India and the USA democracies are encroached upon by the Big Brothers and the Corporates. The usurpation of power by the Big Brothers and the emergence of the Corporate giants like Gautam Adani in India, and Elon Musk in the United States is an anathema for the world democracies. Their omnipresence highlights the expanding power of big businesses in democratic systems. Their corporations do not operate in isolation but, in a cryptic relationship with governments. Their political patronization and corporate clout reinforce one another. Their roles raised concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability and the concentration of economic suzerainty. The levels of thrust inflicted upon the political powers like Trump and Narendra Modi might be construed as undemocratic in democracy thrived countries.
Their omnipresence highlights the expanding power of big businesses in democratic systems. Their corporations do not operate in isolation but thrived in a cryptic relationship with governments. Their political patronization and corporate clout reinforce one another. Their roles raised concern about the erosion of democratic accountability and the concentration of economic suzerainty. The levels of thrust inflicted upon the political powers like Trump and Narendra Modi, might be construed as undemocratic in democracy thrived countries.
The upward movement of Gautam Adani in India Gautam Adani’s forward movement coincided with the rise of the BJP government under Narendra Modi. In about ten years, between 2014 and 2023, Adani’s wealth surged manifold. Adani’s companies managed large government contracts, effected policy changes, and gained support for infrastructure projects like ports, airports, and renewable energy, highways, power, coal so on so forth.
Adani’s dominance in sectors like ports, coal, and renewable energy created monopolistic tendencies. Critics argued that the government’s policies favoured Adani, diminishing competition and consolidating his hold over strategic industries.
Adani Ports handled nearly 25% of India’s cargo, raising concerns about reduced competition and higher costs for businesses and consumers. The concentration of wealth in the hands of one individual undermined democracy, as his entity gained disproportionate influence over policy and public discourse. Adani often used his business venture to shape public policy, sometimes undermining democratic accountability.
Allegations of influence over government policies and regulations were common. The Hindenburg Report (2023) accused Adani of stock manipulation and accounting fraud, sparking international scrutiny. Indian regulatory agencies had not thoroughly investigated his involvement. Adani’s influence was more visible in the Indian political framework, where regulatory bodies were perceived to have been favoured him.
The Adani Group obtained several media outlets, including NDTV, raising concerns about media independence. It was argued that Adani’s consolidation influenced public opinion and suppressed dissenting voices. His ability to shape media narratives directly or indirectly challenged the plurality of voices, essential for a healthy democracy. Allegations were abundant on Adani having benefitted from public sector bank loans and preferential treatment in bidding processes.
Elon Musk’s steps up his intentions to reach to the top echelons of power in USA
Elon Musk of USA, though not directly associated himself with any political party but was declared by Donald Trump, as his best friend. Musk’s ventures like Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter (now X) have benefited from favourable government policies and subsidies. Tesla received billions in subsidies for electric vehicle production. The SpaceX was awarded lucrative government contracts, including NASA projects.
Musk’s Twitter acquisition and public influence raised concerns about his ability to shape narratives, policies, and public opinion. Musk’s ventures dominated key sectors like electric vehicles (Tesla), space exploration (SpaceX), and social media (X). His personal wealth, largely tied to Tesla’s stock value, made him one of the wealthiest individuals in history. Tesla’s dominance in the EV market marginalized smaller competitors, leading to concerns about a lack of diversity in innovation.
Musk used his platform to influence public opinion, especially after acquiring X. His tweets often moved markets, shaped public opinion, and even his comments on the Russia-Ukraine war impacted the geopolitics. Musk’s opposition to labour unions and push for deregulation in industries like EV manufacturing shaped public policy debates.
Musk’s acquisition of X had given him direct control over a global platform for public dialogue. His actions, such as reinstating controversial accounts and criticizing traditional media outlets, had sparked debates about free speech versus content moderation.
Musk was criticised for his ventures received preferential treatment in terms of subsidies and contracts, leading to a perception of favouritism, especially when other companies had struggled to secure similar support. Musk’s ventures like SpaceX and Starlink extended into space exploration, internet access, and to the Ukraine war.
Both Musk and Adani wrecked the democratic set ups in their own way
Adani and Musk wielded significant influence beyond their national borders. His infrastructure projects, such as port developments in Sri Lanka and Australia, reflected his global ambitions, raising regional political concerns. The global reach of these corporations had profound implications for international relations and sovereignty.
Adani was closely tied to political patronage. Musk leveraged his innovative ventures and personality cult to gain influence. Both, however, benefitted from government support in various forms. Musk’s influence was sharp but significant, particularly through his control of social media and global rout each.
India and the USA democracies are encroached upon by the Big Brothers and the Corporates – The damage to Indian and the USA democracies
The comparison between the behaviour and mannerisms of Donald Trump in the United States and Narendra Modi and the resultant political trends in India highlighted similarities in populist and authoritarian tendencies. While the sociopolitical contexts of the two democracies were distinct, both exhibited patterns that aligned with what could be called “Big Brother politics,” as seen in the centralization of power, erosion of democratic norms, divisive rhetoric, and the undermining of institutions.
Donald Trump and Narendra Modi relied heavily on personality-oriented politics, presenting themselves as the sole voices of the people. Trump projected himself as an “outsider” and “champion of the common man,” frequently using slogans like “Make America Great Again”. His rallies were theatrical, focusing on his charisma rather than policies, often dismissing dissenters as part of a “deep state” or “fake news” conspiracies.
In India Narendra Modi was seen as a “visionary leader,” and opposition voices were supressed as corrupt or anti-national. Political campaigns revolved around his image rather than the BJP. This approach weakened institutional democracy by placing individual aspirations above the collective decision-making process.
Both leaders employed polarizing remarks to consolidate their support base, often targeting minorities or ideological opponents. Trump’s rhetoric on issues like immigration and his handling of racial protests had deepened societal divisions in the U.S. He had also repeatedly attacked Muslims, banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries.
In India similarly, the use of divisive terminology, targeting minorities, especially Muslims was rampant. Policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the NRC raised concerns about marginalizing certain communities. This divisiveness pushed communities against each other, eroding the secular fabric of democracy.
In both the U.S. and India, democratic institutions faced challenges to their autonomy.
Trump presidency was marked by frequent clashes with institutions. For instance, he attempted to undermine the independence of the Department of Justice, fired FBI directors investigating him, and openly criticized judges who ruled against his policies. His refusal to concede the 2020 election defeat. His role in the January 6 Capitol riots was seen as direct assaults on democracy.
In India, there had been allegations of undue influence on institutions like the Election Commission, judiciary, and media.
Trump and Narendra Modi had used media to exhibit their narratives while discrediting independent journalism. Trump popularized the term “fake news” to discredit media outlets critical of him, such as CNN and The New York Times. His frequent use of Twitter allowed him to bypass traditional media, spreading his unfiltered views directly to his supporters. Finally, twitter was obtained by Trumps’s friend Elon Musk and renamed it as X.
In India similar tactics included branding dissenting media as anti-national. Mainstream media often amplified government propaganda, and independent journalists faced intimidation or legal action. The suppression of a free press eroded the media’s role as the fourth pillar of democracy, reducing transparency and accountability.
Both leaders had exploited religion and nationalism to rally their base and diverted attention from pressing economic and social issues. Trump aligned himself with evangelical Christians and portrayed himself as a defender of religious freedom, even staging symbolic acts like holding a Bible during protests. His “America First” policy emphasized hyper-nationalism.
After taking over as President of the USA, he attended a customary synagogue where Bishop Mariann E. Budde delivering a sermon at a prayer service on 21st January, 2025 at Washington National Cathedral, appealed to him to show mercy on the people living unauthorisedly. But he dismissed her as biased and did not care for her advice.
In India similarly, religion played a central role in politics, with Hindu nationalism becoming an inherent feature under Narendra Modi. Policies and speeches frequently invoked the idea of a Hindu-centric India, neglecting secularism. Such tactics resulted in marginalizing minorities and undermining their secular credentials.
Both leaders promised economic revival but faced criticism for favouring a big business tycoon. Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy were seen as catering to elites, while his trade wars hurt American farmers and manufacturers.
In India, critics argued that economic policies, such as privatization and corporate-friendly reforms, had disproportionately benefited a conglomerate, widening the wealth gap. Economic populism often garbed policies that consolidated wealth and power among a few, further eroding public trust.
Both leaders had been accused of responding to dissent with hostility, portraying critics as enemies of the state. Trump’s administration’s handling of protests, such as the use of tear gas on peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Square, demonstrated a contempt for dissent.
In India protests against the Farm Laws, CAA-NRC, and other policies were met with heavy-handed measures, including internet shutdowns, police action, and arrests of activists leading to deaths about 700 farmers. The suppression of protests undermined the democratic right to dissent, a cornerstone of free societies.
Trump and Modi emphasized their strength and decisiveness, often portraying themselves as the saviours of the nation. Trump’s “law and order” stance and tough talk on foreign policy (e.g., towards China and Iran) were central to his image.
In India the portrayal of Narendra Modi who could alone safeguard national security (e.g., post-Pulwama and Balakot strikes) had been enacting the same theme in his political narratives. The glorification of “strongman” leadership undermined collective decision-making and promoted authoritarianism.
The U.S. demonstrated stronger institutional checks, as seen in the bipartisan backlash to Trump’s behaviour post-2020 election and the subsequent impeachment trials. In India, the consolidation of power in Narendra Modi limited internal resistance. The U.S. had a deep-rooted tradition of free speech and civil liberties, while India’s socio-cultural diversity faced more challenges in balancing majority and minority rights.
The upward movement of Gautam Adani in India
Gautam Adani’s forward movement coincided with the rise of the BJP government under Narendra Modi. In about ten years, between 2014 and 2023, Adani’s wealth surged manifold. Adani’s companies managed large government contracts, effected policy changes, and gained support for infrastructure projects like ports, airports, and renewable energy, highways, power, coal so on so forth.
Adani’s dominance in sectors like ports, coal, and renewable energy created monopolistic tendencies. Critics argued that the government’s policies favoured Adani, diminishing competition and consolidating his hold over strategic industries.
Adani Ports handled nearly 25% of India’s cargo, raising concerns about reduced competition and higher costs for businesses and consumers. The concentration of wealth in the hands of one individual undermined democracy, as his entity gained disproportionate influence over policy and public discourse. Adani often used his business venture to shape public policy, sometimes undermining democratic accountability.
Allegations of influence over government policies and regulations were common. The Hindenburg Report (2023) accused Adani of stock manipulation and accounting fraud, sparking international scrutiny. Indian regulatory agencies had not thoroughly investigated his involvement. Adani’s influence was more visible in the Indian political framework, where regulatory bodies were perceived to have been favoured him.
The Adani Group obtained several media outlets, including NDTV, raising concerns about media independence. It was argued that Adani’s consolidation influenced public opinion and suppressed dissenting voices. His ability to shape media narratives directly or indirectly challenged the plurality of voices, essential for a healthy democracy. Allegations were abundant on Adani having benefitted from public sector bank loans and preferential treatment in bidding processes.
Elon Musk’s steps up his intentions to reach to the top echelons of power in USA
Elon Musk of USA, though not directly associated himself with any political party but was declared by Donald Trump, as his best friend. Musk’s ventures like Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter (now X) have benefited from favourable government policies and subsidies. Tesla received billions in subsidies for electric vehicle production. The SpaceX was awarded lucrative government contracts, including NASA projects.
Musk’s Twitter acquisition and public influence raised concerns about his ability to shape narratives, policies, and public opinion. Musk’s ventures dominated key sectors like electric vehicles (Tesla), space exploration (SpaceX), and social media (X). His personal wealth, largely tied to Tesla’s stock value, made him one of the wealthiest individuals in history. Tesla’s dominance in the EV market marginalized smaller competitors, leading to concerns about a lack of diversity in innovation.
Musk used his platform to influence public opinion, especially after acquiring X. His tweets often moved markets, shaped public opinion, and even his comments on the Russia-Ukraine war impacted the geopolitics. Musk’s opposition to labour unions and push for deregulation in industries like EV manufacturing shaped public policy debates.
Musk’s acquisition of X had given him direct control over a global platform for public dialogue. His actions, such as reinstating controversial accounts and criticizing traditional media outlets, had sparked debates about free speech versus content moderation.
Musk was criticised for his ventures received preferential treatment in terms of subsidies and contracts, leading to a perception of favouritism, especially when other companies had struggled to secure similar support. Musk’s ventures like SpaceX and Starlink extended into space exploration, internet access, and to the Ukraine war.
Both Musk and Adani wrecked the democratic set ups in their own way
Adani and Musk wielded significant influence beyond their national borders. His infrastructure projects, such as port developments in Sri Lanka and Australia, reflected his global ambitions, raising regional political concerns. The global reach of these corporations had profound implications for international relations and sovereignty.
Adani was closely tied to political patronage. Musk leveraged his innovative ventures and personality cult to gain influence. Both, however, benefitted from government support in various forms. Musk’s influence was sharp but significant, particularly through his control of social media and global rout each.
India and the USA democracies are encroached upon by the Big Brothers and the Corporates – The damage to Indian and the USA democracies
The comparison between the behaviour and mannerisms of Donald Trump in the United States and Narendra Modi and the resultant political trends in India highlighted similarities in populist and authoritarian tendencies. While the sociopolitical contexts of the two democracies were distinct, both exhibited patterns that aligned with what could be called “Big Brother politics,” as seen in the centralization of power, erosion of democratic norms, divisive rhetoric, and the undermining of institutions.
Donald Trump and Narendra Modi relied heavily on personality-oriented politics, presenting themselves as the sole voices of the people. Trump projected himself as an “outsider” and “champion of the common man,” frequently using slogans like “Make America Great Again”. His rallies were theatrical, focusing on his charisma rather than policies, often dismissing dissenters as part of a “deep state” or “fake news” conspiracies.
In India Narendra Modi was seen as a “visionary leader,” and opposition voices were supressed as corrupt or anti-national. Political campaigns revolved around his image rather than the BJP. This approach weakened institutional democracy by placing individual aspirations above the collective decision-making process.
Both leaders employed polarizing remarks to consolidate their support base, often targeting minorities or ideological opponents. Trump’s rhetoric on issues like immigration and his handling of racial protests had deepened societal divisions in the U.S. He had also repeatedly attacked Muslims, banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries.
In India similarly, the use of divisive terminology, targeting minorities, especially Muslims was rampant. Policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the NRC raised concerns about marginalizing certain communities. This divisiveness pushed communities against each other, eroding the secular fabric of democracy.
In both the U.S. and India, democratic institutions faced challenges to their autonomy. Trump presidency was marked by frequent clashes with institutions. For instance, he attempted to undermine the independence of the Department of Justice, fired FBI directors investigating him, and openly criticized judges who ruled against his policies. His refusal to concede the 2020 election defeat. His role in the January 6 Capitol riots was seen as direct assaults on democracy. In India, there had been allegations of undue influence on institutions like the Election Commission, judiciary, and media.
Trump and Narendra Modi had used media to exhibit their narratives while discrediting independent journalism. Trump popularized the term “fake news” to discredit media outlets critical of him, such as CNN and The New York Times. His frequent use of Twitter allowed him to bypass traditional media, spreading his unfiltered views directly to his supporters. Finally, twitter was obtained by Trumps’s friend Elon Musk and renamed it as X.
In India similar tactics included branding dissenting media as anti-national. Mainstream media often amplified government propaganda, and independent journalists faced intimidation or legal action. The suppression of a free press eroded the media’s role as the fourth pillar of democracy, reducing transparency and accountability.
Both leaders had exploited religion and nationalism to rally their base and diverted attention from pressing economic and social issues. Trump aligned himself with evangelical Christians and portrayed himself as a defender of religious freedom, even staging symbolic acts like holding a Bible during protests. His “America First” policy emphasized hyper-nationalism.
After taking over as President of the USA, he attended a customary synagogue where Bishop Mariann E. Budde delivering a sermon at a prayer service on 21st January, 2025 at Washington National Cathedral, appealed to him to show mercy on the people living unauthorisedly. But he dismissed her as biased and did not care for her advice.
In India similarly, religion played a central role in politics, with Hindu nationalism becoming an inherent feature under Narendra Modi. Policies and speeches frequently invoked the idea of a Hindu-centric India, neglecting secularism. Such tactics resulted in marginalizing minorities and undermining their secular credentials.
Both leaders promised economic revival but faced criticism for favouring a big business tycoon. Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy were seen as catering to elites, while his trade wars hurt American farmers and manufacturers.
In India, critics argued that economic policies, such as privatization and corporate-friendly reforms, had disproportionately benefited a conglomerate, widening the wealth gap. Economic populism often garbed policies that consolidated wealth and power among a few, further eroding public trust.
Both leaders had been accused of responding to dissent with hostility, portraying critics as enemies of the state. Trump’s administration’s handling of protests, such as the use of tear gas on peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Square, demonstrated a contempt for dissent.
In India protests against the Farm Laws, CAA-NRC, and other policies were met with heavy-handed measures, including internet shutdowns, police action, and arrests of activists leading to deaths about 700 farmers. The suppression of protests undermined the democratic right to dissent, a cornerstone of free societies.
Trump and Modi emphasized their strength and decisiveness, often portraying themselves as the saviours of the nation. Trump’s “law and order” stance and tough talk on foreign policy (e.g., towards China and Iran) were central to his image.
In India the portrayal of Narendra Modi who could alone safeguard national security (e.g., post-Pulwama and Balakot strikes) had been enacting the same theme in his political narratives. The glorification of “strongman” leadership undermined collective decision-making and promoted authoritarianism.
The U.S. demonstrated stronger institutional checks, as seen in the bipartisan backlash to Trump’s behaviour post-2020 election and the subsequent impeachment trials. In India, the consolidation of power in Narendra Modi limited internal resistance. The U.S. had a deep-rooted tradition of free speech and civil liberties, while India’s socio-cultural diversity faced more challenges in balancing majority and minority rights.
India and the USA democracies are encroached upon by the Big Brothers and the Corporates – The Conclusion
The emergence of Gautam Adani in India and Elon Musk in the U.S. reflected the growing influence of corporate giants in democracies. Both had compromised political and economic systems to their advantage. Their dominance raised important questions about the balance between economic power and democratic accountability. Democracies ought to ensure that corporate influence should not undermine public interest, equitable competition, and the autonomy of institutions.
Both the United States under Donald Trump and India under Narendra Modi exhibited alarming trends of Big Brother politics, including authoritarian tendencies, divisive rhetoric, and institutional erosion. However, the extent and form differed due to the historical and cultural contexts of the two nations. These parallels served as a warning for democracies worldwide to safeguard their institutions, uphold pluralism, and resist crave for populist authoritarianism.
Indian democratic system had been encroached upon by Big Brother politics. It implied that the democratic values of India were being undermined by an increasingly authoritarian approach to governance, where Narendra Modi exerted excessive control over the institutions, freedoms, and mechanisms of democracy.
India, the world’s largest democracy, had a proud tradition of participatory governance and robust civil liberties. However, the growing signs of Big Brother politics posed a challenge to those ideals. Protecting democracy required collective efforts from citizens, institutions, and political leaders to resist authoritarianism and ensure accountability.