I think you're confusing "democracy" with "secular humanism." India is a deeply conservative, religious place. The people voting don't have any problems with laws that prohibit hurting peoples' religious feelings.
This is there even in the Indian Constitution. The govt. is allowed to impose restrictions on fundamental rights in order to maintain order and harmony. First Amendment absolutism is totally out of the question in the Indian context.
Also, I am from the East though I grew up in the West, and the attempt to deflect criticism just on the basis of "it's a different society" is disgusting, a hindrance to progress, and frankly quite racist. There is an ongoing campaign in India against the practice of dowry, I guess you also want to argue "Westerners don't understand that India just traditionally has dowry"??
There is hardly any problem related to dowry. Come, have a look. 'Dowry' exists in media which consists of third grade students turned women-right activists.
For mathematically minded people, I will just quote recent supreme court judgment about the reality of dowry and dowry harassment lawsuit (498(a) IPC):
"The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal."
I suppose 85% acquittal rate is just collateral damage, except that dowry was exactly how women used to get their parental property rights in India! But that is too Indian for Indians educated in western schools. So instead of codifying dowry as mandatory to protect women's rights from being infringed by her family, feminists would rather use misandry and enable women to vent their frustration on her husband. So we got ridiculous laws like dowry harassment lawsuit (1983) and dowry prohibition lawsuit, and then they realized that husbands demanding dowry is actually a rarity and reality is not at all as media would like to have use believe. So finally they passed equal property rights for women in 2005.
Bit by bit, you know. There is a reason why villages in India give an impression of being lawless.
Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
Regarding the second paragraph, that whole argument comes from Madhu Kishwar but because I don't have the exact url I will leave it at that.
As per the effects of feminist media upon Indian villages (where, as Gandhi said, real India lives), I would ask you to go through these: 1. http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/DV_is_not_a_gender_issue.ht... 2. http://www.odsg.org/Said_Edward%281977%29_Orientalism.pdf 3. http://www.rediff.com/news/special/ls-election-madhu-kishwar...
Regarding your links about feminism, [1] is not relevant to India, [2] is you being very lazy - I'm not going to read through 400 pages just to entertain your whims, you will need to quote specific extracts from it, and [3] is fairly neutral regarding feminists.
You also seem to getting offended personally that I am pointing out problems with your country. I don't know what to do, other than point out that this reaction is not rational, and that I don't mean personal offence.
Regarding dowry related death, any death of wife within 7 years of marriage is reported as dowry related death. Why? So police-lawyer-NCW nexus can make money out of it by harassing husband. A lot of times even women's family jumps in to make money. That is the level of discrimination women face. For example, the dowry harassment lawsuit (498a IPC) is non-cognizable, which means once filed, it cannot be taken back. Then it is Husband vs. The State. The moment a death occurs police and lawyers will convince family members to file 498a. Then they can simply use it to extort lakhs. My friend himself paid 10 lakhs. Is NCW interested in that data? No. It actively hides the real data, instead relying on vague statistics like 'how many dowry related deaths have been reported to police' and not 'how many dowry related deaths actually happened'. And why not? NCW is run by politicians and wives of corrupt IPS officers.
'leephilips said: "India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy."
You said: "It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it."
A perfectly well-functioning democratic society can reach conclusions that are worthy of criticism. People have a habit of blaming the process for grievances they have with the substantive outcomes of the process.
E.g. people on Hacker News rant about how democracy in the U.S. must not be functioning because the drug war still rages on. The drug war is, in my opinion, a policy worthy of criticism. Yet, it's undeniable that it enjoys popular support. It was only this year that marijuana legalization managed to carry a (slim) majority of registered voters. As recently as 10-15 years ago, there was a 2:1 consensus against even legalization of marijuana--forget about ending the drug war entirely.
It's easy to blame the process for results you don't like. It's harder to admit that the process is fine, you just don't like what people do with their right to self-determination.
By "democracy" I have in mind what Americans and Western Europeans mean by democracy, which is decidedly not a simple tyranny of the majority enacted through voting. Democracy in any meaningful sense has some means of self regulation that preserves certain rights and perpetuates self-determination for future generations.
I'm not blaming the process. The U.S. still has a serviceable democracy despite the drug war and all the other examples of bad public policy that are desired by the people. Our democracy has even survived the violation of parts of the constitution that makes it possible. My point was that no democracy can exist in any meaningful sense in a society that has criminalized the discussion of ideas and the expression of opinions. Once that line has been crossed it is not a matter of undesirable public policy, but of democracy eating itself. Surely you agree that there can be no democracy if you're not allowed to talk about how people should vote.
India has become a place where you can be jailed for exposing the physical cause of a weeping statue because you've hurt the feelings of the Catholics who want to believe that it's a miracle. I don't believe democracy can exist under such conditions, but I hope things change soon for this great nation.