This is for a debate in my school. If you could give me important points against the topic.
In response to #3: I apologize for misunderstanding. There are several points to make that India is at the mercy of the politicians. The first would be that the coalition style of politics that is practiced in India lends itself to politicians being the "brokers" of political power. Citizens vote for the candidates, but the party and the party elders decide what coalitions are made, what policies will be advanced, and what concessions are made in the wake of coalitions. The citizen, themselves, is left out of the process. Another reason why one can argue that the citizens are at the mercy of the politicians is that the coalition style of alignment and configuration does not lend itself to grass roots, authentic populist change. Even if there was a groundswelling of public anger and calls for reform, it is conceivable that the party leaders could identify the leaders of the populist movement and compel them to align themselves with the movement. This is called "coopting the movement," and when this happens, the movement dies because it becomes part of the institution, not against it. Another reason why India is at the mercy of politicians has to do with the body politic, themselves. Although it is world's largest democracy, there is a sense of apathy and faith in the political leadership which does not call into question the brand of politics being championed. If we examine the coalition notion of government, with political deals being brokered away from the public eye, there is a level of blindness that is evident. This contributes to a belief that government is opaque, and incapable of change, turning people away from the political process. The lure of economic growth and material satisfaction is also evident here, as an increasingly large sector of citizens are pursuing economic modes of happiness and tuning out political notions of the good in the process. Additionally, the internal strife that pits different groups against one another is magnified by some political parties. In doing this, the body politic is desensitized to the need of political change, as they are being manipulated by politicians into certain roles, while not examining the larger configuration. Politicians have always benefited at the cost of its citizens when they have created distractions and diversions at the cost of real, valid institutional discussion. The last point would be that India is at the mercy of politicians if elections are not free from any scent or taint of corruption and corrosive elements. There are those who feel that elections in India are not free from misdeeds and irregularities. This is certainly evident in some rural parts of India, where it is difficult to ensure transparency and fairness for all parties and candidates. As long as there is the slightest of this hint present, Indian citizens will have to trust their politicians' words of openness in process and procedure, and this is a difficult position in which to be.
The presumption that India is at the mercy of the politicians assumes that the people of India lack the collective will to initiate change. There are several points that can go against this. The first is that the politicians derive their power from the consent of those that are governed. This basic premise of democracy makes the suggestion that if the people of India give power, the politicians have it. Therefore, the politicians are at the mercy of the people, not the other way around. The people decide what are the important issues and vote on it. For example, the people made the decision in recent parliamentary elections to vote for the Congress party and against the BJP because Congress was able to persuade people more that they are able to respond better to the threats posed in the wake of 26/11. This is an example of how the people determine what issues are important and why the politicians are at the mercy of them. Another reason why the politicians of India are at the mercy of the people is because of the spread of information technology. The world is become less isolated from one another because of advances in information technology. This means that with advances in satellite television, internet reception, and social communication websites, people are more attune to the struggles of others. Indian citizens see what has recently happened in the United States, when its citizens demanded change and voted in not only a new president but a new set of ideals with it. Indian citizens have also witnessed the results of Iran, when the people called their governmental elections to the courtroom of transparency. Indian citizens, if nothing else, gained from these two incidents how the people control a government in a democracy, and not the other way around. Finally, I believe that as India models more and more of "Western values," this mirroring will have a political implication, as well. India will be able to embrace the political recall value of body politics of the West and demand more from their leaders, making their leaders dependent on them and not the other way around.