Smothering democracy in the Mother of Democracy?

Adverse international responses to smothering of democracy in India

India’s image as a democracy has faced significant scrutiny and criticism over the past five years, with international organizations and media reports highlighting concerning trends that raise doubts about India’s commitment to democratic principles.

Most recently, the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in March 2024 and the freezing of bank accounts belonging to the opposition Congress Party a month before that, have drawn international concern.

The US, Germany, and the UN Secretary-General’s representatives have emphasized the importance of fair, legal, and timely processes in upholding democratic principles.

In a press conference, Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the United States Department of State, stated the US’s stand very clearly that “we encourage fair, legal and timely processes for each of these issues.”

Further, in a statement, Germany’s foreign affairs spokesperson expressed hope that the “standards regarding the independence of the judiciary and fundamental democratic principles” would be upheld in Kejriwal’s case.

In a press briefing on 28 Mar 2024, Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary- General Antonio Guterres, said, “What we very much hope that in India, as in any country that is having elections that everyone’s rights are protected, including political and civil rights, and everyone is able to vote in an atmosphere that is free and fair.” Dujarric made the remarks while responding to a question on the “political unrest” in India in the wake of Kejriwal’s arrest and freezing of Congress party’s bank accounts.

Some of the earlier incidents which built up to the current level of concerned or critical responses are listed below:

Silencing of critics in the media

Journalists, particularly those critical of the BJP have faced arrest on dubious terrorism and sedition charges, and independent news organizations are routinely targeted, including through workplace raids. The use of spyware like Pegasus to surveil journalists has also been and frequent internet shutdowns impede journalists’ ability to work effectively.

The crackdown on media persons by the BJP-led government intensified with laws on sedition, counterterrorism, and national security used to target them. Minority journalists, particularly those in Jammu and Kashmir, are at heightened risk.

A major case which drew international attention was that of journalist Gauri Lankesh, 55, an outspoken critic of right-wing Hindutva ideology, who was shot dead outside her home in west Bengaluru on the night of September 5, 2017, by two motorcycle-borne assassins.

The state government appointed a Special Investigation Team which identified Parashuram Waghmore, 26, a former member of the Hindu right wing Sri Rama Sena in Bijapur, and Ganesh Miskin, 27, a right-wing activist from Hubbali as this the two assassins. Six years and six months later, the trial is still in progress.

Mohammed Zubair, the co-founder of fact-checking website AltNews tweeted a video clip of a television debate during which offensive comments about Prophet Mohammed were made by BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. This led to protests by at least 17 nations. Zubair was slapped with five criminal cases, in five cities of three states. He is one of dozens of Indian journalists facing government hostility and criminal cases for their professional work amid a synchronised choking of independent voices in the media alongside disinformation campaigns.

Journalist Rana Ayyub is an investigative journalist and as a commentator with a column in the Washington Post. She had repeatedly embarrassed Mr Modi and his government on the international stage. In February 2022, a video of a young Muslim girl wearing a hijab being hounded by a mob of men had gone viral and on the BBC Ayyub “called them right-wing terrorists, because these are people who are terrorising a woman”.

The interview led to new charges against her in five states. She was accused of “sedition” and “defaming the Hindu community”. As her grandmother lay dying, she was unable to travel to her home state of Uttar Pradesh to be with her because she feared arrest. The Indian authorities opened a corruption investigation into her that led to freezing of her bank accounts.

Later Rana Ayyub was prevented from traveling to London. Female Muslim journalists, including Ayyub, have faced particularly egregious abuse, including being listed on a fake “auction” app and receiving rape and death threats on social media, often from accounts identifying as BJP supporters.

United Nations appointed independent rights experts issued a statement on 21 Feb 2022, calling on India to end relentless misogynistic and sectarian attacks against Rana Ayyub. The appeal from UN Special Rapporteurs on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan and Mary Lawlor, followed what they called “relentless misogynistic and sectarian attacks” against Rana Ayyub – including death and rape threats.

In March 2023, BBC offices in India were searched as part of an investigation by the Indian income tax authorities. The searches in New Delhi and Mumbai came weeks after the broadcaster aired a documentary in the UK critical of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Although the documentary was broadcast on television only in the UK, India’s government has attempted to block people sharing India: The Modi Question online, calling it “hostile propaganda and anti-India garbage” with a “colonial mind-set”.

Later, in October 2023, NewsClick’s founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and criminal conspiracy charges.

He is still in jail as of end April 2021. It’s only after he had languished in jail for more than eight months that the Supreme Court of India termed his arrest and remand illegal and ordered his immediate release.

These actions, coupled with reprisals against media organizations like NewsClick and the BBC, raise questions about freedom of expression and press freedom in India.

Arrests of dissenters

On 9 February 2016, some students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) held a protest on their campus against the capital punishment meted out to the 2001 Indian Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, and Kashmiri separatist Maqbool Bhat. The event saw clashes between various student groups. A video was circulated by Indian news channel Zee news in which a small group of individuals, whom a later University investigation described as outsiders to the university wearing masks, shouted “anti-India” slogans.

Four days after the event, the then President of JNU Students’ Union Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested by the Delhi police and charged with sedition. Two other students were arrested soon afterwards, including Umar Khalid, a research scholar at JNU. Khalid is also associated with United Against Hate, a campaign founded along with Nadeem Khan in July 2017 in response to the series of lynchings of Muslims. Umar Khalid was accused under the UAPA law and languishes in jail as of April 2024, without bail or trial.

Arrests of dissenters

In Oct 2023, the Lieutenant Governor of India’s national capital Delhi directed Delhi Police to prosecute Booker Prize winning author Arundhati Roy in connection with a fifteen-year old 2010 event that allegedly promoted a call for India’s territorial break-up. She may face up to seven years in prison if convicted. No charge was filed, however, because India’s top court is deciding the validity of the colonial-era sedition law, which critics say has been abused for decades to shut down dissent. It was not clear why the police were acting only now on the activist’s complaint, well over a decade and a half after it was filed.

On June 25, 2022, an antiterrorism squad in Mumbai arrested Teesta Setalvad, a human rights activist and vocal advocate for victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots, for seeking prosecution of senior government officials complicit in the violence. Authorities accused Setalvad of forging evidence against Mr Narendra Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat during the 2002 riots.

Setalvad’s prosecution came a day after the Supreme Court dismissed a petition by her challenging a report by a special investigative team that absolved Modi of involvement in the riots. However, on September 2, 2022, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Setalvad and on the next day she was released from prison.

In March 2023, police in Delhi detained students as they gathered to watch the BBC documentary which focused on the Mr Modi’s role in anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002, when he was chief minister of the Gujarat state.

Indian actions in other countries

In an even more unprecedented set of developments, India has been accused, first by Canada and later by the United States, of going after individuals of Indian origin who have taken Canadian or US citizenship, who are advocating separatism in Punjab.

The Canadian Government accused India of being involved with the killing of Khalistani “terrorist” Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen was “an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty”. The dismissal of investigations being allowed into Indian involvement has raised serious questions regarding the democratic peace process and the integrity of legal proceedings within free and just legal systems and brought questions from the international community scrutinising India’s image of being a democracy. On May 3, 2024 Royal Canadian Mounted Police “arrested three Indian nationals as members of an alleged hit squad linked to the murder… (and that) the RCMP’s interaction with the Indian police in last several years as “challenging and difficult””

Indian actions in other countries

In a similar case, the U.S. federal prosecutors accused a man who claimed to be a “senior field officer” for an Indian intelligence agency, of orchestrating a foiled assassination plot against an American citizen who is the leader of Sikh separatist movement.

The leader of Sikhs for Justice, attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a US-Canadian dual national, indicated he was the target, telling reporters the government of India wanted to kill him for criticizing the Indian government and advocating for an independent state of Khalistan.

Documents made public by the U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday do not name the Indian official, but indicated he hired Nikhil Gupta, an Indian national, to arrange the killing. Federal prosecutors alleged the Indian official was in contact with Gupta and wired him $15,000 as an advance payment for a promised $100,000 for the murder of the political activist.

Impact on India’s image as a democracy and why we should care?

These incidents, coupled with recent allegations of India’s involvement in the attempted assassination of Sikh secessionists, and the contrasting responses to these allegations and the implications for India’s relationship with the West and, have further tarnished India’s democratic image.

The use of state machinery to target political opponents, coupled with accusations of authoritarian tendencies, challenges the narrative of India as a thriving democracy. Instead of being a beacon of democratic values, these incidents suggest a regression, where the principles of democracy are being undermined for political expediency.

International human rights experts and organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations, have repeatedly criticized India’s use of counterterrorism laws and other legislation to target dissenting voices and undermine democratic principles. They have called for an end to the misuse of these laws and for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in India.

International human rights groups have raised significant concerns about India’s declining democratic image, citing misuse of counterterrorism laws, financial regulations, and other legislation to silence journalists, human rights defenders, activists, and government critics.

The use of laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to detain and prosecute individuals critical of the government, has drawn widespread condemnation from international organizations.

The vague and overbroad definition of terrorism under the UAPA, coupled with prolonged detention without trial and limited access to bail, undermines the rule of law and due process.

Concerns have also been raised about the use of preventive detention laws like the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) to detain individuals without trial for extended periods, as well as politically motivated charges of sedition and terrorism against activists and opposition politicians.

The decline of India’s image as a democracy has been a focal point for numerous international organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom House, PEN America, Reporters Without Borders, International Federation of Journalists, CIVICUS, Access Now, International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.

In 2021, both Freedom House and the V-Dem Institute downgraded India’s status from ‘free’ to ‘partly free’ and from ‘electoral democracy’ to ‘electoral autocracy.’ Reporters Without Borders warned “press freedom is in crisis” in India which dropped from media freedom rank 140 in 2014 to rank 161 in 2023.

There is a tension between those who hold onto a traditional view of democracy as a core value and those who prioritize national interests, exemplified by countries like China and Russia. Can India’s maintain moderate to high economic growth which it badly needs, even if this means accepting high levels of inequality and requires autocratic leaders to manage this contradiction, while maintaining its founding promise of being a democracy which assures justice, liberty, equality and fraternity to all its citizens?

An astute observer of Indian politics, Prof Ashutosh Varshney of Brown University says:

“The only years since independence during which India has had a coalition government with little concentration of power, from 1989 to 2014, are an anomaly. Most freedom indexes were created in those years, explaining why they now downgrade India’s democracy…

If Indians again vote to have more than one party in power, you will see the concentration of power disappear. As long as this continues to function, you cannot say Indian democracy is under threat. India’s departure from a liberal democracy is what is being questioned, however it remains a “electoral democracy.”

India is increasingly seeking to play a role as leader of the Global South. If its democratic credentials are questioned it will poses a significant challenge to its quest to be a leader. In terms of the effect such events have on India’s image as a vibrant democracy where the rule of law prevails, the following observations are noteworthy:

  • India, while holding the presidency of the G20 and projecting itself domestically as the “mother of democracy”. Yet, the visiting leaders would undoubtedly have been briefed by their foreign ministries about the decline in democratic practices in India, thereby making the claim of being an ancient “mother of democracy” look a bit presumptuous.
  • As India strives for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, whose current permanent members are the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China, one of the consideration among a majority of the members would be to balance “democratic” countries with “authoritarian” ones, and if India is not seen as a declining democracy, its chances of being elevated to a permanent seat may come down.
  • India’s efforts to position itself as a leader of the global south in trade and climate change talks, may falter if it is perceived as primarily pursuing its self-interest rather than upholding democratic values and principles.
  • Moreover, democracies generally provide a more conducive environment for economic growth, innovation, and investment. India’s democratic credentials contribute to its attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment and trade partnerships.

India’s efforts to position itself as a leader of the global south in security, trade and climate change, will suffer if India is perceived as more authoritarian and less democratic.

Moreover, “we” in the question “why should we care” includes not just the Government of India or the ruling party BJP but indeed the entire political spectrum, the media, the intelligentsia, civil society and concerned citizens and the Indian diaspora. Thus not just image but actual practice of democracy is important.

Hard Power and its limitations

After the Second World War, when the Cold War prevailed for decades, the neo-realist theory of international relations held sway. The theory is built upon the assumption that

“states can only secure their survival by preventing other states (or alliances) from bettering their military dominance and power basis. In a world governed by ‘Realpolitik’, military aggression is countered by an equilibrium of power between rival coalitions. When a country is under threat, it can gain safety and security by adopting a policy of either ‘balancing’ or ‘band-wagoning’, which consists of aligning with a stronger power (such as the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the US)”.

In contrast, theories rooted in liberalism assert that democratic accountability is the most effective means toward dispute resolving institutions being created, and towards the means of securing lasting peace and stability grounded in rationalism as opposed to passion.

“Military and political conflict can be reduced with a combination of international institutions combined with a complex system of ‘interdependence’. International institutions maintain a system of harmony and balance amongst states. According to liberals, mutual dependence provides the key towards a degree of equilibrium within international relations. Harmony can therefore be created through an emphasis upon liberal values.“

There is a direct connection between the liberal view of international relations and the ‘democratic peace thesis’, which suggests that the spread of democratic values can establish a better world.

“In a democracy, leaders have an electoral incentive to avoid military conflict. Elected leaders will always seek to avoid war whenever humanly possible due to the financial and human costs involved. Amongst liberal democracies, warfare is very much the last resort after all reasoning has failed.”

As there is a link between the behaviours of rulers within their countries with their behaviour in international relations, democratic countries generally pursue a conciliatory approach in their foreign policy.

They are also more openly accepting of the differences of opinion among their various power centres and have institutional mechanisms to function despite differences.

In contrast, in authoritarian regimes such as Russia, domestic dissent, like opposition to the Ukraine war, is forcefully suppressed, as evidenced by the case of Alexei Navalny’s suspicious death in prison.

This behaviour spills over in international relations – as can be seen in the persistence of Russia in waging war with Ukraine despite considerable economic and military costs. The same tendency can be seen in China’s handling of its relations with Tibet in the 1950s and later with Taiwan till now.

Despite its apparent success in the past, the hard power approach is increasingly dubious.

Soft Power and its efficacy

The alternative to hard power is soft power, According to Joseph Nye, the foremost exponent of this idea, in a world where economic and institutional factors are balanced just right, states will maintain a harmonious system, aiming to maximize prosperity while minimizing conflict. This vision is rooted in the concept of ‘complex interdependence,’ where soft power gradually eclipses the use of hard power. As described by Nye

Soft power is the ability to achieve desired outcomes through attraction rather than coercion. It emanates from the appeal of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. Consequently, states can pursue their objectives through non-military means like diplomacy and cooperation… Due to a system of complex interdependence, military force or coercion is no longer a common feature of international relations.

Source: Image

In a system characterised by complex interdependence, there are multiple channels of interaction between societies. The existence of a global civil society has brought about a decline in the reliance upon military force and power politics. Even the most powerful military states no longer rely upon the fire and fury of their military arsenal. The web of linkages that connect states together, that lead to their condition of mutual cooperation and dependency – this is the condition of complex interdependence.

It should also be noted that multiple channels of interaction are present within a system centred upon complex interdependence. Informal ties between governmental elites and non- governmental elites exist alongside regular and routine communication amongst transnational organisations. These arenas of multiple channels are often summarised as inter-state, trans-governmental and transnational relations. These links generate a shared mindset, interest, and a habit of cooperation. In doing so, the concept of complex interdependence contends that we have moved beyond the boundaries imposed via the realist paradigm, of states out for themselves alone.

  • Joseph S. Nye (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
  • Bloor, K. (2002) op.cit.

In the case of India, the impact of informal ties among governmental elites and non-governmental elites is very evident. It begins with India’s elite colleges and universities – people who have been “batch mates” in St Stephens College in Delhi or the Presidency College, Kolkata, or in one of the IITs or IIMs, or the Delhi University or the JNU, often work in different parts of the nation-state system.

Some are in politics, others are civil servants, professors, corporate executives, business owners and still others are Silicon Valley techpreneurs. They may hold widely divergent views from each other, yet remain connected socially, or at least did till ideological fissures set in ten years ago.

Nevertheless, they all remain committed to India’s democratic and progressive image as it impacts not only its economic and social fabric but also tarnishes its credibility abroad, which then adversely affects its interests on various fronts including energy, trade, defence and nuclear imports, as well dents the aspirational belief that “India’s time has come.”

Lessons from China

In an analytical piece looking at China, Bambawale et al (2021) write that

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime lacks the political legitimacy that comes through an open democracy, and derives legitimacy from the state of the economy. Upholding legitimacy requires delivering consistently higher standards of living to its people. Every time growth has faltered in China, this has generated discontent of the populace. The CCP is hence extremely focused on obtaining sustained growth… In the last year, the country achieved a GDP growth of 5%, but the pillars of its decades-long miracle are wobbling. Its famously industrious workforce is shrinking, history’s wildest property boom has turned to bust and the global system of free trade that China used to get richer is disintegrating.

Despite being a member of international organizations such as the WTO and World Bank, China has often pursued its economic interests unilaterally, bypassing or circumventing established rules and norms. China’s reluctance to fully comply with international standards on issues such as intellectual property rights and market access angers the rest of the world.

The West, led by the US, is increasingly worried about China’s efforts to challenge US influence and disregard for international norms. This peaked when the COVID pandemic’s origin was traced to China, and its lack of cooperation to WHO investigations about it. China’s territorial claims, resistance to human rights campaigns, clamp down on Hong Kong activists, have all hurt China’s international reputation.

While China tried to reshape the global economic landscape, rising to power on the back of centralised, autocratic hard power tactics, today it faces hurdles such as trade barriers and internal constraints on entrepreneurship because of its techno-nationalist tendencies driven by President Xi’s policies. These have stifled entrepreneurial dynamism, raising concerns about innovation and capital flight.

The manner in which the Chinese government scuttled in Nov 2020, what was to be the world’s largest ever Initial Public Offer of shares of the Ant, the holding company of Alibaba.com, on the New York Stock Exchange, shook the financial world’s faith in the safety and stability of investments in China. The Wall Street Journal reported that the IPO was scuttled personally by Xi Jinping as the Chinese authorities were irked by Alibaba founder Jack Ma’s criticism of senior regulatory officials.

Thus China’s example shows that being a functioning democracy is not merely a liberal ideal, rather a necessary tool for long term progress. The economic slowdown in China highlights a fundamental mismatch between its attempts to benefit from free markets outside, while maintaining economic as well as political control domestically, under an autocratic leadership. If India wants to accelerate economic growth, it needs to maintain democratic institutions, uphold human rights, and promote more equitable income distribution.

India’s response to adverse comments on internal developments

In response to international scrutiny, India has tried to defend its democratic credentials. The government often dismissed allegations of democratic backsliding as politically motivated or necessary for national security. India’s petulant response to such comments and unwillingness to address international concerns about press freedom, human rights, and rule of law could have consequences for India’s aspirations for global leadership.

In 2020, Canadian PM Trudeau commented on the news coming out from India on the farmers’ protests that they were “concerning” and his country would “always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protest.”. Tensions between India and Canada rose in 2020, sparked by criticism from regarding farmer protests. It underscored international concerns about shrinking space for dissent and the government’s sensitivity to international criticism.

By characterizing recent foreign remarks as meddling in the judicial process and eroding the independence of our judiciary, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stand on dealing with India’s democratic image being under scrutiny internationally marks a significant departure from democratic values, particularly in terms of engaging with dissent.

For example, Delhi promptly denounced what it deemed as an inappropriate interference and called upon senior US diplomat Gloria Berbena to attend a meeting at the foreign ministry, where it stated “the recent comments made by the US state department are unjustified. Any external insinuations regarding our electoral and legal procedures are entirely unacceptable.”

This includes refuting allegations of human rights abuses or anti-democratic actions as interference in internal affairs. For instance, in the case of the spat with Canada over the killing of a Canadian citizen, India asserted its sovereignty and rejected any implication of wrongdoing. However, such responses may risk further exacerbating tensions and reinforcing negative perceptions abroad.

In response to comments from the United Nations spokesperson Dujarric in Mar2024, the foreign affairs minister of India, Mr. Jaishakar said “I don’t need the United Nations to tell me our elections should be free and fair. The people of India will ensure that elections are free and fair.”

Furthermore, he asserted “India’s legal processes are based on an independent judiciary, which is committed to objective and timely outcomes.” This was lame in the face of criticism by first the Canadian and then the US government about Indian officials’ involvement with attempts to kill Canadian/US citizens of Indian origin who were separatists.

A mature foreign policy stance is more effective

The G20 Meet in Delhi showcased the potential for India to advocate the issues of the people of Global South, aiding in economic stability and ultimately for upholding a rules-based international order. At the inaugural session on the first day attended by the leaders of ten countries including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Mongolia, the Indian PM mentioned India’s work internationally on combating COVID-19, climate change, terrorism, and the war in Ukraine and emphasized that India is emerging as a leader of the

“Global South [which] is not just a diplomatic term but represents the shared history of these countries against colonialism and apartheid based on which modern relations are being reshaped… Most of the global challenges have not been created by the Global South. But they affect us more… The search for solutions also does not factor in our role or our voice.”

Therefore, he called for the Global South to unite to redesign the current unequal political and economic governance. Moreover, he expressed a determination to act as an advocate for the Global South while holding the G20 Presidency, saying “your Voice is India’s Voice. Your Priorities are India’s Priorities.”

Strengthening trade and investment relations works even better

Strengthening trade and investment relations works even better Trade and investment relations serve an important tool for countering the negative effects of India’s image as a democracy being threatened. Recent developments, such as the trade and investment pact with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), underscore India’s evolving approach to trade negotiations. This pact, signed with Switzerland and Norway among others saw India signing commitments in labour, gender equality, human rights, environment and sustainable development —a marked departure from its previous stance. The pact with EFTA provides for investments from EFTA countries in India to the extent of USD 100 billion over the next 15 years.

Despite initial reservations that led to the suspension of most FTA talks and the scrapping of Bilateral Investment Treaties by the Modi government after 2014, along with the decision to withdraw from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2019, India continued to pursue other trade negotiations.

As its image of being a democracy is under scrutiny, India’s approach to FTAs reflects a delicate balance between economic imperatives and broader foreign policy objectives. This pragmatic image building needs to be continued.

What more can be done to control the damage to India’s image?

Promote health services, and educational and cultural exchange

The government has made it easy to visit India for medical purposes by creating a new category of visa, the Medical Visa. It also launched the interactive “Advantage Healthcare India” portal to provide information to prospective medical tourists. Given India’s four primary drivers being affordability, the “international standard of hospitals” that India provides, widespread use of the English language, and a medical treatment visa being provided, India is increasingly becoming the preferred medical treatment destination for people from the Middle East, Africa, and some Western countries such as the US and UK.

India was ranked 10th out of 46 countries in medical tourism by Medical Tourism Index 2020-21. People have been traveling for treatment from around the world to cities in India like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Kolkata. Healthcare facilities in all these cities have improved standards to align with international visitors’ expectations.

In the field of education, India has for a long time welcomed students from developing countries to study at its universities. Recently, Indian educational institutions have been opening campuses abroad. The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi opened a campus in Abu Dhabi.

This adds to the existing campus of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani, in Dubai and the SP Jain Global School of Management’s campuses in Dubai, Singapore and Sydney. The Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar visited Tanzania in the summer to inaugurate the IIT Madras has opened a campus in Zanzibar.

Involve the Indian diaspora

In the past two decades, India has strategically engaged its vast diaspora, numbering over 30 million, to bolster its global standing. The government’s initiatives have been twofold: catering to the needs of Non- Resident Indians (NRIs) and Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) while also encouraging their contribution to India’s growth. This multifaceted approach involves providing consular services, protection, and outreach activities, alongside policies aimed at leveraging remittances, investments, and knowledge transfers.

One of the most significant advantages of engaging the diaspora lies in its potential to promote India’s image. India’s efforts to woo the diaspora included events such as the annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, and initiatives like the Pravasi Bhartiya Kendra in New Delhi. These serve as symbolic gestures of acknowledgment and appreciation. Moreover, policies like treating NRI/OCI investments as domestic, not foreign, facilitated investment flows.

The appointment of persons of Indian origin as CEOs of major global companies, such as Sundar Pichai of Alphabet the holding company of Google and Satya Nadella of Microsoft, and the appointment of Ajay Banga as President of the World Bank, coupled with India’s rising influence in international forums, have garnered positive attention internationally, enhancing the country’s image and soft power.

In leveraging the Indian diaspora to promote democracy’s image, India must strike a balance between hard and soft power approaches. While tangible policies and investments bolster India’s hard power, symbolic gestures and cultural outreach initiatives enhance its soft power. By harnessing both aspects, India can effectively project itself as a democratic powerhouse on the global stage.

This requires harnessing the support of intellectuals, cultural figures, and civil society leaders, despite the fact that there many among them are critics of the government, such as Economic Nobel Laureate Prof Amartya Sen, the former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, and the former Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramaniam. By treating them also as image ambassadors, India can showcase its respect for diversity of opinion and debate on the global stage.

Optics will not suffice, image is built on real actions

Though we have tried to make some practical suggestions for counter India’s image abroad as a declining democracy, the fact of the matter is that it is not only a matter of optics.

As stated by Thornton and Thornton, while examining the presence of India in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or Quad), along with the US, Japan and Australia, as a containment strategy for China:

“India has no choice but to seek security through Sino-resistant channels. But it raises the point that the other three are liberal democracies. This puts Modi in a stupendous ideological bind. The Davos globalism he has courted in the past was so economistic that his domestic repression was all but ignored. Now, however, he is playing in a liberal international league where his style of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) autocracy will not be condoned. His fate as well as India’s hinges on how he navigates a post-globalist geopolitics that is presently defined by the moral realism of the Biden Doctrine.”

In today’s world of “complex interdependency” the Indian government cannot pursue anti-democratic policies, whether driven by economic growth imperatives or majoritarian urges, and yet hope to maintain, leave alone build an image of an enlightened leader of the Global South. Like charity, democratic practices begin at home. Please refer back to the title!

Share:

Latest Article

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Stay updated with the latest analyses, delivered to your inbox

Disclaimer

RGICS is the division of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation engaged in the study of contemporary issues. The views represented in the various papers/articles/videos on the RGICS website are those of the respective authors /speakers and do not represent the views of the Trustees of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation.

Quick Links

Contact Us

Rajiv Gandhi Institute For Contemporary Studies

  • Jawahar Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110 001
  • +91 11 2331 2456, 23755117
  • info@rgics.org
Facebook Youtube Podcast Linkedin

© 2025 RGCIS, All Right Reserved