“Democracy thrives not by chance, but by the courage of those who choose to protect it.” These words resonate deeply in contemporary India, where the world’s largest democracy stands at a defining crossroads. The danger confronting the Republic today is not an external invasion or economic collapse but a subtler, potentially more destructive phenomenon: the gradual erosion of democratic institutions from within, which are essential to maintaining constitutional balance. Like an autoimmune disorder in the human body, institutions created to preserve this balance increasingly appear to function in ways that undermine the very principles they were designed to defend, risking citizens’ trust and sense of security.
Since 2014, India has witnessed a decisive shift in its political and governance structures. Supporters of this period highlight leadership and development. Still, critics point to centralisation of power, erosion of institutional autonomy, and weakening federalism supported by data from V-Dem, PRS Legislative Research, and ADR, which reveal declining democratic indicators.
As a veteran who served this Republic under the Constitution, I believe patriotism requires honest introspection. Democracies erode gradually when citizens normalise decay and prioritise partisan loyalty. Encouraging civic engagement can empower citizens to protect India’s democratic fabric before the damage becomes irreversible, fostering a collective sense of responsibility and hope.
Post-2014 Political Shifts: Centralisation Over Consensus
The 2014 general election transformed India’s political landscape. The Bharatiya Janata Party secured a decisive mandate unseen in decades, shifting governance away from coalition-era compromises towards centralised executive authority. Several initiatives from this period delivered notable administrative achievements. Jan Dhan Yojana expanded banking access to more than 500 million citizens by 2024, according to RBI data. The Unified Payments Interface revolutionised digital transactions, with NPCI figures indicating nearly 14 billion monthly transactions in 2025. Infrastructure development accelerated, welfare schemes expanded, and India’s global diplomatic visibility increased significantly.
Yet democratic health cannot be measured solely by efficiency or economic performance. A democracy’s strength lies equally in its tolerance for dissent, institutional independence, and respect for pluralism. Over time, political discourse shifted increasingly from inclusive development slogans to aggressive “nation-first” narratives that often portrayed critics, journalists, activists, and opposition leaders as “anti-national” or obstacles to progress.
This transformation is reflected in quantitative indicators. The V-Dem Institute’s 2025 Democracy Report lowered India’s Liberal Democracy Index score from 0.58 in 2014 to 0.42, categorising the country as an “electoral autocracy.” Parliamentary functioning also weakened. PRS Legislative Research data shows that Parliament sat for only 57 days in 2023, one of the lowest in India’s parliamentary history. Simultaneously, the executive increasingly relied on ordinances and rushed legislation, reducing opportunities for debate and committee scrutiny.
The concentration of authority within the Prime Minister’s Office further marginalised cabinet deliberation and institutional consultation. Decision-making became personality-centric rather than process-driven. This trend may yield short-term administrative cohesion, but in the long term, it weakens democratic resilience by reducing institutional accountability.
The autoimmune metaphor is apt here. Institutions designed to stabilise democracy begin to serve partisan consolidation instead. Therefore, course correction requires restoring parliamentary supremacy, strengthening committee oversight, and reviving consensus-based policymaking rather than governance through political polarisation.
Institutions Under Siege: Weakening Checks and Balances
India’s constitutional framework relies on checks and balances among the executive, judiciary, legislature, and oversight bodies. When these institutions lose autonomy, the risk of democratic imbalance rises. Restoring independence is vital to help citizens and leaders feel confident that democratic health can be safeguarded through responsible action and institutional resilience.
India’s judiciary, a key democratic safeguard, faces immense strain, with over 50 million pending cases in 2025, leading to delays of three to five years in constitutional matters and raising concerns about the delivery of justice and institutional neutrality.
Electoral integrity has also come under scrutiny. The now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme introduced unprecedented opacity into political financing. Data released through court-ordered disclosures showed that the BJP received nearly ₹6,000 crore between 2018 and 2023, accounting for almost half of the total electoral bond funding. Such disproportionate financial dominance creates a structural electoral imbalance and limits fair competition.
Similarly, investigative agencies increasingly face allegations of selective targeting. Analyses by independent journalists and civil society groups indicate that a vast majority of Enforcement Directorate investigations disproportionately involved opposition figures, particularly before elections. While corruption investigations are essential in any democracy, selective application creates the perception that institutions are being weaponised for political advantage.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Election Commission, and even parliamentary committees have been criticised for their lack of assertiveness. Constitutional institutions lose public trust when they appear reluctant to challenge executive authority. Democracies survive not because governments are inherently virtuous, but because institutions are empowered to restrain excesses.
Restoring confidence requires structural reform: transparent appointments, fixed tenures for key officials, stronger parliamentary scrutiny, expanded judicial capacity, and regulation of campaign finance.
Media Freedom and the Shrinking Space for Dissent
A free press serves as democracy’s early warning system. When media independence erodes, citizens lose access to objective information essential for informed participation.
India’s media environment has deteriorated sharply in recent years. Reporters Without Borders ranked India 161st in its 2026 Press Freedom Index. Journalist intimidation, online harassment, legal pressure, and ownership concentration have created a chilling effect across newsrooms. According to NCRB-linked data and independent watchdogs, more than 1,000 attacks on journalists have occurred since 2014.
Digital regulation has intensified state control over online expression. The 2021 Information Technology Rules expanded government authority to order content takedowns and regulate digital publishers. Critics argue that vague definitions of “national security” and “public order” create a broad scope for censorship. Internet shutdowns, especially in Kashmir, have become emblematic of this trend. The region witnessed one of the world’s longest democratic internet shutdowns after the abrogation of Article 370.
Equally concerning is the concentration of media ownership among corporate groups with close political ties. When large sections of television media become overtly partisan, public discourse shifts from journalism to political amplification. Prime-time debates increasingly prioritise outrage over accountability.
The COVID-19 crisis starkly exposed these weaknesses. While independent journalists documented shortages of oxygen, hospital beds, and cremation facilities, parts of the mainstream media downplayed the scale of the humanitarian emergency. Democracies become vulnerable when the media prioritises access to power over scrutiny.
India requires robust safeguards for journalistic independence, including decriminalising defamation, stronger whistleblower protections, independent media regulators, and antitrust measures to prevent monopolistic media control.
Federalism Under Strain
India’s constitutional architecture rests on cooperative federalism. States are not administrative subordinates of the Union but equal constitutional stakeholders. Yet in recent years, friction between the Centre and opposition-ruled states has grown.
Fiscal centralisation has intensified since the implementation of GST. While GST simplified taxation, states increasingly complain of reduced fiscal autonomy and delayed compensation. RBI-linked analyses indicate that effective state revenue shares have declined after post-GST adjustments, despite formal Finance Commission allocations.
The office of the Governor has also become a recurring source of constitutional conflict. Governors in several opposition-ruled states have delayed assent to bills, withheld legislative approvals, and engaged in open political confrontation with elected governments. Such actions undermine the spirit of federal neutrality.
The proposed “One Nation, One Election” framework raises additional concerns. While administrative efficiency is a legitimate objective, synchronising national and state elections could weaken regional accountability and dilute federal diversity. India’s political complexity requires decentralised democratic rhythms rather than excessive uniformity.
The violence in Manipur in 2023 further exposed the dangers of delayed coordination and inadequate Centre-state response mechanisms. Federalism weakens when political calculations overshadow administrative urgency.
Rebalancing Indian federalism requires stronger inter-state councils, greater fiscal autonomy for states, transparent accountability for governors, and meaningful consultation on national reforms that affect regional interests.
Hindutva Nationalism and the Challenge to Secularism
India’s founding vision rested on civic nationalism rooted in constitutional citizenship rather than religious identity. The rise of assertive Hindutva politics has fundamentally altered this balance.
Supporters view Hindutva as cultural nationalism that corrects historical imbalances and restores civilisational pride. Critics argue that it increasingly marginalises minorities and weakens constitutional secularism. Data on communal polarisation remain troubling. NCRB-linked figures and independent reports indicate rising hate crimes, cow vigilantism incidents, and communal tensions targeting Muslims and Christians.
“Love jihad” laws in multiple states have led to hundreds of arrests despite limited evidence of organised conspiracies. Bulldozer demolitions after communal violence have raised concerns about collective punishment and selective justice.
Electoral politics increasingly rely on identity mobilisation. Surveys by organisations such as CSDS suggest that communal polarisation significantly influenced voting patterns in several regions during the 2024 elections.
Yet India’s greatest strength has always been its diversity. From Kerala’s social indicators to Punjab’s plural traditions and the Northeast’s cultural complexity, India flourishes when inclusion prevails over exclusion. Secularism in India is not anti-religious. It is the constitutional assurance that citizenship transcends faith.
Protecting that principle requires uniform enforcement of hate speech laws, depoliticised policing, and political leadership willing to reject divisive rhetoric, even when it is electorally convenient.
The Autoimmune Crisis and the Path Forward
The autoimmune metaphor captures India’s democratic dilemma with painful accuracy. Institutions meant to safeguard constitutional balance increasingly appear vulnerable to political capture. Internal erosion now poses a greater threat than external enemies.
Yet hope remains. The 2024 general election demonstrated that Indian voters continue to value accountability and balance. Reduced parliamentary dominance signalled that citizens remain capable of democratic correction through constitutional means.
The path forward must focus on institutional renewal rather than partisan revenge. India needs stronger parliamentary oversight, independent investigative agencies, judicial reforms, media protections, and a renewed federal balance. Citizens must also reclaim democratic responsibility beyond elections through civic engagement, public interest litigation, independent journalism, and constitutional literacy.
Democracy cannot survive on symbolism alone. It endures when institutions remain stronger than personalities and when citizens defend principles even against leaders they admire.
India’s Constitution remains one of humanity’s greatest democratic experiments. Yet no Constitution can protect itself automatically. Like a nation’s immune system, democracy requires constant vigilance, correction, and renewal.
The Republic still has the capacity to heal. The question is whether its citizens, institutions, and leaders dare to begin that healing before democratic backsliding becomes a democratic breakdown.