India is not perfect, its democracy is full of cacophony with racial and tribal undertones. But once the results are out the transfer of power is clean and peaceful.

It is not Norway or Sweden, but its not an autocracy. India built its version of Democracy that is worth it.

Modi and Hindu Nationalism are the present - they were not there in power 7 years ago and 7 years from now, a new PM and Party will come.

India is no Turkey and farther away from China.

I also once thought this. But I'm not sure anymore. They're creating their own Rohingyas by declaring 4m people non-citizens [1]. One state was dissolved and remains under curfew under a constitutional sleight-of-hand (the federally appointed governor assented for the people to dissolve the state).

The Supreme Court doesn't appear to have the will to stand up to the govt. In fact, it actively encouraged the disenfranchisement of citizens.

The press has been largely brought in line. [3]

India may be well on the path to becoming a Turkey.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/a-crackdow... [2] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/10/modis-revocatio... [3] https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/08/22/when-indias-govern...

Press Council of India is supporting the curbs on media reporting in Kashmir.

Supreme court of India is giving passes to meet people in curfewed Kashmir, and asking them to just meet and not do anything else (i.e. report on human right violations).

It is amazingly surreal to see this repeat again. Anyhow, how can a democracy use medieval rule like curfew on 10 Million people. Entire province disconnected from the world and themselves.

J&K is in a traditional state and while the current state is not desirable it is somewhat necessary due to the potential for terrorist attacks.

China on the other hand has put entire state's population in concentration camps and changed demography in other occupied territories such as Tibet.

So why are politicians detained? Those who swore on Indian constitution?

The reason here is not fear of terrorism, because the security theatre exists perpetually, but India does not want its suppression of a minority population to be aired out openly in media esp western and social media.

They had to do this to ensure security of the region. Almost two days ago, protestors had killed a truck driver who was a local[1]. I wonder what would've happened had there been no heavy security deployment.

1 https://www.dnaindia.com/india/photo-gallery-jk-police-offic...

Politicians pelt stones too? The communication blackout is to make sure Indian atrocities in the region are not aired out to the world.

You're talking about NRC accord which was signed by Rajiv Gandhi in Assam. For HN readers, Assam is a North-Eastern Indian state which has suffered from decades of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. The issue was back at forefront when the Supreme Court directed the Government to update NRC in 2013[1].

Contrary to what the parent claims, it's unlikely that people who loose citizenship will be kicked out of the country as India doesn't have any agreement with neighbors in this regard.

1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizen...

It'd be good, just saying, if you read some non-biased Western sources too, such as some Indian media perhaps..

Hindu Nationalism has been present in India since British times. In Punjab, they used to be called Arya Samaj (Society of the Aryans) and majority of their ideas have been adapted today by RSS. In 1984, anti Sikh pogrom Hindu Nationalists supported killings of Sikhs on the ground, supporting such acts by distributing motivated pamphlets among politicians, and by calling for ‘de-Turbanization of Sikhs’. In 1992, Babri mosque was demolished by Hindu Nationalists. 2002 Gujarat pogrom against Muslims was perpetrated by Hindu Nationalists.

It is disingenuous to say that Hindu Nationalism is a recent phenomenon of last 7 years. It has a long history by now in India.

Unfortunate you use the word arya and then fud it just like the Aryan invasion theory that is stoked up to prop up the Dravidian nationalism. The word Arya is different from the racial Aryan. Arya in sanskrit means , the seeker of truth. I dont want to go into the details here , but there are places where seekers are called arya or arya-puthras (kind of ties down to oh-sons-of-truth as referenced in the Gita).

Arya Samaj themselves claim to be Aryans. Lala Lajpat Rai, one of its heads, explains it in detail in his book explaining Arya Samaj to the western world. He wrote the first book in English tailored towards western audience, and he himself said that.

Thank you for this. The Western supremacist attitude of GP's comment really bothered me too.

What’s western supremacist about pointing out the ethnic and religious nationalism of the current Indian government

> a democracy in the vein of Western liberal democracy with enlightenment values

I might add that I don't disagree with the Indian government being Hindu nationalistic, and I am happy to discuss the flaws of the Indian government, but not under this notion that we are somehow in the same bucket as China, and that only the west is holy in the world.

>but not under this notion that we are somehow in the same bucket as China

I didn't say India was the same as China.

>and that only the west is holy in the world.

If you're a minority of any kind, you're better off living in a Western liberal democracy than anywhere else in the world. That doesn't make it "holy", but that does make it better.

Umm ... Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis are all minorities in India. India has it's own share of troubles in minority relations, but they are no different from the race issues dealt with in many western democracies.

Does the US count as a Western liberal democracy? Because the incarceration rates of Black people in the US would certainly suggest otherwise.

The biggest factor in how well off people are in any country is economics, so unless you match up the economic factors, making any comparison of this sort is not useful.

India's treatment of minorities is much better compared to the treatment of minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. While China is not a fair comparison because of different economic models, India does much better than China none the less.

>Does the US count as a Western liberal democracy?

In US, you are free to eat beef. And some people have depression which is reportedly only gets better if they consume beef. You can Google "read meat+depression" to learn more. If you are in India, pretty sure it will be very difficult for anyone to follow that diet.

Where is freedom of speech in India? All these things are anti minority.

Marijuana has medical uses and relieves anxiety for a lot of people, and yet the US is beholden to pharmas pushing addictive drugs while so many sit jailed for minor marijuana possession charges. I am pretty sure that is a violation of rights too.

The availability of low cost prescription drugs definitely is a part of fixing class warfare, that the US is doing nothing about.

And last I checked, chicken, lamb, pork are meats too, and the studies are on vegetarians and there are contradicting studies too. And if you want to tell me that people need to eat only beef to get better, then you better have some solid evidence for that.

India needs work in free speech, no doubt. But minorities do get to have a voice. They are free to participate in the democracy, publish newspapers, write books (and there are plenty of books written about addressing casteism in India).

I never argued India is perfect. I am just telling people to get off the high horse. There are things India does better than the US too. And unless the west is willing to absorb the Asian population, the comparison is particularly useless since people are not just going to be uprooted and moved to the US.

Modi is a Hindu nationalist who is democratically elected.

While I appreciate what Western democracies are doing w.r.t. Human Rights, they have their fair share of bad treatment of minorities. Racial discrimination comes to my mind.