Since Independence in 1947, India has sought to uphold parliamentary democracy, constitutional supremacy, federalism, judicial independence, a professional military, scientific advancement, religious pluralism, and cultural diversity, with the opposition, and dissent more generally, regarded as essential to democratic accountability.
Narendra Modi’s dominance of Indian politics has altered this context. Even though supporters see him as a transformative leader and champion of cultural renewal, critics point to majoritarian tendencies and growing polarisation. The “Modi factor” has driven the BJP’s electoral success and the appeal of “Viksit Bharat” and “vishwaguru”. The first, translating to “Developed India”, is a government initiative aimed at making India a developed country by 2047. The second, meaning “teacher of the world”, seeks to position India as a source of wisdom through its cultural heritage.
Cultural traditions can enrich public life, but democratic stability depends on equal citizenship and the protection of minority rights. Can the pursuit of national development and civilisational identity be reconciled with India’s long-standing commitments to pluralism and constitutionalism?
Political thought has long debated the relationship between democracy and development. Aristotle observed that widespread poverty could hinder democratic institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville warned that democracies would struggle in societies marked by sharp economic inequality, where class divisions come to define politics and poorer citizens vote to redistribute wealth from the rich. Philosopher Immanuel Kant and political philosopher John Rawls linked democracy to peace, stability, and justice, a view that has shaped the belief that democratic governance supports modernisation. Yet democracy alone does not guarantee prosperity. Technology, education, effective institutions, and capable leadership all matter, and their uneven distribution complicates any simple equation between democratisation and development.
Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that modernisation and development are distinct processes. This distinction is significant because the western model of development may not be attainable everywhere, and the gap could persist as western societies continue to advance. Modernisation has occurred under authoritarian and monarchical regimes alike, so no single form of government has an exclusive claim to developmental success. Democracy nevertheless remains valued for protecting rights, enabling participation, and ensuring accountability, considerations that extend beyond economics. Comparative studies also find that strong democratic institutions tend to correlate with stronger protections for religious minorities, although the degree varies across countries and periods.
This essay draws on Italian political thinker Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony to examine how competing visions of national identity shape political discourse and the experience of religious minorities in India today, using the NEET-UG protests as a contemporary test case.
An evolving democracy
India’s democratic experience shows the interplay of policy performance, ideological commitment, and charismatic leadership, visible in different eras under Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Narendra Modi. How these factors will shape political preferences after Modi remains an open question. India’s political evolution, however, has not kept pace with its core democratic principles, leading several scholars and democracy indices to describe the country as experiencing democratic backsliding and to classify it under various diminished forms of democracy.
Before 2014, India was commonly described as a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Intelligence Unit and “partly free” by Freedom House, while also being recognised as the world’s largest democracy by electorate size. In recent years, these assessments have become more contested. Political scientist Zoya Hassan and other scholars have highlighted the growing salience of majoritarianism in Indian politics, while terms such as “authoritarianism” and “democratic backsliding” have gained ground in academic and public debate. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way’s concept of “competitive authoritarianism” has not been formally applied by them to contemporary India, but Levitsky has argued in recent articles and interviews that India has experienced substantial democratic backsliding and has moved away from the standards of a liberal democracy.
Despite this, the vision of a developed India that will “guide the world” has become central to political discourse, prioritising an inclusive economic system while paying comparatively less attention to an inclusive political one.
Economists and Nobel laureates Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in Why Nations Fail, argue that inclusive economic institutions are central to long-term prosperity and that inclusive political institutions help sustain a vibrant economy. China presents a different case, pairing an exclusive political system with relatively inclusive economic institutions, although Acemoglu and Robinson remain sceptical about the long-term sustainability of China’s growth under such a structure. The pursuit of national development, whether framed as Viksit Bharat or vishwaguru, should therefore be anchored in inclusive economic institutions, social stability, and effective governance.
Development needs diversity and dissent
The protests at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi over the NEET-UG paper leak, and the demand for Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, tested this proposition directly. Some political commentary portrayed sections of the protestors as politically motivated or influenced by anti-national elements, an approach that discourages engagement and sits uneasily with the stated aims of Viksit Bharat 2047.
“Viksit Bharat: Modi Ki Guarantee” Raths during their flagging off by BJP National President J P Nadda, in New Delhi, February 26, 2024.
| Photo Credit:
Shahbaz Khan/PTI
Pradhan resigned on July 25, 2026, following sustained pressure, and several of the protesters’ demands were addressed. Pralhad Joshi took charge as the new Education Minister. Generation Z, behind what has been called the “Cockroach Revolution”, proved increasingly astute, bold, and determined in demanding accountability. Whether this marks the beginning of a democratic restoration after years of backsliding remains an open question. The moment nevertheless conveyed a clear message: in a post-truth era, sincerity and trustworthiness remain fundamental to citizens across social backgrounds, and “developed India” can become a genuinely unifying vision only if it embraces the country’s full diversity.
Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is useful here. He argued that dominant groups secure legitimacy not only through institutions but also by shaping the “common sense” of society, the shared beliefs through which people interpret political reality. Seen in this light, debates over effective governance form part of a broader contest over the meaning of Indian democracy, citizenship, and cultural identity. Electoral success in India has often been tied to promises of reducing corruption, expanding economic opportunity, and improving governance. If debates over history and civilisational identity increasingly overshadow questions of governance and institutional accountability, they may contribute to greater political polarisation.
From Gramsci’s perspective, sustainable democratic politics depends on broadly shared understandings that make dialogue and consent possible. Equally, sustainable peace depends on a shared understanding of reality. Facts build truth, truth fosters trust, and trust enables dialogue and restraint. Had the paper leak been resolved promptly, engaged students directly, offered condolences and support to the families of students who died by suicide, and opened a dialogue with those raising concerns about corruption and democratic decline could all have helped rebuild that trust.
The road ahead
Viksit Bharat and vishwaguru are valuable ideas, but their realisation cannot depend on one political party alone. India’s progress requires contributions from its diverse cultural, regional, religious, linguistic, and scientific traditions, while sustainable development depends on social cohesion, political stability, and inclusive institutions.
As global power relations continue to shift, India’s traditions of pluralism and cultural diversity remain among its most durable sources of strength. Drawing on the ethical and humanistic teachings of its many religious and philosophical traditions, India has the potential to strengthen democratic values and contribute to a more peaceful and cooperative international order, but only if its vision of development makes room for dissent alongside growth.
Rameez Raja teaches political science at CGC University, Mohali, Punjab. He is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the Indo-Pacific Studies Center, Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of India’s Nuclear Policy Since 1998: Perspectives and Challenges.
Also Read | Vishwaguru to Vishwa Ghrinit?
Also Read | India’s deferred future
