Authoritarian Tendencies and the Weaponisation of Misogyny in Indian Politics: A Critical Examination

The recent global episodes, ranging from the incarceration of members of the Russian performance collective Pussy Riot to the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, illustrate how misogyny functions as an ominous instrument in the consolidation of authoritarian power, prompting observers to turn their attention away from mere intellectual speculation toward concrete strategies for resistance.

Within the Indian context, the passage of the Protection of Public Morality Act in the current legislative session, a statute granting law‑enforcement bodies expansive prerogatives to disperse gatherings judged to transgress gender‑normative expectations, reflects a disquieting alignment with the aforementioned trends, thereby raising serious questions about the compatibility of such measures with the constitutional guarantees of liberty, equality, and democratic participation.

Opposition parties, especially the principal secular coalition, have framed the Act as an unabashed attempt by the incumbent administration to silence dissenting female voices under the pretext of public order, while concurrently deploying electoral rhetoric that promises a return to ‘traditional values’ as a means of consolidating a vote bank predicated on patriarchal sentiment, a tactic that underscores the fraught interplay between populist posturing and policy implementation.

The administrative apparatus, tasked with enforcing the new provisions, has already exhibited signs of procedural inadequacy, evident in the delayed issuance of clear guidelines, the opaque allocation of resources for enforcement, and the apparent neglect of independent oversight mechanisms, thereby exacerbating public apprehension regarding the misuse of state power for partisan ends.

In light of the recent enactment of the Protection of Public Morality Act, which grants law‑enforcement agencies sweeping authority to pre‑emptively disperse assemblies deemed to contravene prescribed gender norms, one must inquire whether such statutory expansions constitute a proportional response to legitimate public order concerns or rather betray a deeper intent to silence dissenting female voices, thereby eroding the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, association, and equality before the law, whether the procedural safeguards articulated in Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution have been meaningfully preserved or rendered illusory by executive fiat, whether the parliamentary oversight mechanisms that ostensibly review such measures have been afforded genuine independence or are merely perfunctory formalities, whether the judiciary, in light of its past pronouncements on gender‑based discrimination, is prepared to assert a robust remedial jurisdiction against majoritarian legislative overreach, and finally whether the cumulative effect of these developments portends a discernible shift toward an authoritarian paradigm that weaponises misogyny as a tool of political domination, thereby demanding a thorough constitutional audit and an urgent reconsideration of the balance between state security and individual liberties?

Considering the recent controversy surrounding the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s allocation of funds for the 'Safe Spaces' initiative, which critics allege lacks transparent criteria and appears to privilege politically aligned non‑governmental organisations over grassroots collectives, one is compelled to ask whether the fiscal discretion exercised by the executive adheres to the principles of equitable public expenditure prescribed by Articles 302 and 303, whether the audit institutions tasked with examining such disbursements have been granted sufficient authority and independence to expose any patronage or bias, whether the parliamentary committees responsible for scrutinising welfare schemes have fulfilled their constitutional duty to summon evidence and hold ministers to account, whether civil society’s attempts to obtain comprehensive data have been met with genuine cooperation or obstructed by bureaucratic opacity, and ultimately whether the pattern of selective funding and opaque decision‑making constitutes a systemic erosion of the democratic promise that public resources must serve the broader populace rather than reinforce partisan power structures?

Published: May 25, 2026

Published: May 25, 2026