A Liability for India’s democracy and Future

Under Narendra Modi’s leadership, India has witnessed a significant transformation, but not all of it has been for the better. The social fabric of the country has come under strain due to rising communal tensions and religious polarisation.  The minority groups especially the Muslims and Christians are finding themselves in a position where they are discriminated and excluded. This intolerance has been gradually eating into the pluralistic nature of India, and most citizens do not feel safe or represented in the country of their birth.

Meanwhile, the freedom of expression has been on a steady decline. The journalists, activists, and academics expressing opposition or criticism of government policies, are usually answered with harassment, intimidation, or prosecution. India which used to be hailed as a vibrant democracy with a free press has drastically dropped in the global ranking of press freedom. Dissent has ceased to be viewed as an element of the health of democracy but is regularly branded anti-national or sedition. This has led to the contraction of space of open debate and critical discussion thus throwing the democratic norms in the shade.

On the economic front, the Modi government has not fulfilled its inclusive growth and development promises. Unemployment among the youths is alarming, rural distress is deepening and informal sector in which majority of Indians get employed has been severely affected due to ill-advised policies such as demonetization and hasty introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST). These actions, billed as ambitious reforms, had a terrific impact on everyday life and drove lots of small businesses to the wall. With the catchphrase of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas,” the fruits of economic development have been concentrated on the unequal distribution and the disparity between the desire and actuality is still increasing.

Internationally, India has suffered a setback as far as diplomatic ties with neighbors are concerned. The existing policy of regional cooperation and calculated involvement has been swapped with the rhetoric of nationalism. Border tensions with Nepal, growing proximity of Sri Lanka with China and a drift in relations with other South Asian neighbours indicate a slide in Indian influence in the region. The foreign policy led by Modi has not only estranged the immediate neighborhood of India but also destroyed the long held role of India as a stabilizer of South Asia.

The move to revoke Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir may be considered as one of the most debatable and harmful actions taken during the rule of Modi. Although this was sold as a step to assure regional integration into the rest of India, the consequences have been worrying. This was followed by military lock downs, communication black out and mass arrests, which were criticized by international human rights organizations and foreign governments. Rather than solving the problem of Kashmir, the action has done more alienation to the locally available population and has also diminished the Indian democratic status on the international platform.

At the same time the major institutions of democracy have been getting politicized. The other structures of democracy such as the judiciary and the investigation bodies seem to be at strains to conform to the agenda of the ruling party. This institutional encroachment is worrying to the checks and balances in any thriving democracy. This process of concentrating power in the hands of a single leader has resulted in a situation where differences of opinion are not tolerated even within the ruling party itself and there is no internal accountability.

India’s global reputation has also suffered.  The condition of democracy, civil liberties and religious freedom in the country has been of concern to major international organization, foreign media houses and even the government of allies. Nor are these criticisms purely symbolic: they have practical implications in the areas of foreign investment, strategic alliances and international prestige. A country, which plans to take a leading role in the global arena, cannot do without caring about the image it projects to the outside world.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which has long prioritized ideological discipline and the strength of its institutions is at the core of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But with Modi at the helm, even the RSS is now bound to a personality cult. This has led to concentration on personal charisma as opposed to group leadership which has eroded internal discussion and interfered with long term projection. In the absence of room to accommodate alternative opinions and growth of leadership, both the BJP and the Sangh Parivar stand to be harmed in the long run.

Dissent is also building up even in the BJP. A section of old guard leadership, business leaders and citizen groups are starting to express concern over where the country is going under Modi. The management of a pluralistic and fast evolving society such as India cannot be based on charisma simply. It involves consensus, institutional trust and policies that are inclusive and really build up all segments of the society.

Removing Modi must not be interpreted as a political vengeance, but as an action that would bring back democratic equilibrium and balance. India needs a leadership that puts unity amongst the diversity, development more than headlines and dialogue more than dominance. A less extreme, competent, and unifying leader would be able to guide the nation back towards its constitutional principles, stabilize relationships with neighbors, and restore an economy that benefits all. To India, the leadership transition is not only an option- it might be a necessity as far as the long term prospects are concerned.