Why is the burden of proof on the poster arguing that India is more democratic rather than the side arguing that US is more democratic?

India is the world's largest democracy, has a multi-party system, has had prime ministers from different religions, and both men and women top leaders. The US on the other hand has only had Christian leaders (4 have technically not specified), and all men. It's also a 2-party system. The burden of proof here for this statement needs to be on the one claiming that US is more democratic.

The greatest challenge for the rise of India is the colonialistic mindset of many (but not all) Indians today. Hold yourselves equal and ask for you what you rightfully deserve.

> Why is the burden of proof on the poster arguing that India is more democratic rather than the side arguing that US is more democratic?

Because they made the claim, and I found this claim more unconventional and potentially more interesting to draw out than the claims in the comment they replied to. There was no conscious hidden agenda here. If someone (on whatever side of this discussion) makes a novel claim, they should be expected to provide a reasonable rationale, or otherwise expect that it will be questioned or just disregarded.

It is only a "novel" claim in America, where America must be the best of everything.

The novelty of the claim really wasn't my main point, nor was trying to make the US out to be the most democratic country. I don't even live there, and it certainly isn't just in the US that this claim would be seen as novel or unconventional. One would think someone who points out the ignorance of "Americans" would not resort to using it themselves in the same discussion.

See the Democracy Index, which rates the US as rather more democratic than India and has at least some semblance of a loose methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait.