>> (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.)

The new assertive Indian supreme court is after the new CJI took office. The previous CJI was very pro government - for certain reasons.

> not understanding the difference between majoritarianism and democracy

Democracy literally is: rule of the people. If the majority in a country votes one way and this way is not acceptable to the minority, there are a few ways to frustrate the will of the people:

- give minorities veto power over decisions affecting the lives of the majority

- install a permanent plutocracy within various arms of the government that is not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form

This happens in India all the time. Know, however, that all these options are undemocratic to the core. And eventually ends badly for everyone involved.

This sense about a measure of authoritarianism or failure of democracy, feels like a moral high ground, to pick and pry on India , in almost every Indian journal. Yet they write article upon article, in India , of suppression of freedom , which seem not related at all!Why is that? Are these colonial standards essential for all of common-wealth ?

Not sure what you mean; What sense? what colonial standards?

What makes this democratically elected government authoritarian?

India is surrounded by communist China, Islamist Pakistan, Afganistan, Bangladesh (where only a couple of days ago 300 Hindus were murdered by Islamist for no reason), Military dictatorship in Myanmar.

I do not know what benchmark you use for authoritarianism.

India falling in various democracy and freedom indexes [1][2] are definitely a benchmark.

But of course, your next reply will be how flawed these indexes are and how the entire world has some vendetta against India.

[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...

[2] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-again-placed-at...

In a democracy the only thing that matters is the mandate of the people.

I am certain after all the fake votes and drama that ultimately ended with storming of the capitol, I would perhaps place Indian democracy above that of the US.

> In a democracy the only thing that matters is the mandate of the people.

No it doesn't. Freedom of press and speech are a key component of democracy.

EXACTLY. You can't just label any government you don't like as undemocratic or authoritarian randomly. If elections were held and when there were no electoral fraud and people voted for this Government, it doesn't just magically become undemocratic just because you don't like it.

Calling India undemocratic is definitely a stretch. But the current government is definitely more authoritarian. Considering the huge lack of respect to law and order in India, that's fair to a certain extent. Here, in the US, anti-vaxxers practically have a free reign in certain places. Any attempt to coerce them into vaccination is considered as "authoritarian".