Democratic Erosion in India: 7 Alarming Truths Behind Today’s Silent Emergency

Fifty years after India’s 1975 Emergency—a stark, overt suspension of democracy under Indira Gandhi—the current threat is fundamentally different and more insidious. While that period involved sudden arrests and censorship, today’s erosion is a gradual, institutionalized hollowing-out driven by the RSS’s Hindutva ideology, seeking to reshape India’s secular, pluralistic foundations. This “electoral autocracy” operates within democratic formalities like elections while systematically undermining institutions, weaponizing laws against dissent, and fostering deep societal polarization. Unlike the universally condemned Emergency, this sophisticated assault leverages global right-wing trends and finance capital dominance, masking its agenda beneath constitutional rhetoric.

The danger now isn’t a temporary power grab, but a permanent ideological transformation normalizing majoritarian control and eroding checks on power. Recognizing this evolved threat—a slow suffocation versus a sudden blow—is crucial. Defending democracy today demands vigilant resistance against this pervasive institutional decay, drawing inspiration from, but adapting strategies beyond, the coalition that defeated the Emergency.

Democratic Erosion in India: 7 Alarming Truths Behind Today’s Silent Emergency

Fifty years ago, on June 25th, 1975, Indian democracy plunged into its darkest night – the Internal Emergency. Indira Gandhi’s suspension of civil liberties, mass imprisonments, and press censorship remain a stark, undeniable scar. We recall it not for nostalgia, but as a chilling validation of Santayana’s warning: forgetting history risks repetition. Yet, as we mark this somber anniversary, a more unsettling realization emerges: the threat to Indian democracy today is not a repeat of 1975, but a more insidious, evolved variant. 

1975: The Overt Assault 

The Emergency was a brutal, visible fracture. Its roots lay in a potent mix: 

• Political Centralization: Gandhi’s shift towards personalistic rule, bypassing party structures and regional leaders, concentrating power. 

• Crisis Exploitation: Leveraging the 1971 Bangladesh victory for political capital, while facing growing dissent fueled by economic woes (post-war strain, droughts, oil crisis, inflation) and legal challenges to her own position. 

• Authoritarian Impulse: The rigging of the 1972 Bengal elections foreshadowed a willingness to subvert democratic processes when challenged. The Emergency itself, declared under Article 352 citing “internal disturbance,” became the ultimate tool to crush opposition voices and dissent, imprisoning thousands. 

As CPI(M) leader A.K. Gopalan presciently noted during the Emergency debate, it was born not of strength, but of weakness – an attempt to escape a deepening political and personal crisis by silencing critics. While a broad coalition eventually restored democracy in 1977, the Emergency stands as a monumental aberration. 

The Present: The Institutionalized Creep 

Fast forward fifty years. Prime Minister Modi rightly condemns the Emergency as a “black spot,” pledging to protect the Constitution. However, this rhetoric rings increasingly hollow against the backdrop of a decade-long, sophisticated erosion of democratic norms – an “undeclared emergency” fundamentally different from its predecessor: 

• The Global Context: Today’s challenge unfolds amidst a global rise of right-wing authoritarianism and the overwhelming dominance of finance capital, fostering inequality and corporate influence over policy. 

• The Ideological Engine: Unlike the politically expedient Emergency, the current phase is driven by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideology of Hindutva. This seeks a radical transformation of India’s foundational identity – away from the pluralistic, secular, socially just, and federal republic envisioned by the anti-colonial struggle. 

• Institutionalized Authoritarianism (Electoral Autocracy): The assault isn’t a sudden suspension of rights, but a gradual hollowing-out: 

• Subverting Institutions: Allegations of undermining judicial independence, electoral integrity (through funding opacity and institutional pressure), and investigative agencies used as political tools. 

• Chilling Dissent: Laws weaponized against activists, journalists, and opposition figures (sedition, UAPA, FCRA), creating an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship far subtler than 1975’s overt censorship. 

• Manufactured Polarization: An unprecedented, relentless campaign fostering religious and social division, “othering” minorities, and rewriting history to fit a majoritarian narrative. This social engineering is arguably more damaging long-term than overt repression. 

• Centralization & Federal Erosion: Concentration of power in the executive, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny, and weakening state autonomy. 

Why the Comparison Falters (and Why it Matters) 

Calling the present an “undeclared Emergency” undersells the threat. The 1975 Emergency was a crude, temporary power grab, visible and universally condemned as anti-democratic. Its defeat proved democracy’s resilience. 

Today’s challenge is structural and ideological. It aims not just to hold power, but to permanently reshape the idea of India and its constitutional soul. It operates within a formal democratic framework (elections are held), masking its erosion of liberal democratic values – hence the term “electoral autocracy.” It leverages technology, media control, and social division, making it harder to pinpoint and mobilize against than a single, dramatic decree. 

The Imperative of Vigilance and Hope 

Hindsight reveals the 1975 Emergency as almost amateurish compared to the pervasive, institutionalized strain facing Indian democracy now. The current regime appears more entrenched, its ideology more deeply woven into sections of the state and society. 

Yet, the spirit that defeated the Emergency offers a crucial lesson: united popular resistance can overcome authoritarianism. Recognizing the nature of today’s threat is the first step. It demands vigilance not just against the suspension of rights, but against their slow suffocation; not just against overt censorship, but against the poisoning of public discourse and institutional independence. 

The fiftieth anniversary of the Emergency is not merely about condemning the past. It’s a urgent call to recognize that democracy’s greatest threats often don’t arrive with midnight proclamations, but through a steady, insidious drip of erosion, normalized until it’s too late. Protecting India’s democratic future requires understanding this evolution and reigniting the collective will that once restored it – this time, to defend its very foundations from a deeper, more complex siege. The fight is different, but the necessity of resistance remains absolute.