Why I’m Losing Hope in India
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
One thing is clear - the future is not like the past few decades, it's no more an option for conscienable individuals to stay on the sideline and watch the world burn down while flying around drinking mimosas; either we are part of the problem or part of the solution, the question in front of me and many like me is where my societal contribution and self preservation instincts can coexist and be of the most use to everyone.
The fact that you can choose a country to settle in implies you either have means or talent or both. I would speculate that you have the potential to make manifold contributions. Please reconsider your conclusions in a more optimistic light.
Given that I am not someone who can't make a difference, my argument is that I should try my level best to make a difference, which is what you are sounding like you are suggesting as well.
>lagging behind trigger events
I think so too. Productivity and growth increase YoY, in theory there is potential for net good to be generated if distributed fairly (and in a sense it is for the bottom 90%). But geometric growth is not sustainable, the ceiling feels close (global warming), and eventually growth will slow down to the point where competition for resources and privileges becomes essentially zero sum. Or worse if population outstrips the productivity + 0.1% continues to aggregate a disproportionate share.
Are we really in the safest era, when global warming, climate catastrophe and another cold war are looming around in the corner?
Are we really in the wealthiest era when even in the richest countries of the world, a large and growing segment of the population remains increasingly unable to live independently, own a home or even live like their parents did back in their younger years?
Are we really the healthiest generation, where in spite of the widespread technological advances we have made, a large portion of basic Healthcare remains inaccessible to the world's population?
Sure, it's easy to pontificate about how great it is, especially in the West - and even easier to forget about the developing world. Unfortunately (or not), in an increasingly globalized world, that's where our supply chains begin, and that's why it's on us to ensure we move forward together, leaving no one behind, instead of taking an idiosyncratic approach towards progress.
Please reconsider your conclusions in a more realistic light.
There are far worse times in history for just about every aspect of human life. It doesn't mean everything is perfect today, just that it's better than it's ever been before.
Data may show this, but what about "happiest"? I wouldn't be surprised if we've seen a global decline in overall happiness, even if everyone is a bit richer.
Happiness is an internal state without an objective measure. Worse we don't know what makes us happy. Too little wealth ==> unhappy. Too much wealth ==> unhappy (maybe) but don't see many giving it up.
I think I would be miserable without the internet, social media but I am happiest chopping vegetables and washing dishes. Maybe we all just need to go and wash some dishes.
The worst thing is that despite all data and stats around their failures, the current regime enjoys immense popularity. The opposition is irrelevant, the media and news portals are completely subservient to the regime. And even the SC, once the champions of our democracy are pretty much a laughing stock for whom issuing contempt cases over twitter posts to comedians is too much important.
India finally has single issue voters. And this issue isn't poverty, corruption, progress or anything like that. It's just Hindutva. This religious fundamentalism is what will finally end the great Indian experiment.
Hinduism has been present in India for over 3000 years. Hindu kingdoms welcomed Jews (~900BC), Christians (52 AD), Zoorastrians (600AD), Muslims (550 AD), Armenians (1500AD) who have lived and prospered without molestation for millenia because of the pluralistic nature of Hinduism. Zoorastrians who were wiped out in Persia (Iran) by their own kith and kin who converted have prospered in India to the point that this tiny minority (less than 100k) leads several of the top-20 conglomerates (e.g. Tata). Hinduism is not just tolerant but pluralistic because it acknowledges multiple paths to god unlike any other religion.
Pluralism >>> Tolerance.
Multi-religious, multi-ethnic India will survive because of Hinduism not in-spite of it. Case in point, the neighboring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh are both Islamic and the non-muslim population has dwindled precipitously from 20% in 1947 to less than 10% and they are well on their way to becoming 99% Muslim the next couple decades.
Hinduism and it's openness may have been responsible for letting people live in harmony for close to 3 millennia, but what we see is not the Hinduism of those times, but a rabid bastardization of it, akin to Islamic radicalization we see in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The word secular was only inserted into the Indian constitution in 1977. How did it inspire Indonesian "secularism"? As for the vaunted Indonesian secularism you tout - is it letting the other religions live and practice or actually allowing them to prosper? How many non-muslims reach higher office in Indonesia. How many non-muslims in Indonesia have a shot at becoming president?
Once a country's population reaches more than 40-50% Islamic, Sharia law and eventual annihilation of the non-muslim population is just a matter of time. The data shows this again and again - Copts in Egypt, Northern Nigeria, Hindus in Kashmir, Bangladesh, Turkey (Armenians/Assyrians/Greeks), Iraq (Assyrians)......
The Jews of Europe developed into a professional class because of forced urbanization in Europe. They were very desirable immigrants in the 16th century like the highly educated technology class that is courted by every country. What about the pogroms against Jews that were prevelant in most of Arabia from Morocco to the Arabian peninsula? The Arabic pogroms against Jews were less severe than European pogroms against Jews but hardly a virtue.
Islam explicitly sanctions capture, trading and sexual slavery of non-muslim women and trading and ownership of slaves in general. Did you know historians have compiled price indices of the price of non-muslim women sold in the markets of the Ottoman Empire over hundreds of years? Sexual slavery for women and non-muslim men being castrated was the norm till Ataturk (20th century!) and about 50% of the boys died during castration. If you want to talk of the Ottoman Empire as a beacon of tolerance you can watch this truly disturbing video of slavery in Islam and the Ottoman empire [1]. On second thought, don't watch the video as it is truly disturbing.
Maybe next time use actual history books for reference, instead of YT channels. Maybe then you won't numb your grey matter willingly.
You could have watched the video and rebutted the facts that are inconvenient to your version of reality.
I can give out a million channels that will talk about how glorious the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire were without highlighting the massacres or corruption within them. I'm not, because that would be as distasteful as you are.
Not to mention, every one of your comments here on this thread seems to be about advancing an agenda that is very much aligned with that of the Hindu-nationalist party.
Instead of attacking me and called me names take that video and challenge any of the facts in there. Or go back to reddit.
Crime stats indicate a very different picture of Indonesia, even with a disproportionate population ratio of India[0]
>I don't see anything, apart from it being draft legislation. AFAIK, Aceh is the only place (shithole tbh) which actively promulgates Sharia Law.
AFAIK there are legal provisions for a parallel legal system to adjudicate,override dutch-roman legal system across all regions of Indonesia. [1][2]
[0]: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Sharia_by_count...
[2]: http://factsanddetails.com/indonesia/Government_Military_Cri...
And is the Dutch-Roman system a perfect legal system to be followed by their former subjects? Sometimes the folks on this site are laughable. Those provisions exist because the rules of that period, and of the former colonial power are barely applicable in any part. In fact, India and Singapore are some countries that still suffer from the imposition of outdated British laws under an "Anglo-Roman" legal system (eg: the sedition laws which can be used to silence any opposition). Colonial laws were very different from the laws imposed in the home countries. And very discriminatory too. Of course, if they're going to directly port the legal system (to maintain a semblance of order during transition), they might also incorporate caveats so that BS laws can be revised.
As Barack Obama described in his new book 'Promised Land', the chances of democracy surviving in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious poor country like India was precarious at best. BJP and RSS has effectively made sure that democracy dies in India
That's a weird statement to make, considering that the current PM is a self-made man without any old money, family name or ivy league connections. Infact, most of the high ranking people in his cabinet are self-made men like him. The current Home Minister of India for example started his career as a polling-booth level canvasser in the party.
If a poor self-made man rising to the top in free and fair elections (results accepted by everyone) is a murder of democracy, then you need to find the correct definition of democracy.
We hear a lot about how the current government is less corrupt and less dynastic. But their actions say otherwise[1][2][3].
[1] https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/bjp-congress-political...
[2] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/electoral-bonds-contro...
China is 90%+ ethnic Han with one-language-multiple-dialects, one-party state with most population concentrated in a few provinces. Indian elections might have a hundred plus candidates running for one-seat for parliament. India is a multi-ethnic multi-religious democracy with hundreds of languages spread across diverse geographies. The entrenched nature of (in)decision making in a three-tiered democracy, a free press, coupled with woke activism and sclerotic judiciary makes progress slow especially compared to China.
In India building a single nuclear plant requires wading through two decades worth of protests by foreign non-profits [1] and final adjudication by the Supreme court that construction could proceed. Foreign funded non-profits (NGO in India speak) were criticized by the former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, for intervening in matters of India's development. Recently, a metro line's storage shed in Mumbai, India's commercial capital, was relocated after a multi year battle to save <400 trees requiring the whole project to be delayed for multiple years inconveniencing 100s of thousands who would use that line.
You can have the biggest bullet train network created from scratch in a decade in China but then you get the Four Pests campaign [2] which led to eating and trading in wildlife which in turn sparked Covid 70 years later, the resulting famine, the horrors of the Cultural revolution, the great leap forward, the one-child policy, Vietnam invasion, Tiananmen, Xinjiang internment camps, One-belt-one-road, and finally President for life.
All this not-withstanding, the pace of decision making has picked up and on-the ground observers in India are far more optimistic than a journalists writing in from Hong Kong nestled in the echo-chamber that is elite journalism.
[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/manmohan-criticises-n...
That seems like a lot of excuses frankly.
> You can have the biggest bullet train network created from scratch in a decade in China but then you get the Four Pests campaign [2] which led to eating and trading in wildlife and perhaps sparked Covid, Cultural revolution, the great leap forward, the one-child policy, Vietnam invasion, Tiananmen, Xinjiang internment camps and President for life.
India also has its share of problems - terrorism, conflicts with pakistan/kashmir,sectarian/religious violence,extreme poverty,etc. But given all the problems of china, I'm willing to bet most people would prefer china over india. You act like it's just a bullet train. China lifted hundred of millions out of poverty. While hundreds of millions of indians live without electricity and indoor plumbing. Also, the problems you listed for china were mostly from decades ago.
> In India building a single nuclear plant requires wading through two decades worth of protests by foreign non-profits [1] and final adjudication by the Supreme court that construction could proceed. Foreign funded non-profits (NGO in India speak) were criticized by the former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, for intervening in matters of India's development.
If india wants to be free from foreign interference, perhaps they should leave the british commonwealth/empire once and for all and stop being a colony of britain? Why are you guys still part of the british empire? It's insane learning that india left the british empire and then rejoined it 2 years later.
Democracy is nice, but democracy is supposed to be a luxury you earn after you get wealthy. It was never meant for poor nations, especially poor multi-ethnic giants like india. Democracy was invented in athens by wealthy, educated, well-fed, slave owning greeks. Reason would tell you that democracy is an awful form of government for poor developing nations.
The problem with india is that it lacks the central authority that china has. Perhaps china is too centralized and too authoritarian but the lives of the average chinese certainly is better than the lives of the average indian. You need a strong central/federal power the larger, the poorer and more diverse you are. It's just common sense. Sure, you get brownie points and pat on the head from britain for being a democracy but much of your population is living in utter poverty. Certainly it's time to look in the mirror and say something hasn't worked out. Maybe even wonder whether britain isn't patting you on your head because indian democracy is good for india, but it's good for britain? It's not like britain ever gave much thought to the well being of india while it was ravaging india for 150 years. As a matter of fact, if there is any nation that wants india to be weak, it certainly has to be britain. No? Perhaps instead of doing things to win the approval of britain/etc, start doing things to develop the nation.
I agree. Not sure why you were so upset. I didn't say britain made india a democracy. Britain didn't bring democracy anywhere it went. I just said Britain praises india's democracy because it keeps india backwards and weak. And india just keeps sticking with something that hasn't worked for decades because the leadership is desperate for that pat on the head from their colonial masters.
What's better? China where hundreds of millions are out of poverty but britain calls it a "dictatorship". Or India with hundreds of millions are in poverty but britain praises it for democracy?
> As for India being a member of the Commonwealth, it was by Nehru's insistence that it be named the Commonwealth of Nations, and not the Imperial Commonwealth as Britain intended it to be.
Who cares about the name? A pile of shit is still a pile of shit whatever you call it. The Imperial Commonwealth is still the imperial commonwealth whether it's called timbuktu. Would the british empire be any different if you called it anything else? The japanese tried to call their empire "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". I guess it sound more benign than Empire of Japan but it doesn't quite flow off the tongue.
It's the british empire. The head of the state is the british queen. It's located in london. The language is english. It's the association of "former" british colonies and their master.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
India represents over 20% of humanity. It should be a free nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, like china. Not a pathetic colony of britain. More than 70 years after independence, india is still a colony. That explains its rather terrible situation.
Interestingly enough, almost all of the world's poor without electricity, plumbing, etc are part of the british empire today, I mean commonwealth of nations. What a wonderful association to be a part of.
India has been a democracy in spite of the monarchies the UK used to support in Indian territory, in spite of the regional and sectarian conflicts the British tried to impose on (and succeeded) India.
Have you ever considered the reason why India has been forced to languish in the background in world affairs, in spite of being on track to be the most populous country, to be because of American and British (and for a while European) interference? The nations stopping the likes of Japan, Germany and India from joining the UN security council are those within. Britain has gained a lot more from the relationship with India, just as India has gained a lot from the same. The Indian power bloc in the UK parliament and the power it has wielded for a few decades now is solid evidence of this.
To correct your preconceived BS, the CoN is a meaningless patchwork of nations of the British empire for Britain. The only benefit it provides to the UK is monarchial rights to a few island nations (and an increasingly lower number by the year, Barbados just voted to become a republic within the CoN), while giving citizens of CoN nations voting rights within the UK, which is a pretty huge trade off on the UK's part.
India is not a pathetic colony of Britain. If you'd been involved with the economic landscape of Britain recently, it was more or less the other way round. India has already overtaken Britain by the GDP numbers.
Yet you also willfully ignore places such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa or France's former African colonies, all of which have become worse shitholes than India.
You have clearly no understanding of the situation in either India or the UK currently. Wish I could extend a time machine to bring you here in the present, but unfortunately it doesn't admit for close-mindedness.
"I'll just respond with most of your horseshit assertions with one statement:"
Seems like you were upset.
> Just correcting false facts propagated by ignorant folks. Such as yourself.
Seems like you are still upset which is shocking since I agree with you.
> India has been a democracy in spite of the monarchies the UK used to support in Indian territory, in spite of the regional and sectarian conflicts the British tried to impose on (and succeeded) India.
You are repeating yourself. I agreed.
> Have you ever considered the reason why India has been forced to languish in the background in world affairs, in spite of being on track to be the most populous country, to be because of American and British (and for a while European) interference?
Less american. More british, but yes. I agree with you. And the reason why britain succeeded is because the indian elites are sell-outs. That's my point. It's why india willingly rejoined the british empire.
> To correct your preconceived BS, the CoN is a meaningless patchwork of nations of the British empire for Britain.
It's not meaningless. It's symbolic. It reveals the mentality of the leaders of the colonies. If it is meaningless, why is india even in it? Isn't it humiliating?
> India is not a pathetic colony of Britain
Sure it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the british empire. It willingly joined. Do you think think would allow hong kong to join the commonwealth? Do you think the US would join the "commonwealth"?
> India has already overtaken Britain by the GDP numbers.
Considering india had 1.4 billion more people... And yet still britain is a permanent security council member and india is not.
> Yet you also willfully ignore places such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa or France's former African colonies, all of which have become worse shitholes than India.
Puerto rico and american samao are doing much better than india. Go look it up. And as for france's african colonies, I believe they should liberate themselves as well. What's your point? Puerto rico isn't a country of 1.4 billion people.
I'm not the one being closeminded. You are. It seems like something triggered you and you act like I'm insulting india. I'm not. I'm saying india should become an independent power jusst like china. Not a british slave colony. If china was still in the british empire, I'd say the same thing.
Imagine after ww2, china decided to rejoin the japanese empire. That would have been insane right? That's what india did. The only reason that happened was because the indian leadership/elite are sellouts. No other explanation for that. And it's also why india is so poorly developed. After ww2, india shouldn't have begged their way back to the british empire, they should have demanded a seat at the UN security council.
As it stands, india today can't demand a permanent seat at the UN security council since they are a colony of britain. Can't have britain and their colony both in the permanent security council...
Maybe I should have the required knowledge of Indian culture and politics before reading this, but maybe since Bloomberg News is a global paper, not an Indian one, it should spend more time educating people about the facts of who certain politians actually are before resorting to calling them cult leaders.
Anyone who's spent some time knowing about Indira Gandhi and Manmohan Singh can walk away from this article with more context on what role they might have played in Indian history.
The same can be said about many articles in Bloomberg about American politics, but I suppose everyone's assumed to be fully versed in the EC system in the states since US is the place to be or whatever. Perhaps the best course of action is for Bloomberg to produce articles like that about everywhere and let the interested parties look up bg info elsewhwee. Otherwise every article about India has to then do Emergency in 70s 101 which sounds pathetic.
>The bias appearing to be with the author is insane enough to make me want to question everything that he is saying.
How do you reconcile those two statements ? If you know nothing about X how can you have the context to detect bias ?
Why do they publish this then?
But the author of the article is a bloomberg employee.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ASj7dG4ftKY/andy-m...
> that's where "op-eds" got their name from, literally opposite the editorial board.
No. It got it's name from being "opposite of the editorial page". Not the editorial board.