Isn't that what every government do? Remember that Al Capone went to jail because of tax issues, the government couldn't prove anything he was accused to.
If you look at Germany, Michael Ballweg is sitting in jail (without trial) for tax evasion accusations. The fact that the government didn't like his movement that protested against unconstitutional anti-covid measures was not enough reason to put him there.
Almost every government has a history of unleashing a tax department on their political enemies. We call it a legal state when it happens in our country, and a state terror when it happens in another.
A cynic in me would say that, in this case, India is learning from the best democracies in the world, US and Germany.
EDIT: I'm not saying Al Capone did not do tax evasion, or that Ballweg had all his books 100% clean. In any remotely complex tax system, it's not even possible, since there is always enough place for interpretation. But the fact that some guys are prosecuted just because government doesn't like them, and the ones that government likes get away with it, is unfortunately properly of almost every legal system, democracies included. In the end, Modi's government may find a lakh or two of expenses not filled properly and punish BBC with 20 krores.
My point is just that this is not unique to India, and one should not look down at India and call out on it for doing what everyone else is doing.
I think you have that backwards.
Ballweg is in jail because allegedly he took in donations to support a cause, but then (ab)used them for himself personally, defrauding the donors and evading taxation. That's illegal, and thus he's in jail.
Indeed protesting Covid is not enough to put you in jail, because that's not actually illegal. You're insinuating the government chose to persecute him for his political views. That's a pretty bold claim that I think would need substantiation.
That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc.
To rephrase the comment above slightly, the gain of rights for a particular group isn’t a replacement for a loss of universal rights. The loss of universal rights is always more serious because it leads to the darkest paths that a society can take.
Many western countries have not experienced repression in two or more generations and cultural memory is starting to fade.
I don't think that's absurd? Both can be true at the same time, a government can stop discriminating you for one thing, while starting to repress you for another. Whether that's a net negative for any individual depends on circumstance and detail.
It's obvious if you reduce it to the absurd: e.g. if a government decides the abolish slavery (terrible discrimination for a specific group) while also disallowing chewing gum for everyone. Similarly you can construct examples for the inverse (a minor reduction of discrimination vs a great loss of freedom for everyone).
History is pretty clear in its opinion on the (lack of) merits of Stalinism, but I don't think you can construct a general principle in the phrasing you chose.