Breaking down the question
The question turns on the relationship between two forms of democracy. Political democracy refers to the formal machinery of self government — universal adult franchise, competitive elections, representative institutions and equal political rights. Social democracy, in the sense used here, means a way of life that recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as governing principles of social relations, not merely of politics.
The directive is comment, which invites a reasoned opinion supported by argument. The word precondition is the crux — does a society need social equality before political democracy can genuinely function? You must decide whether social democracy is a foundation, a companion or a consequence of political democracy.
The framing is unmistakably Ambedkarite, so anchoring the answer in B. R. Ambedkar's thought is essential, while T. H. Marshall's account of citizenship offers a comparative lens.
How to approach it
Open by defining both terms and locating the question in Ambedkar's warning at the close of the Constituent Assembly. His concern was that India was entering a life of contradictions — political equality of one person one vote alongside social and economic inequality. Link this to the wider theme of nation, democracy and citizenship in India.
In the body, argue the affirmative case first. Without social democracy — a society animated by fraternity and free of graded inequality — political democracy risks becoming a hollow shell, since entrenched caste and class hierarchies distort participation and representation. Then add nuance — political democracy can also be an instrument for building social democracy, as reservations, welfare and rights based mobilisation show. The relationship is dialectical rather than strictly sequential.
Conclude by affirming that social democracy is the sustaining basis of political democracy — the two must advance together, or the political form will eventually be undermined by the social contradiction.
Model answer
The question echoes B. R. Ambedkar's famous caution in his final address to the Constituent Assembly. India, he warned, was about to enter a life of contradictions — in politics it would recognise the principle of one person, one vote, one value, but in social and economic life it would continue to deny that principle through structures of graded inequality. He argued that this contradiction could not last indefinitely, and that those denied equality in social life would eventually blow up the structure of political democracy. In this sense, Ambedkar treated social democracy as the indispensable base of political democracy.
For Ambedkar, social democracy meant a way of life recognising liberty, equality and fraternity as inseparable principles. Fraternity — the sense of common brotherhood and shared belonging — was for him the most vital and the most difficult to achieve in a society organised by caste. Caste, as a system of graded inequality, is the antithesis of fraternity because it ranks human worth and fragments solidarity. A society so divided cannot sustain the equal citizenship that political democracy assumes.
There is strong support for treating social democracy as a precondition. Where deep hierarchies of caste, class and gender persist, formal political rights are unequally exercised — the vote of the dependent labourer may be captured by the dominant landlord, and representation is skewed towards the powerful. Political equality on paper coexists with social subordination in practice, hollowing out democracy's substance.
Yet the relationship is better seen as reciprocal than strictly sequential. T. H. Marshall's account of citizenship shows civil, political and social rights developing together, each reinforcing the others. In India, political democracy has itself become an instrument for advancing social democracy — universal franchise empowered subordinate groups, reservations opened institutions to the excluded, and rights based mobilisation expanded social entitlements. Political democracy thus does not merely wait upon social democracy; it can help produce it.
The honest conclusion is that the two are interdependent, but social democracy is the deeper foundation. Political democracy can be established without social democracy, but it cannot be sustained or made meaningful without it. The abiding challenge of Indian democracy is to convert formal political equality into substantive social equality, so that the contradiction Ambedkar identified is gradually resolved rather than allowed to fester.
Examiner's perspective
For a ten mark answer the examiner expects precision and a clear line of argument rather than exhaustive coverage. The decisive move is to anchor the response in Ambedkar's contradiction thesis and to define social and political democracy sharply. Candidates who reproduce the liberty, equality, fraternity framework and connect fraternity to the critique of caste demonstrate genuine command.
Higher marks go to answers that avoid a one sided verdict and recognise the reciprocal relationship — social democracy underwrites political democracy, yet political democracy can be harnessed to build social democracy. A brief comparative reference to Marshall's citizenship strengthens the response without padding it.
Weak answers merely list features of democracy or stay abstract. The examiner rewards a crisp, well structured comment that takes a defensible position — that social democracy is the sustaining precondition — and closes with the Indian challenge of making political equality socially substantive.