Modi Continues Announcing His Authoritarian Pursuits

The recent intertwining of political and judicial spheres, alongside dismissive attitudes towards opposition leaders, further underscores a troubling trajectory that prioritizes consolidation of power over democratic norms. The real challenge lies in recognizing these patterns and safeguarding the integrity of India's democratic institutions against the ongoing erosion of their foundational principles

Prime Minister Modi proved them wrong who were expecting him to change after the fractured mandate of 2024. They were expecting a soft deal for the opposition. The expectation of sliding down in the BJP’s agenda of virulent Hindutva has also proved to be wrong. Prime Minister Modi indeed made U-turns on such important issues as Lateral Entry in the Central Government, the Broadcast Bill, the Waqf Board Bill, and the removal of indexation benefits on capital gains on unlisted properties. However, the reasons behind these demands require some examinations. The government withdrew the Broadcast Bill when some of its provisions were criticized for being undemocratic and unconstitutional. The Waqf (Amendment) was sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee after strong opposition by the INDIA alliance partners, who considered it to be against the religious freedom of Muslims.

It prompted Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to claim that the INDIA alliance is calling shots, and the Modi government would follow.

Prime Minister Modi gave some positive signals during the last session of Parliament. He appeared to give a patient hearing to the voice of opposition parties. He even held an all-party meeting on the crisis in Bangladesh. However, these signals should have been observed carefully. It was hasty on the part of Rahul Gandhi to infer that the Prime Minister has been forced to change his style.

U-turns were not inspired by any desire to recognize opposition as an equal partner in governance. NDA partners played decisive roles in these rollbacks. For example, lateral entries were stopped after strong opposition from Chirag Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party. The fear of losing support among OBCs also forced it. Rahul Gandhi’s strong position on the issue of caste census has already been troubling the BJP.

The U-turn on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill has also a lot to do with the changed equations within the NDA. The Telugu Deasm Party of Chandrababu Naidu, Nitish Kumar’s JDU, and Chirag Paswan’s LJP have sizeable support among Muslims. Prime Minister Modi could not ignore their concerns.

Modi’s stepping back on these issues was wrongly taken to be a change in his stance. A look at his assertions, after he began his new term, makes it clear that he is hardly ready to accept the fact that the BJP has lost the majority in the Lok Sabha and depends on allies to rule the nation. He unhesitatingly says that people have given him a third term. He also takes pride in saying that in 60 years, he is the only Prime Minister to get a third term. This assertion is, however, based on an arbitrary interpretation of the history. There is no basis for taking 60 years as the reference point while describing the electoral history of independent India. The Congress won all the elections till 1971. Indira Gandhi also won three elections (1967, 1971, and 1980). How does it matter if Modi gets three consecutive terms?

We should also remember that India does not have a presidential system. People elect political parties, and parties elect leaders. It is political parties that issue their manifestos. Moreover, Modi’s attempt to transform the parliamentary system into a presidential form has failed. He has been trying it since 2014 when he took over for his first term. He started declaring guarantees in his name—"Modi’s Guarantee." In the last Lok Sabha elections, the party departed from its conventions and issued Modi's guarantees as the manifesto of the party. The results of the 2024 elections only say that people have rejected the idea. The idea of a single individual running the country did not impress the people. People accept someone only as the leader of a party, not as an individual. It certainly matters whether the leader is popular or not.

It would be naïve to think that Prime Minister Modi has given up his desire to become an authoritarian ruler. He is too obsessed with it to give up. The setback he has received in the last Lok Sabha elections does not seem to deter him from pursuing his obsession. The recent attacks on democratic institutions testify to his autocratic pursuits.

His attendance at a private Pooja ceremony at the Chief Justice of India’s residence points to his pursuits. The event might have left people stunned, but he defends his action. The Prime Minister’s joining a private Pooja ceremony at the residence of the head of the judiciary indicates a collapse of the separation of powers. People expect the judiciary to remain aloof from the government, the biggest litigant of the country. Many have missed Modi’s message and tried to interpret it as an attempt to impress voters in Maharashtra by attending Ganesh Pooja and in locally popular attire. It hardly looks limited to this short-term political gain; it is a part of the ideological battle against the parliamentary democracy. However, a more important question remains unanswered: what prompted the CJI to make Prime Minister Modi part of his religious function? Is it not an ominous collaboration?

The authoritarian pursuits that continue to guide Modi’s actions are also evident from JP Nadda’s letter to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge. BJP president Nadda has sent this letter to reply to Kharge’s letter to the Prime Minister to demand legal actions against those who are issuing threats to Rahul’s life or making wild allegations that he is a terrorist. Is it not a very serious lapse on the part of the Prime Minister that he has chosen not to answer the letter directly? How can he ignore a letter from the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, who also happens to be president of the largest opposition party? It is equally important that the letter is related to the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha. Does it not show that the institution of the Leader of the Opposition has no value in his eye? It is one more announcement of his authoritarianism.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)