“It is a profound irony that a party’s rise to power through a fair, transparent, and democratic process can ultimately weaken the very system that enabled its ascent. It raises questions about India’s political trajectory rather than the outcome of a single election. When one party amasses overwhelming political, financial, and institutional power, it becomes a grave threat to a vibrant democracy. The weakening of institutional autonomy, the erosion of electoral transparency, and the shrinking space for dissent all point toward a structural imbalance that no democracy can afford for long. A diverse nation like India can sustain this democratic experience only if there is contestation of ideas, challenging authority, and keeping those in power truly accountable.”
Oh yes, the BJP won again! And if not for the sheer scale of its victory, there would have been nothing novel or particularly intriguing about these election results. So, what now? Are we heading toward a one-party domination of Indian politics, a situation where a single party holds significant power and influence over the political landscape? Are Modi and his colleagues executing a long-term script envisioned by the RSS from behind the scenes? And has the Congress been reduced to a political non-entity, especially in northern India? These questions are not frivolous, and they demand the nation’s serious attention.
Undoubtedly, the BJP’s sweeping victory in Bihar will be viewed as a watershed moment for the INDIA coalition, a diverse mix of the Congress and regional parties formed precisely to counter the BJP hegemony. The coalition, which was a significant attempt to unite various political forces against the BJP, had potential, but it struggled to realize it, plagued by internal rivalries and constant jockeying for leadership. The idea of the coalition was based on a sound argument: that the BJP often wins elections with only a plurality of votes. Yet the alliance failed to project a united front or a clear alternative.
Since the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the opposition has found itself confronted by a mammoth machinery, one that includes the full strength of the bureaucracy, an increasingly compliant Election Commission, supportive media ecosystems, and virtually unlimited resources from business magnates, electoral bonds, and vested interests. Combined with alleged voter-roll manipulation, which refers to the suspected tampering or removal of voter names from electoral rolls, accusations of EVM vulnerabilities, and selective enforcement of election rules, these forces appear to have contributed to sweeping victories in Haryana, Maharashtra, and now Bihar.
One wonders whether Nehru and Ambedkar, architects of India’s democratic institutions, could have imagined how far the Election Commission would drift under the current regime. Rahul Gandhi’s explosive revelations on electoral-roll irregularities were met not with alarm but with silence. Even though the data Gandhi cited came directly from the Commission itself, the EC chose not to meaningfully address the complaints or the threat they pose to electoral integrity. Such dismissiveness undermines the very fabric of India’s democratic system.
According to The Economic Times, the Bihar government under Nitish Kumar credited ₹10,000 each to around 14 million women belonging to self-help groups under the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (MMRY). These payments reportedly came just before, or even after, the Model Code of Conduct came into effect. Many analysts and opposition leaders believe this direct cash transfer functioned as a voter-influencing tool targeting a crucial demographic. Sharad Pawar of the NCP even called the payout a “threat to democracy,” arguing it unfairly tilted the electoral playing field toward the ruling coalition.
This raises another critical question: where did such a massive sum of money suddenly come from? Jan Suraaj leaders allege that World Bank–financed project funds were diverted for this purpose, an accusation, if true, carrying serious governance, legal, and international implications. Even setting that aside, the BJP’s vast reservoir of financial resources or its access to billionaire networks, makes such electoral mobilizations easy to engineer. The result was a record-breaking turnout among women voters in Bihar. If misappropriation of multilateral funds is ultimately proven, it would demand a rigorous investigation.
Another deeply troubling issue concerns the large-scale removal of voters from the electoral rolls. Reliable reports indicate that around 65 lakh names were deleted prior to the election, potentially disenfranchising marginalized communities and altering outcomes in closely contested constituencies. While the ruling party defends this as a necessary “cleanup,” the unprecedented scale raises serious questions about voter suppression and public trust in the electoral system’s integrity.
Rahul Gandhi has further demonstrated, using official data, how “ghost voters” proliferate across rolls—names with invalid or nonexistent addresses, large clusters registered at single locations, and even foreign nationals inexplicably listed as Indian voters. These anomalies suggest either a breach of the central voter database or the misuse of authorized access. The existence of such ghost entries conveniently paves the way for manipulating outcomes, especially if combined with EVM systems that the Election Commission refuses to make fully transparent. The software on these machines is not open source, and multi-phase elections often involve long periods during which EVMs are stored without clear public access to CCTV footage that is sometimes destroyed prematurely. These conditions naturally erode public confidence.
The opposition, for its part, has not helped its own cause. Beyond opposing the BJP, it rarely projected a cohesive ideological narrative. It lacked a compelling alternative vision for development, economic growth, or social welfare. Internal factionalism, weak grassroots organization, and inconsistent messaging have all contributed to its decline. Meanwhile, the NDA’s disciplined focus on religious nationalism and welfare delivery has resonated more effectively with voters.
In northern India, the Congress has indeed been performing poorly in election after election. Its repeated “introspection” exercises have yielded little. Rahul Gandhi often appears as a lone voice, while many in his party remain disconnected from grassroots realities. It is past time for Congress to adopt serious organizational reforms, demand stronger electoral safeguards, such as paper ballots, and articulate an agenda and engage in a more sustained on the ground campaigning. At the very least, candidate selection must be merit-based, with tickets finalized at least six months in advance to give them any realistic chance of success.
Meanwhile, the long-term ideological agenda of the RSS is coming increasingly into focus. It appears less interested in preserving the diversity of India’s political ecosystem and more committed to reshaping the nation along lines of cultural and religious conformity. Weakening the independence of institutions such as the Election Commission, judiciary, and media seems central to that strategy, consolidating lasting political dominance.
It is a profound irony that a party’s rise to power through a fair, transparent, and democratic process can ultimately weaken the very system that enabled its ascent. It raises questions about India’s political trajectory rather than the outcome of a single election. When one party amasses overwhelming political, financial, and institutional power, it becomes a grave threat to a vibrant democracy. The weakening of institutional autonomy, the erosion of electoral transparency, and the shrinking space for dissent all point toward a structural imbalance that no democracy can afford for long. A diverse nation like India can sustain this democratic experience only if there is contestation of ideas, challenging authority, and keeping those in power truly accountable.
The nation will also need opposition parties not to be fragmented or intimidated, and institutions that safeguard fairness not to be compromised. Elections may continue to be held like in many authoritarian nations, but the spirit of democracy will slowly fade and die. A true democracy requires competition, scrutiny, debate, and accountability, without which the country will move toward conformity and centralized dominance. India now stands at a crossroads, where citizens and institutions must rethink and evaluate the political trajectory we are on, and take a vow to uphold constitutional values. Protecting democracy and the hard-fought freedom won by our great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru do not simply rest in the hands of the opposition, and the nation’s future is shaped not by the will of one single entity, but by the voices and aspirations of all its people.
(George Abraham is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations. He is vice chair of IOC USA. He can be reached at gta777@gmail.com)
