6 ms·

It is interesting to see Indians talking of themselves and India as a separate entity. Now, I am fine with people moving out of the country and I can understand

It is interesting to see Indians talking of themselves and India as a separate entity. Now, I am fine with people moving out of the country and I can understand the appeal. A lot of problems in India have been long solved in the west and there are problems which are unique to India. But it is hypocritical to blame the ills on "India" as if it exists without it's people. Citizens make a country and they are equally responsible whether they like it or not.

oblio 8y ago
While in general it's true, and probably applies to India, I'd like to point out a major gap in your analysis: external factors. North Korea is basically propped up by China. If China would stop backing the regime, either the local citizens or intervention from South Korea could make the regime collapse overnight. Eastern Europe had regimes enforced by the USSR. Same story. See 1989 (luckily for these countries).
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Not sure about that. The regime seems to tick along with next to nothing. Pushing that to literally nothing might not make much difference. They would just move from 95% blackmarket to 100.
visarga 8y ago
> Citizens make a country and they are equally responsible whether they like it or not. Can't agree with equal responsibility. Children, for example, are not.
- eternauta3k 8y ago
  These children grow up to be adults, who are by extension also not responsible. No one is "responsible" for these impersonal processes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
herbst 8y ago
It's a little bit unrelated but the ugly Indian explains a bit about exactly this issue Indians seem to have, in a interesting Ted talk. https://youtu.be/tf1VA5jqmRo https://youtu.be/tf1VA5jqmRo
- warent 8y ago
  I've never heard of The Ugly Indian before and your comment came across as totally shocking to say the the least. So relieved when I saw it was his name (or the name of the movement?)
pitt1980 8y ago
Not totally sure I understand your point, but I think that I don't agree with this at all. In any particular country, each citizen, of course, plays their own tiny part, but ultimately, its truly a tiny part. For the vast majority of people, they make better decisions thinking about the path of a country as an impersonal force that they can react and respond to, but have functionally no actual control over when you aggregate the political will of 800 million people, it is largely an impersonal force
- test001only 8y ago
  Aggregate political will is a feature of democracy. The fact that any single person on his/her own wish cannot make a big impact change is how a democracy is designed to work. For a democracy to work people need to take active part in the political process including things like consensus building. Changes start at grassroot level and is usually localised. You would have more impact at your constituency level than at state or national level. But the fact is that significant number of people do not even fulfill their most basic duty of voting.
  - atlantic 8y ago
    That's the myth of democracy, yes. Glad to see there are still a few true believers. But in practice, 1/10^9 is the same as zero.
    - alasdair_ 8y ago
      >But in practice, 1/10^9 is the same as zero Sadly, it's not even that - we don't have a popular vote, so not all votes have the same weight :(
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Sadly, it's not even that - we don't have a popular vote, so not all votes have the same weight The vast majority of elective public offices in the US are directly elected by popular vote.
gregcrv 8y ago
I don’t think it’s unique to India unfortunately. I feel this is also strong in the US where the « people » and the « government » always seem very separated and opposing each other. I am also annoyed by the characterization of « government land » rather than « public land ». Not sure if the low turnout in US elections is the cause or consequence of that separation.
xaranke 8y ago
As someone who has spent a majority of their formative years outside India and always felt out of place when I lived there, I definitely see India as a separate entity. The only really Indian thing about me is that I hold the passport.
alasdair_ 8y ago
>It is interesting to see Indians talking of themselves and India as a separate entity. Apropos of that, I have an Indian acquaintance who is an activist, focusing on women's rights and poverty. She's told a couple of stories stories about going into tiny, remote villages in India and telling people about their basic rights under the law, only to be asked "what is India?" and having to explain that the place these people live is called "India".
- legolas2412 8y ago
  Probably because India is the name in english. It is called Bharat in Hindi, other names in other vernaculars.
sandworm101 8y ago
Dangerous logic. We may have to blame americans for thier country too.
ekianjo 8y ago
This is a naive comment. By far and large what a few individuals can do is extremely limited compared to institutions or large companies. Belonging to a country is not equal to having power to change things. For example, even if your city think they need an airport, they cant build one by themselves out of nothing. Infrastructure and anything related to long term investment of resources is completely out of reach of individuals.
eevilspock 8y ago
Yeah colonialism and Britain's control, exploitation and distortion of India over 300 years has nothing to do with India's problems. "The West" "solved" a bunch of its problems as it created problems in the rest of the world.
- atlantic 8y ago
  Empires have been doing what empires do since the beginning of recorded history. The West is no exception in this respect.
  - eevilspock 8y ago
    1. I was responding to test001only putting the blame on Indians. 2. The West claims to be enlightened and progressive. Essentially having a manifest moral destiny. 3. Men have been sexist through most if not all of recorded history, treating women as lessor beings if not property. Does that excuse today's men?
    - atlantic 8y ago
      2. No, it doesn't. No such thing as "the West". I live in a European country. We never made any such claim. "Manifest destiny" is specifically American. The expression itself is nonsensical in other languages. 3. No, they haven't. Obviously, male and female roles have been socially differentiated over history, but that derived from biology. The impact of biology has been lessened with industrialization, naturally leading to new opportunities for women.

oblio 8y ago

While in general it's true, and probably applies to India, I'd like to point out a major gap in your analysis: external factors. North Korea is basically propped up by China. If China would stop backing the regime, either the local citizens or intervention from South Korea could make the regime collapse overnight. Eastern Europe had regimes enforced by the USSR. Same story. See 1989 (luckily for these countries).

sandworm101 8y ago
Not sure about that. The regime seems to tick along with next to nothing. Pushing that to literally nothing might not make much difference. They would just move from 95% blackmarket to 100.

visarga 8y ago

> Citizens make a country and they are equally responsible whether they like it or not. Can't agree with equal responsibility. Children, for example, are not.

eternauta3k 8y ago
These children grow up to be adults, who are by extension also not responsible. No one is "responsible" for these impersonal processes.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

herbst 8y ago

It's a little bit unrelated but the ugly Indian explains a bit about exactly this issue Indians seem to have, in a interesting Ted talk. https://youtu.be/tf1VA5jqmRo https://youtu.be/tf1VA5jqmRo

warent 8y ago
I've never heard of The Ugly Indian before and your comment came across as totally shocking to say the the least. So relieved when I saw it was his name (or the name of the movement?)

pitt1980 8y ago

Not totally sure I understand your point, but I think that I don't agree with this at all. In any particular country, each citizen, of course, plays their own tiny part, but ultimately, its truly a tiny part. For the vast majority of people, they make better decisions thinking about the path of a country as an impersonal force that they can react and respond to, but have functionally no actual control over when you aggregate the political will of 800 million people, it is largely an impersonal force

test001only 8y ago
Aggregate political will is a feature of democracy. The fact that any single person on his/her own wish cannot make a big impact change is how a democracy is designed to work. For a democracy to work people need to take active part in the political process including things like consensus building. Changes start at grassroot level and is usually localised. You would have more impact at your constituency level than at state or national level. But the fact is that significant number of people do not even fulfill their most basic duty of voting.
- atlantic 8y ago
  That's the myth of democracy, yes. Glad to see there are still a few true believers. But in practice, 1/10^9 is the same as zero.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    >But in practice, 1/10^9 is the same as zero Sadly, it's not even that - we don't have a popular vote, so not all votes have the same weight :(
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Sadly, it's not even that - we don't have a popular vote, so not all votes have the same weight The vast majority of elective public offices in the US are directly elected by popular vote.

gregcrv 8y ago

I don’t think it’s unique to India unfortunately. I feel this is also strong in the US where the « people » and the « government » always seem very separated and opposing each other. I am also annoyed by the characterization of « government land » rather than « public land ». Not sure if the low turnout in US elections is the cause or consequence of that separation.

xaranke 8y ago

As someone who has spent a majority of their formative years outside India and always felt out of place when I lived there, I definitely see India as a separate entity. The only really Indian thing about me is that I hold the passport.

alasdair_ 8y ago

>It is interesting to see Indians talking of themselves and India as a separate entity. Apropos of that, I have an Indian acquaintance who is an activist, focusing on women's rights and poverty. She's told a couple of stories stories about going into tiny, remote villages in India and telling people about their basic rights under the law, only to be asked "what is India?" and having to explain that the place these people live is called "India".

legolas2412 8y ago
Probably because India is the name in english. It is called Bharat in Hindi, other names in other vernaculars.

sandworm101 8y ago

Dangerous logic. We may have to blame americans for thier country too.

ekianjo 8y ago

This is a naive comment. By far and large what a few individuals can do is extremely limited compared to institutions or large companies. Belonging to a country is not equal to having power to change things. For example, even if your city think they need an airport, they cant build one by themselves out of nothing. Infrastructure and anything related to long term investment of resources is completely out of reach of individuals.

eevilspock 8y ago

Yeah colonialism and Britain's control, exploitation and distortion of India over 300 years has nothing to do with India's problems. "The West" "solved" a bunch of its problems as it created problems in the rest of the world.

atlantic 8y ago
Empires have been doing what empires do since the beginning of recorded history. The West is no exception in this respect.
- eevilspock 8y ago
  1. I was responding to test001only putting the blame on Indians. 2. The West claims to be enlightened and progressive. Essentially having a manifest moral destiny. 3. Men have been sexist through most if not all of recorded history, treating women as lessor beings if not property. Does that excuse today's men?
  - atlantic 8y ago
    2. No, it doesn't. No such thing as "the West". I live in a European country. We never made any such claim. "Manifest destiny" is specifically American. The expression itself is nonsensical in other languages. 3. No, they haven't. Obviously, male and female roles have been socially differentiated over history, but that derived from biology. The impact of biology has been lessened with industrialization, naturally leading to new opportunities for women.