It never reflected modern systems of government (neither those that come close to respect for individual liberties nor those that do not) and its adjective form democratic really only refers to the processes of appointing leadership. A better word for the sort of thing happening here in America and (it would seem) in India might be anti-liberal, but then that word has political baggage of its own in the United States, and a similarly distorted meaning. Perhaps 'illiberal-democracy,' as a liberal democracy implies a republic with at least semi-democratic election to leadership underpinned by a lowest common denominator of shared values: peace as an ideal, individual liberty, some property rights, and an amount of cultural openness or tolerance.
In the United States, we've seen Trump rise in the wake of two waves of Republican success in the low turnout midterms of 2010 and 2014 and after even earlier stratagems to control State governments and thereby all the redistricting following the 2010 census (to jam a proverbial foot in the door of every valuable Congressional election until 2020). All very Late-Roman-Republic maneuvering and none of it 'democratic.'
Of course, if we had a more directly democratic system things would likely have been even uglier, independent of who came out on top. When 51% of people get their hands on the power tap, they like how it feels, and not in a good way for the other 49%. Though, I suspect from your comment you might agree. Feel free to snark at me if I'm wrong.
> This is what democracy looks like - the enforcement of the will of the majority.
Change 'will' to 'whims' and we're on pretty much the same page. Though what's happening in India sounds more like the gradual march of bureaucracy and its exploitation by interested parties rather than a will or even whim of the majority of voters.