The latest round of elections in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry indicates a shift in the grammar of Indian politics. Politics is now defined by religious polarisation, institutional subservience, and blatant electoral engineering.
The Election Commission of India, once a respected institution, is now subservient to the whims of those in power. Its conduct is now suspect. The most disturbing feature of this transformation is the redefinition of the electorate itself. Electoral rolls, once treated as sacrosanct, have become instruments of contestation.
The removal of names from voter lists is presented as an administrative necessity. However, such exclusion clearly follows social and religious lines. It is not a case of crude malpractice from an earlier era. Instead, it is a sophisticated bureaucratic thinning of the electorate in which exclusion is procedural, deniable, and therefore difficult to challenge.
Such developments would be troubling under any circumstances, but they take on greater significance in the context of a perceived weakening of institutional neutrality. The Election Commission of India, long regarded as a model for the developing world, now finds itself accused of acquiescence rather than vigilance.
Its defenders point to adherence to rules; its critics to the selective consequences of those rules. However, procedural correctness does not mean public confidence in a democracy. When trust in the system erodes, the game feels like a scam, regardless of how meticulously the rules are followed.
The blatant manipulation of electoral infrastructure operates in tandem with the calculated cultivation of religious polarisation. Across these elections, identity has framed political debate. Campaigns that portray minorities as traitors, castigating them as outsiders, transform elections into a manipulated jamboree on identity rather than governance.
Such polarisation simplifies political choice, compressing complex policy questions into binary moral judgments. It rewards those who can mobilise fear as effectively as hope.
Narendra Modi did not invent this approach, but he has perfected its application at scale. What emerged as a tactic in one state has evolved into a national template, adaptable to local contexts while retaining a consistent core logic: consolidate a majority by sharpening its sense of difference from an imagined other.
The success of this strategy has ensured its diffusion. Regional parties that once defined themselves in opposition to sectarian politics increasingly find themselves borrowing elements of the same playbook, whether out of conviction or compulsion. Even in states with long traditions of social pluralism, the vocabulary of politics is shifting, as if no party can afford to remain entirely outside the gravitational pull of polarisation.
Language, in this environment, becomes a symptom and an accelerant. The coarsening of political discourse is no longer confined to the margins; it has entered the mainstream with disconcerting ease. Opponents are cast not as adversaries but as existential threats; their legitimacy is questioned in terms that blur the line between disagreement and disloyalty.
Such rhetoric reshapes the moral terrain on which politics is conducted. Each escalation normalises the next; what once seemed incendiary begins to appear routine. Over time, the boundaries of acceptable speech expand to accommodate a politics of permanent antagonism.
The defenders of this new order argue that electoral success is sufficient to address such concerns. Victories, after all, are won at the ballot box, and the expansion of political influence across states suggests a broadening mandate.
However, mandates are shaped by the conditions under which they are formed. If those conditions include the selective exclusion of voters, the pliancy of institutions, and a public discourse saturated with fear, then electoral outcomes reflect not only popular will but also the environment that channels it.
This is where the question of institutions becomes central. Democracies do not rely solely on elections; they depend on a network of bodies designed to ensure that those elections are fair, and that power, once won, is exercised within limits. When such institutions begin to show signs of strain—whether through overt pressure or gradual accommodation—the balance they are meant to uphold shifts.
The erosion is rarely dramatic. It proceeds through increments. However, over time, the architecture of accountability remains intact in form but altered in function.
The cumulative effect is a political system that appears democratic on the surface but is increasingly shaped by asymmetries beneath it. Elections continue to be held, but the underlying field on which competition occurs grows less even. This is not the end of democracy, but a mutation, in which procedures persist even as their substance is diluted. The risk is not that India abandons democracy outright, but that it becomes accustomed to a thinner version of it.
Arresting this trajectory requires a reassertion of principles that have begun to fray. The integrity of the voter roll must be treated as inviolable, not as an administrative variable subject to opaque revision. Transparency, coupled with accessible mechanisms for redress, is essential to restoring confidence.
Institutions such as the Election Commission must reclaim not only their formal independence but their perceived neutrality, for in a democracy, perception is inseparable from legitimacy.
Equally important is the need for political actors to resist the logic of escalation that polarisation encourages. The temptation to respond to sectarian appeals with mirror images of the same is strong, particularly when such strategies appear electorally effective.
However, this is a race to the bottom in which short-term gains are purchased at the cost of long-term cohesion. A politics that depends on deepening divisions ultimately narrows the space for governance, reducing the capacity of any government to act on behalf of a society it has taught to distrust itself.
Underlying all this is a fundamental question about the meaning of citizenship. If belonging is increasingly defined in narrow, exclusionary terms, then the promise of equal participation that underpins democracy begins to erode.
India’s historical strength has been its ability to accommodate diversity within a shared political framework. Recasting that framework as a battleground of mutually exclusive identities weakens the foundation on which the republic rests.
These elections signal a structural shift. The methods that shaped their outcomes—bureaucratic control over the electorate, the strategic deployment of identity, the gradual alignment of institutions—are unlikely to remain confined to a single cycle.
They are becoming embedded features of the system. Whether this trend continues will depend on the choices made by those who wield power, those who seek it and those institutions that stand between them.
Democracies seldom fail in a single stroke. They are gradually altered through decisions that appear pragmatic in isolation but consequential in the aggregate. India today stands at such a juncture.
The direction it takes will not be determined solely by electoral arithmetic, but by the norms that govern how those elections are conducted and contested. In that sense, the true stakes of these state elections lie not in who has won, but in how victory is defined.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
