If you're interested in how India's history informs our politics, economy, and foreign relations today, take a look at Today in Indian History, a newsletter which my brother and I recently launched. Four times a week, we lay out the context and consequences of an event in India's past that happened on that date. Link below:
India is not perfect. But just to bring things into perspective, the cited "beacon" of liberal democracy, USA, didn't allow women to vote until as recent as a hundred years ago. The civil rights movement is not even a century old. Compared to that India has been independent for less than 72 years. Democracy takes time but results are permanent.
Now please take a note all the naysayers: Indians will strive and they will excel without any "great leaps" or "gulags" like they have in last 70 odd years. "Jantantra" or democracy is an integral part of India, and it will not falter in face of systemic racism by the west (and far east) or bullying by likes of China.
There was a time when a whole bunch of people thought that democracy will never work in India or even worse, India as country will not exist because of its extreme diversity. The British even believed Indians are incapable to "govern themselves". But fast forward to present - they all have been proved wrong.
Democracy is slow, but that is the only and the universally accepted way forward for a diverse country like India.
Now, facts. Upon independence, India's constitution was written by the constituent assembly presided over by an "untouchable". This constitution abolished discrimination on basis of caste, and as an affirmative action reserved seats in educational institutions and jobs in all state sponsored educational and public institutions.
This reservation system has rapidly been increasing over the years and now a staggering 60 - 70% of all positions are reserved today. What's more, the current Prime Minister of India and the President of India are from backward castes and scheduled caste respectively, and a majority of political parties and multiple Chief Ministers presently belong to traditionally backward castes. Even election constituencies are reserved, so that there is fixed amount of representation in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (lower and upper houses) no matter which government is in power.
The best any authoritarian regime can do right now is portray as propaganda that India is a "semi slavery society" which has no "liberal" shared values with the democracies in the West so everyone should shun it.
It's a standard divide and rule strategy.
It hasn't happened, our democracy is as strong as it's ever been, with a much higher voter turnout than most western nations. We also have a myriad of political parties in power in different states, from communism in Kerala to right wing governance for years in Gujarat.
The US, in comparison, has very low voter turnout even for their presidential elections and extremely popular candidates like Bernie Sanders can't even fight the election, because apparently, a true democracy doesn't allow you to choose from more than 2 choices.
India has its flaws, but all countries do. Doomsayers will keep predicting death, while the people working towards betterment know the flaws and will try to fix stuff instead.
I'd have expected HN to have more of the second view, and I'm pretty disappointed to see that that's not the case.
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.
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) :
A judge dies right before court case hearing of the top leader of the ruling party. 
An Indian Police Service officer  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. . She is accused of "planning to hold protests".
A gunman fired shots at protestors during the same anti-CAA protests  and gets bail within a month  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. 
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:
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:
Vs when a opposition member is also accused of same crime:
Actually they did filed cases against students for protesting against government.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
There is a presumption in that article that population numbers are all that matters.
There's a lot more that needs to be analyzed - for example the natural resources available and the productivity and availability of education and healthcare for the population.
To be clear, I believe there is plenty of opportunity as well as risk for India. The article seems to gloss over the risks
For example India's biggest threat might actually be its depleting ground water
India must shed Nehru's outdated non-aligned stance (as if China's 1962 treachery hadn't discredited it already) and ally with the US and Japan on equal terms to contain China. India should also invest massively in solar-powered desalination technology to lessen its dependance on river systems that will be disrupted by climate change even without Chinese mischief.
But with knowledge driven economy coming into picture, Having a huge population has any advantage?
First world countries certainly have head start in this case, who are already attracting best brains from across world ( universities and companies)
So, India will retain the importance only if it can sustain current brain drain which means huge investment in younger generation.
China did it when world still needed humans to do lot of manufacturing which is changing very rapidly. In fact, India's manufacturing sector is not adapting lot of automation just to make sure they can capitalise human effort which may be cheaper now but may not be in future ( just like in China)
That has been our policy from a while. To further my point, India is still the biggest exporter of beef.
Knowledge driven economy is a possibility in the future. Automation is definitely driving down jobs, but not to the extent we are imagining. Most production of the world is being done in China and other ASEAN countries by its billion+ population.
While China is investing a lot in AI and automation everywhere, do you think it make sense for India to invest in brick and mortar manufacturing sector?
Now that you raised the question of lockdown. Imagine the similar situation in 20 years in future, do you still expect "essential workers" to risk their lives or rather want some drones/robots(controlled by humans of course) doing the work on ground?
But please answer my question, where do you want manufacturing to happen in the next 20 years ? India or China ?
Regarding AI and Automation, yes, India is definitely falling behind in that race and should invest more. But what percentage of the population will support that ? Will the poor care about food on their plates or AI and Automation ?
A democracy is represented by majority not minority.
In next 20 years, do you want a world lead by democracies or China ? Please vote with your wallet. Democracy is as much about duties as rights.
Wherever the manufacturing happens, India should lead that rather than doing it itself.
I am all for democracy, but China has proven that democracy may not be needed for economic growth, it is upto people to choose the path rather than something forced on them. I believe in individual liberty than democracy.
The reason Modi is running away with national elections is because of the absolute incompetence of the main opposition, the Congress party. Their decades of mind boggling corruption has finally caught up to them and their reluctance to look beyond the Gandhi family for leadership is costing them dearly. That combined with BJP's election machinery (which Modi has built) means that opposition has to raise their game spectacularly, which they are not able to do.
But, if I don't, how will I be able to call Trump a facist? /s
In all seriousness, your reply could have been written about the United States word for word. Some people simply see cult like following and divisive politics as being facism. For those people, your explanation explains nothing.
You wouldn't hear that though Modi has won federal elections twice, his party has lost many state elections during the same time. But he hasn't really done anything nefarious that could stop such losses.
People has chosen Modi because at this stage, there's no alternative strong figure that can solve many India's problem.
YOu'd hear about MOdi removing article 370 from Kashmir, the Citizen bill, but you won't get the details about the real reason of why those are needed to solve the problem India has been facing since independence but no prior gov attempted to implement them (despite agreeing in principles on multiple occasions) just because of vote-politics.
So what is the real reason then to solve the problem India has been facing since independence?
Nobody has a clue on how population growth is going to be in next 30 yrs for both China and India. Its too dynamic and impossible to forecast, let alone make broad sweeping action items to advocate for.
And it's quite clear that population is a component of world power. Definitely not the only component, and probably not the most important component, but if all else is equal, the larger country will be the more powerful.
With recent history in mind, I doubt the emphasized part. India is not actually a beacon of a liberal or a constitutional democracy, as has been shown in the last six years by the party in power in the central government. If anything, India is regressing and ignoring constitutional protections while also becoming more protectionist and closed to other countries. Mass surveillance, rights being curbed, an authoritarian state that requires citizens to submit to its orders (without legal backing) and other factors are serious concerns that shouldn’t be ignored by outsiders.
To be clear, I have friends of Indian descent, and I value them, but I also work with people from India and I'm afraid I find them more annoying than not.
The best way to work on such feelings is with a professional such as a therapist. I'd like to remind you that there doesn't need to be anything wrong with a person to be able to benefit from seeing a therapist.
Seeing a (good) therapist can, and in almost all cases will make someone a better person because you get a (more or less) objective outside view that makes you question and explore your emotions, why you feel the way you feel, and help you figure out what you can do to change for the better.
That said, IMO, you could start here:
Firstly, you must realise (you very probably already know this, maybe you just haven't given it much thought) that there are all kinds of people from all countries, in all kinds of demographics.
Secondly, it's import to ask yourself what is it about most Indians that you find annoying? Is it their attitude? Is it their accent? Is it their culture?
Don't be ashamed if you find that your reasoning doesn't make sense or isn't completely rational. Feelings often aren't. That's okay.
Once you know what it is that you don't like about Indians, pay attention to it next time you feel annoyed by Indians. Are they really doing something that should annoy you? Or is it a false perception of yours? Recognising biases and catching yourself in the act goes a long way towards overcoming said biases.
You should also try to find like-minded individuals, or individuals that you look up to from the demographic in question and spend time with them. That'll help you realise that there are likable and admirable people within the group too, and help dismiss your biases against them.
This article has some good advice too: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-practice/201508/6...
I wish you the best of luck.
But by far I see this the worste in youths. Highschoolers and undergrads are so painfully unoriginal. But, that's life. Better to focus your attention on people who you find unique and impressive than to worry about people who are still finding themselves.
The article highlights this by saying "India currently punches below its weight on the world stage" and it's true if we go by the numbers. Also, if we go by the numbers the country is in the best state ever compared to its past. Modernization in manufacturing or agriculture will surely increase the country's output which I believe should be the target of governance.
Oh, "populism" is the new best friend of the rising powers.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.
This is a fiction that was created by Chinese nationalists    over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries.
"Dialects" between provinces can be very different and mutually unintelligible verbally. In many other contexts they would have been considered different languages, but since the imperial bureaucracy and the Chinese writing system helped maintain a sense of unity in spite of it we don't.
All this isn't to say Han identity is any less real than any other identity. The idea of "ethnic identity" is fundamentally constructed and imaginary across the board. That's also why it's not a great explanatory factor for much of anything. These categories aren't primordial, they're usually reflective of the very thing for which you're trying to use it as an explanation.
People (Americans dare I say ?) have no problems accepting blacks are behind whites on most development indices EVEN TODAY because of slavery and oppression, but somehow can't extend the same logic to former colonial countries like India.
Recent economic hardships of a particular class has threatened democracy and made a joke of fabled American institutions, despite high levels of education and wealth. But a country which was oppressed for centuries and is still reeling in poverty, for benefit of the Western world, now is in a position to help them with a little bit of help and you still can't extend a helping hand in good faith.
Maybe your grandmother would have been a bicycle if she had wheels, but you despite having a brain are a simpleton.
If you post like this, you're perpetuating a nationalistic flamewar, which is just as bad as starting it. If people simply flagged the firestarter it would fizzle out.
Additionally, blaming all of today's problems of India on "slavery", just like they do with blacks in America, is baseless and patronising.
But I suspect the possibility of that happening is rather slim, sadly.
Indian election system has continuously improved over the years. Election violence has reduced the minimum and power transition is always peaceful.
Upward mobility has improved. Many government services have improved tremendously. I can go on and on. Point is everything is improving albeit not at the China's pace. But I will take freedom that I enjoy here anytime over somewhat faster development pace.
Like everything else in India, even this phenomenon exists in extremes. There are cities like Bangalore/Delhi/Hyderabad (almost all Tier 1 cities) where the IT sector flourishes, the concept of caste is almost invisible; bear in mind this is coming from someone who is from those lower castes.
Then you have other places where it is still socially accepted. My parents home in one of northern states is one of them. Communities/small villages are clustered based on castes, people might be forbidden from entering certain places like temples. Caste based marriages are still the norm there. It's certainly improving, but it takes time like everything else. My father still lives there and occasionally tells me about how things are changing, for instance he recently told me about a Muslim family who have been living there for the past decade, something that might not have been possible even 20-30 years ago.
I haven't had the "caste conversation" with my Indian friends for a few years now, but last time I did, they all said marrying outside of their caste would never be accepted by their parents. Friends from Mumbai, Delhi and Pune all said the same. Have things really changed so much in the past 5-10 years?
This just seems like a poor, uneducated opinion for the likes of HN.
The above list is a sparsely updated list of caste crimes in India. What do you mean casteism is outdated? A dalit and a brahmin are equal in this society?
If so kindly show us a place where its the case!
This is the PRESIDENT of the country being shoved upon entering a temple!
So, kindly stop lying
There cannot be an overnight change but I believe the change is happening.
Millions of Indians have criticised this in the past and continue to do so. To deny casteism in India is like denying racism in the USA. The systems/power structure has not changed. The same old rotten filth continues to decide our lives and sorry we are not privileged enough to be free from caste oppression if we hang out with upper caste friends.
That temple incident is certainly bad and many social evils still persist in the society. The only way to quickly get rid of them is to have a China style 'cultural revolution', which involves destroying temples and other religious sites. But I guess it's not something which will go well with any Indian.
For ex: caste based marriages and honour killings are best example for these instances.
Indian urban liberals try their best but they don't know the reality on ground
The same inequality is growing quickly in the USA when you consider the percentage of wealth the 1% has.
> The Hindu caste/social grouping system tells millions of people that they are contaminated and their fate is doomed upon birth.
Sure, maybe 100 years ago. But attitudes have been changing and there are numerous government programs designed specifically to bring up those in "lower castes" with the ultimate goal of equality for everyone. Indian culture is still very different from Western culture and far deeper ingrained into the average person. Change does not happen overnight. Everything happening in India in a broader view points to a trend of more equality and freedoms, not less. More governmental programs seek to address issues of inequalities, especially caste discrimination, than at any prior point in Indian history. Of course there are still issues, I won't argue there are no flaws, but calling it a Semi Slavery society these days is delusional at best, malintent at worst.
India can never be a superpower until we are born inequal at birth!
There will be growth only in a society which has some sort of equality.
Anyone can look at the amount of upper castes in positions of power, land ownership share and executive positions in the country. You have to compare it with the population distribution among castes and you'll see the inequality immediately.
The main problem here is that it's not even in the mainstream public discourse cause the narrative is always set by the upper castes.
People were trending black lives matter as if they care about humanity. It was so hypocritical!
This won't stop unless caste is uprooted from the society.
> The main problem here is that it's not even in the mainstream public discourse cause the narrative is always set by the upper castes.
mainstream public discourse is set by whoever can set it, it is free for all. In my understanding it is generally the left leaning literate class, talking for suppressed classes. True, most of them have descended from upper-caste, but have since devowed their caste and have become caste-agnostic.
> This won't stop unless caste is uprooted from the society.
Caste is largely getting uprooted from society, I don't see this bringing social equality. In truth, now there is a upper-caste among lower-case -- the early beneficiaries of the reservation with whom others in the lower caste can't compete.
No, its not. The ones with social power only will be able to set the narrative in any society.
>Caste is largely getting uprooted from society, I don't see this bringing social equality.
This is not true. The system stays the same. We are in a modernised casteist society
>In truth, now there is a upper-caste among lower-case -- the early beneficiaries of the reservation with whom others in the lower caste can't compete.
The point of reservation is for representation. Not for competence or anything else. Again this is a classic upper caste narrative that is pushed repeatedly. Its not an economic upliftment program. Its only for representation.
Of-course there were struggles with others before that, such as Brahmins, but those were political struggles, not existential. Many times Buddhists gained the favor of Kings, other times Brahmins.
Muslim invaders eliminated them forever from India. Read this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists#Perse...
Unlike the USA and other western countries? Have you been in USA recently? In fact, if one did the genuine stats incorporating analysis of wage slaves and issues around food stamps, I'd wager that slavery is more of an issue in USA.
> It is so hard to believe such brutal system still exist in human society
It is so hard to believe that James Byrd Jr was dragged behind a truck until his head popped off due to the friction with the road. That was not in the 1800s. That was in 1998. This wasn't in some Appalachian village, it was in Jasper. Yes, a sunset town. And that murderous knee for 8 minutes 46 seconds on George Floyd. That was in 2020. In Minneapolis. Not some tiny Indian village. Do we really need to keep going? We should look in the mirror.
China is doing very well today and we have a lot to learn from them, but what happens when they reach the top and dominate ? What values will guide them ? What keeps those in power in check ?
Do you see what's happening in South China sea ?
COVID-19 spread because voices were suppressed in the beginning and a lack of free media. If anything it should be an example of the danger suppression of free speech to the whole world.
Why was the WHO president/vice president so afraid of speaking against China ?
Why are basket ball players and NBA afraid of speaking out against China but openly criticize their own president ?
right, both countries are systemically killing, displacing and putting muslims in imprisonment camps
Its as good as looking at two hurricanes and saying well this hurricane is heading towards us, so we better "support" the other one and maybe cool shit will happen.
It makes an engaging story though.
The Republic of India more than 70 years old. And India is not the only democracy with a multitude of cultures.