No matter your political inclinations, you cannot unironically praise Indira Gandhi and denounce the current administration in the same breath. Even if they are ideologically different, they both have similar authoritarian tendencies and a common pathway to power - populism.

Indira Gandhi declared an emergency and used the emergency powers to amend the Indian constitution in a way that benefits her ideology.

That’s in a completely different league when it comes to authoritarianism.

The current PM just keeps winning large electoral victories and is passing laws that benefit his ideology. And sometimes in ways that circumvents the constitution of India.

I think there is a difference.

They haven't declared an emergency to have powers.. Yet.

Looks like Kashmir was out of Sikkim playbook though

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of Indira Gandhi.

> brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy

She also de-democratized India through the emergency and became a near-monarch in her time in power.

> spiralling economic decline

Indira Gandhi was the leader during majority of India's biggest decline during the 1980s. It led to India going entirely bankrupt, begging the IMF for money and being coerced into liberalization.

____________

Indira Gandhi was an IronLady with accomplishments that deserve respect, but her failings with regards to sectarian violence, economy and soft authoritarianism are quite well known and well accepted.

edit: changed phrasing to less inflammatory

Interesting comment.

<Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady>

Would you hail me as an 'Ironlady' if I were to overwhelm you by force?

<who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy>

What is this category of democracy that you extol? I find it ironical that you would label as a win for the spread of democracy the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom.

>> the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom

Today the western democracy is existing by forceful takeover of independent kings and kingdoms, where minority rules through the tyranny of power and weapons.

If you read the history you will know that over 75% of population in Sikkim wanted self governance, India just helped through that transition and prevented minority to be ruled by force.

<Today the western democracy is existing by forceful takeover of independent kings and kingdoms, where minority rules through the tyranny of power and weapons.>

Is that so? Now I'm left wondering what world you are living in.

<If you read the history you will know that over 75% of population in Sikkim wanted self governance, India just helped through that transition and prevented minority to be ruled by force.>

Self governance, by India. How does one miss that? smh

Indira made one bad, expensive decision re the Golden Temple. How hard would it have been to simply lay siege to the place for an extended time without storming in? In many other ways, she was a great democratic force. One costly decision justifiably cost her life - and ironically, same thing happened to her son (Rajiv however was a much less competent ruler).

How can the PM who initiated Emergency to overturn an election and reduce press freedoms be a "great democratic force"?

Having a Monarch does not mean a country is not democratic