India is facing democratic backsliding and the values of Democracy, Liberalism, Federalism, and Secularism that form part of our constitutional ethos are all under siege. The academia has been quite active in analyzing this phenomenon with scholars labeling it as “the killing of the Indian constitution”, “making India an election-only democracy” and the “exaggerated death of Indian democracy”.
In cognizance of the abundant literature, this piece asks, what does Bhartiya Janta Party’s move towards authoritarianism mean for the Indian constitution? Is the attempt only to attack India’s liberal-democratic constitutionalism or something more than that? I argue that the democratic backsliding which India has witnessed in the last 12 years, has been scripted by BJP in a manner which not merely destroys but also involves a meticulous re-wiring of the citizens to generate a sense of antagonism among them against the liberal-democratic project started by the Constitution of 1950.
The Playbook Explained
Since the Bhartiya Janta Party came to power, it has worked towards promulgating a unitary vision of everything Indian. There’s supposed to be a single nationalist belief; a single cultural identity; a single constitutional identity; and most importantly the political unit - the demos - is seen as a single entity, conflated with the majority, whose sovereign legitimacy has been strictly conferred on the ruling party. (see here). This unitarisation is effectuated by creating a so-called ideal Indian, the control on whom is twofold: (a) she should act in accordance with the norms, undemocratically created by the executive and (b) she should think as the majoritarian discourse dictatess.
Further, the creation of an ideal Indian who fits into the party’s unitary vision is supplemented with the construction of an adversary. The Ideal Indian is constantly reminded of the other who has to be necessarily defeated to undo the historical injustice caused to her. This politics of othering equips the ruling party with the desired legitimacy to undermine India’s liberal fabric in order to protect the people from a mythical adversary (see here). The playbook borrows heavily from the classic populist handbook but is much more sophisticated and effective when compared to Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian populism or J.P. Narayan’s socialist populism (see here). At its very core lies an utter disdain towards any form of pluralism and this anti-pluralistic tendency empowers the regime to claim that only they can represent the people (see here).
The playbook simultaneously operates on four dynamic pillars, each of which postulates a specific unitary vision that further strengthens the political and cultural hegemony of the ruling party. The appeal to a singular nationalist vision sets the ground to effectuate a party- state fusion, as the idea of the nation itself is infused with the ruling party (see here and here). The appeal to a singular cultural identity equips BJP with the necessary legitimacy to term any diversity or minorities as foreign/alien (see here). The appeal to a singular constitutional identity that runs contrary to the constitutional ethos generates antagonism amongst the citizens against the liberal democratic structure. Lastly, the appeal to a singular vision of sovereignty exercised by the BJP furthers the primacy of politics over law, where the justification for every state action is the electoral mandate, thus eroding the rule of law (see here and here). In effect, the Bhartiya Janta Party has stretched the politics of unitarisation to its very extreme, compromising the ideals on which the Indian constitution stands (see here).
The playbook in operation
Having explored the foundational kernel that gives effect to the playbook of unitarisation weaponised by the BJP, the next question that arises is of its practical operation. How does this playbook function on a regular day observed by the nation? Professor Tarunabh Khaitan provides a compelling answer by arguing that the BJP has undertaken political actions that strike at the very heart of liberal democratic constitutionalism, by rendering all other forms of institutional mechanisms powerless in relation to the political executive. Since the BJP successfully posits itself as being the sole voice of the people, it is the executive that truly asserts the power unveiled by the Machiavellian appeal to popular sovereignty. Hence, the political executive is rendered the principal operator of the playbook with an unabridged authority to further its plans.
The modus operandi of this ever-proliferating executive is incremental, subtly informal and systemic. This has unearthed a model of governance that works on three conjoined fronts: (i) An overreliance on informal political practices, rather than tangible modes of state action such as legislations; (ii) Incremental attacks on the constitutional ethos with the written words remaining intact; and (iii) Launching an assault on all guarantor/fourth-branch institutions that could hold the state accountable for these actions.
An example of the Playbook
The BJP, seen broadly with its ideological mentor, the RSS, and various other sister organizations together constitute the “Sangh Parivaar”. They have a well-documented history of politicising religion and demanding a “Hindu Rashtra”, in sharp contrast to the secular constitutional ethos.
Since 2014, various informal political practices have been effectuated to this effect:
(i) Employment of the Hindutva rhetoric in elections and campaigns with impunity, in blatant disregard to the Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951; (ii) Weaponization of religious appeal to threaten minorities and any form of dissent through cultural policing (see here and here); (iii) Legitimizing the political talk of turning India into a theocratic Hindu state, which was earlier condemned (see here and here); (iv) misuse of executive functions: gerrymandering through voter list revisions and delimitation to systematically exclude Muslim voters, the deployment of police powers to target Muslim settlements, and the instrumentalization of anti-conversion laws via campaigns such as “love jihad”; (v) reliance on symbolic assaults: performing Hindu rituals at the new Parliament’s inauguration, distributing Preambles omitting the word “secular,” and explicitly aligning the head of government with religion, most notably through Modi’s participation in the Ram Janmabhoomi inauguration (see here, here). On that occasion he said “Ram is Rashtra” (Ram is the State) and “Dev is Desh’(Deity is Country). Such conflation of religion with the State is contrary to the constitutional vision of India anchored in secularism.
This has been complemented with very few formal actions in the realm of law-making and judiciary: (i) Several BJP-ruled states have further entrenched anti-conversion regimes, while others have moved toward enacting a Uniform Civil Code (see here and here); (ii) Following the successful implementation in Assam, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 was adopted for the whole of India; (iii) Legal doctrines prone to misuse were weaponized such as the essential religious doctrine in the case of Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
It is salutary to note that secularism has been recognized as part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution. While I briefly discuss the informal erosion of secularism, similar analysis can be extended to other values that are part of the basic structure. What needs to be emphasized is the subtle nature of these attacks. The playbook’s tenacity lies in the diffused, fragmented and indeterminate character of the State actions. It is easy to criticize legislations, executive orders, or judicial decisions that clearly undermine constitutional values. But how do we confront the political practices that, taken individually, may seem merely improper, yet collectively contribute to a deeper erosion of the constitutional order? Through these intangible political practices, the executive produces norms that undermine liberal-democratic constitutionalism and are expected to be followed by the ideal Indian(s).
Manufacturing the Ideal Indian
Jan-Werner Mueller’s seminal account of populism would be instructive in understanding the construction of the ideal Indian who not only acts according to the road map prepared by the dispensation but also thinks accordingly. Mueller argues that populist regimes claim that only they represent the authentic, proper, and morally pure people. Their politics is premised on a tripartite model of exclusion: firstly, they claim that only the “pure people” deserve to be the legitimate moral representatives of the demos; secondly, they claim that only the “pure people” seek a common good that can be clearly ascertained; thirdly, they claim that only they represent the “pure people” and can achieve this common good.
What Mueller calls the “pure people” are the ideal Indian(s) that the BJP has sought to create. These ideal Indian(s) are groomed into antagonizing the constitutional values of secularism, democracy, rule of law etc. Thus, when these values are attacked by the State, the ideal Indian(s) feel vindicated and get a sense of moral victory, because destruction of these un-Indian values is the common good they seek. BJP’s majoritarian discourse has successfully generated an ideological consensus that celebrates the destruction of liberal-democratic constitutionalism and this consensus embodies their attempt to create a competing constitutional vision to cause havoc to the Constitution itself.
Sustaining the Playbook
While delineating the contours of the playbook and also explaining its practical operation, the question how it is sustained deserves a cogent answer. What sustains the coercive apparatus outlined above through which the BJP undermines liberal-democratic values, while all the provisions of the Constitution remain formally applicable? The second objective of the playbook that sustains its coercive elements is the ideological control exercised on the ideal Indian(s) by the majoritarian discourse.
Valeriano Ramos while explaining Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony and power relations notes that, “State power rests in a hegemonic equilibrium with alternated moments of force and consensus but without the necessity of predominance by coercion over consensus. Hegemony (“Predominance by consent”) is a condition in which a fundamental class exercises a political, intellectual, and moral role of leadership within a hegemonic system cemented by a common world-view or “organic ideology”.” Through a call for returning to “Hindu-indigeneity”, the BJP has legitimized its exclusionary post-colonial nationalism as a decolonization project and produced an ideology of exclusion that appears organic.
This phenomenon has garnered much scholarly attention and academics have analyzed both the global trend and its Indian manifestation (see here and here). Taiwo analyzed the contemporary rise of right-wing politics in Africa by linking it to their appeal towards decolonization. He distinguished between Decolonization 1 and Decolonization 2. The former referred to national liberation movements aimed at expelling European colonial power while the latter was seen as an ideological project seeking to reject all forms of Eurocentric influences, including liberal-democratic values, some of which could be traced back to indigenous practices.
In advocating for an absolute abandonment of euro-centric values, the Hindutva movement mischaracterizes the Indian constitution as a colonial document and re-frames its attack on minorities as a move towards “Indic-renaissance”. It totally ignores the fact that many of these so-called European values of “tolerance”, “liberty”, and “equality” were homegrown and indigenous. Though a glaring misnomer, this framing allows the BJP to intellectualize its political talk of “Hindu Rashtra” as a project of decolonization, where the colonizers are construed not only as European powers but also as Islamic rulers who were themselves very much Hindustani (see here). For example Prime Minister Modi on several occasions, including on independence day on August 15, 2023, stated that our country suffered slavery for a thousand years following the defeat of a small kingdom of India 1000-1200 years ago. Such utterances ran counter to Mahatma Gandhi’s explanation in his speech in Cuttack on 24th March 1921 that, “The pre-British period was not a period of slavery. We had some sort of Swaraj [self-rule] under Mughal rule."
The so called Indic renaissance through such distorted narratives, simply entrenches Brahmanical hegemony by re-symbolizing the colonial machinery and passing on the baton to the native-elites. Nonetheless, this misnomer provides a solid ideological foundation to control what the ideal Indian thinks and tempt her into compromising constitutional values for short term political gains such as persecuting the minorities. Due to its appeal for indigeneity, this manufactured majoritarian discourse appears to be an organic ideology and successfully generates the consensus among the ideal Indian(s) to further the coercive playbook.
Lastly, any attempt to counter this discourse is met with a machinery designed to persecute free speech and independent thought. Anmol Jain labels the BJP’s control on public discourse as a hydra “in which every attempt to cut one instrument of suppression leaves the others fully intact.” The dominance over discourse and the brutal onslaught on dissent creates the perfect milieu to manufacture an aversion towards the ethos of the 1950 constitution.
Unveiling Constituent Power
Now, the entire playbook stands deconstructed. By postulating a unitary vision of everything Indian, it seeks to destroy liberal-democratic constitutionalism through intangible political practices generating norms that are habitually obeyed by the Ideal Indian(s). At the same time, the playbook also seeks to construct a competing vision of the Indian polity by generating an ideology of aversion among the Ideal Indian(s) against the constitutional ethos. In effect, the playbook unveils the deadly weapon of constituent power. Because the “one” single party represents the “one” sovereign, whose thoughts and actions are “one”, any measure that this party takes represents the will of the demos and becomes unassailable. Does this mean that the ultimate goal is to replace the Indian constitution of 1950? The answer is not that straightforward.
The trivialization of constituent power as an instrument of populist politics has attracted extensive scholarly discussions (see here and here). Scholars have highlighted how populist regimes misuse the bandied understanding of constituent power which treats it as a fictitious entity, typically the people, that subsists through time. The argument goes like this: Because “the people” is the constituent power, at all times subsisting the constitutional order, their popular will conferred singularly on the current regime enables the regime to sidestep constitutional restraints and replace the constitution through a revolution. A case in point is the Hungarian Fundamental Law of 2012 that replaced the 1949 Hungarian constitution.
Compare these scholarly accounts with the situation in India and the similarity of process, but the uniqueness of the intended result, would become clear. As the literature correctly identifies, the BJP has similarly sought to locate constituent power in a distinct and subsisting entity -the ideal Indian(s)- whose sovereign will is unequivocally conferred upon the BJP. Further, because this sovereign will is constructed as seeking to rectify historical wrongs inflicted by a supposedly foreign constitutional ethos, the BJP has the absolute legitimacy to sidestep constitutional restraints and achieve what this manufactured sovereign wants. But this is where the similarity ends.
The empirical phenomenon unique to India is that the BJP stays away from a constitutional revolution. Far from relying on formal state actions, this regime’s playbook relies entirely on everyday political practices that lack any long-term enduring capabilities. This creates a paradoxical situation: Like Venezuela, Bolivia or Hungary (see here), the BJP successfully laid the groundwork to unveil the weapon of constituent power through popular will. But unlike these regimes it stops at manufacturing a disdain among the citizens for the constitutional ethos and continues to operate under the same order while undermining it through incremental attacks.
There can be two possible explanations for this paradox of antagonizing the current constitutional order, while still choosing to exist under it: (a) the ultimate goal might always have been to effectuate a constitutional revolution, but the electoral turnout of the 2024 general elections has put the plans on a back burner; and (b) The more plausible explanation is that the BJP seeks to uphold the façade of liberal-democratic constitutionalism, while also benefiting from the popular will that is generated by antagonizing it. Through this façade, the real workings of the state in the sphere of everyday political practices remain antithetical to the ethos of a liberal-democracy.
Regardless, predicting the possible explanations remains beyond the scope of this piece. What I have sought to demonstrate is a common denominator that binds both the possible explanations. The BJP’s attempt has clearly been not only to destroy but also to construct. It has not only attacked the basic tenets of the Indian constitution but is attempting to manufacture a popular consensus that celebrates these attacks. This popular consensus being channelized to further undermine liberal-democratic constitutionalism is the real weapon that gives rise to a competing constitutional vision, one that celebrates unitarisation rather than diversity. That is reason why people’s movement to save the Constitution assumes seminal significance.
