External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar forcefully countered the prevailing Western narrative of global democracy being in decline, asserting that India's democratic framework is not only thriving but also actively delivering governance and tangible benefits to its citizens. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference during a panel discussion titled "Live to Vote Another Day: Fortifying Democratic Resilience", Jaishankar made a compelling statement by holding up his inked index finger—a visible mark of his recent participation in India's electoral process. His gesture was symbolic of India's deep-rooted democratic culture, where elections are conducted smoothly, and the results are widely accepted without dispute.
Jaishankar addressed what he described as a growing "political pessimism" in the West regarding democracy's efficacy, pushing back against the notion that democratic institutions worldwide are under siege. He highlighted India’s electoral strength, pointing out that in the country’s 2024 general elections, nearly 700 million people exercised their franchise out of an eligible electorate of 900 million. Unlike many other nations where election integrity is questioned, he noted that India's democratic process remains robust, with votes counted within a single day and results accepted without significant challenges. According to him, rather than weakening, India’s democracy has only strengthened over the decades, with voter participation increasing by 20% compared to previous generations.
During the discussion, Jaishankar found himself at odds with U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin, who argued that democracy, while essential, does not directly put food on the table. Jaishankar firmly rejected this notion, countering that in India, democracy is directly responsible for ensuring food security and improving the livelihoods of its citizens. He pointed to India's extensive welfare programs, particularly its large-scale nutrition assistance that provides subsidized or free food to nearly 800 million people. According to him, such policies are a direct outcome of India's democratic decision-making, where governance remains accountable to the needs of its people. By contrast, he subtly suggested that Western democracies, despite their wealth, have often struggled to address economic disparities effectively.
Jaishankar further challenged the idea that democratic struggles in certain countries reflect a global crisis. Instead, he argued that the current challenges facing some Western democracies stem not from democracy itself but from the long-term consequences of globalization and economic policies pursued over the past 25 to 30 years. He suggested that Western nations should introspect and have "honest conversations" about why their systems are facing discontent, rather than portraying the situation as a universal decline of democracy. His remarks subtly implied that India, through its unique governance model, has balanced democratic ideals with economic and social progress more effectively than some Western nations.
The discussion, which also featured Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, showcased contrasting perspectives on the resilience of democracy worldwide. While some panelists focused on democratic vulnerabilities, Jaishankar’s intervention stood out for its optimistic and assertive defense of India’s democratic model. He underscored that while democracy may be facing difficulties in some regions, India’s experience proves that it remains a powerful tool for governance and development.
Beyond defending India’s democratic credentials, Jaishankar’s remarks also carried a broader message about India’s growing confidence on the global stage. He positioned India not merely as a participant in the democratic discourse but as a country that can offer valuable lessons in governance, electoral integrity, and inclusive development. His comments reinforced India's standing as an emerging leader in shaping global conversations on democracy, governance, and economic resilience.
Jaishankar’s remarks were met with significant interest, as they provided a strong counterpoint to the often Western-centric debates on democracy. His emphasis on India’s achievements under democratic rule served as a reminder that different regions experience governance challenges differently and that democracy, when implemented effectively, can indeed deliver prosperity, stability, and social welfare. By the end of the discussion, his arguments had not only highlighted India’s electoral and governance success but had also challenged the West to reassess its own democratic concerns with greater nuance.
