2024 Elections amidst Authoritarian Centrism: A Mandate against Democratic Backsliding in India

/

Asha Sarangi

Centre for Political Studies at JNU

India held its federal parliamentary elections over seven phases between 19th April and 1st June, 2024. Before the elections were held, V-Dem, a leading Swedish research think-tank focused on the quality of democracy, described India as having moved from being a democracy to electoral autocracy over the last ten years under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), the right-wing majoritarian party in power. Indeed, the country witnessed several draconian laws passed by the ruling regime during this period.  The anti-democratic policies and plans have affected the poor, women, and religious minorities (especially Muslims) the most. Authoritarian centrism has undermined the federal democratic functioning and ethos of the country in innumerable ways such as the abrogation of article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir on 11th December 2019 and turning it into a Union Territory. 

One of the crucial ways in which the BJP has consolidated power has been to erode the idea of shared sovereignty between the federal and state governments. Federalism is a principle that forms part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This means that courts can hold constitutional amendments that endanger the principle and its operation to be void. Part XI and Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution specify the distribution of legislative, administrative, and executive powers between the federal government and the states of India.

India is a country of 1.428 billion people, having a geographical size of 32,87,263 sq km, with 28 states and 9 Union Territories, the latter directly under the rule of the Union government. The legislative powers of Parliament are categorized under three lists known as the Union list, State list, and Concurrent list, enumerating the powers vested with the union, states, and shared between the union and the states, respectively.  While the Union list has 100 items on which the Parliament has exclusive power to legislate, the State list has 61. In some instances, the federal Parliament too can make laws on the subjects in the State list. While states have exclusive powers to legislate on items in the State List, the Indian Constitution specifies situations in which the federal Parliament may also make laws on these subjects. The Concurrent List includes 52 items on which both Central and State governments can legislate; however, in cases of conflict, central law prevails. Over the last decade, Indian federalism has increasingly exhibited a unitary or centralist bias, as illustrated by several key cases discussed below.

For instance,  three laws relating to the key agricultural sector were passed in September 2020 by the Central government despite agriculture being on the State list. These three farm laws were aimed at the corporatisation of agriculture that would have adversely affected farmers’ ability to sell at their desired prices and eroded profits.  Even though agriculture is a state subject, the Central government legislated on it, resulting in a long-lasting farmer’s protests and agitations all over the country. Ultimately, these protests resulted in the repeal of these laws in December 2021. 

The New Education Policy (2020) brought in curricular changes, re-wrote school text-books to de-emphasize the role played by the Congress Party and its leaders like Nehru and Indira Gandhi in building the nation to promote a monocultural view of the country’s past and present, and  significantly reduced the financial and intellectual autonomy of the higher educational institutions through restrictions on freedom of speech. All have had long-term adverse impacts on the academic culture in universities and academic bodies. This has affected state autonomy: states must comply with the changes brought in by the NEP even though education is in the concurrent list. Indeed, this heavily affects India’s enormous socio-cultural, regional and linguistic diversity having 7 major religions of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Zorastrianism and Sikhism, and 121 languages and 270 mother tongues out of which 22 languages are the official languages of the country as specified in the 8th schedule of the constitution; it is important to note that in the absence of 2021 census, the exact number of languages and dialects are not updated.

Several other issues, such as the rise of cow protection vigilantes, ‘love-jihad’, the ban on the use of hijabs in school classrooms in BJP-les states, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) amending the citizenship criteria, and uniform civil code were a direct assault on the Muslims and other minority groups. India has also seen an increase in the use of stringent surveillance systems, such as the Pegasus spyware used for spying on dozens of citizens, all without a legal framework for protecting privacy.  Furthermore, a colonial era legislation used primarily in the past against Indian freedom fighters, the Sedition Act, has been frequently invoked against civil rights activists, students, writers, and journalists. This has severely impacted the freedom of speech and expression, resulting in the persecution of thousands of civil society organizations, think tanks, and public intellectuals.  All of this has been accompanied by the unlawful detention of several activists, journalists, and civil society actors under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).  

Over the last decade, the functioning of several federal institutions and intergovernmental relations have deteriorated severely, with the federal government exercising greater control over the Finance Commission, resulting in diminished fiscal autonomy of the states. The replacement of the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog in 2015 led to increased federal government interference through the Governor’s powers, particularly in non-BJP ruled states like Punjab and Tamil Nadu.  Unlike the Planning Commission that aimed at making and implementing five year plans for each state, which could bargain and negotiate for the allotment and distribution of federal funds, Niti Aayog brought in more centralization  process recommendatory in nature over allotment of funds for the states. The center’s financial aid and grants to the states, particularly those under non-BJP rule, were also reduced.

Additionally, social welfare schemes that are financed largely by the federal government saw an overall increase in numbers, resulting in greater dependence of Indian states on the federal government.  The introduction of the GST (goods and services tax) is an example of centralizing powers over the states.  The federal government now imposes, collects and distributes states’ taxes (previously carried out by state governments), limiting states’ capacities to independently manage their fiscal affairs. This is especially as regards creating tax policies that are tailored to local economic needs.

Authoritarian State Centrism

With the advent of the neo-liberal state since the 1990s, the Indian state has moved drastically from social welfare policies to clientelist patronage politics. It has been undergirded with a market rationality that has seen the disinvestment of the public sector units and their privatization in the hands of a few business houses, leading to crony capitalism.  This state-market complicity has brought in greater economic inequality, rising inflation, lack of economic and social security with an unemployment rate of fifty-year highs, an increase in household debt levels, and a deepening of the social hierarchies in society at large.

In the absence of the 2021 census, the statistical data related to income, health, education and other developmental indices have not been updated. This has resulted in the failure to address the increasing gaps in income and social security factors among people, particularly among the poor and disadvantaged people of the country.  The Hindenburg report on crony capitalism and political corruption, the latter in the use of electoral bonds provided by corporate and business houses to political parties to provide funds for elections, has clearly shown the trajectory of political corruption over the last few years.  In addition, the enactment of political vendettas against states ruled by non-BJP parties has seen the use of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and several political leaders being arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on charges of corruption directed by the central government.

2024 Elections: Mandate against democratic backsliding

The 2024 elections in India showed how the processes and politics of democratic backsliding can be challenged by the voters and citizens of the country.  The BJP fell short of getting a full majority and was forced to ally with two major regional parties to form the government. The real challenge has come from the resurgence of the primary opposition formation: the Indian National Developmental Alliance (I.N.D.I.A)- a multiparty political alliance of several parties led by the Congress party.  This happened despite the freezing of assets of the Congress party, the major opposition party, a few days before the general elections started on April 19th, 2024.  The mandate has clearly shown that parliamentary sovereignty, as sanctified in the Indian Constitution, can survive robustly and democratically if major opposition parties contesting the elections can provide a sustainable political and ideological alternative.  These elections have shown that the trend of “democratic recession”, referring to a decline or decimation of democratic norms and practices, can be held in check by a more secular front that includes democratically inclined opposition parties.  Several state assembly elections due over the next two years will provide a good pressure tactic on the party at the federal government, and will likely open up alternatives for people-oriented welfare state democratic federal governance.

Asha Sarangi is full professor at the Centre for Political Studies at JNU, New Delhi, India.

This blog originates from the international colloquium Federal coalitions and subnational democracy: India, Argentina, South Africa in Eurac Research (10 September 2024) and is part of the blog symposium Federal Coalitions and Subnational Democracy hosted by the IACL Research Group on Constitutionalism and Societal Pluralism: Diversity Governance Compared.

Suggested Citation: Asha Sarangi, ‘2024 Elections amidst Authoritarian Centrism: A Mandate against Democratic Backsliding in India’ IACL-AIDC Blog (21 November 2024) 2024 Elections amidst Authoritarian Centrism: A Mandate against Democratic Backsliding in India — IACL-IADC Blog