Mukulika Banerjee’s article provides an anthropological perspective on why disadvantaged communities in India participate enthusiastically in elections and treat voting as a “sacred ritual” of democracy. According to her, marginalized and socially disadvantaged people in India are the strongest supporters of democracy and elections despite gaining the least from them materially.

In an extremely stratified society with social hierarchies on religious, ethnic, linguistic, socio-economic, and caste-based lines, elections present a rare moment of equality for the marginalized and give them brief power over political elites. Although this power is symbolic and immaterial, it bolsters their self-respect by allowing them to express their identity and duty as citizens. During elections, people of all castes, classes, and backgrounds stand together in line to vote. As such, marginalized groups in India view elections as “sacrosanct” – a moral obligation like participating in a sacred ritual or religious ceremony.

Anastasia Piliavsky explores the relationship between electoral politics and political patronage in India through an anthropological study of rural Rajasthan during the 2008 state elections where politicians hosted extravagant feasts and distributed gifts and cash to attract voters. Although political scientists could view these overgenerous acts of patronage as “clientelism” – quite contrary to democratic ideals – for the rural masses, this symbolizes a politician’s moral responsibility and ability to provide for their constituents. This “transactional” system of patronage between “feeders” and “eaters” persists even as the latter are disappointed and lose hope in their elected politicians following the elections.

According to Piliavsky, this presents a much deeper understanding of democracy in India where in the absence of liberal, individualistic ideals, it is these acts of patronage which sustain democracy by encouraging the masses to participate in elections. The author delves into the history of “jajmani” exchanges in Indian villages during precolonial times to illustrate that although patronage in South Asia entails an asymmetry of status, it does not necessarily cause an imbalance of power. Each party depends on each other economically, politically, and socially.

In modern elections, politicians understand this and hence strategically invoke both hierarchical and populist-egalitarian rhetoric to engage voters. Quite paradoxically, two types of India – the populist and the corrupt – can coexist simultaneously and even reinforce one another. Hence, social hierarchies and (the illusion of) equal citizenship can seemingly coexist in South Asian democracies – at least according to the case studies based in India.