> Your statement does not jibe well with the lived reality of most Indians. We have plenty of access to critical coverage of the ruling party and its leader.
Still matches Russia until about 2019 (btw 5 years after initial invasion) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/russian-parlia... , which coincidentally was 9 years after it became clear to me personally it was a totalitarian state.
> But since you Anglos don't trust Indians
Laughable to hear, considering I am from Russia, and have hands-on experience, that is very relatable with the treatment of student-led protests. Also considering, that you are coming from a state, that requests videos to be removed from YouTube for political reasons (BTW also 100% same as Russia), toward the state that does not.
> The reason I am giving this example is because this is a clear cut example of journalists publishing literal fake news critical of the government and going about their lives without imprisonment and consequences.
I hope you understand, that this argument has no logical bearing on the issue. E.g. from `P(A)`, `P(B)`, and `not B` it does not follow, than `not A`. I hope I don't need to explain what P, A and B in this case.
In regards for the video, it does not even present a one-sided story. E.g. it mentions the absolution of Modi by Supreme Court on the lack of evidence ground. But the rest of the video makes a compelling case why that absolution is hard to trust.