The discussion carried so far brings out three points that require to be dealt with more carefully to understand the emerging contours of India’s democracy. First, despite severe challenges from within and the consolidation and triumph of forces opposed to democracy in the neighbouring states, India’s experience with democratic forms of politics and government is rather successful. Although the British democratic tradition contributed immensely to India’s democracy, equally significant is the role of the Congress Party, which sustained the democratic spirit at least institutionally since its inception. Not only did the Congress stalwarts absorb the democratic values, they played a role in legitimizing democratic rule as a whole. The general concern is not so much for the substance of political authority as for the mechanisms entailing elections, representation and mandate obtained through adult suffrage. They derive their sustenance from the 1950 Constitution, which provides for a specific structure of political life ‘by allowing and encouraging (within limits) popular participation in the political system within a framework of rules, rights, structures and processes which must be broadly respected by both rulers and ruled’. Here probably lies the strength of India’s democracy, which has developed a different mode of legitimacy to consolidate itself in the context of challenges from within and outside its boundaries. Despite the pronounced socialist tilt of both Nehru and Indira Gandhi, the fact that the party never identified itself with the left shows the extent to which the centrist ideology prevailed over other considerations. Similarly, the argument that the right-wing elements found in the party an effective instrument to champion their goals also reveals the careful handling of the party’s centrist image. In the Indian context, centrism, according to an analyst, therefore means that: only those formation(s) which can appeal to a broad cross section of classes and castes could hope to come to power nationally. This has implied not the absence of ideology but a capacity for ideological flexibility, a general programme which seeks to be consensual and to avoid too close an identification with left or right. Second, in the context of a rapidly changing political scenario, the logic of explaining the continuity of the Congress Party as a centrist force in terms of its ability to carry the masses by offering a general consensual programme may appear unacceptable because no longer is the contention valid that the Congress vote-bank comprising the upper caste and the core minorities (Dalits, tribals and Muslims) remains intact.