This ambitious book tries to provide both a normative framework to discuss the relationship between rights and democracy and, proposals for institutional reform in the Indian context. The starting point is that democracy and human rights mutually constitute each other. Human rights can flourish only in states that promote, what the author calls, ?the democratic value of the equal consideration of individual autonomy ? or each persons capacity to act independently.? A robust democracy is also, on the other hand, unimaginable without a full array of rights. The author explores these themes in relation to the Indian Constitution. The scope of the work is much wider than the title implies; it covers a wide range of issues such as democracy, human rights, secularism, multiculturalism, federalism, ecology, animal rights, and the politics of conception and work.� In each of these areas the author combines a consideration of the normative values at stake with a proposal for reform.

�

�Unfortunately, what should have been the strength of the book ends up being its principal weakness. The vast range of topics covered makes specific arguments too cryptic and hurried, and the empirical evidence for many of the reform proposals presented is rather thin. This book could serve as a useful introduction to the questions at stake in discussing democracy and human rights in India. But answers and proposals provided in the book, though appealing, are not underwritten by clear arguments.

�

�Few readers will disagree with the claim that there is a strong link between human rights and democratic values. But the author?s formulation of this link makes it almost a tautology. For instance, at some level our basic freedoms, like the right to free expression and freedom of religion, are unintelligible without the thought that we should respect the autonomy of individuals. What is more puzzling is what is gained by calling autonomy a democratic value. Indeed, as many nineteenth century theorists rightly argued, there might even be a potential tension between democracy and autonomy.� I am not quite sure why ?each person?s capacity to act independently? is itself a democratic value. This capacity might underwrite arguments for certain kind of rights, but whether this capacity is synonymous with democracy itself is a more debatable point. Does greater participation in a democratic process enhance the capacity of individuals to act independently? It is not clear why this should necessarily be the case.

�

The difficulty with the argument of the book is that it makes the mistake of supposing that every substantive moral conclusion it defends is about democracy. While its substantive moral positions are often well judged, the invocation of democracy will often obscure the argument. The book?s empirical arguments are quick and hurried.� For instance, the author notes a shift between majoritarian politics of the late sixties to ?pluralitarian? politics of the nineties. This formulation is confusing because there seems to be an elision between majoritarianism understood as Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism as one-party dominance.� But why do we have a fragmented party system and how might democracy be enhanced under such circumstances? The author rightly argues that in a large and complex polity this answer will necessarily be complicated; devolution, decentralization, limited forms of direct democracy, online access to information can all deepen democracy. But all the proposals are discussed in so cursory a manner that the reader is left baffled about what they actually mean in practice. 

 One of the proposals for deepening democracy that the author does not consider at length is intra-part democracy. There is now a vast literature on the subject that suggests that the Indian party system is ?pluralitarian? because of lack of intra-party democracy that does not give incentives for newly mobilized social groups to join existing parties. Moreover, the lack of ?representativeness? of the party system is largely due to the closed nature of political parties with few mechanisms for internal accountability.� A proper consideration of what enhances representation and democracy requires a more nuanced discussion than is presented here.

�

�The discussion of religion and secularism in the book is the most carefully argued chapter of the book and it successfully provides a typology of different interpretations of secularism. The author provides a cogent defense of what might be called a Rawlsian secularism and shows how various provisions of the Indian constitution can be defended in this normative framework. But again, the author too glibly elides over the tension between multi cultutralism and individual autonomy. Indeed, it is not clear what is the relationship between multiculturalism and autonomy? Can these be harmonized?

�

�This book raises an interesting set of questions and the ambition to treat so many topics is commendable. The author?s overall project, a defense of a humane liberalism adapted to Indian conditions, is important. It is a pity that this vision is not articulated with more precision in this book. But one hopes the talent on display in this book will, in the near future, more carefully delineate the arguments for such liberalism, and be more attentive to the kind of social science evidence that would be necessary to defend her proposals for institutional reform.
�