OR
India’s Democracy at a Crossroads of Majoritarianism?
OR
Majoritarianism vs. Democracy: India at a Crossroads
OR
Democracy Under Siege: India’s Struggle with Majoritarianism
In his seminal 1945 address to the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar delineated a vital distinction between the fluidity of a ‘political majority’ formed through democratic discourse and the rigidity of a ‘communal majority’ rooted in sectarian entrenchment. He warned that the latter fosters a ‘communal deadlock,’ inhibiting the equitable functioning of India’s socio-political framework. Ambedkar warned that simple electoral majorities cannot truly represent a diverse constituency, as they risk perpetuating the dominance of the majority community while marginalizing minorities. To break this deadlock, he advocated for the principle of justice, ensuring proportional political participation for weaker communities to prevent the tyranny of the majority and guarantee inclusivity in governance.
Fast forward to contemporary India, the dismantling of the egalitarian framework, as given in the above principle, is starkly evident. The 2014 general elections represented a watershed moment, where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leveraged a Hindu majoritarian narrative to amalgamate political and communal identities. Over the past decade, this shift has entrenched majoritarianism, systematically eroding the rights of minorities, particularly Muslims, and recalibrating India’s democratic ethos.. This shift has transformed India’s democratic processes, creating a “communal emergency.”
In this climate, minorities face escalating political exclusion, cultural denigration, and physical violence, while the majority is encouraged to equate power with domination. The resulting scenario challenges the very ethos of India’s democracy, demanding the urgent need to revisit Ambedkar’s vision of justice and equal representation.
The democratic framework we have established for India after decades of struggle for identity and representation now appears to be faltering. Originally intended to create an inclusive society where individuals from all religions, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds could coexist harmoniously, this system is increasingly failing to uphold its foundational ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead of serving as a genuine representation of our diverse communities, it now risks marginalizing voices that are essential to shaping a truly united future for our nation. This transformation, if left unchecked, risks diluting the very essence of democracy, turning it into a tool of dominance by the majority rather than a platform of inclusion for all.
The introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) provides a striking example of this shift. Introduced under the pretext of offering refuge to persecuted minorities, the legislation’s selective exclusion of certain groups laid bare a polarizing agenda. Coupled with the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), these measures have sown fear and uncertainty among marginalized communities. The exclusionary framework not only challenges the inclusive fabric of the Constitution but also raises troubling questions: Is citizenship in a democracy now contingent upon one’s religion? The burden of proof forced upon genuine citizens, often the most vulnerable, further underscores the erosion of fundamental rights and the government’s selective empathy.
The adjudication of protracted religious site disputes reflects an alignment with hegemonic majoritarian narratives, raising concerns about equitable jurisprudence, the Ram Janam Bhumi (Ayodhya) verdict, brought closure to decades of discord and jested some other disputes, such as the current Scenario of Krishna Janambhumi Dispute, Gyanvapi Dispute. However, the way such resolutions align with majoritarian sentiments sends a disquieting message to minorities. For those seeking equal protection and representation under the law, the reinforcement of majoritarian beliefs can deepen disillusionment. Similarly, the abrogation of special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir—executed unilaterally, without consulting the region’s stakeholders—was hailed by the government as a masterstroke of integration. Yet, the accompanying restrictions, mass detentions, and prolonged internet shutdowns painted a grim picture of enforced silence rather than genuine harmony. Such actions beg the question: Has the narrative of unity come at the cost of democratic principles in these regions?
Institutions traditionally regarded as the cornerstones of democratic governance are now perceived as instruments of state control. The pervasive allegations of selective targeting and punitive measures against opposition figures have further corroded public confidence in the impartiality of these bodies. Corruption charges, conveniently directed at those outside the ruling establishment, further feed the perception of a compromised system. The weaponization of institutions against dissenting voices marks a dangerous departure from democratic norms, raising alarm bells about the health of India’s democratic framework.
In March 2023, fourteen opposition parties, led by the Indian National Congress, filed a petition in the Supreme Court alleging the central government’s misuse of investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to target political opponents. They sought guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests and ensure fair treatment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the plea on April 5, 2023.
However, on April 5, 2023, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the joint plea, advising the petitioners to pursue remedies in individual cases instead.
These incidents point towards the potential erosion of democratic principles in India, with allegations of central agencies being used to suppress dissent and opposition. Such actions, if unchecked, could contribute to the transformation of India into a majoritarian state, undermining the foundational ethos of its democracy.
Justice, too, has taken on a troubling dimension in certain regions. The troublesome practice of bulldozer Justice, where the properties of alleges offenders of serious crimes such as communal riots, rapes and murders, often belonging to a marginalized community, without following any dues legal procedure, is widely criticized. While these actions may win public applause for their decisiveness, they undermine the principles of due process and the rule of law. In a democracy, strength lies not in arbitrary displays of power but in steadfast adherence to justice and fairness.
The ongoing agitation over specific religious sites threatens to reignite communal tensions between communities. Demands for control over these areas echo past disputes, threatening to disrupt the fragile equilibrium of India’s secular fabric. Advocacy for a Uniform Civil Code, while ostensibly a step toward equality, often appears as a selective critique of minority practices, raising fears of further marginalization. Proposals for synchronized electoral processes, presented as measures of efficiency, undermine the localized nature of governance that has been a hallmark of India’s democratic ethos. Elections, more than logistical exercises, are vital opportunities for diverse voices to shape the nation’s future. The centralization of power contradicts the spirit of federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
The Judiciary’s autonomy has increasingly come under public scrutiny, with allegations of altered selection processes raising apprehensions about susceptibility to executive (majoritarian) influence. These developments threaten the judiciary’s foundational role as an impartial arbiter, thereby undermining the doctrine of separation of powers and the system of constitutional checks and balances. The judiciary, often regarded as the last bastion of hope, has faced allegations of bias and inaction. Legislative acts concerning places of worship, coupled with judicial silence on their implementation, reflect troubling trends. High-profile cases languish in courts, further eroding public confidence. Controversial statements by judicial figures praising certain government actions deepen doubts about impartiality, casting a shadow over the judiciary’s credibility. Further, recently in year 2024, several instances of Hon’ble High Court Judges, having their speech in consonance and conforming with the majoritarian essence, have further dis-rooted and eroded the trust of the minorities and in-general the public confidence in the Justice delivery system.
Efforts to introduce transparency in political funding have paradoxically resulted in greater opacity. Measures ostensibly designed to reform the system now allow anonymity in donations, disproportionately benefiting those in power. The reluctance to prioritize genuine transparency fuels public disillusionment and widens the gap between citizens and their representatives.
Perhaps the most disturbing trend is the deliberate polarization along religious lines. From divisive rhetoric to exclusionary policies, the narrative increasingly pits communities against one another. The very essence of fraternity, as envisioned in the Constitution, is under siege. This systematic fracturing of societal harmony poses a grave threat to the democratic fabric of the nation, reducing democracy to a mere facade of majority rule.
India’s political landscape stands at a crossroads. The rise of majoritarian politics has brought significant changes, reshaping the democratic discourse. Traditionally, media acted as a watchdog on power, but now it frequently functions as a government advocate. Nationalist forces have shifted the agenda toward identity politics, often at the expense of inclusivity. This shift, coupled with intensified polarization, erodes the pluralistic ethos foundational to India’s Republic. Despite these challenges, regional parties and localized governance continue to act as counterbalances, reflecting the resilience of grassroots democracy. However, the growing influence of digital campaigning and the spread of misinformation further complicate the political environment, amplifying divides and undermining informed decision-making.
Issues such as unemployment, inflation, and environmental degradation persist, influencing public perception and electoral outcomes. Allegations of institutional capture and diminishing independence among democratic bodies spark widespread criticism, undermining trust in governance. The fragmentation of opposition parties has also contributed to the consolidation of power, leaving little room for dissent or accountability.
India’s democracy stands at a critical juncture, teetering between its pluralistic ideals and the rise of majoritarian politics. While the challenges are formidable, they demand introspection and active engagement from all citizens to prevent democracy from devolving into a mechanism of majoritarian dominance. Strengthening institutional integrity, ensuring equitable representation, and cultivating civic engagement are imperatives to rejuvenate the democratic spirit. Upholding the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution is not just a political imperative but a moral one. Only through collective effort and unwavering commitment to pluralism can the vision of an inclusive India—where governance transcends sectarianism—remain attainable in the face of rising challenges.
AUTHORED BY: –
Mr. ESHAN KUMAR GUPTA Ms. AKHYA TIWARI
Advocates, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench,
Abstract:
India’s democracy, once celebrated for its pluralistic ethos, now faces a profound challenge from the rising tide of majoritarian politics. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s warnings against the dangers of a rigid ‘communal majority’ over a fluid ‘political majority’ resonate in today’s socio-political landscape, where inclusivity and justice are increasingly overshadowed by sectarian dominance. The post-2014 political narrative, marked by a Hindu majoritarian agenda, has recalibrated India’s democratic processes, marginalizing minorities, particularly Muslims, and eroding foundational values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Legislation such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) exemplify exclusionary frameworks that challenge the inclusive fabric of the Constitution. Judicial decisions and executive actions, often perceived as aligning with majoritarian sentiments, further compound the erosion of democratic norms. Institutions that once upheld democratic principles are now seen as instruments of state control, with allegations of selective targeting and suppression of dissent. Practices like “bulldozer justice,” communal polarization, and the opacity in political funding threaten the rule of law and public trust. Media, traditionally a watchdog, has increasingly adopted a partisan role, amplifying identity politics over inclusivity. Despite these challenges, regional parties and grassroots movements reflect the resilience of India’s democratic spirit. However, the road to preserving democracy requires collective introspection, strengthening institutional integrity, equitable representation, and active civic engagement. Upholding constitutional principles is imperative to prevent democracy from devolving into mere majoritarian rule and to secure an inclusive future where governance transcends sectarianism.