The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the largest in India and has been for the past 30 years. The BJP’s core philosophy emphasized Indian identity as a Hindu majority nation. However, the BJP in recent years has been accused of abusing its power and slowly decaying the democratization of India. 

The BJP’s capture of independent institutions, such as the Election Commission, the judiciary, and the media, reflects a shift from electoral democracy toward electoral autocracy, illustrating how backsliding often unfolds not through dramatic breakdowns but through the slow erosion of fairness in these institutions. 

The Indian Election Committee (ECI) has been one of the most trusted public institutions in the world’s largest democracy. However, in recent years, ECI has faced a test of its credibility. In the 2024 elections, allegations of vote theft by the BJP party arose. 

Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposing party, made these allegations. According to the BBC, he alleged that “a parliamentary constituency in the southern state of Karnataka had more than 100,000 fake voters, including duplicate voters, invalid addresses and bulk registrations at single locations”. 

BJP framed this allegation as propaganda used to gain influence for the opponents of the BJP party. Despite that, on August 1st of 2025, “a draft of the updated list was published… several reports, including by the BBC, highlighted errors in the count, such as the wrong gender and photos assigned against people’s names, and dead voters on the rolls”. Therefore, there was evidence of vote fraud likely created by the BJP. 

These incidents demonstrate how stealth authoritarianism operates through technically legal bureaucratic manipulation that quietly skews electoral fairness toward the ruling party. The BJP dismissed these allegations as political propaganda, but evidence suggested institutional bias that advantaged the incumbent. These tactics undermine the democratic system put in place and give more power to the elite.

Similarly, during the Bihar voter roll revision in 2025, the ECI launched a “Special Intensive Revision” of voter lists, which is a comprehensive exercise conducted by the ECI to ensure the accuracy and purity of electoral rolls.

Critics argued that the process disproportionately affected marginalized communities, especially Muslims and low-income voters who struggle with documentation. Because many of these citizens lack stable housing or formal proof of residence, they were more likely to have their names flagged as “unverified” or deleted during the revision, even if they had voted in previous elections. In districts with large Muslim populations, verification drives were also applied more stringently, suggesting a pattern of selective enforcement that effectively narrowed the electorate. 

According to The Washington Post, “opposition parties and rights groups accused the Election Commission of disenfranchising millions of voters through a rushed and opaque process that disproportionately targeted minorities.” The controversy highlights the concept of electoral manipulation, where ruling parties maintain the appearance of democratic procedures while tilting the playing field in their favor.

This controversy, along with voter fraud allegations in Karnataka, connects to broader theories of executive aggrandizement, in which power gradually concentrates in the hands of the ruling party. As scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt note in How Democracies Die, modern backsliding “rarely occurs through dramatic events like military coups. Instead, democracies erode slowly, often at the hands of elected leaders who use legal means to weaken institutions.” These patterns show the BJP’s interference in electoral rolls and its reliance on state institutions to limit competition.

Another key part of India’s democratic backsliding is the erosion of judicial independence. Although the Supreme Court of India has occasionally acted as a check on executive power, critics argue that the judiciary has too often deferred to the government. For years, the scheme permitted anonymous corporate donations to political parties, a policy that overwhelmingly benefited the ruling BJP by obscuring the sources of political funding. 

When the Court finally declared the program unconstitutional, Dhyeya Law noted that the system “infringed upon the citizen’s right to know” and posed “a serious risk of quid pro quo corruption”. This ruling was a rare assertion of judicial autonomy in an era when the courts have frequently appeared reluctant to confront the executive, emphasizing how selective resistance can coexist with broader institutional weakening.

The BJP’s reliance on Hindu nationalism is a rhetorical tool used to legitimize policies that erode democratic institutions. By framing itself as the authentic voice of the Hindu majority, the party portrays minorities as outsiders. An example of this is the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which fast-tracks citizenship for refugees from neighboring countries, but excludes Muslims. The BJP justified the law as protecting persecuted religious groups, yet critics argue it institutionalized religious discrimination and weakened India’s secular foundations. 

The effect of these trends is a system where elections still occur, but the fairness and inclusivity of those elections are compromised. Yet, it would be incomplete to view India as a fully collapsed democracy. The opposition’s relative success in the 2024 general election, which forced the BJP into coalition politics, demonstrates that electoral competition remains a persistent feature. 

This aligns with arguments that democratic backsliding is not linear or inevitable. In conclusion, the trajectory of Indian democracy under the BJP illustrates how backsliding unfolds incrementally through legal, procedural, and identity-based strategies. Allegations of vote theft, the Bihar voter roll controversy, and the manipulation of electoral finance all reveal how institutions can be eroding while maintaining a democratic image. India’s case matters not only domestically but globally, as it demonstrates how the world’s largest democracy can begin to resemble a hybrid regime.