Comparing Narendra Modi and Indira Gandhi: The Centralisation of Power Debate

Comparisons between Narendra Modi and Indira Gandhi on the concentration of political power are among the most frequently made, and most frequently contested, in Indian political commentary. This article lays out the genuine parallels critics draw, alongside the one critical structural difference that separates the two eras.

The Centralisation Parallel

Modi’s early years as Prime Minister drew direct comparisons to Indira Gandhi’s governing style, with commentary noting that his first year in office saw significant centralisation of power, including concentrating authority within the Prime Minister’s Office and abolishing the Planning Commission in favour of NITI Aayog, moves that some BJP insiders themselves reportedly found discomforting, according to background covered in Modi’s own biographical record. Even earlier, during his 2012 Gujarat re-election campaign as Chief Minister, Modi reportedly sought to identify himself personally with the state of Gujarat in a manner commentators compared to the strategy Indira Gandhi used during the Emergency period of personally identifying with the nation itself, a comparison rooted in Congress president D.K. Barooah’s infamous 1975 slogan “India is Indira and Indira is India.” India’s 2014 general election was itself widely described in contemporary coverage as functioning like a referendum on Modi personally rather than a more conventional party-versus-party contest, a degree of personalisation commentators noted was historically unusual for BJP’s own campaign style up to that point.

Read this next: Narendra Modi vs Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Comparing Governance Styles

The Critical Difference: The 1975 Emergency

Any comparison between the two leaders requires being precise about one fundamental, non-comparable difference. Indira Gandhi formally proclaimed a national Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution on June 25, 1975, following an Allahabad High Court ruling that had voided her 1971 election victory on electoral malpractice grounds. The Emergency lasted 21 months, during which civil liberties were suspended, press censorship was formally imposed, more than 100,000 political opponents and journalists were jailed, and Parliament postponed scheduled elections entirely, a legally declared, constitutionally sanctioned suspension of ordinary democratic government. Modi has declared no Emergency at any point in his tenure, and both national and state elections have proceeded on their regular constitutional schedule throughout, including the 2024 general election, which produced a result requiring him to govern through a coalition rather than an outright majority. Notably, Modi’s own government has marked June 25 each year as “Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas,” or Constitution Murder Day, specifically to invoke the Emergency as a historical example of Congress’s own past authoritarian overreach.

Why “Undeclared Emergency” Language Should Be Read Carefully

Critics concerned about press freedom or the treatment of political dissent under Modi have sometimes used phrases like “undeclared emergency” to describe the current environment. This language is explicitly rhetorical rather than a claim of any formal, legal suspension of constitutional government comparable to 1975, and conflating the two, treating rhetorical criticism as equivalent to an actual declared Emergency, would misrepresent both the historical record and the nature of the current criticism being made.

Institutional Concerns in Both Eras, Through Different Mechanisms

Both leaders have faced accusations of weakening independent institutions, though through different specific mechanisms. During Indira Gandhi’s era, the government superseded three senior Supreme Court judges in 1973 to install a more favourable Chief Justice following the landmark Kesavananda Bharati ruling, a move widely criticised at the time as executive interference in judicial independence. In the Modi era, Reuters reported that 14 opposition parties petitioned the Supreme Court in March 2024 alleging misuse of the Enforcement Directorate against political rivals, with senior advocate A.M. Singhvi citing court filings claiming that roughly 95 percent of individuals investigated by the agency since 2014 belonged to opposition parties. On press freedom specifically, Reporters Without Borders ranked India 161st of 180 countries in its 2023 index, describing the situation as “very serious,” a ranking covered by The Hindu, Frontline, and The Wire among other outlets. On the Election Commission, the Economic Times reported that a 2023 law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Prime Minister-appointed nominee on the panel selecting Election Commissioners, following an earlier Supreme Court ruling that had required the Chief Justice’s involvement, a change the outlet described as giving the ruling government a more dominant role in the selection process.

If you like this, you must read: Delhi vs Centre: Understanding the Lieutenant Governor Powers Debate

A Sharp Ideological Contrast on Economics

Despite the centralisation parallels, the two leaders pursued nearly opposite economic ideologies. Indira Gandhi nationalised 14 major banks in 1969, reportedly without even consulting her own finance minister beforehand, and pursued a broadly socialist economic policy through much of her tenure. Modi’s economic record, by contrast, has been consistently market-oriented, pursuing privatisation, liberalisation, and relaxed foreign investment rules, meaning the centralisation critique made of both leaders applies specifically to their governing and decision-making style rather than to any shared economic ideology.

Bottom Line

Modi and Indira Gandhi have drawn genuine, recurring comparisons on concentrating decision-making power within the Prime Minister’s Office and cultivating a personally centred political brand, but the comparison has firm limits: Indira Gandhi’s 1975 Emergency represented a formally declared, legally sanctioned suspension of India’s democratic government for 21 months, something Modi has not done, with elections continuing on schedule throughout his tenure, a distinction that must anchor any responsible comparison between the two leaders’ approaches to power.

FAQ

Abhyudaya Verma