Listen to this article:
The trope of “democracy on trial” is one that drives the political discourse of both the majority and minority communities in India. Highlighting a range of issues such as Hindu-Muslim polarisation, the neutralising of dissent and opposition, the sensationalisation of news, and the centralisation of power, all of which have put democracy on trial, the eminent political scientist Professor Zoya Hasan explores how India has gradually metamorphosed into a Hindu-majoritarian nation. She states right at the outset: “The very idea of a democracy based on equal rights irrespective of caste, class or faith was changed under the pressure of majoritarian politics.”
Hasan writes that the 2014 victory of the BJP, the first right-wing party to win a parliamentary majority since 1984, marked a significant political shift since Independence. She explains how the actions of the Congress party contributed in no small measure to the rise of the right wing in India. In a clear tactic of appeasement, the Rajiv Gandhi government bypassed the Supreme Court’s judgment and introduced the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986, which includes Section (3), stating that “Mahr or other properties of Muslim women are to be given to her at the time of divorce”. Meanwhile, the primary agenda of the right wing has been to bring up the discourse of the Emergency (1975-77). BJP’s key leaders frequently mention this period to convince the public that if the Congress returns to power, there is a possibility of the re-enactment of the dark days, with the imposition of curbs on political freedom and the giving away of all resources to Muslims.
Democracy on Trial: Majoritarianism and Dissent in IndiaBy Zoya Hasan
Aakar Books, 2024Pages: 180Price: Rs.599Hasan identifies three significant shifts that reshaped Indian politics: the consolidation of majoritarian politics; the decline in the autonomy of key institutions like the Election Commission of India, the Enforcement Directorate, the CBI, and the Supreme Court of India; and finally, the stifling of all dissenting voices, including those of activists, scholars, and independent media houses. These incidents have had a detrimental effect on the democracy of India, weakening its very foundations. This book examines the changes in Indian democracy and how the government has used political and institutional strategies to undermine the diverse and multicultural essence of Indian States.
Also Read | Unequal citizens
With regard to the RSS, Hasan believes that its objective “is not merely to win elections and form governments but to transform Indian society in all domains of culture, religion and civilisation, a project it has assiduously pursued for close to a century”. The defining feature of the RSS’ ideology is its belief that India is fundamentally a Hindu nation. The project has gained significant success following the 2014 elections, and has succeeded to a great extent in shrinking the space for plurality and inclusiveness in India. In his work, Fear of Small Numbers, the Indian-American anthropologist Arjun Appadurai defined “predatory identities” as those identities whose social construction and mobilisation require the elimination of other social groups that are perceived as a threat. In other words, the very presence of the minorities exacerbates an “anxiety of incompleteness” among the majority groups.
Neutralising dissent and oppositionDissent is an essential part of any democracy and is often referred to as its safety valve. The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). However, the Narendra Modi government has systematically and ruthlessly suppressed dissent using laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, charges of sedition, and accusations of being anti-national, all of which have created a psyche of fear among individuals, activists, and students. In fact, the Modi regime is probably the first to coin a phrase—“tukde-tukde gang” (the gang that wants to break up the country)—to denote and decry any opposition. This tag was initially used for JNU student leaders Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid, and Shehla Rashid Shora who were charged with sedition, and later extended to the opposition, especially leaders of the Congress, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha.
Dissent remains the most vital component of India’s democratic fabric and continues to play a crucial role in shaping our democracy. In Voice of Dissent: An Essay, the veteran historian Romila Thapar writes: “Identifying dissent alone is insufficient; historians must also explore why such dissent was accepted and by whom. This involves examining forms of dissent that garnered public attention.” Since 2014, the Modi regime has forcefully shut down all voices of dissent that ask questions about riots, state-sponsored violence, academic freedom, and inflation in India. Using detailed data, Hasan focusses on the decline of individual rights, the concentration of political power of a single party, and the decline of dissent. She points out how the hate speeches of BJP leaders, as estimated by an NDTV project tracking hateful commentary by high-ranking political figures after 2019, have “risen by 80 per cent compared to previous five years. The total of 315 hateful comments counted by NDTV during the past seven years, 264 or 84 per cent of all comments have come from top BJP functionaries and 16 per cent from high-ranking leaders.”
Hasan also highlights the three core agendas of the 2019 BJP manifesto, which included the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the Ayodhya temple dispute. These were significant achievements for the BJP. She argues that the Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya temple has given the right wing the space to challenge the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which had been a milestone in preventing communal violence related to historical monuments. Section 4 of this Act deems: “It is declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day”.
Hasan rightly points out that the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute judgment of November 9, 2019, led to the reopening of a Pandora’s box of several other contentious disputes like the Gyanvapi Masjid, the Mathura Eidgah, and most recently the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. While many believed that the verdict would resolve conflicts over disputed sites and reduce communal mobilisation in the future, it has only served to add legitimacy to fresh conflicts. In the Gyanvapi case, a panel led by the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud permitted the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a survey using “non-invasive technology”, whose findings in January 2024 revealed the existence of a grand temple before the Gyanvapi mosque.
The judgment has also emboldened the majority to file complaints or petitions against any masjid(mosque), kabristan (graveyard), eidgah (prayer place for Eid), and dargah now. On November 19, 2024, in the District Court of Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, a petition was filed against Shahi Jama Masjid claiming that it was built on the site of a temple called the Kalki Hari Har Mandir. On the same day, a committee was formed and visited the Shahi Jama Masjid for a survey without involving the Masjid Management Committee. This resulted in violence and the deaths of six people in police firing.
Media on government dutyHasan points out how most media houses are now run by corporates, and how it is therefore unsurprising that most media houses have close ties with the government: “Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries entered the media sector taking over Network18, and several television channels, including CNBC TV18, CNN-IBN, and CNN Awaaz as well as online websites.” In December 2020, the UK’s communications regulator Office of Communications (OfCom) found that a programme by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami breached broadcasting conditions by promoting “hatred and intolerance” against a group of individuals. However, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting failed to take any action against the Republic channels which had violated the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995.
Also Read | Protests & policy
Hasan also highlights how independent media houses and individual fact-checkers, such as AltNews, The Wire, Scroll.in, Article 14, Newslaundry, and Khabar Lahariya, who have, in fact, tried to fulfil the role that the free press should play in a democracy, have been systematically targeted by the Modi regime.
Democracy on Trial holds an unflinching mirror to Indian society and politics, warning readers that India today may be a democracy in name but lacks its essence. The book argues that the inherent shortcomings of democratic systems should not compel us to advocate for their dissolution but rather to call for a deeper, more refined democratisation. In this context, the resolution to democracy’s imperfections lies in its further evolution. This work promises to be an invaluable resource for scholars and engaged readers striving to comprehend and navigate the complexities of a transforming India.
Haider Ali completed his MA in Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Mahesh Ganguly is a Junior Research Fellow, currently based at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.