> Having one-party rule for 60 years is no democracy. Er, what? Democracy means people can choose the government. There were several political parties in those

> Having one-party rule for 60 years is no democracy. 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.