 |
| Picture credit: Click here |
Dictatorship as Culture: An Anthropological View of Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi
Suman Nath
Fifty years ago, on June 25, 1975, Indira Gandhi imposed a state of Emergency that suspended democracy in India. Half a century later, India is again grappling with concerns over democratic backsliding—this time, without a formal declaration. Though separated by time, political ideology, and context, both Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi exemplify how power can centralize, calcify, and capture the state’s moral and institutional machinery. But to truly understand what’s at stake, we must look beyond law books and parliamentary debates.
Anthropology, with its emphasis on cultural relativism and diversity, offers a valuable perspective. As Ruth Benedict once wrote, “The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences.” In studying power, anthropologists remind us that politics is also performance—full of symbols, bodies, rituals, and ideas that go far beyond policy.
The Emergency: Spectacle of State Power
Indira Gandhi’s Emergency (1975–1977) was India's most overt encounter with authoritarianism. Civil liberties were suspended, the press muzzled, and over 100,000 political opponents jailed. Justifications ranged from “internal disturbance” to vague threats to national stability (Britannica). But beneath the legal rationale lay a cultural script: Gandhi, as Nehru’s daughter, invoked a dynastic charisma that Max Weber might call charismatic authority (Weber, 1947).
What unfolded was more than just political repression. It was a social drama—an authoritarian performance. Gandhi’s shift from being labeled a “goongi goodiya” (dumb doll) to being perceived as the nation’s stern matriarch reveals how power in India often assumes familial and mythic forms.
Nowhere was this performance more disturbing than in the forced sterilization campaigns led by her son, Sanjay Gandhi. Over 11 million people—most of them poor—were sterilized, often forcibly (India Today). It was biopolitical violence at scale: the state not only governed people’s rights but their reproductive capacities too. As Michel Foucault suggested, modern states often govern not by killing but by controlling how people live and reproduce. Here, the state attempted to reshape society by disciplining the very bodies of its citizens.
Modi’s India: Emergency Without a Name?
Narendra Modi has not declared an Emergency—but many argue that his regime is marked by a subtler, more pervasive authoritarianism. Ramachandra Guha, among others, has claimed that Modi’s government may be even more dangerous than Gandhi’s because it slowly erodes democratic institutions while maintaining the appearance of legality (Scroll.in; The Diplomat).
Modi’s rise is an anthropological masterclass in populist performance. From humble tea-seller to national messiah, his story is carefully curated. His persona is omnipresent—on posters, in radio broadcasts, in social media videos—and increasingly indistinguishable from the nation itself (IJFMR). But the real shift under Modi is ideological: where Gandhi used the state to centralize authority within a secular framework, Modi uses Hindu nationalism—or Hindutva—as a cultural glue to justify majoritarianism.
This form of nationalism redefines who belongs where. Through policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act and narratives like "love jihad," the state no longer imagines citizenship in inclusive terms. It constructs the “true Indian” as a Hindu, Hindi-speaking, culturally conservative man—effectively excluding vast swathes of the country (Telegraph India).
Where Gandhi repressed through censorship and arrests, Modi’s regime uses a blend of soft power and intimidation. The press may not be officially censored, but media houses often toe the line. Protest is not illegal, but activists are routinely arrested. The result is a kind of “normalized exception”—a state where democratic norms are hollowed out from within, as political scientist Giorgio Agamben theorized ([Appadurai, 2006]; [Agamben, 2005]).
Anthropology and the Price of Uniformity
What both Gandhi and Modi illustrate is that authoritarianism in India is not merely legal—it is cultural. Both leaders drew upon deeply ingrained symbols: the mother figure, the religious redeemer, the masculine protector. Anthropology forces us to ask: what makes these performances resonate? Why are Indians so often drawn to strong, central figures who promise order, unity, and destiny?
But anthropology also warns us: the cost of such unity is often the suppression of diversity. Clifford Geertz famously wrote that humans live through “webs of significance” they spin themselves. These webs—cultural, linguistic, religious—are what make India vibrant. Centralized power, particularly when culturally majoritarian, tears through these webs, reducing a rich mosaic to a monochrome portrait.
Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, for all its repression, did not attempt to redefine national identity in ethno-religious terms. Modi’s project does. It is not just about governance but about who belongs. That makes his version of authoritarianism more deeply cultural—and perhaps more enduring.
Resistance: Then and Now
During the Emergency, resistance went underground: students, activists, and journalists operated in secrecy, relying on typewriters and pamphlets. Today, resistance lives online and on the streets. From Shaheen Bagh to the farmers’ protests, new cultural scripts of defiance are being written. Art, song, slogans, hashtags—these are the tools of dissent in Modi’s India.
But resistance, like power, is performed. The state now deploys surveillance, digital propaganda, and legal instruments to suppress opposition. Sedition laws are back in vogue. Yet, people continue to speak, often at great risk. In doing so, they preserve not just democracy, but cultural freedom.
The Real Lesson of 50 Years
As we mark 50 years since the Emergency, we must ask: what does authoritarianism look like today? It may not come with tanks in the streets or midnight knocks. It may come with prime-time news, devotional apps, and carefully curated nationalism.
Anthropology teaches us that politics is not just law—it is life, lived through rituals, identities, and beliefs. If we truly want to protect democracy in India, we must also protect diversity, not just as a constitutional value, but as a cultural necessity.
Because when power demands uniformity, anthropology reminds us of a simple truth: democracy thrives not on sameness, but on difference.
The author is a political anthropologist and teaches anthropology in Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Government College, Kolkata
References
Britannica. The Emergency | India, 1975, Indira Gandhi, History, & Facts. https://www.britannica.com/event/the-Emergency-India
Wikipedia. The Emergency (India). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
The Economic Times. 1975 Emergency explained. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/1975-emergency-explained-a-look-back-at-indias-dark-days-of-democracy-govt-designates-day-as-samvidhaan-hatya-diwas/articleshow/111244301.cms
Wikipedia. Indira Gandhi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi
Jaffrelot, C., & Tillin, L. (2021). India's First Dictatorship: The Emergency, 1975-1977. HarperCollins India.
India Today. How Sanjay Gandhi dragged 11 million Indians into sterilisation camps. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/sanjay-gandhi-forced-sterilisation-emergency-india-history-244246-2023-09-29
ResearchGate. Forced Sterilization Emergency India. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266088042_Politics_and_the_Poor_The_Implementation_of_Family_Planning_in_India
The Diplomat. 50 Years Later: How Indira Gandhi's Emergency Compares With Narendra Modi's Authoritarian Rule. https://thediplomat.com/2025/06/50-years-later-how-indira-gandhis-emergency-compares-with-narendra-modis-authoritarian-rule
Scroll.in. Ramachandra Guha: Indira Gandhi vs Narendra Modi – whose regime has been worse?. https://scroll.in/article/1083976/ramachandra-guha-indira-gandhi-vs-narendra-modi-whose-regime-has-been-worse
Telegraph India. Modi versus Indira: Two authoritarian prime ministers. https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/modi-versus-indira-two-authoritarian-prime-ministers-prnt/cid/2110266
Official website of PM Narendra Modi. https://www.narendramodi.in/
Stanford University. Modi and Hindu Nationalism. Search in academic databases.
Heidelberg Asian Studies. Resistance during the Emergency. https://hasp.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/asia-europe/article/view/13248
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. https://archive.org/details/TheTheoryOfSocialAndEconomicOrganization
The Wire. Indira and Modi Are the Two Most Damaging, Destructive PMs: Guha. https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/indira-and-modi-are-the-two-most-damaging-destructive-pms-weve-had-ramachandra-guha
IJFMR. Populist Politics in India. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/5/26563.pdf
Hindustan Times. How Narendra Modi resembles Indira Gandhi. https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/how-narendra-modi-resembles-indira-gandhi/story-qgPESlInpuL1w51t29QGtO.html
WestminsterResearch. Authoritarianism under Modi. https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/w45v0/increasing-authoritarianism-in-india-under-narendra-modi
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Houghton Mifflin.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality, in The Foucault Effect. University of Chicago Press.
Appadurai, A. (2006). Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger. Duke University Press.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment