India’s Democracy: The Competitive Authoritarian Propensity?

This paper explains and corroborates the mechanism by which civic and political spaces opposed to Hindu nationalism were attacked, especially after the arrival of the right-wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in 2014. Three mechanisms are discerned for replacing pluralistic values with Hindu majoritarian ones. Sometimes institutions are just allowed to drift by interpreting old rules in new ways. For example, no formal rules for media control have changed but the government’s control over media has increased substantially. At other times, incremental legal and policy changes are executed to make the change explicit, often building on a new moral purpose. To give another example, the FCRA (2010) was amended and weaponized against NGOs in a layered way in 2020.   Finally, when political opposition is weak, institutions that have provided guarantees for protecting diversity have simply been displaced by new and radically different ones. This was the case with abrogating Article 370, which converted the special status of the sub-national state of Jammu and Kashmir to the status of two federally administered union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.  These mechanisms place India in a competitive authoritarian frame, where electoral majorities are deployed to systematically attack the political opposition, thereby making it more difficult for it to rise. Despite these propensities, opposition parties have won elections in some of India’s sub-national states. The challenges facing the world’s most populous democracy are significant, even though competitive elements co-exist. These elements in a competitive authoritarian regime, however, are under severe stress. India’s democratic credentials can be revived only if the competitive elements of India’s democracy stand united against ethno-nationalist Hindu majoritarianism.