Democratic Backsliding in India: An Ambedkarite Constitutional Analysis

 

Democratic Backsliding in India: An Ambedkarite Constitutional Analysis

- SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

This paper examines the contemporary condition of democratic governance, constitutional rights, secularism, and judicial independence in India through an Ambedkarite–constitutionalist lens. It argues that while India formally retains the institutional architecture of a constitutional democracy, its substantive democratic content has been progressively eroded by the rise of majoritarian nationalism, executive centralization, and the weakening of constitutional morality. Drawing on B.R. Ambedkar’s conception of democracy as a social and moral system rather than merely an electoral mechanism, the paper situates India’s current trajectory within broader debates on democratic backsliding and authoritarian populism. It contends that India is witnessing not the collapse but the hollowing out of constitutional democracy, with grave implications for marginalized communities and the future of the republic.

1. Introduction

India’s Constitution envisaged a transformative democratic project aimed at dismantling entrenched hierarchies of caste, religion, and gender, while guaranteeing political liberty, social justice, and equality. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, consistently warned that constitutional democracy in India would remain fragile unless supported by constitutional morality and social democracy. In recent years, concerns have intensified regarding the erosion of democratic norms, the dilution of constitutional rights, the decline of secularism, and the growing constraints on judicial independence.

This paper seeks to analyse these developments from an Ambedkarite constitutionalist perspective. Rather than treating democracy as synonymous with elections or majoritarian rule, it foregrounds Ambedkar’s insistence on substantive equality, minority rights, and institutional accountability as the core of democratic life. The central argument advanced here is that India today represents a case of democratic backsliding characterized by the persistence of electoral procedures alongside the systematic weakening of constitutional restraints on power.

2. Ambedkar’s Conception of Constitutional Democracy

Ambedkar rejected the minimalist view of democracy as periodic elections. For him, democracy was a form of “associated living” grounded in liberty, equality, and fraternity. He emphasized that political democracy without social democracy would be inherently unstable. Central to this vision was the idea of constitutional morality, defined as respect for constitutional values, limitations on power, and the ethical commitment of institutions and citizens to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.

Ambedkar also viewed the Indian social order—structured by caste and graded inequality—as fundamentally anti-democratic. Consequently, he regarded constitutional safeguards, fundamental rights, and independent institutions as essential correctives against majoritarian domination. His apprehension that Hindu majoritarianism could subvert democracy through the misuse of numerical strength has acquired renewed relevance in contemporary India.

3. Democratic Governance and Executive Centralization

India continues to conduct regular elections with high voter participation, sustaining the formal appearance of democracy. However, democratic governance has increasingly come to be marked by executive dominance and institutional marginalization. Parliament’s deliberative role has been weakened through reduced sittings, limited debate on major legislation, and the growing reliance on ordinances and money bills.

From an Ambedkarite perspective, this concentration of power undermines the constitutional balance envisioned by the framers. Ambedkar consistently argued that unchecked executive authority posed a grave threat to liberty, particularly in societies marked by deep social inequalities. The deployment of investigative and regulatory agencies against political opponents further erodes the conditions for fair political competition, pushing India toward what comparative political theory describes as competitive authoritarianism.

4. Constitutional Rights and the Crisis of Substantive Equality

While the text of fundamental rights remains intact, their practical realization has been increasingly constrained. The frequent use of sedition laws, anti-terror legislation, and preventive detention has curtailed freedoms of speech, association, and personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration without trial has become a defining feature of the contemporary legal landscape.

Ambedkar viewed fundamental rights not as abstract guarantees but as instruments of social emancipation, particularly for historically oppressed communities. The selective enforcement of laws and the differential treatment of minorities, Dalits, Adivasis, and dissenters represent a retreat from the constitutional promise of equality before law. This shift reflects a transition from rights-based constitutionalism to a governance paradigm centered on order, security, and majoritarian sentiment.

5. Secularism and the Rise of Majoritarian Nationalism

Secularism constitutes a basic feature of the Indian Constitution, rooted in the principle of equal respect for all religions. Contemporary political practice, however, has increasingly departed from this constitutional commitment. State neutrality toward religion has been replaced by overt or implicit endorsement of majoritarian cultural nationalism.

Ambedkar regarded the fusion of religion and politics as antithetical to democracy, particularly in a society where religious identity overlapped with social hierarchy. The normalization of communal polarization, selective responses to hate speech, and the differential application of law during episodes of communal violence signify the erosion of secular constitutionalism. In this context, minorities are progressively transformed from equal citizens into conditional subjects of state power.

6. Judicial Independence and Constitutional Adjudication

The judiciary occupies a central position in Ambedkar’s constitutional design as the guardian of fundamental rights and the arbiter of constitutional limits. Although the Indian judiciary formally retains its independence, its contemporary functioning reveals significant constraints. Delays in adjudicating politically sensitive cases, selective prioritization of matters, and increasing deference to the executive on questions of national security and majoritarian policy have weakened judicial oversight.

Rather than overt judicial capture, the present condition may be better described as judicial restraint bordering on abdication. This has profound implications for constitutional democracy, as the absence of timely judicial intervention enables the gradual normalization of unconstitutional practices.

7. Conclusion: Constitutional Democracy at a Crossroads

This paper has argued that India is experiencing a process of democratic hollowing rather than outright authoritarian rupture. Electoral competition persists, but the substantive content of constitutional democracy—rights, secularism, institutional accountability, and judicial independence—has been progressively undermined. From an Ambedkarite perspective, this trajectory reflects the resurgence of social and political forces that the Constitution sought to restrain.

Ambedkar’s warning that democracy in India would be endangered in the absence of constitutional morality resonates with renewed urgency today. The future of the Indian republic depends not merely on the survival of electoral mechanisms, but on the revitalization of constitutional ethics, social democracy, and the struggle against graded inequality. Without this, constitutional democracy risks being reduced to a formal shell, increasingly detached from the emancipatory aspirations that informed its founding.

Courtesy: ChatGPT

References

Ambedkar, B.R. The Constituent Assembly Debates. Government of India.

Ambedkar, B.R. Annihilation of Caste. 1936.

Ambedkar, B.R. States and Minorities. 1947.

Béteille, A. (2012). Democracy and Its Institutions. Oxford University Press.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing.

Varshney, A. (2019). Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life. Yale University Press.