India has always been run on a far more authoritarian model than the U.S. Yes, it's a true democracy but freedom and democracy are not the same thing, and the legacy of the former colonizers is very much there still. Modi is just pushing the overall authoritarian stance of Indian institutions in a different direction that anyways provides him with a lot of shallow, surface popularity.
It is not, it is just more and more attack on Modi whenever some critical elections are impending. I'd claim that India has never been more democratic. Every side is free to not just talk but shout on top of their lungs, Indian judicial system still works, journalist and media (despite being absolute junk and corrupt) still function on their own. Now, there are incidences here and there, but these are exceptions not the rule and my claim is that by and large India is most democratic country. Given true democratic nature of India, whoever didn't like these exceptions (from either side of political fence), cry foul loudest. Whoever controls media better, appears to be having majority voice.
Indian politics is different than other countries, even within South Asia, I'd say. It was dominated by one single political party (Indian National Congress or INC) headed by a single family. In fact, it is funny that English media blames Modi to be authoritarian, who is duly elected both by people and within his party, compares to INC which is actually autocratic (It's always one Nehru family which is head of party and has first right to be PM if in power). However, since 2014, INC been uprooted with Modi's rise. While INC believed in status-quo approach (hence, no progress of India since 1947 until 2000s and was considered to be extremely corrupt), Modi completely turned political game over. Almost 45% of India voted for Modi's party, BJP in last election (total 800million voters). He has exceptional work ethics, both opponents and supporters admire his integrity and dedication towards serving India (Modi calls himself prime servant instead of prime minister). People on ground can see changes his party has ushered, like transportation infrastructure, digitization, focus on cleanliness and environment and much more. Sure, Modi is also head-strong may be even adamant. But given what India's state was with respect to corruption and rotten state affairs, probably this attitude was needed to bring the change. I'm glad that given mass support he enjoys and adamancy he has, Modi is not the authoritarian, some Indian elites claim to be and uses his power for development of India.
Why do they lump India into this? Modi is democratically elected leader unlike Putin and Xi. Just because one doesn't likes ideology of opponent, one cannot dismiss them as dictator!
What you’re seeing in India is democracy in action. Modi has the highest approval rating of any major world leader, nearly 80%: https://morningconsult.com/global-leader-approval. What you’re seeing is the majority of Indians overthrowing the minority of British-educated secular liberals that have ruled India since independence.
This is an excellent analysis of what’s happening in India: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial... (“The last of the post-partition generations are passing on, to be replaced by an indigenous leadership class more parochial and rooted in the subcontinent. The modern Indian culture war is a reflection of the decline of a once-secure, outward-looking cosmopolitan Western elite in the face of a rising Hindu nationalist movement, one that is relatively insular and inward looking. India is maturing, becoming culturally more self-confident, and shedding its post-colonial skin.”).
What Modi is up to us basic electoral arithmetic - what admixture of Hindu grievance, painting of a rosy future, and sound bites/empty gestures can he use to win the next election?
I don’t think india is descending into Fascism though I would agree that it is no longer behaving like a Republic and more like a majoritarian democracy.
For one, the BJP isn’t (yet) saying there’s a “prototypical” Indian and that some Indian citizens are not prototypical. From what little I know of fascism, this is important.
Second, don’t be taken in by the headlines. People do speak up against majoritarianism. BJP/NDA does not have universal support.
Third, give electoral politics a chance to formulate a response to the BJP/NDA. Democracy is and will hold in india. E.g., the recently ousted chief minister of Maharashtra (home to Mumbai) spoke up against the tricolor campaign.
Painting the current state of affairs as fascism is foolish.
In India Modi's government has a long history of subverting media and trying to use government powers to control narrative. I don't think totalitarianism (even though backed by the government) is a good option.
The problem is that most of your understanding about Modi government is coming from western media which has repeatedly shown to be inherently bias against India [0] becoming strong. Part of the reason could be that India didn't join western club after Independence contrary to their expectations and chose to remain non-align (though it gravitated more toward USSR).
You wouldn't hear that though Modi has won federal elections twice, his party has lost many state elections during the same time. But he hasn't really done anything nefarious that could stop such losses.
People has chosen Modi because at this stage, there's no alternative strong figure that can solve many India's problem.
YOu'd hear about MOdi removing article 370 from Kashmir, the Citizen bill, but you won't get the details about the real reason of why those are needed to solve the problem India has been facing since independence but no prior gov attempted to implement them (despite agreeing in principles on multiple occasions) just because of vote-politics.
Modi loses state elections even after vigorous campaigning - Bengal 2021 is a great example. So Modi is not infallible. Not only that, he doesn't even get 50% of national votes, but wins on the basis of first past the post system. The farmers protests and the subsequent about face from him on implementing farm laws again shows the limits to his powers.
Is India a flawed democracy which is backsliding? Absolutely yes. But it's a democracy as much as the US is one.
Democracy and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive. I think most people's gripes aren't with their political leanings, but the way they chose to respond to things like the Farmer Protest (where Modi's administration basically admitted they were wrong). Stifling communication and censoring the internet isn't what any just democratic ruler does, regardless of their party affiliation.
Don't conflate encouraging cult-like following and at times divisive politics with authoritarianism. There are free and fair elections in India. In fact, Modi (and BJP) have lost several recent state elections and handed power over to the opposition. There are a ton of political parties, especially regional, that give BJP a run for their money a.k.a political pluralism.
The reason Modi is running away with national elections is because of the absolute incompetence of the main opposition, the Congress party. Their decades of mind boggling corruption has finally caught up to them and their reluctance to look beyond the Gandhi family for leadership is costing them dearly. That combined with BJP's election machinery (which Modi has built) means that opposition has to raise their game spectacularly, which they are not able to do.
I think the problem with Modi, like extreme politicians (e.g. Le Pen in France or the Tea Party) in other democracies is that some of his utterances are contradictory to Enlightenment humanist ideals. It remains to be seen if the subset of his views that can be considered to be extreme are just rhetoric or if he intends to act on them. Historically, such politicians resemble the nationalistic polities of pre-1945 Europe and post-colonial South America.
The bright side about India is that its sheer diversity and the existence of regional leaders (who do not belong to Modi's party) serve as checks and balances. As an example, regional parties organized on linguistic and non-traditional ideologies (communists, anarchists, etc.) basis have captured close to 140 seats in the parliament, including clean-sweeps in several States such as Tamil Nadu (population ~70 million), Odisha (population ~40 million), Seemandhra/Telangana (population ~85 million), and West Bengal (population ~90 million).
It's not drastically more authoritarian than it ever was. Indian democracy has always had a strongly authoritarian streak legislatively. The key difference is that it is difficult to unlock this level of authoritarianism unless you have a supermajority in Parliament, which basically didn't happen from the early 1990s-2016. 2016-Present is a re-repeat of the 1970s-1989, but with less guns.
That said, the end of the BJP majority is near. Traditionally strongly BJP states have started voting for regional parties or opposition national parties (though tbf those parties have also started embracing the Development+Hinduvta+Freebies model BJP leveraged in 2019). You know the BJP High Command is worrying when Modi gave a speech 2 days ago to the party leadership about the need to build a dedicated campaign to lure Pasmanda (OBC/lower caste Muslims) in the same way Modi leveraged OBC Hindu votes in 2012. That will cause the grand coalition within the BJP between the Janta Party types and the RSS types to start fracturing.
There is a sampling bias at play right here in HN with the Modi-bashing comments. Indians, and India, is doing great overall. Modi's leadership has played a big role in this.
Indians are (generally) emotionally people, and by no means is it an authoritarian state. In fact, we need wise leaders with vision to manage this population.
India's political system has all the forms but none of the substance of a democracy. Yes Modi is from a backward caste but his policies are biased towards the upper caste and he is beholden to the upper caste support. The proof in the pudding is how well off the lower caste compared to the upper caste in the last seventy year. And the answer is the lower caste is worst off compared to their upper caste counterpart after seventy years of upper caste rule.
reply