Who Defines Democracy? India’s Global Image or Modi’s Redefinition

Analyst: Saif Ali 

India, which has long been recognized as the largest democracy in the world, is currently at the heart of a debate about what democracy truly means and who gets to define it. International democracy rankings have downgraded India’s rank for limiting civil liberties, declining press freedom, and reducing the space for opposition.  In 2019, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranked India at 51st place in the democracy index, after India’s huge drop of ten spots, which EIU attributed as an after effect of erosion of civil liberties in the country. In 2020, EIU ranked India further down to 53rd place, where democratic backsliding and crackdowns on civil liberties were said to be the reason for this drop in rankings. India’s overall score on democracy index fell from a 6.9 in 2019 to 6.61 in 2020, dropping from a previous high of 7.92 in 2014. This only highlights how over the years India’s democracy index ranking has dropped from 27th place in 2014 to 53rd in 2020.

The Guardian argues that India is backsliding democratically due to certain policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), crackdowns on protest, and the government controlling national narratives regarding sensitivity and press. It is widely understood, however, that something beyond simply holding elections matters to democracy, including the independence of the institutions, rights of minorities, and freedom of speech. The Modi government, on the other hand, has strongly rejected the figures that have recently been put forth by various media on India’s democratic status, insisting that its democracy cannot be judged by Western standards. Recently, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar confronted the West regarding what he termed “double standards” in global democracy at a panel discussion at the Munich Security Conference. He was speaking in front of several Western leaders, including a US Senator, and was blunt in stating that the West characterizes democracy as a “Western characteristic” and is busy encouraging “non-democratic forces” in the Global South.

In his view, India’s democracy is defined by its own history, culture, and electoral participation, not by Western-set parameters. He further argued that the West imposes a selective and biased examination of democracies, which does not take into account the democratic politics of India given its vibrant political engagement, high voter turnout, and diverse leadership. In this view, democracy is not only about procedural norms but also about governance efficiency, national unity, and political stability—elements that the Modi administration prioritizes. 

It is very clear that Modi’s government has totally redefined the term democracy, which has strong leadership, majoritarian rule, and performance-oriented governance as its pillars. His supporters are said to have fulfilled sentiments toward the ruling party, who, in their opinion, have made democracy stronger in the country by promoting economic growth, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and political stability. This perspective is notably distinct from the standard liberal democratic model, which emphasizes checks and balances, a free press, and a vibrant civil society. The increased divergence between India’s global reputation as a democratic state and its changing domestic democratic model has set perception and reality further apart. While many international organizations identify democracy as fundamental freedoms, independent institutions, and checks on power, the Modi regime tends to advocate for an alternative framework—one that prioritizes electoral legitimacy and governance effectiveness as the main components of democracy. 

This narrative is received positively by Modi supporters, who often argue that international critiques are simply politically based maneuvers to undermine India’s sovereignty and development path. Pro-government commentators and media often dismiss pejorative profiling by simply stating that it is part of a Western gaze intended to discredit India, holding on to the notion that India as a democracy should be evaluated based on its own journey and frameworks instead of an outsider’s experiences. This ideological confrontation raises more significant questions about whether democracy can be interpreted in different ways. Can different states redefine democracy in the context of their own socio-political realities, or must they adhere to constructs of democracy as established globally? Prime Minister Modi’s government can be placed within a broader shift in global politics in which emerging powers now prefer to contest against Western-dominated narratives. But a complete dismissal of international judging of democracy carries risk, as a compromised reputation for democracy could impact India’s diplomatic relations, economic interests, and strategic partnerships.

In spite of that, Modi’s democratic narrative holds considerable ground in domestic settings of the country. His leadership enjoys widespread electoral support, while many Indians who are more concerned about political order and economic growth than theoretical ideas of democracy are supportive of his articulated democratic narrative. For them, Modi’s governance is proof that democracy in India is thriving not because it aligns with Western indices but because it reflects the will of the people. The question of who defines democracy in India remains unresolved. Global institutions argue that democratic legitimacy depends on protecting freedoms and upholding institutional checks. On the other hand, the Modi government has its own argument that democracy should not be a rigid western concept but rather a flexible system that could be shaped by a country’s own priorities. As India has this debate made around, it is of most probability that India’s democratic identity will continue to be shaped by both international set standards and its domestically formulated narrative, which will ultimately put up a choice for global players on how they perceive India as a democratic nation.

The Author, Saif Ali is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) at the University of Sindh, Jamshoro. He has a profound interest in international law and policy and their impacts on regional dynamics and global security.