Open Forum
New Delhi, 7 April
2021
Eroding Democratic Rights
INDIA’S PLURALITY AT STAKE?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Lately reports by
independent and reputed agencies batting for democracy and civil rights have downgraded
India’s status claiming it is gradually turning into an illiberal democracy and
can be counted among the 10 autocratising countries! While the BJP-led NDA
government, under fire, has rubbished all such reports, its actions as brought
out by these reports and other authorities only heighten the growing concern over
blatant attempts to stifle dissent in the country. Rather than ignoring or
discounting criticism, the government would do well to view it as ‘constructive
criticism’ and work earnestly towards changing its image.
The V-Dem (Varieties
of Democracy) Institute, an independent research organisation based in Sweden, says
in ‘Autocratisation Turns Viral: Democracy Report 2021’, the ‘world’s largest
democracy has turned into an electoral autocracy. India’s autocratisation
process has largely followed the typical pattern for countries in the “Third
Wave” over the 10 years: a gradual deterioration where freedom of media,
academia, and civil society were curtailed first and to the greatest extent India
has turned into an “electoral autocracy.”
Narendra Modi-led BJP
to victory in India’s 2014 elections and most of the decline occurred following
BJP’s victory and promotion of a Hindu-nationalist agenda, says the report, released
last month in the presence of Sweden’s Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Rydberg. ‘India’s
level of liberal democracy registered at 0.34 by 2020-end after a steep decline
since its high at 0.57 in 2013. This makes it one of the most dramatic shifts
among all countries in the world over the past 10 years, alongside autocratising
countries like Brazil, Hungary, and Turkey.’
While it said that
the ‘overall freedom and fairness of elections also was hard hit, with the last
elections held under Modi’s reign in 2019, yet, the diminishing of freedom of
expression, the media, and civil society have gone the furthest.’ The Indian
government rarely, if ever, used to exercise censorship as evidenced by its
score of 3.5 out of 4 before Modi became Prime Minister. By 2020, this score is
close to 1.5 meaning that censorship efforts are becoming routine and no longer
even restricted to sensitive (to the government) issues. India is, in this
aspect, now as autocratic as is Pakistan, and worse than both its neighbours
Bangladesh and Nepal.
In general, it says, the
Modi-led government has used laws on sedition, defamation, and counter-terrorism
to silence critics. For example, over 7,000 people have been charged with
sedition after the BJP assumed power and most of the accused are critics of the
ruling party.’ The law on defamation has been used frequently to silence
journalists and news outlets that take exception to the government’s policies,
punishments for which range from two years in prison to life imprisonment for
“words, spoken or written, or signs or visible representation that can cause
“hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection” toward the
government.
“Modi and his party
have also placed constraints on civil society and have gone against the
constitution’s commitment to secularism. Recently, the UAPA is being used to
harass, intimidate, and imprison political opponents, as well as people mobilising
to protest government policies.” In addition it is being used to “silence
dissent in academia. Universities and authorities have also punished students
and activists in universities engaging in protests against the CAA. Civil
society is also being muzzled in the autocratization process.”
The development comes
just after democracy watchdog, Freedom House, mostly funded by the US
government, dropped India from the list of ‘free’ countries and designated it
as ‘partly free’. It said: “While India is a multiparty democracy, the
government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist BJP has
presided over discriminatory policies and increased violence affecting the
Muslim population. The Constitution guarantees civil liberties including
freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but harassment of journalists, NGOs,
and other government critics has increased significantly under Modi.”
The private media, it
said are vigorous and diverse, and investigations and scrutiny of politicians
do occur. However, attacks on press freedom have escalated dramatically under
the Modi government, and reporting has become significantly less ambitious in
recent years. Authorities have used security, defamation, sedition, and hate
speech laws, as well as contempt-of-court charges, to quiet critical voices in
the media. Hindu nationalist campaigns aimed at discouraging forms of
expression deemed “anti-national” have exacerbated self-censorship. Online
disinformation from inauthentic sources is ubiquitous in the run-up to
elections. Separately, revelations of close relationships between politicians,
business executives, and lobbyists, on one hand, and leading media
personalities and owners of media outlets, on the other, have dented public
confidence in the press.”
A wide variety of
NGOs operate, says the report but some, particularly those involved in the
investigation of human rights abuses, continue to face threats, legal
harassment, excessive police force, and occasionally lethal violence. Since
2015, the government has deregistered nearly 15,000 associations under the FCRA,
amendments to which were passed in 2020, without consulting civil society
groups and tightened restrictions on foreign funding.
It also said “Academic
freedom has significantly weakened in recent years, as intimidation of
professors, students, and institutions over political and religious issues has
increased. Members of student wing of RSS have engaged in violence on campuses
across the country, including attacks on students/professors. Academics face
pressure not to discuss topics deemed sensitive by the BJP government, etc.
Again, India was
derided as the ‘world’s largest illiberal democracy’ under Modi during a
festival of ideas organised by The Financial Times in London, watched in
over 100 countries. The comment was made during an exchange between Edward Luce
once the FT’s South Asian Bureau Chief and author and journalist Fareed
Zakaria, recipient of Padma Bhushan in 2010. Luce said the world’s 10 leading
liberal democracies, including the US, “would have to criticise it (Modi
government) for turning non-Hindu citizens gradually into second class
citizens.” Zakaria pointed out: “what we’re mostly seeing is the degradation of
democracy from within – what is happening in Hungary, what is happening in
Turkey, what happened in Russia...And what do you do in India (when it) is one
of the key perpetrators of the problem rather than a solution to it?”
To a certain extent,
the judiciary has been somewhat been critical of government decisions.
Recently, the Supreme Court, while quashing the FIR registered against The Shillong Times Editor Patricia
Mukhim, stated that free speech cannot be stifled by implicating people in
criminal cases. Further, it observed: “Disapprobation of governmental inaction
cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between the different
communities”, and noted that “India is a plural and multicultural society. The
promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various
provisions which outline each citizen’s rights”.
In the academic
realm, the situation is far more distressing as has been manifest by the
resignation of two renowned scholars -- Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Arvind
Subramanian, from Ashoka University. “My public writing in support of a
politics that tries to honour constitutional values of freedom and equal
respect for all citizens, is perceived to carry risks for the university,” said
Mehta in his resignation letter. Adding “It is clear it is time for me to leave
Ashoka. A liberal university will need a liberal political and social context
to flourish. I hope the university will play a role in securing that
environment. Nietzsche once said that ‘no living for truth is possible in a
university.’ I hope that prophecy does not come true.” It is understood that
around 90 faculty members expressed solidarity. Worse, 150 academics from
Harvard, Yale, Columbia, LSE, MIT questioned Ashoka’s commitment to freedom.
Recall a report way
back in 2017 of Pew Research Centre survey which showed 55% Indians support a
‘strongman’ unchecked by Parliament and judiciary and almost half i.e. 53% said
military rule would be a good thing. Today, as seen various factors are
creating even more apathy towards democracy. When populist nationalism reigns
supreme and rulers shower sops and freebies at election time, who cares about
democracy and holding leaders accountable? Also when public life is intensely
polarised, it is almost impossible to build a consensus on what constitutes
danger to freedom.
Unfortunately, Indians
don’t usually punish political parties for violating democratic rights. In 1977
elections after Emergency, Indira Gandhi was defeated in North but she got 34.5%
vote share in the south. Likewise, Modi government’s crackdown on dissent
scarcely seems to influence voters. A national lockdown, announced at 4-hour
notice, forcing millions of migrant workers to walk hundreds of miles home, did
not affect the BJP’s electoral prospects, as Bihar Assembly elections showed.
In such a precarious
situation, while political parties need to think of the country, various
stakeholders such as academics, civil society organisations should put additional
pressure on the government, both internally and globally. Unless the situation
changes, the character, strength of India’s democracy and its social bonding
and stratification will get further eroded.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|