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.

Hindutva, Corporate Capital, and the Reproduction of Graded Inequality in India: An Ambedkarite Political Economy

 

Hindutva, Corporate Capital, and the Reproduction of Graded Inequality in India: An Ambedkarite Political Economy

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

This paper analyses the Hindutva–corporate nexus through an Ambedkarite and Dalit–Bahujan political economy perspective. It argues that the contemporary alliance between majoritarian cultural nationalism and concentrated corporate capital represents not a rupture but a reconfiguration of India’s historical system of graded inequality. Hindutva provides ideological legitimacy to caste hierarchy and social exclusion, while corporate capital consolidates economic power through state patronage and neoliberal restructuring. Together, they undermine constitutional democracy, marginalize Dalit–Bahujan labour, and displace material questions of caste, class, and redistribution with cultural nationalism. The paper situates this nexus within global authoritarian neoliberalism while emphasizing its distinct Brahmanical and caste-ordered foundations.

1. Introduction

The consolidation of the Hindutva–corporate nexus in contemporary India must be understood against the historical backdrop of caste-based social order and Brahmanical hegemony. From an Ambedkarite perspective, this nexus does not merely erode democratic institutions; it actively reproduces graded inequality—the core organizing principle of Hindu social order identified by B.R. Ambedkar.

While neoliberal reforms have intensified economic inequality, Hindutva has supplied a cultural–political framework that normalizes hierarchy, obedience, and exclusion. Corporate capital, in turn, benefits from a political environment in which Dalit–Bahujan labour is disciplined, de-politicized, and fragmented, and redistributive demands are displaced by religious nationalism.

This paper argues that the Hindutva–corporate nexus represents a contemporary form of Brahmanical capitalism, combining market power with caste ideology.

2. Ambedkarite Framework: Caste, Capital, and Power

Ambedkar viewed caste not merely as a division of labour but as a division of labourers, sustained by religious ideology, endogamy, and social sanctions. In this framework: economic exploitation is inseparable from social hierarchy; capital accumulation historically rests on caste-graded labour extraction and political democracy without social and economic democracy is inherently unstable.

The Hindutva–corporate nexus must therefore be analysed as a continuation of caste power in modern form, rather than as a purely ideological or economic phenomenon.

Neoliberal capitalism in India has not dismantled caste; it has re-functionalized caste by informalizing labour predominantly occupied by Dalit–Bahujan communities, weakening collective bargaining and labour protections and preserving elite control over capital, knowledge, and state institutions.

3. Corporate Capital and Brahmanical State Power

Large corporate capital in India remains socially narrow in composition and culturally aligned with dominant-caste networks. The contemporary state facilitates corporate accumulation through privatization of public assets built through collective labour, dilution of labour and environmental laws affecting marginalized workers and fiscal concessions and regulatory exemptions for large firms.

From an Ambedkarite standpoint, this reflects the transformation of the state into a custodian of upper-caste corporate interests, rather than an instrument of social justice as envisaged in the Constitution.

Reservations, labour protections, and welfare provisions—hard-won safeguards for Dalit–Bahujan communities—are increasingly framed as inefficiencies or appeasement, delegitimizing the very idea of structural redress.

4. Hindutva as Ideology of Social Control

Hindutva functions as the cultural arm of caste capitalism. While projecting a homogenized Hindu identity, it systematically erases caste oppression by replacing it with civilizational pride converts Dalit–Bahujan assertion into symbolic inclusion without material power and rebrands hierarchy as cultural harmony.

Ambedkar warned that Hinduism’s strength lay in its ability to make inequality appear natural and sacred. Hindutva modernizes this function by deploying mass media, spectacle, and nationalism to suppress caste consciousness and class solidarity.

Religious polarization diverts attention from landlessness. precarious labour, educational exclusion, and declining public employment.

5. Electoral Politics, Money Power, and Exclusion

The increasing corporatization of elections intensifies the political marginalization of Dalit–Bahujan interests. Capital-intensive campaigns, media dominance, and opaque funding mechanisms ensure that political competition favours parties aligned with corporate interests.

While Dalit–Bahujan representation may increase numerically, decision-making power remains concentrated, reinforcing Ambedkar’s warning that political representation without economic power is hollow.

Electoral democracy thus coexists with weak redistribution, criminalization of protest and suppression of labour and caste-based movements.

6. Displacement of Caste–Class Politics

The Hindutva–corporate nexus systematically displaces caste–class politics by reframing social conflict as Hindu vs. Muslim, nationalist vs. anti-national and cultural insider vs. foreign-influenced outsider.

This fragmentation benefits capital by preventing the emergence of broad Dalit–Bahujan–Adivasi–working-class coalitions capable of challenging economic concentration and caste privilege.

Ambedkar emphasized that caste prevents the formation of a moral and political community among the oppressed. Hindutva exploits this structural weakness to stabilize an unequal political economy.

7. Democratic Institutions and Anti-Constitutional Drift

Ambedkar viewed the Constitution as a tool to annihilate caste through law and institutional safeguards. The Hindutva–corporate nexus undermines this vision by weakening autonomous institutions, diluting constitutional morality, and replacing rights-based citizenship with cultural loyalty.

Dissent—especially from Dalit, Adivasi, labour, and minority movements opposing land acquisition or privatization—is increasingly criminalized, revealing the class–caste character of state power.

8. Comparative Perspective: Caste Capitalism and Global Authoritarianism

While parallels exist with authoritarian neoliberal regimes elsewhere, India’s trajectory is distinct due to the fusion of capitalism with caste ideology. Unlike race-based populisms, Hindutva draws upon an ancient system of graded inequality, granting it deeper social legitimacy and resilience.

This makes resistance more complex, as economic exploitation is masked by religious belonging and symbolic recognition.

9. Conclusion

From an Ambedkarite and Dalit–Bahujan political economy perspective, the Hindutva–corporate nexus represents a consolidation of caste capitalism under majoritarian rule. It deepens inequality, hollows out constitutional democracy, and forecloses the emancipatory promise of social and economic democracy.

Ambedkar’s warning remains urgent: without annihilating caste and democratizing capital, political democracy will remain a façade. Any challenge to the current political order must therefore confront both Brahmanism and corporate power, not one without the other.

Courtesy: ChatGPT