u/AcceptableWrangler1

The debate around E20 often focuses on a 3–4% drop in mileage or perceived maintenance costs for older vehicles. Those are valid points to discuss. But if we're evaluating the policy, we should also ask: what has India gained?

Since E20 was introduced in 2023, ethanol blending has helped India displace an estimated 90–110 million barrels of crude oil imports, saving roughly US$7–9 billion (₹58,000–75,000 crore) in foreign exchange. That's money which would otherwise have been sent overseas to pay for imported crude.

The programme has also created a large domestic market for sugarcane, maize and other ethanol feedstocks, benefiting Indian farmers, distilleries and rural industries. Instead of exporting wealth to oil-producing nations, a larger share of that value circulates within the Indian economy. Add to that the reduction in transport-sector carbon emissions, and there are clear strategic benefits beyond what an individual motorist sees at the pump. We are not running out of water (as yet) so concerns of how sugarcane was made are genuine yet E20 blend has helped in reduction of CO2 which is a greenhouse gas responsible for changing weather patterns (along with methane) and making heat more intense over past few years. This itself is a good reason why E20 makes sense.

We can debate how the policy was implemented. We can question whether it disproportionately benefited certain businesses, whether there were conflicts of interest, whether the environmental benefits are overstated or even whether political connections—such as those involving Nitin Gadkari's family—deserve greater scrutiny. Those are legitimate discussions in a democracy.

But those debates shouldn't distract from the core objective. Even if you disagree with aspects of the implementation, the policy has still reduced India's dependence on imported crude oil, strengthened energy security, supported Indian agriculture and saved the country tens of thousands of crores in foreign exchange. Those are tangible national benefits.

As for vehicle concerns, even car manufacturers have clarified that E20 does not cause engine damage when used in compatible vehicles, although a small reduction in mileage is expected due to ethanol's lower energy content.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/carmakers-on-e20-no-engine-damage-but-mileage-drops/articleshow/132187415.cms⁠�

In the end, E20 isn't primarily a policy to reduce your monthly fuel bill. It's a policy to reduce India's import bill. That's the metric by which it should be judged.

In short, E20 is a strategic policy, not a consumer discount scheme. Even if an individual motorist doesn't save much at the pump, India gains through lower oil imports, stronger energy security, support for farmers, foreign exchange savings and lower emissions and that savings of 7–9 billion US$ can be used in other useful ways. Sometimes the biggest benefits are measured not in one driver's fuel bill but in the country's long-term economic resilience. We can argue how policy was implemented, maybe it benefitted Gadkari’s son too, maybe it isnt as environmental friendly it is but at end of day we as a nation are saved from huge foreign exchange and dependence on international crude oil imports.

India imports most (85–90% of demand) of its crude oil and the landed cost is not just the price of crude. It also includes freight, marine insurance, handling charges, exchange rate fluctuations and other logistics costs. Depending on the country it was imported, it can take anywhere from 10 to 30 days for crude oil to reach Indian ports (time required by ships).

Once it arrives, refiners such as IOC, HPCL and BPCL process the crude into petrol, diesel, ATF and other petroleum products. Refining, storage and distribution also take time. In other words, the petrol sold today is often produced from crude that was purchased three to four weeks earlier, not at today's international crude price.

For example, suppose India buys crude from Africa at $70 per barrel. It takes two weeks to arrive, another week or so to be refined and distributed, and only then does it reach petrol pumps. If global crude prices fall to $65 tomorrow, consumers should not expect retail fuel prices to reflect that drop immediately because the fuel being sold was produced from the earlier, more expensive shipment.

The reverse is also true. When crude prices spike suddenly, retail prices don't always increase by the same proportion because governments and oil marketing companies often absorb part of the increase to reduce the burden on consumers.

A good example is the recent period. Before the US-Iran conflict, crude was around $70 per barrel, and petrol retailed at roughly ₹90 per litre. When the conflict pushed crude prices above $100 per barrel (peaking around $120), petrol prices did not jump proportionately to ₹150 per litre. Instead, they increased only to around ₹110 per litre, indicating that a significant part of the higher cost was being absorbed rather than passed on fully to consumers.

Now that crude prices have eased back towards $70 per barrel, retail prices may not decline immediately for two reasons:

The cheaper crude must first be imported, transported, refined and distributed—a process that can take several weeks.

If governments or oil marketing companies absorbed losses during the period of high crude prices, they may temporarily retain higher taxes or margins to recover part of those costs.

So the relationship is not as simple as "crude goes up today, petrol goes up tomorrow" or "crude falls today, petrol must fall tomorrow." Fuel pricing is influenced by inventory cycles, import lead times, refining costs, taxes, exchange rates and pricing decisions by both the government and oil marketing companies.

The claim that consumers never benefit from lower crude prices overlooks how the petroleum supply chain and pricing mechanism actually work.

The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 is no longer a proposed bill. It was passed by both Houses of Parliament, received Presidential assent and is currently in force across India. Yet, like any other law, it remains subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. The core constitutional question is no longer whether Parliament had the authority to pass the law. The question is whether certain provisions of the Act comply with the Constitution, particularly the balance between Article 14 (Equality Before Law) and Articles 25–26 (Religious Freedom and Management of Religious Affairs).

What Has Already Been Enacted - Most of the Act is operational, including Mandatory registration and digitization of Waqf properties, stronger property records and verification mechanisms, appeals from Waqf Tribunals to High Courts, protection of inheritance rights, including for women heirs and administrative restructuring of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. Importantly, the Supreme Court has not stayed the entire Act, a factor many legal observers view as significant.

So what Is Being Challenged?

The main provisions under judicial scrutiny are:

1. Waqf by User – Whether centuries-old religious properties can continue to be recognized as Waqf without formal title documents.

2. Non-Muslim Representation – Whether limited participation of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council is constitutionally permissible.

3. Denotification Powers – The government's authority to review and potentially remove Waqf status from certain properties.

4. Collector's Role – The extent of executive authority in determining property ownership disputes.

5. Five-Year Islam Requirement – The requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for five years before creating a Waqf.

The Equality Question: Article 14

Perhaps the most interesting constitutional debate concerns Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. Supporters of the amendment ask a straightforward question "if governments across India can exercise varying degrees of oversight over Hindu religious institutions through statutory bodies and state laws, why should Waqf institutions be completely insulated from similar public accountability mechanisms?" They argue that when institutions exercise statutory powers affecting property, public records and legal rights, some level of broader oversight does not violate secularism—it reinforces equal treatment.

Critics counter that Waqf is a religious endowment under Islamic law and that management should remain primarily within the Muslim community under Articles 25 and 26.

The Supreme Court must therefore determine whether Waqf Boards are primarily Religious bodies entitled to autonomous control or Statutory public authorities that Parliament may regulate in the public interest.

So why the Non-Muslim Representation Debate Matters - a common argument in support of the amendment is that allowing a limited number of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards does not transfer control away from Muslims, who would still constitute the overwhelming majority. Supporters contend that if public institutions dealing with land, records, administration and legal disputes affect all citizens, limited representation from outside the community promotes transparency and accountability.

Opponents view even limited non-Muslim participation as interference in the management of a religious institution.

What Is the Likely Outcome

Based on the proceedings so far, the Supreme Court appears focused on scrutinizing specific provisions rather than striking down the entire Act. The most likely outcome appears to be:

1. Most of the Act being upheld.

2. Certain provisions being modified, read down or partially struck down.

3. The broader reform framework remaining intact.

The Larger Constitutional Principle

At its heart, this case is about a question that extends beyond Waqf: Can a secular republic apply different standards of public oversight to different religious institutions or does Article 14 require broadly comparable treatment unless there is a compelling constitutional reason for distinction?

The Supreme Court's eventual answer will shape not only the future of Waqf administration but also the broader debate on equality, religious autonomy and the relationship between faith-based institutions and the modern Indian state.

Parliament has spoken. The President has assented. Now the final constitutional examination rests with the Supreme Court. The judgment will likely determine where India draws the line between religious autonomy and equality before the law.

Pragmatic answer is yes, in several measurable areas, though with important caveats and historical context.

​

Comparing 12 years of BJP rule with 43 years of Congress governments led by the Nehru-Gandhi family (excluding P. V. Narasimha Rao) is not entirely apples-to-apples. Nehru inherited a newly independent, impoverished nation with literacy below 20%, life expectancy around 32 years and virtually no industrial base. Congress especially under Indira, deserves credit for laying many of India's foundations—parliamentary democracy, dams, public sector industries, atomic energy, the Green Revolution, IITs and the early roots of ISRO. Those were important achievements.

​

However, Congress also committed several policy blunders—license raj, delayed economic reforms, excessive bureaucracy and weak execution—which slowed growth and inclusion for decades.

​

If one looks purely at the pace and scale of transformation, the Modi years have delivered faster progress across multiple sectors.

​

Economy and Living Standards

​

Per capita income rose from around ₹75,000 in 2013 to over ₹2 lakh today.

​

India became the world's fastest-growing major economy.

​

Massive financial inclusion through Jan Dhan accounts.

​

UPI transformed India into a global leader in digital payments, processing over 21 billion transactions a month.

​

Infrastructure Revolution

​

National highways expanded from 91,000 km to 146,000 km.

​

Construction speed increased from 11 km/day to 34 km/day.

​

Expressways increased from just 93 km to over 3,000 km.

​

Metro rail networks expanded from 248 km to over 1,000 km.

​

Airports increased from 74 to 162.

​

Electrification and Digital Access

​

Near-universal household electrification (from frequent power cuts even in Delhi in past).

​

Internet users increased from 24 crore to more than 100 crore.

​

Mobile data prices fell from ₹308 per GB to under ₹10 per GB, among the lowest globally.

​

Defence and Strategic Strength

​

Defence exports rose from ₹686 crore to over ₹23,000 crore.

​

Indigenous content in defence production increased from about 25% to 68%.

​

Expansion of missile systems, naval capabilities and border infrastructure.

​

More assertive foreign policy and stronger geopolitical positioning.

​

India now launches a major naval vessel roughly every six weeks.

​

Renewable Energy and Manufacturing

​

Solar capacity increased from 3 GW to nearly 150 GW, making India one of the world's largest solar markets.

​

Semiconductor and electronics manufacturing missions were launched.

​

Mobile phone manufacturing expanded dramatically.

​

Energy demand nearly doubled, reflecting rapid economic growth.

​

Social Welfare and Inclusion

​

Hundreds of millions benefited from toilets, LPG connections, housing and tap-water schemes.

​

Direct Benefit Transfer reduced leakages and corruption.

​

Financial inclusion expanded to previously unbanked populations.

​

Education Expansion

​

India's educational ecosystem has also expanded significantly:

​

14.71 lakh schools

​

24.69 crore students

​

More than 1 crore teachers

​

Over 70,000 higher education institutions

​

More than 1,300 universities

​

Around 52,000 colleges

​

23 IITs

​

22 IIMs

​

23 AIIMS

​

818 medical colleges

​

This hardly resembles a collapsing educational system. It represents one of the world's largest educational ecosystems continuing to expand.

​

Strategic and Technological Capabilities

​

NAVIC satellite navigation system.

​

BrahMos missile exports.

​

Indigenous defence manufacturing.

​

Growing space ambitions.

​

Semiconductor mission.

​

Expansion of nuclear and renewable capacities.

​

But there are caveats. Modi years benefited from:

​

Liberalization initiated in 1991 under Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, Institutions and infrastructure built over previous decades and Globalization and technological advances.

​

India also still faces serious challenges:

​

Employment generation.

​

Agricultural inefficiencies.

​

Slow judicial reforms.

​

Manufacturing lagging overall.

​

Education quality and healthcare outcomes.

​

Urban congestion and pollution.

​

Furthermore, some reforms—labour codes, farm laws and land acquisition reforms—have faced resistance from Congress, other opposition parties, state governments, unions and pressure groups. That is part of the reality of India's noisy democracy, where almost every major reform faces prolonged political contestation.

​

My conclusion - If measured by the speed of infrastructure creation, digital transformation, military modernization, renewable energy expansion, welfare delivery and India's global stature, the Modi-led BJP government has arguably achieved much more in 12 years than the Nehru-Gandhi-led Congress governments achieved during their combined 43 years after independence.

​

That does not mean Congress achieved nothing. It governed a much poorer, newly independent nation and laid many of the foundations upon which today's growth rests.

​

In simple terms: Congress poured the concrete and built the ground floor. BJP has been adding floors at a much faster pace. Both phases matter, but the speed of construction since 2014 has been substantially higher.

​

India remains a work in progress, not a finished project. But judged by measurable outcomes rather than partisan slogans, the trajectory of the last twelve years has been one of accelerated transformation rather than stagnation. 🇮🇳

Every major civilization in history organized society into occupational and social hierarchies. The original Varna framework in ancient India described broad social functions—scholars and teachers, rulers and warriors, traders and agriculturists and service providers. Whether one agrees with the system or not, its stated purpose was the organization of societal responsibilities and division of labor in a complex civilization.

​

Yet modern discussions often portray ancient India as if it alone invented social hierarchy, while other civilizations somehow operated on principles of equality. History tells a very different story.

​

Ancient China had the 4 Occupations:

​

Shi – Scholars and officials

​

Nong – Farmers

​

Gong – Artisans and craftsmen

​

Shang – Merchants and traders

​

The Shi were not considered social equals of Nong, Gong or Shang. Scholars enjoyed prestige, influence and access to power, while lower-ranked groups occupied different social positions.

​

Feudal Japan had its own hierarchy:

​

Samurai

​

Farmers

​

Artisans

​

Merchants

​

Again, the lower ranks were not treated as social equals of the ruling warrior class (Samurai’s).

​

Even Medieval Europe was no different:

​

Clergy

​

Nobility

​

Commoners, peasants, craftsmen, and merchants

​

A peasant was certainly not regarded as the social equal of a nobleman or bishop.

​

So the question must be asked: If China's scholars stood above farmers and artisans, if Japan's samurai stood above commoners and if Europe's nobility stood above peasants, why is occupational hierarchy treated as a uniquely Indian sin?

​

One may choose to call the ancient Indian Varna framework a "caste system." But then intellectual consistency demands applying the same standard to the occupational hierarchies of China, Japan and Europe. These societies also ranked people according to their roles and occupations. Their lower-ranked groups were not treated as social equals of the upper ranks.

​

This does not mean that all systems were identical. Nor does it mean that historical injustices should be ignored. The point is that every ancient civilization had its failures, exclusions and inequalities.

​

What it does mean is that history deserves nuance. The common narrative that India alone created a hierarchical social order while China, Japan and Europe were somehow egalitarian societies is historically indefensible. Social stratification was a near-universal feature of pre-modern civilizations. The difference was in how each society justified it, administered it and how rigidly it evolved over time.

​

Criticize the abuses (of lower ranks) that emerged in Indian society if you wish but be prepared to criticize the abuses that emerged in Chinese, Japanese and European societies as well. For most of human history, civilizations across the world organized society into ranked occupational groups. India was not the exception. It was the norm.

We are often lectured that the Chinese Communist Party CCP is morally superior to messy democracies because it runs on merit, discipline and the collective good rather than family connections and dynasties.

​

Then along comes Mao Xinyu, grandson of Mao Zedong, who rose to the rank of Major General (at age of 39) despite never being known as one of China's great battlefield commanders or military strategists.

​

Apparently, when nepotism happens in democracies, it's called corruption but when it happens in a communist state, it's called "revolutionary heritage."😄😄

​

The irony is delicious. The same system that criticizes political families elsewhere somehow finds room for the descendants of its own founding elites. It turns out that whether it's a monarchy, democracy, dictatorship or communist party, powerful surnames have a remarkable ability to open doors. Human nature seems to be the one ideology that conquers them all.

​

So the next time someone claims that nepotism is a uniquely democratic problem, remind them that even the CCP—an organization that prides itself on ideological purity and meritocracy—has its own version of VIP access. Different slogans. Different flags. Same old family connections.

​

Nepotism doesn't care whether you're capitalist, socialist, communist or democratic. It simply learns the local language and carries on. 😉

​

Few more examples from the great chinese😄

​

Xi Jinping is the son of Xi Zhongxun, one of the CCP's most influential revolutionary veterans.

​

Bo Xilai was the son of Bo Yibo, one of the CCP's famous "Eight Elders." His family pedigree significantly contributed to his prominence before his dramatic downfall.

​

Deng Pufang, son of Deng Xiaoping, became one of the country's most influential public figures and institution builders.

​

Liu Yuan, son of former Chinese President Liu Shaoqi, rose to become a full general in the PLA.

​

Chen Yuan, son of CCP veteran Chen Yun, became one of China's most powerful financial figures.

​

The CCP itself has a commonly used term for such descendants: "Taizidang" (Princelings). The very existence of that term is an acknowledgment that revolutionary lineage can confer influence, networks and opportunities.

​

So the next time someone claims that communist systems have eliminated favoritism and family privilege, remember China didn't abolish aristocracy. It simply replaced hereditary nobles with hereditary revolutionaries.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

One of the distinguishing features of the BJP is that many of its prominent leaders have risen through the ranks rather than being born into political privilege. A significant number started as grassroots workers, student activists, party organizers or ordinary professionals before entering public office. Unlike most political parties which are heavily influenced by dynastic succession, BJP has often showcased leaders who built their careers through years of organizational work and public engagement.

​

Equally noteworthy is that many of these leaders did not begin their political journeys as millionaires or members of wealthy political families. Their rise was largely driven by perseverance, political activism and their ability to connect with people at the ground level. While politics everywhere attracts individuals from varied economic backgrounds, BJP's organizational structure has frequently provided opportunities for workers from modest origins to climb the leadership ladder.

​

This does not mean every leader in BJP fits the same profile but the broader trend demonstrates that political advancement within the party is often linked to grassroots involvement, organizational contribution and electoral performance rather than simply inheritance of a family name or an established political legacy.

​

For young Indians, this offers an important lesson: your bank balance need not determine your political future. If you genuinely wish to serve the nation, start by serving society. Many leaders began by volunteering in community work, social organizations such as RSS or local public initiatives. Dedication, discipline and years of consistent effort can open unexpected doors. You may begin as an ordinary volunteer today but with commitment and public service, there is always the possibility of one day becoming a Chief Minister, a Union Minister or even the Prime Minister as a candidate in BJP. In a true democracy, leadership is not reserved only for the wealthy—it is available to those willing to earn it through service and hard work. That is what BJP is like, cant say same for CONgress or other dynast parties in India.

After years of intensive research, scientists have concluded that conventional units are no longer adequate to measure modern politics. A new system has therefore been adopted worldwide:

Noise is measured in decibels, and stupidity in Sibals.

Progress is measured in kilometers, and promises in Rahulmeters.

Confidence is measured in percentages, and entitlement in Sonia-units.

Headlines are measured in columns, and dramatics in Priyanks.

Experience is measured in years, and excuses in Kharges.

Electricity is measured in watts, and freebie calculations in Kejriwatts.

Speed is measured in kilometers per hour, and U-turns in Kejri-turns.

Storms are measured in wind speeds, and political tempests in Mamta-scale units.

Volume is measured in decibels, and outrage in Banerjeebels.

Arithmetic is measured in numbers, and caste equations in Yadavmatics.

Development is measured in GDP, and dynasty dependence in Gandhi Points.

Logic is measured in arguments, and press conferences in Rahuls.

Advanced Political Physics is to be like:

Facts are measured in data, and narratives in Gandhis.

Stability is measured in years, and coalition mathematics in Kharges.

Policies are measured in outcomes, and speeches in Rahul-hours.

Direction is measured by a compass, and political U-turns by Kejri-angles.

Calm is measured in silence, and agitation in Mamta-magnitudes.

And new official Conversion Table to be like:

1 Sibal = One unit of confidently delivered nonsense.

10 Sibals = Mild confusion.

50 Sibals = Prime-time TV debate.

100 Sibals = National press conference.

500 Sibals = Eligibility for a prime-time panel discussion.

1 Rahulmeter = The distance between a promise and its implementation.

1 Rahul-hour = 60 minutes of speaking while remaining politically stationary.

1 Rahul = The distance between a statement and its intended meaning.

1 Kejri-turn = A perfect 180° political rotation.

2 Kejri-turns = Returning to the original position while insisting nothing changed.

1 Kejri-angle = The precise angle required to explain why yesterday's position no longer applies today.

1 Gandhi Point = One inherited unit of political capital.

100 Gandhi Points = Equivalent to decades of brand value.

Infinite Gandhi Points = Still not accepted as a substitute for performance metrics.

1 Banerjeebel = The volume required to transform a routine issue into a national emergency.

10 Banerjeebels = Enough energy to keep news channels occupied for a week.

1 Yadavmatic = A political equation where every variable eventually resolves into caste arithmetic.

Scientific Observation

Researchers continue to study these units, but every election season creates readings so extreme that existing instruments fail calibration tests. The current record remains:

One National Opposition Alliance = Unquantifiable Sibals, Infinite Rahulmeters, Multiple Kejri-turns, and enough Banerjeebels to be detected from space. 😄

One of the strangest contradictions in modern India is watching some people demand jobs, growth, investment, better infrastructure and higher living standards while simultaneously cheering every movement that seeks to create constant political disruption. Every democracy has the right to protest. Peaceful dissent is not only legitimate but often necessary. However, there is a difference between constructive criticism that seeks solutions and a culture of perpetual outrage that treats disruption itself as an achievement.

A nation does not create jobs through hashtags or protests. It creates jobs through economic growth, investment, manufacturing, infrastructure, entrepreneurship and policy execution. All of these require a stable environment where governments, businesses and institutions can focus on solving problems rather than spending all their time responding to endless political agitation.

The irony is that many young people who complain about unemployment fail to recognize this basic reality. If a government is constantly forced to deal with manufactured chaos, political instability and street-level confrontation, fewer resources and less attention remain available for long-term development priorities. No investor looks at a country experiencing constant unrest and says, "This seems like the perfect place to invest billions of dollars." That does not mean governments should be beyond criticism. Genuine issues such as exam paper leaks, recruitment delays, corruption or administrative failures deserve scrutiny and accountability. Citizens have every right to demand better governance. But demanding reform is very different from celebrating disorder.

Regarding the recent activities of the so-called "Cockroach Janta Party," it is important to separate symbolism from results. The movement has certainly attracted attention, particularly among students frustrated by examination controversies and unemployment concerns. It has amassed a significant social media following and succeeded in bringing media attention to those issues. However, are they really providing an alternative or its all just noise?

History shows that protests can sometimes produce results. The farmers' protests eventually led to the repeal of the farm laws, proving that sustained democratic pressure can influence policy but history also shows that successful nations are built not merely by opposing governments. They are built by creating institutions, businesses, technologies, jobs and opportunities. A country cannot protest its way into prosperity.

Perhaps the bigger concern is how easily some educated people become consumers of narratives that portray India as a hopeless failure while ignoring the country's economic progress, infrastructure expansion and continuing growth. India certainly has challenges but the solution to those challenges is better governance and better policies—not a mindset that assumes every institution must be torn down before anything can be improved.

Common sense should tell us that reform and stability are not enemies. In fact, the most successful societies achieve progress precisely because they balance criticism with responsibility, dissent with development and accountability with nation-building.

Unfortunately, common sense appears to be becoming rarer—even among those who proudly call themselves educated.

We know of those international reports, those indices, which rank all the countries of the world on one basis or another. Multiple of these are then combined to assess how good a country is. Press Freedom Index, Happiness Index, Hunger Index, Democracy Reports by V-Dem, etc. But, what if I told you that these reports are anti-India?

These reports are significantly biased against the ruling NDA government. And no, BJP is not actually wrong in these regards, it’s their hatred towards a government that is more nationalist and conservative than the previous one, and is ruthless about national security threats, unlike the CONgress government which shifted the blame on “Hindu nationalists” to cover up the Muslim perpetrators, like they did during 26/11.

We will expose these indices, and the loopholes they have.

1). Happiness Report : The Happiness Report indicates how happy the people of a country are

Happiest country is Finland and unhappiest country is Afghanistan (according to the index). India ranks 116th in this report (2025 report). You know what’s crazy? Countries like Palestine, Iran and Pakistan rank above India. Palestine has 109th rank, Pakistan has 104th rank, and Iran has 97th rank. And this doesn’t even make any sense.

Palestine is torn by war. Palestinians are living in a warzone. Israel is dominating Palestine. Yet, Palestinians are happier than Indians.

Pakistan is a stratocracy. It is a military dictatorship. The Pakistan Army hasn’t allowed a single democratically elected PM to complete his full term, in 80 years since the country’s founding. Pakistanis are starving, there is serious inflation in the country. Critics and dissidents, specially the Baloch people, mysteriously vanish. Pakistan literally begs from IMF for the expenses of their basic needs. Yet, Pakistanis are happier than Indians.

Iran is a totalitarian theocracy. The Ayatollah (a high-ranking Islamic cleric) rules Iran with an iron fist. Fundamental human rights are suppressed. A young Iranian girl named Mahsa Amini was mu*dered by the regime because she didn’t wear hijab properly. There’s no freedom of speech in Iran, dissidents are persecuted, and the surviving dissidents are exiled from Iran. Yet, Iranians are so happier than Indians.

Look at it further. Iraq is also happier than India supposedly, sitting at 95th rank. Iraq was controlled by a vi*lent terr*rist organization named ISIS for 4 years (2013–2017). ISIS literally beh*aded journalists, be it local Iraqis or outsiders coming in to report. That’s what Iraq lived through. Yet, Iraqis are happier than Indians.

Ukraine is also happier than India, sitting at 111th rank. Ukraine is the same country which was invaded by Russia in 2022, and many Ukrainians were forced to flee as war refugees. The Russo-Ukraine war is still not over, and yet Ukrainians are also happier than Indians.

In the midst of all this, the people of India, a vibrant democracy with no history of military rule, or war refuge situations, or theocratic totalitarianism, or terr*rist organization control, is somehow unhappier than that of all of these countries.

The WHR is a joke.

2). Press Freedom Index : This index indicates how freely can the journalists of a country report

Norway has the freest press, and Eritrea has the most repressive press. India’s rank is 157th. What’s funny is that Rwanda, Pakistan, Laos, Burkina Faso, Qatar, Kuwait, Niger, these countries rank above India. Their press is freer than India. Rwanda ranks at 139th, Pakistan ranks at 153th, Laos ranks at 154th, Burkina Faso literally ranks at 110th, Qatar literally ranks at 75th, Kuwait ranks at 136th and Niger is ranked at 112th.

Rwanda is an autocracy. Rwanda has been under the absolute control of President Paul Kagame since 1994 (informally), whilst he formally claimed control in 2000. He’s routinely suppressing the freedom of speech of Rwandans. YouTubers and bloggers critiquing Rwanda, are arrested, detained and sentenced. There’s no free press, yet Rwandan press is freer than India.

Pakistan is a military dictatorship as already told. Dissidents mysteriously disappear. Journalists cannot criticize the Army (the people who rule Pakistan). It’s simply not allowed. Yet, Pakistani press is freer than India.

Laos is literally a Communist state. The country is ruled by the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) since 1975. It has been under one-party Marxist-Leninist rule. And somehow even then, Lao press is freer than India.

Burkina Faso is also a military dictatorship. The Burkinabe Military seized control of the state in 2021, and made it totalitarian. There’s absolute restrictions on press. Journalists cannot openly report against the ruling Army. And somehow, Burkinabe press is freer than India by a whole 47 points.

Qatar is an absolute monarchy. The Al Thani family has absolute control over Qatar since the 1850s. The country has absolutely no private media. They only have their state-owned and state-subsidized media named Al Jazeera (the same media house which keeps reporting against Hindus and the ruling BJP government). Al Jazeera lectures the world about human rights and democracy but hasn’t uttered a single word against the ruling Al Thani family. Yet, Qatari press is freer than India by a whole 82 points.

Kuwait is an absolute monarchy just like Qatar. It’s also an Islamic emirate. The Emir of Kuwait has absolute power and can dissolve parliaments at his will. Once, the emir of Kuwait dissolved the Parliament because he was insulted. In Kuwait, it is a constitutional rule to not insult the emir. Yet, Kuwaiti media is freer than India.

Niger is a military dictatorship. The Niger Military overthrew the democratically elected government in a coup. The democratically elected President of Niger was house arrested by the Army. There’s a total collapse of free press in Niger. In just 2 months, many journalists were arrested, prosecuted and detained. Yet, Nigerien press is freer than India.

The PFI is a joke.

3). Democracy Index : The Democracy Index measures how free and democratic a country is

Finland is the most democratic (100/100) and Russia-occupied Ukrainian territory is the least democratic (-1/100). What’s particularly problematic is that there’s two distinct ranks for India. First is India, ranked Partly Free (62/100) with a Net Score of 51/100, and second is “Indian Kashmir”, ranked Partly Free (38/100) with an unreported Net Score. This reeks of Indophobia in itself, they’re portraying that Kashmiris are suppressed by India. But what’s also funny is that, Mexico has a net score of 61/100, they’re more democratic than India.

Mexico has been under near-absolute control of cartels since the 2000s. The PRI ruled Mexico for 71 years (1929–2000). In the 1980s, with patronage of PRI, numerous cartels sprouted. These worked on behalf of the ruling party. However, eventually as the PRI fortress collapsed in 2000, and cartels were already decentralized by then, they got more power. Since the 2000s, Mexican cartels have been dominating and dictating over significant geographical territory of Mexico. These cartels extort the Mexicans. They engage Mexicans in forced labor. Mexican press is not free at all. The cartel punishes honest Mexican journalists by routine assas**nations. Dissidents who resist these criminal empires, mysteriously vanish into thin air, or are found de*d. Yet, Mexico is more democratic and free than India.

The Democracy Index is a joke.

4). Democracy Index 2 : This is another index but by V-Dem, where they also assess how free and democratic a country is

There are 4 categories, Liberal Democracies (LD), Electoral Democracies (ED), Electoral Autocracies (EA), and Closed Autocracies (CA), you can access the full table in Page 15 of the PDF. In the second-latest report, i.e., from 2025, they listed Mexico as an electoral democracy (I just told you Mexico’s cartelist reality), this time it is an electoral autocracy. But what is more interesting is that, India is also an electoral autocracy. That too since 2017.

Let’s look at that carefully. The Congress Party ruled India for 54 years, out of its 67-year era (1947–2014), and yet the Congress government never got flagged as an autocracy, despite the fact that Congress used to dissolve State governments it didn’t want, like it did in Kerala in 1957 when CPI won. Congress never earned the autocracy tag in 67 years, but BJP somehow earned the autocracy tag in just 3 years. How fair is that? There was a trajectory graph published, where only 2 periods in India’s trajectory were marked with red, first one was during Emergency (1975–1977), and second one is during the BJP government (2014-present). This index is saying that BJP rule is equivalent to Emergency. That’s disrespectful to the people who were oppressed during Emergency.

Both 2025 and 2026 reports parroted the exact same words against PM Modi and BJP. “The ruling anti-pluralist, Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Modi’s derailing of democracy is thoroughly documented, including deteriorations in freedom of expression and independence of the media, harassments of journalists critical of the government, attacks on civil society and the opposition using laws on sedition, defamation, and counterterrorism.”. This is what they said.

This “anti-pluralist” thing is such a myth, because Muslims in India get the most benefit from BJP’s welfare schemes. Muslim women love Modi a lot, they call him Bhaijaan. Even hardline BJP supporters started calling him “Maulana Modi”. This guy is anti-pluralist? BJP doesn’t market itself as Hindu nationalist anymore. BJP projects itself as strongly nationalist, pro-market, conservative (both economically and socially), and pro-development. I am a BJP supporter not because of Hindu nationalism, but because of their economic and social conservatism. Using such terms is a disrespect towards supporters like me who support them for their conservatism and nationalism. Also, what “deteriorations in freedom of expression” and “attacks on civil society” do they talk about? The farmers protested in Delhi for months, blocking and jamming off all highways and entries. BJP could’ve open-fired, they had reasons to do it. But instead of doing that, PM Modi just repealed the Farm Laws. This is “attack on civil society”? Literally anyone can criticize Modi, and the state won’t persecute them. This is “deterioration in freedom of expression”? Also, the “independence of the media” thing was debunked earlier, when we exposed the Press Freedom Index’s loopholes. They also talk of “harassment of journalists critical of the government”. Ravish Kumar is an Indian journalist extremely critical of the BJP government, he was not harassed at all. Yes, some hardline BJP supporters might troll him online, but there’s a difference between trolling and harassment. And, they yap a lot about how BJP is erasing democracy, but their mouths go quiet when CPM or TMC actually did the same. CPM had committed 55000 political k*llings during its 34-year rule, and this was intensified further by TMC. CPM would literally mu*der someone for not voting them. TMC would literally order tear gas and water cannon on peaceful protesters. Both ruling parties would quieten anyone dissenting against the Left Establishment, by means of arrests, intimidations, even mu*der. Isn’t this autocratization? Isn’t this an “attack on civil society”? Isn’t this “deterioration in freedom of expression”? Now they won’t speak anything. This is not whataboutery, because I first exposed the loophole in the rankings, and then brought up a parallel case. The 50-year Communist authoritarianism in West Bengal deserves a case study in itself.

The V-Dem Index is a joke.

Hopefully now you know the reality of these indices. These indices had to be exposed because a lot of the brainwashed Leftist youth on Reddit uses these indices as proof against the incumbent BJP government. They routinely mock and insult PM Modi based on these anti-India indices. Many people looking for a regime change opportunity also use the same indices as proofs against BJP. They had to be exposed, so their malicious intentions never materialize. The publishers of these indices deliberately rank the BJP-ruled government downwards because they hate how strongly nationalist BJP is. They hate it when BJP is ruthless about national security, integrity and sovereignty. They hate it when BJP prioritizes India’s self-interest. They hate it that the Indian Army has become stronger. They hate it that India is growing.

Yes, India isn’t a paradise. We have problems. Civic sense is a real issue here. Our per capita GDP is also not as good. But, we’re not doomed to the point that countries like Pakistan are ahead of us. That is simply not happening anytime soon, nor has it ever happened.

Footnotes

[1] World Happiness Report 2025 dashboard

[2] Press Freedom Index 2025 report

[3] Democracy Index latest report by Freedom House

[4] Democracy Index 2026 by V-Dem

What I find puzzling is how some people who are Indians themselves seem determined to view every development through an anti-India lens. A little global perspective goes a long way. Perhaps if they had experienced life in some genuinely poorer or less stable countries, they would better appreciate the opportunities and advantages that come with being born in India.

Yes, our passport is not among the world's strongest, but it is unquestionably stronger and more respected than it was a decade or two ago. Having travelled internationally on an Indian passport for the last 25 years, I have witnessed that evolution firsthand. In the early 2000s, visa-free and visa-on-arrival access for Indians was far more limited. Today, Indian passport holders enjoy access to significantly more destinations, along with easier visa processes, e-visas and improved international mobility. It is not a top-tier passport yet, but the direction of travel has clearly been positive.

Many people also make the mistake of judging India solely by per-capita income statistics. What they fail to understand is that India today has a massive upper-middle-class and affluent population running into hundreds of millions of people. Roughly 200 million upper middle class and rich people reside in India (plus there are 15-20 million NRIs who all earn pretty decent too). That alone is larger than the entire population of most countries. This is one reason why tourism boards, airlines, hotels, retailers and governments across the world actively compete for Indian travellers and consumers. They do so because they see real economic value, not out of charity.

Yes, India has challenges. No serious person denies that. But governing a nation of 1.45 billion people—with immense linguistic, cultural, religious and regional diversity—is far more complex than many armchair critics acknowledge. Solutions that seem simple on social media are often extraordinarily difficult to implement in reality. We are also a vibrant and noisy democracy where countless voices compete for attention. While that is one of our strengths, it can sometimes make consensus and reform slower than people would like. Democracy is rarely neat, but it is far preferable to silence.

Despite all of this, I have witnessed tremendous positive change over the past two decades, particularly during the BJP era. Infrastructure, digital governance, financial inclusion, public services and India's global standing have all seen significant progress. There is still a long road ahead, but the direction is encouraging. India's rise will not be determined by those who constantly search for reasons to belittle the country. It will be determined by the millions of Indians who continue to build, innovate, work hard and believe in the nation's future.

India's rightful place in the world will continue to rise as long as Indians remain confident, constructive, and UNITED in working towards the country's future rather than constantly talking it down.

The assumption that linguistic nationalism and libertarianism are a winning formula against the BJP is far from proven. Most voters ultimately care about jobs, infrastructure, economic growth, law and order and quality of life more than ideological labels. A party can champion linguistic pride all day long, but if it cannot deliver development and governance, voters will eventually look elsewhere. DMK and TMC loosing recently proves my point.

Describing BJP as merely "religious nationalist" or "crony socialist" is itself a partisan characterization rather than an objective fact. The BJP's electoral success across multiple states has come not only from cultural and religious messaging but also from welfare programs, infrastructure expansion, digital governance and strong leadership branding. Whether one likes those policies or not, reducing the party's appeal to religion alone ignores a significant part of why people vote for it. Its almost like mocking intelligence of close to a billion people who vote for BJP. Thats not just coincidence, its growing unity among Hindu's.

Linguistic nationalism has natural limits. India is a union of states with a large degree of internal migration. Young people increasingly study, work and do business across state borders. A political ideology built primarily around language identity can struggle to address national issues such as defense, foreign policy, energy security, interstate infrastructure and economic integration. The libertarian part of the argument is also questionable. Indian voters have repeatedly shown support for welfare programs, subsidies, public healthcare, public education and government intervention in economic development. Pure libertarianism remains a niche ideology in most democracies, including India, because large sections of the population expect the state to play an active role in improving living standards.

Most importantly, several strong regional parties have already tried variants of linguistic and regional identity politics for decades. Some have succeeded in retaining power within their states, but very few have expanded beyond their regional base or created a compelling national alternative. That suggests linguistic nationalism may be effective for protecting regional interests, but it is not necessarily a superior model for challenging a party with a nationwide presence.

Linguistic nationalism can win regional elections, but it does not automatically provide answers to national challenges. Likewise, libertarianism remains a niche ideology in a country where voters expect both development and welfare. The real contest is not between linguistic nationalism and religious nationalism, it is between parties that can deliver governance and those that cannot. Indian voters have repeatedly shown that performance often matters more than ideology alone and hence BJP keeps on winning. Hindu's are uniting in India and that means CONgress will never come back again. Jai Hind.

People often throw around social media numbers casually without understanding how absurd some of these figures actually are.

Here’s reality: Cristiano Ronaldo sits at top with above 600 million followers. Lionel Messi sits above 500 million followers. They are not politicians. Those are once-in-a-generation global sports superstars followed across every continent by fans who don’t even speak the same language.

Now look at India. Top Indians on Instagram (2026)

Virat Kohli (~274M)

Narendra Modi (~102M)

Shraddha Kapoor (~93M)

Priyanka Chopra (~92M)

Alia Bhatt (~87M)

Deepika Padukone (~81M)

Katrina Kaif (~80M)

Urvashi Rautela (~72M)

Jacqueline Fernandez (~71M)

Anushka Sharma (~69M)

Disha Patani (~63M)

Kriti Sanon (~60M)

MS Dhoni (~50M)

Jannat Zubair (~50M)

Neha Kakkar (~49M)

Akshay Kumar (~48M)

Nora Fatehi (~47M)

Sunny Leone (~46M)

Ranveer Singh (~45M)

Sara Ali Khan (~45M)

Salman Khan (~44M)

Rashmika Mandanna (~43M)

Varun Dhawan (~43M)

Kartik Aaryan (~42M)

Kareena Kapoor Khan (~42M)

Shah Rukh Khan (~41M)

Tiger Shroff (~40M)

Kiara Advani (~40M)

Amitabh Bachchan (~38M)

Samantha Ruth Prabhu (~36M)

Hardik Pandya (~36M)

Mr Faisu (~33M)

Mouni Roy (~33M)

Shilpa Shetty (~33M)

Avneet Kaur (~31M)

Tamannaah Bhatia (~29M)

Allu Arjun (~29M)

Ram Charan (~22M)

CarryMinati (~22M)

Vijay Deverakonda (~22M)

KL Rahul (~21M)

Bhuvan Bam (~20M)

Jennifer Winget (~19M)

Ashish Chanchlani (~18M)

Yash (~18M)

Mahesh Babu (~16M)

Sonam Bajwa (~15M)

Prabhas (~14M)

Rahul Gandhi (~13M)

Suriya (~11M)

Now pause and absorb this properly. Narendra Modi is not competing with politicians. He is competing with:

Bollywood megastars

cricket legends

pan-India cinema icons

digital influencers

entertainment celebrities

And despite that, he sits at #2 in India overall. That is politically extraordinary by global standards. Most world leaders struggle to cross even 5–10 million followers. Modi crossed 100 million while operating in the same ecosystem as Virat Kohli, Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, Deepika Padukone and every major Indian celebrity machine.

Virat Kohli operates at global mega-celebrity scale because sports transcends borders differently. That category is unique but Modi’s numbers are something else entirely because politics normally does not produce this scale organically. Also notice another massive shift: Internet creators like CarryMinati, Bhuvan Bam and Mr Faisu built giant empires without Bollywood backing. That transformation in India’s digital ecosystem is historic.

And then comes Rahul “Pappu” Gandhi at the lower end of the Top 50 despite being the primary face of India’s largest opposition party for years. That gap tells its own story about political communication, reach, branding and mass connect in the social media era.

Love Modi or dislike him, the numbers on Instagram point to something fairly unambiguous: Narendra Modi operates in a tier of digital political influence that is structurally ahead of every other elected leader in the world right now.

At ~102 million followers, he is not just leading the category, he is in a different scale band altogether. The next closest political figure, Joko Widodo of Indonesia, sits at ~58 million. That gap alone is enormous in social media terms, where even a few million followers can meaningfully shift global rankings.

Below that, the distribution drops sharply into a completely different cluster of global political figures:

Narendra Modi (India) — ~102 million

Joko Widodo / Jokowi (Indonesia) — ~58 million

Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Ukraine) — ~18 million

Javier Milei (Argentina) — ~15 million

Rahul Gandhi (India) — ~13 million

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez / AOC (USA) — ~9 million

Emmanuel Macron (France) — ~7 million

Donald Trump (USA) — ~6–7 million (with account reinstatement effects and fluctuations)

Nayib Bukele (El Salvador) — ~6 million

Giorgia Meloni (Italy) — ~5 million

What stands out immediately is not just who is on the list, but how steep the curve is. After Modi and Jokowi, the numbers fall into a long tail where most major global leaders cluster between ~5–20 million. That is still significant influence—but it is a completely different scale of reach compared to the top two.

The broader takeaway is straightforward: Instagram influence among politicians is not evenly distributed, it is heavily skewed and currently dominated by one clear outlier at the very top ie Modi, followed by a steep drop into a highly competitive but much smaller second tier. Then there are millions of his followers who are not on instagram (like me) but are his ardent supporters and fans. If Instagram/social media were a “popularity parliament,” Modi would be in the top leadership tier globally. Cockroach janta party is a fifth of that and its not even a single person.😄😄