Actually, that sounds like normal democracy in action to me. Unprepared candidates being voted in happens all the time in all democracies. And this candidate seems reasonable and may end up doing a good job.
If you look to other democracies for comparison, Talkeetna in Alaska has had a cat named Stubbs as the elected mayor for years. Mel Carnahan got voted into the US senate in an election 3 weeks after his death. And Tiririca the Clown got voted in to Brazil's congress and was completely inexperienced and was accused of being illiterate. He apparently worked really hard and did a very good job of it.
Remember, democracy is not a plan and nobody is ever 'ready' for it. It just tends to be usually less objectionable than the alternatives, especially the planned alternatives.
edit - Also, Ms. Kinnar did not win for no reason.
"I have no experience, I’ve never made a public speech, but while campaigning, I went to every household."
And she seems to have a clear idea of what she wants do to for the community.
"I feel the most-important responsibility I have is towards my people. My community. I have to stop them from begging for money on the trains. Instead, I want to give them jobs in municipal corporation. Apart from that, the deplorable condition of roads and drains in the city worries me. Raigarh doesn’t have a water shortage but taps often run dry. I want to make sure people in Raigarh get adequate water supply."
"In governance, sortition (also known as allotment) is the selection of officers as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates.
In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the primary method for appointing political officials and its use was conventionally regarded at the time as a principal characteristic of democracy."
I think we ought to give it a go, see what happens.
There's all sorts of perverse and misaligned incentives otherwise. I'm not politician or historian, so I'd love some insight into the consequences of such a system. Intuitively, I would assume it'd just implode from incompetance, but bureaucracies are shockingly resilient on government scales. And I'd have no idea how to reliably find qualified individuals; the USA has a long history of effective leaders coming from seemingly random backgrounds. (Whether these individuals did good or not, well, that's hotly debated to this day... I don't often grok politics.)
This is one of the best phrases ever invented.
By the way, I am not meaning to attack. I completely understand the frustration of watching completely unqualified assholes run the country. I live in the UK.
However, to see what happens when qualified assholes run the country, look to China. They are the world's most successful technocracy. There are more people with engineering degrees in government there than anywhere else I know of. (if anyone cares to correct me on this, please do)
The results of this are nicely mirrored by your respective space programs.
China has people in orbit.
India found water on the moon.
Just so you know my biases, I like what I see as India's democratic openness and China's secular practicality (being a stereotypical Brit who goes around stereotyping stuff so it will fit into all the neat little display boxes).
Also, if you plan who should have power, who gets to select the person who makes the plan?
Maybe the other candidates were very bad/corrupt so the people thought lets give this person a chance.
Comming back to your point, unfortunately there are still parts in India where candidates win just because they are from the same caste/community as the majority of the people in that constituency.