[ramraj07]

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.

[sateesh]

The phenomenon what you mention is called "Tyranny of Majority", great many thinkers have indeed weighed on this.

[Gurgler]

Fear of such a tyranny of the majority is why the founders of the US created the electoral college, and apportioned the Senate as it is, creating a republic instead of a pure democracy. It also describes the original ideological distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the two main political parties in the US. James Madison described a scenario like this in his Federalist Paper #10.

"Complaints are everywhere ... that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

[throwaway_62022]

Folks belonging to majority can get caught on the wrong side of the fence too - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arreste...

I believe the problem is laws related to religion and hate speech. They are stupid. Section 295 is non-bailable offence and can be easily abused by either side to placate group that feels offended.

The discussions about India sliding into authoritarian is interesting because strictly speaking many of these laws are pretty old. I wish that these laws did not exist but strictly speaking these laws have been abused to placate Hindus, Muslims, Christians(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai) at different times.

[mrkstu]

Tyranny of the majority.