The health of a democracy is measured by the security and freedoms enjoyed by minorities. There has been a marked increase in the intimidation of minorities during the past decades
THE recent election results were awaited with intense anticipation. In Assam, the delimitation exercise once again helped Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma secure victory. His campaign focused primarily on the issue of “infiltrators,” accompanied by several other divisive and inflammatory rhetorics.
In West Bengal, it appeared less like an election and more like an assault on the state. First, through the role of the Election Commission and later through the deployment of nearly 250,000 paramilitary personnel, conditions highly favourable to the BJP were created.
Ironically, these forces were needed far more urgently in Manipur. Following the BJP’s victory in Bengal, celebrations were held openly under the watch of these forces. These celebrations were accompanied by widespread violence. One can reasonably ask what purpose the deployment of such massive forces served and what role they actually played.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah himself camped in Bengal for several weeks. Just before the elections, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat undertook a lengthy visit to the state and mobilised all RSS-affiliated organisations in the name of Hindu unity. By then, the slogan “Hinduism is under threat” had already become part of the broader social narrative. Bhagwat’s visit did not receive much publicity, yet it formed the ideological backdrop to the BJP’s electoral efforts in the state.
In Kerala and Tamil Nadu, voters were less influenced by the BJP’s propaganda, yet Prime Minister Narendra Modi still held numerous rallies in both states. The extent to which Modi and his party prioritised these elections became evident from the fact that the prime minister, often described as working “18 hours a day,” reportedly stayed away from his office for more than a month during the campaign period.
Among all the elections, public attention remained most sharply focused on West Bengal. Apart from anti-incumbency sentiments, the Trinamool Congress was adversely affected by several alleged strategies employed by the BJP, ranging from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to the massive deployment of paramilitary forces. The role of the Election Commission also became central to the BJP’s victory. More than 9.1 million names were reportedly removed from the electoral rolls, a large number of them from Muslim-majority areas where voters were presumed to be anti-BJP.
Prominent journalist Arfa Khanum Sherwani wrote on social media that “91 lakh voters were removed, of whom 27 lakh were not even allowed to present their case before tribunals. In at least 50 seats, the number of voters removed through SIR exceeded the margin of victory.”
Human rights activist Anjali Bhardwaj remarked, “Will we now at least see the Supreme Court take cognisance of this absurd SIR exercise? During hearings on SIR, Justice Joymalya Bagchiraised a relevant and precise question — what if the margin of victory turns out to be less than the number of disenfranchised voters? It appears that his concerns have proved correct.” Sherwani also recalled Justice Bagchi’s observation that if the victory margin is two percent while 15 percent of voters are unable to vote, the legitimacy of the result itself can come under question.
The BJP ultimately formed the government with a sweeping victory, but the process raised serious questions about democratic norms. Concerns regarding the erosion of democratic values in West Bengal were further reinforced by developments in Tamil Nadu. There, actor and political leader Joseph Vijay, whose party enjoys significant support among Dalits and marginalised communities, emerged as the leader of the single largest party. However, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, widely regarded as a committed Hindu nationalist, reportedly refused twice to invite Vijay to form the government despite his claims conforming to established constitutional conventions. Eventually, he secured majority support on the floor of the House, following which a major faction of the AIADMK extended its support to him.
What unfolded in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu reflected a profound weakening of democratic norms. India describes itself as the world’s largest democracy, yet developments over the past decade and the functioning of the BJP suggest a sustained attempt to undermine the democratic character painstakingly built during the freedom movement. It is no coincidence that the BJP’s ideological parent organisation, the RSS, remained distant from the anti-colonial struggle.
Democracy does not emerge spontaneously; it is nurtured through the struggles and aspirations of social groups committed to democratic ideals — Dalits, Adivasis, backward classes, workers, women, and sections of the emerging industrial classes. By contrast, the principal support base of the RSS historically consisted of feudal rulers, upper-caste elites, and socially privileged sections. Participation in democratic aspirations, therefore, was never central to its ideological orientation.
The RSS was opposed to the Constitution and favoured the Manusmriti. It is well known that the RSS mouthpiece Organisercriticised the Constitution for failing to incorporate the values of Manusmriti. A more visible aspect of the RSS agenda — advanced politically through the Bharatiya Jana Sangh and later the BJP — has been its hostility toward Muslims and Christians, which lies at the core of its ideological framework.
The second RSS chief, M S Golwalkar, emphasised these views in his major writings. In We, or Our Nationhood Defined, he praised aspects of fascism and argued that non-Hindus must adopt the culture and language of the Hindu nation, respect Hindu religion, and abandon separate identities. Failing this, they would be treated as foreigners and denied even ordinary citizenship rights. In Bunch of Thoughts, he described Muslims, Christians, and Communists as the “internal threats” to the Hindu nation.
It increasingly appears that state institutions are moving in directions that align with such ideological objectives. The BJP is pushing India toward the idea of a Hindu Rashtra, and democratic values stand as the principal obstacle in that path. Yet the Sangh Parivar appears to be proceeding strategically, beginning with attempts to deprive Muslims of citizenship rights. Christians may become the next target.
In many ways, India seems to be gradually moving along a path similar to that taken by Pakistan, where religious majoritarianism ultimately overwhelmed democratic institutions. Although Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his speech of August 11, 1947, spoke of upholding secularism, communal forces gradually tightened their grip over Pakistan, leading to the dominance of the military and clerical establishment. Democracy there has been severely weakened.
In India too, other pillars of democracy — freedom of expression and freedom of belief — have witnessed a serious decline in recent years. The health of a democracy is measured by the security and freedoms enjoyed by minorities, and over the past decades, there has been a marked increase in the intimidation of minority communities. This has contributed to growing social isolation among minorities. Christians are increasingly targeted through allegations of forced religious conversions, while Muslims are persistently attacked through various “jihad” conspiracy narratives.
These elections have provided yet another glimpse into the continuing decline of democratic institutions and values under the present political dispensation.
————
Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and former professor of IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are the author’s personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
