Two Democracies and the Echoes of Tyranny

Relevance

GS Paper II – Polity & Governance

CONTEXT:

• The article was revealed on July 5, 2025, the day after U.S. Independence Day (July 4).
• Displays on how constitutional democracies just like the USA and India face inside threats of tyranny, not from coups however from institutional decay and authoritarian drift.
• Attracts parallels between:
  • U.S. President Donald Trump’s governance model, and
  • India’s 1975 Emergency below Indira Gandhi.

DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING IN INDIA: THE 1975 EMERGENCY

🔹 Timeline:

• Emergency declared: June 25, 1975
• Invoked below Article 352 (on grounds of “inside disturbance”)
• Set off: Allahabad Excessive Courtroom discovered Indira Gandhi responsible of electoral malpractice

🔹 Key Occasions:

• Elementary Rights suspended, together with the Proper to Life (Article 21)
• Over 1,00,000 folks detained, dissent criminalised
• Use of MISA (Upkeep of Inside Safety Act) for preventive detention
• Media censorship imposed
• Compelled sterilisation and slum demolitions below Sanjay Gandhi
• Solely Justice H.R. Khanna dissented within the Habeas Corpus case — denied elevation to Chief Justice

🔹 Structural Vulnerabilities:

• Indira Gandhi used constitutional provisions, not extralegal means
• Parliament, Judiciary, Paperwork, and Media did not verify government overreach
• Highlights H.V. Kamath’s 1949 warning: Emergency provisions within the Structure mirrored these of Weimar Germany, exploited by Hitler

THREATS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE U.S.

🔹 Related Patterns:

• Donald Trump allegedly:
  • Threatened the Structure
  • Sought to weaponize establishments (e.g., Justice Division)
  • Tried to erode checks and balances

🔹 Institutional Weaknesses:

• Congress did not act decisively
• Judiciary delayed interventions
• Media rationalized actions
• Indicators a shift towards “monarchy by one other title”

KEY THEMES AND LESSONS

1. Tyranny via Legality:

• Each Indian Emergency and U.S. authoritarian tendencies present:
  • Tyranny might be authorized, constitutional, and popularly justified
  • Democratic erosion needn’t contain a coup — it could actually happen silently

2. Institutional Fragility:

• Constitutions don’t defend themselves
• Want for vigilant establishments and brave people
• Relevance of constitutional morality (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s supreme)

3. Accountability vs Monarchy:

• “Let the regulation be king” – democracy rests on legal guidelines, not people
• Leaders have to be accountable, not above the Structure

4. Function of Civil Society:

• Civil servants, judges, journalists, and residents should act as guardians of democracy
• Inaction and complicity empower authoritarianism

 Conclusion

The experiences of India throughout the Emergency and the present democratic anxieties in america function highly effective reminders that tyranny doesn’t all the time arrive with violence—it usually comes cloaked in legality and silence. Democracies, regardless of how previous or celebrated, are weak when establishments develop weak, when legal guidelines are bent for comfort, and when residents turn out to be complacent.

The Structure just isn’t a self-executing doc; it is just as robust because the braveness of these entrusted to uphold it—judges, legislators, bureaucrats, media, and above all, the folks. The actual defence in opposition to authoritarianism lies not in procedures, however in ideas—accountability, restraint, and vigilance.

India’s Emergency was a failure of establishments, however its finish was a triumph of public reminiscence and electoral will. The U.S. should heed that lesson. Each era should reclaim democracy—not as inheritance, however as accountability.