Use of state power against Opposition shrinks democratic space, says Ashwani Kumar

Former Union Minister Ashwani Kumar's statement regarding the "discernible drift today towards a muscular state at the expense of a constitutional one," and its impact on shrinking democratic space, is a critical observation for understanding contemporary Indian polity. This statement highlights a fundamental tension between the exercise of state power and the preservation of democratic principles, a cornerstone of India's constitutional framework.

**Background Context: India's Democratic Fabric**

India, as the world's largest democracy, has, since its independence in 1947, committed itself to a constitutional democracy characterized by a multi-party system, fundamental rights, an independent judiciary, and a robust system of checks and balances. The Constitution of India, adopted on January 26, 1950, enshrines these principles, aiming to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. The role of the Opposition is crucial in this setup; it acts as a watchdog, scrutinizing government policies, holding the executive accountable, and offering alternative perspectives. Dissent and debate are not merely tolerated but are considered essential for a healthy democracy, ensuring that policies are well-vetted and public interests are served.

**What Happened: The Essence of the Statement**

Ashwani Kumar's concern revolves around the increasing use of state machinery and power, particularly by the executive, against political opponents. A "muscular state" implies a government that wields its authority assertively, sometimes arguably beyond the spirit of constitutional norms, to achieve its objectives. This often manifests through the actions of various enforcement agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Income Tax Department. While these agencies are vital for maintaining law and order and combating corruption, their perceived selective targeting of opposition leaders, activists, and critics can create an environment of fear and suppression. This approach, when it overshadows due process and fairness, undermines the "constitutional state," which is predicated on the rule of law, adherence to procedures, and respect for fundamental rights and the separation of powers.

**Key Stakeholders Involved**

1. **The Government/Ruling Party:** As the executive, it possesses control over state institutions and enforcement agencies. Its actions and policies are at the core of the "muscular state" debate.

2. **Opposition Parties:** They are the direct target of the alleged misuse of state power. Their ability to function effectively, voice dissent, and campaign freely is curtailed if they face constant legal challenges or investigations perceived as politically motivated.

3. **State Institutions (ED, CBI, IT Dept.):** These agencies are the instruments through which state power is exercised. Their autonomy, impartiality, and adherence to due process are critical for maintaining public trust and upholding the rule of law. Allegations of political interference compromise their institutional integrity.

4. **The Judiciary:** As the custodian of the Constitution, the judiciary plays a vital role in upholding fundamental rights, ensuring due process, and reviewing executive actions. Its independence is paramount in checking any overreach by the state.

5. **Media and Civil Society:** These act as watchdogs, bringing instances of alleged misuse of power to public attention and advocating for democratic norms and civil liberties.

**Significance for India**

This trend has profound implications for India's democratic health. Politically, a weakened Opposition leads to reduced accountability of the government, potentially resulting in unchecked power and a decline in parliamentary debate. Socially, it can foster a climate of fear, discouraging dissent and self-censorship among citizens, journalists, and activists, thereby impacting freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). Economically, a lack of robust debate and scrutiny can lead to less transparent policy-making and potentially impact investor confidence if governance is perceived as arbitrary rather than rule-based. It also risks eroding India's international standing as a vibrant democracy.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions**

Concerns about the misuse of state power are not new to India. The period of the Emergency (1975-77) under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi stands as a stark historical example where fundamental rights were suspended, and state power was used extensively against political opponents. This experience led to a deeper appreciation for constitutional safeguards. The Constitution provides several articles to prevent such overreach: **Article 14** (Equality before law), **Article 21** (Protection of life and personal liberty, ensuring due process), and importantly, **Article 19(1)(a)** (Freedom of speech and expression). The principle of separation of powers, though not explicitly stated, is implicit in the Constitution through the distinct functions assigned to the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, reinforced by articles like **Article 50** (separation of judiciary from executive). The 'Basic Structure Doctrine,' enunciated in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including democracy and the rule of law, cannot be altered, acting as a powerful check against legislative or executive overreach. Laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while designed to combat serious crimes, have often been cited in debates concerning their potential for misuse and impact on civil liberties.

**Future Implications**

If the trend towards a "muscular state" continues unchecked, it could lead to further erosion of democratic institutions, a decline in civil liberties, and increased political polarization. It might also challenge the federal structure of India, as states ruled by opposition parties often feel targeted. The long-term implication could be a shift towards an executive-dominated system, where the checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution become less effective. The responsibility to uphold constitutionalism rests not only with the judiciary but also with an alert citizenry, a free press, and a vigilant Parliament. Strengthening institutional autonomy, ensuring accountability of enforcement agencies, and fostering a culture of democratic dialogue are crucial for safeguarding India's democratic future.