I'm assuming by small country you meant Pakistan. If so, this couldn't be further from truth. Pakistan isn't hostile toward India because India isn't great; the reason is in the reason of its creation and a relentless need to justify that reason. Pakistan came into existence based on an idea that Muslims couldn't survive in a democratic nation with majority Hindu population as Hindus would be a de-facto rulers. (Although this argument has turned out to be a completely false as in India the population of Muslims have grown from 8% to 14%+ after independence. On the other hand, minority population - Hindus/etc. - have declined considerably in Pakistan.) Be it culture, history or language, Pakistan has most things common with India. If there's piece between both, people would soon start questioning reason to stay separate - together both can be a great powerful nation on the world. Many outside interests (read super-powers) wouldn't like this to happen so they keep fueling aggressive elements. Similarly, rulers of Pakistan can't allow this to happen for obvious reason. Till date, you can hear their leaders justifying separation from India in their speeches by highlighting some stray incident happened with some Muslim in India.
That said, the fears of Jinnah and the Muslim League were far from unfounded. While Gandhi was not hostile to Muslims like the VHP/RSS who ended up murdering him, his vision of India accorded them a subordinate role at best, as with the untouchables.
India has always been a pluralist place, and it is not ethnically homogeneous like China (genetically India is composed of a few hundred population clusters that have endogamy higher than 99.9%, higher than Ashkenazi Jews, for example). That's why India is unlikely to ever get a strong centralizing state like China. That also why democracy is a hardy weed in India, and may prove more resilient than the authoritarian Communist regime based on naked force on the other side of the Himalayas. Even the worst disturbances in modern Indian history, around the time of Partition, pale in comparison with the death toll of Mao's Great Leap Forward or his Cultural Revolution.
What is the basis for this? People have been predicting fall of democracy in India for decades (especially in the West), but nothing of that sort has happened. The closest incident was the state of emergency under Indira Gandhi in 1975-1977. India successfully recovered back then when the populace was far less educated and far less exposed to the outside world. It's not likely that anything like that is going to happen again.
Media and Judiciary are important pillars of democracy, but they are tightly controlled by the Government in India.
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by President (Current Government) [1]:
A judge dies right before court case hearing of the top leader of the ruling party. [2]
An Indian Police Service officer [3] is known for his role in filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India against the then Chief Minister of the Government of Gujarat, Mr. Modi, concerning Modi's alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots. On 30 September 2011, he was arrested due to a case, the Supreme Court suspended the case in April 2012. On 20 June 2019, he was sentenced to life in relation to another case dating back to 1990.
A 27-year old pregnant lady has been lodged in Jail for participating in the anti-CAA protests and denied bail as the judge finds 'no merit' in her bail plea. [4]. She is accused of "planning to hold protests".
A gunman fired shots at protestors during the same anti-CAA protests [5] and gets bail within a month [6] by the court:
A ruling party leader who gave a hate speech during the same anti-CAA protests on camera while police officers standing with him on stage is free and still part of the ruling party. [7]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjan_Gogoi#Member_of_Rajya_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brijgopal_Harkishan_Loya
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjiv_Bhatt
[4] https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/jun/04/ja...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/gunman-injures...
[6] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/shaheen-bagh-shooter-kapil-b...
[7] https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/bjp-leader-kapil-mishras-3-d...
Rest aside forming an opposition, I dont even feel safe to comment against government by using my real handle.
This article summarizes state of tv news media in India: http://www.nationalheraldindia.com/amp/story/india%252F14-de...
https://www.news18.com/news/india/140-cases-filed-against-aa...
Edited to add more content:
You can see the difference in how legal system treats you based on if you are from ruling party or opposition.
The prime minister of India is accused of using a fake degree.
See the difference when Indian PM Modi is accused of fake degree:
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/the-curious-case-o...
Vs when a opposition member is also accused of same crime:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.hindustantimes.com/delhi/delh...
Actually they did filed cases against students for protesting against government.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/apr/21/de...
News media is a business and unfortunately favors the party with more money. There are news media that favor the communists and the main opposition party too. At any rate, please dont cite national herald. Democracy means people’s will, which may not be our personal will. People elected this government twice consecutively. They feel hopeful that there would be positive changes in the country.
Lastly, let’s try to overcome our pain body. We will have to do it some time for our own happiness.
You don't have a democracy when the state controls all the TV media.
> What is the basis for this
The basis for this is the level of grinding poverty in India, live in a Indian slum for a year and then come back to me, and spew the virtues of "democracy" vs economic freedom and rights.
Poverty is organic propaganda for extremism and communism.
Er, what? Democracy means people can choose the government. There were several political parties in those 60 years of Congress rule. They just weren't big enough to win elections. In any case, you just have to look at the last 20+ years to see how government has alternated between political parties.
> You don't have a democracy when the state controls all the TV media.
[citation needed]
> The basis for this is the level of grinding poverty in India
270 million lifted out of poverty just in a decade (2006-2016), second only to China. Existence of poverty means democracy is not the right form governing? You make no sense. What is the alternative?
> live in a Indian slum for a year and then come back to me, and spew the virtues of "democracy" vs economic freedom and rights
I have lived in India for better part of two decades. I don't need lessons from you on what poverty looks like, thanks.
Please share some data points when you make such tall claims. India sure does has Fox and Breitbart equivalent of its own. But that doesn't imply that the state controls 'all the media'.
Literally 0 discussion on anything that puts government in bad light. 0 discussion on issues like health, education, unemployment etc. Most of the discussion are on breaking communal harmony (which is in interest of ruling party) and bashing opposition parties.
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/14-debates-on-ram-...
Attempts to bring a constitutional amendment (NRC, CAA) which discriminated against 1 religious community was vehemently opposed and stopped. People took to the streets.
How many political parties does the beacon of democracy in the world have ? How does such an example of democracy end up choosing between a tyrant and a senile ?
Authoritarianism and right wing leaders are on the rise around the world. India is also fighting the same challenges.
Poverty and lack of education are primary reasons of corruption, India is growing organically like a democracy of its size should, fighting the challenges it has.
The only reason India has a voice against China is because of its Nuclear capability, had it relied on the goodwill of the west, India would be bowing to China like other ASEAN countries.
China is at par with US today because of over dependence of the latter on the former. The US can continue to enable a authoritarian, non democratic power, or support a country which believes in its democratic values in becoming its ally against China and stabilize the world.
What do you think will happen to democratic values of the world when China reigns supreme ? (A Uyghur would like to say Hi!)
That's an extraordinary exaggeration. The state dept does not have that power at all, not even close. Show me all the examples of this happening to a major country, much less a major democracy, in the last 50 years.
It's incredibly difficult - nearly impossible - for the state dept to overthrow the government of a major country. That's why Saddam Hussein, the dictator of a very weakened non-major nation, was so hard to remove.
Iran? Overwhelming proof of how hard it is to topple the government of even a mid-major nation. The state dept has wanted to change the government of Iran for four decades now and can't do it.
If the US could topple countries so easily, Putin wouldn't be ruling Russia as a dictator. Chavez wouldn't have continued ruling Venezuela as a dictator (and Maduro wouldn't be in there now). Fidel wouldn't have ruled Cuba as a dictator for so long. China wouldn't be operated the way it is now, ruled by a dictator. North Korea wouldn't be run by the Kim dictatorship. Bashar al-Assad wouldn't still be ruling Syria as a dictator. Although it is interesting what all of these countries have in common.
https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-Washingtons-Anticommun...
They maintain their importance by being creditor nations, i.e. they are productive and save.
> India has all the problems of a democracy without much of the benefit. It's more likely that India becomes a CCP style country than stays a democracy.
There is a fundamental distrust of power structures in India. This is due to multiple waves of colonization by foreign powers, first by the Mughals and second by the British East India Company.
India is likely to be a liberal democracy far longer than the United States. It’s current fascination with populism doesn’t necessarily lead to authoritarianism. Rather it is giving a voice to the most disenfranchised in a country, typically those who are now economically obsoleted by automation.
> If India was so great it's smaller immediate neighbor wouldn't be so hostile towards it, and friendly to CCP.
That is due to political history and infighting between secular and religious figures in India’s independence movement.
India needs to go through a period of "communism" to get anywhere, the type of land reform needed to reduce poverty won't happen without somebody brutal enough to go against the interests of the wealthy in India.
India is still mostly a feudal society, that was thrust into the 20th Century from the 16th Century.
It was robbed of 4 centuries of social change.
> infighting between secular and religious figures
and who do you think instigated it ? how was India able to have different religions living side to side without communal violence until the Brits showed up ?
India could fix it's issues with it's neighbors by being more empathic as a regional hegemon, CCP understands this.
It's more likely that the Indian Communist Party comes into power before 2030, and all of Eurasia switches side and forms a cartel against the G7.
India traded with Muslim nations far before the Brits showed up. British East India Company had to fight Muslim and Hindu rulers in India,by pitting them against each other, to establish their hold. There are documents of Indian saints living under rule of Muslim kings and vice versa.
Please read more about Colonialism and Indian history.
India has been making great progress on most fronts, just not as big leaps as China did.
true
> That’s why so many Indians left during the socialistic policies of Indira Gandhi.
don't know, i think more people leave India now than ever, but that is not necessarily a bad thing (in net).
> It was due to socialism that India regressed and fell behind China.
Questionable, even at the height of cultural revolution in China, India was growing slower than China. Perhaps India had more societal issues that it needs to solve, perhaps China has inherent advantages, in either case, this sort of question is for the historians to discuss.
> Had India adopted state capitalism earlier, as it has now, it would have grown at a much faster rate.
true
The Communist parties of India (CPI and CPM) currently have 5 seats out of 543 in the 2019 national elections, down from 10 in 2014, 19 in 2009 and 53 in 2004. Do you spot a trend? And you think they are going to be in power in 10 years? You are way, way off the mark and you have little to no understanding of Indian politics.
Social reforms combined with capitalism has been working nicely for us.
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-lifted-27...
How you organize your society matters much more, Japan/SK has fraction of the global population, and somehow maintain their economic importance.
India has all the problems of a democracy without much of the benefit. It's more likely that India becomes a CCP style country than stays a democracy.
If India was so great it's smaller immediate neighbor wouldn't be so hostile towards it, and friendly to CCP.
CCP was able to organize G77, so they have the numbers on their side, it's just that poor people don't have a voice, China is providing hard power to the masses of humanity against the interests of G7.
It's a major shift in world power, whether G7 likes it or not.
I am no fan of CCP, nor is CCP a fan of how they do things ! but its the world we live in, where the state department can just overthrow the govt of a major country if it likes, you need the use of hard power to survive.