As a media practitioner and, more importantly, as a concerned citizen of this country, I write this with deep anguish. India’s democracy rests on three pillars—politics, the judiciary, and institutions that regulate public life. When one pillar weakens, the system trembles. When more than one begins to lose credibility, the tremors become impossible to ignore.
For decades, politics in India has struggled with a credibility deficit. Many citizens often recall the old adage that politics is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” While that may sound harsh, politicians themselves must accept responsibility for creating such a perception. Corruption scandals, opportunistic alliances, and electoral manipulation have all contributed to a deep erosion of public trust.
Yet, politics in India has also shown the capacity for renewal. The rise of the BJP-led NDA under Narendra Modi changed the narrative to some extent. Many citizens began to believe that politics could again become a vehicle for governance and development rather than mere power games.
But even that narrative has limits.
The uncomfortable truth is that the problem does not lie only with politicians. It also lies with the electorate. Vote-buying remains a stubborn reality in several parts of the country. When voters are willing to exchange their franchise for short-term gains, the democratic process itself becomes compromised.
Had voters consistently rejected such practices, the political culture of the country might have evolved very differently.
To be fair, the Indian electorate has also demonstrated its ability to correct course. The rise of alternative political forces at different points in time reflects a willingness to experiment and reform.
However, the 2024 general election also revealed how easily public opinion can be shaped by narratives and misinformation. The Opposition campaign—led prominently by Rahul Gandhi—pushed the claim that if the BJP crossed 400 seats in Parliament, the Constitution itself could be rewritten and reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes might be abolished. These fears, widely amplified during the campaign, appear to have influenced sections of voters despite the absence of concrete evidence.
The result was a surprising electoral setback for the ruling alliance and a revival of the once-dominant Indian National Congress, which improved its tally significantly. Parties such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and All India Trinamool Congress also strengthened their positions.
Political debates and electoral swings are part of democracy. They do not worry me.
What worries me far more is the growing perception that even the judiciary—the last refuge for the ordinary citizen—is no longer immune from questions of credibility.
Historically, courts in India commanded immense respect. For millions without political influence, the judiciary represented the ultimate guardian of justice.
But recent developments have raised uncomfortable questions.
Several controversial cases have seen prolonged delays, conflicting observations, or outcomes that have puzzled legal observers. The handling of certain sensitive matters—such as the episode involving a judge of the Delhi High Court and allegations related to the destruction of currency notes—has left many citizens wondering whether accountability mechanisms are robust enough.
Similarly, judicial decisions related to high-profile political figures, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, have sparked intense public debate. Courts, of course, decide cases based on evidence and law. Yet when observations made in earlier hearings appear to contrast with later outcomes, public confusion is inevitable.
Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, the problem is not confined to politics or national institutions. Even sports administration is now caught in the same credibility crisis.
Take the case of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. Several disputes relating to governance and financial management have been pending before courts for years. Repeated delays in resolving such matters have created uncertainty within the cricketing community in Hyderabad.
When judicial decisions are reserved for long periods after hearings conclude, it inevitably fuels speculation—even if such speculation may be unfair. Transparency and timely rulings are therefore essential to maintain confidence in the system.
Equally puzzling is the apparent reluctance of the Board of Control for Cricket in India to intervene decisively despite persistent reports of administrative disputes within certain state associations. Given the enormous financial resources flowing into cricket today, strong governance standards are more necessary than ever.
India’s democratic strength lies in the credibility of its institutions. Politics can survive criticism. Elections can correct mistakes.
But when citizens begin to question the integrity or efficiency of institutions meant to deliver justice, the consequences are far more serious.
This is not an attack on individuals. It is a plea for institutional introspection.
Because when politics, sport and the justice system simultaneously face questions of credibility, the real casualty is public trust—and once lost, that trust is painfully difficult to rebuild.
