This article is an attempt to analyse the debates circumnavigating India’s position amid the world’s democracies in the context of the recent democracy indices. Since democracy and the press are correlated, the relation has been viewed in the light of the dwindling situation of the Indian press and the strangling of journalists with the coarse rope of UAPA.

Several of them would have protested if they could have found the right arguments.”

In the wake of the Lok Sabha elections in India, the world’s eyes are set on its largest democracy. With the ruling party’s intense confidence in winning the third term, there are apprehensions linked to the growing arrogance of power politics amid several instances that are forcing many to question the democracy in India. With an ever-falling press freedom index, weaponization of hate speech at the hands of the members of the ruling party and its supporters, demonization of journalists and activists, crony capitalism clearly visible in the association of media houses, the fourth estate is slumping. Is this the new India they promised?

 recognises India’s governance as an “electoral autocracy” in which multiparty elections take place but there are “insufficient levels of fundamental requisites such as freedom of expression and association, and free and fair elections.” The government has obviously scrutinised this ranking as 

. India is ranked 104 in the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) and 110 in the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) for its performance in 2023 amid about 180 countries. It is explained that the drop is owing to “gradual but substantial deterioration of freedom of expression compromising independence of the media” amid attacks on activists and journalists critical of the government. The Modi-led government is cited as the source of such suppression, silencing the people who are critical of its propaganda.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index of 2023 classifies India as a “flawed democracy” with a ranking of 41 out of over 160 countries. It cites an improvement in the scores for governmental functioning and political culture while a decline in India’s civil liberties score. Attention to the curbs on freedom of speech is yet again invited. This reiteration of an attack on individuals’ freedom of speech and expression is essential to be noted in terms of 

 in which India slips to 161st position in 2023 while it attained 150th rank in 2022. The latest rating has made people raise a finger at the evaluation process, calling it biased and unscientific, as Afghanistan under the Taliban known for its rigid restriction on press freedom is ranked 152nd, an improved ranking from 156th as its previous ranking of 2022. Another comparison with Pakistan is being made for it is positioned at 150, again better than India.

These rankings are often looked at with suspicion for being a western product. Most of the supporters of the Indian government approve of its idea of making its own democracy index. It is true that these rankings overlook hindrances to democracy and press freedom in the West and other parts of the world, be it the rigid restriction on abortion rights in the US or large-scale killing of journalists in Ukraine and Palestine, but it is clearly not enough to demonstrate that India’s democracy and press freedom are doing any better. The scrutiny is being shut by magnifying India’s shameful placement beneath its favourite rivals like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is the red of face more significant than the red on the democratic establishment?

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and a similar pattern followed through it to silence journalists and activists needs to be positioned in the debate. In March 2024, GN Saibaba, a Delhi University professor who was arrested on assumptions of his Maoist links, was released after 10 years of imprisonment. The obsession with secret conspiracies with China is not new but profound in the wake of the “anti-Nationalist” labelling. Similar concerns were raised as Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, and its HR head were arrested in October 2023 on grounds of criminal conspiracies with Chinese companies. It must be noted that this news organisation is a critic of the Modi government. The pattern also reaches Kashmir where journalists are frequently booked and arrested under the UAPA. Irfan Mehraj, a Kashmiri journalist working with DW was accused of funding terror activities, and Fahad Shah, founder and editor of The Kashmir Walla, was arrested multiple times under the act and was released after 600 days of imprisonment in November 2023.

, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) studies the distressing pattern of misusing the UAPA to control and fix dissent. It notes that during the UPA regime led by Manmohan Singh, the average number of UAPA cases registered per year by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was 13 while during the Modi-led NDA registered 34 such cases. “This contrast in figures clearly shows that during the Modi era, there is an increasing tendency to use UAPA as the chosen legal weapon.” The most invoked offence being “conspiracy” is itself a problematic idea of attacking individuals as terrorists on the basis of assumptions of possible threats. These cases linger on for months, at times even for years. The same report mentioned that the conviction rate of UAPA cases is merely 2.8%. It is safe to say that this law is draconian in nature and is held so tightly to terrorise those who criticise the government. Who are we exactly afraid of?

The falling of media houses into the hands of big names linked and having strong ties with the ruling party is another key indicator of India’s poorly performing press freedom index. In late 2022, the Adani group acquired a majority share in NDTV and that set a strong stage to question the independence and reliability of the mainstream media in India. 

 of Modi is an absurd match being questioned and pondered over.

In his tenure of 10 years, Modi never had a proper press conference. Factually speaking, the only press conference that was held in 2019 that the Prime Minister appeared for didn’t show his willingness to answer the questions from the present reporters. 

All the questions were passed on to Amit Shah.

 In this New India, the PM willingly appears for his radio show 

 but the dichotomy stands still at the dilemma whether it is the 

The campaigning for the upcoming elections is at a tremendous pace. Our bags are filled with guarantees and promises. Every candidate wants to drive India to the next level of global recognition. Some excite the crowds with the plans of manufacturing a New India. This New India is being revised with a new history, a new curriculum, and new gods. There is commodification of gods, of faith itself, of promises. Partisan press is on its track to teach the public how to decide about the next leader. All we know for certain is that this new India has certainly been whipped off of its identity as the ideal democracy. It is young, our democracy, and yet it’s rusted with the high notes of loud baritones trying to convince the world almost victoriously, that we are better than ever before. Is the dwindling of our democracy just a myth created in the wombs of the West, and incubated in the lies of the oppositions? For how long can we unsee? Ignorance was never a bliss.

The New India: Partisan Press and Dwindling Democracy

Posthumous art is the lifeline of the world of art. Artists and writers are often identified through their works that are made public after their deaths. Their personal artworks, letters, and journals are widely published and circulated all across the world. From Van Gogh to Sylvia Plath, there are abundant examples. But what about the ethical dilemma attached to it? What if the artists would have preferred to keep some of their works in their closets owing to their personal choices? Yet the world continues to delve into the private lives of such charismatic individuals, without their permission, perhaps with a tincture of guilt too.

I write only because there is a voice within me that will not be still.”

But she is still heard despite being long dead. Reverberation.

But she is more read than she chose to publish. The posthumous art.

But she is known more for her death. Her end.

And who benefits from the books and illustrations published posthumously in her name?

Sylvia Plath struggled alone throughout her life owing to some psychological impediments. Most of her last creative bloom of works were published by her husband Ted Hughes, who allegedly gave his wife abusive treatment and cheated on her but inherited her written work. It was he and the world who clenched the capital value of Plath’s art. Today when people talk about her, it is her depression and 

 lonely state. Will she ever cease to exist merely as a depressed talented writer and poet who died by suicide? Does the label of confession surpass the truth that her journals are out on sale? Well, many would argue that there is nothing wrong with publishing a dead artist’s works because nobody can attain the permits from the dead. So we choose 

 artists; we bring the dead to life. The dilemmatic finger is not raised here to study art and scrounge for the not-knowns. But is it a convenient blush of honor to ignore the aspect that several posthumous artists and writers lived a life full of sufferings, in many cases of sheer poverty and pain, only to be resurrected as long-dead brands who can’t file a lawsuit against you for monetizing something they pained for? Isn’t the world paying for these brilliant artists’ scars while their lives brimmed with boorish bruises, solitary confinements, and squillions of nothing?

Van Gogh is making money through an exciting immersive 360° art exhibition all over the world, except for the fact that he died long back, poor and miserable. Emily Dickinson is even more popular after her TV series, except for the fact that she was infamous for being 

 As she chose to live a secluded life and died much before her works were found and published by her family. Franz Kafka is the elitist emblem of realism and is revered for gifting 

 to the world, except for the fact that most of his works are known to have been published by his friend Max Brod after his death who overlooked Kafka’s request to destroy his manuscripts.

It can be reasoned that these posthumous productions light up the dark brooding cubicles in which the artists survived. They are given much-deserved recognition. They are mourned. They are enlivened. In many cases, the families gain economic benefits given the complicated inheritance aspect. We would not have been blessed with the benevolence of art if these resurrections never took place. Without Anne Frank’s 

 the first-hand insights into Jewish struggles in the Nazi Holocaust would have remained unsaid. But can we deny that her diary, an acclaimed classic work of war literature, was published posthumously and the world gets to read it widely? There is always an ethical tremor of 

It is undeniable that such works have been insightful and crucial for humankind. But authors and artists do have discretions to decide what is to out in the world signed under their names. Rapper icon Tupac’s posthumous album 

 is often considered an abrupt business commodity. In their 1998 article on the Rolling Stone website, Rob Sheffield wrote, 

“Tupac’s career as a dead icon is just beginning…”.

“The album doesn’t make sense of the Tupac legacy; it’s no map of the emotional complexities and contradictions that he brought to musical life.”

 It can be argued that this sort of meddling won’t be appreciated by Tupac or any artist perchance. Their skills, techniques, and artistic processes can’t be resurrected because these things are discrete and mortal. It’s definitely beyond any commodified business model.

The pillars of the Lazarus-used business models are usually the commercialized sentimental aspects of the posthumous writers and artists, and their tragedies. Their journeys are reduced to an emotional appeal. The audience is directed to look at their works as decisive confessions, a highly misunderstood way to interact with art. The metaphorical nuances are ignored. Ruland Barthes’s method to acknowledge the death of the author to interact with the concerned work is dismissed by many. He reasoned that writing begins when an author enters his death. The idea of considering that an author is pre-existing in his works is questioned by the French writer. Barthes asserted that the modern writer begins to exist simultaneously with his works. But we are conditioned to bind the producers with their works and limit them to narrow-minded notions to sell stories instead of respecting the artistic process.

Sylvia Plath is often limited to her death. Sappho is hardly beyond lesbianism for many. Van Gogh’s creativity is only sourced to his mental illness. Is art meant to be held in claustrophobic interpretations? What better do they yield other than economic motives that differentiate one posthumous artist from another? We immortalize them but in a fashion that is commercially viable to the ones alive. In this way, are we keeping their art alive? Or are we slowly wiping it away as long as the utility of misguidance prevails and profits? Posthumous art is sentimentally crucial but it is hostile to brand the artists as only tragic symbols thereby vandalising their artistic spirits that are very often theatricalised for economic gains.

Posthumous Art and the Ethical Dilemma

In the light of upcoming general election spree, this article delves into the ugly side of ‘politainment’ that targets women politicians and belittles them through name-calling and slandering. With a plethora of examples from national and international politics, the topic analyses how sexism rests in the womb of politics worldwide and tries women at every step with filthy slurs, especially when they are strong leaders and thinkers.

It was during the 18th century when the English literary circle of learned and intellectual women, frequently hosted by 

 These women were looked down upon for having interests in literature and politics, evidently dominated by men, meant for men alone. Their blasphemous sin was to have opinions and a stature for influence as elites. They were 

“treasonous, dissenter-led, vulgar mob”

 who didn’t behave as women were expected to. But today, in the 21st century, we assert our progress through the visuals of women actively participating in the intellectual spheres and otherwise. We flaunt the faces of women politicians on cover pages to brag our faith in gender equality. Pausing at this façade, what about those dirty remarks to character assassinate and belittle the women politicians? Demonizing, mocking, and slandering them proves that male politicians take pride in perpetuating stereotypes. Sexism and sexual slurs are kindled in everyday politics, unapologetically.

New Zealand Jacinda Ardern “Aunty Cindy”

, disparaging women politicians is not a newborn sexist habit. Male parliamentarians often use foul language to impose silence on women politicians, even when the latter are senior officials and ministry-holders. In an 

“The problem is that when a woman is attacked, she gets attacked for her character, but never for her policymaking,”

 There were vulgar rumors of a tunnel running between her and a senior leader’s home, as written by journalist 

She, The Leader: Women in Indian Politics’

. To the embarrassment of the world that haughtily displays faith in gender inclusivity and importance of women’s political participation, the idea is merely sold to win back votes.

, media collectively dealing with politics and entertainment, is always on a spur with a keen interest in reading and watching the mockery of women in politics. From memes establishing romantic relations between senior women leaders with male leaders to dubbed videos infantilizing their ideas and concerns, everything of that sort proves that most of the people do not take women politicians seriously. During her tenure, 

 was often reduced to being a little girl in local and international articles. She, like many other female politicians, has been projected as sentimental and weak, unsuitable to lead. Despite her strong leadership during COVID-19 and 

 terror attack, she was pulled down and forced to resign amid tremendous criticism owing to cost of living issues. It is evident that women have to bear the burden of unrealistic expectations, especially in the arena of politics.

I’ve wanted to ask my detractors which part of that phrase matters to them the most—is it “angry” or “black” or “woman”?

 Her strong commentary reflects upon the fact that no matter how high women are placed in hierarchy, prejudices in every strip of the spectrum remain to haunt them. Obama is looked upon as a strong influential feminist icon but one can never ignore how much she has tolerated when it comes to ruthless sexist jokes and pejoratives. Far-right conspiracy theorist and owner of website 

 ridiculed Michelle Obama by using his disrespectful confidence to abruptly conclude that 

. This is one among infinite examples to show how women are objectified as tiny beings meant to be laughed at.

was booked for using the following derogatory remarks

I brought her [Jaya Prada] to Rampur. You are a witness that I did not allow anyone to touch her body. It took you 17 years to identify her real face but I got to know in 17 days that she wears khaki underwear.”

Can we really believe that such are the words of a politician of a significant political party of our country? Is it sane at all to use such a reference to debate over a political matter? BJP’s Vice-President in Uttar Pradesh 

 once called Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief 

Even a prostitute fulfils her commitment after she is paid. But Mayawati sells party tickets to anyone who paid her the highest amount.”

As one reads these offensive instances, it feels severely unpleasant to believe that these obnoxious remarks have been uttered by male parliamentarians, eager to take the responsibility of an entire nation, who may think that all it takes to criticize a woman politician’s ideas or policies is a foul mouth targeting their characters. There are several ruthless ways by which women politicians are attacked such as by demonizing them, calling them with childish and filthy names, portraying them as a crazy and hysterical good-for-nothing figure.

In one such case, Brazil’s former President 

denigerating sexual position on car stickers, followed by which UN Women Brazil condemned this act as a form of sexual violence.

 There are no limits to belittling women politicians in public so that the opinion formed is very much in the favor of the slanderers. This was even evident in a study conducted by 

 during the 2019 General Elections in India. 

The analyses found that 13.8% of the tweets that mentioned 95 women politicians in the study were either “problematic” or “abusive.”

Sexism is the enemy of feminism. Even in disguise, sexism shows a community filled with prejudices against women and girls. In politics, it is wide open and always ready to eat away the strengths of women who try bringing reforms by representing the ones who are shut and wronged. But what’s worse? These women leaders face the ugliness of those who don’t take them seriously, mock them, use sexual violence to silence them, yell nasty things to make up the minds of people until they firmly believe that women are pathetic, emotional, vulnerable, and indecisive when it comes to the clumsy world of politics. In fact, it is a structured way of perpetuating prejudicial mindset towards what Beauvoir aptly identified to be treated as “

Articles by Hardika Sachdeva

The New India: Partisan Press and Dwindling Democracy

Posthumous Art and the Ethical Dilemma

Sexism, Slurs, and Slanders: Women in Politics

The New India: Partisan Press and Dwindling Democracy

Posthumous Art and the Ethical Dilemma

Sexism, Slurs, and Slanders: Women in Politics