Lady Is Here! I have written a book for feminine-minded women (and the men who want relationships with them). Click Here For Full Details.

Post Reply 
Indian Politics
Author Message
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #1
Indian Politics
Hello,

First of all, I know that the rules state that a newbie under 250 posts will get banned,but I don't see anyone making a post about Indian Politics.

Second,the western civilization consumes Indian Politics through the prism of Indian Lefts viewpoint which is dangerous as we have a nationalist and right wing government in power now.

Third,the recent Brexit referendum,Donald Trump's Election has shown me the power of this forum in influencing the electorate.

So,my purpose for making this thread is to educate/inform people about Indian politics through a right wing viewpoint.I will be posting/sharing articles and other info written on a few of the right wing and alternate viewpoints about the current affairs happening in my country.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 01:38 AM by Eklavya.)
12-08-2016 01:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Eklavya's post:
RoastBeefCurtains4Me, MOVSM, DarkTriad
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #2
RE: Indian Politics
http://myvoice.opindia.com/2016/12/demon...-morality/

Demonetization: The politics of morality

Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, was asked by a reporter about the impact of the French Revolution and he responded, “It’s too early to tell”.[1] The question was asked in 1972 more than 180 years after the French revolution of 1789. If Zhou Enlai were to meet the current crop of economists and opinion piece writers in India, he would be amazed at the progress that has been made since for these worthies have, in three weeks, analyzed, passed judgment and predicted consequences with oracular clairvoyance on an issue which in scope and suddenness has no parallel.

One could treat the outpourings of the “Judgmental Economists” with a modicum of credulity, were it not for the niggling fact that not only do these judgments not agree with one another, some are diametrically opposite. The simple answer to this conundrum could be that the commentators are intellectually dishonest or incompetent and a disinterested economist will be able to correctly assess the impact and consequences of the move. Alas that too is not possible for simple reasons that seem to have escaped the notice of those speaking so surely.

Firstly, estimates on the size of the Black economy vary quite a bit and more importantly on how such ill gotten riches are distributed across asset classes like cash/gold/real estate. Secondly, distribution of such black money, whether it is the wealthy 3% who have it or is it more widespread with significant amounts being with small time traders, businessmen, bureaucrats etc. Thirdly, in an economy as large as India billions of commercial transactions happen a day which impact each other in myriad ways. Modeling the exogenous shock of demonetization on the economy is nigh impossible given we have no precedent or control set. By the very nature of the issue at hand we see that economic/utilitarian analysis run into methodological troubles and a meaningful analysis requires much more time, data and rigor than the current crop of economists/columnists have offered. So then what do these surefooted judgments signify and if post facto analysis is so difficult then on what premise did the government announce the move in the first place?

In a nutshell the reactions and judgment passed by people like Amartya Sen, Jean Dreze, Summers, Pattnaik reflect the sum total of their existing worldview, theories and most importantly prejudices. They have cherry picked unverifiable facts/anecdotal evidence that fit in with a conclusion they arrived at beforehand. This is to be expected, however it does not mean that the critique penned is nonsense it just isn’t what it purports to be i.e. a definitive analysis on the motivation and consequences of the decision. The Popperian distinction between sense and science is critical to keep in mind just so we realize what it is that can be said or refuted with certainty and what is unfalsifiable opinion masquerading as fact in the blizzard of writing that the demonetization decision has entailed.

Now that we have established that an economic analysis of any exactitude is not possible at the present moment then what can be said or discussed? Should we, as Wittgenstein suggested, pass over in silence whereof one cannot speak[2]? No, we must discuss and debate not as prophets but as seekers. I now turn to analyze, what is in my opinion, the nub of the issue at hand: why did Narendra Modi pursue this course, what motivation and vision underlies such a bold step? This question has, of course, been discussed but the output mostly concentrates on the instrumental concerns. Political benefit, economic growth, crippling terror infrastructure et al have been offered as guiding force behind the decision. While these may not be incorrect I feel they are incomplete answers. The heart of the decision lies in the puritanical streak of the RSS worker who has risen to supreme political power and more importantly why political power is pursued; is it an end in itself used only to perpetuate itself or is it a means to an end.
12-08-2016 01:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Eklavya's post:
Graft, Surreyman
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #3
RE: Indian Politics
http://myvoice.opindia.com/2016/11/10-ar...re-flawed/

10 arguments against demonetization and why they are flawed BY SUNIL MISHRA / OPINIONS / 24 NOV 2016
So the combined firepower of (dis)united opposition, shrill media , tax evaders, black-marketeers and intellectual apologists only consist of less than 20% disapproval of the recent scheme on demonetization, if a recent survey by C-Voter needs to be believed in. There is a convenient way to dismiss this survey by questioning the authenticity, methodology, sample size etc.

However if one critically examines the arguments presented by the opposition, there is a clear answer why they find themselves on the wrong side of the public opinion.

Argument 1 : There was no planning

On a lighter note, the opposition was right here partly (for a different reason), it came as complete surprise to them. They thought it would be one of the regular homily and rhetoric as part of PM’s address to the nation. They had not prepared for such a drastic step by the govt. Just 4 hours to deal with a calamity like this ?

However a deeper analysis revealed that it was well thought through and very secretly planned, probably many months before. People brought to notice the Govt. push to create bank accounts (for seemingly no reason that time), voluntary disclosure on black money and repeated warnings to the black marketeers. In a large country like India a sweeping change like this cant be a overnight thought.

Probably it was a bogus argument, the opposition soon realized it and they looked for other reasons.

Argument 2 : The execution was disastrous

Once the planning logic did not work, the point raised was it was horribly executed. The proof point – the Govt. kept changing the limits, dates guidelines etc. There were 17 changes one opponent pointed out; this depicts that it was a complete failure. There are still queues at the ATMs and banks; it is causing inconvenience. Some have predicted the money shortage to continue for at least six months (based on printing capacity).

As the saying goes “the first casualty in any real battle is the battle-plan” and it is not necessarily a bad thing. The initial plan should be built for change – tactical operations should constantly change to suit the ground conditions. The queues are shortening is the sign of progressive success. Moreover this logic backfires if one questions back – what are the suggestions to improve the execution ?
12-08-2016 01:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #4
RE: Indian Politics
[Image: CxNDVp8XgAApsJq.jpg:large]
12-08-2016 01:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #5
RE: Indian Politics
One of the best initiatives to come out of Modi government was the drive to electrify all the villages in India by 2018.

To keep the progress open and available to public they created a site and it gets updated daily with the info.

I will try to paste a good article about the program,till then check the site out.

http://garv.gov.in/dashboard
12-08-2016 02:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hannibal Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,929
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 50
Post: #6
RE: Indian Politics
It's 50 posts until you can post in the political forums.

If you want to keep your account I suggest waiting the 9 days at this rate that it'll take to start posting in the political forums.

“I have a very simple rule when it comes to management: hire the best people from your competitors, pay them more than they were earning, and give them bonuses and incentives based on their performance. That’s how you build a first-class operation.”
― Donald J. Trump

If you want some PDF's on bodyweight exercise with little to no equipment, send me a PM and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
12-08-2016 02:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Hannibal's post:
Slim Shady
Handsome Creepy Eel Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,659
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 162
Post: #7
RE: Indian Politics
I sure hope this thread goes better than the Hot Indian Girls one...

"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
12-08-2016 02:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like Handsome Creepy Eel's post:
Hannibal, rotekz, jayko, kaotic, Prince Machiavelli, DarkTriad
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #8
RE: Indian Politics
@Hannibal,

Got your point.

Last post for today and sometime for this thread.

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/sto...oll/298203
12-08-2016 02:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Eklavya's post:
Hannibal
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 863
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #9
RE: Indian Politics
Hoping to have some good discussion on this thread. Most Indian people I know are hardcore SJW so it would be nice to get some new perspective on here.

For starters, I'll throw out one question: would rising nationalism in the West solidify Indian identity or increase regional separatism? After all, you can see parallels between the EU and the "diversity is our strength" mantra that keeps India together, as a mishmash of languages, religions, and ethnicities with little in common with each other.

I personally think some provinces would be better off independent, though that would make it easier for China to pick them off one by one turning them into tributary states.
12-08-2016 04:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Arado's post:
jayko, RoastBeefCurtains4Me
Hannibal Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,929
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 50
Post: #10
RE: Indian Politics
The next rising superpower is India.

Mark my words.

India already has a nationalist movement going on to preserve the national religion because they are surrounded by Islamists and communists.

“I have a very simple rule when it comes to management: hire the best people from your competitors, pay them more than they were earning, and give them bonuses and incentives based on their performance. That’s how you build a first-class operation.”
― Donald J. Trump

If you want some PDF's on bodyweight exercise with little to no equipment, send me a PM and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
12-08-2016 04:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Hannibal's post:
kaotic
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #11
RE: Indian Politics
India will never be a one nation state like China.And people don't want it to be.There is something beautiful about having different languages and cultures in one country.

India for the last 60 years followed the post world war 2 British Socialism and the Communist ways due to its occupation by British.

@arado regarding your question,I see a rising nationalism in India.West through its various NGO's and mass Christian conversions(we bought this on ourselves),diluted the essence of India as a nation.


Right now,the mood and the country is with the Modi govt,where even after the recent demonization drive,BJP/NDA won a higher percentage of seats in local bypolls and municipality elections.

Right now,all eyes are on UP elections(biggest and the highest number of MLA/MP) in first quarter of 2017.

Below is the current to date power structure of Indian governments by political party

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/elections-...10716.html
12-08-2016 04:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #12
RE: Indian Politics
People interested about India,Pakistan,Balochistan,Arabs should follow Tarek fatah.

He is the leading voice on Islamic State and Muslim Mentality should give this a listen.



12-08-2016 04:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Eklavya's post:
Slim Shady
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #13
RE: Indian Politics
Tarek Fateh on Quran and the rise of Wahabism



12-08-2016 05:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Eklavya's post:
Slim Shady
The Beast1 Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,523
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 81
Post: #14
RE: Indian Politics
OP where abouts in India are you based?

Have the reports about the ending of high value currency notes been blown out of proportion or are they on point?
12-08-2016 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Agastya Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 611
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 25
Post: #15
RE: Indian Politics
Great idea for a thread. Most discussion about India here gets boiled down to "the bitches are ugly and place is disgusting, 1/10 would not travel to". Large parts of it are massive shitholes, but it's also an immensely interesting country with great potential for the future. One of my great hopes for the future is to see India attain a first world standard of living, so people can properly enjoy everything it has to offer. As a person of Indian descent, it's extremely depressing to see my nation of origin, one of the great civilizations of the world, exist under a shroud of corruption, filth and violence. I'll attach some posts I've made in the past about current affairs in India that got buried in old threads.
12-08-2016 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Agastya's post:
ColSpanker, BlastbeatCasanova
Agastya Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 611
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 25
Post: #16
RE: Indian Politics
(10-08-2013 02:51 PM)Agastya Wrote:  
(10-08-2013 01:57 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  
(10-08-2013 01:51 PM)Agastya Wrote:  DO NOT tarry or fuck around in these places. The police here are the worst in India(which is saying something)--rule of law here is scanty at best and nonexistent at worst. Most of the gang rapes and riots happen in this part of India as well, there's also the danger of Maoist rebels if for some reason you decide to visit the countryside. Bihar is especially fucked up, easily the worst part of India and possibly one of the worst areas in the world.

You seem to say "don't go there" but it would be nice to know why or what's going on there. Yeah, I heard about the maoist and their kidnappings/bombings in east india.

Pretty crazy shit.

Northeastern India is a different animal than northern India. The Northeast, as many have stated, is filled with Asian-looking races who are more closely related to the Burmese and Tibetans than they are to stock North Indians. I feel like this area would be far more suited to RVF members than most of India. While it isn't much wealthier than the rest of the country, NE India is largely Christian and animist, meaning that the restrictive social structures sponsored by both Hinduism and Islam are largely absent. The females are also a lot prettier here.

The main issues in NE India are poverty(this area is largely neglected by mainstream Indian politicians) and terrorism. This terrorism largely takes the form of independence movements. Some ethnic groups and tribes believe they deserve their own state within the Indian polity--others want to break away completely and form independent nations. There's also tons of resentment against the Indian army, which, when faced with insurrections in the 1950's and 60's, committed horrible atrocities against some of the warrior tribes who opposed them. Finally, the Chinese provide arms, food, and tactical support to some of the more powerful groups in the hope of destabilizing the region even further.

These rebel groups have adopted Maoism as their political ideology, but the root cause of their struggle is independence and not the propagation of Communism or the demolition of the caste system. Moreover, the Maoists in the Northeast are largely limited to peripheral jungles inhabited only by rural tribespeople, areas that are legally off-limits anyways.

In Northern India, on the other hand, the rebel groups are fighting to rearrange the very structure of their society. These groups are typically composed of Dalits(Untouchables), who, inspired by the Red Book, are attempting to engage in a full-on social revolution. These people are called Naxals. Their mission is to overthrow their upper-caste landlords, who have been exploiting them, raping their women, and denying them basic human rights for the past few centuries. Since peaceful protest rarely solves anything in India(ironic, isn't it?), the Naxals have resorted to outright terrorism in order to achieve their goals, attacking upper-caste villages, assassinating politicians, and occasionally kidnapping/killing westerners stupid enough to enter their territory.

Naxalite clashes with the military have resulted in a state of near civil war across parts of Bihar, Orissa, Chhatisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. The conflict has been exacerbated by the presence of upper-caste militias, which wage their own paramilitary war against the Naxals. These militias, typically staffed by members of the landlord classes, have massacred thousands of Dalits and Communists in revenge. The most notable upper-caste milita is the Ranvir Sena, whose leader, Brahmeshwar Mukhiya, was thankfully offed at some point last year(dude was a real cunt).

Finally, the governance and infrastructure in these states is horrendous. The real reason that these civil conflicts are allowed to perpetuate is a general lack of education and a complete disregard for Indian law, which at least tries to mediate differences between the castes. The politicians in these areas are impotent, corrupt, and highly uneducated. Bihar, at one point, was run by a woman who couldn't read.

There is some cool stuff to see in these states--Bodh Gaya in Bihar, Konarak in Orissa, gorgeous national parks in Madhya Pradesh. The bottom line, however, is that these places are highly unstable. As colossally filthy as most Indian cities are, the odds of you being kidnapped/beaten/shot are fairly low. In the countryside of central India, those odds rise quite drastically. In these areas, stick to the touristy spots, or at least those where the government keeps a watchful eye on things. If people warn you about a certain district or county, they're probably right, and it's best to stay the fuck out of there.
12-08-2016 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #17
RE: Indian Politics
@thebeast1

I don't want to reveal my location yet..

On demontization,people are missing the bigger picture.It's not like the PM had a one too many and say fuck it all.This was a deep planning involved.

For the last two years,government has been pushing for Unique Identification number and Zero Balance Accounts for the poor and the low wage earners.They first started with depositing money directly to their bank accounts for the various social schemes then he gave an option to black money holders to convert it to white lawfully by paying a very nominal tax on the income till sep 30.

After that only he took this decision.Yes,people are suffering a bit,but there is also a smile that someone had the balls to do this.

All the tears you see are from liberals and intellectuals who suddenly started caring for their drivers,maids,etc.

The thing is there is 50-50 chance of its success.But the normal people will not again raise questions on what is being done for black money.

he took a big political risk as his own power could have been lost and only time will tell what will happen at the next elections.

The Auto drivers,vegetable vendors etc are slowly and happily transferring to online cash.

Though the PM Modi has asked for time till Dec 30 ,I believe it will take till Feb 2nd week for the results to show completely.

there is major push for broader economic reforms and this is a piece of a bigger pie.
12-08-2016 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eklavya Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #18
RE: Indian Politics
people wanting to know about the mindset and the working style of PM Modi,please do watch this interview.

This is the first interview he gave after 2 years in office.

The interview is in hindi,but has English subtitles.



12-08-2016 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Eklavya's post:
Slim Shady
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 863
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #19
RE: Indian Politics
(12-08-2016 04:50 AM)Eklavya Wrote:  India will never be a one nation state like China.And people don't want it to be.There is something beautiful about having different languages and cultures in one country.
India for the last 60 years followed the post world war 2 British Socialism and the Communist ways due to its occupation by British.
@arado regarding your question,I see a rising nationalism in India.West through its various NGO's and mass Christian conversions(we bought this on ourselves),diluted the essence of India as a nation.
Right now,the mood and the country is with the Modi govt,where even after the recent demonization drive,BJP/NDA won a higher percentage of seats in local bypolls and municipality elections.
Right now,all eyes are on UP elections(biggest and the highest number of MLA/MP) in first quarter of 2017.
Below is the current to date power structure of Indian governments by political party
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/elections-...10716.html

But that's my point - how many successful nation states are out there with that level of language and cultural diversity? India was never a state in the sense that China Japan, Russia, UK, France, Spain, Korea, Persia, etc were - India was always a bunch of kingdoms fighting with each other that the British united.

For now, they have the uniting factor of Hinduism as you mention the pro-BJP sentiment growing, but that isn't sustainable with high Muslim birthrate. And Europe is all Christian but they never converged into one nation states because the languages and cultures were too different. Can India really have the coherence to be successful in the future?
12-08-2016 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Gmac Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,694
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 146
Post: #20
RE: Indian Politics
(12-08-2016 04:57 AM)Eklavya Wrote:  People interested about India,Pakistan,Balochistan,Arabs should follow Tarek fatah.

He is the leading voice on Islamic State and Muslim Mentality should give this a listen.




I have been following Tarek for a while now, based guy.

Vice-Captain - #TeamWaitAndSee
12-08-2016 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Gmac's post:
Slim Shady, Genghis Khan
HermeticAlly Offline
Recovering Beta
*

Posts: 230
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 5
Post: #21
RE: Indian Politics
I've been reading about India in Will Durant's History of Civilization series, and I was completely unaware of India's unpleasant past at the hands of Islamic conquerors. I doubt that modern India has forgotten what Muslims did to them in the past, unlike many Europeans, and won't hesitate to push back.

Not being restrained by a SJW guilt complex makes me confident that India will become a much bigger power in the future.
12-09-2016 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes HermeticAlly's post:
Genghis Khan
kosko Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,683
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 146
Post: #22
RE: Indian Politics
I will have my eye on this thread as India Affairs is an area where I don't have much knowledge, and I'm interested in learning.
12-09-2016 10:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like kosko's post:
Genghis Khan, Prince Machiavelli
Genghis Khan Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,082
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 52
Post: #23
RE: Indian Politics
@Arado, you're absolutely right that India is an oddball in terms of being a nation with so much diversity. For argument's sake I'll ignore the few states that have been infected by Naxalites/Marxist and want independence (I'm not entertained by China's interference here either).

Let's look at religions. Barring the monotheistic religions (increase of Muslim population and Christian missionaries), the native Indian religions are very compatible with each other. There is no history of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs fighting each other. Also Hinduism is popular across the entire nation (with maybe Kerala being the exception). So there's not THAT much diversity in religious beliefs. You'll find Hindus in North and South India.

Ethnicities - does India really have that many ethnicities? There's a bunch of people up north who look more Chinese than Indian. And there's the light skin North Indian versus darker skin South Indian thing. But we're very far away from places like the US where you gave white, black, Asian, Indian Americans. Go anywhere in the world and you can pick out Indian people. We look pretty distinct from other races and as much as north and south Indians will never admit it, they're not that far removed from each other.

Overall culture - this actually ties into Hinduism and other native religions, but there is a lot of cultural commonalities across the nation. Holi, Diwali, cheeky movies with ridiculous action super stars, yellow and black cabs, schooling style, etc etc.

In many ways we have a lot to thank the British for. It's in the antagonism against the British that a national identity was born. And I wouldn't neglect that national identity. The Indian cricket team (does the EU have one sports team?), the Indian Army (does the EU have one army?), the Indian flag, the Indian passport, the Indian anthem. It may seem odd to outsiders but the anthem is in Bengali and everyone accepts it as their anthem whether they're Bengali or not. All of these things came about from the British occupation. And I can't overemphasize that point. Nobody is alive today that remembers a time where they were part of some small kingdom. Everyone today only knows of a unified India, whether that was under (mostly) Mughal, British or independent rule. There have been times where most of India was united under one king. In fact, on a subconscious level I would posit that most Indians see the history of warring princely kingdoms as something uniquely Indian. 'Oh yeah, India used to be a bunch of princely states' as if India is the norm, not the oddity.

That's probably the key difference between India and the EU. In the EU every country still has their own sports team, their own flag, their own army, their own anthem. The French would probably commit suicide before accepting an anthem in English. The Gujaratis and Punjabis accept the Bengali anthem with pride.

Indians have pride in being Indian. European citizens don't have any pride in being an EU citizen. National pride comes first. A Greek could probably care less if a German won the Nobel prize, but in India the entire nation rejoices regardless if the laureate shares your language or not.

National identity can be prescribed in many ways. If one uses the lense of language, ethnicity or religion - no doubt India seems ready to fall apart. And indeed many Western commentators have embarrassed themselves by predicting the demise of India either as a nation state or a democracy. I forget whom but someone in foreign affairs predicted India would fall apart and become a savage land by 2000. In his words, there was no way India could last as a democracy. How badly wrong he was. These are intrinsic factors (language, ethnicity, religion).

With India, look at it from the lens of extrinsic factors, i.e. things that deal with competition - Indian army vs. Pakistani army, Indian cricket team versus other cricket teams, Indian pride when it comes to science and math versus other countries. This identity based on 'us' versus 'them' - which is not really there when it comes to an EU identity - is perhaps unsurprisingly considering that is exactly what the British did purposefully - 'You are Indian, we are British'.

Under this lens India starts looking a lot more stable, perhaps immutably so. India falling apart seems as ridiculous of an idea to me as Japan splitting up. I just don't see it happening. And that's important because I developed this view from my family. Which means they feel the same way. And that's not something light - they genuinely see themselves as Indian first. And that sentiment exists across the nation. Sentiments are important. If people belief in the idea of their nation-state, it's tremendously hard to break it apart. Who in Europe actually believes in the EU? And this does have a lesson for the US as well - if a large enough percentage of Americans stop believing in the USA, e g La Raza who want to reconquer California and Texas - that's a problem.

I hope I satisfactorily answered your question.

Not happening. - redbeard in regards to ETH flippening BTC
12-10-2016 02:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 863
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #24
RE: Indian Politics
Great info, but I'm not 100% convinced and have several issues with your arguments:

(12-10-2016 02:49 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  @Arado, you're absolutely right that India is an oddball in terms of being a nation with so much diversity. For argument's sake I'll ignore the few states that have been infected by Naxalites/Marxist and want independence (I'm not entertained by China's interference here either).

Let's look at religions. Barring the monotheistic religions (increase of Muslim population and Christian missionaries), the native Indian religions are very compatible with each other. There is no history of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs fighting each other. Also Hinduism is popular across the entire nation (with maybe Kerala being the exception). So there's not THAT much diversity in religious beliefs. You'll find Hindus in North and South India.

I would agree, but the simple fact remains that the Muslim birthrate is ahead of the Hindu rate. Basing a national identity on religion when over 20% of the population is of a different religion is not the recipe for stability. And there are other regions of the world (Europe, Latin America, SE Asia) where countries are the same religion but still have their own strong identity.

Quote:Ethnicities - does India really have that many ethnicities? There's a bunch of people up north who look more Chinese than Indian. And there's the light skin North Indian versus darker skin South Indian thing. But we're very far away from places like the US where you gave white, black, Asian, Indian Americans. Go anywhere in the world and you can pick out Indian people. We look pretty distinct from other races and as much as north and south Indians will never admit it, they're not that far removed from each other.

Eh, not really. Can you tell the difference between Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans? Not really. And even if you can, what's your point? Sure I can tell Europeans apart from Arabs and Africans but just because people can be told apart from the other doesn't mean they can form a coherent nation state. And within India there is tremendous differences, from Nicobar Island tribals to very fair skinned Kashmiris, to orientals in the East. That can't be downplayed. If Indians look the same as their main enemy, I really don't think that the wide spectrum of Indian physical types is sufficient for a national identity.

Quote:Overall culture - this actually ties into Hinduism and other native religions, but there is a lot of cultural commonalities across the nation. Holi, Diwali, cheeky movies with ridiculous action super stars, yellow and black cabs, schooling style, etc etc.

Tied in with religion - see above issue with a growing Islamic population. Many parts of India don't celebrate Holi. Southern Indians do have some level of resentment towards northern cultural domination.


Quote:In many ways we have a lot to thank the British for. It's in the antagonism against the British that a national identity was born. And I wouldn't neglect that national identity. The Indian cricket team (does the EU have one sports team?), the Indian Army (does the EU have one army?), the Indian flag, the Indian passport, the Indian anthem. It may seem odd to outsiders but the anthem is in Bengali and everyone accepts it as their anthem whether they're Bengali or not. All of these things came about from the British occupation. And I can't overemphasize that point. Nobody is alive today that remembers a time where they were part of some small kingdom. Everyone today only knows of a unified India, whether that was under (mostly) Mughal, British or independent rule. There have been times where most of India was united under one king. In fact, on a subconscious level I would posit that most Indians see the history of warring princely kingdoms as something uniquely Indian. 'Oh yeah, India used to be a bunch of princely states' as if India is the norm, not the oddity.

Not sure what your point is here. Yes, perhaps the British were a uniting factor, but that was 50 years ago. Who cares about the British now? Our core question is what does Indian nationalism mean? The nationalist movements in Europe originate with cultures that are hundreds of years old. India barely has 60 years under its belt. If Tamil Nadu and Bihar have a dispute, will the fact that they resisted the British at some point mean anything?

Both India and Pakistan resisted the British together, but because Al Jinnah believed that Hindus and Muslims couldn't co exist, Pakistan was born. So this anti-British identity is quite hollow - ultimately, religion trumps historical commonality. No guarantee that a future generation of radicalized Muslims won't seek separation - at that point appealing to anti-British sentiment will go nowhere.

Quote:That's probably the key difference between India and the EU. In the EU every country still has their own sports team, their own flag, their own army, their own anthem. The French would probably commit suicide before accepting an anthem in English. The Gujaratis and Punjabis accept the Bengali anthem with pride.

Right, but the eventual goal of the EU was to gradually subvert national borders and create one multicultural mass, and that's why nationalist parties do well. Perhaps Indians accept the Bengali anthem, but how willing are south Indians and Gujaratis to accept Hindi as their mother tongue?


Quote:Indians have pride in being Indian. European citizens don't have any pride in being an EU citizen. National pride comes first. A Greek could probably care less if a German won the Nobel prize, but in India the entire nation rejoices regardless if the laureate shares your language or not.

That's a good point, but only because on a regional scale they don't have that many people winning competitions internationally. If let's say all of Europe got less than 10 medals combined per Olympics then they would probably start rooting for each other. Indians rooting for Indians is more just rooting for someone of your race rather than national identity - obviously they will root for an Indian over some white guy.

Quote:National identity can be prescribed in many ways. If one uses the lense of language, ethnicity or religion - no doubt India seems ready to fall apart. And indeed many Western commentators have embarrassed themselves by predicting the demise of India either as a nation state or a democracy. I forget whom but someone in foreign affairs predicted India would fall apart and become a savage land by 2000. In his words, there was no way India could last as a democracy. How badly wrong he was. These are intrinsic factors (language, ethnicity, religion).

What other country in the world has succeeded without either a common language, ethnicity, or culture? None! That's why these are the main markers of a nation state and why the alt-right is booming in the West as these nations reject multiculturalism and why the nation state ultimately failed in the Middle East. You can't just invent national identities and expect them to succeed.

Would you say India is well governed? Perhaps compared to Pakistan, but not if you examine if India can actually exercise power and influence in a meaningful sense in the world. So I don't know if history has really proven people wrong - India hasn't collapsed, but it has absolutely not achieved success. The corruption and poverty is still on a mind boggling scale, and India still legs far behind other Asian countries that were at a similar per capita GDP level in 1950.

Quote:With India, look at it from the lens of extrinsic factors, i.e. things that deal with competition - Indian army vs. Pakistani army, Indian cricket team versus other cricket teams, Indian pride when it comes to science and math versus other countries. This identity based on 'us' versus 'them' - which is not really there when it comes to an EU identity - is perhaps unsurprisingly considering that is exactly what the British did purposefully - 'You are Indian, we are British'.

Sure, when you paint things as India vs. Pakistan, or China, or the West, etc...us vs. them works because Indians are still different, just as if you had aliens invade the world, then the us vs. them dynamic would become powerful again.

Us vs. them works also when painting the West vs. Islam, China, etc, but that doesn't magically erase the divides between the cultures, ethnicities, and languages within India.

Quote:Under this lens India starts looking a lot more stable, perhaps immutably so. India falling apart seems as ridiculous of an idea to me as Japan splitting up. I just don't see it happening. And that's important because I developed this view from my family. Which means they feel the same way. And that's not something light - they genuinely see themselves as Indian first. And that sentiment exists across the nation. Sentiments are important. If people belief in the idea of their nation-state, it's tremendously hard to break it apart. Who in Europe actually believes in the EU? And this does have a lesson for the US as well - if a large enough percentage of Americans stop believing in the USA, e g La Raza who want to reconquer California and Texas - that's a problem.

I hope I satisfactorily answered your question.

I don't know, though. The simple fact is that the rising nationalism in the West, and nationalism in most other countries IS based on language, religion, and race. I don't think you have outlined a strong enough identity for Indians that will survive the nationalist era.

I could be wrong, of course, but we are entering a new era of nationalism and, given how many subnational entities are re asserting their own identity (Scotland, Northern Italy, Catalonia, etc) can we really assume India will be kumbaya and accepting of "India" as an identity when, in reality, it has existed for just the blink of an eye in a historical sense.

Perhaps Indians believe in India now, but were there to be significant breakups in Europe and increased tensions along religious and ethnic lines in many other countries there is no guarantee India won't also fall victim.

Many of the non ethnicity/religion/race factors that you argue "make India India" have strong parallels with the arguments that the globalists use to claim that we can have open immigration and everyone will get along.

Great food for thought though and I appreciate your responses.
12-13-2016 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Genghis Khan Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,082
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 52
Post: #25
RE: Indian Politics
What question do you want answered? I've gotten the impression you've moved the goal post a bit.

Your initial question:

Quote:For starters, I'll throw out one question: would rising nationalism in the West solidify Indian identity or increase regional separatism? After all, you can see parallels between the EU and the "diversity is our strength" mantra that keeps India together, as a mishmash of languages, religions, and ethnicities with little in common with each other.

This to me implied you were asking if India could survive as a nation. Also, the analogy is weak: 'diversity is our strength' mantra in the West is used to import foreigners who have nothing in common with Europeans and do not assimilate at all. Nigel Farage himself said a big reason why Brexit succeeded was because they wanted to control their own borders and immigrations. Same with the United States - the US existed with 10-15% blacks for the longest time without really affecting the nation. It's only when you start importing hordes of immigrants who refuse to assimilate do you start having trouble.

Then you said:

Quote:But that's my point - how many successful nation states are out there with that level of language and cultural diversity? India was never a state in the sense that China, Japan, Russia, UK, France, Spain, Korea, Persia, etc were - India was always a bunch of kingdoms fighting with each other that the British united.

This implies a different question: Can India be successful/well-governed. Two different questions. I also want to point out the flaw in your own argument: on one hand you argue India was never a nation like Spain or the UK, yet elsewhere you bring up the Catalonian, Scotish and North Ireland independence movement. Not to mention that China too for a long time consisted of warring nations. Your argument could've been used for China a long time ago too: 'China was always a bunch of kingdoms fighting with each other that the Qin Dynasty unified'. And note that China has fallen apart several times.

Quote:Would you say India is well governed? Perhaps compared to Pakistan, but not if you examine if India can actually exercise power and influence in a meaningful sense in the world. So I don't know if history has really proven people wrong - India hasn't collapsed, but it has absolutely not achieved success. The corruption and poverty are still on a mind-boggling scale, and India still lags far behind other Asian countries that were at a similar per capita GDP level in 1950.

As I said, whether India is well-governed and whether India remains as one nation are two separate questions. Let's not confound the two

Also, I can't comment on the relationship between the quality of governance of India and issues regarding religion, culture, etc. The average IQ in India is 85 and that may imply poor governance even if the entire country was one monolithic cultural block. As long as that IQ number doesn't change for the better, it really doesn't matter what the ethnicities, religious and cultural breakdown of the nation is.

So let's focus on your initial question of whether India can survive as a nation. Let's also clear up a second point: what time scale are we talking about? 10, 20, 50, 100, or 500 years?

I can't make any predictions about India for 2116 or beyond. India may or may not fall apart in another 100 years. But that's too far out to make any reasonable predictions. That said, I'm confident India will still be around (with approximately the same geographical boundaries) in 50 years.

Quote:I would agree, but the simple fact remains that the Muslim birthrate is ahead of the Hindu rate. Basing a national identity on religion when over 20% of the population is of a different religion is not the recipe for stability. And there are other regions of the world (Europe, Latin America, SE Asia) where countries are the same religion but still have their own strong identity.

This assumes the Muslim birthrate remains ahead of the Hindu one for a very long time. I don't know if this will be case: the gap has been closing and may be completely shut as the economy increases job and socioeconomic mobility for all:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Mu...336665.ece

Besides the slowing down of the Muslim birth rate, who is to say the Muslim population won't be reduced. After all, Islam hasn't been in the subcontinent for that long and right-wing Hindu organizations are actively re-converting Muslims back to their ancestors' religion of Hinduism. The numbers are pretty small though:

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/7-5-...43165.html

But my main point is: we really cannot predict what demographics will be like in 50-100 years. It's easy to think because the Muslim birth rate is higher right now it always will be higher and thus problems will come about. Maybe they will. But it'll take several decades for that to be a serious issue. And my prediction would be the opposite: the way you're starting to see Americans and Europeans push back against (Muslim) immigrants, you'll see the same in India. People don't just lie down and let a minority religion take over. Especially in India, which is much less 'cucked' than Europe.

The Mughal Empire existed for 300 years and even after that they couldn't subvert the entire subcontinent into Islam. You think 15% of the country population is going to bring down India in the next 50 years? Shit, I wouldn't put money on it for the next 100 years.

That innate IRTness this forum jokes about is what'll make Islamists heads explode if they ever try to convert the entire country.We'll troll the fuck out of them so hard they'll jump into the ocean for having lost their minds. That's assuming mass riots don't wipe out Muslims first.

Also, what basis do you have for your argument that you cannot base a national identity on religion when over 20% of the population is of a different religion. Why wouldn't it be possible?

Quote:For now, they have the uniting factor of Hinduism as you mention the pro-BJP sentiment growing, but that isn't sustainable with high Muslim birthrate. And Europe is all Christian but they never converged into one nation states because the languages and cultures were too different. Can India really have the coherence to be successful in the future?

Maybe that's the problem - Christianity and European cultures. Western cultures have always been more result-oriented, more individualistic. The reason Europe had the Industrial Revolution and conquered the world is the same reason Europe could also not maintain unity. Be very careful to assume because European cultures couldn't co-exist in one nation, Indian cultures such as Gujaratis and Punjabis cannot either.

Quote:Eh, not really. Can you tell the difference between Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans? Not really. And even if you can, what's your point? Sure I can tell Europeans apart from Arabs and Africans but just because people can be told apart from the other doesn't mean they can form a coherent nation state. And within India there is tremendous differences, from Nicobar Island tribals to very fair skinned Kashmiris, to orientals in the East. That can't be downplayed. If Indians look the same as their main enemy, I really don't think that the wide spectrum of Indian physical types is sufficient for a national identity.

I never said the Indian physical types are sufficient for a national identity. Your argument was that there was too much diversity in ethnicity, religion, language etc for India to be a single nation. I said those weren't enough of a big deal to break apart the country. That is a different argument than whether ethnicity on its own is enough to sustain a national identity.

You mention the tribals, Kashmiris and orientals. However, this is similar to saying you cannot downplay the native Americans in the US. Well, the reality is these groups are a small minority. How many Nicobar Island tribals are there? Enough to resist the 250,000 numbering Border Security Force (BSF)? Highly doubt it. These small groups can agitate all they want, unless they have the physical force to break apart their feelings are irrelevant.

This is a vastly different scenario compared to Europe where any nation can leave the EU and the EU can't do shit about it. Tribals, orientals and Kashmiris with all due respect do not remotely have the military force to break out on their own. But for argument's sake, let's say they did. So what? That's a very small part of the country and the bulk of India would still remain. And the nation of India with its currency, flag, constitution etc would remain.

Quote:Tied in with religion - see above issue with a growing Islamic population. Many parts of India don't celebrate Holi. Southern Indians do have some level of resentment towards northern cultural domination.

I've addressed the muslim issue. Which parts of India don't celebrate Holi? Island tribals, orientals and Kashmiris? OK, anyone else?

The majority of the US has some level of resentment towards the East and West Coast elites. Does that mean the US is doomed to fail too? I don't know much about China or Russia, but I bet people in rural China and Siberia have resentment towards Beijing and Moscow. In every nation, you're gonna have some people feeling resentment towards others. That's not enough to break a nation apart.

Quote:Not sure what your point is here. Yes, perhaps the British were a uniting factor, but that was 50 years ago. Who cares about the British now? Our core question is what does Indian nationalism mean? The nationalist movements in Europe originate with cultures that are hundreds of years old. India barely has 60 years under its belt. If Tamil Nadu and Bihar have a dispute, will the fact that they resisted the British at some point mean anything?

Both India and Pakistan resisted the British together, but because Al Jinnah believed that Hindus and Muslims couldn't co exist, Pakistan was born. So this anti-British identity is quite hollow - ultimately, religion trumps historical commonality. No guarantee that a future generation of radicalized Muslims won't seek separation - at that point appealing to anti-British sentiment will go nowhere.

EVERYONE cares about the British Raj. India is not the United States which achieved its independence from the Brits 250 years ago. It barely happened 50 years ago and it's still fresh in the country's memory. The scars of the British Raj are still deeply ingrained into Indian culture - the weariness Indian diplomats have towards the West and its ideas come directly from it. The reason why India took such a long time to accept capitalism is because it reminded them too much of the British/western world. Politicians like Shashi Tharoor are still pining for reparations from the British and there's people still demanding the Koh-i-noor be returned to India. I remember a decade ago a movie called Mangal Pandey came out. It was about the 1857 mutiny in British India - the movie was a huge sensation (it didn't do well at the box office), it created such an uproar of nationalistic Indian pride.

You seem a bit too fixated on some analogy between the EU and India. As I've tried to explain they are vastly different scenarios. You keep trying to bring up that because in Europe the EU seems to be falling apart, and everyone is pining for a nation based on some ancient culture India must be facing the same situation or eventually will. As such, you seemed to have missed my point that because of the British Raj, we now have a common currency, flag, army, sports teams, passport and anthem. All things that contribute towards a certain common culture and nationalistic pride. And the EU has almost none of those - not even the currency since the Brits never gave up the Pound.

Another weakness of 'the multiculturalism never works' argument is that it's always based on nations which import people who refuse to assimilate. The Roman Empire had that problem because it conquered a shit ton of land and then starting importing barbarians because it was struggling to maintain its own borders. I wonder if nationalism in Europe would be such a big deal right now if the economy was on the rise and migrant populations were minimal (you know, the way it is in India).

Bihar and Tamil Nadu - provinces and states in all nations argue. That's not enough of a reason to demand separation. Indian provinces have been fighting over all sorts of shit, I don't think I've ever heard of any of them demanding independence (barring Khalistan which was an anomaly). If anything, people tend to fight inside a province more often and demand their own province. Example of new provinces: Haryana, Telangana.

Quote:Right, but the eventual goal of the EU was to gradually subvert national borders and create one multicultural mass, and that's why nationalist parties do well. Perhaps Indians accept the Bengali anthem, but how willing are south Indians and Gujaratis to accept Hindi as their mother tongue?

No idea, but they damn sure accept the Indian flag, army, anthem, public schooling system, currency, passport, national railway system, etc. Speaking of nationalist parties - one should note that BJP - an Indian nationalist Hindu party dominated the national and regional elections recently. The regional parties got whooped. The other national party, Congress Party, has traditionally done well. Let me know when a pan-European party can beat country-specific parties in European national elections and I'll take this Europe/India comparison seriously.

Quote:That's a good point, but only because on a regional scale they don't have that many people winning competitions internationally. If let's say all of Europe got less than 10 medals combined per Olympics then they would probably start rooting for each other. Indians rooting for Indians is more just rooting for someone of your race rather than national identity - obviously they will root for an Indian over some white guy.

That people are inclined to support their own race (your example of Europeans supporting each other if they didn't win enough medals) does not negate my argument that Indians support each other for nationalistic reasons. I would be surprised if Chinese people didn't support other Chinese (race) people, but does that mean the Chinese don't have a national identity?

You haven't given a single piece of evidence that Indians only support Indians because of race. For your argument to stand you need to show me at least one example of Indians rejecting an Indian athlete based on race. I can give you an example of at least one Indian athlete being loved despite not looking anything like the majority of Indians: why do Indians love Baichung Bhutia, an oriental former football captain, so much?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaichung_Bhutia

Quote:What other country in the world has succeeded without either a common language, ethnicity, or culture? None! That's why these are the main markers of a nation state and why the alt-right is booming in the West as these nations reject multiculturalism and why the nation state ultimately failed in the Middle East. You can't just invent national identities and expect them to succeed.

The alt-right is booming in the West because of mass import of low-skilled immigrants who refuse to assimilate, whether it's Muslims in Europe or Mexicans in the US. Had it not been for that type of mass import I doubt the alt-right would exist. India does not have this issue. I don't know enough about nation states in the Middle East to make a comment. Though it's hard for me to make a statement when Islam/Wahhabism is involved. I mean, I could look at the same nation-states in the Middle-East as you do and come to a different conclusion: what nation state can work when the majority of people follow Islam? It's unfair to say nations in the Middle East failed because of a lack of common language, ethnicity or culture when Islam is involved.

Define culture - see above, most Indians are Hindu and we have a common flag, currency, etc etc - all these things are part of culture. Again, Europe as the EU does not have anything like this.

Ethnicity - see above, most Indians have the same ethnicity.

Language - Belgium has existed as a nation for almost 200 years while having 2 languages. And unlike the Belgians, Indians don't fight over language continuously. China too has multiple languages, does it not?

One of the problems of putting a Western lens on Eastern nations is that the ensuing prophecies never pan out. I completely agree that if you use the strict Western definition of a nation-state, India makes absolutely no sense. It never made sense and should've collapsed 50 years ago. And yet as I've said, many Western commentators and political experts have predicted India's demise in its current state and always have they been hilariously wrong.

A lot of this ties into how people think. People in the West and India simply think differently about life, culture, politics, religion. Much of this has to do with the monotheistic religions that are prevalent in the West and how it influences your thinking. If you genuinely believe you must have one common tongue, ethnicity, and culture to survive (as we do in the West) and at the same time you invite barbarians into your home - no doubt it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of needing one common tongue, ethnicity, and culture to have a nation.

But that's not how Indian people think. Eastern philosophies have always been much better at dealing with seemingly extractible paradoxes like having a nation of 1.3 billion people with over a thousand languages and dialects, 4-6 religions and still somehow not collapse. India is not going anywhere.

Not happening. - redbeard in regards to ETH flippening BTC
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2016 10:56 PM by Genghis Khan.)
12-13-2016 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Genghis Khan's post:
zphyer7, scotian
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  British Politics Thread IronShark 701 153,896 Today 12:15 AM
Last Post: MrLemon
  Politics & War Lounge SamuelBRoberts 993 238,446 Yesterday 04:56 PM
Last Post: Lime
  The Australian politics thread fokker 640 108,604 02-04-2019 06:16 PM
Last Post: CynicalContrarian

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication