Why Today’s India Cannot Deny Its Undeclared Emergency

Posted on 24th August, 2025 (GMT 07:50 hrs)

Authored by Partyless Society⤡

ABSTRACT

This article examines the concept of an “undeclared emergency” in contemporary India under Narendra Modi’s regime, situating it against the backdrop of declared Emergency (1975–77). While declared Emergency was openly authoritarian and time-bound, today’s context is marked by a much more diffuse and insidious erosion of democratic institutions, legal safeguards, and civil liberties—achieved without formal proclamation. The article highlights continuities and ruptures across political, economic, and social dimensions: from the manipulation of electoral processes, enabling economic bankruptcies to enrich a select few, the subversion of the judiciary to the deployment of majoritarian nationalism and the criminalization of dissent. Unlike the past, the current phase relies on bureaucratic coercion, surveillance, and ideological consolidation to create a climate of permanent insecurity. The article argues that this “undeclared emergency” represents not merely a suspension of democracy but its reconstitution into a new authoritarian normal, where legality, legitimacy, and violence intertwine to foreclose dissent while maintaining the simulated facade of popular consent.

Disclaimer: Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA) is not affiliated with, nor does it extend support to, any political party or faction, whether in government or opposition. OBMA unequivocally upholds the principle of a partyless and decentralized democracy in all its expressions.

1. Introduction

The term “undeclared emergency” in present-day India is no mere rhetoric—it is the grim reality of a nation suffocating under the iron fist of Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) regime. Drawing parallels to the infamous 1975–1977 Emergency under Indira Gandhi, where civil liberties were brazenly crushed, today’s crisis is far more insidious: a calculated assault on democracy masked by legal pretenses and propped up by crony capitalism.

Since 2014, Modi-Shah (Mo-Shah: Bangla equivalent for Mosquito)’s autocratic rule has systematically dismantled democratic institutions, fueled communal hatred, and engineered economic sabotage to consolidate power. In 2024, the BJP’s electoral humiliation—slumping to just 240 seats from 303 in 2019—forces it into a precarious coalition with opportunistic allies like the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)).

Yet, this “hanging government” arrogantly clings to absolute control, ramming through repressive policies as if the mandate never slipped. MP Mahua Moitra aptly brands this a “super emergency,” decrying the BJP’s nocturnal bill-passing sprees without any debate or discussion and judicial bypasses in a regime that reeks of unchecked despotism. This article unleashes a barrage of evidence—from legal weaponization and communal carnage to gender atrocities, parliamentary subversion, and now, the BJP’s economic wreckage through financial bankruptcies and relentless crony favouritism—proving that MoShah’s India is a democracy in name only, teetering on the brink of fascist collapse.

In today’s India, the lines between the government, the nation, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the name Narendra Modi have been deliberately blurred into a singular, ominous identity. The BJP’s propaganda machine has equated Modi with the state itself, portraying dissent against him as treason against India, while the party’s Hindutva agenda merges its ideology with the nation’s identity, sidelining minorities and erasing pluralism. This cult-like conflation—where criticizing the government is branded anti-national, the party claims to embody India’s soul, and Modi’s name is elevated to a cult-like symbol—creates a chilling monoculture, suffocating democratic discourse.

2. Historical Context

The 1975 Emergency was overt authoritarianism: constitutional rights suspended under Article 352, mass arrests, press blackouts, and centralized power. On the flipside, during this period itself, trains ran on time, prices of essential goods and services were tightly controlled, and public order was maintained with an iron grip, often cited as its sole redeeming features by certain apologists. However, these came at the cost of democracy—opposition leaders jailed, media censored, and forced sterilizations rampant. Post-Emergency reforms like the 44th Amendment (1978) aimed to curb such abuses, mandating parliamentary oversight and protecting Article 21 (right to life). At the same time, it is a fact that Mrs. Gandhi’s tenure also saw highly significant socialist interventions, such as the nationalization of banks, the removal of the “Right to Property” as a fundamental right through the 42nd Amendment (1976), the insertion of the words “secular” and “socialist” into the Preamble, and so on. While the horrors of the declared Emergency are deeply etched in the nation’s collective memory, the few positive aspects associated with it cannot be entirely overlooked.

However, BJP’s current regime has outsmarted each and every of these safeguards, achieving more-than-emergency-like terror through “legal” means—UAPA dragnets, surveillant panopticons, and economic strangulation. This proves the BJP’s undeclared emergency is a lethal combo of both blatant and subtle emergencies: blatant in its communal lynchings and opposition arrests, subtle in its legal and bureaucratic repression, unlike Gandhi’s predominantly blatant clampdown. This shift from overt to hybrid authoritarianism baffles citizens, maintaining a veneer of democracy while the regime’s thugs and cronies plunder the nation. Theoretical scholars like Pratap Bhanu Mehta label it “democratic backsliding,” but let’s call it what it is: the BJP-RSS’ blueprint for majoritarian tyranny, where dissent is crushed, minorities lynched, and the economy rigged for his billionaire buddies. In declared emergency of “Indira is India” times, we had a clear set of “Dos and Don’ts”, in today’s undeclared emergency of the BJP, these rules are not set and hence turn out to be even more dangerous in effect.

Aspect	Declared Emergency (Indira Gandhi, 1975–77)	Undeclared Emergency (Modi Era, 2014–Present)
Legal Framework	Officially declared under Article 352; suspension of fundamental rights formally notified. Human Rights infringed de jure.	No formal declaration; uses “legal” instruments like UAPA, sedition (though objected by the SCI but camouflaged by the BNS), DPDPA, IT Rules, and financial regulations to suppress dissent. Human rights infringed de facto, e.g., NHRC delisted from UN GANHRI, Amnesty International banned in India for reporting on Kashmir and other associated issues.
Visibility of Authoritarianism	Overt and blatant: censorship orders issued, press guidelines circulated, opposition jailed under MISA.	Hybrid and insidious: repression cloaked in legality and bureaucracy; dissenters face raids, lawsuits, or tax harassment without official “Emergency” notice.
Targeting of Opposition	Top leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, and thousands of activists jailed directly.	Opposition leaders face continuous raids (ED, CBI, IT Dept), prolonged trials (tarikh pe tarikh) or no trials, selective arrests (Kejriwal, Hemant Soren, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam et al.), and media vilification campaigns.
Press Freedom	Explicit pre-censorship: editors required to submit content for approval.	Economic strangulation of media houses(Godi Media), takeover by pro-regime corporates, chilling effect through arrests under UAPA, sedition, or defamation.(SLAPP)
Public Awareness	Citizens clearly knew a state of Emergency was in force; “Indira is India” propaganda dominated.	Citizens live in denial or confusion with self-censorship— repression feels “normal” because democracy’s formal structure remains; veneer of elections + media spectacle.
Methods of Repression	Jail, censorship, suspension of rights — all blunt and visible.	Dual strategy: blatant (lynchings, communal pogroms, opposition arrests) + subtle (surveillant panopticons, use of spywares.economic harassment/financial abuse, online censorship).
Judiciary’s Role	Largely compliant; habeas corpus suspended in ADM Jabalpur case.	Judiciary increasingly deferential, often siding with executive; delays or dilution in cases of dissent; few cases of selective relief after public outrage.
Communal Dimension	Emergency not communal — authoritarianism centred on Indira’s personal survival.	Explicitly communal: RSS-BJP’s majoritarian project underpins repression; minorities face lynchings, bulldozers, and disenfranchisement campaigns.
Economic Control	Nationalization and central planning manipulated for regime stability.	Economy rigged for corporate cronies (Adani, Ambani, Piramal, etc.); crony capitalism entrenched under cover of “development” narratives.
Citizen Experience	Citizens lived under known “Do’s and Don’ts” — rules were clear, even if repressive.	Rules undefined; uncertainty creates deeper fear — anyone can be branded anti-national, urban Naxal, or foreign agent overnight.
Global Perception	Widely condemned; India seen as a temporary aberration in democracy.	Masked by democratic veneer; global corporations, G20 diplomacy, and soft-power PR help obscure authoritarian reality.
Nature of Authoritarianism	Predominantly blatant clampdown (direct arrests, censorship, suspension of rights).	A lethal hybrid: blatant (violence, communalism) + subtle (legal, bureaucratic, digital repression). Democratic backsliding disguised as “normalcy.”
Everyday Life Narrative	Many claim that “trains ran on time, prices of essential goods and services were tightly controlled, and public order was maintained with an iron grip” during the Emergency— often cited as its sole redeeming features.	Narrative of “development” and “national pride” masks repression; spectacle events (G20, Ram Mandir, CAA rallies) distract from erosion of rights, extreme ecological degradation and a failing economy.

Bottom line:
Indira’s declared Emergency was a visible cage; Modi’s undeclared emergency is a velvet noose — less visible, more suffocating, and far harder to resist because it wears the mask of democracy.

3. Key Characteristics and Evidence of the Undeclared Emergency Under the BJP’s Boot

A. Misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Tool for Silencing Voices

The UAPA, bloated by the 2019 amendments, has become the BJP’s favourite weapon for terrorizing critics. With a pathetic 2% conviction rate from 24,134 arrests (2016–2020), it is not justice—it is judicial torture. Recent atrocities include the prolonged detention of Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez since 2021 and journalists like Fahad Shah, released in 2023 after baseless charges.

But these are not isolated cases. The law has been cynically deployed against Umar Khalid (jailed since 2020 under conspiracy charges linked to the Delhi riots, repeatedly denied bail despite lack of evidence), Sharjeel Imam (booked under UAPA for his anti-CAA speeches, languishing in prison since 2020), and the Bhima Koregaon 16, including poet Varavara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, and Father Stan Swamy, who tragically died in custody in 2021 after being denied even a straw and sipper for his Parkinson’s.

The pattern extends further:

• Professor G.N. Saibaba, a wheelchair-bound academic with 90% disability, sentenced to life under UAPA on flimsy allegations of Maoist links—his repeated pleas for medical bail were denied, epitomizing judicial cruelty. He died shortly after release.
• Sanjiv Bhatt, a former IPS officer who testified against Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat violence, was swiftly targeted, convicted in a decades-old case, and has faced relentless legal harassment under custodial “crime” charges, with UAPA-like severity used to keep him behind bars.

The 2019 amendments made UAPA even more draconian—allowing the government to designate individuals (not just organizations) as “terrorists,” weaponizing stigma before trial. The BJP regime routinely exploits the law’s 180-day detention window without charges and near-impossible bail conditions to rot dissenters in jail without trial.

NCRB data reveals 63% of UAPA detainees (2016–2020) languished 3 months to 5 years without trial, with over 70% of cases still pending in 2025. Implication: This flouts ICCPR fair trial norms, overcrowding prisons and killing voices like Swamy’s through neglect—BJP’s calculated cruelty in action.

This echoes and worsens the Emergency-era preventive detention, but with a fascist twist: the permanent demonization of critics as existential threats to the nation. As scholar Ujjwal Kumar Singh warns, UAPA entrenches a “permanent state of exception” where legality itself is suspended in the name of security. In truth, it is not national security but state-sponsored vendetta—where BJP’s paranoia turns students, journalists, lawyers, police officers, and disabled professors alike into “terrorists.”

A sweeping overhaul of India’s criminal justice framework had introduced three new statutes—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—replacing the Indian Penal Code (1860), Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), and Evidence Act (1872). Though the government characterizes them as modern, just, and rooted in Indian ethos, the changes are largely superficial, repackaging existing legal provisions under new names. Worryingly, the reforms extend police detention periods, complicate bail procedures, expand pre-charge inquiries, and resurrect colonial-esque sedition-like clauses under different terminology—all of which risk eroding fundamental legal protections and fair justice.

Critics further argue that these laws were hurriedly passed without meaningful debate or public scrutiny, added at a time when opposition legislators were largely marginalized in Parliament. The rushed enactment raises questions about democratic legitimacy and intent, suggesting that these “new wines” may in fact be old statutory frameworks laced with deeper, punitive control—making them not just cosmetic revisions but potentially dangerous tools against dissent and due process.

B. Surveillance and Data Privacy as a Draconian Panopticon: Big Brother Watches All

The BJP-masterminded 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) is a sham—exempting the state for “security” while enabling mass spying and surveillance. The Pegasus scandal (the software being derived from the genocidal state of Israel), infecting 300 phones including Father Stan Swamy’s before his 2020 arrest and tragic 2021 death, exposes the BJP’s cyber-terrorism. As of 2025, reports confirm Pegasus’s persistent use, chilling speech and fostering self-censorship.

Implications: BJP’s panopticon undermines the 2017 Supreme Court right to privacy verdict, turning India into a surveillance dystopia where critics are hacked, harassed, and hounded.

C. Declining Press Freedom and High Impunity: Muzzling the Media, BJP-Style

India’s 161st ranking in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index underscores a troubling decline in media freedom. This position reflects a broader trend of press suppression, including the arrest of at least 36 journalists since 2014, with 15 charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The 2023 Global Impunity Index, where India ranked 11th, highlights the persistent issue of unpunished assaults on journalists, such as the 2021 detention of Gaurav Bansal. The 2025 raids on NewsClick, targeting alleged “pro-China propaganda,” further exemplify the government’s tightening grip on media outlets critical of its policies. This authoritarian trajectory is also visible in the digital sphere, where platforms associated with youth mobilization and alternative voices—such as Musk-era social media forums—have faced targeted takedowns and regulatory harassment, silencing grassroots dissent and voices of the defrauded middle class.

These actions are part of a broader pattern of media repression. The 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index indicates a perceived increase in corruption levels, which often correlates with diminished press freedom. Additionally, the 2024 Freedom in the World report notes ongoing human rights abuses and restrictions on press freedom in India. By criminalizing satire, censoring independent platforms, and deploying surveillance mechanisms against student groups and digital activists, the state extends its censorship crusade beyond traditional media to the online public sphere, where dissenting narratives are increasingly delegitimized as “anti-national” or “foreign-sponsored.”

While the censorship tactics may differ from the overt measures of the 1975 Emergency, the current environment fosters a climate of self-censorship, where journalists and media outlets face legal threats, economic pressures, and physical intimidation. This strategy effectively suppresses dissent and critical reporting, allowing the government’s narrative to dominate public discourse. The chilling effect is compounded by the stigmatization of online communities of resistance—particularly those exposing corporate frauds and financial scams—who are branded as destabilizing agents rather than whistleblowers.

The Committee to Protect Journalists’ Global Impunity Index (CPJ-GII) exposes India’s failure to hold perpetrators accountable for crimes against journalists. India ranked 13th in 2024, with 17 unsolved murders (2014–2024). It has appeared on the list since its inception in 2008. No conviction has been upheld in a journalist murder case directly tied to their work since 1992. This entrenched impunity, paired with expanding digital censorship, reveals a dual-pronged strategy: silence the journalists who report and delegitimize the digital spaces where their stories might still circulate.

In India today, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) have become a powerful weapon deployed through state–corporate collusion to suppress dissent and intimidate citizens who exercise their constitutional right to free speech. Corporations closely aligned with the political establishment—such as Reliance and the Adani Group—have filed exorbitant defamation suits, sometimes running into thousands of crores, against journalists, editors, and civil society voices. These cases are not meant to succeed on legal merit but to exhaust defendants financially and psychologically, coercing them into silence. Simultaneously, the state reinforces this chilling effect through criminal provisions such as Section 124A IPC (sedition), UAPA, and the IT Rules/Section 69A, weaponizing surveillance and censorship alongside civil litigation. The result is a systematic curtailment of public participation, where the legal system itself becomes an instrument of fear rather than justice.

Civil society campaigns, including petitions by our Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA), have highlighted how SLAPPs undermine democratic freedoms and called for comprehensive structural reform. This includes the enactment of a robust anti-SLAPP law, modeled on international best practices, to enable early dismissal of frivolous suits and to protect individuals from disproportionate damages. Equally urgent are judicial safeguards, independent oversight bodies, and meaningful tort remedies against malicious litigation. Without these interventions, India risks entrenching a culture where corporations and political elites use the veneer of legality to stifle accountability, corrode press freedom, and hollow out the democratic principle of dissent.

D. Misuse of ED and CBI: BJP’s Hit Squads Against Rivals

2024 saw ED arrests of sitting chief ministers Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren on flimsy charges, later bailed for lack of evidence. This selective witch-hunt, timed to cripple political foes, reeks of political assassination. In a coalition sham, it alienates partners like JD(U)’s Nitish Kumar, yet Modi’s arrogance persists. The situation escalated recently in 2025 with the passage of the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, which mandates that Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and other ministers must vacate their positions if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable by five years or more, even before conviction. Critics warn that this legislation could be weaponized to target non-BJP leaders, allowing central agencies like the ED and CBI to keep opposition figures in custody for 30 days and remove them from office without due process. Union Home Minister Amit Shah defended the bill as a measure to uphold constitutional morality, but opposition leaders legitimately see it as an attack on democracy and federalism, likely to destabilize opposition-led state governments and centralize power further. Sans conviction—sans debate. Opposition dubs it “satta chori” to topple non-BJP governments.

E. Allegations of Election Manipulation and “Vote Chori” a.k.a. “Satta Chori”: Stealing Democracy

Post-2024, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused “vote chori” in at least 79–80 constituencies, alleging widespread EVM rigging and systematic voter suppression through the BJP-ECI nexus. The outrage culminated in August 2025 protests against the Election Commission’s evident bias, leading to mass detentions in Madhya Pradesh. Meanwhile, reports of Pegasus spyware targeting opposition leaders’ phones have intensified fears of electoral manipulation and surveillance, reinforcing perceptions that democratic processes are being subverted. Observers note that these tactics—combining technology-enabled monitoring, administrative coercion, and biased oversight—fit squarely within the pattern described by V-Dem’s “electoral autocracy” classification. Analysts argue that under the BJP, India’s electoral landscape has shifted from competitive democracy toward engineered outcomes, where the machinery of the state and sophisticated surveillance tools are leveraged to pre-determine results, marginalize dissenting voices, and delegitimize opposition leaders. The long-term implications are severe: an eroding trust in electoral institutions, deepening polarization, and a shrinking space for accountable political competition, which risks consolidating authoritarian tendencies under the guise of democratic form.

F. Mob Lynchings, Food Fascism and Communal Violence: BJP’s Blood-Soaked Majoritarianism

An 84% surge in lynchings in 2024 claimed 11 lives, mostly Muslims and Dalits, across at least 13 reported incidents. The violence intensified in 2025, with a Dalit farmer lynched in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura district, two Dalit men tortured in Odisha’s Ganjam district, and Muslims attacked in Chhattisgarh over alleged cattle theft. Cow vigilante groups linked to BJP networks continue to target marginalized communities under the guise of “gauraksha,” with assaults, intimidation, and even killings persisting despite the 2023 anti-lynching laws. In Madhya Pradesh’s Raisen district, two men were brutally assaulted for alleged cow smuggling, resulting in one death, while in Maharashtra, Muslim cattle traders initiated a statewide boycott of the cattle trade due to persistent harassment.

Beyond lynchings, India has witnessed BJP-linked pogroms and communal riots that systematically target minorities. Incidents such as the 2020 Delhi riots, the 2022 Hathras caste-linked violence, and repeated communal flare-ups in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat illustrate a broader pattern of state-tolerated or state-enabled violence. These attacks, often accompanied by mob mobilization, police inaction, and judicial delays, foster an environment where Hindu nationalist vigilantes act with near-total impunity.

The normalization of such violence reflects the toxic influence of Hindutva ideology in mainstream politics. BJP-linked actors—whether through vigilante mobs, partisan law enforcement, or political cover—enable the targeting of Muslims and Dalits, suppressing dissent and consolidating majoritarian control. The anti-lynching laws remain poorly enforced, and judicial responses are fragmented, leaving marginalized communities exposed to systemic abuse.

This combination of lynchings, cow vigilantism, and communal pogroms underscores a broader erosion of India’s secular and democratic foundations. It reveals a calculated pattern of intimidation, exclusion, and violence against vulnerable groups, connecting caste oppression, religious persecution, and political consolidation under a majoritarian framework. Unless accountability is enforced and state complicity addressed, such impunity will continue to normalize violence, deepen social fractures, and perpetuate cycles of communal terror.

Beef bans in 20 states target Muslims and Dalits; UP’s 2024 eatery name mandates harass minorities. Anti-conversion laws in 12 states terrorize interfaith unions, while Dalits endure caste atrocities like temple denials. Implications: BJP’s regime shreds Article 15, engineering social apartheid through cultural fascism.

G. Gender Violence and Impunity for Rapists: BJP’s Misogynistic Mayhem

Rapes in India spiked to 31,878 in 2021, reflecting a broader trend of rising gendered violence under the BJP regime. High-profile scandals underscore systemic impunity: the 2022 release of the Bilkis Bano rapists—later revoked amid nationwide outrage—highlighted state and judicial complicity; the 2023 ethnic-targeted rapes in Manipur exposed violence against minority women during political unrest; and in 2018, BJP leaders publicly defended the Kathua case perpetrators, signaling political sanction of sexual violence. In 2024, JD(S) ally Prajwal Revanna fled prosecution despite credible rape charges, evading accountability.

The 2023 wrestlers’ protest against BJP MP Brij Bhushan further illuminated the structural neglect of sexual assault survivors: despite widespread media attention, convictions remain depressingly low, with only a 27% conviction rate for reported cases. Scholars such as Tanika Sarkar argue that Hindutva politics weaponizes rape and sexual violence to reinforce power hierarchies, allowing predators to act with near-total impunity. This systematic erosion of accountability normalizes gendered violence, intimidates dissenting women, and reinforces social hierarchies aligned with majoritarian and political interests, deepening the nexus between patriarchy and authoritarian governance.

H. Parliamentary Dysfunction: BJP’s Rubber-Stamp Legislature

Between 2024 and 2025, the Indian Parliament witnessed a dramatic erosion of deliberative norms, with 19 major bills—including a sweeping revision of the Income Tax Act—pushed through with minimal debate and frequent suspensions of opposition members. The 2025 Budget Session epitomized this trend: 10 bills were passed under claims of “high productivity,” yet independent scrutiny, committee review, and substantive discussion were virtually nonexistent. Procedural maneuvers, gagging motions, and strategic scheduling effectively muted dissenting voices, reducing Parliament to a rubber-stamp instrument for the executive.

Theoretically, this aligns with concepts of “executive aggrandizement” in autocratization studies, wherein the ruling leadership consolidates power by subordinating legislatures and bypassing institutional checks. Under Modi, parliamentary contempt has become normalized: opposition questions are routinely ignored, debate is truncated, and the upper and lower houses function less as forums of accountability and more as ceremonial endorsements of pre-drafted legislation. This pattern not only undermines the separation of powers but signals a broader democratic decay: laws are enacted not through reasoned deliberation but through the mechanical assertion of majoritarian dominance, leaving citizens and civil society with little opportunity to influence policy or hold power to account.

Furthermore, the BJP has increasingly relied on political turncoats as a strategic so-called “washing machine” (?)—encouraging individuals to switch allegiance from other parties, often in pursuit of electoral advantage, sometimes following coercion through ambiguous or fabricated legal cases. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, approximately 28% of BJP candidates were defectors, with a significant number joining the party in the past five years. Notably, in Punjab, one in every four BJP candidates was a recent defector, highlighting the party’s strategic embrace of political opportunists.

This reliance on turncoats has raised concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability. Critics argue that such practices undermine the principle of representing constituents’ choices, as elected officials may prioritize personal gain over public service. The phenomenon of political opportunism, where individuals switch parties for strategic advantages, challenges the integrity of the democratic process and calls into question the ethical foundations of such defections.

I. Economic Repression and Financial Bankruptcies: Modi’s Crony Catastrophe

Modi’s touted economic “miracle” is increasingly revealed as a mirage of misery, where cronyism and policy manipulation enrich a select few (Adani-Ambani and their family members, to be precise!) while bankrupting the masses. FY2025 saw corporate insolvencies fall 28% to 724 cases, but recoveries languished at just 32.8%, leaving creditors and small investors in the lurch. Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2025, rather than resolving systemic failures, act as mere band-aids over a hemorrhaging financial system.

Q2 2025 GDP growth cratered to 5.4% against expectations of 6.5%, underscoring a recessionary trajectory exacerbated by massive FII outflows. Rahul Gandhi labeled it a “dead economy,” blaming BJP cronyism for banking crises that favor tycoons while ordinary citizens and junior stakeholders bear the brunt. Adani’s 2024 US bribery indictment starkly illustrates the Modi–crony nexus: while competitors like Jet Airways (2019) and IL&FS (2018) were systematically weakened, Adani’s empire ballooned through sweetheart deals, favorable loans, and regulatory cover. Ambani’s gains from Modi-era policies similarly fuel inequality, creating what Congress terms a “huge social-economic crisis.”

External shocks amplify domestic fragility. Trump’s 2025 26% tariffs on India, retaliating against Modi’s 52% duties, hammered exports, revealing the consequences of BJP’s mismanaged diplomacy. Economic sabotage, however, is not limited to trade or policy mismanagement—it intersects with political repression. The undeclared emergency framework manifests through ED raids on non-crony firms, selective investigations, and state-backed bankruptcy of competitors, consolidating wealth and influence in a few hands.

The DHFL case exemplifies this nexus of crony capitalism, corruption, and alleged terror-funding. Victims of the DHFL scam have highlighted links between the company’s manipulations, crony banks, and alleged connections to Dawood Ibrahim and late Iqbal Mirchi channels. This entire fiasco exposed regulatory complicity and the facilitation of massive financial malfeasance, further revealing how financial instruments are weaponized for political and criminal ends under BJP’s oversight.’

Policy missteps dating back to 2016’s demonetization, combined with favoritism toward crony conglomerates, have decimated livelihoods, shrunk formal employment, and exacerbated inequality. Meanwhile, non-crony entrepreneurs are systematically targeted through coercive investigations or bankruptcy, cementing an economy where the powerful thrive unchecked, and ordinary Indians remain vulnerable. Modi’s “vision” thus translates not into growth or welfare but into predatory enrichment, fiscal fragility, and heightened exposure to both domestic and global economic shocks.

India’s Electoral Bonds scheme introduced an opaque, anonymous mechanism for political funding—any individual or corporate entity could purchase bonds from the State Bank of India and hand them over to political parties without public disclosure of the donor’s identity, effectively shrouding the source of political contributions. This system catalyzed a dramatic shift in political finance: over half of all party funding flowed through these bonds, disproportionately benefiting the ruling party. The BJP alone encashed bonds worth over ₹6,060 crore between 2019 and 2024—about 57% of the total redeemed—far ahead of all other parties, with single-year figures such as ₹1,294 crore in 2022–23 dwarfing the Congress’s ₹171 crore or the TMC’s ₹325 crore. Such anonymity facilitated potential quid-pro-quo arrangements, corruption, and crony capitalism, allowing vested interests to exert undue influence over policymaking. The resultant asymmetry in electoral competition and erosion of transparency fundamentally undermined the democratic process by subverting voters’ right to information. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the scheme unconstitutional in 2024, citing violations of citizens’ right to information and democratic norms—but the damage to political accountability had already been deep-seated.

In parallel, the PM CARES Fund—projected as a rapid-response relief mechanism during the COVID-19 crisis—represents a troubling pivot from institutional governance to personalized, spectacle-driven philanthropy. It operates as an extra-statutory trust, parallel to the government’s National Relief Fund, yet remains exempt from transparency mandates such as Right to Information and constitutional audits. Donations through this channel have been leveraged as symbolic acts of loyalty, enabling corporate benefactors to curry favor while government oversight remains minimal. This “philanthro-capitalist” model transforms crisis management into a performative display of executive benevolence, bypassing democratic oversight and weakening institutional trust. By concentrating power and eroding accountability, the fund exemplifies how welfare can be reconfigured into a tool for post-democratic governance—compromising the very foundations of India’s constitutional democracy.

J. Erosion of Judicial Independence: Blurring Lines Between Judiciary and Executive

The traditional demarcation between India’s judiciary and political executive is increasingly eroding under the current BJP regime. High-profile interventions, such as the 2024 Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids on opposition leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren, highlight how courts often defer to executive action, granting interim relief only after public outrage. Appointment processes have also come under scrutiny, with concerns over ideological alignment of judges, delays in contentious appointments, and perceived executive influence over the collegium, undermining the courts’ impartiality.

This erosion is compounded by the visible saffronization of judicial processes. Landmark decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s 2020 Ram Mandir verdict, have been criticized for reflecting majoritarian sentiment rather than strict constitutional reasoning. Symbolic gestures—such as the Chief Justice performing Ganesa puja with the Prime Minister—further blur the lines between institutional neutrality and political-partisan alignment, signaling a judiciary increasingly entwined with the ideological goals of the ruling party.

Independent commissions and tribunals are similarly compromised. In the DHFL case, Supreme Court’s April 1st verdict and RBI-appointed CoCs faced allegations of favouritism toward crony interests, raising doubts about the judiciary’s ability to check executive or corporate malfeasance. Electoral disputes, preventive detentions, and surveillance-related cases, including Pegasus-linked investigations of opposition leaders, further illustrate a pattern of judicial deference, enabling the executive to operate with minimal oversight.

This creeping convergence of judicial and executive functions threatens India’s democratic fabric. Courts, rather than acting as counterbalances, risk being co-opted into the machinery of political power, eroding public confidence in institutional independence. Without decisive resistance and structural safeguards, the judiciary may increasingly serve legality as a façade while substantive accountability, secularism, and civil liberties remain compromised.

K. Democracy in the Shadows: The Collapse of RTI and NHRC in India

India’s commitment to transparency and human rights is increasingly undermined by the deteriorating effectiveness of its Right to Information (RTI) regime and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

The RTI Act, once hailed as a transformative tool for accountability, now faces systemic decay. As of mid-2024, seven of India’s 29 Information Commissions were defunct for varying periods, with four continuing to remain non-functional. This dysfunction has left vast swathes of the population unable to exercise their right to information. Moreover, the government’s exemption of key agencies, such as the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, from RTI compliance further erodes the law’s reach. Compounding these institutional failures, RTI activists face increasing threats, harassment, and even murder, with over 300 reported incidents, including at least 51 fatalities, linked to their efforts. Most RTIs today are given evasive replies or involved in tragic transfer loops without any substantial answers.

The NHRC, tasked with safeguarding human rights, has seen its credibility wane. In March 2024, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) deferred India’s accreditation status, citing concerns over the NHRC’s functioning and adherence to international standards. Despite this, the NHRC challenged the recommendation, retaining its ‘A’ status until March 2026, pending further review. Additionally, the NHRC’s reliance on police officers for investigations has raised questions about impartiality, especially when addressing violations involving law enforcement agencies.

The weakening of both the RTI framework and the NHRC signals a troubling shift away from democratic accountability and human rights protection in India. Without urgent reforms and genuine political will, these institutions risk becoming mere formalities, incapable of serving their foundational purposes.

4. Takeaways and Implications

Theoretically, Levitsky and Way’s concept of “competitive authoritarianism” provides a precise lens to understand BJP’s playbook: democratic institutions exist in form but are systematically subverted to entrench power, ensuring electoral victories while undermining opposition and accountability. Mechanisms include selective enforcement of laws, surveillance, intimidation of dissenters, and manipulation of electoral and financial systems—creating a façade of democracy while consolidating autocracy. Mehta’s framework of “majoritarian tyranny” further elucidates the interplay between economic cronyism and communal repression: state-favoured corporations and political elites benefit from preferential policies, while marginalized communities face violence, exclusion, and systematic economic marginalization.

The implications are multidimensional. Socially, polarization deepens along religious, caste, and regional lines, eroding civic cohesion and fostering intergroup mistrust. Economically, inequality widens, small businesses collapse under cronyist favouritism, and corporate mismanagement and bankruptcies stifle sustainable growth. Politically, opposition voices are systematically silenced through coercive agencies, ED raids, and legal manipulation, reducing Parliament and state legislatures to rubber-stamp bodies. Internationally, organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and V-Dem’s 2025 assessments decry India’s democratic backsliding, highlighting curtailment of press freedom, suppression of civil society, and systemic human rights violations.

If left unchecked, this super undeclared emergency—a convergence of political authoritarianism, economic predation, and social engineering—risks the entrenchment of a permanent autocracy. Democratic norms may be hollowed out entirely, institutions co-opted for partisan ends, and civil liberties severely curtailed, creating a governance model where power is perpetuated through coercion, fear, and institutional capture rather than accountability or consent. The consequences extend beyond politics: social fragmentation, economic stagnation, and international isolation could redefine India’s democratic identity for decades.

5. Conclusion

The BJP regime has become a malignant force on India’s democratic, social, and economic fabric. Its undeclared emergency functions as a multifaceted instrument of control, combining legal terror, selective enforcement, and intimidation of opposition leaders with communal bloodlust, caste-targeted lynchings, cow vigilantism, and systemic gender-based violence. Parliamentary processes have been hollowed into ceremonial endorsements, while crony capitalism and financial manipulation enrich a few at the expense of millions, leaving small businesses bankrupt and ordinary citizens disenfranchised.

Even within fragile coalition frameworks, Modi and Shah’s authoritarian arrogance persists, signaling that institutional checks are subordinated to majoritarian and personal power consolidation. This convergence of coercion, repression, and economic predation risks transforming India into a state where dissent is criminalized, social fractures are normalized, and democratic freedoms are hollowed out entirely.

The remedy lies in relentless vigilance: judicial courage to challenge abuses, civil society mobilization to resist authoritarian encroachment, and political accountability to restore democratic processes. Without such concerted efforts, India’s pluralistic soul faces systematic erosion under this tyrannical regime. The warning is stark: the consolidation of power, if unopposed, will not merely diminish India’s democracy—it will imperil the very essence of its social, economic, and moral order.

SEE ALSO: