India is a democratic republic. Says so in the preamble of our constitution. It is a parliamentary democracy. We directly vote for the representatives in our local municipalities/corporations, state legislatures and central (federal) legislature.

When you vote directly, you risk voting for an authoritarian whom you can never recall in case he doesn't work in your interest or turns into a Dictator. In a representative democracy, the representatives are more approachable to the Citizens. This allows one to hold the representative accountable in case the Leader turns autocratic/dictatorial. Citizens can build pressure on Representatives from their own area rather than trying to galvanize a nation-wide agitation against a Dictator. And with a billion+ people voting, there is no way to reasonably expect to hold a single Leader accountable.

Direct Democracy doesn't work if the population is too big. Anything greater than a few thousand people you will need Representative Democracy.

So when one says "True Democracy" it invariably points to Representative Democracy with a Multi-Party system. Direct Democracy is a dead idea from the get go.

Stifling communication and censoring the internet happens in Kashmir, where 6 decades of cross border terrorism by Pakistan have made security situations a hell to maintain. The USA tacitly supports Pakistan and looks the other way when its funds are used for terrorism.

When you have a large part of population as riot hungry foreign funded troublemakers, to maintain peace, cutting off the internet in times of escalating situations is necessary evil.

> where Modi's administration basically admitted they were wrong

It is not at all an admission of wrong but a forced retraction due to circumstances. The Farm laws were actually extremely progressive of all laws passed by the Government. The issue was more to do with raising the spectre of the dead Khalistani movement and Terrorism spillover that India had to deal with in the 80s and 90s. India cannot afford a weak border with Pakistan at this juncture and with Punjab (border state) being the epicenter of protests did not make things any better. Repealing the Farm laws took India's agriculture backward by at least 2 decades [1] and [2] as the protests were orchestrated by wealthy farmers of Punjab, Haryana and to some extent UP. They are not representative of farmers across India, who are so poor that they could never have had the ability to organize large scale counter-protests. The consequence of repealing the farm laws have hurt the poor farmers whose grievances have gone completely unheard.

> Stifling communication and censoring the internet isn't what any just democratic ruler does, regardless of their party affiliation.

Isn't this exactly what Trudeau did when Farmers protested in Canada? By freezing their bank accounts and censoring channels that supported the protests? I have seen this exact thing done in multiple first-world "Democratic" countries with no one calling them out. Feels like "Democracy for thee — but not for me".

[1]: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/repeal-of-farm-...

[2]: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/five-implications-...

> you are correct that the ruling party appears to have wide popular support

And where they don't have that support, they "buy" elected reps: https://www.google.com/search?q=bjp+buy+mp+mla

Please name some of these limitations.

> but how limited some freedoms might be for non Hindus.

Where exactly is freedoms limited for non Hindus? Can you name some of these freedoms that have been limited?