Two Democracies and the Echoes of Tyranny

Relevance

GS Paper II – Polity & Governance

CONTEXT:

The article was published on July 5, 2025, the day after U.S. Independence Day (July 4).
Reflects on how constitutional democracies like the USA and India face internal threats of tyranny, not from coups but from institutional decay and authoritarian drift.
Draws parallels between:
- U.S. President Donald Trump’s governance style, and
- India’s 1975 Emergency under Indira Gandhi.

DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING IN INDIA: THE 1975 EMERGENCY

🔹 Timeline:

Emergency declared: June 25, 1975
Invoked under Article 352 (on grounds of “internal disturbance”)
Trigger: Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice

🔹 Key Events:

Fundamental Rights suspended, including the Right to Life (Article 21)
Over 1,00,000 people detained, dissent criminalised
Use of MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act) for preventive detention
Media censorship imposed
Forced sterilisation and slum demolitions under Sanjay Gandhi
Only Justice H.R. Khanna dissented in the Habeas Corpus case — denied elevation to Chief Justice

🔹 Structural Vulnerabilities:

Indira Gandhi used constitutional provisions, not extralegal means
Parliament, Judiciary, Bureaucracy, and Media failed to check executive overreach
Highlights H.V. Kamath’s 1949 warning: Emergency provisions in the Constitution mirrored those of Weimar Germany, exploited by Hitler

THREATS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE U.S.

🔹 Similar Patterns:

Donald Trump allegedly:
- Threatened the Constitution
- Sought to weaponize institutions (e.g., Justice Department)
- Attempted to erode checks and balances

🔹 Institutional Weaknesses:

Congress failed to act decisively
Judiciary delayed interventions
Media rationalized actions
Signals a shift toward “monarchy by another name”

KEY THEMES AND LESSONS

Tyranny through Legality:

Both Indian Emergency and U.S. authoritarian tendencies show:
- Tyranny can be legal, constitutional, and popularly justified
- Democratic erosion need not involve a coup — it can occur silently

Institutional Fragility:

Constitutions do not defend themselves
Need for vigilant institutions and courageous individuals
Relevance of constitutional morality (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s ideal)

Accountability vs Monarchy:

“Let the law be king” – democracy rests on laws, not individuals
Leaders must be accountable, not above the Constitution

Role of Civil Society:

Civil servants, judges, journalists, and citizens must act as guardians of democracy
Inaction and complicity empower authoritarianism

Conclusion

The experiences of India during the Emergency and the current democratic anxieties in the United States serve as powerful reminders that tyranny does not always arrive with violence—it often comes cloaked in legality and silence. Democracies, no matter how old or celebrated, are vulnerable when institutions grow weak, when laws are bent for convenience, and when citizens become complacent.

The Constitution is not a self-executing document; it is only as strong as the courage of those entrusted to uphold it—judges, legislators, bureaucrats, media, and above all, the people. The real defence against authoritarianism lies not in procedures, but in principles—accountability, restraint, and vigilance.

India’s Emergency was a failure of institutions, but its end was a triumph of public memory and electoral will. The U.S. must heed that lesson. Every generation must reclaim democracy—not as inheritance, but as responsibility.