BHARATA BHARATI

Furthermore, global platforms are abuzz with condemnatory judgments emanating from international oversight institutions. Freedom House, in its Democracy under Siege report (2021), downgraded India from “free” to “partly free”. It also accused the Modi administration of carrying out concerted endeavours to muzzle voices of dissent in the corridors of media and academia. That same year, V-Dem gave India a negative rating in its Democracy Report 2021, branding the nation an “electoral autocracy”. According to V-Dem, the Modi-led BJP regime has misused the provisions of sedition, defamation and counterterrorism as potent instruments to quell its critics and opponents. Skip a couple of years to 2023. V-Dem calls India “one of the worst autocratisers in the last 10 years”, placing it in the bottom 40-50% on its Liberal Democracy Index at rank 97. We fare even more poorly at rank 108 on the Electoral Democracy Index, and stand at 123 on the Egalitarian Component Index.

Not far behind is the Economist Intelligence Unit, which considers itself a global arbiter on matters such as democratic robustness. India was demoted in their 2023 Democracy Index to 46th place. Is there any point mentioning that quite similarly, in the World Democracy Matrix 2020, very unlikely states such as Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste, Guyana, Malawi, Albania, Liberia, Kenya and Colombia rank higher than India, which was ranked as low as 85 of the 176 countries measured? India is not even a “Deficient Democracy”, let alone a “Working Democracy”, according to this index put out by the University of Würzburg , which labels the country as a “Hybrid Regime”.

Suddenly the familiar refrain echoes across the world: “Democratic backsliding.” A phrase that encapsulates the power these regulators wield over how we are perceived, with them alleging that the very fabric of India’s democratic ethos is undergoing a gradual, inexorable unravelling. International agencies, exercising their metrics as analytical blades, slice through the lived experience of 1.4 billion Indians. In the global arena, India stands as both subject and spectacle, grappling with the apparently weighty implications of these downgrades as if these agencies are the ones determining the democratic destiny of this great nation. Ironically, the very states which ruled the world as brutal colonial powers are today the watchdogs of human rights and democracy.

A slew of influential US politicians, including senators and members of the US Congress, have also been trying to take India down based on its track record on democracy and minority rights. The most visible of these was former US president Barack Obama, whose remarks to CNN were so well-circulated—and countered by the BJP top brass—that they don’t need repetition. So, what is the truth? Is democracy in danger in India under Narendra Modi? This question assumes added importance because we are facing a general election next year that will determine who forms our government at the Centre.

Before offering a counter, let us give the devil, or in the present instance, the choir of those largely Western or Indian anti-Modi and anti-BJP decriers of Indian democracy, their due. Yes, it is possible to argue that India’s freedoms have diminished under the Modi-led BJP government—that there is greater intolerance of dissent, more concerted attempts to control if not muzzle the media, a deliberate marginalisation of Modi’s critics and opponents, attempts to take over or control institutions, and targeted social media bashing or hounding of critics.

Furthermore, we have seen unprecedented centralisation of power and the promotion of the personality cult of Modi and the polarisation of the public sphere, where there is hardly any middle ground left for one to take issue-based or even independent positions. Forget about speaking truth to power; just speaking the truth as one sees it has become somewhat hazardous for all, be it an academic or public intellectual. Worst of all, parliament itself has become dysfunctional, thus undermining the most important pillar of our democracy. Let us suppose, by way of our purvapaksha, that these allegations are true in some, whether small or large, measure.

In the second part, we will consider the uttarapaksha, or the response to these charges or allegations. To begin with, who would deny that Modi has done more for India’s growth, prosperity, welfare and international standing than most of his predecessors? But is “electoral autocracy” the prerequisite for such progress? – The New Indian Express, 15 August 2023

Part Two

Democracy is in decline in India, but TINA rules,” say well-off, intellectually inclined supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. What is TINA? “There is no alternative.” These friends point to the improvement in India’s global standing and image. India’s economic and military power, not to speak of the size of its population, cannot be ignored or taken for granted any longer. A strong India is not only in our national interests but crucial for a stable world order. India has finally ceased punching below its weight. The credit for this, they argue, must go fairly and squarely to Narendra Modi.

True. In addition, the Modi administration’s dedication to development, efficiency, the fight against corruption, and success in righting the national narrative—all these must be acknowledged.

In his Independence Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort, Modi outlined the achievements of his government since 2014, promising that India would become the world’s third-largest economy in his next term. He not only spelt out his dreams for India’s Amrit Kaal, the ambrosial period until 2047 which marks 100 years of Independence from the British, but also, as is his wont, rehearsed the litany of his government’s achievements. The body language of his VVIP listeners said it all—they looked stoically bored, if not uninterested. They were the passive and captive audience. Moreover, they had heard it all before.

But they and their ilk, if asked and able to respond, would point out that every single tendency or trend to limit our freedoms today existed in the past too. In fact, things have been as bad at other times during the 75 years of our independence and worse during the dark days of the Emergency. Also, similar attacks on democracy are prevalent right now in many non-BJP-ruled states, where appalling violence is directed at the opponents of the party in power. Journalists, academics, and even cartoonists are arrested arbitrarily; there is little respect for the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, let alone civil liberties and fundamental rights.

The leaders of these states are also intolerant of criticism and have similar personality cults spun around them. But these leaders and parties are not criticised as much as Modi or the BJP by Western media or the desi commentariat. On the contrary, the spokespersons or followers of these parties continually accuse Modi and the BJP of the sins that they themselves commit flagrantly. Selective or targeted criticism is, therefore, not fair.

More importantly, runs the counter-argument, there is a larger context in which “democratic backsliding” occurs nationally and internationally. And ignoring this context leads to grave errors in judgement and a significant distortion of reality.

Nationally, authoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies feed off each other, whether at the level of the Centre or state. They mimic and amplify one another, resulting in a vicious cycle of competitive despotism, all in the service of the politics of seeking and retaining power. Power at all costs and with all means—fair if possible, foul if necessary.

Internationally, the erosion of democratic values works similarly across nations and geographies. If autocratic or, as the euphemism goes, “strong” leaders have been re-elected to power in several countries, there must be a reason for this. A reason that also applies to India. These leaders, usually neo-nationalists, are seen by the majority of their population as protecting the fundamental character of their countries during a time of great stress and transition. Moreover, many, if not most, of these strong leaders, also deliver or are perceived to deliver on governance and development much more efficiently and satisfactorily than their weak and ineffective opponents.

If Modi-supporting classes offer such justifications, what about the masses? Unfortunately, most among the latter care little about “democratic backsliding”. They want the basic necessities of life—roti, kapda, makaan—and bathrooms and gas cylinders too. Better infrastructure, healthcare and national security. Less corruption. Of course, jobs. But on none of these crucial indicators does the opposition have anything better to offer.

In India, democracy means the rule of the majority. If the majority does not mind, and even endorses authoritarian trends, who is to blame? Does democracy, paradoxically, prefer to curtail its own freedom in favour of governance-effective authoritarianism?

The outcome of the polls next year will provide more concrete answers. If Modi wins with the kind of numbers that he himself is predicting, why would he change what has worked so well for him till now? But if the numbers do not result in a “brute majority”, there may be some easing of the “bulldozer mentality”.

Those crying over “democratic backsliding” must find a way to translate abstract notions of freedom into electoral costs or outcomes. Else, democracies offer few checks to determined strongmen.

In the dynamic dance of democracy, freedom is neither absolute nor static. In fact, it is only one of the many factors that account for a regime’s success or failure.

Therefore, one cannot fantasise about it or, worse, fanaticise it into a settled dogma like a religious cult. Nor rap leaders we do not like on their knuckles for not conforming to our expectations or ideas of it. Even if we try to prioritise, if not weaponise, freedom, elected martinets do not care. Nor do those who continue to vote them to power. – The New Indian Express, 16 August 2023

› Prof. Makarand R. Paranjape is a poet and teaches English at JNU.