7 ms·

India is weird. It's not really called authoritarian (rankings don't classify it as such), but there are many similar stories of government dysfunction and over

India is weird. It's not really called authoritarian (rankings don't classify it as such), but there are many similar stories of government dysfunction and overreach. Maybe someone else has a word for them?

azifali 4y ago
It has slid into authoritarianism.
- digestm 4y ago
  Exactly
parsimo2010 4y ago
Corrupt is an appropriate word for this kind of behavior. The government does not officially condone the behavior, and it would probably function well if the policies were followed as written. But instead people get some power and abuse it. India is not unique, many countries struggle with corruption.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  Many? Which countries do not suffer from corruption? This seems to be the human condition. As the old saying goes, “power corrupts…”. It’s not of question of “if” a country is corrupt, it is “how much”.
  - monkey_monkey 4y ago
    It's more a matter of scale and how embedded it is in everyday life. Getting almost anything done without having to wait months / years / decades requires some form of black money payment ie a bribe.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    For example: have you personally ever had to bribe someone, thought about it, or even considered it a possibility?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    True but India does seem to be steeped in it. I once bribed someone in India accidentally and didn't realise what had happened till afterwards. That's how embedded it is in daily life. I can't imagine that happening anywhere else I've been and I've been a few places.
    - imperistan 4y ago
      What happened? Sounds like an interesting story
- Kab1r 4y ago
  Corruption is large enough in India to have an entire political party dedicated to the issue (Aam Aadmi Party).
ethbr0 4y ago
A lack of rule of law? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- ridiculous_leke 4y ago
  That's true. India is a severely under-policed country.
- 0xmohit 4y ago
  Not quite. Just that the ruler is the law.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    That's contrary to the definition of the term. If the ruler is the law, then there is no rule of law.
    - 0xmohit 4y ago
      > If the ruler is the law, then there is no rule of law. I thought that it was obvious :)
shaan7 4y ago
Yeah its only "sort of" authoritarian, in most regions you can live quite a free life. The cases where it becomes authoritarian is when it comes to religion and criticism of the government. This is the reason that the majority of the population does not even believe in issues that exist (social, political, ecological or otherwise).
- onepointsixC 4y ago
  That just sounds like literally any other authoritarian country. Freedom of speech never was needed in order to speak things which are commonly agreed and central government approved.
- throwaway_62022 4y ago
  As I mentioned above - criticism of any kind of religion can get you in trouble in India[1][2]. But we should not lump that with criticism of government. Do you have any examples, where someone was arrested for simply criticising govt actions? 1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arrested-for-outraging-muslims-1607256.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arreste... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    >Do you have any examples, where someone was arrested for simply criticising govt actions? Muslim citizens of India being arrested for criticizing the government's action of insulting their religion One even had their family home demolished without any due process as revenge for criticizing the government
kanduri 4y ago
It is an electoral autocracy. Merely having elections doesn't make it "democratic". Certainly not if much of mainstream media is under the ownership of the biggest "donors" of the current ruling disposition. Alternative crowd sourced media houses such as AltNews, The Wire among others are under real danger as are socio-political activists, union organizers, smaller opposition political parties, etc. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944
ramraj07 4y ago
Heres the interesting thing though. A majority of Indian citizens would agree with this overreach. If the majority agrees with heavy handed tactics and they are enforced by elected officials with at least reasonably fair elections then is it right to call it an autocracy? I don’t agree with any of this of course but it is unfortunate reality here.
- tedivm 4y ago
  - devin 4y ago
    Not sure what you’re referring to. A majority certainly does not approve of overturning Roe, quite the opposite.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 4y ago
      In polls they don't, but in practice, the majority voted for this outcome.
      - mehlmao 4y ago
        Democratic candidates won the popular vote in 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020.
        jasonlotito 4y ago
        Sorry, but those are people who went to the polls. Those who could vote but did not go to the polls voted for the winner. Voting by abstaining is still voting. If you include the voting population that did not vote in the tally, they effectively voted for this outcome. And before you complain, that's exactly what I was talking about. That's what we are talking about.
kalimanzaro 4y ago
An autocracy of the majority, for the majority, by the majority.
- snambi 4y ago
  There is a name for it, democracy.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    democracy is orthogonal to what the person you replied to said, as not all democracies devolve into such authoritarianism
spaceman_2020 4y ago
The India system is essentially a system of “who you know”. Anyone who grew up in India knows that if you’re a powerful bureaucrat, cop, or politician, you can do whatever you want. The law doesn’t really apply to you. The only exception is if you manage to piss off someone higher up in the power hierarchy. Its not so much as authoritarian as it is Darwinian.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  That’s called nepotism, not Darwinian.
- worker_person 4y ago
  I can't find it now, There was an old article talking about a Zombie party in India. Basically bribing an official to get someone declared dead was easy. Getting it fixed was basically impossible. There was some guy running for office who was legally dead.
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh_Association_of_Dead_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh_Association_of_D...
achow 4y ago
Well so was the case in USA few years back. It is not about govt per se (which is grappling with bigger issues - Russia, Srilanka..) but is about mid and lower level politicians, govt and police officers.. Also the pattern is inconsistent, some regions in India is polar opposite to this kind of right leanings - Ex. East of India. Some are neutral - most of South India. India is a large and complex country; the general sentiment is no different than looking at Ireland and thinking French politics generally sucks (or whatever appropriate example.. I have no clue how politics is in either of these countries).
pessimizer 4y ago
https://www.ibtimes.com/hindu-nationalists-historical-links-nazism-fascism-214222 https://www.ibtimes.com/hindu-nationalists-historical-links-... Hindu Nationalist’s Historical Links to Nazism and Fascism Sorry for the awful source, but the predecessors of the BJP were openly patterned after European fascist movements, there were contacts between them and a mutual affection. There's even a strain of European mystic Hindu Nazism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi
garyfirestorm 4y ago
kleptocracy
gnufied 4y ago
I think hate speech laws in India are overboard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India and although not enacted by current govt. it can be easily abused by police and that is what is happening in many instances. These laws are vague to a fault and govt. has given themselves too much power (and I do not see it changing anytime soon, who wants to give up power?). It is easy to selectively apply these laws and that in itself can promote enmity that these laws were designed to protect from.
biosboiii 4y ago
>It's not really called authoritarian (rankings don't classify it as such) Because they serve US interest, especially against China. Despite "authoritarian" being a buzzword, you should maybe base your views on a country on your observations (such as the extreme violation of basic human rights in India regarding muslims, the fact that there are laws against muslim and hindu folks marrying, labelled as "love jihad", the fact that the government shot multiple people protesting against the government in 2020) and not on some obscure rankings, funded and made by US NGOs (see National Endowment for Democracy as a reference)
- signatoremo 4y ago
  Hmm India has never been a close US’s ally, the latest example being their stand in the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They are more often than not at odd with the US’s interest. The only thing that brings the two sides together is China.
thorncorona 4y ago
They are attempting to become an autocratic ethnostate

azifali 4y ago

It has slid into authoritarianism.

digestm 4y ago
Exactly

parsimo2010 4y ago

Corrupt is an appropriate word for this kind of behavior. The government does not officially condone the behavior, and it would probably function well if the policies were followed as written. But instead people get some power and abuse it. India is not unique, many countries struggle with corruption.

voakbasda 4y ago
Many? Which countries do not suffer from corruption? This seems to be the human condition. As the old saying goes, “power corrupts…”. It’s not of question of “if” a country is corrupt, it is “how much”.
- monkey_monkey 4y ago
  It's more a matter of scale and how embedded it is in everyday life. Getting almost anything done without having to wait months / years / decades requires some form of black money payment ie a bribe.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  For example: have you personally ever had to bribe someone, thought about it, or even considered it a possibility?
- brigandish 4y ago
  True but India does seem to be steeped in it. I once bribed someone in India accidentally and didn't realise what had happened till afterwards. That's how embedded it is in daily life. I can't imagine that happening anywhere else I've been and I've been a few places.
  - imperistan 4y ago
    What happened? Sounds like an interesting story
Kab1r 4y ago
Corruption is large enough in India to have an entire political party dedicated to the issue (Aam Aadmi Party).

ethbr0 4y ago

A lack of rule of law? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

ridiculous_leke 4y ago
That's true. India is a severely under-policed country.
0xmohit 4y ago
Not quite. Just that the ruler is the law.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  That's contrary to the definition of the term. If the ruler is the law, then there is no rule of law.
  - 0xmohit 4y ago
    > If the ruler is the law, then there is no rule of law. I thought that it was obvious :)

shaan7 4y ago

Yeah its only "sort of" authoritarian, in most regions you can live quite a free life. The cases where it becomes authoritarian is when it comes to religion and criticism of the government. This is the reason that the majority of the population does not even believe in issues that exist (social, political, ecological or otherwise).

onepointsixC 4y ago
That just sounds like literally any other authoritarian country. Freedom of speech never was needed in order to speak things which are commonly agreed and central government approved.
throwaway_62022 4y ago
As I mentioned above - criticism of any kind of religion can get you in trouble in India[1][2]. But we should not lump that with criticism of government. Do you have any examples, where someone was arrested for simply criticising govt actions? 1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arrested-for-outraging-muslims-1607256.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arreste... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  >Do you have any examples, where someone was arrested for simply criticising govt actions? Muslim citizens of India being arrested for criticizing the government's action of insulting their religion One even had their family home demolished without any due process as revenge for criticizing the government

kanduri 4y ago

It is an electoral autocracy. Merely having elections doesn't make it "democratic". Certainly not if much of mainstream media is under the ownership of the biggest "donors" of the current ruling disposition. Alternative crowd sourced media houses such as AltNews, The Wire among others are under real danger as are socio-political activists, union organizers, smaller opposition political parties, etc. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944

ramraj07 4y ago

Heres the interesting thing though. A majority of Indian citizens would agree with this overreach. If the majority agrees with heavy handed tactics and they are enforced by elected officials with at least reasonably fair elections then is it right to call it an autocracy? I don’t agree with any of this of course but it is unfortunate reality here.

tedivm 4y ago
- devin 4y ago
  Not sure what you’re referring to. A majority certainly does not approve of overturning Roe, quite the opposite.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonlotito 4y ago
    In polls they don't, but in practice, the majority voted for this outcome.
    - mehlmao 4y ago
      Democratic candidates won the popular vote in 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020.
      - jasonlotito 4y ago
        Sorry, but those are people who went to the polls. Those who could vote but did not go to the polls voted for the winner. Voting by abstaining is still voting. If you include the voting population that did not vote in the tally, they effectively voted for this outcome. And before you complain, that's exactly what I was talking about. That's what we are talking about.

kalimanzaro 4y ago

An autocracy of the majority, for the majority, by the majority.

snambi 4y ago
There is a name for it, democracy.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  democracy is orthogonal to what the person you replied to said, as not all democracies devolve into such authoritarianism

spaceman_2020 4y ago

The India system is essentially a system of “who you know”. Anyone who grew up in India knows that if you’re a powerful bureaucrat, cop, or politician, you can do whatever you want. The law doesn’t really apply to you. The only exception is if you manage to piss off someone higher up in the power hierarchy. Its not so much as authoritarian as it is Darwinian.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
That’s called nepotism, not Darwinian.
worker_person 4y ago
I can't find it now, There was an old article talking about a Zombie party in India. Basically bribing an official to get someone declared dead was easy. Getting it fixed was basically impossible. There was some guy running for office who was legally dead.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh_Association_of_Dead_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh_Association_of_D...

achow 4y ago

Well so was the case in USA few years back. It is not about govt per se (which is grappling with bigger issues - Russia, Srilanka..) but is about mid and lower level politicians, govt and police officers.. Also the pattern is inconsistent, some regions in India is polar opposite to this kind of right leanings - Ex. East of India. Some are neutral - most of South India. India is a large and complex country; the general sentiment is no different than looking at Ireland and thinking French politics generally sucks (or whatever appropriate example.. I have no clue how politics is in either of these countries).

pessimizer 4y ago

https://www.ibtimes.com/hindu-nationalists-historical-links-nazism-fascism-214222 https://www.ibtimes.com/hindu-nationalists-historical-links-... Hindu Nationalist’s Historical Links to Nazism and Fascism Sorry for the awful source, but the predecessors of the BJP were openly patterned after European fascist movements, there were contacts between them and a mutual affection. There's even a strain of European mystic Hindu Nazism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi

garyfirestorm 4y ago

kleptocracy

gnufied 4y ago

I think hate speech laws in India are overboard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India and although not enacted by current govt. it can be easily abused by police and that is what is happening in many instances. These laws are vague to a fault and govt. has given themselves too much power (and I do not see it changing anytime soon, who wants to give up power?). It is easy to selectively apply these laws and that in itself can promote enmity that these laws were designed to protect from.

biosboiii 4y ago

>It's not really called authoritarian (rankings don't classify it as such) Because they serve US interest, especially against China. Despite "authoritarian" being a buzzword, you should maybe base your views on a country on your observations (such as the extreme violation of basic human rights in India regarding muslims, the fact that there are laws against muslim and hindu folks marrying, labelled as "love jihad", the fact that the government shot multiple people protesting against the government in 2020) and not on some obscure rankings, funded and made by US NGOs (see National Endowment for Democracy as a reference)

signatoremo 4y ago
Hmm India has never been a close US’s ally, the latest example being their stand in the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They are more often than not at odd with the US’s interest. The only thing that brings the two sides together is China.

thorncorona 4y ago

They are attempting to become an autocratic ethnostate