Majoritarianism: Narendra Modi
When a parliamentary majority is projected as a
civilisational mandate and victory in elections is transmuted into a divine sanction,
democracy which is rule by consent is smothered by majoritarianism which is
rule by dominance.
In the political imagination of
contemporary India, Narendra Modi has, with remarkable strategic clarity,
fashioned an image which transcends that of a democratic leader and edges
towards a civilisational
redeemer. Through carefully curated symbolism such as temple
inaugurations, invocations of a wounded historical past, and the language of
cultural resurgence, Modi has successfully projected himself more as a restorer
of Hindu pride than as a head of government.
Hindutva, the ideology that gives
Modi his moorings, frames political victories as moments of historical
correction. In the narrative ecosystem of Hindutva, policy decisions acquire
the aura of moral restitution. The result is a power shift that is not so
subtle anymore. Leadership becomes sanctified, criticism appears sacrilegious,
and the leader’s persona fuses with the destiny of the majority community.
Faith in governance is recast as faith in a person. Slogans such as Modi ka Guarantee
reinforce that faith.
Citizenship acquires gradations in
such atmospherics. As George Orwell would say, all citizens are equal but some
citizens are more equal. Belonging is no longer experienced purely as a matter
of legal status, but as something filtered through cultural proximity to the
dominant identity. If you don’t align yourself by faith or symbolism or public
conformity with the majority ethos, then your loyalty is tested in myriad ways
and your rights become conditional.
In such a climate, shaped by strong
majoritarian currents, institutions
like the media and the judiciary that are meant to function as
independent checks drift into a compliant relationship with power. Instead of
interrogating authority with the rigour expected in a democracy, these
institutions now echo dominant narratives or selectively amplify them, reinforcing
rather than challenging the prevailing consensus.
The minority communities become obvious victims. They
are positioned as the ‘other.’ When policies and public rhetoric are repeatedly
framed around identity and difference, a climate of suspicion and exclusion
will be the outcome. What may start as isolated statements or targeted measures
gradually acquires the force of pattern and stereotypes. The Muslims and
Christians in India now require constant validation through loyalty tests or
explanations. Over time, this process of ‘othering’ gets normalised. Then
exclusion no longer shocks anyone’s conscience. On the contrary, it gets
embedded in language, policy, and perception.
Dissent is suspect in such an
ambience and can invite disproportionate consequences. Disagreement becomes a
matter of risk rather than right. Alongside this, the social media amplifies
hostility. Trolling, vilification, public shaming… The combined effect of all
of these is not always overt oppression, but something more insidious: a
gradual internalisation of limits. People begin to measure their words, soften
their opinions, or avoid certain topics altogether. Self-censorship takes root.
Minds get perverted.
The most glaring paradox probably is that
majoritarianism thrives within democracy, not outside it. It uses democratic
legitimacy to gradually narrow democratic space. Electoral victories, popular
mandates, and the language of representation provide it with unquestionable
legitimacy.
This legitimacy often extends beyond
governance into moral
authority, where the will of the majority begins to overshadow the
rights of minorities and the autonomy of institutions. Democracy continues to
function; but for the majority community. Since that majority is enormous – 80%
– the democracy looks normal, though it is extremely sick.
PS. This post is a part of Blogchatter A2Z Challenge 2026
Previous Posts in this series
Tomorrow: Negative Capability – John
Keats
Comments
Post a Comment