Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The Economist is a fine magazine , intelligent, influential, and elegantly written. Yet, like the BBC, it is not without its biases. Being London-bred, it often carries the faint but familiar whiff of imperial hangover , a worldview that continues to view the old colonies through a slightly patronising lens. The Americas, of course, have long escaped this category; but when it comes to Asia, the tone remains curiously dated.
In a recent piece on Gen Z movements in South Asia, The Economist described India’s neighbours as its peers. One wonders on what basis such equivalence is drawn. India is a federal democracy , and has been nothing else except for the brief aberration of the emergency in the mid-1970s. With 28 states and a population exceeding 1.4 billion, India represents a scale and complexity unmatched by almost any other democracy on earth. More than half of these states are governed by political parties not in power at the Centre , a healthy reminder that federalism in India is real, not ceremonial. Some Indian states alone have populations greater than entire European countries. Uttar Pradesh exceeds that of the United Kingdom; Maharashtra rivals France. Governance in India operates at a level of diversity and challenge that few Western observers truly grasp.
Why then, one must ask, is Britain , whose GDP today is smaller than India’s , not considered a “peer”? Or the United States, whose democracy, for all its rhetoric, is riven with partisanship, inequality, and political hypocrisy?
This is not to claim that India is a flawless democracy , there can never be such a thing. But India is certainly not another Nepal, Bangladesh, or Pakistan. Its democratic record stands on firmer ground than any in its neighbourhood. Power has changed hands peacefully, through the ballot and not the bullet. Governments have risen and fallen; coalitions have been built and broken; yet the republic endures. Its judiciary, press, and public institutions continue to function , imperfectly, yes, but independently.
Few nations of comparable size or diversity can make that claim. From the village panchayat to Parliament, India’s democratic machinery hums with the noise of participation. It is an argumentative democracy, not an ornamental one.
Economically, too, the comparison with India’s neighbours no longer holds water. India has overtaken Britain to become the world’s fifth-largest economy. Its GDP is now many times larger than those of Pakistan and Bangladesh combined. It is a key player in global technology, pharmaceuticals, and digital services. Companies like Infosys, TCS, Wipro, and HCL Tech set international standards, while home-grown innovators like ZOHO and Freshworks are redefining quality and self-reliance.
India’s transformation also reflects institutional resilience. Despite bureaucratic inertia and political wrangling, it has built systems that deliver , from Aadhaar, the world’s largest biometric ID network, to UPI, which has revolutionised digital payments. Its space program has placed an Indian footprint on the Moon’s south pole. Such achievements are not accidents; they are the outcome of disciplined vision and democratic persistence.
To club India with its smaller South Asian neighbours is therefore intellectually lazy and analytically dishonest. India’s scale, stability, and sophistication place it in a category of its own. It is not merely a part of South Asia; it is, in many ways, its defining centre of gravity.
The deeper issue is one of narrative. Western media often measures others by Western standards, forgetting that democracies evolve within their own social and historical contexts. India’s democracy may be noisy, uneven, and chaotic , but that very disorder is what keeps it alive. The arguments, the protests, the press criticism, and the electoral churn are signs of vitality, not decay.
There is, perhaps, a certain discomfort in acknowledging this. For centuries, the West held a monopoly on defining progress and governance. India’s rise , as a democracy that is large, diverse, and successful on its own terms , unsettles that old order. It demands a rethinking of the global hierarchy, one that many in London and Washington are reluctant to make.
This is not to say India should be beyond criticism. Far from it. Every democracy needs its dissenters, its critics, and its correctives. But there is a difference between critique and condescension. The former helps a democracy grow; the latter merely reveals a refusal to see it clearly.
India’s story is still being written. Its achievements are considerable, its challenges immense. Yet it remains a functioning democracy, a growing economy, and a society learning to balance tradition with transformation. Few countries have managed to hold so much together for so long , and still move forward.
So, when The Economist or others seek to find India’s “peers,” they might do well to look west rather than east , across the Atlantic or up the Thames. India is not an understudy in the theatre of democracy. It is, increasingly, one of its leading actors.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.