Democracy and the protection of human rights generally go together, but not in India. India is an outlier in the cross-national research that aims to explain human rights performance. Using state-level subnational data and drawing on the approaches pioneered at the cross-national level, the authors examine the reasons for the outlier status. Their findings suggest that the aggregate whole-nation human rights and democracy scores misrepresent the political experience of much of India. The authors find that participation, political parties, and the level and nature of opposition threat help us understand the incidence of human rights violations within India.
Amnesty International. (1999). Amnesty International annual report. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/asa20.htm
2.
Basu, A. (2001). The dialectics of Hindu nationalism. In A. Kohli (Ed.), The success of India’s democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bawn, K. (1995). Political control versus expertise: Congressional choices about administrative procedures. American Political Science Review, 89, 62-73.
4.
Bose, S. (1997). The challenge in Kashmir: Democracy, self-determination, and a just peace. New Delhi, India: Sage.
5.
Castles, F. (1982). The impact of parties: Politics and policies in democratic capitalist states. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
Census of India. (1991). Census of India, 1991. Retrieved January 17, 1999, from http://www.censusindia.net/results/1991census_data_index.html
7.
Census of India. (2001). Census of India, 2001. Retrieved February 9, 2004, from http://www.censusindia.net/results/2001census_data_index.html
8.
Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (1999). Respect for human rights after the end of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research, 36, 511-534.
9.
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Davenport, C. (1999). Human rights and the democratic proposition. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43, 92-116.
11.
Davenport, C., & Armstrong, D. A., II. (2004). Democracy and the violation of human rights: A statistical analysis from1976to 1996. American Journalof Political Science, 48, 538-554.
12.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
13.
Election Commission of India. (2005). Election statistics—full statistical reports. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.eci.gov.in/infoeci/key_stat/keystat_fs.htm
14.
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97, 75-90.
15.
Ganguly, S. (1996). Explaining the Kashmir insurgency: Political mobilization and institutional decay. International Security, 21, 76-107.
16.
Ganguly, S. (1997). The crisis in Kashmir: Portents of war, hopes of peace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Ganguly, S. (1999). Explaining India’s transition to democracy. In L. Anderson (Ed.), Transitions to democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.
18.
Gartner, S. S., & Regan, P. M. (1996). Threat and repression: The non-linear relationship between government and opposition violence. Journal of Peace Research, 33, 273-287.
19.
Heller, P. (2000). Degrees of democracy: Some comparative lessons from India. World Politics, 52, 484-519.
20.
Henderson, C. W. (1991). Conditions affecting the use of political repression. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 120-142.
21.
Human Rights Watch. (2001). World report: India. Retrieved April 5, 2001, from http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/india.html
22.
Human Rights Watch. (2005). World report: India. Retrieved April 21, 2005, from http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/india9824.htm
23.
Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
Imbeau, L. M., Petry, F., & Lamari, M. (2001). Left-right party ideology and government policies: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 40, 1-29.
25.
Indian Ministry of Home Affairs. (2001). Annual report, 2000-2001. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from http://mha.nic.in/contents-01.htm
26.
Kohli, A. (1990). Democracy and discontent: India’s growing crisis of governability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (2003). New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975-95. American Political Science Review, 97, 425-446.
28.
Landman, T. (2001, September). Measuring the international human rights regime. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Meeting, San Francisco.
29.
Lichbach, M. (1995). The rebel’s dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 158-199.
31.
Lijphart, A. (1996). The puzzle of Indian democracy: A consociationalinterpretation. The American Political Science Review, 90, 258-268.
32.
Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
Mendez, J. E., O’Donnell, G., & Pinheiro, P. S. (Eds.). (1999). The (un)rule of law and the under-privileged in Latin America. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
34.
Mishra, P. (2000a, October 5). The birth of a nation. The New York Review of Books, 47 (15), 32-37.
35.
Mishra, P. (2000b, October 19). Kashmir: The unending war. The New York Review of Books, 47 (16), 23-26.
36.
Mishra, P. (2004, August 12). India: The neglected majority wins!The New York Review of Books, 51 (13), 30-33.
37.
Mitchell, N. J. (2004). Agents of atrocity: Leaders, followers, and human rights violations in civil wars. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
Mitchell, N. J., & McCormick, J. M. (1988). Economic and political explanations of human rights violations. World Politics, 40, 476-498.
39.
Munck, G., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 5-34.
40.
National Human Rights Commission. (1999). 1998-1999 annual report. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://nhrc.nic.in
41.
Nirmal, C. J. (1999). Human rights in India: Historical, social, and political perspectives. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
42.
Peters, G. B. (1998). Comparative politics: Theory and methods. New York: New York University Press.
43.
Poe, S. C., Carey, S. C., & Vasquez, T. C. (2001). How are these pictures different? A quantitative comparison of the U.S. State Department Reports and Amnesty International Reports, 1976-1995. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 650-677.
44.
Poe, S. C., & Tate, C. N. (1994). Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review, 88, 853-872.
45.
Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., & Manin, B. (Eds.).(1999). Democracy, accountability, andrepresentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Rothman, D. J., & Neier, A. (1991, May 16). India’s awful prisons. The New York Review of Books, 38 (9), 44-44.
47.
Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
48.
Schlesinger, J. A. (1991). Political parties and the winning of office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
49.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
50.
Sen, A. (2000). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.
51.
Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 88-105.
52.
U. S. Department of State. (1998). Country reports on human rights practices in India. Retrieved October 6, 2000, from http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1998_hrp_report/india.html
53.
U. S. Department of State. (1999). Country reports on human rights practices in India. Retrieved October 6, 2000, from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/1999/438.htm
54.
Vanhanen, T. (1990). The process of democratization: A comparative study of 147 states, 1980- 88. New York: Crane, Russak.
55.
Vanhanen, T. (2000). A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810-1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37, 251-265.
56.
Varshney, A. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civil life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
Weiner, M. (1968). State politics in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58.
Weiner, M. (1989). The Indian paradox: Essays in Indian politics. New Delhi, India: Sage.
59.
Weingast, B. (1997). The political foundations of democracy and the rule of law. The American Political Science Review, 91, 245-263.
60.
Wilkinson, S. I. (2004). Votes and violence: Electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. New York: Cambridge University Press.
