George Orwell wrote in 1984: “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”

History is full of countless examples of leaders and regimes fiercely holding onto power, often resorting to authoritarian tactics to maintain their control. From monarchs and dictators to democratically elected officials, the drive to cling to power transcends political ideologies and governmental structures. Even within ostensibly democratic societies, those in power may exploit institutional mechanisms or manipulate public opinion to prolong their tenure in office.

Individuals who rise to positions of power may initially have noble intentions, but over time, the dynamics of power can gradually alter their behavior. Once in power, individuals often become reluctant to relinquish control.

George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is set in a totalitarian society ruled by the Party, which is headed by the mysterious Big Brother, who stares out of posters all across the state, calling himself the messiah.

The government exercises complete or near-total control over both the private and public lives of its citizens. The concept of unregulated surveillance, conveniently, gets legitimized under “nationalism.”

You may not make an honest film, as it could destroy the false image of a state. You may not voice opinions that hurt the Party’s core beliefs. In case you voice your independent opinions, party agents or workers will pull out your past, present and future to make you stop. Critical thinking is a sin. Inciting others to think is a bigger sin.

1984 serves as a cautionary tale against excessive government control and interference in the lives of citizens, highlighting the dangers of unchecked authority in shaping future societies. It’s based on totalitarianism that George Orwell saw developing during the early 20th Century in places including Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

The theme in 1984 stands as a warning of the danger of too much government control and interference in citizen’s lives in the future.

Orwell was born on June 25, 1903, in British India in the State of Bihar. Although 1984 remains a classic, it’s unlikely that the author ever envisioned his fiction becoming reality in his home country. Nevertheless, the book certainly outlines political realities that don’t seem far-fetched anymore in today’s India.

In contemporary India, it has become increasingly frequent to hear about the overthrow of elected governments, raids and arrests of politicians of opposition parties, and attacks on journalists and dissenting voices.

A recent example: Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister and a vocal critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was apprehended following a raid on his residence by the federal financial crimes agency, the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The federal financial crime agency, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), is investigating allegations that a liquor policy implemented by the Delhi government in 2022, which ended its control over the sale of liquor in the capital, gave undue advantages to private retailers.

While it could be argued that the ED was simply executing its duties, the timing inspires skepticism. Kejriwal’s arrest occurred less than a month before the April 19 start of India’s General Election.

All the main leaders of his decade-old party are in jail in connection with the liquor case. This comes as a setback for his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the broader opposition alliance as he stands as a significant challenger to Modi.

Kejriwal has repeatedly accused Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of leveraging federal agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED to target and intimidate opposition-led governments in states.

On January 31 the non-BJP ruling chief minister of the eastern state of Jharkhand was arrested on land scam charges by ED. The Enforcement Directorate has used invoices for a refrigerator and a smart TV as evidence of money laundering. Meanwhile, the ED has hardly taken any action on the electoral bond scam considered to be the biggest scam in India in which the ruling BJP has given undue favours to certain companies after getting political donations through the electoral bond.

In the last ten years of the Modi regime, more than 400 opposition leaders have been targeted by federal agencies with corruption charges. More than 90% of all the leaders questioned by the authorities are from the opposition. A concerning trend dubbed “washing machines” has emerged, in which opposition leaders facing corruption allegations join the BJP, leading to sleniency ranging from swiftly dropped charges to slowdowns in investigations by the central agencies.

Just hours before Kejriwal’s arrest, India’s primary opposition party, the Indian National Congress, accused the BJP of leveraging the tax department to “cripple” that party’s finances. The party claimed its bank accounts had been frozen by the tax department, leaving it unable to use funds worth some $20 million.

Addressing a press conference in Delhi, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said: “We cannot do our campaign work. We cannot support our workers and candidates. Our leaders cannot travel from one part of the country to the other. We’re unable to put out our ads to reach out to the voters with our agenda. This is being done two months before the election campaign. This is a criminal action against the Congress party, done by the PM and the Home Minister. It is being orchestrated to cripple us before the elections.”

Rahul Gandhi indirectly criticized the lack of a level playing field for contesting elections.

Denial of level playing field

Democracies survive as long as both ruling and opposition parties are given fair opportunities. India appears to be at a crossroads precisely for this reason. The arrest of key opposition figures, freezing of opposition party funds and media refusal to air opposition advertisements have cast doubt on the fairness of elections.

More importantly, the role of the Election Commission comes into question. Sadly, the story is not pleasant on that side either. Coming just a few days before the announcement of the general election, the sudden resignation of election commissioner Arun Goel on March 9 raised eyebrows.

His tenure was going to end in 2027 and he would have taken over as chief election commissioner in due course. His departure was followed by the hurried appointment of two retired bureaucrats, Sukhbir Singh Sindhu and Gyanesh Kumar, by the Modi government. Both of them had worked under the Modi government before retirement.

Earlier, the government had given itself the authority to appoint the members of the Election Commission, overlooking suggestions by the Supreme Court of India and the Opposition for a more consultative mechanism.

Having the ruling party itself appoint the election commissioner to preview the election raises doubts about the merit and neutrality of selection.

Is India on the path to Orwellian society

In 2024 the BJP seeks not just the votes to win the party 400 seats; it aims to instill ideological conformity among citizens, dictating every aspect of their lives. The party wants psychological dominance. It wants Indians to support the entire agenda: what to eat, how to dress and whom to befriend, all according to core party beliefs. This desire for psychological dominance mirrors the control depicted in 1984.

It has come to the point at which an election is not so much about victory and defeat of any party but, rather, about ideological beliefs that a party wants to impose on citizens. That represents a government system that is trying to go beyond what is legitimately its job. It is infringement. Be careful. We have seen this trend and its end result during the early 20th century in Europe.

In 2024 the voters of India must struggle on behalf of themselves and their fundamental rights to free speech, questioning and privacy, guaranteed by the Constitution since Independence.

Ultimately, the true winners or losers are not parties or leaders but the Indian people themselves. It’s up to the 1.4 billion Indians to decide what future they want for their country. They face a choice between two stark possibilities: either a revival of democracy or the descent into an Orwellian society as prophesied by George Orwell in 1984.