dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Is India a failing democracy

Tue May 22, 2018 6:42 pm

People discuss so much about Trump and how he wants autonomous US government entities and media to work for him, fortunately they are resisting and protecting the system. It appears the opposite is happening in India. All autonomous bodies working for prime minister, which is not a good sign.

Here are few allegations or observations
1) Speakers of both Parliament houses not allowing no-confidence motion every day for entire session.
2) Chief Justice of Supreme court personally assigning cases to judges favorable to ruling party.
3) CBI (equal to FBI) investigating political opponents for political reasons.
4) Election commission, changing election schedules to make it easy for ruling party.
5) RBI (Federal Bank) following PM's instructions
6) State Governors are ignoring constitution to help ruling party
7) Anti-corruption bureau filing fictitious cases against political opponents.

Just to name a few. Even media outlets are so scared to run any story against ruling party.

Trump drew so much flak for blocking few thousand refugees and saying mean things about refugees, but Indian PM is blocking more than a Million refugees and forcing poor Bangladesh to host them.

Here is an interview with a former member of current ruling party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nTHOeKmkr8

At least in this country, system remained intact and even closest Trump confidants are not doing anything unconstitutional. Media and legal system keeping him in check.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue May 22, 2018 7:44 pm

Ooh, another Modi bashing thread full of unsubstantiated claims.

Here's a challenge: PROVE them. EVERY last one of them.

You should stick to singing praises of your beloved Trump instead.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6691
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue May 22, 2018 10:34 pm

Turkey has a better case to represent a failing democracy.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue May 22, 2018 10:43 pm

Nope. Doing a damn sight better than the Brexit UK so far; no one is calling for the end of checks and balances, independent judiciary etc ... yet. India is not at the stage where democratic institutions are "enemies of the people".

Perfect democracy? No. It has its challenges. Freedom of religion/speech etc isn't in great shape. Hindutva snowflakes justifying violence abound. Racism continues unabated. And so on.

But those preceded this Government and will outlive it. It's a cultural problem, not a democratic one. There's Indians on this board - "educated" types) who think violence against innocent people is justified.

No government can change that.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8389
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue May 22, 2018 11:28 pm

I think it was Churchill that said: "Democ­ra­cy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all the oth­ers "

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
N867DA
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 12:01 am

Q: Is India a failing democracy?

A: No. Some people dislike the leadership, which does some bad things.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
Flighty
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 3:47 am

The virtue of democracy is, if enough people dislike the party then they will vote for something else (if that’s allowed). If it’s not allowed then you have a disctatorship. If it is, then leaders need to be worried about the voters voting to hang them.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 4:45 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
Turkey has a better case to represent a failing democracy.


Failed, not failing at this point. But yes, Turkey is a perfect example of a rapid decline into authoritarianism. Turkey is actually what I use as an example for explaining what I'm so afraid of in Trumpism. It's a very similar trajectory :(
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 5:56 am

ElPistolero : democracy is also cultural. For example clearly many former USSR countries don't understand what democracy is, and cheer on when it is being destroyed by their leaders.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Scorpius
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 9:49 am

The most important misconception of the representatives of Western countries is that they believe that they are the carriers of universal values and have the right to determine for other peoples, in what way to develop.
In India, for example, there is still a system of castes-what democracy do you expect?
We must remember that the same democracy perfectly allowed slavery and racial segregation, as well as the genocide of entire Nations (as an example - the genocide of Indians in America).
The democratic countries of the NATO bloc continue to attack other countries and kill people. Are these ideals of democracy and human rights?
Is Israel democratic, having captured the Golan heights and part of Palestine? The same Israel that killed several hundred people in Gaza just a week ago.

Such values are not needed by the peoples of the world. The people of Africa do not need democracy - they need food and medicine. And water. And safety, so that around them did not shoot. Ukraine does not need democracy - they need economic recovery and the end of the civil war, the struggle with the Nazi groups, which are supported by Western countries.
Every country must build a just society on its own, and it does not have to be based on democracy.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 11:10 am

I posted an interview with a former BJP Member of parliament, former Minister of Finance and a former Minister of External Affairs which covered almost all topics. This is happening all over India covered in different regional Indian languages.

Most of these unconstitutional measures were used by previous government at one time or other, but not all together like now.

Entire budget session was wasted so Modi can escape no-confidence motion
https://youtu.be/FtiE2YH8OYM?t=232

A judge investigating ruling party was murdered, Supreme Court ruled no murder investigation is required
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X2-VCv5JIU

Four Supreme Court Judges had press conference against Chief Justice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcoXml36tss

Notice to impeach Chief Justice of India was rejected 3-person committee by government, legality of the committee itself is adjudicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tfo9EqE1MM

Election was delayed to help Modi in Gujarat while two other states elections were announced 22 days before
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 615_1.html

In two states BJP was invited by governor to form government without being largest party, later in another state BJP was invited to form government even though there is an alliance with majority.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 211204.cms

Media freedom
India is at 138 in freedom of press index ratings
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-5151340/
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... IuMBK.html
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/arun-sh ... 19-1827536
 
Redd
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 3:28 pm

Aesma wrote:
ElPistolero : democracy is also cultural. For example clearly many former USSR countries don't understand what democracy is, and cheer on when it is being destroyed by their leaders.



Clearly, meaning Poland (which has it's majority holding government with just over 30% of the vote) can you explain to me how 'the country' doesn't understand democracy where the majority of the population is anti current government and pro EU? I'd also like to remind you how close you were to having Marine Le Pen, and how fragile democracy is currently in the world. Please stop singling out countries whose population you clearly don't understand one iota.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 3:42 pm

Redd wrote:
Aesma wrote:
ElPistolero : democracy is also cultural. For example clearly many former USSR countries don't understand what democracy is, and cheer on when it is being destroyed by their leaders.



Clearly, meaning Poland (which has it's majority holding government with just over 30% of the vote) can you explain to me how 'the country' doesn't understand democracy where the majority of the population is anti current government and pro EU? I'd also like to remind you how close you were to having Marine Le Pen, and how fragile democracy is currently in the world. Please stop singling out countries whose population you clearly don't understand one iota.


Democracy is indeed fragile, very fragile. Democracy is something which needs to be taught (good schooling), needs to be entangled in society as a whole (strong institutions, separation of powers, free media), needs to respect minorities (give everyone the same rights, not the dictaturship of the majority). But even then the ballance can be distored by a well placed troll network as we have seen with Brexit or in America.

Yes, the west promotes these values, which are included in the universal human rights:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


Sure some might feel different, and if you are a supporter of the ruling autocrat, life might indeed not be too bad even. But if you are a tad different or don't agree with an autocrat, then you can have great problems, the greatest even. The old saying, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely goes here, and you see it everywhere, from some African countries to China or Russia.

India is struggling, but I think they are doing a great job getting the country back on track. It has its problems, sure,, which country doesn't.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 5:03 pm

N867DA wrote:
Q: Is India a failing democracy?
A: No. Some people dislike the leadership, which does some bad things.

Exactly. The guy who started the topic has an axe to grind with the current PM. Every one of his claims are bogus rubbish. The *last* PM never won an LS election, and sat around while the administration was run by the Italian lady presiding over the country using an unelected bunch of 'advisors' running parallel to the cabinet.

[quote="Scorpius"[In India, for example, there is still a system of castes-what democracy do you expect?[/quote]
A damn sight better one than most western countries. Indian established functional and full universal adult suffrage right upon independence, in 1950 before the first general elections, much before many western countries, or about the same time as them, which is stupid because they've had a representative government for at least a century prior and never let everyone vote all the while.

India: 1950. Independent in 1947, constitution written over next three years and adopted Jan 26 1950.

USA: 1965 . What were they doing from 1776 to 1965 ?
Australia: 1962
Canada: 1960
France: 1945 . What were they doing between 1789 and 1945 ?

Don't even pretend to sit on some self styled ivory tower. You westerners are no better or worse than us.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 5:10 pm

BarfBag wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
In India, for example, there is still a system of castes-what democracy do you expect?

A damn sight better one than most western countries. Indian established functional and full universal adult suffrage right upon independence, in 1950 before the first general elections, much before many western countries, or about the same time as them, which is stupid because they've had a representative government for at least a century prior and never let everyone vote all the while.

India: 1950. Independent in 1947, constitution written over next three years and adopted Jan 26 1950.

USA: 1965 . What were they doing from 1776 to 1965 ?
Australia: 1962
Canada: 1960
France: 1945 . What were they doing between 1789 and 1945 ?

Don't even pretend to sit on some self styled ivory tower. You westerners are no better or worse than us.


Scorpius is Russian and an active supporter of Putin on this website. So Scorpius couldn't be further from being a pro-democratic activist here.

Good for India being the largest democracy and all. Took others some time to get all people to vote.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 5:20 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
I posted an interview with a former BJP Member of parliament, former Minister of Finance and a former Minister of External Affairs which covered almost all topics.


I said something is true.
A said something is true.
Therefore something is true.

You know what this defines ? It's called circular reasoning. It doesn't prove you right. It just proves you agree with what someone else claimed. And a 'former BJP minister' LOL! Totally unbiased source of all your claims eh ? Not only do you use a circular argument as your central basis, but your source of backing is someone with obvious bias. You think we're idiots born yesterday, eh ?

The CJ of the Supreme Court is the master of the roster. He decides which benches get which cases. Chelameshwar and co don't like it ? Too bad for them. Here's what Fali Nariman says:
Nariman told The Indian Express that the dissenting judges had to accept that the CJI had always been the master of the roster and fixed the benches
Chelameshwar and co should respect existing Supreme Court procedure and STFU.

And the governor's actions ?
[url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India/Part_XIX#Article_361_{Protection_of_President_and_Governors_and_Rajpramukhs}]Constitution of India, Article 361[/url]
The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties:
Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation of a charge under article 61:

Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a State.

The state governor gets to decide the course of action. The only thing the SC can do is advice that the action be done on a different timeline, as they did. They cannot overrule the governor or the President.

So let's summarize:
* You think the chief justice of the Indian Supreme Court should not have the powers of a chief justice
* You disagree with the Constitution of India.
 
bhill
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 23, 2018 5:29 pm

Scorpius wrote:
The most important misconception of the representatives of Western countries is that they believe that they are the carriers of universal values and have the right to determine for other peoples, in what way to develop.
In India, for example, there is still a system of castes-what democracy do you expect?
We must remember that the same democracy perfectly allowed slavery and racial segregation, as well as the genocide of entire Nations (as an example - the genocide of Indians in America).
The democratic countries of the NATO bloc continue to attack other countries and kill people. Are these ideals of democracy and human rights?
Is Israel democratic, having captured the Golan heights and part of Palestine? The same Israel that killed several hundred people in Gaza just a week ago.

Such values are not needed by the peoples of the world. The people of Africa do not need democracy - they need food and medicine. And water. And safety, so that around them did not shoot. Ukraine does not need democracy - they need economic recovery and the end of the civil war, the struggle with the Nazi groups, which are supported by Western countries.
Every country must build a just society on its own, and it does not have to be based on democracy.


Funny....not one word of Russia....it calls itself a Democracy, but assassinates it own citizens...and Putin decides who can and cannot run for office..
Carpe Pices
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Thu May 24, 2018 5:28 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Trump drew so much flak for blocking few thousand refugees and saying mean things about refugees, but Indian PM is blocking more than a Million refugees and forcing poor Bangladesh to host them.

Aww, these 'refugees'!

Rohingyas massacred Hindus in last year's turmoil: Amnesty International
Rohingya militants massacred Hindu villagers during last year's uprising in Myanmar's Rakhine, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report that sheds fresh light on the complex ethnic rivalries in the state.

Those include the mass killing of Hindus in the far north of Rakhine, where the military took reporters -- including AFP -- to witness the exhumation of putrid bodies from a shallow grave in September.

But Amnesty International said Wednesday that a new investigation had confirmed the group killed 53 Hindus "execution-style" -- mostly children -- in the Kha Maung Seik village cluster in northern Maungdaw.

Citing interviews with eight survivors, the rights group said dozens of people were rounded up, blindfolded and marched out of town by masked men and Rohingya villagers in plain clothes.

"They slaughtered the men. We were told not to look at them... They had knives. They also had some spades and iron rods," 18-year-old Raj Kumari told Amnesty.

He said he hid in the bush and watched as his father, brother and uncle were killed.

The report said that in a separate village nearby called Ye Bauk Kyar, 46 Hindu men, women and children disappeared on the same day. It cited information from local Hindus who believe they were killed by ARSA.

"The killers fled to Bangladesh, there are many witnesses but we have not had any justice," Hindu community leader Ni Maul told AFP from Rakhine state.

"People have less interest in these killings," he added, compared to reporting on the atrocities against the Rohingya.


"Refugees" my ass. ZERO sympathy for these blood-thirsty savages. Kick them all out of India, to any Muslim country. They are not Indian, and they have the blood of Hindus on their hands. No way India's ?80% Hindu population will ever support such barbarians calling our land their home.
 
Scorpius
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Thu May 24, 2018 9:41 am

bhill wrote:
Funny....not one word of Russia....it calls itself a Democracy, but assassinates it own citizens...and Putin decides who can and cannot run for office..

We can talk about how many of its citizens are killed by the United States, which calls itself the most democratic country in the world. Every year, tens or hundreds of US citizens are killed by police "by mistake".

Putin in Russia does not decide who can run for the post of a present. This is decided by the Central election Commission. By the way, this year six candidates participated in the elections - it is about three times more than in the US presidential elections.
 
Scorpius
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Thu May 24, 2018 9:53 am

Dutchy wrote:
[
Scorpius is Russian and an active supporter of Putin on this website. So Scorpius couldn't be further from being a pro-democratic activist here.
Good for India being the largest democracy and all. Took others some time to get all people to vote.

Hey, Dutch, I don't see you having any special powers that would to talk about democracy only you.
Let's talk about democracy, where there is a hereditary monarchy. Or, for example, tell us about democracy in Germany, where Merkel was elected Chancellor for the fourth consecutive term.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Thu May 24, 2018 10:24 am

Scorpius wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
[
Scorpius is Russian and an active supporter of Putin on this website. So Scorpius couldn't be further from being a pro-democratic activist here.
Good for India being the largest democracy and all. Took others some time to get all people to vote.

Hey, Dutch, I don't see you having any special powers that would to talk about democracy only you.
Let's talk about democracy, where there is a hereditary monarchy. Or, for example, tell us about democracy in Germany, where Merkel was elected Chancellor for the fourth consecutive term.


You know very little about the west I see. Like I have told you before, constitutional monarchy in Europe has no power what so ever., it is a relic from past and should have been abolished a long time ago. And in Germany: the Chancellor isn't directly elected. Parties are elected, parties form the government and the parties choose whom they want as the ministers, the Chancellor included. This is reinforced in parliament. The ultimate authority isn't the Chancellor, but parliament.

But I can show you where western European countries are ranked on the democracy scale and where Russia is ranked, but you will yet again dismiss it as propaganda. But the topic is India and India is ranked higher then your beloved Russia.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Thu May 24, 2018 11:25 am

BarfBag wrote:
...
So let's summarize:
* You think the chief justice of the Indian Supreme Court should not have the powers of a chief justice
* You disagree with the Constitution of India.

It is not the question whether these institutions and positions have ultimate authority under constitution, question is whether they are abusing those powers to help Modi.

If there are 10 institutions to provide checks and balances and all 10 are in Modi's pocket, that is a constitutional crisis, or dictatorship.

BarfBag wrote:
...
"Refugees" my ass. ZERO sympathy for these blood-thirsty savages. Kick them all out of India, to any Muslim country. They are not Indian, and they have the blood of Hindus on their hands. No way India's ?80% Hindu population will ever support such barbarians calling our land their home.


Isn't India second largest Muslim country in the world? If India wants to have any influence in the region it has to behave like one. Not feeling proud for not allowing any refugees. Or help the country hosting these refugees.

US took in 10,000 Syrian refugees and sent most to my state without consulting state, county or city governments. cities are trying help them settle.
 
c933103
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 12:46 am

China like to portray India as a "failing democracy" so that they can tell their population that democracy is not suitable for populous nations and that they would work better if democracy are being gotten rid of
 
Flighty
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 2:08 am

c933103 wrote:
China like to portray India as a "failing democracy" so that they can tell their population that democracy is not suitable for populous nations and that they would work better if democracy are being gotten rid of


Exactly, senile Mr Reagan had it right. Democracy has many problems. But those who advocate against democracy (of citizens) are plainly fascistic. Wars are justifiably fought on this and those who fight against democracy have a tendency to be rightfully killed in battle.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 4:31 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
BarfBag wrote:
...
So let's summarize:
* You think the chief justice of the Indian Supreme Court should not have the powers of a chief justice
* You disagree with the Constitution of India.

It is not the question whether these institutions and positions have ultimate authority under constitution, question is whether they are abusing those powers to help Modi.

If there are 10 institutions to provide checks and balances and all 10 are in Modi's pocket, that is a constitutional crisis, or dictatorship.

You'll have to PROVE it. Not merely co-relation, but causation. Guess what ? You have no proof, and no way you can claim causation. The Chief Justice and the state governor did *exactly* what their powers to do are.

Guess what ? Everything's going to look like it's in 'Modi's pocket'. You know why ? Because for the first time in a generation, India has a government with a majority in parliament all its own, with 282 of 543 in the 2014 elections. And its coalition got 2/3rds majority. And it has the PM whose more popular than all the other contenders *combined*.

Meanwhile the largest opposition party has 44 Lok Sabha seats. You want a credible opposition ? You need to actually *win* some seats. It is not the BJP's fault or problem that the 2nd largest party in Lok Sabha has 8% of the seats, while they have 52% . And the 3rd largest party not only has 7% of the seats, but often sides with the BJP.

You don't get checks against a ruling party by whining for it. We are a democracy. Win the seats to show you're actually credible. And prove causation too. Modi is in the same position as Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi was - owners of massive political mandates with tiny fractured oppositions. That ain't their fault.
dtw2hyd wrote:
...
Isn't India second largest Muslim country in the world? If India wants to have any influence in the region it has to behave like one. Not feeling proud for not allowing any refugees. Or help the country hosting these refugees.

US took in 10,000 Syrian refugees and sent most to my state without consulting state, county or city governments. cities are trying help them settle.

So let me get this right - these Rohingyas spend years in a bloody fight against Buddhists in Myanmar. And they commit genocide against the Hindus of Myanmar. And surprise, they want to be refugees in India - the home of the Hindu faith AND the Buddhist faith ? Bunch of wild eyed murderers with Hindu and Buddhist blood on their hands want to be refugees in India ?

Yeah no, f*ck em. Having the 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population means nothing. I can turn around and ask 'so why the hell do we need more ?'
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 10:49 am

BarfBag wrote:
...
You'll have to PROVE it. Not merely co-relation, but causation. Guess what ? You have no proof, and no way you can claim causation. The Chief Justice and the state governor did *exactly* what their powers to do are.

Guess what ? Everything's going to look like it's in 'Modi's pocket'. You know why ? Because for the first time in a generation, India has a government with a majority in parliament all its own, with 282 of 543 in the 2014 elections. And its coalition got 2/3rds majority. And it has the PM whose more popular than all the other contenders *combined*.

Meanwhile the largest opposition party has 44 Lok Sabha seats. You want a credible opposition ? You need to actually *win* some seats. It is not the BJP's fault or problem that the 2nd largest party in Lok Sabha has 8% of the seats, while they have 52% . And the 3rd largest party not only has 7% of the seats, but often sides with the BJP.

You don't get checks against a ruling party by whining for it. We are a democracy. Win the seats to show you're actually credible. And prove causation too. Modi is in the same position as Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi was - owners of massive political mandates with tiny fractured oppositions. That ain't their fault. '


So what you are claiming is all independent institutions are in Modi's pocket because he has majority in the Parliament. That is not a democracy.

Also, If I understand correctly BJP is no longer a majority in lower house, with continuous losses in mid-term polls and resignations it is down to 271 out of 543. Also Modi's approval rating is in the tank.

Kim Jong Un, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad, Putin and Xi won every election, doesn't make those countries democracies.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 1:36 pm

Here is another measure to curtail freedom of speech. Probably getting ready for 2019 elections.

https://scroll.in/article/879833/govern ... l-policies
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 2:51 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ZERO sympathy for these blood-thirsty savages.


Some group called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army killed Hindus. Ergo, all Rohingya are "blood thirsty savages".

Question is: when "Hindu" nationalists go around massacring Christians and Muslims, what does that make us Hindus?

BarfBag wrote:
They are not Indian, and they have the blood of Hindus on their hands. No way India's ?80% Hindu population will ever support such barbarians calling our land their home.


Virtually every civilized society agrees that collective punishment is, well, uncivilized (or "savage", if you prefer). Unless you're arguing that only ARSA should be banned, and innocent Rohingya refugees should be treated in accordance with international refugee rules, it appears that you're advocating collective punishment against the many for the acts of the few. Is that the case?

BarfBag wrote:
So let me get this right - these Rohingyas spend years in a bloody fight against Buddhists in Myanmar.


Wrong. Some of them opposed a brutal and racist military dictatorship in a country that happens to be predominantly Buddhist.

There, fixed it for you.

BarfBag wrote:
And they commit genocide against the Hindus of Myanmar.


ARSA should indeed be banned and held accountable. Just like those groups that commit genocide against Indian religious minority citizens in India.

BarfBag wrote:
And surprise, they want to be refugees in India - the home of the Hindu faith AND the Buddhist faith ?


They're fleeing to just about anywhere they can. India's Rohingya population is a fraction of Saudi Arabia's. India has a land border with Myanmar and refugees tend to travel on foot so its natural that many would show up there. It's not like they're going halfway around the world to get there.

That aside, there are Hindu Rohingyas too.

BarfBag wrote:
Yeah no, f*ck em. Having the 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population means nothing. I can turn around and ask 'so why the hell do we need more ?'


According to the Indian constitution, religion is irrelevant. Therefore, it's not a question of needing less or more of any religion. It's a question of doing the right thing by humans in distress, regardless of religion. Not sure if you're aware, but India has a long history of accommodating refugees. Remember those non-Indian Hindu and Muslim refugees from East Pakistan in the 70s?

All of which is to say that Indian democracy is in reasonably good shape. The constitution remains supreme, and while it could be enforced more effectively, it's holding firm against groups that can't wrap their heads around basic concepts like equality, freedom etc. You know, the snowflakes who worry about what type of meat I have in my freezer. Or those who don't understand that democracies are not meant to be tyrannies of the majority.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Fri May 25, 2018 4:19 pm

Another story on lack of freedom of press. This is not the first time similar stories have come up.

https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/left-ri ... -topscroll
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sat May 26, 2018 7:22 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
BarfBag wrote:
...
You'll have to PROVE it. Not merely co-relation, but causation. Guess what ? You have no proof, and no way you can claim causation. The Chief Justice and the state governor did *exactly* what their powers to do are.

So what you are claiming is all independent institutions are in Modi's pocket because he has majority in the Parliament. That is not a democracy.

No, YOU are claiming that 'they are in Modi's pocket, simply because they made decisions that worked in his favor. Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation ? You have to PROVE causation. You probably won't , mainly because you haven't even demonstrated that you understand what it is.
dtw2hyd wrote:
Another story on lack of freedom of press. This is not the first time similar stories have come up.

https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/left-ri ... -topscroll


Ooh NDTV. Here's what NDTV is famous for:
Income tax tribunal indicts NDTV, Prannoy Roy for money laundering, tax evasion of Rs 642 crore
High court backs income tax department for confiscation of NDTV's assets
Against fraud? Or against freedom, Mr Roy?
Meanwhile, his buddy babe Barkha Dutt bails on him and runs to Washington Post, at the same time:
Barkha Dutt quits NDTV, gets trolled on Twitter again

In short, TV guy makes it big. Floats a string of opaque 'investments' and dodges taxes. The law catches up with him. He screams 'freedom of press is being threatened!!'

Feel free to post from another source. I have *plenty* of dirt on pretty much all major channels to run their credibility into the dirt.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sat May 26, 2018 7:51 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Wrong. Some of them opposed a brutal and racist military dictatorship in a country that happens to be predominantly Buddhist.

Your claim, not a fact. Last I checked, Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace laureate, not a 'racist military dictator' . That would be Sasha Baron Cohen.
ElPistolero wrote:
ARSA should indeed be banned and held accountable. Just like those groups that commit genocide against Indian religious minority citizens in India.

They are Myanmar's problem. Not India's. Not even Bangladesh's, who don't want the Rohingyas either.
ElPistolero wrote:
Rohingya refugees should be treated in accordance with international refugee rules, it appears that you're advocating collective punishment against the many for the acts of the few. Is that the case?

Oh, this is gonna be interesting. Tell us, what part of sending the whole lot of them back to Myanmar is against these fancy "international refugee rulez" ?
ElPistolero wrote:
According to the Indian constitution, religion is irrelevant.

And India is 80% Hindu. It's actions will always primarily intend to back, further, and promote the concerns of the majority culture and faith. All the constitution does, is to place sufficient checks and balances to ensure there's no unchecked power of the majority. That means, the government will respond to the people and attempt to send the Rohingyas back. And the Supreme Court will step in and ensure the manner in which it is done dots every i and crosses every t. But it'll be done.

India is the land of origin of the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh faiths. It will always defend these above others. India maintains a balancing act no major country does - maintain a secular democratic state while also being the land of origin of FOUR major faiths. India is by a long distance the most successful at maintain a harmonious state while also balancing the imperatives of furthering the aspirations of those who see the country as the originating place of their religion. Israel - the home of Judaism and Christianity - is quite some way behind. And Islam's Saudi Arabia ? Hahaha!! A non-Muslim can't even step foot in some of their cities, and that's just the beginning. There's no comparison between India's considerations and any other random western democracy. We outdo several major ones (US, Australia, Canada and more) in something as simple as when we first establish full universal adult suffrage, despite many of them having a 100-200 year headstart.

Constitutional basis simply serves to prevent unchecked majoritarianism. But there will *always* be bias in favour of Indic faiths. There's a belief that secularism means that favour must be removed. But no, that's wrong. That favour will exist because the people want it. Individuals are not secular, and secularism has nothing to do with individuals, just the government. India will favour the assimilation of Hindu refugees from elsewhere while simultaneously kicking the Rohingyas out, because that's what the people want. The constitution simply ensures that the government will have to very carefully frame its actions so as not to look obviously biased, while still serving the mandate the population expects of it. That is a functional democracy at work - democracy literally is the control of an organization by the majority of its members.

Secularism isn't going to stop that. Heck, secularism wasn't even added in the constitution by democratic means. It, along with its fellow term 'socialism' was part of the 42nd Amendment, added when the constitution was effectively suspended and being used as toilet paper by Indira Gandhi back during the Emergency. That should tell you just how valid the term is to the majority of the people of the country - we care about it about as much as we care about socialism.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sat May 26, 2018 1:50 pm

BarfBag wrote:
Your claim, not a fact. Last I checked, Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace laureate, not a 'racist military dictator' .


Suu Kyi was elected in 2015. The Rohingya had a problem with the military-dominated before then. They have long been denied citizenship in Myanmar. And they were excluded altogether from the 2014 census. Myanmar treated them then, as it does now, as illegal immigrants.

Try harder.

BarfBag wrote:
They are Myanmar's problem. Not India's. Not even Bangladesh's, who don't want the Rohingyas.


But their "democratic" government says they aren't Myanmarese citizens. Since you believe everything they say, maybe you'll enlighten us on how to send people to a country where they're denied citizenship.

BarfBag wrote:
Oh, this is gonna be interesting. Tell us, what part sending back the whole lot of them back to Myanmar is against these fancy "international refugee rulez" ?


The UN Convention on Refugees, for starters.

Anyway, we'll leave it to you to explain to us how a group that is explicitly denied citizenship in its own country and are violently chased out can...errr... go back there.

BarfBag wrote:
And India is 80% Hindu. It's actions will always primarily intend to back, further, and promote the concerns of the majority culture and faith. All the constitution does, is to place sufficient checks and balances to ensure there's no unchecked power of the majority.


Which is to say that the constitution does not give a damn about how many Hindus (or Muslims) there are. It seeks only to protect the rights of each and every Indian. We don't disagree here.

BarfBag wrote:
That means, the government will respond to the people and attempt to send the Rohingyas back. And the Supreme Court will step in and ensure the manner in which it is done dots every i and crosses every t. But it'll be done.


Okay, but then it will be done in accordance with the law and with a blind eye towards religion. Not the same as "do we need more people of [minority religious group] in India". Which, as I recall was what you were trying to pass off as an argument.

BarfBag wrote:
India is the land of origin of the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh faiths. It will always defend these above others. India maintains a balancing act no major country does - maintain a secular democratic state while also being the land of origin of FOUR major faiths.


Nope. You're conflating Savarkar's Hindutva principles with the Constitution. The constitution and state don't give a damn about what religions you and Savarkar think India is home to.

BarfBag wrote:
India is by a long distance the most successful at maintain a harmonious state while also balancing the imperatives of furthering the aspirations of those who see the country as the originating place of their religion.


We'll keep that in mind the next time someone from the 80% puts a garland of shoes around the neck of a statue of the author of the constitution for having the temerity to convert to Buddhism. And that's overlooking the historical persecution of Buddhists by Hindu kings going all the way back to the 3rd century.

I suppose we Hindus should be thankful that Savarkar identifies Buddhists as Hindus by another name. Otherwise we would have their blood on our hands too, and make ARSA look like rank amateurs at genocide.

BarfBag wrote:
Israel - the home of Judaism and Christianity - is quite some way behind. And Islam's Saudi Arabia ?
Hahaha!! A non-Muslim can't even step foot in some of their cities, and that's just the beginning.


Okay. So what? India is better than some countries and worse than others? Nobody suggested otherwise.

BarfBag wrote:
There's no comparison between India's considerations and any other random western democracy. We outdo several major ones (US, Australia, Canada and more) in something as simple as when we first establish full universal adult suffrage, despite many of them having a 100-200 year headstart.


That's nice. So what? The reality is that Indian citizens from minority religions are treated with more dignity and afforded more freedom and equality in all of those countries than they are by their own fellow citizens. Tells us the value that people like you ascribe to the term "citizen".

That's not to say that the democratic institutions to protect them don't exist. Only pointing out that it is a cultural problem. India's democratic institutions may be light years ahead of western nations, but that's meaningless if the local culture doesn't believe in equality of humans. Most Hindus/Indians do. Some like you obviously don't.

BarfBag wrote:
Constitutional basis simply serves to prevent unchecked majoritarianism. But there will *always* be bias in favour of Indic faiths. There's a belief that secularism means that favour must be removed. But no, that's wrong. That favour will exist because the people want it. Individuals are not secular, and secularism has nothing to do with individuals, just the government. .


Thanks for proving my point. The constitution assumes people are equal and protects their individual basic human rights and freedoms. You believe that this is "wrong" - that the majority should be able to impede the rights of the minority.

My original point stands. Indian democracy is strong precisely because it can withstand outdated spasms of inequality. Like whatever culture you ascribe to which, prima facie, is objectively inferior to any culture that protects basic human rights. Which is to say, all western cultures.

BarfBag wrote:
India will favour the assimilation of Hindu refugees from elsewhere while simultaneously kicking the Rohingyas out, because that's what the people want. The constitution simply ensures that the government will have to very carefully frame its actions so as not to look obviously biased, while still serving the mandate the population expects of it. That is a functional democracy at work - democracy literally is the control of an organization by the majority of its members. .


If it's within the law, I don't particularly care. Mostly because whatever you think is going to happen, won't.

That said, good to know Hindus can come back. If western nations start behaving the way you advocate, they'll have little choice. I'm sure you'll sympathize with the western Christians when it happens. Am I right? Am I right?

All it will do is demonstrate how backward your beliefs are. Don't worry, you'll still be marginally superior to other retrograde cultures/movements. Problem is, you'll also be bracketed with them.

BarfBag wrote:
Secularism isn't going to stop that. Heck, secularism wasn't even added in the constitution by democratic means. It, along with its fellow term 'socialism' was part of the 42nd Amendment, added when the constitution was effectively suspended and being used as toilet paper by Indira Gandhi back during the Emergency. That should tell you just how valid the term is to the majority of the people of the country - we care about it about as much as we care about socialism.


Seeing as socialist parties like the Congress have ruled India for great periods of time, and that no Government has repealed that amendment, I dare suggest that whatever point you're trying to make is being openly contradicted, ridiculed even, by the reality of India's functional democracy.

All we've established here is that backwards inequality-promoting culture/movement/whatever are being kept in check by the Indian constitution. A sign of strong democracy despite its internal enemies.

Question is: why do you pretend to embrace something that promotes equality, something you evidently loathe?

After all, one should never be a coward. One should always have the courage of conviction to explicitly own one's discriminatory beliefs.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sat May 26, 2018 9:35 pm

Redd wrote:
Aesma wrote:
ElPistolero : democracy is also cultural. For example clearly many former USSR countries don't understand what democracy is, and cheer on when it is being destroyed by their leaders.


Clearly, meaning Poland (which has it's majority holding government with just over 30% of the vote) can you explain to me how 'the country' doesn't understand democracy where the majority of the population is anti current government and pro EU? I'd also like to remind you how close you were to having Marine Le Pen, and how fragile democracy is currently in the world. Please stop singling out countries whose population you clearly don't understand one iota.


Well as it turned out we weren't close to getting Le Pen at all. I never thought she could win, but I was still surprised by her poor showing.

Meanwhile corrupt leaders taking control of the justice systems in Poland and Hungary so that they can be immune from prosecution happens without enough protests to stop it from happening. When they become dictatorships it will be too late to react. I think the EU should have stopped all funding right away, but the EU is spineless unfortunately.

French people have cut the heads of leaders for less than that, at least in the past, nowadays who knows.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sun May 27, 2018 9:21 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Suu Kyi was elected in 2015.

In the SECOND elections there. The first was in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_g ... tion,_2010
It doesn't matter if the person whom they elected was a former army officer. He's a democratically elected leader and has every right to be treated as such.
ElPistolero wrote:
They have long been denied citizenship in Myanmar. And they were excluded altogether from the 2014 census. Myanmar treated them then, as it does now, as illegal immigrants.

Myanmar has Christians (even more of them than Muslims), Hindus and more. The 'racist military dictatorship' apparently has no idea they were supposed to also brutalize the Hindus and Christians. Just the Muslims. Somehow they're pretty selectively racist and brutal here. Wonder why ? :-)
ElPistolero wrote:
Nope. You're conflating Savarkar's Hindutva principles with the Constitution. The constitution and state don't give a damn about what religions you and Savarkar think India is home to.

You haven't seen the first draft of the constitution have you ?
Image
Image
Image
Image
That was the view of the people who drafted the constitution - the Nataraja, the Gita and the Ramayana. Incidentally, Savarkar isn't among the signatures there. Nehru and Ambedkar are, along with a whole host of others from the Constituent Assembly.
ElPistolero wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. The constitution assumes people are equal and protects their individual basic human rights and freedoms. You believe that this is "wrong" - that the majority should be able to impede the rights of the minority.

In what manner does sending back the Rohingya and keeping Hindu refugees 'impede the rights of minorities' ? Removing them safeguards the demographic interest of the majority without harming any member of the minority in India.

If any Indian Muslim thinks India is obligated to help the Rohingya, and that our refusal to do so constitutes persecution of his religion, he needs to re-evaluate his priorities. He is not being harmed in any manner. His religion is not being harmed in any manner. India simply doesn't want outsiders with baggage. Last I checked, being Muslim or Christian doesn't stop you from rising as far up in any field of your choice that you'd like.

You are blind to reality if you imagine that people who kill Buddhists and Hindus can arrive at the homeland of Hinduism and Buddhism and expect charity. Nothing about secularism is going to offer them any defence, not even "The UN Convention on Refugees, for starters." , which incidentally, says absolutely nothing about a nation not being permitted to repatriate those whom it does not wish to provide refuge to.
ElPistolero wrote:
Question is: why do you pretend to embrace something that promotes equality, something you evidently loathe?

After all, one should never be a coward. One should always have the courage of conviction to explicitly own one's discriminatory beliefs.

You're really quite misinformed. You think I back the constitution but not secularism. Reality is the other way around. It is the constitution that does not emphasize secularism in ANY manner, except for one word added under duress. And democracy, in this context having an effectively permanent majority on all cultural and religious issues - is not 'inequal' or 'discriminatory'. It is the will of the majority. It is how a democratic system works, everywhere.

The word 'secular' in ALL its manifestations appears - I'll save you the trouble - TWICE. In the world's longest constitution. Two times. Once in the original constitution document in Art 25(2)(a), which reads:
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
...
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

In other words, it quite literally has nothing to do with secularism as such - the word is an adjective describing regulation of general activities associated with religious practice.

The other reference to the word is in the preamble, added in 1976, when India was a dictatorship. The constitution itself was suspended then. There were no fundamental rights available. There was no democracy in operation. The entire opposition was in jail. Laloo Prasad's daughter was named Misa, after the draconian Maintenance of Internal Security Act set up just before that era.

You are asserting India's character upon one of ONE of two words (and this is important) inserted into a document at a time the document itself was ineffective. You do understand that, correct ? And you also understand that you're a hypocrite, because the OTHER word added was 'socialist'. How much of your breath do you waste on grave fears of India losing its socialist character ? Nobody gives a crap about India's socialist character or lack of it. The only socialist character that remains are vestiges of the past - PSUs and the lot.

So if you're going to emphasize secularism, I insist that you also assert socialism in equal regard, because they're twins, added at the same time, located next to each other, and sought together in the original Constituent Assembly, where both words were rejected .

It's instructive to know what Ambedkar thought about both these - literally both 'socialist' and 'secular'. The minutes of the constituent assembly records his response:
On 15 November 1948 at the Constituent Assembly debate in Parliament, a member, Prof K.T Shah from Bihar moved an Amendment to the original Preamble statement. He insisted that the words, “Secular, Federal, Socialist” be inserted into the statement. In a detailed reply, BR Ambedkar justified why he did not include the words “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble:

Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.

Ambedkar was cognizant of the fact that the demands of the majority with respect to cultural and religious concerns would always be at odds with any constitutionally mandated curb against it. He quite literally said that it must be determined by the people itself based on time and circumstance.

The original intent of the constitution - besmirched by Amendment 42 during the Indira Gandhi dictatorship - is that it is the democratic majority of India who get to decide what kind of social and economic organization they want of the state. Whether India is socialist or capitalist, secular or has a state religion, is for the majority of the people to decide and NOT for the constitution to assert.

That is exactly my argument too. It is the people in the majority who will decide what gets done. Checks and balances only serve to prevent outrageous excesses against those in the political, but every decision will still always be driven by the mandate provided by the majority. When it comes to culture and religious matters, it will always be the Hindu case that's the majority.

In the case of the Rohingya, a Muslim Indian can approach a court and claim his religious beliefs are impacted by the Rohingya being repatriated. And he'll lose, because neither he nor his religion are being harmed by people who simply happen to belong to the same religion, being repatriated. He still gets to pursue his religion as he pleases. He does not get to stop the majority from providing a mandate for a particular refugee policy because the majority is not harming him in any manner he can legally prove. Nothing to do with the Rohingya stops him from becoming another Azharuddin, Shah Rukh Khan, A R Rahman, Waheeda Rahman, Saina Mirza or anything else (s)he wants to be.

Getting rid of the Rohingyas is perfectly acceptable social policy from a democratic nation. It does not harm the rights of any citizen - Hindu or Muslim . It does not discriminate against either. It establishes a preference that is entirely within the realm of the majority to seek. The state can utilize law and order as the basis, because it is entirely legitimate - there are dozens of people accused of genocide known to be hiding among those so-called refugees.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sun May 27, 2018 12:20 pm

@barfbag

Most of your posts are whataboutery from social media syndicate scripts, not your opinions.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sun May 27, 2018 1:25 pm

BarfBag wrote:
In the SECOND elections there. The first was in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_g ... tion,_2010
It doesn't matter if the person whom they elected was a former army officer.

He's a democratically elected leader and has every right to be treated as such.


Do you read what you post? The opposition boycotted the 2010 election. It was called unfair and fraudulent by international observers.

If that's what we're using as democracy, North Korea held parliamentary elections in 2014. 99.97% turnout. Great democratic nation that.

BarfBag wrote:
Myanmar has Christians (even more of them than Muslims), Hindus and more. The 'racist military dictatorship' apparently has no idea they were supposed to also brutalize the Hindus and Christians. Just the Muslims. Somehow they're pretty selectively racist and brutal here. Wonder why ? :-)


Seeing as they denied all Rohingya (regardless of religion) citizenship, I'm going to guess it has something to do with ethnicity.

But I'm sure many of them share your evidently pathological dislke of Muslims.

BarfBag wrote:
You haven't seen the first draft of the constitution have you ?

That was the view of the people who drafted the constitution - the Nataraja, the Gita and the Ramayana. Incidentally, Savarkar isn't among the signatures there. Nehru and Ambedkar are, along with a whole host of others from the Constituent Assembly.


By that logic, the use of the Ashoka standard means those are irrelevant because India is really a Buddhist state. Grasping for straws there, buddy.

BarfBag wrote:
In what manner does sending back the Rohingya and keeping Hindu refugees 'impede the rights of minorities' ?


In the way that says that religion can be used as grounds for discrimination. By definition, it impedes freedom of religion, which is embedded in what you call the "original" constitution.

Either a country treats all adherents of all religions equally. Or it's a country built on inequality. This isn't rocket science.

BarfBag wrote:
If any Indian Muslim thinks India is obligated to help the Rohingya, and that our refusal to do so constitutes persecution of his religion, he needs to re-evaluate his priorities. He is not being harmed in any manner. His religion is not being harmed in any manner. India simply doesn't want outsiders with baggage. Last I checked, being Muslim or Christian doesn't stop you from rising as far up in any field of your choice that you'd like.


Aside from, you know, using someone's religion as grounds for discriminating against them. Or treating them differently.

I also find it interesting that you think only Muslims would be worried about Muslim refugees. I can think of a great many non-Muslims who are concerned about the Rohingya too.

Granted, we have a tendency to view all humans as equal. Evidently you don't. In your India, Hindus should be treated differently to Christians and Muslims and so on. The Constitution does not permit that, thankfully. It remains a bulwark against backward ideologies that refuse to accept equality.

Which seems to trouble you.

BarfBag wrote:
You are blind to reality if you imagine that people who kill Buddhists and Hindus can arrive at the homeland of Hinduism and Buddhism and expect charity. Nothing about secularism is going to offer them any defence,


No, I am hopeful that Indians don't subscribe to medieval notions of collective punishment. It simply does not make sense to deny thousands of humans in distress safe refuge because of the crimes of a few.

BarfBag wrote:
not even "The UN Convention on Refugees, for starters." , which incidentally, says absolutely nothing about a nation not being permitted to repatriate those whom it does not wish to provide refuge to.


How do you repatriate people to a country that denies that they are citizens and actively smokes them out of their territory?

Line them up at the border and shove them across the line, knowing they will be persecuted or shot on sight as illegal immigrants? Civilized nations don't do that.

BarfBag wrote:
You're really quite misinformed. You think I back the constitution but not secularism. Reality is the other way around.


You're way too hung up on the word secular. All I care about is freedom of XYZ, which is fundamentally predicated on the state not discriminating against people for exercising those freedoms.

BarfBag wrote:
It is the constitution that does not emphasize secularism in ANY manner, except for one word added under duress. And democracy, in this context having an effectively permanent majority on all cultural and religious issues - is not 'inequal' or 'discriminatory'. It is the will of the majority. It is how a democratic system works, everywhere.
...
In other words, it quite literally has nothing to do with secularism as such - the word is an adjective describing regulation of general activities associated with religious practice.


I don't know why you think secularism and socialism mean the same thing, but whatever.

Go read the constitution again. And read Ambedkar again. He didn't say whatever you seem to think he said. In fact, he has always been very clear:

"If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. It is incompatible with democracy. Hindu raj must be prevented at any cost."

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... tml#part_6

For what it's worth, the term "secular" does not appear in the constitution of most (probably all) western constitutions. It's a principle that is embedded in their equivalents of Article 25. Whether it appears in a preamble is meaningless. The moment you apply article 25 or it's foreign equivalent, that nation is de facto secular.

Ambedkar understood that. That's why he put article 25 there. He enshrined secularism in the constitution, with the exceptions included to give the Government just enough leeway to legislate away retrogarade "religious" practices, like "Hindu" Sati, and exempt certain articles of faith, like kirpans, from public safety laws.

Do you actually think he would give the majority the right to curtail his own group's freedoms? Some Hindus (like yourself, perhaps?) may consider him "untouchable", but even they would have to concede that he wasn't stupid.

BarfBag wrote:

That is exactly my argument too. It is the people in the majority who will decide what gets done. Checks and balances only serve to prevent outrageous excesses against those in the political, but every decision will still always be driven by the mandate provided by the majority. When it comes to culture and religious matters, it will always be the Hindu case that's the majority.


Only to the extent that it doesn't violate the constitution. When it does, the Hindu majority's view mean diddly squat. Hindus can't, for example, wake up tomorrow and vote to ban all Muslims from employment. Or condemn them to death.

BarfBag wrote:
In the case of the Rohingya, a Muslim Indian can approach a court and claim his religious beliefs are impacted by the Rohingya being repatriated. And he'll lose, because neither he nor his religion are being harmed by people who simply happen to belong to the same religion, being repatriated. He still gets to pursue his religion as he pleases. He does not get to stop the majority from providing a mandate for a particular refugee policy because the majority is not harming him in any manner he can legally prove.


Again with the Muslim Indian. Seems you think Hindus either do, or should, think like you.

Here's why you are wrong: no Indian citizen needs to prove that they are personally worse off if the Government violates the Constitution. The Constitution has to be upheld regardless of its impacts (or lack thereof) on individuals.

Instead, the onus is on the Government to not violate the constitution. If it does, anybody from the poorest man in all of India to the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court can challenge it, regardless of how little it impacts them.

Maybe learn about your own country?

BarfBag wrote:
The state can utilize law and order as the basis, because it is entirely legitimate - there are dozens of people accused of genocide known to be hiding among those so-called refugees.


Yes, it can use law and order as the basis. Which means it has to respect the Constitution. And if the Constitution says no discrimination on the basis of religion, you're going to have a hard time proving that each and every Rohingya refugee is a threat to law and order simply because they're Muslim.

Like I said, the Constitution - the foundation of Indian democracy - is strong enough to keep the inequality and diminishment of freedom that you and some self-proclaimed Hindus advocate. Signs of a strong democracy.

Maybe time to go join your Shiv Sena buddies and ban and burn Ambedkar's books for his views on the Hindu Raj. You know you want to :P.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sun May 27, 2018 1:43 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
@barfbag

Most of your posts are whataboutery from social media syndicate scripts, not your opinions.


But it's so entertaining. Can't stop laughing at his attempt to co-opt Ambedkar. Imagine his shock when he finds out what Ambedkar actually thought about his Hindu majority domination ideals:

"If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. It is incompatible with democracy. Hindu raj must be prevented at any cost."

Can't make this up.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sun May 27, 2018 3:48 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
@barfbag

Most of your posts are whataboutery from social media syndicate scripts, not your opinions.


But it's so entertaining. Can't stop laughing at his attempt to co-opt Ambedkar. Imagine his shock when he finds out what Ambedkar actually thought about his Hindu majority domination ideals:

"If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. It is incompatible with democracy. Hindu raj must be prevented at any cost."

Can't make this up.

This discussion is about virtues of autonomous institutions in a democracy, or there lack of in present day India.

You are asking for causation on one side and same time arguing institutions are accommodating leaders feelings because he has majority and mandate even though it is the wrong thing to do. Until there is a no trust vote majority claim is questionable.

You are also claiming checks and balances doesn’t matter when you have majority.

Indians are known to please their leaders. British didn’t mass kill at Jalianwala Bagh, Indians eagerly killed fellow Indians on British orders, just to be loyal to their leaders and keep their jobs.

If a speaker can adjourn house for 18 consecutive days so Modi can escape no trust vote, that is a blot on democracy.

I bought the refugee issue in the context on UN convention for which India is a signatory. Germany took in millions, faced several challenges including false complaints by local fringe against refugees. Still history will see Merkel as a savior.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Mon May 28, 2018 1:43 pm

@ElPistolero above post #38 was meant for burfbag. Somehow I responded to your post.
 
chimborazo
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Mon May 28, 2018 6:21 pm

I have worked and sometimes lived in over twenty five countries around the world. I've enjoyed being in every one. Except India. Never have I felt more like people are out to get everything they can out of you than there. So what if thet have nearly a billion people who can vote.? It is the most corrupt place I have ever been. Caste system rules... it's disgusting. The average person you meet on the street, like everywhere, is great. But it's the most corrupt place I've been to. Russia pales in comparison.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue May 29, 2018 5:02 am

Barfy, assuming you're from India, are you one of those Muslim stabbing Hindus we've heard about? You seem so angry. Also, I'm a vegetarian pls don't stab.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed May 30, 2018 11:38 am

Another report of an ally ruling party accusing election commission.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/electio ... -topscroll
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:13 pm

Indian Prime Minister removes CBI(equivalent to FBI) Director in a midnight coup.

Apparently, current PM appointed an illegal Special Director to CBI parallel to the actual Director four years back. He is someone very close who exonerated current Prime Minister of allegations when he was Chief Minister of an Indian state. The shadow force of Special Director was looking after all important cases, mostly against political opponents.

Trump is getting investigated for firing Comey, but Modi will get an award for doing the same.

Incredible India.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:02 pm

After a revolt in CBI (FBI equivalent) Reserve Bank of India (Federal Reserve) Chief is revolting against the government for stifling RBI's autonomy.

Apparently, he and his deputies were jabbing against the Indian government in private settings but now they are saying in public. Deputy Governor of RBI gave a skating speech against government interference and issued a veiled threat that countries which interested federal reserves collapsed in the past.

Indian banking system is failing on several fronts,
1) Credit crunch,
2) Majority of public sector banks are sick, and the government is covering up by merging them with others.
3) Hundreds of $$Billions of bad debts,
4) Foreign institutional investors moved their funds out of India
5) People are not keeping money in banks because of proposed new law which allows banks to convert deposits to equity without depositor's consent.

Latest news is the Indian fed chief is going to resign.
https://www.ndtv.com/business/centre-in ... -topscroll
https://www.ndtv.com/business/modi-gove ... bi-1940437

Dy. Governor Viral V Acharya: On the importance of independent regulatory institutions - the case of the central bank
https://www.bis.org/review/r181030a.htm
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:53 am

Ah! The Hardline Left Extremists of India congregation thread! Forgot all about this joyous place for a while. Whoops.

dtw2hyd wrote:
Deputy Governor of RBI gave a skating speech against government interference and issued a veiled threat that countries which interested federal reserves collapsed in the past.

Ice skates or roller skates ?

Also, tell us ALL about the economic history of 'interested federal reserves' causing 'countries to collapse' in the past. Which federal reserve did they show interest in ? Or was the federal reserve interested in them ?

For those who are unaware, the RBI is created by an Act of Parliament. It's autonomy is decided by the Government of India. Same as that of any other central bank. A head of the US Fed, UK's BoE or Japan's BoJ acting out of turn gets treated in exactly the same manner as the head of the RBI does.

I love posting all the terrible news too! More signs of failure all around:
Oct 5 2018: India GDP growth to exceed's RBI's 7.4% projection
August 31 2018: India GDP growth surges 8.2%, boost for Modi before election
Date of a festival in India determines the fortunes of major companies:
Amazon reports lower Q3 international sales: states late Diwali the cause
Oct 30 2018: World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index: India jumps 23 places to 77th position
Ranking by year
2015: 142
2016: 130
2017: 130
2018: 100
2019: 77
March 2018: India is now the world’s third-largest electricity producer
March 2018: India overtakes Germany as 4th largest automobile market after China, USA and Japan
Car sales grow 7%, commercial vehicle sales grow 38% in year to September
Image
Oct 31 2018: India adds 10 million cellphone subscribers in August, total rises to 1.189 billion cellphone subscribers, 466 million broadband internet subscribers
March 2018: India overtakes Japan as second largest steel producer, output exceeds combined production of CIS states, close to combined steel production of USA, Canada and Mexico
Within the next decade, India will likely produce more steel than the entire European Union combined, as well.
June 2018: India drops dramatically in extreme poverty count
Image
World Poverty Clock
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:50 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
After a revolt in CBI (FBI equivalent) Reserve Bank of India (Federal Reserve) Chief is revolting against the government for stifling RBI's autonomy.

Apparently, he and his deputies were jabbing against the Indian government in private settings but now they are saying in public. Deputy Governor of RBI gave a skating speech against government interference and issued a veiled threat that countries which interested federal reserves collapsed in the past.

Indian banking system is failing on several fronts,
1) Credit crunch,
2) Majority of public sector banks are sick, and the government is covering up by merging them with others.
3) Hundreds of $$Billions of bad debts,
4) Foreign institutional investors moved their funds out of India
5) People are not keeping money in banks because of proposed new law which allows banks to convert deposits to equity without depositor's consent.


All good points @dtwhyd.

But as the loooooong posts by the resident lynching-apologist on this thread show us, India's upper caste elite are willing to allow their hatred for Muslims, Christians and Dalit's override objective thinking. India has become a nation of Gandhari's living in denial and whataboutery.

The way I see it, Indian democracy survived because our democratic institutions stayed largely intact. Modi and the RSS have now begun dismantling these institutions - from CAG to CBI to even the RBI! It is these institutions that kept India wedded to democracy and it is the constitution that kept India united. Both of these are being shredded as we speak.

It is a pointless debate because India has gone long past the point of no return. I frankly don't see India surviving in its current form for more than a decade. The Southern Block states which are more economically advanced could survive as a united block and emerge from the ashes. But the cow belt states are well and truly sc****d.
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle! on twitter @Banwaarilal
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:48 pm

BawliBooch wrote:
It is a pointless debate because India has gone long past the point of no return...


I suppose you are correct, but it is a hard pill for me to swallow. India is not a rich country, even with all corruption, these institutions kept it away from becoming a banana republic. Even after a couple of decades, I still feel proud of those institutions. I am a direct beneficiary of University Grants Commission grants and indirect DoD sponsored education(MEDHA mainframes and other computer equipment) when no one heard of computers in India. Now, I read UGC is getting dismantled, that hurts.
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:33 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
I suppose you are correct, but it is a hard pill for me to swallow. India is not a rich country, even with all corruption, these institutions kept it away from becoming a banana republic. Even after a couple of decades, I still feel proud of those institutions. I am a direct beneficiary of University Grants Commission grants and indirect DoD sponsored education(MEDHA mainframes and other computer equipment) when no one heard of computers in India. Now, I read UGC is getting dismantled, that hurts.


True. Institutions are being dismantled. But there is a method to the madness. As one RSS apologist was telling me, you have to demolish everything before you can rebuild from the ground up. That's how the bhakta's are justifying this wanton destruction of democratic institutions.

My big worry is: will India as we know it survive the destruction of institutions that kept the country together? My feeling is, the people will do just fine. Millions may perish but our culture will survive. India as a nation, our Hindu sabhyata, has survived 5000 years of invasions and disasters. But the Indian state was born in 1947. I doubt it will survive!

Todays WhatsApp generation forgets that when the British left, India did not really exist - there were 4 large presidencies and over 800 princely states. India is not a country but a continent with a diverse population - Every 200 miles, you will see a different people. Different language, different food habits, different styles. It is Ambedkar's constitution and these Nehruvian institutions that kept this diverse country united. It was Nehru-Patel-Ambedkar and other greats who welded this diverse continent into a nation and united the country. That unity stands shattered today.

Either the Modi govt is extremely stupid or extremely evil. What else can explain the extremely stupid move to replace Kannad/Tamil/Malayalam/Telgu signs with Hindi language signs at Airports/Metro & Railway stations in response to a move by the Southern State CM's getting together to ask for a better financial deal from Delhi. Incredibly stupid! Is this in anyway helping to resolve the issue or triggering furthering anti-Hindi protests? It helps Modi reassert his image with his core base - upper caste Indian's from the cowbelt states in the North. But is it helping to keep the country united?

And now we have the destruction of an institution like the RBI - Urijit Patel found his nerve and spoke up only to find himself being targeted. CBI/RAW - 2 other institutions that faced the axe just last week!

And all through this, we have the typical RSS apologists telling us that all this is a good thing! All is well! All is well!

I thank my stars that I packed up and left. But I am the 0.05% minority who had that option. Feel sorry for the billion plus Indians who face a crashing economy and a civil war. :(
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle! on twitter @Banwaarilal
 
aerosreenivas
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:26 am

If any Modi critics wants to paint this as a grim situation happening in this country, then I think the BJP needs to be more worried than the citizens of India. Because BJP will have no rights to talk about Pakistan being the rouge nation as Democracy in India will slowly die down.

If this takes place, then Pakistan will be the most happiest nation in the world. Coz they want to see India be weakened by some way or the other.

And BJP knows that. So they will be careful in not bringing the Democratic Institutions down. Instead, they should try to strengthen them differently.

If the current Government wants to bring all the major institutions down, then none of the BJP ministers have the right to ask those who don't support Modi are traitors and should go back to Pakistan.

Because India will become a Pakistan with the dead of Democracy in our country.
 
dtw2hyd
Topic Author
Posts: 6210
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Is India a failing democracy

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:44 pm

If I have to bet, 2019 India elections will be won on building Rama temple and stopping women from entering Ayyappa temple. One would retain UP vicinity and the other issue may flip Kerala in BJP favor. Both are risky moves but will do anything for a seat.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BartSimpson, JJJ, mmo, noviorbis77, Number6, sabenapilot, TheF15Ace and 95 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos