India, the world’s largest democracy, has long been celebrated for its robust democratic institutions, pluralistic society, and vibrant political discourse. However, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), elected in 2014 and securing a second term in 2019, the country has witnessed a significant shift towards authoritarianism. This article explores the various dimensions of this shift, the implications for India’s democratic fabric, and the broader global context within which these changes are occurring.
Modi’s Economic and Infrastructural Achievements
Modi’s government has made significant strides in infrastructure development, expanding access to sanitation, water facilities, roads, railways, airports, and seaports. These initiatives have garnered widespread appreciation, especially from the beneficiaries of various social schemes such as the food distribution program, which provides essential grains to millions of people. This tangible improvement in living conditions has solidified Modi’s support base, with many viewing him as a leader who delivers on his promises.
However, Modi’s tenure has also seen a disturbing trend towards undermining democratic institutions and stifling dissent.
The Genesis of Authoritarian Tendencies
When Modi’s BJP swept to power in 2014, it was on the back of promises of economic development and good governance. These promises were inextricably linked to a strong undercurrent of Hindu nationalism, known locally as ‘Hindutva’. This ideological stance, rooted in the belief of India as fundamentally a Hindu nation, has shaped many of the government’s policies and actions, often at the expense of India’s secular fabric and democratic norms.
The Historical Context
Understanding the current political climate in India requires a look at the historical context. India’s journey as a modern nation-state began with its independence from British colonial rule in 1947. The early years of independence were marked by efforts to build a secular, democratic republic under the leadership of the Indian National Congress, particularly figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.
The period of the Emergency (1975-77) under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi is often cited as a dark chapter in India’s democratic history.
Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, declared a state of Emergency on June 25, 1975, a move that suspended constitutional rights and curtailed freedom of speech and press for 21 months. This drastic measure was taken for several reasons.
The immediate trigger was the political unrest spreading across Northern India, particularly in Gujarat and Bihar, where movements led by Jayaprakash Narayan and other opposition leaders challenged the authority of Gandhi’s government. These movements created significant internal disturbances, which the government deemed a threat to national security and democracy.
Gandhi justified the Emergency as necessary for rapid economic development and the upliftment of the underprivileged. She argued that the prevailing political instability hindered the government’s efforts to implement economic reforms and social programs effectively.
Another reason cited by Gandhi was the threat of intervention by foreign powers, which she claimed could destabilize and weaken India. The government believed that a strong, centralized control was essential to prevent external influences from exploiting the internal political turmoil.
The official justification for the Emergency was to control “internal disturbance.” This broad term allowed the government to imprison political leaders, activists, and trade unionists without trial, effectively stifling dissent and consolidating Gandhi’s power.
The suspension of civil liberties, press censorship, and political repression during this period have drawn comparisons with the current situation under Modi. However, the Emergency was a temporary phase, whereas the current trends towards authoritarianism appear more entrenched and systemic.
The Role of the Congress Party
For much of its post-independence history, the Congress Party dominated Indian politics. The party’s commitment to secularism and social justice helped maintain a delicate balance in a diverse and pluralistic society. However, the party’s decline in recent decades, due to corruption scandals, internal divisions, and an inability to adapt to changing political dynamics, has created a vacuum that the BJP has effectively filled.
The Congress Party’s failure to present a coherent and united opposition to the BJP has further exacerbated the democratic decline. Rahul Gandhi, the party’s de facto leader, has struggled to galvanize support and articulate a compelling alternative vision for India. This has allowed the BJP to consolidate power and push its agenda with little effective resistance.
Centralization of Power and Institutional Undermining
A hallmark of Modi’s governance has been the centralization of power. This approach has manifested in several ways, from the unilateral implementation of major economic policies like demonetization in 2016, to the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in 2019. These decisions, made with little consultation or debate, underscore a trend towards executive overreach.
Moreover, the undermining of democratic institutions has been a recurring theme. The judiciary, traditionally a bulwark against executive excess, has seen its independence questioned as it increasingly appears aligned with government interests. High-profile cases involving dissenters and critics of the government have been handled in ways that suggest judicial complicity with executive aims. Similarly, India’s media landscape has been marred by a growing concentration of ownership and increased pressure on journalists, leading to a decline in press freedom. The country has slipped in the World Press Freedom Index, reflecting the increasingly perilous environment for journalists.
The Use of Repressive Legislation
Legislative tools have been instrumental in advancing the BJP’s authoritarian agenda. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is a case in point. Originally enacted in 1967, the UAPA has been amended to allow the government to designate individuals as terrorists without due process. This has been used to target activists, journalists, and opposition figures, effectively silencing dissent. Between 2014 and 2020, over 10,000 people were arrested under the UAPA, with a minuscule conviction rate, highlighting the law’s use as a tool of intimidation rather than justice.
Another controversial piece of legislation is the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which offers a pathway to citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries.
Coupled with the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), the CAA has raised fears of disenfranchisement among India’s Muslim population. Critics argue that this legislative framework is a blatant attempt to redefine Indian citizenship along religious lines, undermining the country’s secular ethos.
Impact on Minority Rights
The Modi government’s tenure has been marked by a troubling increase in violence and discrimination against minorities, particularly Muslims. The 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the deaths of over 50 people, predominantly Muslims, highlighted the government’s complicity and the police’s passive or active role in the violence. This incident is part of a broader pattern of intolerance and violence against minorities, often incited by inflammatory rhetoric from BJP leaders.
Lynchings and mob violence have also become alarmingly common, with Muslims frequently targeted on suspicions of cow slaughter or beef consumption. The government’s response to such incidents has been tepid, often downplaying the severity or implicitly justifying the actions. This environment of impunity has emboldened perpetrators and deepened communal divides.
The Role of Hindutva
The RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), a right-wing, Hindu nationalist organization closely associated with the BJP, has played a significant role in shaping the government’s agenda. The RSS’s influence is evident in the party’s policies and rhetoric, which often seek to marginalize non-Hindu communities. The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the subsequent sectarian violence was a precursor to the current climate of religious intolerance.
Modi’s own political career is deeply intertwined with the RSS, having been an active member since his youth. His tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat was marred by the 2002 riots, which saw large-scale violence against Muslims. Despite allegations of complicity, Modi’s political fortunes soared, eventually leading to his ascendancy as Prime Minister. The BJP’s current governance model, often referred to as the “Gujarat Model,” blends economic development with a strong dose of Hindutva, setting the tone for its national policies.
Modi’s rhetoric and policies have emboldened Hindu nationalist groups like the RSS, leading to instances of mob lynching over allegations related to cow protection and the demolition of Muslim-owned properties under the guise of anti-encroachment drives. The symbolic construction of Ram Mandir on the site of the demolished Babri Masjid further exemplifies this divisive agenda.
Economic Policies and Social Impact
Modi’s economic policies have also played a role in consolidating authoritarian control. The 2016 demonetization, which aimed to curb black money and promote digital transactions, was implemented abruptly, causing widespread economic disruption. Critics argue that the policy was less about economic reform and more about projecting an image of decisive leadership.
Similarly, the Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced in 2017, while simplifying the tax regime, has faced criticism for its complex implementation and adverse impact on small businesses.
These policies, while ostensibly aimed at economic reform, have often been characterized by a lack of transparency and consultation, reflective of the government’s centralized decision-making approach.
Economic insecurity and inequality have further fueled social tensions. The pandemic exacerbated these issues, with the government’s handling of the crisis drawing widespread criticism. Lockdowns were imposed with little notice, leading to a humanitarian crisis as millions of migrant workers were left stranded without support. The economic fallout has been severe, with rising unemployment and poverty levels, creating fertile ground for divisive politics.
Suppression of Dissent
Dissent has been increasingly stifled under Modi’s rule. Protests against the CAA and NRC were met with a heavy-handed response, including police brutality and mass arrests. The farmers’ protests against new agricultural laws, which lasted over a year, saw similar tactics, with the government resorting to internet shutdowns and barricading protest sites.
The targeting of activists and critics has extended beyond India’s borders. The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh leader in Canada, allegedly orchestrated by Indian agents, has highlighted the government’s willingness to go to extreme lengths to silence opposition. This incident, part of a broader pattern of harassment and intimidation faced by the Sikh diaspora, underscores the Modi administration’s authoritarian bent.
Political opponents of Modi and the BJP frequently encounter legal and financial pressures. Opposition leaders have been arrested or had their assets frozen, often on dubious charges. This tactic, known colloquially as the “washing machine,” cleanses politicians’ records once they join the BJP, highlighting the selective application of the law.
International Relations and Authoritarianism
India’s foreign policy under Modi has also reflected its domestic authoritarian tendencies. The government’s increasingly assertive stance, particularly towards Pakistan and China, has been used to rally nationalist sentiment. The 2019 Balakot airstrikes and the 2020 border clashes with China have been leveraged to project Modi as a strong leader defending India’s sovereignty.
However, this assertiveness has strained relations with several countries. Canada-India relations, for instance, have been significantly impacted by the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and the subsequent diplomatic fallout. Similarly, India’s handling of the Kashmir issue has drawn international criticism, with the UN and various human rights organizations condemning the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent lockdown and communication blackout in the region.
Despite these concerns, India’s strategic importance as a counterbalance to China has tempered international responses. Western democracies, particularly the United States, have often prioritized geopolitical considerations over human rights, leading to a muted response to India’s democratic backsliding.
Digital Authoritarianism
The rise of digital authoritarianism under Modi’s government has further restricted democratic freedoms. The use of surveillance technologies and internet shutdowns to control dissent has become increasingly common. The government has also exerted pressure on social media companies to censor content critical of its policies. The frequent use of internet shutdowns, particularly in conflict-prone areas like Kashmir, has been criticized as a draconian measure to stifle dissent and control the narrative.
The BJP’s IT cell has been instrumental in spreading misinformation and targeting critics. Social media platforms have become battlegrounds for propaganda, with coordinated attacks on journalists, activists, and opposition figures. This digital onslaught has created an environment of fear and self-censorship, further eroding the space for free expression.
The Role of Civil Society and Media
Civil society organizations and the media have traditionally played a critical role in holding the government accountable and safeguarding democratic values in India. However, under Modi’s regime, these institutions have faced unprecedented challenges.
Press freedom in India has deteriorated significantly, with the country ranking 159th out of 180 countries.
Media outlets that criticize the government often face raids and legal challenges, creating a climate of fear and self-censorship.
Journalists and media houses critical of the government have been targeted through legal harassment, intimidation, and violence.Prominent news channels like NDTV have experienced ownership changes that align them more closely with the government, reducing critical coverage. The arrest of prominent journalists and the use of sedition and anti-terrorism laws to stifle dissent are indicative of a broader assault on press freedom.
Civil society organizations have also been under siege. The use of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to restrict funding for NGOs, particularly those involved in human rights and advocacy, has severely hampered their operations. Prominent organizations like Amnesty International have been forced to cease operations in India due to financial and legal pressures.
The Judiciary and Rule of Law
The judiciary has historically acted as a check on executive power in India. However, under Modi’s regime, the independence of the judiciary has been increasingly called into question. The appointment of judges, particularly to the Supreme Court, has been mired in controversy, with allegations of executive interference.
High-profile cases involving dissenters and critics of the government have seen judicial decisions that appear to align with government interests. The delay in hearing important cases, such as those challenging the CAA and the abrogation of Article 370, has further eroded confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.
The rule of law in India has been undermined by the selective application of justice. The use of repressive laws like the UAPA and sedition to target political opponents and activists, while allowing perpetrators of violence against minorities to go unpunished, has created a climate of fear and impunity.
The Impact on Federalism
India’s federal structure, which grants significant autonomy to its states, has also been under strain. The centralization of power under Modi has led to conflicts with state governments, particularly those ruled by opposition parties. The imposition of President’s Rule, the dismissal of elected state governments, and the withholding of financial resources have been used as tools to undermine state autonomy.
The handling of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted these tensions, with states often finding themselves at odds with the central government over resources, policies, and strategies. The lack of a coordinated response exacerbated the crisis, leading to widespread criticism of the government’s handling of the situation.
The Rise of Populist Authoritarianism
Modi’s leadership style and governance model reflect the rise of populist authoritarianism seen in other parts of the world. Leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro share similar traits of centralizing power, undermining democratic institutions, and exploiting societal divisions.
These leaders often project themselves as strongmen capable of decisive action, contrasting themselves with the perceived inefficacy of liberal democratic norms. Modi’s rhetoric and policies resonate with a significant portion of the Indian population, particularly those disillusioned with the previous political establishment.
The narrative of Hindu nationalism, economic reforms, and a strong stance on national security has broad appeal. Modi’s use of media and social media to directly communicate with the populace, bypassing traditional channels of accountability, has been a key factor in his political success.
The International Context
The rise of authoritarianism in India must also be viewed in the broader international context. The post-Cold War era’s expectation of a global shift towards liberal democracy has faced significant challenges. The resurgence of authoritarian regimes, even in established democracies, reflects a broader crisis of liberalism and a shift towards more nationalist and populist forms of governance.
India’s strategic importance as a counterbalance to China has tempered international responses to its democratic backsliding. Western democracies, particularly the United States, have often prioritized geopolitical considerations over human rights, leading to a muted response to India’s internal policies. The Quad alliance, comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia, aims to counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region, further complicating the international community’s stance on India’s domestic issues.
The Role of Technology
Technology has played a dual role in India’s democratic trajectory. On the one hand, the rise of digital authoritarianism has restricted democratic freedoms. The use of surveillance technologies and internet shutdowns to control dissent has become increasingly common. The government has exerted pressure on social media companies to censor content critical of its policies.
On the other hand, technology has also been a tool for democratic activism. Social media platforms have enabled activists and civil society organizations to mobilize support, raise awareness, and challenge government narratives.
The farmers’ protests, for instance, were significantly bolstered by digital activism, drawing international attention and support.
Digital influencers like Dhruv Rathee have emerged as significant voices in Indian democracy. Rathee, with his massive reach of 55 million unique YouTube users, utilizes his platform to disseminate information, critique government policies, and mobilize public opinion. His meticulous approach, involving extensive research, fact-checking, and legal vetting, ensures the credibility of his content, which is crucial in an era of rampant misinformation.
As traditional media outlets face increased government control and censorship, many seasoned journalists have transitioned to digital platforms. For instance, Ravish Kumar, a prominent TV anchor, moved to YouTube after his station, NDTV, was taken over by a businessman with close ties to the government. This shift has allowed independent journalists to continue their work and reach wide audiences without the constraints imposed by mainstream media ownership.
The term “godi media” (lapdog media) coined by Ravish Kumar highlights the perception of mainstream media as overly compliant with government narratives. In contrast, YouTube channels and social media accounts have provided a counter-narrative, exposing governmental shortcomings and holding leaders accountable. This independent reporting has covered critical issues like unemployment, economic inequality, and exaggerated government claims.
Digital platforms have facilitated mass mobilization and advocacy.
Influencers and digital activists can rally support and encourage civic participation on a scale previously unattainable. Dhruv Rathee’s video on the eve of the 2024 elections is a prime example, where he urged his vast audience to safeguard democracy and resist authoritarian tendencies.
The Indian government’s attempts to regulate the digital space have been met with resistance. The proposed Fact Check Unit (FCU) and other media regulation bills have been challenged in court, reflecting the ongoing struggle to maintain freedom of expression. The Supreme Court’s intervention to halt the FCU initiative underscores the legal battles fought to protect digital democracy.
The battle over digital space reflects the broader struggle between authoritarianism and democratic resistance. The government’s efforts to control the narrative through digital means highlight the need for vigilance and resistance from civil society to protect democratic freedoms.
Modi’s Weakened Position and the Future
The recent election has dealt a blow to Modi’s previously unassailable political dominance. While he secured a third term, the BJP failed to achieve an outright parliamentary majority, falling short of its 370 target in the 543-seat lower house of parliament (Lok Sabha). This disappointing result has damaged the Modi brand and highlighted the unpredictable nature of Indian politics.
Local livelihood issues ultimately proved decisive for voters, overshadowing the BJP’s efforts to leverage India’s rising global status and its Hindu nationalist credentials. The BJP’s Hindutva rhetoric failed to resonate in large parts of the country, particularly in regions with a more cosmopolitan and secular outlook, such as the south, and among India’s religious minorities.
Despite his weakened position, it is too soon to write off Modi completely. He is only the second prime minister in India’s history to secure three consecutive terms in office, following Jawaharlal Nehru. Modi has demonstrated an ability to reinvent himself, and the BJP remains a formidable force in Indian politics.
The Role of Coalition Politics
The BJP will be more beholden to coalition partners, making the political landscape more complex. Regional parties like the JD(U) in Bihar and TDP in Andhra Pradesh have emerged as kingmakers. This dynamic is likely to lead to more consensus-based policymaking, reducing the likelihood of abrupt policy shifts such as the sudden COVID-19 lockdown in 2021.
Cabinet appointments and state elections will be key areas to watch. The BJP’s poor performance in Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest and most electorally significant state, will undermine the standing of potential successors like Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Upcoming state elections in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and Haryana will also impact the BJP’s position in the upper house of parliament (Rajya Sabha), where the party lacks a majority.
Policy Implications
The weakened mandate of the BJP-led coalition government will likely impact policymaking efficacy. Progress on politically sensitive economic reforms, such as land acquisition and labor reforms, will be more challenging. However, policymaking may become more consensus-based and less prone to abrupt shifts.
The BJP’s manifesto pledged to make India a developed country by 2047.
Creating a more enabling environment for foreign investment and transforming India into a trusted global manufacturing hub will be key policy priorities. However, the coalition government’s internal dynamics and potential changes in global political landscapes could delay progress on free trade negotiations and other initiatives.
Foreign Policy Considerations
India’s foreign policy is expected to remain assertive, albeit in a more muted form. The new BJP-led coalition government will likely focus more on domestic issues following the disappointing election result. Controversial elements of India’s muscular foreign policy, such as allegations of involvement in assassination plots abroad, are also likely to be toned down.
The election result has highlighted the strength and resilience of India’s democracy, reaffirming its secular credentials. However, it also raises questions about the impact of a weakened third-term Modi government on India’s policymaking efficacy and the assertiveness of its foreign policy.
Conclusion
The rise of authoritarianism in India under Modi’s BJP has profound implications for democracy, minority rights, and global perceptions of India. The erosion of democratic institutions, increasing repression of dissent, and systematic marginalization of minorities highlight the urgent need for domestic and international action to uphold democratic values and human rights in India. The world must carefully reassess its view of India as a counterbalance to authoritarian regimes, considering the country’s own trajectory towards authoritarianism.
India’s status as the world’s largest democracy is at a critical juncture.
The recent elections and the subsequent weakened position of the BJP present both challenges and opportunities. The necessity for coalition politics may lead to more balanced and consensus-driven policymaking, potentially curbing some of the more authoritarian tendencies of the Modi government. However, the resilience of India’s democratic institutions and the vigilance of its citizens will be crucial in ensuring that the country remains committed to democratic principles and human rights.
The international community, while recognizing India’s strategic importance, must also hold it accountable to the principles of democracy and human rights that form the foundation of its global partnerships. The next few years will be critical in determining whether India can reverse the trends towards authoritarianism and reclaim its democratic promise. The resilience of its civil society, the independence of its institutions, and the vigilance of its citizens will be key in shaping the future of Indian democracy.
