Is Indian democracy at risk—or being rebalanced?
Continuity, contestation, and the constitutional question
In 2026, the Republic of Bharat stands at a constitutional and civilizational inflection point. More than seven decades after the adoption of the Constitution, and over a decade into uninterrupted governance by the Bharatiya Janata Party, public discourse—within India and across its diaspora—has become polarized around a single question: Is Indian democracy being safeguarded or subverted?
Claims of constitutional correction, civilizational rebalancing, and long-overdue reform counter allegations of authoritarianism, democratic backsliding, and institutional capture. To assess the present moment honestly, one must step beyond slogans and social media outrage and examine India’s constitutional journey with historical context and analytical clarity.
I. The constitutional compact
The Constitution of India was conceived as a transformative document. It sought to balance individual liberty with social justice, federalism with unity, and democratic choice with institutional restraint. From its earliest decades, however, it has been subject to sustained political pressure.
Between 1950 and 1977 alone, the Constitution was amended over forty times, often to consolidate executive authority or dilute judicial scrutiny. Constitutional amendment is not, by itself, anti-democratic. But intent and context matter. Repeated use of amendments to bypass institutional constraints reflected a political culture of subordinating constitutional spirit to political convenience.
II. The Indira Gandhi era: Centralization and constitutional rupture
No serious discussion of constitutional stress in Bharat can avoid the Indira Gandhi period. Faced with electoral setbacks and judicial resistance, her government pursued unprecedented and aggressive constitutional centralization.
Two developments stand out:
- The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Often called the “Mini-Constitution,” it curtailed judicial review, weakened federalism, strengthened executive power, and altered the Preamble itself.
- The Emergency (1975–77): Civil liberties were suspended, the press censored, opposition leaders imprisoned, and elections postponed.
Even senior Congress leaders later acknowledged these as excesses. Describing this period as the darkest chapter in Bharat’s constitutional history is neither rhetorical nor partisan; it is historically accurate.
It is worth noting that many features of today’s constitutional architecture—frequently criticized in contemporary discourse—originated during this era.
III. Post-Emergency corrections and lingering legacies
The Janata government (1977–79) reversed several Emergency-era distortions, restoring judicial review and civil liberties. Yet deeper tendencies toward centralization persisted across governments of all ideological hues.
From the 1990s onward, coalition politics constrained overt authoritarianism but introduced new dysfunctions: policy paralysis, informal power structures, and weakened accountability. Institutional reform was deferred rather than resolved.
IV. The Modi–BJP era: Recalibration or regression?
Since 2014, Bharat has experienced strong single-party governance—rare in recent decades. Critics view this as democratic erosion; supporters argue it has restored coherence, decisiveness, and administrative capacity.
Common accusations include:
- Pressure on media, universities, and civil society organizations
- Politicization of investigative agencies
- Reduced tolerance for dissent
Countervailing facts include:
- Repeated national electoral mandates
- A judiciary that continues to rule against the government in key cases
- Major reforms were enacted through Parliament rather than executive decree
Crucially, no constitutional Emergency has been declared. Elections remain competitive. State governments regularly change hands. Judicial supremacy has not been displaced.
V. Structural reform vs. institutional anxiety
Several landmark decisions, abrogation of Article 370, construction of the Ram Mandir following Supreme Court adjudication, and enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, are often portrayed internationally as authoritarian moves.
Yet each proceeded through constitutional mechanisms: parliamentary debate, judicial review, and electoral validation.
The deeper discomfort, particularly among Western observers and sections of India’s Anglophone elite, appears less procedural than civilizational. What is often labeled “authoritarianism” is, in many cases, a rejection of inherited post-colonial narratives and the reassertion of indigenous civilizational confidence.
VI. The diaspora lens
Among diaspora audiences, particularly in North America and Europe, the debate is filtered through:
- Academic frameworks rooted in post-colonial theory
- Media ecosystems with a limited memory of pre-2014 governance failures
- Selective moral benchmarks are unevenly applied across global democracies
This has produced a discourse heavy on accusation but light on comparative constitutional analysis.
VII. What has—and has not—changed by 2026
Measured objectively:
What has changed
- Stronger executive coherence
- Clearer articulation of civilizational identity
- Reduced tolerance for political ambiguity
What has not
- The constitutional framework
- Electoral legitimacy
- Judicial independence and supremacy
- Federal contestation
Bharat in 2026 is not an authoritarian state. It is a more self-assertive Republic, less deferential to post-colonial orthodoxies and more confident in its civilizational identity. This confidence has enhanced its standing among global powers and strengthened its voice in geopolitical discourse.
Conclusion: A Republic in transition
The Republic of Bharat has always been contested. What distinguishes the present is not the existence of constitutional tension, but its visibility and ideological clarity.
To mistake political discomfort for democratic collapse is to misunderstand Bharat’s constitutional history. Equally, dismissing all criticism as bad faith weakens democratic resilience.
The task before Bharat in 2026 is not to choose between pride and pluralism, but to hold both with constitutional fidelity. The strength of the Republic lies not in the absence of conflict, but in its capacity to resolve conflict through institutions—rather than through constitutional rupture, as witnessed during the Emergency.
Today, Bharat stands strong: sustaining democratic institutions, affirming unity in diversity, and advancing economic security. At its best, it can be described as a Republic in transition, moving with confidence toward Viksit Bharat 2047.
A developed Bharat is no longer merely aspirational. It is a bold, achievable national goal, one that the Republic is steadily working toward as it approaches the centenary of Independence.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
Formerly, a researcher in Italy, Japan, and France, he has widely travelled and came to the US in 1978. He was a faculty and academic administrator in several different universities in PA, TX, NJ, MN, WI, and NY, and an Executive Fellow in the White House S&T Policy during the Clinton administration.
- The State of Bharat today - January 22, 2026
- From inclusion to exclusion: UGC’s new equity rules institutionalize caste lines and abandon merit - January 20, 2026
- Success of Indian immigrants becomes a source of suspicion and political targeting - January 14, 2026
