Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not at all dismissing your point, but there are a few things about India which make it a special case:

1. India was one of the greatest cultural and intellectual centers of the world before interference from foreign western nations. I don't remember who it was -- it might've been Robert Cowley? -- but one of the historians I read recently made the point that if a culture develops a certain level of sophistication, it will tend to try to return to at least that level again in the future. That is, civilizations have a "cultural memory", and India in particular would have strongly benefited from this effect.

2. Post-colonial Indian government is modeled in significant portions on parliamentary structures, especially British ones. I think it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the influence of British government in India.

3. Mahatma Gandhi. India was fortunate to have a cultural leader of his magnitude; he was an amazing individual, and I don't think it's hard to imagine a very different modern India without him.

4. You might want to edit some portions of the Wikipedia article on India; it tries to give the impression that there has been more violence and trouble since the end of colonial rule. I don't know enough Indian history to cite it one way or the other, but if you think the opposite is the case -- and you can support it -- then it would be nice for WP to get updated.

"You might want to edit some portions of the Wikipedia article on India; it tries to give the impression that there has been more violence and trouble since the end of colonial rule. "

This is the WIkipedia link on post Independence India. http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India

Which part gives you the idea that there was more violence in India than under British rule? There was massive violence just after Partition (partly during British rule and partly after Independence). The resulting hostility with Pakistan has given us three wars and a couple of insurgencies. As the world is beginning to find out these days, Pakistan is a haven for all kinds of interesting people and ideologies.

Sure there was and is violence (of all kinds) in India after Independence.

No one claims that all parts of India were or are oases of peace and calm all the time. But they weren't under British rule either! India is a very diverse and unevenly developed country. When violence happens the government (like all governments elsewhere) tamps it down.

Also I am not dismissing the influence of British institutions like Parliament. I am disputing the idea that we are worse off today than we were under British rule (as lionhearted tried to claim, based on some poring over maps or whatever). This is a completely laughable claim, to anyone who lives here.

If India is a "special case" for whatever reasons, say so. Don't make ridiculous claims (like lionhearted did) that we "declined" since independence. You have no idea. Ask someone who lives in India what they think of this idea.

Moreover, plenty of countries never colonized by Britain have adopted the parliamentary system: Japan, France, German, Russia, Spain, etc. Indeed, it is pretty much the default system of democratic government adopted by any democratizing nation.

I was referring to the last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#History , and I was being genuine: that paragraph reads as though certain issues arose specifically after independence, and if that's not the case at all, I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable on the subject would edit the article.

"That paragraph reads as though certain issues arose specifically after independence,"

Every country has problems after independence. Or any given moment in its history for that matter. That is how history moves forward. It isn't as if Independence brings eternal peace and calm forever.

Let us take America. After independence from the British, all kinds of problems "arose". They continued enslaving people who had done them no harm, fought a murderous civil war over that issue, took over parts of Mexico, fought wars with the British, Mexicans, Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and the Afghans. They had race riots in plenty. Asassinations of presidents and peaceful demonstrators. Terrorist attacks. Now they have a failing state on the southern border and drug wars spilling over.

Yadda Yadda. None of which shows that independence from the British was a bad idea or that America has "declined" since then.

I am exhausting my somewhat notoriously short supply of patience, so please excuse the following outburst:

Why are you trying so goddamned hard to argue with me? All I've -- politely -- asked, for fuck's sake, is if you would mind contributing to a Wikipedia article on the subject! I'm not even disagreeing with you! And I cannot, if my life depended on it, fathom why you would write some counter-examples as a reply to my one sentence clarifying the article in question and my request.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"I am exhausting my somewhat notoriously short supply of patience, so please excuse the following outburst:"

You said this paragraph from wikipedia seemed to imply that problems "arose after independence" and asked me to edit it.

Let us see what the paragraph says

"Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. Since the 1990s terrorist attacks have affected many Indian cities. India has unresolved territorial disputes with the People's Republic of China, which in 1962 escalated into the Sino-Indian War, and with Pakistan, which resulted in wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. India is a founding member of the United Nations (as British India) and the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1974, India conducted an underground nuclear test[38] and five more tests in 1998, making India a nuclear state.[38] Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms[39] have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasing its global clout.[20]"

Why should I edit this? Because it lists problems India faced after Independence?

I replied that such "problems arise" in every country after independence (implying that I don't feel the need to edit the paragraph) and I provided a example of how in another country "problems arose" after independence.

You didn't like that? Too bad.

To your original point about wikipedia I pointed you to a far more detailed wikipedia article (linked from the article you pointed to btw but then you didn't notice that) which detailed the history of India after Independence.

I don't see a need to "contribute" because you couldn't be bothered to read it.

(you aren't the only one with a short supply of patience and if you feel the compulsion to indulge in obscenity laden "outbursts" here, feel free)

There is a book about Indians and arguments, thought you might like it ;-). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argumentative_Indian

Reply on news.ycombinator.com