Title: Unveiling India's Authoritarian Drift: A Multifaceted Analysis of Security Challenges through Post-Colonial and Feminist Lenses

The wire: Protesters participate in a rally to oppose CAA and NRC

Security in India is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond conventional military threats to include the protection of individuals, communities, and democratic institutions. However, understanding security in the Indian context requires a nuanced examination that incorporates insights from various perspectives. In recent years, India has faced a growing challenge: the encroachment of authoritarianism and the erosion of its democratic institutions. This phenomenon begs a deeper examination through the lens of the relativity of security. In this blog post, I 'll embark on a journey to analyze India's case study, focusing on crucial questions: Whose security is at stake? From whom or what? By what means? For what purpose? And by which security actor? Furthermore, we'll delve into the application of post-colonial and feminist approaches to understand this complex issue, drawing insights from Krause and Williams (2018) and Wæver (1995) to not only sheds light on India's specific challenges but also offers a broader understanding of security conceptual evolution and historical transformations.

Overview of case study :

India's experience with democracy traces back to its independence from British colonial rule in 1947, culminating in the adoption of its constitution in 1950. Despite occasional interruptions, such as the Emergency period from 1975 to 1977, India has maintained the status of a stable parliamentary democracy, often hailed as the "largest democracy in the world." “The world’s largest democracy has faced a growing challenge to its democratic institutions in recent years”(price,2022). Before 2014, India's democratic institutions enjoyed widespread respect and trust from the public. Entities like the Electoral Commission, judiciary, and media were perceived as impartial arbiters, upholding human rights and fostering a competitive multiparty system. However, underlying challenges such as polarization, insurgency, income inequality, and corruption persisted. But under the leadership of the Hindu-nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), concerns have arisen regarding the erosion of democratic values. Despite enjoying widespread respect, institutions like the Electoral Commission, judiciary, and media have faced scrutiny. The consolidation of power by the BJP, along with contentious legislation and the COVID-19 pandemic, has intensified these concerns. “According to 2021’s report – based on data from 2020 – has confirmed that suspicion, with V Dem retrospectively classifying India as an ‘electoral autocracy’ from 2019”(the wire,2021).However, hope remains for the restoration of democratic principles through civil society resilience and international support. (Ozturk,2021)

Source: the wire

Analyzing the case through relativity of security:

When we ponder "whose security," we must recognize the diverse stakeholders involved. Security is not a monolithic concept. It depends on who or what is being secured. For states, it often means safeguarding territorial integrity and sovereignty. For individuals, it encompasses personal safety, economic stability, and well-being. In India, the security of its citizens, particularly marginalized groups, is at stake. Historically oppressed communities, such as Dalits, Adivasis, and religious minorities, face heightened insecurities due to discriminatory policies and societal biases.

The threats to security in India stem from both internal and external sources. Internally, the rise of authoritarian tendencies within the government poses a significant challenge. The centralization of power under one regime has led to the erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties. Externally, India faces security threats from neighbouring countries and non-state actors, complicating the security landscape further(Ozturk,2021).

The means through which security is threatened in India vary, ranging from legislative measures to socio-political dynamics. The passage of controversial laws, such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), has sparked widespread protests and heightened tensions(Ozturk,2021). Additionally, the use of state apparatus to suppress dissent, including the targeting of activists and journalists, represents a grave threat to democratic freedoms such as protest.

Authoritarian tendencies in India are often justified under the guise of national security and socio-economic development. The securitization of certain issues, such as immigration and dissent, allows the government to consolidate power and silence opposition voices. However, these measures often undermine the very democratic principles they claim to protect, exacerbating insecurities among marginalized communities.

The primary security actor responsible for the erosion of democratic institutions in India is the state itself. The government, led by the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), has enacted policies and measures that concentrate power and limit dissent. Furthermore, security forces and law enforcement agencies play a role in enforcing these measures, often resorting to heavy-handed tactics to quell protests and dissent.

Post-Colonial Perspective:

India's post-colonial trajectory is deeply intertwined with its current governance challenges. The historical legacy of colonialism, as discussed by Krause and Williams, continues to shape power dynamics and exacerbate inequalities. The imposition of colonial structures, designed to serve the interests of the colonizers, entrenched hierarchies and marginalized certain groups, laying the groundwork for ongoing power struggles(Krause,2018). Moreover, as Wæver highlights, issues are often constructed as security threats through discourse. In the Indian context, the securitization of dissent and minority rights is evident. The government frames protests and opposition movements as threats to national security, justifying repressive measures and undermining democratic principles. This securitization not only perpetuates authoritarian tendencies but also exacerbates insecurities among marginalized communities, further entrenching social divides (waever,1995).

Feminist Perspective:

Examining India's authoritarian drift through a feminist lens reveals the gendered dimensions of security challenges. Women and marginalized genders face unique vulnerabilities and risks under repressive regimes. The securitization of dissent disproportionately affects women activists, who are often subjected to harassment and violence. Moreover, patriarchal norms limit women's participation in politics, further marginalizing their voices and exacerbating gender inequalities. As Wæver suggests, desecuritization—the process of deescalating security narratives—is crucial for restoring democratic norms and promoting inclusive governance. However, patriarchal structures and power dynamics hinder efforts to desecuritize issues, perpetuating gender-based insecurities and undermining democratic resilience (waever,1995).

Why This Analysis Matters:

Integrating post-colonial and feminist perspectives into our analysis of India's authoritarian drift enriches our understanding of the underlying power dynamics and insecurities at play. By critically engaging with historical legacies and gendered inequalities, we can develop more nuanced approaches to addressing security challenges and promoting inclusive governance. However, it's essential to recognize the limitations of these perspectives. While valuable, they may not fully capture the complexities of contemporary security threats or intersecting forms of oppression. Additionally, resistance from dominant discourses may hinder efforts to promote alternative narratives and inclusive approaches to security.

 Conclusion:

India's experience with authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic institutions underscores the complexity of security issues in a diverse society. By critically analyzing the relativity of security and incorporating diverse perspectives, we can strive towards a more inclusive and democratic future for all.

References:

Case study: Democratic Erosion. (2021, February 5). Democratic Erosion. Retrieved from https://www.democratic-erosion.com/2021/02/05/democratic-erosion-in-india-a-case-study/

The Wire. (2021, MAR 11th). India Is No Longer a Democracy, It’s an Electoral Autocracy: V-Dem Institute Report. Retrieved from source: https://thewire.in/rights/india-no-longer-democracy-electoral-autocracy-v-dem-institute-report-bjp-narendra-modi

Chatham House. (2022, April 7). Democracy in India. Retrieved from  https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/04/democracy-india

Text:

Krause, Keith, and Michael C. Williams. 2018. “Security and ‘Security Studies’: Conceptual Evolution and Historical Transformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Security, edited by Alexandra Gheciu and William Curtis Wohlforth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Ole, Wæver. 1995. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” In On Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press Ole, Wæver. 1995. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” InOn Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press.https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Waever-Securitization.pdf