India, the world’s largest democracy, stands as a testament to the resilience of democratic ideals. With a population of over 1.4 billion, it conducts elections on a scale unmatched anywhere, delivering competitive outcomes and vibrant participation. The 2024 general election saw 642 million voters turn out—a staggering 66%—electing a coalition government where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 240 seats, while the opposition INDIA alliance clinched 234. Yet, the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute, based in Sweden, has branded India an “electoral autocracy” since 2018, a label reaffirmed in its 2025 Democracy Report. This classification, which places India alongside hybrid regimes like Hungary, reeks of hypocrisy when you consider the ground realities of India’s democratic vibrancy. The V-Dem hypocrisy on India lies in its skewed methodology, selective framing, and failure to account for the unique context of a nation that thrives on its electoral dynamism. As someone who believes India’s democracy is robust, with free and fair elections, I see V-Dem’s verdict as not just misleading but potentially unethical and politically motivated.
India’s Democratic Pulse: A Vibrant Reality
Let’s start with the obvious: India’s democracy is alive and kicking. The sheer logistics of its elections—millions of polling stations, electronic voting machines, and a diverse electorate spanning languages, religions, and regions—make it a marvel. The 2024 election, held across seven phases, saw the BJP return to power, but not without a stronger opposition that gained significant ground. This isn’t the hallmark of an “autocracy,” where dissent is crushed or elections rigged. Compare India to true autocracies like North Korea or Eritrea, where no elections occur, or even to electoral autocracies like Turkey, where opposition leaders face imprisonment. India’s opposition parties campaign freely, hold rallies, and win states—look at West Bengal or Tamil Nadu, where regional parties dominate.
Voter turnout tells another story. At 66%, India’s participation dwarfs many “liberal democracies” V-Dem ranks higher, like the United States (46% in 2020) or France (47% in 2022 legislative elections). The Election Commission of India (ECI), an independent body, oversees this process with global acclaim for its efficiency. Allegations of voter suppression or fraud exist, as in any democracy, but no court has overturned election results on systemic grounds. The peaceful transfer of power in past elections (2004, 2014) further cements India’s democratic credentials. To call this an “electoral autocracy” feels like a deliberate mischaracterization, ignoring the lived experience of millions who vote without fear.
I firmly believe India’s elections are free and fair, reflecting the will of its people. The vibrancy of its democracy isn’t just in numbers but in its spirit—public debates, noisy campaigns, and a media ecosystem that, while imperfect, hosts countless voices. V-Dem’s label dismisses this, cherry-picking data to fit a narrative that smells of external agendas.
V-Dem’s Methodology: A House of Cards
The V-Dem hypocrisy on India starts with its methodology. The institute relies on over 470 indicators, aggregated into indices like the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI), which scores India at ~0.45 in 2025, ranking it 100th out of 179 countries. This places India below nations like Nepal (55th), despite Nepal’s recent political turmoil, or Bangladesh, which saw a government toppled by protests in 2024. How does a country with India’s electoral track record rank so low? The answer lies in V-Dem’s heavy reliance on subjective expert assessments.
V-Dem claims its 4,000+ global experts provide objective evaluations, but who are these experts? Their anonymity, meant to protect against coercion, raises questions about accountability. Are they Indian scholars with on-ground knowledge, or foreign academics with limited context? The Indian government has called out such reports as reflecting a “colonial mindset,” and there’s merit to this. V-Dem’s framework prioritizes Western liberal ideals—individual rights, unfettered media, and judicial supremacy—which don’t always align with India’s majoritarian, culturally rooted democracy. For instance, laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), criticized by V-Dem for curbing dissent, are defended by the government as necessary for national security in a region plagued by terrorism. Context matters, but V-Dem’s one-size-fits-all lens ignores it.
The LDI’s emphasis on civil liberties, like freedom of expression, also skews results. V-Dem ranks India’s media freedom on par with Pakistan’s, a country with a history of military coups. This is absurd when you consider India’s sprawling media landscape—thousands of TV channels, newspapers, and online platforms, from NDTV to Republic TV, airing every shade of opinion. Yes, there are concerns about media ownership or government pressure, but equating India to Pakistan betrays a lack of nuance. Social media platforms like X amplify this vibrancy, with millions of Indians debating everything from policy to cricket. Recent X posts have called out V-Dem’s rankings as “absurd,” pointing to Nepal’s protests or Bangladesh’s chaos as evidence of inconsistent standards. One user quipped, “V-Dem certifies US democracy despite police brutality, but India’s elections are ‘autocratic’? Laughable.”
The Hypocrisy of Selective Framing
V-Dem’s 2025 report, 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped?, labels India one of the “top 10 worst autocratizers,” blaming it for nearly half the global population living under declining regimes. This is a sleight of hand. India’s population (1.4 billion) naturally amplifies its impact in global stats, but that doesn’t mean its democracy is crumbling. The report highlights declines in egalitarian measures (e.g., minority rights) and electoral cleanliness (e.g., funding transparency), but these are selectively framed. For instance, V-Dem flags electoral bond schemes as opaque, yet India’s opposition parties also use similar mechanisms globally—look at Super PACs in the U.S. Why single out India?
The report’s claim of “government disinformation” is another sticking point. While misinformation exists everywhere (U.S. elections, anyone?), V-Dem suggests India’s government weaponizes it more than Bangladesh. This ignores Bangladesh’s recent history of internet blackouts and protest crackdowns. The hypocrisy lies in holding India to a harsher standard while softer-pedaling smaller nations with less global scrutiny. My view is that V-Dem’s narrative plays into a broader Western discomfort with India’s assertive, majority-driven governance under Modi, which doesn’t neatly fit their liberal mold.
Political Motivations and Ethical Questions
I believe V-Dem’s label is not just biased but potentially politically motivated. The timing of its reports often aligns with geopolitical tensions—India’s growing global clout, from G20 leadership to vaccine diplomacy, challenges Western dominance. Labeling it an “electoral autocracy” can fuel narratives that undermine India’s soft power. Who funds V-Dem? While it’s primarily backed by academic grants and institutions like the European Union, the lack of transparency about expert selection or funding specifics invites suspicion. The Indian government’s dismissal of such reports as “foreign interference” resonates here. Why should a Sweden-based institute dictate how India’s democracy is perceived?
Ethically, V-Dem’s approach raises red flags. By slapping a loaded term like “autocracy” on a nation with robust elections, it risks misinforming global audiences and empowering domestic opposition to paint a distorted picture. X posts from Indian users reflect this frustration, with one noting, “V-Dem calls India autocratic but ignores Canada’s trucker protest crackdowns. Double standards much?” The label can also destabilize perceptions of India’s stability, affecting investor confidence or diplomatic ties. If V-Dem’s goal is academic rigor, why not highlight India’s strengths—its electoral scale, voter engagement—alongside critiques? That would be balanced, not this one-sided takedown.
The Ground Reality: India’s Democracy Thrives
Let’s zoom out to the bigger picture. India’s democracy isn’t perfect—show me one that is. Concerns about media pressure, judicial delays, or laws like UAPA are real, but they don’t negate the core of its democratic spirit. The 2024 election saw opposition parties like Congress and Samajwadi Party make gains, winning key states. Regional players like Mamata Banerjee’s TMC or MK Stalin’s DMK hold sway, proving federalism’s strength. The judiciary, while strained, has checked the government—take the 2023 ruling against parts of the electoral bond scheme. These aren’t the signs of an autocracy, electoral or otherwise.
On X, the sentiment leans heavily toward rejecting V-Dem’s narrative. Users point to India’s economic growth (7% GDP in 2024), stable governance, and global influence as evidence of a functioning democracy. One post read, “V-Dem ranks India below Sri Lanka, where riots ousted a president. Tell me this isn’t a joke.” Even opposition voices, while critical of Modi, rarely call India autocratic—they focus on policy, not regime type. This grassroots pushback underscores the disconnect between V-Dem’s ivory tower and India’s chaotic, vibrant reality.https://theinfohatch.com/vocal-for-local-pm-modis-gst-reform-to-shield/
A Call for Fairness
The V-Dem hypocrisy on India isn’t just about a flawed report; it’s about the broader trend of external indices trying to box in a nation that defies easy categorization. India’s democracy is messy, loud, and deeply rooted in its people’s will. It’s not Sweden’s or Canada’s—it’s uniquely Indian, with strengths (massive participation, competitive elections) and flaws (media pressures, minority concerns). V-Dem’s failure to balance these is where its hypocrisy shines through. If it’s going to critique, it should do so with humility, acknowledging India’s context rather than wielding a Western yardstick.www.timesofindia.com
I stand by the view that India’s elections are free and fair, its democracy vibrant. V-Dem’s “electoral autocracy” label feels like a politically charged overreach, ignoring the pulse of a billion-plus voters. The institute should rethink its approach—engage with India’s complexities, not reduce it to a data point. Until then, its reports will remain a case study in double standards, dismissed rightly by a nation that knows its democratic worth.
1 thought on “V-Dem Hypocrisy on India: A Critique of the “Electoral Autocracy” Label”