India, Aug. 21 -- India's democratic experiment has been predicated on our constitutional architecture which distributes power in a manner that tempers tyranny of majority, protects minority voices and institutionalises dissent. Electoral process remains the primary instrument through which legitimacy is conferred and accountability secured. Yet, in recent years, an unsettling pattern has emerged - to question the outcomes of elections and suspect the credibility of democratic process. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi's sustained narrative - interventions in Parliament, public rallies and international forums - has consistently projected India as a polity where democratic institutions are hollowing out under the weight of majoritarianism. Beyond partisan disagreement, it carries an implicit suggestion that the electoral mandate is compromised. This rhetoric bears intriguing parallels to populist strategies employed by Donald Trump in the US, albeit emerging from markedly different ideological traditions. Both leaders, in their own registers, have positioned themselves as insurgents against an allegedly compromised establishment. Such strategies, when normalised, recalibrate political discourse from policy and governance to a theatre of existential crisis with long-term implications on institutional resilience. Gandhi's critique of the government's record on economic inequality, institutional autonomy or minority rights is legitimate and necessary. Yet, when these critiques are coupled with a narrative that elections themselves are a facade, it shifts the debate from "what the government is doing" to "whether democracy itself works". This is a leap that, once made, is difficult to retract from. For a democracy as vast and fractious as India's, political actors bear a dual responsibility - to mobilise dissent and to safeguard the credibility of institutions that make dissent meaningful. This requires the discipline to challenge those in power without damaging the democratic process itself, while also avoiding blind celebration of every election result. Critique of governance is essential. It is the lifeblood of a functioning democracy. But underlining the importance of dissent also necessitates a vital distinction between holding power accountable and undermining the foundational and almost sacred compact between the State and its citizens. When political actors portray elections as fundamentally untrustworthy without incontrovertible evidence, they risk transforming healthy scepticism into corrosive cynicism. Such cynicism can breed disengagement, apathy, and an appetite for illiberal alternatives. India is a complex polity and society where a politically acclaimed democratic habitus still struggles to consolidate itself against deeply entrenched social hierarchies. Here, reckless delegitimisation of electoral processes can be especially destabilising. History offers instructive warnings. In interwar Europe, democratic backsliding often began with gradual undermining of electoral legitimacy by political elites. Once the electorate began to believe that ballots cannot alter outcomes, the logic of democracy collapsed and made space for demagogues who promised order without any processual mess. India, with its robust electoral machinery and high voter turnout, has resisted this descent so far. Yet, seeds of distrust, if continually sown and irrigated by prominent leaders, can germinate over time into systemic disillusionment. Having said this, it is also necessary to point out that the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s conduct too has been far from ideal. An institution entrusted with the sacred task of refereeing democracy must embody a moral poise that commands trust in addition to procedural rigour. Too often, ECI responses have been marked by indignation, defensiveness and petty pique as opposed to clinical transparency. A referee who bristles at scrutiny forgets that in democracy, appearance and legitimacy are as important as the arithmetic of votes. Authority here flows from the letter of law but also fills the intangible reservoir of public confidence. Philosophically, ECI carries a fiduciary responsibility to the Republic's faith. It is a custodian of that belief which ensures that ballots translate into will and procedures produce justice. But when opacity or defensive retorts replace openness, this fiduciary bond weakens. Institutions must enact the respect they demand through composure, restraint and willingness to be accountable without rancour. The grandeur of a democracy rests on the assurance that processes are beyond suspicion. If those charged with guarding the sanctity of elections appear fragile before criticism, the edifice of trust that sustains the Republic begins to tremble. Among the many systems devised to govern collective life, democracy endures as the least coercive, the least arbitrary, and the least corrosive of human dignity. Its greatest strength lies in its capacity for peaceful transfer of authority which rests upon the fragile yet profound trust in the fairness of electoral processes. Power, in truth, belongs to the people. Those who govern do so only temporarily, after fulfilling the solemn ritual of votes cast, counted and hands exchanged in accordance with public will. To erode trust in this sacred covenant is to shake the ground on which democracy stands. However, democracy has its flaws. Its legitimacy derives from reconciling conflicting interests through procedures that are imperfect yet capable of self-correction. To embrace democracy is to embrace the endless negotiation between principle and compromise, between idealism and pragmatism. And this tension is the essence of democratic maturity. For citizens, this maturity means learning to live with outcomes they dislike while also trusting the system's capacity for peaceful redress. For political leaders, it means resisting the temptation to weaponise institutional scepticism for fleeting partisan gains. In choosing democracy, India has chosen the arduous but noble path of self-government. Preserving it demands more than courage to speak truth to power. It requires the wisdom to speak in ways that keep democratic conversations alive and ensure that faith in the system which sustains the Republic itself....