The strength of a democracy is not measured by the popularity of its leaders, the scale of its elections or the size of its economy. It is measured by its ability to tolerate criticism, protect dissent and uphold the rights of all citizens, especially those who disagree with the government of the day. Recent developments in India have once again brought these principles into sharp focus, raising important questions about the direction of democratic governance, political tolerance and minority rights under the administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Reports from the city of Meerut, where a 70-year-old Muslim man was allegedly arrested after criticising Prime Minister Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath following Eid al-Adha prayers, have generated widespread concern among opposition politicians, civil rights advocates and observers of democratic governance. The circulation of videos reportedly showing the elderly man being publicly detained by police has further intensified debate over the shrinking space for free expression and political criticism in a country that has long presented itself as the world’s largest democracy.
The significance of the incident extends far beyond the circumstances of a single individual. Democracies are not designed to protect only those who support the government. Their real purpose is to ensure that citizens can express disagreement without fear of punishment, intimidation or public humiliation. The right to criticise elected leaders is not a privilege granted by the state but a fundamental component of democratic life. Once political criticism begins to attract legal consequences, concerns naturally emerge about the health of democratic institutions and the willingness of authorities to tolerate opposing viewpoints.
Throughout history, democratic societies have recognised that dissent is often uncomfortable but necessary. Governments may find criticism unfair, exaggerated or politically motivated. Yet democratic systems are built on the understanding that public debate, criticism and scrutiny are essential safeguards against the misuse of power. When criticism is met with coercive action rather than reasoned response, it creates the impression that political authority is becoming increasingly sensitive to challenge.
The concerns raised by the Meerut incident also fit into a broader pattern of political polarisation that has become increasingly visible across India in recent years. Allegations of pressure on opposition figures, disputes over freedom of expression and accusations of selective law enforcement have contributed to an atmosphere in which political competition is frequently viewed through the lens of confrontation rather than democratic engagement. Such perceptions may not always reflect the full complexity of individual cases, but they nevertheless shape public confidence in institutions.
A healthy democracy depends not only on elections but also on the ability of opposition parties, journalists, activists and ordinary citizens to participate freely in public life. Political disagreements should be settled through debate, persuasion and the ballot box. When political opponents feel constrained by administrative measures, legal actions or other forms of pressure, confidence in democratic processes inevitably weakens. The legitimacy of institutions rests on the belief that rules apply equally to all, regardless of political affiliation or ideological position.
Alongside concerns about political freedoms, questions surrounding the treatment of religious minorities continue to attract international attention. India’s diversity has long been one of its defining characteristics. Home to multiple faiths, languages and cultures, the country has historically drawn strength from its pluralistic identity. Yet in recent years, many Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Dalits have voiced concerns regarding discrimination, social exclusion and the growing prevalence of inflammatory rhetoric targeting minority communities.
Whether these concerns are fully acknowledged by those in power or not, they cannot be dismissed lightly. The responsibility of any democratic state extends beyond maintaining law and order. It includes ensuring that every citizen feels equally protected and equally valued. When minority communities begin to perceive that they are being treated differently or unfairly, the consequences extend far beyond politics. Trust erodes, social cohesion weakens and divisions become increasingly difficult to bridge.
The rise of majoritarian political narratives presents additional challenges. Appeals based primarily on religious or cultural identity may prove effective in mobilising electoral support, but they often come at a significant social cost. Societies built on exclusion eventually discover that divisions created for political advantage do not disappear when elections are over. They become embedded in public discourse, community relations and national identity itself.
India’s experience is particularly important because of its size, influence and democratic legacy. As one of the world’s largest and most diverse nations, its political choices carry significance far beyond its borders. The country’s constitutional framework was founded on principles of secular governance, equality before the law and respect for diversity. Those principles remain essential not only for India’s internal stability but also for its international reputation as a democratic power.
For neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, the quality of democratic governance in India is not merely an internal matter. Political developments in one country inevitably influence perceptions, relationships and regional dynamics across South Asia. Constructive engagement between states becomes more difficult when domestic political discourse is dominated by polarisation, exclusion or inflammatory rhetoric.
The international community also has an important responsibility. Democratic principles, freedom of expression and minority rights are universal values. Their defence cannot depend on geography, strategic interests or political convenience. If these principles matter, they must matter everywhere and for everyone. Selective concern weakens the credibility of the very standards that democratic societies claim to uphold.
Ultimately, the future of India will not be determined solely by economic growth, military strength or electoral victories. It will be shaped by the resilience of its institutions, the protection of civil liberties and the willingness of its leaders to embrace diversity rather than division. Democracies do not lose their character overnight. They are strengthened or weakened gradually through countless decisions about how power is exercised and how dissent is treated. The true test of democratic confidence is not how governments respond to praise, but how they respond to criticism. It is in that test that the health of any democracy is ultimately revealed.
