threats to indian democracy essay

Threats to democracy in India

India has long enjoyed the label of the ‘world’s largest democracy.’ This marker has always been a source of strength, frequently garnering admiration and respect from members of the international community. But do recent developments challenge India’s democratic reputation, and by extension its foreign policy ambitions?

The dangers were evident during the recent farmers’ protests over the passage of new market-friendly agriculture laws. Eight journalists covering the protests in Delhi on January 26 th were charged with sedition, promoting communal disharmony and making statements prejudicial to national integration. Sedition charges were also levelled at 22-year-old Disha Ravi, who allegedly edited and shared an advocacy document in support of the farmers with overseas observers. Additionally, the government successfully pressured Twitter into removing hundreds of accounts that criticised its handling of the protests; under Indian law, Twitter’s domestic executives would have faced seven years in gaol had the company failed to comply with government orders to remove content it considered subversive or a threat to public order and national security. The BJP also cut off mobile internet access in ‘troubled’ areas to mitigate protesters’ ability to mobilise and organise against the government’s legislative agenda. These examples reflect a blueprint by which authorities have sought to shield themselves and their actions of public condemnation: by depicting critics as a challenge to India’s national interest, then seeking to silence them via threats of punitive action.

Such tactics are not limited to the farmers’ protests; they represent a pattern of behaviour for the Modi government. Last year, a Kashmiri journalist was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for indulging in ‘anti-national activities’ on social media by uploading photos that could ‘dent the image of law enforcing agencies besides causing disaffection against the country;’ rhetoric that was heavily criticised by both domestic and international press agencies. Furthermore, some reporters claim they have previously been threatened with physical harm, abused on social media and ostracised by the administration for writing articles critical of Modi’s actions and/or policies.

This accumulation of repressive behaviour by the BJP has challenged India’s status as a flourishing democracy. In 2020, India slipped from 27 th to 53 rd in The Economist Intelligence Unit’s annual Democracy Index. Global indices like Freedom House and V-Dem have also questioned whether India can still be called a democracy. The Varieties of Democracy project in Sweden has said that India is transitioning into an ‘ electoral autocracy.’ Nevertheless, such reports have been met with clear disdain by the Indian Government; Minister for External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, quickly belittled the hypocrisy of ‘self-appointed custodians of the world,’ arguing these organisations could not stomach the fact that Indians were ‘not looking for their approval.’

While it is true that India is not the only established democracy facing serious social, economic, political and institutional challenges, concerns over the nation’s democratic regression cannot simply be dismissed as the musings of foreign actors with vested interests. India’s strategic interests, regional influence and diplomatic relations are heavily reliant on its global reputation as a multicultural, multifaith democracy. India has long been seen by the West as an ideological and strategic bulwark to China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific; augmented by their inclusion in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue , along with the supposedly aligned liberal democracies of Australia, Japan and the United States (U.S.).

However, the Modi government’s brazen repression of civil liberties has placed some democratic allies in a bind. U.S. President Joe Biden campaigned on revitalising democratic norms, values and institutions both at home and abroad, raising questions as to how his administration might view India as a credible strategic partner in the region, despite the two counties sharing defence and commercial interests. Moreover, the sincerity of India’s commitment to human rights has been publicly challenged in multilateral forums; last year, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet urged against the criminalisation of peaceful expression and/or assembly in India.

These challenges all point to an inescapable truth: it is not the actions of protesters and/or dissenters that are subversive to India’s national interest, a claim continually perpetuated by the Indian Government. The BJP’s campaign to criminalise dissent, undermine free speech and ignore human rights represents a much more potent threat to India’s future economic and strategic objectives. The cultivation of a reputation mired in anti-democratic values could complicate a number of the country’s long-term projects; receiving a permanent seat on the U.N Security Council being chief among them. Therefore, for India to fully realise its regional and global ambitions, Modi and his administration must change course before the nation’s democracy withers to the point of no return.

Sanjay Balakumar  is a fifth-year student at the University of New South Wales, studying a Bachelor of International Studies and a Bachelor of Laws. He is currently an editor for both the Young Diplomats Society and Politik, the student-run UNSW International Affairs Review. He is also a Grants Officer at the United Nations Association of Australia NSW Division and a volunteer at the Toongabbie Legal Centre. Sanjay’s research interests include economic and political security in the Indo-Pacific, the dynamics that shape countries’ elections, climate politics and technology’s impact on informed public discourse.

Sanjay is an intern with the Australian Institute of International Affairs NSW.

Voice: India’s Democracy Is Under Threat

Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

World Brief

• Editors’ Picks
• Africa Brief

China Brief

• Latin America Brief

South Asia Brief

Situation report.

• Flash Points
• War in Ukraine
• Israel and Hamas
• U.S.-China competition
• Biden's foreign policy
• Trade and economics
• Artificial intelligence
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & Africa

How to Stave Off a Famine in Gaza

Inside china’s new diplomatic push, ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Spring 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

• In-depth Special Reports
• Issue Briefs
• Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
• FP Simulations & PeaceGames
• Graphics Database

From Resistance to Resilience

The atlantic & pacific forum, redefining multilateralism, principles of humanity under pressure, fp global health forum 2024.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

India’s Democracy Is Under Threat

New delhi’s crackdown on dissent is endangering free speech and the entire system of criminal justice..

• Human Rights
• Sumit Ganguly

A fair and transparent judicial system represents the bedrock of any democracy, especially one as large and diverse as India’s. But there’s a growing body of evidence that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is using state powers to intimidate its political opposition as well as critics. And amid a coronavirus pandemic and other concerns for the international media, there is a danger that New Delhi’s erosion of democratic values may go unnoticed before it is too late.

One of the first signs of this trend came in August 2019 when New Delhi deployed one of the principal national investigative bodies, the Central Bureau of Investigation, to arrest and incarcerate Palaniappan Chidambaram, a former finance minister from the opposition Indian National Congress party, on charges of bribery and corruption. It was a made-for-TV moment, with agents scaling the walls of his New Delhi home to issue their arrest warrant. Chidambaram, a lawyer of some repute, was able to obtain appropriate legal counsel and was eventually released on bail. But given the delays that have long defined India’s judiciary, it may be months, if not years, before a court delivers a verdict. Without taking a stance on the veracity of the charges, the move in effect muzzles a prominent opposition politician who has long been vocal in his criticism of the Modi government. Of course, corruption is rife in India, but the BJP has yet to explain why Chidambaram in particular was singled out.

The Modi government has also sought to quash political dissent through the use of anti-terrorist laws, most notably the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which allows the state to designate individuals as terrorists on extremely flimsy grounds. One of the most prominent such cases stemmed from a riot that took place in January 2018 at an annual gathering of Dalits—members of India’s so-called lowest caste—in the village of Bhima Koregaon to commemorate a military victory against high-caste rulers more than 200 years ago. Several left-wing intellectuals and activists were detained under the UAPA last February on the grounds that they were guilty of “promoting enmity between groups” and involved in abetting terrorism. They included , among others, Varavara Rao, a 79-year-old left-wing poet and writer; Arun Ferreira, a criminal lawyer; Sudha Bharadwaj, a trade union leader; and Gautam Navlakha, a human rights activist and a long-standing critic of state coercion in India. It was hardly a group of people likely to be involved in terrorism. Worse still, local police claimed that they had unearthed a plot to assassinate Modi. A premier investigative body has been rendered into a plaything of the government in office.

These charges aside, what is known is that the accused had, in fact, participated in a meeting in late December 2017 that had foreshadowed the Bhima Koregaon celebration. Some of them had given speeches in which they had roundly condemned the curse of caste hierarchies in India. All of them, at various points of their careers, have been known to be associated with left-wing causes including the rights of the socially marginalized or oppressed. The police, seizing on their left-wing credentials, dubbed them “urban Naxals”—a misplaced reference to a violent left-wing movement that began in West Bengal in the 1960s.

Despite concerted attempts on the part of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which had brought the legal proceedings against the activists in the first place, the authorities were unable to gather evidence linking them to any of the professed charges. Even so, the Bombay High Court refused to grant bail to several of the key detainees—highlighting the court’s unwillingness to stand up to the present government. Worse still, the NIA’s persistence in legally harassing these activists highlights how a premier investigative body has been rendered into a plaything of the government in office.

As their legal fate remains in limbo, the government has now chosen to go after another group of politicians, university professors, and activists whom it claims were responsible for instigating riots in New Delhi last February. Among them are Jayati Ghosh, a noted economics professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University; Sitaram Yechury, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist); Yogendra Yadav, a well-known pollster and the co-founder of a civil society organization; and Rahul Roy, a prominent documentary filmmaker. Each of them has been accused of participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy to provoke the inter-religious riots that swept through the capital.

In reality, the riots largely stemmed from protests against Modi’s controversial Citizen Amendment Act, which allows many Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and Sikhs from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan to obtain accelerated citizenship in India on the grounds that they constitute oppressed minorities in those countries. However, the legislation does not apply to Muslims—a fact that protesters rightly highlighted as discriminatory and going against the secular values of India’s constitution. This blatant, partisan use of police powers threatens to further undermine the already troubled rule of law in India.

The bulk of the protesters were university students and civil society activists—and most demonstrations were peaceful. But there is ample evidence that Hindu mobs, many of them affiliated with the BJP, set upon the protesters and attacked them. They also used the cover of the disturbances to attack vulnerable Muslim communities in New Delhi. Perhaps most disturbingly, the New Delhi police, which is directly under the control of the federal Ministry of Home Affairs—and not the local state government—either supported the rioters or stood by as the riots proceeded apace. Far from prosecuting those who were actually involved in organized mob violence against hapless communities, the central government is now using its powers to intimidate those whom it deems to be critics of the government’s policies. This blatant, partisan use of police powers threatens to further undermine the already troubled rule of law in India.

Police partisanship is not new. The most egregious historical examples are the anti-Sikh riots in New Delhi in 1984 following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, for which blame lies at the door of Gandhi’s Congress party, and anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 during Modi’s term as the state’s chief minister. Both sets of incidents are a stain on the country’s judicial record—but they are largely seen as lapses in the wider history of democratic India. The systematic abuse of police and judicial powers that is now underway—with the apparent blessing of the Modi government—amounts to a new and major challenge to India’s commitment to impartial justice. It is a dangerous trend that could, if unchecked, upend Indian democracy.

Sumit Ganguly is a columnist at  Foreign Policy and visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is a distinguished professor of political science and the Rabindranath Tagore chair in Indian cultures and civilizations at Indiana University Bloomington.

India’s Alliance With Israel Is a Model for the World’s Illiberal Leaders

From arms deals to occupation in Kashmir and the West Bank, Modi and Netanyahu increasingly share the same ethnonationalist worldview.

What the West Needs From Modi

An alliance of democracies to contain China makes sense. But Modi needs to clean up his act.

Sign up for Editors' Picks

A curated selection of fp’s must-read stories..

You’re on the list! More ways to stay updated on global news:

U.K. Detains Asylum-Seekers for Deportation to Rwanda

Congress gives the arsenal of democracy a boost, iran makes a play in south asia, how kyiv plans to use american aid, iraqi kurdistan’s ethnic minorities are under attack, editors’ picks.

• 1 Xi Believes China Can Win a Scientific Revolution
• 2 Why Won't More Feminists Speak Up For Israeli Victims of Sexual Violence?
• 3 How Kyiv Plans to Use American Aid
• 4 Turmoil in Georgia Could Draw in Russia
• 5 Iran Makes a Play in South Asia
• 6 The Very Real Limits of the Russia-China ‘No Limits’ Partnership

U.K. Detains Asylum-Seekers to Prepare for Rwanda Deportation Plan

Congress's supplemental aid package includes billions to boost the u.s. defense industrial base, iran steps up south asia diplomacy with raisi trip, ukrainian foreign minister dmytro kuleba on how kyiv will use american aid, more from foreign policy, the iran-israel war is just getting started.

As long as the two countries remain engaged in conflict, they will trade blows—no matter what their allies counsel.

New Zealand Becomes the Latest Country to Pivot to the U.S.

Beijing’s bullying tactics have pushed Wellington into Washington’s welcoming arms.

A Tale of Two Megalopolises

What new cities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt tell us about their autocrats.

The Strategic Unseriousness of Olaf Scholz

His latest trip confirms that Germany’s China policy is made in corporate boardrooms.

Turmoil in Georgia Could Draw in Russia

Why won't more feminists speak up for israeli victims of sexual violence, xi believes china can win a scientific revolution, what do russians really think about putin’s war, why the oslo peace process failed.

Sign up for World Brief

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

Is India an Autocracy?

The erosion of democratic norms didn’t begin with Narendra Modi.

Updated at 2 p.m. ET on April 26, 2024.

Last October, Indian authorities revived legal proceedings against the novelist and activist Arundhati Roy. In a case first registered against her in 2010, Roy stood accused of “provocative speech” that aroused “enmity between different groups” for having said that Kashmir was not an “integral” part of India . The charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years and kept her from traveling to Germany to deliver the opening address at the 2023 Munich Literature Festival.

The assault on expression, and on virtually every other mainstay of democracy, has become commonplace under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, and it is the backdrop against which Indians have begun voting to elect their next Parliament and prime minister. Of the nearly 1 billion eligible voters , perhaps more than 600 million will cast their votes over a six-week-long process. Modi, who heads the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is widely expected to win a third term as prime minister in his bitter contest against a motley alliance of opposition parties, the Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance (INDIA).

Read: What has happened to the rule of law in India?

The spectacle of hundreds of millions of Indians—many suffering severe material deprivation—performing their civic duty arouses both hope and wonder, often winning India the title of “world’s largest democracy.” But Indian democracy did not just begin to degrade under Modi: It has been eroding since the first years of independence. Modi has put that process on steroids and today presides over an autocracy in all but name.

For decades, the Indian state has used coercive legal powers to suppress dissent and constitutional mechanisms to delegitimize votes. The judiciary has largely acquiesced, money has gushed into Indian politics, and Hindu nationalism has cast a dark shadow of division. What are treated now as anomalies have been the trajectory all along.

Nonetheless, world leaders, including President Joe Biden, often describe India as a vibrant democracy . Even more nuanced analyses hold that Indian democracy will withstand the current crisis because Indians respect diversity and pluralism, the country’s democratic institutions are strong, and recovery is inevitable.

This romantic view of an inherently democratic India is a fairy tale. According to the Swedish think tank V-Dem, India was never a liberal democracy , and today it is sliding ever more decisively toward autocracy. Even under its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s impressive electoral apparatus did not guarantee equality before the law or ensure essential liberties to citizens. Subsequent leaders, rather than plugging the cracks in India’s constitutional foundation, expanded them, not least by using the state’s coercive power to circumvent democratic processes for personal or partisan advantage. Fraying democratic norms rendered free speech, dissent, and judicial independence casualties from the start.

The constitution that independent India adopted in 1950 defined the country as a democratic republic committed to justice, equality, and fraternity for its people . But the democratic conception of the state suffered its first blow when the constitution was just 18 months old. Nehru, frustrated that Indian courts were upholding the free-speech rights of his critics , amended the constitution in June 1951 to make seditious speech a punishable offense . Only one person was actually convicted of sedition before Nehru’s prime ministership ended with his death. But several suffered for extended periods after lower courts found them guilty and before higher ones reversed the verdicts. That long legal limbo had a chilling effect on speech.

The Indian constitution had other undemocratic features that Nehru deployed. It evinced a preoccupation with integrity and security , and emphasized the union, rather than autonomy, of the states it federated. If India’s central government deemed a state’s politics to be dysfunctional, it could place the state under a kind of federal receivership called President’s Rule, essentially disenfranchising the state’s electorate. Nehru imposed President’s Rule eight times during his tenure. The constitution had other significant gaps: It didn’t furnish social and economic equality to women, for example. Nehru tried to pass a bill that would override traditional Hindu patrimonial practices, but even in the postindependence glow of national unity, organized Hindu forces asserted their identity and political power. They stymied Nehru’s legislative efforts in 1951 and then the implementation of the laws that did pass later.

Nehru, for all his faults, valued tolerance and fairness. The same could scarcely be said of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, who followed soon after as prime minister and initiated a steep decline from such democratic norms as existed under Nehru. In 1967, she responded to a peasant protest in Naxalbari, West Bengal, by passing the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which allowed the police to arrest and hold people without trial, bail, or explanation. This legislation would become an instrument of repression for decades to come. She also placed West Bengal under President’s Rule, and her chosen governor used the police and armed forces to wipe out a generation of idealistic students who supported the peasants. In fact, Gandhi imposed President’s Rule nearly 30 times from 1966 to 1975, when she declared an internal emergency and assumed dictatorial powers. Gandhi called for elections in early 1977, hoping to legitimize her autocratic rule. But when a frustrated Indian populace threw her out, the University of Chicago political scientists Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph—echoing a commonly held view—happily concluded , “Democracy has acquired a mass base in India.”

From the April 1940 issue: India’s demand and England’s answer

That proved wishful thinking. Upon reelection as prime minister in 1980, Gandhi accelerated the erosion of democratic norms. She imposed President’s Rule more than a dozen times in her second stint in power, from 1980 to 1984. She also began pandering to the sentiments of Hindus to win their votes, opening the door to the hard-line Hindu-nationalists who have since become an overpowering force in Indian politics.

Perhaps Gandhi’s most pernicious legacy was the injection of “black” money—unaccounted-for funds, accumulated through tax evasion and illegal market operations—into Indian politics. In 1969, she banned corporate donations to political parties. Soon after, her campaigns became extremely expensive, ushering in an era of “ briefcase politics ,” in which campaign donations came in briefcases full of cash, mostly filling the coffers of her own Congress Party. Criminals became election financiers, and as big-money (and black-money) politics spread, ideology and public interest gave way to politics for private gain. Legislators in state assemblies frequently “defected,” crossing party lines to bag ministerial positions that generated corrupt earnings.

And yet, for all the damage done to it, many analysts and diplomats still cleaved to the romantic view of Indian democracy. Upon Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, a former U.S. foreign-service officer, writing in Foreign Affairs , described the monarchical-style handover of power to her son, the political neophyte Rajiv, as proof of the “strength of the republic and its democratic constitutional system.”

Rajiv’s stewardship could rightly be seen in an entirely different light. He was the prime minister who let the gale force of Hindu nationalism blast through the door his mother had opened. He commissioned for the state-owned television network, Doordarshan, the much-loved Ramayana epic , which spawned a Rambo-like iconography of Lord Ram as Hindutva’s avenger. And he reignited a contest between Hindus and Muslims over the site of a 16th-century mosque called the Babri Masjid, which had been sealed since 1949 to contain communal passions. Hindu zealots claimed that the structure was built on Lord Ram’s birthplace, and Rajiv opened its gates . Then, in December 1992, Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao’s Congress Party–led government dithered as frenzied Hindu mobs demolished Babri Masjid, triggering bloody riots and further advancing the Hindu-nationalist cause.

The decade from 1989 to 1998 saw a series of coalition governments govern India—a development that the historian Ramachandra Guha has described as “a manifestation of the widening and deepening of democracy” because “different regions and different groups had acquired a greater stake in the system.” Democratic norms were, in fact, degrading at a quickening pace during this period. Big-money politics had bred mercenary politicians, who at the unseemly edge were gangster s providing caste representation, protection, and other services that the state could not supply. Politicians paid little attention to the public good—such as creating more jobs and improving education and health services, especially in the eastern states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh—and learned that they could use plausible corruption charges against one another as a weapon.

Hindu nationalism swelled. From 1998 to 2003, the BJP led a coalition government that began aligning school textbooks with a Hindu-nationalist agenda. A Congress-led government from 2004 to 2014 arrested this trend but presided over a steep descent into corruption: During that decade, the share of members of the lower house of Parliament charged with serious crimes—including murder, extortion, and kidnapping— reached 21 percent, up from 12 percent .

Read: India’s democracy is the world’s problem

Both the BJP and the Congress Party embraced a model of economic growth driven by the very rich, and both dismissed the injury to the economic interests of the weak and vulnerable, as well as to the environment, as necessary collateral damage. In Chhattisgarh, a Congress Party leader, with the support of the state’s BJP government, sponsored a private vigilante army to protect business interests, which included the exploitation of minerals and the mowing down of pristine forests in the tribal areas. When the supreme court declared the private vigilante army unconstitutional, Indian authorities responded in the manner of Andrew Jackson, who famously waved off the United States’ chief justice with the statement, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

The anti-terrorism and anti-sedition provisions that earlier governments had supplied came in handy when the Congress-led coalition sought to suppress protests and intimidate opponents. The government also introduced and steadily widened the ambit of a new law, ostensibly for the prevention of money laundering, and it used the investigative powers of the state to its own benefit in whitewashing corruption: In 2013, a justice of the supreme court described the Central Bureau of Investigation as a “caged parrot” singing in “its master’s voice.”

India, on the eve of the election that brought Modi to power in May 2014, could thus hardly be described as a robust democracy. Rather, all the instruments for its demolition had already been assembled and politely passed along from one government to the next. In the hands of a populist demagogue such as Modi, the demolition instruments proved to be a wrecking ball.

As a candidate, Modi promised to right India’s feckless economic policy and countervail against the Congress Party’s corruption. These claims were not credible. Worse, as chief minister of Gujarat in 2002, Modi had failed to stop a bloody massacre of Muslims, thereby establishing himself as an avatar of Hindu-nationalist extremism. He couldn’t even get a visa to enter the United States.

Nonetheless, many of India’s public intellectuals were sanguine. Antidemocratic forces could be no match for the pluralistic disposition of India’s people and the liberal institutions of its state, some insisted. The political scientist Ashutosh Varshney noted that Modi had eschewed anti-Muslim rhetoric in his campaign—because, Varshney inferred, Indian politics abhorred ideological extremism. Another political scientist, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, asked the BJP’s political opponents to reflect on their own fascist tendencies. The Congress Party, Mehta wrote, “had done its best” to instill fear in citizens and corrode the institutions that protected individual rights; Modi would pull India out of the economic stagnation that Congress had induced.

Anti-Muslim violence spread quickly after Modi came to power. Prominent critics of Hindu nationalism were gunned down on their doorsteps: M. M. Kalburgi in Dharwad, Karnataka, in August 2015, and Gauri Lankesh in Bangalore in July 2017. And India was tumbling in global indicators of democracy. V-Dem has classified India as an electoral autocracy since 2018: The country conducts elections but suppresses individual rights, dissent, and the media so egregiously that it can no longer be considered a democracy in any sense of the word. Even the word “electoral,” though, in V-Dem’s designation, has become dubious since then.

Samanth Subramanian: Indian democracy is fighting back

Under Modi’s rule, India has taken a sharp turn toward autocracy, but to get there, the BJP had only to drive a truck through the fissures in the state’s democratic foundations that earlier governments had already widened. The government has seized the coercive powers of the state to fearsome ends, arresting activists and human-rights defenders under various provisions of the law. Successive Washington Post investigations have concluded that at least some of these arrests were based on planted evidence. One of those arrested, a Jesuit priest and human-rights activist, died in prison for want of medical attention when suffering from complications of COVID-19. Income and wealth inequalities have grown, in tandem with extraordinary expenditures even in state election campaigns. Demands for the demolition of more mosques have mounted. Inevitably, to woo Hindu voters, even opposition parties, including the Congress Party, have adopted a softer version of Hindu-nationalist ideology.

The BJP government regularly brings charges against its critics in the media for tax lapses or anti-nationalism, among other pretexts. Reporters Without Borders describes India as one of the most dangerous countries for journalists . In 2023, it ranked India 161 out of 180 countries in press freedom, citing the takeover of media outlets by oligarchs close to Modi and the “horrific” online harassment by Modi’s “army of online supporters.”

Can Indians really be said to vote freely under such circumstances? Even if the answer is yes, the government seems to have found the means to disenfranchise citizens after the fact. In August 2019, the government withdrew the constitutional provision that gave Kashmir special autonomy. It also downgraded Kashmir from a state to a territory, placing it under the direct control of the central government without consulting the people of Kashmir. Because the supreme court has refused to reverse this move, future central governments might similarly downgrade other states.

The chief ministers of Jharkhand and Delhi are both in jail, awaiting trial on money-laundering charges, and the government has frozen the bank accounts of the Congress Party on allegations of tax evasion. Many opposition-party members who face criminal charges join the BJP, effectively giving the ruling party greater political power in exchange for the dismissal of the charges against them. A recent supreme-court directive requiring transparency in a segment of campaign financing revealed signs of extensive corruption primarily benefiting BJP politicians but also opposition leaders in charge of state governments.

Nevertheless, after Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the United States last June and his address to a joint session of Congress, the White House’s joint U.S.-India statement read : “The United States and India reaffirm and embrace their shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights, inclusion, pluralism, and equal opportunities for all citizens.” In January, Secretary of State Antony Blinken referred to India as the “world’s largest democracy” and a vital partner, a position that the State Department continues to hold .

Such statements are at odds with the Indian reality. Over the seven decades since independence, Indian democracy has betrayed its people, leaving the majority without dignified jobs, foundational education, public health, or clean air and water. Alongside that betrayal, the death by a thousand cuts of democratic norms raises the troubling question: Is India now an autocracy?

If Modi wins this election, his victory will surely strengthen autocratic tendencies in India. But in the unlikely event that he loses, the erosion of democracy will merely have paused. Democracy is a fragile construct. When deviation from democratic norms persists for as long as it has in Indian politics, deviance becomes the norm. Reversing it becomes a monumental task. Especially if a winning opposition coalition fails to improve the quality of Indian lives, an electorally resurgent Modi and his Hindutva supporters could potentially seal democracy’s fate.

This article previously misstated which Indian state’s chief minister is in jail.

Media Bias and Democracy in India

By  janani mohan.

• June 28, 2021

This article was originally published in South Asian Voices.

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages out of control in India, many are rightly focusing on the content of stories on the death toll and months of lockdown. The lack of journalistic integrity behind some of the stories deepens this grim situation. In April,  reports emerged  that, at the request of the Indian government, Twitter censored 52 tweets criticizing the government’s handling of the pandemic. Meanwhile, pro-government TV channels  blamed  the farmers’ protests for limited oxygen supplies for COVID-19 patients, though supplies were  actually scarce  due to poor public health infrastructure. This reporting is not only misleading and traumatic to those affected by the pandemic, but also poses a major threat to India’s vibrant democracy.

Even before the pandemic, media bias in India existed across the largest newspapers throughout the country, and political forces shape this bias. For example, funds from the government are critical to many newspapers’ operations and budgets, and the current Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) government has previously  refused to advertise  with newspapers that do not support its initiatives. This pressure leads media to endorse government policies, creating unbalanced reporting where media bias can affect political behavior in favor of the incumbent. Many media outlets enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the government, in turn receiving attention, funding, and prominence. These trends damage India’s democracy and also put journalists critical of the government in danger, threatening their right to physical safety.

Funds from the government are critical to many newspapers’ operations and budgets, and the current Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) government has previously refused to advertise with newspapers that do not support its initiatives.

Media Bias in India

While the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated media bias in India, it is hardly a new phenomenon. A  study  of 30 Indian newspapers and 41 Indian TV channels with the largest viewership rates in the country confirms the existence of rampant media bias during a two-year period from 2017 to 2018. 1

The study relies on rating editorial articles that focus on religious, gender, and caste issues as either liberal, neutral, or conservative; and then compiling these scores by each newspaper to find the overall bias in each outlet. The results unsurprisingly and unfortunately show the consistent existence of media bias—for example, except for eight newspapers, the papers all express biases far from neutral. And this bias consistently correlates with viewers in India expressing similarly biased social, economic, and security attitudes.

What this suggests is either that biases in the media shape viewer attitudes or Indians are viewing outlets that align with their pre-existing views. Meanwhile, political parties capitalize on this bias to influence public attitudes and further their own power. The BJP  spends  almost USD $140 million on publicity per year, with 43 percent of this expenditure focusing specifically on print ads in newspapers. Government advertisements serve as a financial lever for influencing media content and public opinion. For example, during the year leading to the 2019 elections, newspapers that received more advertisement revenue from the BJP were likelier to espouse more conservative ideology and to have more conservative readers.

Bias versus Democracy

This ability of media bias to influence political support in India can contribute significantly to democratic backsliding by harming journalists, preventing freedom of expression and government accountability, and influencing voters. Media bias in itself causes democratic backsliding because the media neither holding the government accountable nor informing the public about policies that strengthen the incumbent’s power can increase authoritarian practices.

In addition, government efforts to constrain the media harms journalists, undemocratically violating citizens’ rights and physical safety. Freedom House  rates  India as only two on a four-point scale for whether there is a “free and independent media,” because of “attacks on press freedom…under the Modi government.” In fact, the government  imprisoned several journalists  in 2020 who reported critically on Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi’s response to the pandemic. The crackdown on journalists engendered an unsafe environment for free reporting, a feature of many authoritarian states.

A biased media also prevents citizens from receiving information that might be essential to public wellbeing by filtering information through a lens that supports government interests first. When the BJP cracked down on coverage of COVID-19 last year, journalists were  unable to disseminate  critical information to Indians. This included where migrants suffering from the sudden lockdown could receive necessities—information that could save lives. Notably, these crackdowns also meant an absence of reporting criticizing the government’s response to the pandemic. In a democratic society, a critical press is essential for holding the government accountable for its actions and motivating it to change its practices.  

Media bias plays an influencing role at the voting booth as propaganda can skew voter decisions and perceptions of what is true.

Finally, media bias plays an influencing role at the voting booth as propaganda can skew voter decisions and perceptions of what is true. During India’s 2014 general elections, the BJP advertised more than the Congress Party and voters exposed to more media were  likelier  to vote for the BJP. To influence voters, media bias often utilizes inflammatory messaging to convince more people to vote, selective information to bias what voters believe about the efficacy of the candidates, and appeasement to convince voters that they will personally benefit from voting a certain way. For example, a TimesNow interview of PM Modi before the 2019 elections  made it seem  that Modi’s economic policies—widely criticized as ineffectual—were successful.

From Media Bias to Media Neutrality

Although government measures are exacerbating media bias, the media retains some agency and could work to limit the influence of politics on reporting. Currently, 36 percent of daily newspapers  earn over half  of their total income from the government of India and most major TV stations have owners who served as politicians themselves or who had family members in politics. Although it would be difficult to convince larger outlets to participate since they benefit from their government backing, smaller independent outlets can start this movement towards neutrality. Many small outlets already eschew government funding and report with less biased views. These publications in India therefore deserve more attention and more support to reduce media bias.

While India has some of the  highest circulation  of newspapers in the world, it also unfortunately has high media bias rates and one of the  lowest press freedom rankings  for democracies. This media bias can contribute to democratic backsliding and must be addressed by media outlets. Only then can media in India properly do its job—serving to inform, not influence the public.

The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Pradeep Chhibber, Pranav Gupta, and UC Berkeley for supporting her research measuring media bias in India. All perspectives in this article are her own.

This article was originally published in  South Asian Voices.

Recent & Related

About Stimson

Transparency.

• 202.223.5956
• 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
• Fax: 202.238.9604
• 202.478.3437
• Caiti Goodman
• Communications Dept.
• News & Announcements

Copyright The Henry L. Stimson Center

Privacy Policy

Subscription Options

Research areas trade & technology security & strategy human security & governance climate & natural resources pivotal places.

• Asia & the Indo-Pacific
• Middle East & North Africa

Publications & Project Lists South Asia Voices Publication Highlights Global Governance Innovation Network Updates Mekong Dam Monitor: Weekly Alerts and Advisories Middle East Voices Updates 38 North: News and Analysis on North Korea

• All News & Analysis (Approx Weekly)
• 38 North Today (Frequently)
• Only Breaking News (Occasional)

A Journal of Ideas

Symposium | democracy's future: abroad and at home, the challenge of india’s democratic backsliding, tagged democracy india.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a Bilateral Meeting with President Joe Biden in Washington DC, September 24, 2021.

Since the end of the Cold War, once-frosty relations between the United States and India have blossomed into a wide-ranging, multifaceted strategic partnership. Although the two countries are not formal treaty allies, their diplomatic, defense, and developmental interests show signs of profound convergence.To quote former U.S. Envoy to India Robert Blackwill and former President Barack Obama, respectively, bilateral ties were transformed from being as “flat as a chapatti ” to one of the “defining partnerships of the twenty-first century.”

There were three principal drivers of this shift. First, the collapse of the communist model and India’s embrace of globalization and market economics in 1991 reoriented India’s focus westward. Second, India’s emergence as a nuclear-armed power and America’s willingness to incorporate India into the global civil nuclear regime, despite the fact it is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), brought the countries closer together. Third, China’s rise as a regional power with global aspirations convinced recalcitrant leaders in New Delhi and Washington, D.C. that they could either hang together or they would ultimately hang separately.

Consequently, over a three-decade period, the United States and India overcame the hesitations of history to develop one of the most wide-ranging bilateral partnerships in the world. The two countries currently operate more than two-dozen joint working groups, traversing issues from higher education to space exploration. As officials on both sides are fond of reminding us, the Indian military now conducts more joint exercises with the United States than with any other partner. Total bilateral trade (in goods and services) between the two countries grew from $20 billion in 2000 to $150 billion in 2019.

The bilateral relationship has rested on four mutually reinforcing pillars. First, both countries espouse a shared commitment to democracy and liberal values. Second, the two partners are mutually invested in a rules-based global and regional security architecture, in stark contrast to the alternative advanced by their common Chinese rival. Third, thanks to healthy two-way flows of capital, labor, goods, and services, India and the United States have a significant stake in each other’s economic success. Fourth, the relationship rests on robust people-to-people ties. The Indian diaspora may account for just 1 percent of the American population, but it grew at a rate of 150 percent between 2000 and 2018.

Unfortunately for the two nations, there is an accumulating body of evidence that suggests that at least one of the aforementioned pillars—shared liberal democratic commitments—can no longer be taken for granted. Recent anxieties about democratic backsliding across the globe have not left India untouched. This is not to deny that American democracy too is at a nadir. The last 12 months have seen an outgoing U.S. President refuse to accept the results of a democratic election, an insurrection targeting the seat of the national legislature, and state-level measures to politicize elections administration. These threats to American democracy are real and visceral. But America’s struggles are arguably of a lesser magnitude than India’s given the relative strength of its institutions, elevated per capita income, and democratic longevity.

In 2021, Freedom House demoted India’s position on its annual “Freedom in the World” report, moving it from the rank of “Free” to “Partly Free.” The V-Dem Institute of Sweden echoed this analysis in its annual democracy league tables, declaring that India now exhibited hallmarks not of an “electoral democracy” but an “electoral autocracy.” As the terminology suggests, India’s democratic backsliding largely pertains to developments between elections, rather than during them. Despite the twin threats of illicit money and criminality in electoral politics, Indian elections are widely perceived to be free and fair. It is the shrinking democratic space between them that has sounded alarm bells, both at home and abroad. This backsliding, if left unaddressed, poses a difficult dilemma for the United States, whose reliance on India to preserve a “free and open Indo-Pacific” has grown in leaps and bounds.

Understanding India’s Backsliding

When it comes to India’s democratic regression, there are three principal areas of concern: the consolidation of a Hindu-majoritarian brand of politics; the excessive concentration of power in the hands of the executive and decay in independent institutions; and a clampdown on political dissent and freedom of the press. Each is significant in its own right. Taken together, they constitute a major hazard to Indian democracy.

Hindu Majoritarianism

To understand the rise of Hindu nationalism, one must first understand its foremost political avatar, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Most Americans lack the vocabulary to understand the BJP because it does not resemble common political forms seen in the West. The BJP is the political arm representing a constellation of at least three-dozen Hindu nationalist organizations. This coalition is led by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—a national volunteer corps comprising more than five million Indians—which serves as the ideological wellspring for the Hindu revivalist movement.

The RSS and its allies argue that Hindu culture is broadly synonymous with Indian culture, which is arguably the central tenet of the doctrine of Hindutva (literally, “Hindu-ness”). They assert that because Hindus make up roughly 80 percent of India’s population, they constitute a dominant majority that deserves to be treated as first among equals. The logical extension of this argument, one that is voiced by ideologues associated with the movement, including Prime Minister Modi (who spent his formative years as a member of the RSS), is that India—and its Hindu population, specifically— has been a victim of 12 centuries of slavery. The Mughal Empire, the British Raj, even the liberal mores of the 1950 Constitution—largely penned by British-educated, English-speaking urban elites—all represent, to a different degree, foreign impositions.

The power of today’s majoritarian push stems from the fact that the BJP, by dint of its unique structure and organizational embeddedness, can marshal both official, state power and unofficial, street power to pursue its core objectives. In recent years, for instance, religion has been increasingly used as a filter for determining citizenship, both in a formal legal sense as well as in an informal vein. In 2019, Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act, providing an expedited pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants from three of India’s neighbors (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan) provided they do not belong to the Muslim faith. RSS affiliates like the Bajrang Dal reinforce the “othering” of Muslims through a mix of vigilante activities and the promotion of harmful conspiracy theories. According to one such narrative, known as “love jihad,” Muslim men are said to seduce Hindu women in order to convert them to Islam. Quite often, the BJP’s leadership does not immediately condemn extra-judicial violence aimed at Muslims; on the contrary, the fact that perpetrators are often celebrated rather than prosecuted creates the impression that such vigilantism receives official sanction. Indeed, there has been a rise in state-sanctioned, extrajudicial violence in states like Uttar Pradesh, where the incumbent BJP government reports that there were 8,500 “police encounters” between 2017 and 2021; nearly 40 percent of police targets were Muslim (twice their share of the state’s population).

In the absence of a pan-Indian party that articulates a coherent and responsible form of secularism—a void left by the organizationally anemic, intellectually compromised, and badly weakened Indian National Congress Party secularism has taken on the reputation of an unprintable four-letter word. Indeed, it is telling that the Congress, once the champion of secular values, failed to utter the word even once in its 2019 general election manifesto. Whether as a cause or consequence of the Congress’ failures (perhaps both), Indian society at large has also appeared to grow more comfortable with overtly Hindu idioms.

Weakening Checks and Balances

In addition to its penchant for majoritarian politics, India’s government has also centralized power under Prime Minister Modi to an astonishing degree. After a series of weak coalition governments between 1989 and 2014, the authority of the prime minister’s office and the nation’s chief executive undoubtedly needed to be reasserted. However, under Modi and his colleagues, the pendulum has swung wildly in the opposite direction. In the corridors of New Delhi today, Cabinet government exists largely on paper. It is the prime minister’s office that takes all major decisions, often leaving Cabinet ministers to learn of their agency’s priorities through central diktat or from the media.

The all-powerful executive has also come to dominate nominally coequal branches of government, namely parliament and the judiciary. Executive control of parliament is more understandable given the prime minister and his council of ministers are selected from the ranks of the party (or coalition) which commands a working majority of the legislature. Modi’s dominance of his own party, coupled with a decades-old constitutional amendment that disqualifies individual parliamentarians from serving in the legislature if they defy a party whip, has turned Parliament into something of a rubber stamp. In the recent Monsoon session of Parliament, which ended in August 2021, only one of 18 bills that passed by parliament’s lower house was discussed for more than 15 minutes.

Subordination of the judiciary, on the other hand, is harder to explain. Just over a decade ago, Indian scholars wrote about the rise of “judicial sovereignty” and the concomitant increase in judicial activism, which often substituted for action by a feckless executive. Today, the workings of India’s apex judicial body, the Supreme Court, are more subdued. Unlike other countries where the executive has packed the courts with pliant cronies or the legislature has shrunk the jurisdiction of courts, in India many judges have simply chosen to avoid confronting the government of the day—either for careerist motivations, ideological solidarity, or a desire for self-preservation.

Outside of the nation’s capital, the central government exhibits an officious assertiveness in its relations with India’s federal states. Bodies meant to coordinate policies between New Delhi and the state capitals have gone silent while parliament has passed laws on subjects that have traditionally been under the constitutional jurisdiction of India’s states. In the city-state of Delhi, as well as in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, the federal government has unilaterally reduced the jurisdictional scope of regional authorities.

Clampdown on Dissent

The third and final element of backsliding in India is the crackdown on free expression. Freedom of speech has a checkered history in post-independence India. Many outmoded sections of the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, drafted by Lord Macaulay nearly 200 years ago, remain in force today. For instance, a colonial-era sedition law—enacted to quash Indian subjects from voicing their anti-imperial opinions—has long been used to punish political opponents. Similarly, defamation in India invites not only civil penalties, but criminal ones as well. Even if libel suits rarely succeed, they ensnare defendants in tortuous legal proceedings that can take decades to resolve. In India, it is commonly said that the “process is the punishment.”

Yet, if these tools of oppression have been used by all parties for two centuries, what exactly is new about the constrictions that exist today? Arguably, it is the intensity with which these tools have been deployed. According to an assessment by the news organization Article 14 , more than 3,500 individuals were charged with sedition between 2010 and 2014, when the previous Congress government was in power. In the first six years of the Modi-led BJP government (2014-2020), more than 7,100 individuals were similarly charged.

From a macro-perspective, two additional factors have reduced the space for dissent and free speech: the political balance of power and the ideological moorings of the ruling party. When the Congress   Party dominated Indian politics from independence until the late 1980s, the fragmentation of political opposition and diminished levels of political competition meant that there were few checks that could contain the regime’s worst excesses. During the two and half decades of coalition rule thereafter, no single party could dominate the political landscape, leading to the emergence of “referee” institutions that could rein in the country’s politicians to ensure a level playing field. In some sense, India has reverted to a dominant party system in which the identity of the hegemonic party has switched from the Congress to the BJP.

This partisan identity, however, is a key part of “what’s new.” The Congress was often opportunistic in its attacks on free speech, using legal and regulatory action to make life inconvenient for those that crossed its path. The BJP’s machinations, on the other hand, are organized around a coherent ideological commitment to a more narrowly tailored vision of the nation. Criticism of it and of its ideological project, therefore, is regularly criticized as “anti-national.” This term of art equates support of BJP policies with loyalty to the sovereign Indian nation.

America’s Bind

Although the Biden Administration has placed a much more pointed emphasis—in word, if not always in deed—on the importance of democracy and human rights, its foreign policy aims limit its willingness to spotlight India’s democratic lapses. The “China factor” looms large in geostrategic discussions in Washington today, evidenced by the Administration’s decision to abruptly withdraw troops from Afghanistan to prioritize foreign policy objectives further east, elevate the role of the “Quad,” and work afresh with the United Kingdom and Australia to develop the latter’s arsenal of nuclear submarines. Thus, the United States deems it more important to cooperate with India rather than criticize its domestic policies.

However, even if the United States were so inclined, it is not obvious what tools it has to counter India’s democratic backsliding. India has been notoriously allergic to criticism from Western governments and civil societies who seek to highlight perceived shortcomings on its “internal matters.” But, if conditions deteriorate to such an extent that the Biden Administration is compelled to act, what principles might guide its actions?

First, backsliding that enters the electoral domain should be an obvious redline for the Biden Administration. Threats to electoral democracy and the sanctity of free and fair elections would represent an escalation that the U.S. Administration would be wise not to overlook. While threats to electoral integrity loom on the horizon, none of them seriously call into question the quality of India’s democratic elections at the national or state levels. In fact, the administration of elections is one area where the United States could learn from India. However, India’s chief elections agency has shown signs of creeping partisan bias, sowing new doubts about the impartiality of election regulation.

Second, the United States must stand up for U.S. companies, civil society organizations, and individuals should their rights to conduct business, assemble, or express their opinions be called into question. For instance, WhatsApp has filed suit in the Delhi High Court to contest a government order requiring the peer-to-peer messaging company to break its privacy protections, undermining its business model. Similarly, numerous U.S.-affiliated non-governmental organizations operating in India are beholden to the Indian government for licenses authorizing them to receive foreign contributions. In the past, this authorization has been a useful cudgel to control controversial voices. The U.S. government should stand up for the principle of free expression across the board, including (though not limited to) when American-linked organizations are attempting to be silenced.

Third, the United States should also make clear—in public statements and in private diplomacy—that its partnership with India transcends any one government and is, ultimately, a compact with the Indian people. In a political climate in which Republicans and Democrats rarely agree on anything, U.S. policy toward India has been a rare source of bipartisan comity. The consistency in U.S.-India policy has straddled administrations in the United States as well as parties of different hues in India. This even-handedness has served America’s interests well.

The scholar Francis Fukuyama argues that liberal democracy operates like a tripod, built on the rule of law, democratic accountability, and an effective state apparatus. While India has long struggled with enforcing the rule of law and establishing robust state capacity, its framework of democratic accountability has been rarely called into question. In recent years, however, India’s democratic credentials have suffered a significant setback.

Further backsliding in the world’s largest democracy will not only imperil social stability and prosperity for more than a billion Indians, but it will also erode the foundations of the U.S.-India strategic partnership, America’s interests in the Indo-Pacific more broadly, and global pro-democracy efforts. The United States, itself no stranger to democratic decay, has limited tools with which to nudge India, and even less moral authority to do so after the events of January 6. For that reason, it must choose its battles wisely.

From the Symposium

Democracy's future: abroad and at home, democracies’ great challenge: demonstrating competence, 10 min read, read more about democracy india.

Milan Vaishnav is senior fellow and director of the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. He is the author of When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics (Yale University Press, 2017) and the host of "Grand Tamasha," a weekly podcast on Indian politics and policy. (Important Note: Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.)

View Comments

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

As India goes to the polls, can democracy deliver a better life for all of its people?

Behind a veneer of progress, injustice and inequality propped up by corruption and the caste system haunt the subcontinent

T his year, more than 80 countries and half the world’s population face elections . While many islands in the Caribbean go to the polls, their people are usually more occupied with US and British elections than those in their ancestral homes in Africa and India.

This may be excusable, there is an old saying: “When America sneezes, the Caribbean catches a cold.” It may also seem strange that some identify as Republican or Democrat, and Conservative or Labour, while living in a region that has to endure a rigorous process and heavy expense to obtain a visa to even holiday in those countries.

A history of slavery, indentureship and colonialism links the Caribbean to the UK and the US, but the region is also indelibly linked to Africa and India .

This month, India continues its democratic experiment. General elections to vote in 543 members of the 18thLok Sabha, the lower house of parliament, will run from now until 1 June. India’s elections are “colossal, colourful, and complex, involving an estimated 969 million eligible voters”, according to Al Jazeera . The largest-ever election in the world, it will be held in seven phases, with results announced on 4 June.

The incumbent prime minister, Narendra Modi , is contesting for a third term, making the fabric of the world’s largest democracy appear contradictory. The 2019 election saw a voter turnout of 67%, reflecting the electorate’s engagement with the democratic process. However, regionalism and identity politics continue to influence electoral outcomes, with coalition politics shaping the dynamics of governance.

India navigates a complex political milieu, its economic prowess and technological advancements have garnered global attention. From space exploration to nuclear power, India to most onlookers, radiates a sense of promise.

Its nuclear capabilities are a cornerstone of its strategic posture and is seen as a deterrent in a volatile geopolitical environment. India’s strides in space, successfully launching the Chandrayaan-3 lunar mission last year, underscore its capabilities in scientific and engineering excellence.

The country’s economic trajectory showcases a remarkable transformation, propelled by dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem and burgeoning technological innovation. India is home to 200 billionaires , up from 169 last year, with a collective wealth of $954bn (£766bn), according to Forbes. This surge in wealth highlights India as an economic powerhouse, attracting investment from around the world.

However, this is a country with lived experience of the long-term ills and remnants of colonialism. Beneath the veneer of progress and economic strides lie deeply entrenched inequalities, and astonishingly persistent and widespread poverty.

It is also marred by an anachronistic caste system , gender disparities and violence against women . Corruption has also long been a significant impediment to India’s economic, political and social wellbeing.

But how should a country’s overall progress be assessed? Should it only be based on its nuclear power, space exploration achievements or how many new billionaires are being produced?

It seems to be a global south problem that leaders are more enthusiastic to spend taxpayers’ funds on expensive vanity projects than concern themselves with fixing basic issues of infrastructure, health and education to raise the standard of living for all its people.

While nations spend billions on space and nuclear programmes, and financing wars, such as in Ukraine and Gaza, people living in poverty are ultimately forgotten. Today, 38 million people in the US , 14 million in the UK , 95 million in the European Union and about 13 million in the Caribbean are living below or near the poverty line.

In India, it is much more, but the exact level is contested, based on the measures used. According to the World Bank, 12.9% of India’s population, or 269.8 million people, lived below the national poverty line of $2.15 a day as of 2021. Per capita income is $2,848, ranking it 143rd out of 195 countries , lower than Indonesia.

after newsletter promotion

The UN Development Programme’s 2022 Multidimensional Poverty report evaluates the poverty rate as being 16.4%. However, this does not correspond to the true economic reality of India, as being a lower-middle-income country, the appropriate poverty line should be at $3.65 a day, according to purchasing power parity. At that rate, real poverty is closer to 47% or 673 million people .

This statement by the World Bank in 2022 is concerning: “We rely on countries’ own judgments of what it means to be poor.” Therefore, deciding what poverty is becomes subjective and open to manipulation by politicians wishing to be seen as creating improvements.

India’s glaring wealth disparity highlights the urgent need for social reforms. In 1945 Indian social reformer Dr Bhimrao R Ambedkar said : “In every country, there is a governing class. No country is free from it. But is there anywhere in the world a governing class with such selfish, diseased and dangerous and perverse mentality, with such a hideous and infamous philosophy of life which advocates the trampling down of the servile classes to sustain the power and glory of the governing class? I know of none.”

Ambedkar made this statement during a period of intense social and political upheaval, when the struggle against British rule was reaching its peak. He was addressing the power structures, systemic inequalities and injustices perpetuated by the caste system and the complicity of the ruling class in sustaining it.

His critique was aimed at the upper-caste Hindu elite, which held power and influence in spheres of society including politics, bureaucracy and academia. He believed their adherence to caste discrimination hindered progress and development. Not much has changed today – India’s caste system is still the foundation of this disparity.

The pressing challenges of poverty alleviation and social development persist as millions of Indians remain trapped in a cycle of poverty, with limited access to education, healthcare and employment opportunities.

Additionally, the pervasiveness of corruption has a profound impact on India’s economic development, with studies estimating that corruption costs the economy billions of dollars annually. Last year’s World Economic Forum global competitiveness report identified corruption as one of the most problematic factors for doing business in India, hindering investment, stifling innovation and distorting market dynamics.

Corruption exacerbates income inequality, disproportionately affecting marginalised communities and perpetuating poverty. It further undermines the delivery of essential services, depriving millions of citizens of basic rights.

This systemic corruption not only erodes public trust in institutions but also widens the gap between the privileged few and the marginalised many.

Addressing corruption requires concerted efforts to strengthen accountability and integrity in governance and society. Initiatives such as the Lokpal Act, 2013 , aimed at combatting government corruption, are important steps.

However, implementation and enforcement mechanisms are essential to translate legislation into outcomes. Fostering a culture of ethical leadership and civic engagement is critical to building resilient institutions and promoting sustainable development in India.

As India stands on the threshold, progress is fraught with challenges and opportunities, while the data paints a picture of many paradoxes. Political participation and economic growth showcase India’s potential, but persistent poverty and inequalities underscore challenges ahead. Gigantic concerted efforts are needed to address disparities, promote inclusive development and uphold the principles of democracy and social justice.

India’s sociopolitical and economic character mirrors many Caribbean countries such as Trinidad and Guyana. However, the spotlight on India extends far beyond its regional counterparts, beckoning attention from its diaspora.

A global audience eagerly awaits the emergence of a leader capable of steering the nation towards a future characterised by inspirational governance, unwavering commitment to reform and the transformative upliftment of all segments of society.

• Global development
• Narendra Modi
• South and central Asia
• Global economy

Most viewed

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Insights Weekly Essay Challenges 2021 – Week 55 : Biased Media Is A Real Threat To Indian Democracy

Insights weekly essay challenges 2021 – week 55.

02 January 2021

Write an essay on the following topic in not more than 1000-1200 words:

Biased Media Is A Real Threat To Indian Democracy

Join InsightsIAS Official Telegram Channel for Daily Guidance and Motivation

https://t.me/s/insightsIAStips

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

• India Today
• Business Today
• Reader’s Digest
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• Aaj Tak Campus
• India Today Hindi

Democracy deeply-rooted in India but under threat, says Harvard professor Michael Sandel

"i think democracy is in danger and under threat in our country, in india and in many countries around the world," michael sandel, the rockstar political philosopher of harvard university said..

Listen to Story

Democracy in India is deeply-rooted and under threat, both at the same time, said Michael Sandel, a political philosopher at Harvard University.

Speaking on the first day of India Today Conclave 2023, Sandel said, "Democracy in India is deeply-rooted and under threat both at the same time and I say this as someone coming from a democracy where we had an attack on the US Capitol in the aftermath of an election. I think democracy is in danger and under threat in our country, in India and in many countries around the world, which is not to say that democracy is without sources of rejuvenation."

Full Coverage of Conclave 2023

"Many people look at the January 6, 2022 invasion of the Capitol and said that if something like this can happen in the United States, democracy is under threat everywhere and they were right to say that," the Harvard professor said in a tete-a-tete with India Today's Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai.

"The flourishing in the success and revival of democracy in the most populist democratic country in the world is something in which all of us have a stake. So, I wish you well as you all think through these challenges to democracy," he added.

ALSO READ | Conclave 2023: No one a minority in one's own country, says Smriti Irani on alienation

Further in the session, Sandel also spoke about problems that are inherent in today's social media era and said, "Social media platforms are set up to hold our attention through sensational, provocative, and inflammatory clickbait. That is deeply destructive of a kind of public culture we need".

"Social media is destructive of the capacity to listen and to pay attention, because the whole economic model of it is to hold our attention for as long as possible, to gather more personal data about us, the better to sell us stuff through targeted ads. And that is a recipe for an impoverished civic life and an impoverished public discourse," Sandel said.

ALSO READ | Everybody has a voice, and that to me defines what India is: AAP’s Atishi at Conclave 2023

Biased Media is a Real Threat to Indian Democracy | UPSC Mains Essay Preparation PDF Download

Before discussing the issue at hand, it is very important to understand the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘free press/media’ in a practical sense. Democracy is a form of government that provides the right to the citizens of the country to elect their representatives. In such a system, the final decision-making authority remains with the elected government. It is for the welfare of the citizens of a country that any and every law is made. Thus it is a fundamental right of the people to be well informed of all that is happening within the government and around the nation. This is where the role of independent media comes to the fore, wherein the people get access to the latest information and updates related to important matters through different media channels. Media plays a vital role in every single country and is perhaps the most effective way of communicating a message to the masses. Without media, no one would really know what is going on in the country or worldwide. However, the mere presence of media isn’t enough. It needs to be independent of any outside influence, including that of the government. That is what makes it a free press/media. For the citizens to make informed decisions, there must be complete transparency on the part of the government as well as the media. A biased media, on the other hand, could pose a real threat to democracy. Media is said to be biased when the media houses have some vested interests, and the news being reported by them are not offered from an independent perspective. The problem of biased media is affecting some of the biggest democracies in the world, and it is an issue in India as well.

Indian Media

India is regarded as the largest democracy globally, and it is a matter of great pride for the people of the country. But that label in itself does not suffice. It is so very necessary to maintain that status, and the media plays a huge role in determining just how democratic a nation in reality is. In recent years, Indian media is losing its independent status with increased government and corporate involvement in what the media broadcasts and how it has become increasingly difficult to believe any news as being authentic. Media has become a means for the government and other groups with vested interests to portray a certain image, regardless of whether that is genuine. It has become a means to exaggerate many incidents, either to their own benefit or to the disadvantage of the opposition or any dissenting parties. Media has become the perfect way to mislead the general population and influence their opinions in the direction of the party or government in power. Issues like these make the citizens doubt the accountability of the press, and that is a major obstacle in the way of India becoming a great democracy.

Problems Associated with Biased Media

Here are some ways in which biased media can adversely affect the democratic nature of a country like India:

• Can influence public opinion: While not every single person is likely to believe everything they see or read, it is, however, true that a majority of people do. The media plays a key role in shaping opinions on a wide variety of issues. For example, if it blames a certain section of the society for a serious incident, it could lead to animosity towards and perhaps even alienation of that group. The media is more often than not used to marginalize, target or victimize certain groups since the masses are quite gullible.
• Mislead the public: Misuse of media is a dangerous way to mislead the citizens of a nation. Through the circulation of fake news, it could have the masses believing something far from the truth. For instance, by providing fake updates on a public project, the government could easily garner praise when, in fact, the project is nowhere near where it’s described.
• Can affect the country’s political future: By projecting a positive image of itself, by constantly presenting each development as a massive one, by appealing to a certain group, etc., all through the means of mass media, the government can gather a large number of supporters who are likely to vote for them in the future, thus ensuring that their political reign continues. Using the media to their advantage, the government can very easily ensure that things keep going smoothly in their desired direction.       
• Can cause confusion and panic: By exaggerating the severity of a situation or not giving adequate attention to a problem, the media can cause serious problems. It can lead to protests, riots, violence, or the spread of more fake news, which will again cause a lot of confusion and panic among citizens.

How to Tackle the Issue of a Biased Media

Just because a major political party or the government is pulling the strings of the country’s media, all is not over. Citizens are responsible for ensuring that the country remains a democracy where everyone has an equal right to speak and express opinions without fear of prosecution. Here are some ways to minimize the effects of biased media, especially in a country like India:

• Questioning everything: With the way the media no longer portrays an incident without depicting a certain point of view, it is necessary to not take anything at face value. The best way to avoid being caught up in the web of fake or biased news is to look at the incident from all angles before concluding. It would be stupid to believe everything being shown without questioning it with a pair of impartial eyes.
• Collecting all the facts: It is crucial to have all the details to know what it is all about. It is best not to form an opinion on the said issue with minimum information since it could lead to misconceptions and confusion. Using various forms of mass media, one can easily gather more facts.
• Being open to diverse opinions: What makes India democracy is its importance to accommodating many diverging opinions. It is important to be open to differing views to gain perspective and better knowledge about an issue. Being open to criticism and debate will create a conducive environment for more information to spread.
• Be aware of vested interests: Though one can only see what the government or media wishes to show, it is necessary to read between the lines and follow up with new developments to be aware of where they stand. This will serve as the base for future comparisons and opinion formation.

The important and powerful role that independent media can play in the nation's progress cannot be overstated. By highlighting the major issues facing the country, fixing the accountability, offering an open platform for dissenting views, and suggesting available solutions, media can ensure the strengthening of the democratic fabric of the country. It is, therefore, important for all the citizens of the country to work towards ensuring an independent media which is free from all types of biases.

Top Courses for UPSC

Faqs on biased media is a real threat to indian democracy - upsc mains essay preparation, how to prepare for upsc, objective type questions, past year papers, video lectures, previous year questions with solutions, biased media is a real threat to indian democracy | upsc mains essay preparation, practice quizzes, sample paper, shortcuts and tricks, semester notes, study material, viva questions, mock tests for examination, important questions, extra questions.

Biased Media is a Real Threat to Indian Democracy Free PDF Download

Importance of biased media is a real threat to indian democracy, biased media is a real threat to indian democracy notes, biased media is a real threat to indian democracy upsc questions, study biased media is a real threat to indian democracy on the app, welcome back, create your account for free.

Forgot Password

Unattempted tests, change country, practice & revise.

Biased Media is a real threat to Indian Democracy..

Media are the communication outlets or tools used to store and deliver information or data. The term refers to components of the mass media communications industry, such as print media, publishing, the news media, photography, cinema, broad casting (radio and television) and advertising.

Biased journalist or biased news channel shows that all policies and steps of government or apolitical party is always right, they do not criticize government for their wrong work and this will harm the democracy or country because criticism is the backbone of democracy, criticism keeps the government on right track, and media is the fourth pillar of democracy, media keeps democracy alive.

Security implications from Social Media:

As technology is a double edged sword. The large numbers, speed, anonymity and secrecy attached to these conversations have far reaching security implications. Subversive actors have proved in recent years that they are particularly adept at utilizing the Internet and social media to facilitate their activities.

The security implications include:

• Radicalization: Terrorist groups like Islamic State (ISIS) and Al Qaeda and countries like Pakistan have been extremely effective in using social media to radicalize people and position them to commit violent acts.
• Terrorism: Many terror modules were busted by police in India, all of whose members were groomed, trained, funded and armed by their handlers on social networking sites. World over, there are cases of terrorist operations, especially lone wolf attacks, being coordinated through social media.
• Incitement of riots through hateful posts and communal videos. E.g. Hate videos were circulated before the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013. Pakistan's ISI is known to incite violence by circulating fake videos on social media to incite riots.
• Cyber-crime: These include cyber bullying or stalking, financial frauds, identity theft etc.
• Divulgence of sensitive information: Forces posted in sensitive locations are prone to giving away their locations and assets on social media.
• Influencing democratic processes: The latest emerging threat to national interests is the use of these sites to influence and subvert democratic processes by actors both from within and from enemy countries. Examples recently were seen in US Presidential elections and Brexit referendum.
• Cyber espionage: Sensitive information from the mobile phones used by security personnel can be stolen using malware and social media.

Following Measures should be taken to deal with these threats:

• Legal Provisions: IT Act 2000 under Sections 69 and 69A provides government with the power to intercept and block any information, as well as punish perpetrators, in the interest of security and public order etc. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and IPC also have provisions against spreading hatred between groups, inciting violence and the intent or act of terrorist activities.
• Security agencies: Government agencies including National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC) and Intelligence agencies actively track terrorist activity on the social media. State police also have their own social media cells, like the highly effective Mumbai's Social Media Lab.
• Centralized Monitoring System (CMS): To automate the process of lawful interception and monitoring of the internet in the country. It has come into operation in Mumbai and will soon spread to other areas.
• De-radicalisation: The Union Home Ministry initiated counter-radicalisation and de-radicalisation strategy in sync with cultural, education and employment activities to counter the threat.
• Guidelines for armed forces: The Government of India issued updated guidelines in 2016 for regulating sharing of secret operational and service data on social media platforms.
• Monitoring social networking companies: The activities and influence of social networking sites is also being monitored by the government so that they prevent misuse of their platforms for subversive activities and other cyber threats.
• International Cooperation is being promoted to deal with the often transnational nature of the threats.

In view of the broad threat posed by social media, the Union government needs to come up with a National Social Media Policy. All possible legal, administrative and security related efforts must be taken up to check the use of social media for subversive purposes. However, the need for privacy and security has to be balanced carefully.

Related Essay Biased Social media a threat to Indian Democracy. (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.0&appId=1414762635264187&autoLogAppEvents=1'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); Notice Board Last Day 10% off on study materials --> UPSC Final Results 2019 New --> UPSC Mains Results 2022 [ New ] Free CSAT Practice Test --> Practice Prelims Test Series 2024 [ New ] UPSC Videos Daily News Daily UPSC Current Affairs Quiz [ Free ] UPSC Results Prelims Question Papers Prelims Marks Distribution General Studies Notes [ Free ] Current Affairs UPSC Syllabus UPSC Prelims Syllabus UPSC Mains Syllabus UPSC Jobs List UPSC Subjects UPSC Age Limit IAS Full form UPSC Exam Free UPSC Material IAS Exam Book How to prepare for prelims 2023 --> How to prepare for CSAT UPSC Study Material --> UPSC Interview Questions --> UPSC IAS Exam Questions Economic Survey 2020-21 Download --> Union Budget 2020-21 Download --> National Education Policy 2020 Download --> Daily UPSC Current Affairs Quiz --> Union Budget 2024-25 [ New ]   --> Civil Service Essay Contest March 2024

• Changing trends in the female workforce, how it can be harnessed for better growth.
• How is the startup scene in India contributing to the GDP?

Civil Service Essay Contest (March 2024)

• Changing trends in the female workforce, how it can be harnessed for better growth. Views : 84
• Is the caste barrier breaking due to increased love marriages in India? Views : 1695

Current Affairs Analysis

Upsc civil service examination 2024 notification to be out on february 14, check details.

Views : 8042

Tsunamis are here to stay as it hits Japan

Views : 9726

Floods and the Monsoon in India

Views : 9621

Use of AI in the field of meteorological research

Views : 1365

Update on National TB Elimination Programme

Views : 10924

Goa Liberation Day

Views : 10556

About Civil Service India

Civil Service India is a website dedicated to the Civil Services Exam conducted by UPSC. It guides you through the entire gambit of the IAS exam starting with notification, eligibility, syllabus, tips, quiz, notes and current affairs. A team of dedicated professionals are at work to help you!

Stay updated with Us

Phone : +91 96000 32187 / +91 94456 88445

Email : [email protected]

Essay on Democracy in India for Students and Children

500+ words essay on democracy in india.

Essay on Democracy in India – First of all, democracy refers to a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. Democracy holds a special place in India. Furthermore, India without a doubt is the biggest democracy in the world. Also, the democracy of India is derived from the constitution of India. After suffering at the hands of British colonial rule, India finally became a democratic nation in 1947 . Most noteworthy, Indian democracy since independence is infused with the spirit of justice, liberty, and equality.

Features of Indian Democracy

Sovereignty is a vital feature of Indian democracy. Sovereignty refers to the full power of a governing body over itself without outside interference. Moreover, people can exercise power in Indian democracy . Most noteworthy, people of India elect their representatives. Moreover, these representatives remain responsible for common people.

The democracy in India works on the principle of political equality. Furthermore, it essentially means all citizens are equal before the law. Most noteworthy, there is no discrimination on the basis of religion , caste, creed, race, sect, etc. Hence, every Indian citizen enjoys equal political rights.

Rule of the majority is an essential feature of Indian democracy. Moreover, the party which wins the most seats forms and runs the government. Most noteworthy, no-one can object to support of the majority.

Another feature of Indian democracy is federal. Most noteworthy, India is a union of states. Furthermore, the states are somewhat autonomous. Moreover, the states enjoy freedom in certain matters.

Collective responsibility is a notable feature of Indian democracy. The council of Ministers in India is collectively responsible to their respective legislatures. Therefore, no minister alone is responsible for any act of their government.

Indian democracy works on the principle of formation of opinion. Furthermore, the government and its institutions must work on the basis of public opinion. Most noteworthy, public opinion must be formed on various matters in India. Moreover, the Legislature of India provides an appropriate platform to express public opinion.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Ways to Strengthen Democracy in India

First of all, people must stop having a blind belief in the media. Many times the news reported by media is out of context and exaggerated. Most noteworthy, some media outlets may propagate the propaganda of a particular political party. Therefore, people must be careful and cautious when accepting media news.

Another important way to strengthen the Indian democracy is to reject the consumer mentality in elections. Several Indians view national elections like consumers buying a product. Most noteworthy, elections should make Indians feel like participants rather than separatists.

People in India should make their voices heard. Furthermore, people must try to communicate with their elected official all year-round instead of just during elections. Therefore, citizens must write, call, email, or attend community forums to communicate with their elected official. This would surely strengthen Indian democracy.

Huge voter turnouts is really an efficient way to strengthen democracy in India. People must avoid hesitation and come out to vote. Most noteworthy, large voter turnout would signify a substantial involvement of the common people in Indian politics.

In conclusion, the democracy in India is something very precious. Furthermore, it is a gift of the patriotic national leaders to the citizens of India. Most noteworthy, the citizens of this country must realize and appreciate the great value of democracy. The democracy in India is certainly unique in the world.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [{ “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “State any two features of Indian democracy?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Two features of Indian democracy are the rule of the majority and collective responsibility.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “State any one way to strengthen democracy in India?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”:”One way to strengthen democracy in India is to reject the consumer mentality in elections.”} }] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Why Losing Political Power Now Feels Like ‘Losing Your Country’

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Is partisan hostility so deeply enmeshed in American politics that it cannot be rooted out?

Will Donald Trump institutionalize democratic backsliding — the rejection of adverse election results, the demonization of minorities and the use of the federal government to punish opponents — as a fixture of American politics?

The literature of polarization suggests that partisan antipathy has become deeply entrenched and increasingly resistant to amelioration.

“Human brains are constantly scanning for threats to in-groups,” Rachel Kleinfeld , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a September 2023 essay, “ Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says .”

“As people affectively polarize, they appear to blow out-group threats out of proportion, exaggerating the out-group’s dislike and disgust for their own group, and getting ready to defend their in-group, sometimes aggressively,” Kleinfeld argued.

Kleinfeld acknowledged that “a number of interventions have been shown in lab settings, games and short experiments to reduce affective intervention in the short term,” but, she was quick to caution, “reducing affective polarization through these lab experiments and games has not been shown to affect regular Americans’ support for antidemocratic candidates, support for antidemocratic behaviors, voting behavior or support for political violence.”

Taking her argument a step further, Kleinfeld wrote:

Interventions to reduce affective polarization will be ineffective if they operate only at the individual, emotional level. Ignoring the role of polarizing politicians and political incentives to instrumentalize affective polarization for political gain will fail to generate change while enhancing cynicism when polite conversations among willing participants do not generate prodemocratic change.

Yphtach Lelkes , a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, succinctly described by email the hurdles facing proposed remedies for polarization and antidemocratic trends:

I don’t think any bottom-up intervention is going to solve a problem that is structural. You could reduce misperceptions for a day or two or put diverse groups together for an hour, but these people will be polarized again as soon as they are exposed once more to campaign rhetoric.

The reality, Lelkes continued, is that “a fish rots from the head, and political elites are driving any democratic backsliding that is occurring in America. Most Republican voters do not support the antidemocratic policies and practices of their elected officials.”

In their March 2024 paper, “ Uncommon and Nonpartisan: Antidemocratic Attitudes in the American Public ,” Lelkes, Derek E. Holliday and Shanto Iyengar , both of Stanford, and Sean J. Westwood of Dartmouth found that public opposition to antidemocratic policies is not adequate to prevent their adoption:

More ominous implications of our results are that 1) public support is not a necessary precondition for backsliding behavior by elites, and 2) Americans, despite their distaste for norm violations, continue to elect representatives whose policies and actions threaten democracy. One explanation is that when partisanship is strong, voters place party and policy goals over democratic values. Indeed, one of the least-supported norm violations — removing polling places in outparty-dominated areas — has already been violated by elected officials in Texas, and there are concerns about pending similar laws in other states. Such unconstrained elite behavior suggests that threats to democracy could well manifest themselves in both parties in the future.

The level of public support for democratic institutions will be a crucial factor in the 2024 elections. President Biden is campaigning on the theme that Trump and his MAGA allies are intent on strengthening authoritarian leadership at the expense of democracy.

Political scientists and reform groups seeking to restore collegiality to political debate and elections have experimented with a wide variety of techniques to reduce partisan hostility and support for antidemocratic policies.

These efforts have raised doubts among other election experts, both about their effectiveness and durability. Such experts cite the virulence of the conflicts over race, ethnicity and values and the determination of Trump and other politicians to keep divisive issues in the forefront of campaigns.

I have written before about the largest study of techniques to lessen polarization, which was conducted by Jan G. Voelkel and Robb Willer , sociologists at Stanford, along with many other colleagues. Voelkel and Willer are the primary authors of “ Megastudy Identifying Effective Interventions to Strengthen Americans’ Democratic Attitudes .” Given the heightened importance of the coming election and the potential effects of polarization on it, their study is worth re-evaluating.

Voelkel, Willer and 83 others

conducted a megastudy (n=32,059) testing 25 interventions designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans’ partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. We find nearly every intervention reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting sympathetic and relatable individuals with different political beliefs. We also identify several interventions that reduced support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence, most strongly by correcting misperceptions of outpartisans’ views — showing that antidemocratic attitudes, although difficult to move, are not intractable.

Their own data and their responses to my inquiries suggest, however, that the optimism of their paper needs to be tempered.

In the case of the “six interventions that significantly reduced partisan animosity,” the authors reported that two weeks later “the average effect size in the durability survey amounted to 29 percent of the average effect size in the main survey.”

I asked Voelkel to explain this further, posing the question: “If the initial reduction in the level of partisan animosity was 10 percentage points, does the 29 percent figure indicate that after two weeks the reduction in partisan animosity was 2.9 percentage points?” Voelkel wrote back to say yes.

In an email responding to some of my follow-up questions about the paper, Voelkel wrote:

I do not want to overstate the success of the interventions that we tested in our study. Our contribution is that we identify psychological strategies for intervening on partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes in the context of a survey experiment. We still need to test how big the effects could be in a large-scale campaign in which the psychological mechanisms for reducing partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes get triggered not once (as in our study) but ideally many times and over a longer period.

Voelkel cautioned that “one-time interventions might not be enough to sustainably reduce affective polarization in the mass public. Thus, successful efforts would need to be applied widely and repeatedly to trigger the psychological mechanisms that are associated with reductions in affective polarization.”

Willer sent a detailed response to my queries by email:

First, to be clear, we do not claim that the interventions we tested have large enough effects that they would cure the problems they target. We do not find evidence for that. Far from it. I would characterize the results of the Strengthening Democracy Challenge in a more measured way. We find that many of the interventions we tested reliably, meaningfully and durably reduce both survey and behavioral indicators of partisan animosity.

Willer wrote that “the interventions we tested were pretty effective in reducing animosity toward rival partisans, particularly in the short term. However, we found that the interventions we tested were substantially less effective in reducing antidemocratic attitudes, like support for undemocratic practices and candidates.”

Other scholars were more skeptical.

I asked Lilliana Mason , a political scientist at Johns Hopkins and a leading scholar of affective polarization: “Are there methods to directly lessen polarization? Are they possible on a large, populationwide scale?”

“If we knew that,” she replied by email, “we would have definitely told people already.”

There is evidence, Mason continued, that

it is possible to correct misperceptions about politics by simply providing correct information. The problem is that this new correct information doesn’t change people’s feelings about political candidates or issues. For example, you can correct a lie told by Donald Trump, and people will believe the new correct information, but that won’t change their feelings about Trump at all.

“We think of affective polarization as being extremely loyal to one side and feeling strong animosity toward the other side,” Mason wrote, adding:

This can be rooted in substantive disagreements on policy, identity-based status threat, safe versus dangerous worldview, historical and contemporary patterns of oppression, violations of political norms, vilifying rhetoric, propagandistic media and/or a number of other influences. But once we are polarized, it’s very difficult to use reason and logic to convince us to think otherwise.

Similarly, “there are methods that reduce polarization in academic research settings,” Westwood, an author of the March paper cited above, wrote by email. He continued:

The fundamental problems are that none “cure” polarization (i.e., move the population from negative to neutral attitudes toward the opposing party), none last more than a short period of time and none have a plausible path to societywide deployment. It is impossible to reach every American in need of treatment, and many would balk at the idea of having their political attitudes manipulated by social scientists or community groups.

More important, in Westwood’s view, is that

whatever techniques might exist to reduce citizen animosity must be accompanied by efforts to reduce hostility among elected officials. It doesn’t matter if we can make someone more positive toward the other party if that effect is quickly undone by watching cable news, reading social media or otherwise listening to divisive political elites.

Referring to the Voelkel-Willer paper, Westwood wrote:

It is a critically important scientific study, but it, like nearly all social science research, does not demonstrate that the studied approaches work in the real world. Participants in this study were paid volunteers, and the effects were large but not curative. (They reduced partisan hatred and did not cure it.) To fix America’s problems, we need to reach everyone from fringe white nationalists to single moms in Chicago, which is so costly and logistically complicated that there isn’t a clear path toward implementation.

One problem with proposals designed to reduce partisan animosity and antidemocratic beliefs, which at least three of the scholars I contacted mentioned, is that positive effects are almost immediately nullified by the hostile language in contemporary politics.

“The moralized political environment is a core problem,” Peter Ditto , a professor of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine, wrote by email:

Unless we can bring the temperature down in the country, it is going to be hard to make progress on other fronts, like trying to debias citizens’ consumption of political information. The United States is stuck in this outrage spiral. Partisan animosity both fuels and is fueled by a growing fact gap between red and blue America.

Ditto argued that there is “good evidence for the effectiveness of accuracy prompts (correcting falsehoods) to reduce people’s belief in political misinformation,” but “attempting to reduce political polarization with accuracy prompts alone is like trying to start a mediation during a bar fight.”

Attempts to improve political decision making, Ditto added, “are unlikely to have a substantial effect unless we can tamp down the growing animosity felt between red and blue America. The United States has gone from a politics based on disagreement to one based on dislike, distrust, disrespect and often even disgust.”

Citing the Voelkel-Willer paper, Jay Van Bavel , a professor of psychology and neural science at N.Y.U., emailed me to express his belief that “there are solid, well-tested strategies for reducing affective polarization. These are possible on a large scale if there is sufficient political will.”

But Van Bavel quickly added that these strategies “are up against all the other factors that are currently driving conflict and animosity, including divisive leaders like Donald Trump, gerrymandering, hyperpartisan media (including social media), etc. It’s like trying to bail out the Titanic.”

Simply put, it is difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to counter polarization at a time when partisan sectarianism is intense and pervasive.

Bavel described polarization as

both an illness from various problems in our political system and an outcome. As a result, the solution is going to be extremely complex and involve different leadership (once Trump and his inner circle leave the scene, that will help a lot), as well as a number of structural changes (removing gerrymandering and other incentive structures that reinforce extremism).

Affective polarization, Bavel added,

is really just a disdain for the other political party. Political sectarianism seems to be an even worse form because now you see the other party as evil. Both of these are, of course, related to ideological polarization. But affective polarization and political sectarianism are different because they can make it impossible to cooperate with an opponent even when you agree. That’s why they are particularly problematic.

Stanley Feldman , a political scientist at Stony Brook University, pointed to another characteristic of polarization that makes it especially difficult to lower the temperature of the conflict between Republicans and Democrats: There are real, not imaginary, grounds for their mutual animosity.

In an email, Feldman wrote:

There is a reality to this conflict. There has been a great deal of social change in the U.S. over the past few decades. Gay marriage is legal, gender norms are changing, the country is becoming more secular, immigration has increased.

Because of this, Feldman added:

it’s a mistake to suggest this is like an illness or disease. We’re talking about people’s worldviews and beliefs. As much as we may see one side or the other to be misguided and a threat to democracy, it’s still important to try to understand and take seriously their perspective. And analogies to illness or pathology will not help to reduce conflict.

There are, in Feldman’s view,

two major factors that have contributed to this. First, national elections are extremely competitive now. Partisan control of the House and Senate could change at every election. Presidential elections are decided on razor-thin margins. This means that supporters of each party constantly see the possibility of losing power every election. This magnifies the perceived threat from the opposing party and increases negative attitudes toward the out-party.

The second factor?

The issues dividing the parties have changed. When the two parties fought over the size of government, taxes and social welfare programs, it was possible for partisans to imagine a compromise that is more or less acceptable even if not ideal. Compromise on issues like abortion, gender roles, L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the role of religion is much more difficult, so losing feels like more of a threat to people’s values. Feldman continued:

From a broader perspective, these issues, as well as immigration and the declining white majority, reflect very different ideas of what sort of society the United States should be. This makes partisan conflict feel like an existential threat to an “American” way of life. Losing political power then feels like losing your country. And the opposing parties become seen as dangers to society.

These legitimately felt fears and anxieties in the electorate provide a fertile environment for elected officials, their challengers and other institutional forces to exacerbate division.

As Feldman put it:

It’s also important to recognize the extent to which politicians, the media, social media influencers and others have exacerbated perceptions of threat from social change. Take immigration, for example. People could be reminded of the history of immigration in the U.S.: how immigrants have contributed to American society, how second and third generations have assimilated, how previous fears of immigration have been unfounded. Instead there are voices increasing people’s fear of immigration, suggesting that immigrants are a threat to the country, dangerous and even less than human. Discussions of a “great replacement” theory, supposed attacks on religion, dangers of immigration and changing gender norms undermining men’s place in society magnify perceptions of threat from social change. Cynical politicians have learned that they can use fear and partisan hostility to their political advantage. As long as they think this is a useful strategy, it will be difficult to begin to reduce polarization and partisan hostility.

In other words, as long as Trump is the Republican nominee for president and as long as the prospect of a majority-minority country continues to propel right-wing populism, the odds of reducing the bitter animosity that now characterizes American politics remain slim.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall

India election sees turnout fall in second phase as Modi and Gandhi trade barbs

• Medium Text
• Hot-button communal issues in the spotlight
• Voter turnout 61% in second phase of election
• Heat wave conditions reported from parts of India
• Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the fray from Kerala state

HEATED CAMPAIGN

RAHUL GANDHI IN THE FRAY

Sign up here.

Reporting by Haripriya Suresh, Dhanya Skariachan, Ananya Mariam Rajesh and Hritam Mukherjee in Bengaluru, Chris Thomas in Kottayam, Nikunj Ohri in Mathura, Tanvi Mehta in Noida, Sakshi Dayal, Shivam Patel and Shivangi Acharya in Delhi; Writing by YP Rajesh; Editing by Stephen Coates, Raju Gopalakrishnan and Miral Fahmy; Editing by Toby Chopra

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Dhanya Skariachan is the Spot Companies News Editor for Reuters in India, overseeing a 24-member team in charge of breaking news on India Inc. She started her journalism career in 2006 and has worked at the news agency’s bureaus in Bengaluru and New York. She has also run the South Indian newsrooms of Mint, taught the ACJ-Bloomberg business journalism class at the Asian College of Journalism, and led the business news team at Deccan Herald. She has broken news on companies ranging from Walmart to Best Buy and interviewed some of the biggest newsmakers in the world from Jeff Bezos to Vishal Sikka. She was nominated for Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Awards for beat reporting in 2010. She was recently named a co-winner of a Reuters 2023 Journalists of the Year Award in the beat coverage category.

Dozens of schools in India's national capital region were evacuated on Wednesday after they received a bomb threat by email, police said, adding that "nothing objectionable" was found during searches of the schools.

World Chevron

A collapse of an expressway section in China's Guangdong province caused vehicles to plunge and killed 36 people while injuring another 30, state media reported on Thursday, as millions in the country travel for the May Day holiday break.

• ISSN 2820-2120
• Our Privacy Policy
• Comment Policy
• සිංහල

Home feature Fake News as an Industry: The Threat to Indian Democracy

Fake News as an Industry: The Threat to Indian Democracy

By Sri Lanka Guardian • April 29, 2024 • Columns feature • Comments : 0

Indian voters, grasp the significance: This election transcends political factions. It's a pivotal moment to safeguard our nation's essence and uphold democratic ideals

Post a Comment

TOP READS IN MONTH

Social Buzz: ‘Modi mimic’ announces candidature against PM, AAP targets PM over Covishield side-effects and more

W ith the third phase of the Lok Sabha elections nearing, virtual spaces are abuzz with videos of parties campaigning for their nominees, citizens exercising their right to vote — some for the very first time — and the debate on alleged "deepfake" videos of political leaders. Here's your daily round-up of what was trending on social media platforms on Wednesday.

'Modi mimic' announces candidature against PM in Varanasi

Shyam Rangeela, a 29-year-old comedian from Rajasthan known for mimicking Narendra Modi , announced that he will contest against the Prime Minister from Varanasi. The contest to ensure that “democracy lives on” is not merely symbolic, he told The Indian Express . He said that he will contest “wholeheartedly” and will be reaching Varanasi this weekend to file his nomination papers.

“ Hum at least ye kehne ke liye wahan par khade hue honge ke hum yahan par loktantra khatre mein nahin aane denge, logon ko vote ke liye yahan option milega (We will be standing there to at least tell the people that we won’t let democracy come under threat here, to provide an option to people to exercise their right to vote) … unlike  Surat  or Indore,” he said. He was referring to the walkover for the  BJP candidates in these constituencies after Congress candidates withdrew their papers.

Tribe from Great Nicobar votes for the first time

Members of the Shompen tribe from Great Nicobar voted for the very first time in the Lok Sabha elections on April 19,  a picture of which the Election Commission posted on X (formerly Twitter). The tribe is one of the 75 communities which have been identified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG).

"The Election Commission of India being conscious of PVTGs inclusion in the electoral process had made special efforts in the last two years for their enrolment as voters and also participation in the voting process," the EC said in a press statement. The release said that the poll body had also held special outreach camps across the states which were home to PVTGs for their inclusion in the electoral roll.

'Modi played with lives of people', says AAP on Covishield side-effects

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said that PM Modi had "played with the lives of people" by making them administer the Covishield vaccine. Taking to X, the party said the vaccine had been banned by seven countries in 2021 - Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark.

"Now AstraZeneca, the company that makes Covishield, has admitted that people can suffer from brain hemorrhage and heart attack due to the Covishield vaccine," the post said. AAP alleged that the Prime Minister had taken "crores of rupees in donations" from the vaccine manufacturer.

Business of fake videos in Cong's 'Mohabbat ki Dukan': PM Modi

Referring to Union Home Minister Amit Shah's deepfake video circulating on social media, PM Modi alleged that the Congress was carrying out a "business of fake videos" in its ' Mohabbat ki Dukan '. "The prince of Congress... had set out with the Mohabbat ki Dukan , but he has opened a business of fake videos in it," Modi said.

The BJP had on Monday complained to the EC about deepfake videos circulating on the internet at a time when Lok Sabha elections are in progress, and requested the poll body to ask social media giants to promptly delete such content when it comes to their notice, block accounts of habitual purveyors of disinformation and also place ads in newspapers to caution people against deepfakes. The BJP complained that a video of Amit Shah saying the BJP would end reservation for Muslims on religious grounds was falsely shown as him saying that the party would end quota for SCs, STs and OBCs.

For the latest news from across India , Political updates , Explainers , Sports News , Opinion , Entertainment Updates and more Top News , visit Indian Express . Subscribe to our award-winning Newsletter Download our App here Android & iOS

'Threat to democracy': Congress after its Indore candidate withdraws nomination

NEW DELHI: As its Indore Lok Sabha seat candidate Akshay Kanti Bam withdrew his nomination, the Congress on Monday said there is a "threat to democracy" and wondered if there is a free and fair poll when the Election Commission "looks the other way" while candidate after candidate is being "intimidated".

The Congress' Indore Lok Sabha seat candidate Bam withdrew his nomination on Monday, a fortnight before polling in the constituency.

After withdrawing his nomination, Bam reached the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) office in Indore.

Monday is the last day for withdrawal of nomination in the Indore Lok Sabha seat, where polling will be held on May 13.

Asked about the development, Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate said, "The gentleman in question has multiple universities and colleges in the state that we spoke about. One of the charges slapped against him was of murder. It is not natural, normal or ordinary that somebody just withdraws their candidature and joins the BJP."

"When we say democracy of India is under threat, this is the threat we speak about. The threat is to coax candidates, to put pressure on them to withdraw, to intimidate them, to intimidate their proposers and that is what is happening," she alleged at a press conference at the AICC headquarters here.

She said those who question the party on where is the threat to democracy, this signifies that there is a "threat to democracy".

"When intimidation is of the kind that people are having to withdraw from electoral contests, where is a free and fair election. Where is a free and fair election when the prime minister delivers a hate speech but he is not held responsible, the notice goes to the party president, where is a free and fair election when the Election Commission looks the other way when candidate after candidate is being intimidated," Shrinate said.

The Congress had fielded Bam (45), a newbie in the poll arena, against sitting BJP MP Shankar Lalwani (62) from the Indore seat, which is a stronghold of the saffron party.

Bam has not contested a single election in his political career so far.

The Congress offered him the opportunity to contest from Indore at a time when several party workers, including three former MLAs of the party, have switched sides and joined the BJP ahead of the Lok Sabha elections.

Indore, the largest constituency in the state in terms of number of voters, has 25. 13 lakh electors.

Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp  

Download the TNIE app to stay with us and follow the latest

Related Stories