What India needs is a Dictatorship?

We can't solve a problem by creating another problem.

There is a problem in the current political system but it could be solved by taking some corrective measures.

Dictatorship itself is a problem and assuming that it would solve problems is purely based on assumptions.

I don't get it. Why would you want a dictatorship?

Remember how Indira Gandhi was? She was responsible for shutting down people's civil liberties, imprisoning journalists, and other heinous activities. We the people can still choose an efficient leader. A dictatorship would crackdown on our freedom.

Not exactly a dictatorship, but a democratic dictator is all we need. To explain the meaning a party who is elected by the people with a complete majority in the parliament and then the best dictatorial leader among that party, who can impose his/her laws an views on the citizens.

India has democracy for nearly 68 years.

We did have progressed a lot but democracy has made us lazy in context with are work. The powers are divided among too many people, the president is just for name sake. He is just like the Queen of England fake fame and pride. He can't even make decision for the armed forces of which he is the very head. This vast division of power has made our rulers sick leading to corruption, dishonesty, etc.

In such conditions dictatorship is very useful. Same as Germany in 1936. A country that didn't even had enough food to feed its people was ready to go on a massively destructive war till 1939. What I think is that like India has adopted the communist as well as democratic ways of governing it should also adopt some characteristics of dictatorship.

India needs 'dictatorship' right now we have been in democracy for about 68 years and that clearly didn't work. There is an extreme need of dictatorship for us and we need to adopt Nazism, which is a clear guidance for dictatorship, so either speaking about dictatorship in India we should talk about "NAZISM in INDIA".

The debate whether India needs dictatorship can go on for a long time so far as until India becomes fully developed nation which again means a very very long time or almost near to impossible considering the present rate of improvement, but one thing is for sure after all these years through, the great souls of legendary revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Sukhdev and Rajguru might be wondering today "was it really worth it".

Divide and Rule policy by British government or,

Caste based vote bank politics by Indian politicians.

Loot of India wealth by British govt in their whole time period. or,

Loot of Indian wealth by Indian politicians in the last 70 years.

Was it really worth a freedom for all those sacrifices.

Hello Everyone!

In my opinion, India is a country of diverse culture and religions which is one of the pivotal feature of our country & in this case to Give a single person all the powers to take decision for all of them will not be tenable. Democracy is the best form of govt suits to our country. But The form of govt will not decide the future of our country. The need of the hour is EDUCATION for ALL.

Thank You.

No friends, a dictator is the ideal form of government for India. In this vast country of diverse people, coming to a definite idea is an arduous task. Only a dictator can speed things up. Most of you will may take Adolf Hitler as an example to prove me wrong.

Well friends, Nazi Germany made tremendous progress in a short period of time had the antisemitism element been absent, it would've won the war and we see Adolf as a hero. Also the population in general was happy.

A majority of people would not join politics. So, might as well leave the government in the hands of one capable man who ensures the moral and material progress of the people. Only a dictator can root out social evils. Only a dictator can bring about a surge of intense nationalism.

A leader who as they say can walk with the kings yet not lose the common touch is the ideal leader.

In my opinion, Even though India is democratic, no one gets an equal opportunity to express their ideas and views regards rules and regulations in the system. People who were rich and had fame can able to give the decisions and ideas. So, how far is it really working? For example, in elections we know that particular candidate encourages corruption still we can't avoid that person because of his name and fame. We can't avoid corruption in our system. If the entire system failed to implement such things if a dictator performs correctly and makes in developing and implementing successfully. Then that particular dictator is good rather than the entire system.

So I would like to say that if dictator performance and ruling is good then entire system. Then it's good to better encourage dictatorship rather than Government system.

Even though we take a lot of pride in saying that " India is the world's largest democracy ", the outcome of this form of government has been far from satisfactory. Inflation, scams and scandals, lower gdp, rising level of crime, all these have torn apart the country and led to the lowering of morale of the citizens.

As is said " Too many cooks spoil the broth ", the mayhem in India is a classic example in support to this. Our so called worthy democrats, the people whom we pin our hopes upon, are often unable to reach to a satisfactory decision on topics of national interest and have a divided opinion. In case of a person having an autonomous authority at least we would be served with concrete decisions which we could chew upon and would yield results. At Least he would not sit mum while our territory is being seized by our " neighbors " but would take action.

The current form of government has not yielded any positive results and we still remain a third world country. Change is the only constant and we should be more receptive to autocratic form of government too.