In mid-April, India crossed a dizzying border: it reached 1,425,775,850 inhabitants and surpassed China as the most populous country on Earth.
In fact, every day more than 67,000 children are born in that gigantic territory.
They are dizzying figures.
In 1981 I went to New Delhi to interview Indira Gandhi.
The mythical prime minister had had an intense and epic life;
she was in prison, she went through countless political ups and downs and many accused her of corruption and fierce authoritarianism.
I'm afraid these criticisms were true, at least in part, but she also struck me as an intelligent woman devoted to an ideal: the greatness and modernization of her country.
Of course, there are people so convinced of its historical value that they end up confusing the greatness of society with their own.
I found her, yes, sad and tired:
a few months before his son Sanjai, the favorite, responsible for the greatest outrages that were committed during his mother's government, had died in a plane crash.
When I interviewed her, Gandhi was 63 years old.
Just three years later she would be shot to death by two of her bodyguards.
They belonged to the Sikh minority and were avenging a massacre that Indira had ordered against her own (the army stormed the Sikh Golden Temple and killed between 600 and 1,200 people, depending on the sources).
Just the night before she was shot, the prime minister told a public rally: “I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
responsible for the greatest outrages that were committed during his mother's government, he had died in a plane crash.
When I interviewed her, Gandhi was 63 years old.
Just three years later she would be shot to death by two of her bodyguards.
They belonged to the Sikh minority and were avenging a massacre that Indira had ordered against her own (the army stormed the Sikh Golden Temple and killed between 600 and 1,200 people, depending on the sources).
Just the night before she was shot, the prime minister told a public rally: “I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
responsible for the greatest outrages that were committed during his mother's government, he had died in a plane crash.
When I interviewed her, Gandhi was 63 years old.
Just three years later she would be shot to death by two of her bodyguards.
They belonged to the Sikh minority and were avenging a massacre that Indira had ordered against her own (the army stormed the Sikh Golden Temple and killed between 600 and 1,200 people, depending on the sources).
Just the night before she was shot, the prime minister told a public rally: “I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
Barely three years later, she would be shot dead by two of her bodyguards.
They belonged to the Sikh minority and were avenging a massacre that Indira had ordered against her own (the army stormed the Sikh Golden Temple and killed between 600 and 1,200 people, depending on the sources).
Just the night before she was shot, the prime minister told a public rally: “I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
Barely three years later, she would be shot dead by two of her bodyguards.
They belonged to the Sikh minority and were avenging a massacre that Indira had ordered against her own (the army stormed the Sikh Golden Temple and killed between 600 and 1,200 people, depending on the sources).
Just the night before she was shot, the prime minister told a public rally: “I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
“I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
“I don't care if my life is in the service of the nation.
If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."
I already said that he had something messianic.
It seems clear, in any case, that she knew she was going to be murdered.
That her death came to him from the hands of those who had to defend her adds tragedy and loneliness to her assassination.
When I asked her about her excesses of authoritarianism, Indira had defended herself by saying that even the most consolidated democracies need to commit those excesses on occasions and suspend freedoms to defend the system, such as Great Britain during World War II.
“Why isn't there another developing country that is a democracy, like ours?
Have you ever wondered?” she snapped at me with fierce pride.
It was a risky statement, because, according to the classifications of the IMF and the UN, there were Latin American democratic countries that could also be considered developing countries, for example,
but I think I understood what he was referring to and his words made me intuit the colossal dimension of the social, cultural and political problems that a country like India can have.
So, alas, it was a little under 700 million people.
It has now more than doubled that figure.
Yes, the challenge is huge.
And they are failing.
I mean, we are failing.
Two weeks ago, an extraordinary text by the great writer Arundhati Roy was published in EL PAÍS,
The dismantling of Indian democracy
, where he explains how the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, a member of the RSS, a far-right Hindu supremacist organization founded in 1925 in the image of Mussolini's fascist paramilitaries, is carrying out a demolition of Indian democracy, which, defined in the constitution as a “secular socialist republic”, is now being converted into a Hindu theocracy brutally persecuting the country's 170 million Muslims.
Of course, no matter how many atrocities Modi does, the West will support him to use him against China.
Here are two giants that add up to almost 40% of the world's population, with nuclear weapons and with little desire to accept the rules of the democratic game.
Not to mention Russia.
Or, even worse: not to mention Finland,
a country admired worldwide for its civic development and for the level of well-being and social equity, which it has just elevated in the recent elections to the far-right party of Riikka Purra.
Arundhati's shocking analysis reminded me of the words of Indira, who was proud to follow the democratic path even if it was through twisted paths.
Why in the 20th century was democracy a desirable system for the people and why in the 21st century does it seem to lack legitimacy and appeal?
What are we doing wrong?
In supporting Modi whatever he does, for example?
who prided himself on following the democratic path even if it was down twisted paths.
Why in the 20th century was democracy a desirable system for the people and why in the 21st century does it seem to lack legitimacy and appeal?
What are we doing wrong?
In supporting Modi whatever he does, for example?
who prided himself on following the democratic path even if it was down twisted paths.
Why in the 20th century was democracy a desirable system for the people and why in the 21st century does it seem to lack legitimacy and appeal?
What are we doing wrong?
In supporting Modi whatever he does, for example?
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber
