In every democracy there are moments when political disagreement sharpens
into hostility. Yet there are also periods when the very tone of public life
begins to change. India, a nation that once prided itself on plural debate and
moral restraint in politics, appears to be passing through such a moment. Over
the past decade, particularly since 2014, the language of politics has
hardened, public discourse has grown increasingly hostile, and the institutions
meant to safeguard democratic balance have come under visible strain. Many
observers describe this moment not merely as political transition but as a
troubling descent into a darker age of democratic culture.
The year 2014 marked a major turning point in Indian politics. The
electoral victory of Narendra Modi and the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party
with an absolute parliamentary majority ended decades of coalition politics.
For many citizens this moment symbolized hope for decisive governance, economic
reform and administrative efficiency. The promise of development, strong
leadership and national pride resonated deeply with a large section of the
electorate.
However, the political transformation that followed did not remain confined
to governance alone. It gradually reshaped the tone of political conversation
in the country. Public discourse began to revolve increasingly around identity,
loyalty and ideological conformity. Political debate moved away from policy and
toward narratives of cultural and national belonging. The result was a climate
where disagreement was often interpreted as hostility toward the nation itself.
One of the most visible symptoms of this shift has been the deterioration
of parliamentary decorum. Parliament, historically regarded as the highest
forum of democratic debate, has increasingly witnessed angry exchanges,
personal attacks and abusive rhetoric. Members of Parliament who are expected
to represent the dignity of democratic institutions sometimes resort to
language that would once have been considered unacceptable within legislative
halls. When lawmakers themselves normalize hostility, the message inevitably
travels beyond Parliament into society.
The decline in parliamentary civility reflects a deeper transformation in
political culture. Political parties across the spectrum have always engaged in
sharp criticism, but the present era has witnessed a more aggressive form of
discourse amplified by digital media. Social media platforms have become arenas
of ideological warfare where abuse, misinformation and character assassination
circulate freely. Organized online campaigns often target journalists,
activists and political opponents with coordinated hostility.
The rise of political trolling networks has played a significant role in
this transformation. Digital platforms that could have strengthened democratic
dialogue have instead been weaponized to silence dissent and amplify
propaganda. Critics of government policies frequently face online harassment,
while complex political questions are reduced to simplistic slogans. The speed
and reach of digital media have made it easier for emotional narratives to
overshadow reasoned discussion.
Another dimension of this political climate is the increasing polarization
of society along religious and cultural lines. Debates about nationalism and
identity have intensified, often creating suspicion between communities.
Instead of reinforcing the constitutional principle of equal citizenship,
political rhetoric sometimes emphasizes cultural majoritarianism. Such
narratives deepen divisions and weaken the inclusive foundations upon which the
Indian republic was built.
The ideological influence of organizations such as the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh has also become more visible in the national conversation.
Supporters view this as a long overdue cultural correction that reasserts
civilizational identity. Others see it as an attempt to redefine the secular
character of the Indian state. Regardless of perspective, the ideological
debate has become sharper and more emotionally charged.
The impact of this environment is not limited to politics alone. It shapes
the functioning of institutions as well. Independent institutions such as
investigative agencies, universities and even sections of the media often find
themselves drawn into ideological conflicts. When institutions appear to align
with political narratives, public trust begins to erode. Democracy ultimately
depends not only on elections but also on the credibility of institutions that
operate beyond electoral politics.
The media landscape too has undergone a dramatic transformation. Sections
of television media increasingly prioritize sensationalism over substance.
Prime time debates frequently resemble shouting contests rather than thoughtful
analysis. Anchors sometimes act less like moderators and more like participants
in ideological battles. This environment reinforces polarization instead of
fostering understanding.
Yet it would be simplistic to attribute the entire transformation solely to
one political party or government. The deeper issue lies in the erosion of
democratic ethics across the political spectrum. Opposition parties, while
criticizing the ruling establishment, have often struggled to articulate a
coherent alternative vision. Political opportunism and rhetorical excess are
not confined to any single ideological camp.
Moreover, the electorate itself has become more emotionally invested in
political identity. Political loyalty increasingly resembles cultural
affiliation. Supporters defend leaders with fervor, while opponents respond
with equal intensity. In such an atmosphere nuance becomes rare. Complex policy
questions are overshadowed by ideological narratives.
However, describing the present moment as a “dark age” should not imply
that democracy has collapsed. India continues to hold competitive elections,
courts continue to function, and citizens continue to express dissent in
multiple ways. Civil society organizations, independent journalists and
concerned citizens still raise questions about governance and accountability.
The resilience of Indian democracy lies precisely in this persistent ability to
debate and correct itself.
History shows that democracies often experience phases of heightened
polarization before rediscovering equilibrium. The essential question is
whether political leadership and citizens alike are willing to restore civility
and constitutional values to the center of public life. Democracy is sustained
not only by laws and institutions but also by the ethical conduct of those who
participate in it.
For Parliament in particular, the challenge is urgent. Legislative debate
must once again become a forum of reason rather than spectacle. Political
leaders must recognize that abusive rhetoric may produce short term applause
but ultimately weakens the dignity of democratic institutions. Public
representatives carry the responsibility of setting standards for national
conversation.
The decade since 2014 has undeniably reshaped India’s political landscape.
It has produced strong leadership, intense ideological debate and unprecedented
digital mobilization. Yet it has also revealed the fragility of democratic
culture when civility and restraint disappear from public life.
Whether this period will ultimately be remembered as a dark age or as a
difficult phase of democratic evolution depends on the choices made today.
Democracies do not decline overnight. They decline gradually when language
becomes toxic, institutions become partisan and citizens begin to see each
other as enemies rather than fellow participants in a shared republic.
The path forward lies not in silencing political differences but in
restoring the ethics of democratic disagreement. India’s constitutional vision
was never about uniformity of thought. It was about coexistence within
diversity. The future of the republic will depend on whether that principle is
defended with the same passion with which political battles are fought today.
Author: Siddhartha Shankar
Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law,
politics and society.
No comments:
Post a Comment