## Colophon tags:: url:: https://archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative %% title:: Inside India’s Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative type:: [[clipped-note]] author:: [[@archive.is]] %% ## Notes > Inside India’s Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative — [view in context](https://hyp.is/M9teVvgCEe-fQIO1N97FjQ/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ date:: [[2025-03-03]] [[author]]:: [[@Anisha Dutta]] > Nine months earlier, Sanjeev Sanyal, then Principal Economic Adviser in the Finance Ministry, had prepared a 36-page internal presentation revealing the depth of the government’s concern. (More details in this paper.) His document, “Subjective Factors that Impact India’s Sovereign Ratings,” revealed how these seemingly academic rankings had very real consequences: they directly influenced the World Governance Indicators, a benchmark used by major credit rating agencies—such as Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P—to evaluate a country’s investment credibility. Lower democracy scores meant higher risk ratings, leading directly to increased borrowing costs. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/j1DDmPgCEe-WIwu4bTT2ww/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > The implications, he explained, were painfully practical: higher borrowing costs on international markets, weakened investor confidence, and potential barriers to critical development projects. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/t1AzuvgCEe-A-6OpJqemxQ/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > The government’s frustration centered on methodology. According to Sanyal, these influential ratings depended too heavily on subjective perceptions—surveys, expert opinions, and assessments from international organisations—rather than hard data. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/-BaxYvgCEe-uDC_tCkN4qQ/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ Not entirely unfair, tbh. Again, we know that the response, though, is rarely one that seeks to fix any deep-rooted / underlying issues, but about managing optics. > The contradiction was striking. While ministers publicly dismissed these rankings as Western meddling, officials behind the scenes were calculating their financial impact. Two parallel realities existed—one crafted for public consumption, another guiding actual policy. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/JavmpvgDEe-nK79DRmQDMw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ Links to another thing I have been thinking about -- where does the line between discretion and dishonesty lie? > It began as a conventional bureaucratic exercise to fix a ratings problem. It evolved into something else entirely: a blueprint for how a state can stop playing by established rules, and instead rewrite them to control the narrative. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/YzXQwvgDEe-giZdQmEkM-w/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > This is the story of how the Narendra Modi government responded when those realities collided. Over four years, I’ve tracked this response through internal documents, conversations with sources within the administration, and systematic observation of government reactions to international criticism. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/Y0HErvgDEe-C-SNaSn-lLw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > In early 2020, Cabinet Secretary Rajeev Gauba set up a high-level committee of secretaries with a specific mission: track India’s performance across 32 major global indices and find ways to improve it. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/rOGdlvgDEe-m0rfm1tGhyw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > Ministries were directed to analyse India’s rankings, identify areas of weakness, and recommend concrete actions to lift performance. The approach was meant to be systematic, data-driven, and results-oriented. But governments don’t always reform in response to rankings—sometimes, they just “perform” for them. India had done this before. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/yLEUrPgDEe-ioHP5LzOW0w/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > Between 2014 and 2019, the Modi government aggressively sought improvements in India’s ranking on the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index. When Mr Modi took office, India ranked 142nd. By 2018, it had jumped to 77th. The next year, it climbed to 63rd. It wasn’t a fluke: the government had reverse-engineered the ranking, strategically identifying procedural tweaks that directly boosted India’s scores in Delhi and Mumbai—the two cities evaluated by the World Bank. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/IlAYlvgEEe-1V494Mr4DWw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ One comment on the fluke aspect: I do recall seeing a report that claimed that some of improvements to India's rankings were a methodology change. But I have no idea where I read this, so not credible until I can find it. Add lots of salt. None of this is to discount the claim made here, that measures may have been targeted with the specific intent of improving these ratings. Both can simultaneously be true. > This is the paradox at the heart of global indices: they can serve as diagnostic tools driving real reform—or become mere metrics that governments tactically manipulate. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/jntYePgEEe-bfLMvALp1oQ/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ [[Campbell's Law]] and [[Goodheart's Law]]. > The task was assigned to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which instructed India’s High Commission in London to reach out to Fung Siu, EIU’s Principal Economist for Asia. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/GKwJKvgFEe-HfCekMOFNMw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ Seeking the details of authors/contributors seems a little scary, tbh. > It was only after sustained efforts that Siu eventually agreed to a virtual meeting. During the Zoom call, Siu outlined EIU’s methodology. The Democracy Index, she explained, was based on 60 questions—split between qualitative and quantitative assessments—covering five broad categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, political participation, functioning of government, and political culture. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/JIVq8vgFEe-6IdN91w0zMg/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > When officials pressed further, Siu made one point clear: government data was not a primary source: “Ms Siu politely but firmly declined the offer from the Mission to supply data, research or similar inputs.” While EIU reviewed official reports from institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India and Finance Ministry, these were only considered supplementary. The index itself relied heavily on independent sources, including Freedom House, Pew Research, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders, among others. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/RNKimPgFEe-6XkM0lfzxPA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > If India’s Democracy Index score was to change, it wouldn’t be through dialogue with EIU. These rankings were shaped by external institutions, following their own processes—processes that did not accept government input beyond publicly available data. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/TbCWzPgFEe-0D9dfE5YiVQ/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > Prakash saw a contradiction: How could theocratic states with no separation of religion and government score higher than India? How could a country with universal suffrage and constitutional rights rank below nations that didn’t even hold elections? He had a point: Who gets to decide what democracy means? — [view in context](https://hyp.is/eftwgPgFEe-zsfuW2aASyA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > This was precisely the conflict the Indian government chose to seize on. If democracy was not a fixed standard, but a contested idea, India could argue that the West had no exclusive right to define it. Ordinarily, such a letter might have quietly disappeared under scores of such letters and suggestions the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) receives on a daily basis. But this time, something unusual happened. The PMO took Prakash’s proposal seriously — [view in context](https://hyp.is/iTR01PgFEe-o_xOmKT6FUA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > In March 2021, the PMO directed the MEA to prepare a formal presentation on the “Robustness of Indian Democracy”—an attempt to reframe how India’s democracy was seen globally. This presentation portrayed democracy not as a system built solely on individual rights, institutional independence, and checks on power, but as a civilisational inheritance—rooted deeply in mythology, even citing the Ramayana as evidence of ancient self-governance. It highlighted election officials trekking to remote Himalayan villages to collect just 16 votes, or setting up polling booths in Gujarat’s Gir forest for a single voter. It emphasised how democratic politics had peacefully transferred power from urban elites to previously marginalised groups, describing this as a social revolution achieved through ballot boxes. Above all, it underscored democracy’s success in holding together a nation of 4,635 distinct communities—including a population where 19.4% are religious minorities, speaking dozens of languages and expressing countless traditions politically. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/ETtFfvgGEe-1X69ky7E2xA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > The underlying idea was simple: Western standards didn’t apply here. India had its own definition of democracy. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/MW6PVPgGEe-1bLMwR_5TNA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > When the topic resurfaced in February 2022—with an MP asking why India had fallen to 53rd on the EIU's Democracy Index—the government again sought to block the question. This time, it cited a procedural rule stating questions “shall not raise matters under the control of bodies or persons not primarily responsible to the Government of India.” — [view in context](https://hyp.is/apFX5PgGEe-fbDMYmuH0Iw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > In early 2023, the government began working on something new: its own democracy index. The project was assigned to the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), a think tank that works closely with the government on international policy initiatives. As a senior government official told me, the task was to develop a homegrown ratings system that could act as an alternative to the Western-led democracy indices that India had spent years contesting. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/e7K6BPgGEe-RMZP2TpiC9Q/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > A coordinated campaign to discredit V-Dem followed—both online and offline. At the same time, another voice suddenly emerged, quickly becoming a fixture in the debate. In 2022, at the India Today Conclave, Salvatore Babones, an American-born sociologist, was introduced as a contrarian voice on India’s democratic health. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/uTM7OPgGEe-6yg-V2eEtJw/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > Babones’ core argument revolved around who was assessing India in the first place. “The experts at V-Dem, I have to stress, are mostly people in India,” he told me in an interview. “How do they know whether or not the electoral commission is independent? None of them were on the electoral commission. None of them were interviewing members of the electoral commission. They’re all just giving their impression.” — [view in context](https://hyp.is/xRvCRPgGEe-2SwdDWjbHGA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > Babones had found the right moment, the right platform, and the right audience—and from there, his message spread. All of this reflected the style of governance the GoM report had outlined—governance through narrative control. The homegrown democracy index, diplomatic messaging, discrediting critics, amplifying supporters, and carefully managing public discourse were all parts of this strategy. In this worldview, public discourse was not a space where ideas could freely co-exist, but a battleground where the state had to assert dominance. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/7JP90vgGEe-TEe88wc7xag/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > Staffan Lindberg, the director of the V-Dem Institute, had seen governments react badly to democracy rankings before. Turkey under Erdoğan had lashed out. Hungary under Orbán had tried to discredit the system. But India, he told me, was different. “It’s been the most obvious and blatant reaction from a government and government officials,” he said in an interview. In Turkey and Hungary, backlash against rankings was largely driven by party supporters. In India, however, it was the government itself—ministers, officials, diplomatic channels—leading the pushback. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/HTKBovgHEe-pUld-72bYdg/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ A certain line from Sabrina Carpenter's "Please Please Please" comes to mind. > In July 2021, officials requested the Rajya Sabha secretariat disallow a question about “India's position on the democracy index,” claiming it was too sensitive for parliamentary debate. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/IYcr9PgHEe-e72efM-aIUA/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ Was also in The Reporters Collective story. > Nowhere is this mindset articulated more clearly than in the confidential Group of Ministers (GoM) report on Government Communication—a document I accessed, which starkly outlines how the government plans to shape and control the information ecosystem itself. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/IxhU1PgHEe-2Wq8sK95XiQ/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) ⬆️ What a story this was... > V-Dem, like other democracy indices, relies on local experts to evaluate conditions in each country. Their identities are kept strictly anonymous—a precaution taken everywhere from Sweden to North Korea—to protect researchers from potential pressure or retaliation. “This is something we took very seriously from the beginning,” he said. “We are legally bound by Swedish and European law to protect their identity because of the potential threat.” That threat, he explained, had become real in India. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/QqJKEvgHEe-60g89V0b51Q/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative) > This evolution reveals a deeper truth: the point isn’t whether democracy indices are perfect—they aren’t. What matters is how criticism was met with efforts at delegitimisation. The “West vs us” rhetoric became a convenient weapon to discredit all criticism, emerging from a fundamental frustration: unlike with domestic media, the government couldn’t control global discourse. And here, between the government’s public dismissals and private scrambling, lies a revealing contradiction: a democracy that claims strength but cannot tolerate scrutiny. — [view in context](https://hyp.is/hM9_QPgHEe-nZ7d2Mxyj2A/archive.is/2025.03.03-064526/https://www.theplankmag.com/india-democracy-narrative)