The author argues that the legacy of India's caste system together with the dynamics of late capitalism have produced a society of huge differences in income and social privileges, and harsh oppression of the poor.
The story of the making of brand India—the subject of hundreds of academic as well as popular tomes mostly written by, or on behalf of the corporate houses—conveniently leaves aside the vital question of who has collared the benefits and in what proportion. That India is a great democracy and witnessing momentous changes is the trajectory of the fortunate few who have reaped the most from the neo-liberal policies, subverting democracy and reinforcing their privileges in the new power structures. For those who remain bereft of bare minimums of life and constitute 70 per cent of the population, India is a very limited, if not a sham, democracy.Of course, whenever he mentions "democracy", as with other authors, you must take this to mean the fake form of "bourgeois democracy". I think the author understands this as indicated in the following statement:
Modern democracies have been around for long enough for neo-liberal capitalists to learn how to subvert them. They have mastered the technique of infiltrating the instruments of democracy—the “independent” judiciary, the “free” press, the parliament—and moulding them to their purpose. The project of corporate globalisation has cracked the code. Free elections, a free press, and an independent judiciary mean little when the free market has reduced them to commodities available on sale to the highest bidder.
