The Aug. 5 demonstrations by the main opposition Indian National Congress party against soaring food prices and unemployment began like any other recent protest — an electorally weak opposition taking to the New Delhi streets against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s massively popular government.
However, the protests quickly took a turn when key Congress lawmakers led by Rahul Gandhi — Modi’s main opponent in the previous two general elections — trooped to parliament, leading to fierce standoffs with police.
“Democracy is a memory [in India],” Gandhi later tweeted, describing the dramatic photographs that showed him and his party leaders being briefly detained by police.
Illustration: Mountain People
Gandhi’s statement was largely seen as yet another frantic effort by a crisis-ridden opposition party to shore up its relevance and was dismissed by the government.
However, it resonated with the growing sentiment that India’s democracy — the world’s largest with nearly 1.4 billion people — is in retreat and its democratic foundations are floundering.
Experts and critics say trust in the judiciary as a check on executive power is eroding. Assaults on the press and free speech have grown brazen. Religious minorities are facing increasing attacks by Hindu nationalists. Largely peaceful protests, sometimes against provocative policies, have been stamped out by Internet clampdowns and the jailing of activists.
“Most former colonies have struggled to put a lasting democratic process in place. India was more successful than most in doing that,” Booker Prize-winning novelist and activist Arundhati Roy said. “And now, 75 years on, to witness it being dismantled systematically and in shockingly violent ways is traumatic.”
Modi’s ministers say India’s democratic principles are robust, even thriving: “If today there is a sense in the world that democracy is, in some form, the future, then a large part of it is due to India,” Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said, adding that “there was a time when, in this part of the world, we were the only democracy.”
History is on Jaishankar’s side. At midnight on Aug. 15, 1947, the red sandstone parliamentary building in the heart of India’s capital echoed with the high-pitched voice of Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime minister.
“At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom,” Nehru famously said.
They were words that were heard over live radio by millions of Indians. Then he promised: “To the nations and peoples of the world, we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.”
It marked India’s transition from a British colony to a democracy — the first in South Asia — that has since transformed from a poverty-stricken nation into one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, earning itself a seat at the global high table and becoming a democratic counterweight to its authoritarian neighbor, China.
Apart from a brief interruption in 1975 when a formal emergency was declared under Congress party rule that saw outright censorship, India clung doggedly to its democratic convictions — largely due to free elections, an independent judiciary that confronted the executive, a thriving media, strong opposition and peaceful transitions of power.
However, experts and critics say the country has been gradually departing from some commitments and argue the backsliding has accelerated since Modi came to power in 2014. They accuse his populist government of using unbridled political power to undermine democratic freedoms and preoccupying itself with pursuing a Hindu nationalist agenda.
“The decline seems to continue across several core formal democratic institutions...such as the freedom of expression and alternative sources of information, and freedom of association,” said Staffan Lindberg, the director of Swedish research center the V-Dem Institute.
Modi’s party denies this. A spokesperson, Shehzad Poonawalla, said India has been a “thriving democracy” under Modi’s rule and has witnessed “reclamation of the republic.”
Most democracies are hardly immune to strains. The number of countries experiencing democratic backsliding “has never been as high” as in the past decade, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance said last year, adding the US to the list along with India and Brazil.
However, the descent appears to be striking in India. Earlier this year, the US-based non-profit Freedom House downgraded India from a free democracy to “partially free.”
The V-Dem Institute classified it as an “electoral autocracy” on a par with Russia, while the Democracy Index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit called India a “flawed democracy.”
India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the downgrades “inaccurate” and “distorted.”
Many Indian leaders have said such reports are an intrusion in “internal matters,” with India’s Parliament disallowing debates on them.
Globally, India strongly advocates democracy. During the inaugural Summit for Democracy organized by the US in December, Modi asserted the “democratic spirit” is integral to India’s “civilization ethos.”
However, at home his government is seen bucking that very spirit, with independent institutions coming under increasing scrutiny. Experts point to long pending cases with India’s Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of key decisions taken by Modi’s government as major concerns.
They include cases related to a controversial citizenship review process that has already left almost 2 million people in Assam state potentially stateless, the now revoked semi-autonomous powers pertaining to disputed Kashmir, the opaque campaign finance laws that are seen to disproportionately favor Modi’s party, and its alleged use of military-grade spyware to monitor political opponents and journalists.
India’s judiciary, which is independent of the executive, has faced criticism in the past but the intensity has increased, former Indian Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta said.
Gupta said India’s democracy appears to be “on the downswing” due to the court’s inability to uphold civil liberties in some cases by denying people bail, and the misuse of sedition and anti-terror laws by police — tactics that were also used by earlier governments.
“When it comes to adjudication of disputes the courts have done a good job. But when it comes to their role as protectors of the rights of the people, I wish the courts had done more,” he said.
The country’s democratic health has also taken a hit due to the status of minorities. The largely Hindu nation has been proud of its multiculturalism and has about 200 million Muslims. It also has a history of bloody sectarian violence, but hate speech and violence against Muslims have recently increased.
Some states ruled by Modi’s party have used bulldozers to demolish the homes and shops of alleged Muslim protesters, a move critics say is a form of collective punishment. The government has sought to downplay these attacks, but the incidents have left the minority community reeling in fear.
“Sometimes you need extra protection for the minorities so that they don’t feel that they are second-rate citizens,” Gupta said.
That the rising tide of Hindu nationalism has helped buoy the fortunes of Modi’s party is evident in its electoral successes. It has also coincided with a rather glaring fact: The ruling party has no Muslim lawmaker in parliament, a first in the history of India.
The inability to fully eliminate discrimination and attacks against other minorities like Christians, tribals and Dalits — who form the lowest rung of India’s Hindu caste hierarchy — has exacerbated these concerns. Although the government sees the ascent of an indigenous woman as India’s ceremonial president as a significant step toward equal representation, critics have called it political optics.
Under Modi, India’s parliament has also come under scrutiny for passing important laws with little debate, including a religious-driven citizenship law and controversial agricultural reform that led to massive protests. In a rare retreat, his government withdrew the farm laws which some saw as a triumph of democracy, but that sentiment quickly faded with increased attacks on free speech and the press.
The country fell eight places, to 150 out of 180 countries, in this year’s Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, which said: “Indian journalists who are too critical of the government are subjected to all-out harassment and attack campaigns.”
Shrinking press freedoms in India date back to previous governments but the last few years have been worse. Journalists have been arrested. Some are stopped from traveling abroad. Dozens are facing criminal prosecution, including sedition. At the same time, the government has introduced sweeping regulatory laws for social media companies that give it more power to police online content.
“One has only to look around to see that the media has certainly shriveled up during Mr. Modi’s regime,” said journalist Coomi Kapoor, author of a book that chronicles India’s period of emergency. “What happened in the emergency was upfront and there was no pretense. What is happening now is more gradual and sinister,” she added.
Optimists such as Kapoor say not everything would be lost “if India strengthens its democratic institutions” and “pins its hopes on the judiciary.”
However, “if the independence of the judiciary goes, then I’m afraid nothing will survive,” she said.
Meanwhile, others insist India’s democracy has taken so many body blows that the future looks increasingly bleak. “The damage is too structural, too fundamental,” said Roy, the novelist and activist.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS