Harvard Professor and India-lover John Kenneth Galbraith, handpicked by US President John F. Kennedy to mend fences with India during the Sino-Indian Border War of 1962, had once described Indian democracy as a “functioning anarchy”. The present scenario reflects a democracy under considerable strain in India. Mass street protests over the education system, police repression and demands for the education minister’s resignation have been followed by agitations near the Supreme Court against the Election Commission, amidst allegations of electoral fraud favouring the ruling party.Adding to the turmoil is the political controversy surrounding the suicide of an IIT student allegedly caught cheating in examinations, which has raised questions of social bias. All this makes Indian democracy appear perhaps a little more anarchic, in the sense of multiple layers of disorder, yet still functioning – with the added layer of economic growth largely benefiting the rich and powerful.Other scholars – neither Dimagi Naxals nor belonging to any so-called tukde-tukde gang – have also assessed Indian democracy and its institutions with sympathetic equivocation to underscore its operational difference from the Western liberal models. Even a cursory look at the Westminster proceedings along with its Raisina Hills version could show one to be a caricature of the other.Some scholars have analysed the Indian example as a “post-colonial democracy”, structurally comparable but operationally asymmetrical from its Western inspirations.During the high tide of democratic institution-building in the Nehru era, Rajni Kothari, a pioneer of election studies in India, analysed Indian democracy as a “one-party-dominant system”. He founded the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and later joined the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), following the Emergency of 1975–77.Indian democracy today appears little different from the model that emerged in the seventies, albeit there is now a new dominant party. Arguably, the degree of “anarchy” is greater, fuelled by the weakening of institutions built in the earlier era. This is evident in the mass protests against these institutions, including the Election Commission, a key institution in India’s democratic framework.If Cabinet ministers have to resign in response to street protests – howsoever legitimate – against government policies, then how does one explain the constitutional mandate of Cabinet’s “collective responsibility” to Parliament? The same logic applies to the Election Commission of India (ECI), a constitutional institution with the judiciary as its only arbiter.Also read: Free Speech Collective Moves SC with Contempt Plea Against Delhi Police, Union Home MinistryYet in India, unlike in the comparable neighbourhood, democracy – in its elementary sense of periodically elected majority rule based on universal adult suffrage – has continued uninterrupted (except briefly).Obviously, beyond this overarching façade, India’s elected parliament, including its political parties, unlike their predecessors of the pre-Emergency era, are no longer able to represent the popular aspirations across the country’s diverse plurality. For example, Manipur was burning for nearly a year, while Parliament, even when in session, did not really take note of the tragedy (despite the Meitei being Vaishnavite Hindus).Violence in Manipur, May 2023. Photo: Twitter/@BinaNepramIt seems the Emergency has eroded the post-independence national consensus on most issues except one: the indispensability of “free and fair” elected governance, as forcefully underscored by the 1977 elections and thereafter through to the present agitations.Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the many recurrent new trends in Indian democracy since then: like mass street protests around popular demands bypassing the legislatures, often led by parties or individuals unelected to any legislature. In fact, new political parties and leaders have emerged from such movements, such as the Janata Party from the JP-led anti-Emergency movement, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) from the Anna Hazare-led movement against “corruption”, followed now by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in the present agitations.It is another matter that, when voted to power, some of them, like Bharatiya Janata Party and AAP leaders, have also been accused of charges similar to what they had fought against. It may be another example of Lord Acton’s warning: “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.Yet, the operational difference in “anarchy” within the Indian system before and after 1977 also suggests that while some consequences may be systemic, others are more rooted to the Emergency excesses – the undercurrent of “absolute power” vesting in institutions in the “Indira is India” political milieu – even after the overarching democratic superstructure was restored in 1977. This provides some clue for possible course-correction, before it is too late.Watch: ‘Indira’s Emergency Was the Most Traumatic Experience in Indian Political History’: Srinath RaghavanWhile decaying institutions need reform, it must strictly take place within democratic parameters, without any temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater. India’s constitution, the world’s longest and most amended, has not done too badly by comparable standards, except for the Emergency.However, some disturbing trends, reminiscent of the pre-Emergency era, warrant caution. For example, India faces simultaneous popular protests confronting entrenched single-party dominance. There is also an entrenched leadership, triumphantly reaping domestic political dividends of the military victory of “Operation Sindoor”, as was done earlier, after the 1971 war against Pakistan. From then to the JP-led movement and the national Emergency is familiar history.Besides, last time, the immediate provocation was the judicial verdict against the Prime Minister for electoral malpractice. This time the agitations are against the Chief Election Commissioner for electoral malpractice in favour of the ruling party – which awaits a judicial verdict. It is a good sign that the ECI has corrected some mistakes in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).But loud whispers of “anti-nationals” or “foreign funding” inciting youthful protesters who are supported by the opposition, reminiscent of the JP-led movement, are a cause of concern. The level of coercion against protesters is also alarming, like the use of pellet guns or the disturbing prolonged preventive detentions or the de-notification of protest sites.Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi along with a victim of alleged pellet gun firing during a student protest march carried out by Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on July 20. Photo: PTI via Congress handout.All these, still nowhere near last time’s “encounter” deaths, cause concern about the corrupting potential of absolute power towards another possible constitutional misadventure.Multiple institutions are now dented, but the first and foremost with respect to concerns about “anarchy” in parliamentary democracy is parliament itself. It is now a poor replica of its glorious past. By its composition as well as performance, it is increasingly unresponsive to the wide-ranging aspirations, reinforced by the global exposure the public have achieved in recent decades. Hence, when popular demands find an outlet in street protests, unregulated coercion against them fuels anarchy.Also read: Backstory: Only Information Can Help Breach the Wall of Subterfuge the ECI Has Built to Disenfranchise MillionsThe present legislatures, unlike their predecessors drawn largely from the freedom struggle, have a different social profile, which has emerged from the national developmental trajectory. With some 30% of Indian legislators as of last year having serious criminal cases against them, and many of them being party loyalists, with little personal accomplishment beyond being ‘adults’ qualifying for their posts, they hardly inspire popular admiration.Their parliamentary performances also remain largely obscured in the din and bustle of lacklustre debates in infrequent sessions recording numerous bills, mostly through voice votes in which the Speaker’s voice is the most prominent. This comic opera, which comes at great cost to the exchequer, is now telecast to the public through screens at home or hand-held devices. What goes on in these sessions becomes a role model for the national democratic space, and the result has been to stoke “anarchy”.The sessions are also in sharp contrast to earlier parliaments, in which prime ministers, Nehru included, regularly attended and piloted Bills with inspiring debates that still echo in many mock parliaments held in academic institutions. The present Mann ki Baat, otherwise instructive, bypasses parliament to project only its anchor.Equally important for the present composition of the Lok Sabha is the cost of elections. According to former chief minister of Odisha Biju Patnaik, in the early sixties, an Assembly election cost Rs 10 crore and a parliamentary election cost Rs 40 crore. The present situation is anybody’s guess.Obviously, whoever invests massive sums knows how to recover it – with proper return. The sources of corruption and anarchy in Indian democracy should not be far to seek. This, again, is different from the earlier scenario, when the official residences of elected leaders in the capital were free “guest houses” for the constituents.While the dysfunctionality of Lok Sabha is largely due to social and operational reasons, the unrepresentative character of Rajya Sabha is more basic, structural, and now nearly impossible to amend – a part of its basic structure, if you will. Paradoxically, the constitution lacks a federal structure predicated upon institutional equalisation of powers among its constituent units, or between them and the federal centre.This is unlike the powerful US Senate, with equal representation neutralising the numerical advantages of the more populated states with greater representation in the central legislature.Opposition and ruling party MPs clashed during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi, Thursday, July 23, 2026. Opposition and ruling party MPs staged protests and counter-protests and raised slogans against each other outside Parliament on Thursday on the NEET paper leak issue. Photo: PTI/Arun Sharma.Rajya Sabha, with only half the strength of the Lok Sabha, is parliament’s “federal chamber” because it is elected by the state legislature it represents, but continues after the Electoral College has been dissolved. Without any mandatory domicile prerequisites, it is used by all parties to reward favours or donors, irrespective of ethnic identities.Also read: Is it Legal and Moral for ‘Outsiders’ to Run as Rajya Sabha Nominees from Any State?In Indian democracy, based on linguistic states with fanatical state loyalties, a federal structure is an indispensable democratic imperative. Its absence explains the present tensions of the southern states against the more populous Hindi-speaking northern states. A “double-engine ki sarkar”, barely distinguishable from the colonial Act of 1935, with “provincial autonomy” for efficient enforcement of colonial laws, is no substitute for democratic federalism. This inadequacy led an eminent federal theorist to describe India as “quasi-federal”.Thus, the two houses of parliament are no longer able to convey popular legitimacy to “parliamentary sovereignty” as a principal concern of our post-colonial democratic agenda. In fact, during the constitution-making process, Dr. Ambedkar sent an emissary, B.N. Rau, with the draft of the constitution to the US, where its Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes strongly advised against the “due process” clause for amendments of citizens’ rights, as it had led to “judicial tyranny” in the US.So in the Indian constitution it was changed it to “procedure established by law”, which made the content of any such amendment parliament’s exclusive prerogative, and the procedure itself open to judicial review. This was also reiterated by prime minister Nehru while piloting the first, second and fourth amendments to the constitution, which enabled “reasonable restrictions” in the “national interest”.Our new parliament, in its new building, has not only renounced the Hall where the historic “midnight speech” announced our freedom but, by default, forfeited parliament’s sovereignty as its historical legacy. This default has enabled the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, to emerge as the supreme arbiter of public grievances against executive excesses or legislative majoritarianism. Popular demands for judicial reviews against them are becoming the norm.But India is still a functioning democracy in its elementary post-colonial sense, and still worth reinforcing by possible corrections. We could learn the pitfalls of alternative options from our neighbours, if not from our own brief experience. Or we could even learn from someone like Winston Churchill, who, in his long political career, hardly supported democratic concerns, and said as much by calling democracy “the worst form of government…except for the available options”.Aswini K. Ray was a professor at JNU, New Delhi.