, murder, attempt to murder etc. But I know he is innocent, only these Congress-wallas poisoned his mind and force him to do all the wrong things. No, he has no my sympathy, I cut off any relation long ago (she is shown having lunch with Lalu). Ok, bye.". So what we should think about refined and elitist Congress led by hooty-pooty PM Manmohan Singh and madame Sonia Gandhi. Congress was not satisfied with three seats (out of forty in Bihar) given by Lalu and desperately wants to revive its organization in the state. That's why long-time allies in the centre Congress and RJD had parted ways and Congress has no choice but use the services of such strongmen with grassroot support and many criminal cases in a tow like Sadhu Yadav.

However in 2005 right wing coalition led by Janata Dal (Union) and BJP threw Rabri and Lalu out of power and started clean up of hopelessly corrupt and inefficient state machinery in Bihar. New chief minister Nitish Kumar (of JDU) belongs fortunately to low caste of Kurmis and has clean reputation and represents hopes for future of the land where Buddha got Enlightenment in 530 BC.

So widespread perception that Indians divided by castes and religious lines prefer to view the state as a source of enrichment for their particular group rather than an agent for the common good is not wholly true. Yes, India is moving on different plates, its religious communities are increasingly isolated, there are grotesque inequalities and ubiquitous violence. However, democratic system in such creative, vibrant and attractive society as India defied predictions of quick collapse, helped to preserve unity of the country after World War II and Partition, maintained relative peace and left possibility for necessary internal changes like in Bihar.

Post: quotes [1] and [2] above are taken from wonderful book "Vishnu's Crowded Temple" of Maria Misra, lecturer on Modern History at Oxford University, also I'd like to recommend "India After Gandhi" by Ramachandra Guha - comprehensive and thoroughly researched, yet beautifully written the history of the world's largest democracy.