India comes closer to being a socialist republic. Its official constitution labels it as a socialist, secular, democratic republic. But let's be real: The law of large numbers would seem to imply that the people make the decisions since they easily outweigh the policy-makers, but the fact of the matter is that that is not how the Congress is elected (elections run afoul of the ostensibly democratic law due to corruption). It's not really a democracy at all. Political parties rule by fear and corruption (like the political bosses and the spoils system of yesteryear in the United States). It's shaping up to become closer to a democracy than it has in the past, so I'd call it a "growing democracy", just as the United States once was. Give it some time, India has not even been independent for a century yet.

It's definitely not secular, as is evidenced by the problems/mobs due to the Jain party pitted against certain Muslims, the Hindus regaining some control of Congress with Modi's campaign, etc. A lot of religious politics comes into play (though not because of the caste system, which I'm not sure why people emphasize as the root cause...), and it definitely renders India as a nation driven by religious divide, not secular roots (not that the United States doesn't also have some strong Christian beliefs driving political decisions that are antithetical to the motivating principles of the constitutional democratic republic that the Founding Fathers set forth).

This leaves India as a socialist republic. I could hardly disagree with this, given my visits and experiences there. I see a lot of "everybody needs a job", so even trivial tasks have become jobs (e.g. washing other people's laundry/pots, driving cars for other people, etc.—things that aren't really considered "normal" in the United States or other democratic republics). This leads to a lot of redistribution of wealth, which has led to the rise of the middle class, as more and more people become "decently well-off". Of course, India has done little to eliminate the extremes of the poorest of the poor in the slums and the richest of the rich (including two of the richest men in the world). Presumably this is due to its claim that it tries to follow capitalism and thus cannot interfere with wealth (instead, it does so indirectly). The micromarkets and lack of fixed prices allow producers of products to vary prices and create a biased economic system.

It's not like we can fix that, though. When there are so many people in such a large population, there are really only two options: Rule with an authoritarian fist, like China, or give freedom to the people and let things run how they will (well in some parts and amok in many others), like in India. It's not feasible to introduce a system like the one the United States or Germany has in India right now (or China, for that matter). The British tried for over two centuries! When there's that many people, maintaining order cannot be done without either harsh penalties such as death for every violation of the law (e.g. how Singapore used to be with gum, etc.) or some sort of one-child policy that induces population control (not that that has helped much in China, either). (Interestingly, India effectively has a two-child policy, yet the population continues to increase.)

I agree with the top commenter that the government lacks foresight, but I don't agree that it reflects the views of the people. And that's the problem... it's not a democracy! The redistribution of labor to try to keep everybody at bay really makes it a socialist republic, but I cannot claim it to be a democracy (even in an impure sense, like in the United States).

Source: Tried to write from an outsider's perspective to avoid bias, but I a Buddhist of Indian origin (ABCD).