How shall we proceed? Maybe we should focus on the state-state analysis over time from 20th century to present years? To maybe give an idea of the context in play that impacts maybe Indian people more than it does the Chinese people from their respective state messaging and decision making.
I'd like to elaborate on a core issue first. I can't represent everyone, but I should be able to represent the views of many ordinary Chinese.
About democracy and centralization
In English media, China is often described as a centralized or even dictatorial country. I think the vast majority of Indians also believe that India is a democratic country and they take pride in it.
We need to carefully analyze this issue:
What is democracy or centralization?
We can understand it as whether various state powers can constrain each other. For example, legislative power, judicial power, administrative power, military power, and so on. We usually judge a country as a democratic or authoritarian state based on the provisions of its constitution regarding these powers.
However, we are humans, not machines. After we have some wishes, we always find ways to break the rules.
When some groups within a democratic country have the ability to simultaneously influence all state powers at certain times, is the country still a democratic country? For example, military industrial complexes in the United States, conglomerates in South Korea, and political families in many democratic countries
China is a one party state, and the CCP has absolute power. However, there are factions with different tendencies within the CCP. Sometimes their opinions are consistent, and other times their opinions are not consistent. They control different national powers and constrain each other. Is China still a centralized state at this time?
So, I believe that democracy or centralization is a manifestation of a country at a certain time, rather than a fixed attribute of that country.
The external manifestations of each country are different, some countries are more direct, some countries are more subtle, and the specific form adopted depends on their own culture. But their ultimate core is completely consistent.
Analyze from the basic logic of management and development:
Democracy is more suitable for stabilizing society; Centralization is more suitable for developing society. For example:
When a country encounters war, it needs a high degree of centralization. This is the only way to react quickly and win the war. If state power is mutually constrained at this time, it will pay a more painful price in war------ Refer to the situation in the United States during World War II.
When a country needs rapid development, centralization is also necessary. If everything requires a lengthy and complex system of constraints to handle, there is no possibility of rapid development------ Compare the development of European countries with that of China.
When a country tends to be stable, power constraints are needed, otherwise various major events will erupt. If these events are not dealt with in a timely manner, they will lead to internal strife and even disintegration of the country------ Refer to the major cases that have occurred in China in recent years.
In recent years, the Modi government has essentially controlled all state power in India, which is why India has experienced rapid development.
By carefully observing different countries, we can prove this logic.
Of course, don't look at political parties alone. We try to describe it using the concept of political groups (groups with consistent political orientations). Some political parties have different political groups within them; Some countries have multiple political parties forming a common political group; Some countries' armies are a separate political group; Some companies in certain countries can be viewed as a separate political group
When these political groups have different opinions, the development of this country is very difficult, and some countries directly erupt into civil wars.
====================================================
我想先就一个核心问题阐述一下我的观点，我不能代表所有人，但应该能代表很多普通中国人的观点。
关于民主与集权
在英文媒体上的中国，经常被描述为集权国家，甚至独裁国家。我想，绝大多数印度人也是这么认为的，印度人以印度是民主国家为骄傲。
这个问题，我们需要认真分析一下：
什么是民主或集权？
我们可以理解为各种国家权力是否能够相互制约。比如立法权、司法权、行政权、军权等等。我们通常是以国家宪法对这些权力的规定来判断这个国家是民主国家或集权国家。
然而，我们是人类而不是机器。当我们有了一些愿望之后，总会找到一些方法去突破规则。
当民主国家内部一些团体在某些时间的能力足以同时影响所有国家权力时，这个国家是否还是民主国家？比如美国的军工复合体、韩国的财团，以及很多民主国家的政治家族..........
中国是一党制国家，CCP拥有绝对权力。但是，CCP内部有不同倾向的派系。某些时候他们的意见是一致的，某些时候他们的意见并不一致。他们掌控不同的国家权力，彼此制约。这时的中国，是否还是集权国家？
所以，我认为，民主或集权，是国家在某个时间的表现，而不是这个国家的固定属性。
每个国家的外在表现不同，有的国家直接一些，有的国家隐晦一些，具体采用的形式根据自己国家的文化来决定。但他们的最终核心完全一致。
从管理与发展的基本逻辑来分析：
民主更适合稳定社会；集权更适合发展社会。比如：
当国家遇到战争时，就需要高度集权。这样才能快速反应，赢得战争。如果国家权力在这个时候互相制约，就会在战争中付出更加惨痛的代价。------参考美国在二战时的情况。
当国家需要高速发展时，同样需要集权。如果每一件事都需要漫长而复杂的制约体系来处理，没有任何高速发展的可能性。------参考欧洲国家的发展和中国的发展对比。
当国家趋于平稳时，就需要权力制约，否则就会爆发各种重大事件，这些事件如果不及时处理，就会导致国家内乱甚至解体。------参考中国最近这些年发生的重大案件。
印度最近这些年，莫迪政府实质上掌控了所有国家权力，所以才会出现印度高速发展。
我们仔细观察不同的国家，就会证明这个逻辑。
当然，不要单独看政党。我们试着用政治群体(政治倾向一致的群体)这个概念来描述。有些政党内部有不同的政治群体；有些国家是多个政党组建一个共同的政治群体；有些国家的军队是一个单独的政治群体；有些国家的某些企业可以单独看作为一个政治群体...................
当这些政治群体意见不一致时，这个国家的发展非常艰难，有些国家直接爆发内战。
