I am not denying that there are some biases among educated people as well. Of course, having such biases and some kind of prejudices are common all over the world.
But isn’t it assumed as an underlying principle of democracy that citizens ponder over a bunch of candidates based on a variety of issues affecting them, their community and their nation and then vote for a suitable candidate ?
How can an illiterate person who doesn’t even know anything about his own state, let alone his country and current events make that decision ? If Dawood Ibrahmin offers them roti, kapda aur makaan they would not flinch a second to vote for him. Or they are simply goaded on by their Caste/ religious leaders and blindly vote for whoever their neighbors or Jhopadpatti votes.
Of course, having a selective franchise system is not flawless either, since having an education doesn’t mean people would be necessarily objective in selecting the right candidate.. but an educated person could at least be trusted to have a broader perspective facilitated by his ability to absorb news and current affairs from a wide variety of media sources - TV, radio, internet and newspapers.
The uneducated one, either handicapped by poverty or lethargy or (as communists would like us to believe) society, just cannot do that.
If India ever went for selective franchise-it would be reversing a global norm.From selective to universal-which is a very bad thing.Besides if the illiterate or poor lose the right to the ballot-they will be easy prey to the usual suspects-the maoists or their ilk.Democracy is India’s safety valve to vent steam.It’s not perfect,but’s it working.Proof of that is the fact that India has survived & progressed from having a population which had 85% literacy & 80% poverty.
Citizens do ponder about the issues affecting them...the problem is that many do it having a localised perspective of the national scene.So someone from Bihar may vote for Lalu because they think that he will do a better job for the state at the Centre.