The Erosion of Democratic Norms in India Under BJP Rule
India, once lauded as the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy, is increasingly facing serious challenges to its democratic institutions and principles. Since the rise of the Bharatiya Janata...
India, once lauded as the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy, is increasingly facing serious challenges to its democratic institutions and principles. Since the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, political analysts, civil society groups, and international observers have expressed mounting concerns over democratic backsliding. The BJP’s recent governance approach appears less concerned with upholding democratic norms and more focused on consolidating power and entrenching a one-party dominance. Key developments- from the push for synchronized elections to opaque political funding mechanisms- signal a deeper pattern: the prioritization of political self-interest over democratic accountability and pluralistic governance.
One of the most controversial initiatives championed by the BJP is the “One Nation, One Election” proposal. Marketed as a means of reducing electoral costs and ensuring uninterrupted governance, the policy in practice would tilt the balance of power decisively in favor of the dominant national party- currently, the BJP. By aligning national and state elections, the ruling party stands to benefit from its national-level popularity, overshadowing regional issues and candidates, and weakening federal diversity. In a nation as socially and politically complex as India, staggered elections allow voters to consider local governance independently from the national narrative. The BJP’s push to homogenize elections under a central umbrella threatens the federal architecture enshrined in the Indian Constitution and risks turning regional contests into mere referenda on central leadership.
The danger of centralizing electoral power is compounded by the now-defunct but highly consequential Electoral Bond Scheme. Introduced in 2017, this scheme allowed anonymous corporate and individual donations to political parties through financial instruments issued by the State Bank of India. Although branded as a reform to clean up political funding, it achieved the opposite- shrouding donor identities, bypassing scrutiny, and opening the floodgates to opaque corporate influence. Unsurprisingly, the BJP emerged as the overwhelming beneficiary, receiving the lion’s share of electoral bonds. This lopsided distribution raises serious ethical questions. While all political parties suffered from reduced transparency, the BJP- as both the designer and main beneficiary- appeared to weaponize the system to fuel its electoral machine while shutting out financial competition. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling in 2024, struck down the scheme as unconstitutional. But by then, it had already enabled a seismic shift in how political power was bankrolled in India.
Equally concerning is the BJP’s legislative approach, which increasingly sidesteps consensus and undermines parliamentary deliberation. Despite lacking a two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha, the party has repeatedly pushed through transformative legislation using a simple majority- often curtailing debate, suspending dissenting MPs, or passing bills in haste. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the three contentious farm laws, and sweeping labor reforms were all passed amid fierce opposition, both inside and outside Parliament. In many cases, public consultations were either tokenistic or entirely absent. Such legislative bulldozing undermines the spirit of India’s parliamentary democracy, where diverse perspectives and deliberation are meant to shape national policy. In effect, laws with profound socio-political impact are being passed not through consensus, but through procedural domination.
This procedural authoritarianism has been accompanied by an increasingly hostile stance toward dissent. Critics of the government- whether they be journalists, student activists, academics, or civil society leaders—have faced legal intimidation, media vilification, and in some cases, outright arrest. Laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sedition statutes have been wielded not against terrorists or separatists alone, but against peaceful protestors and intellectuals. The protests against the CAA and the farmers’ movement were met not only with police force but also with sustained efforts to delegitimize protestors as “anti-national” or “urban Naxals,” terms now regularly deployed to shut down criticism. In a functioning democracy, protest is a legitimate form of political engagement. The BJP’s systematic branding of dissent as disloyalty undermines this foundational right and fosters a climate of fear.
Compounding these developments is the hollowing out of India’s democratic institutions. Independent agencies such as the Election Commission, the Enforcement Directorate, and the Central Bureau of Investigation have increasingly been perceived as extensions of the ruling party. Investigations disproportionately targeting opposition leaders, while BJP figures remain untouched despite allegations, points to selective enforcement of justice. Even the judiciary- once a robust check on executive overreach- has come under scrutiny for its delays in hearing crucial cases or for perceived bias in politically sensitive matters. When institutions meant to provide oversight become tools of partisan strategy, the very scaffolding of democracy begins to crack.
The cumulative effect of these strategies is clear: an electoral autocracy masked by democratic procedures. Elections still take place, but their fairness is compromised by the distortion of campaign finance, suppression of dissent, and manipulation of institutional power. Parliament still functions, but in form more than in spirit. Media still broadcasts, but a large portion parrots government talking points. Dissent still exists, but at a steep personal cost.
India’s democratic regression under BJP leadership should not be seen as an isolated phenomenon but as part of a deliberate and strategic project. The party’s model of governance relies on nationalism, majoritarianism, and centralization, leaving little room for federal autonomy, minority rights, or institutional checks. This is not just an ideological shift- it is a structural assault on the pluralistic fabric that has defined Indian democracy for decades.
If democratic erosion continues unchecked, the consequences will be profound- not only for India’s internal cohesion but also for its standing on the global stage. A democracy in name but not in substance loses moral legitimacy, both at home and abroad. It is imperative that civil society, opposition parties, and international democratic allies recognize and challenge these trends before India’s democratic institutions become mere facades.
Author
