3 ms·

> India isn't a unified secular democracy (at least constitutionally) because of Britain, but in spite of it. I agree. Not sure why you were so upset. I didn't

by disown 6y ago

> India isn't a unified secular democracy (at least constitutionally) because of Britain, but in spite of it. I agree. Not sure why you were so upset. I didn't say britain made india a democracy. Britain didn't bring democracy anywhere it went. I just said Britain praises india's democracy because it keeps india backwards and weak. And india just keeps sticking with something that hasn't worked for decades because the leadership is desperate for that pat on the head from their colonial masters. What's better? China where hundreds of millions are out of poverty but britain calls it a "dictatorship". Or India with hundreds of millions are in poverty but britain praises it for democracy? > As for India being a member of the Commonwealth, it was by Nehru's insistence that it be named the Commonwealth of Nations, and not the Imperial Commonwealth as Britain intended it to be. Who cares about the name? A pile of shit is still a pile of shit whatever you call it. The Imperial Commonwealth is still the imperial commonwealth whether it's called timbuktu. Would the british empire be any different if you called it anything else? The japanese tried to call their empire "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". I guess it sound more benign than Empire of Japan but it doesn't quite flow off the tongue. It's the british empire. The head of the state is the british queen. It's located in london. The language is english. It's the association of "former" british colonies and their master. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations India represents over 20% of humanity. It should be a free nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, like china. Not a pathetic colony of britain. More than 70 years after independence, india is still a colony. That explains its rather terrible situation. Interestingly enough, almost all of the world's poor without electricity, plumbing, etc are part of the british empire today, I mean commonwealth of nations. What a wonderful association to be a part of.

fakedang 6y ago
I'm not upset. Just correcting false facts propagated by ignorant folks. Such as yourself. India has been a democracy in spite of the monarchies the UK used to support in Indian territory, in spite of the regional and sectarian conflicts the British tried to impose on (and succeeded) India. Have you ever considered the reason why India has been forced to languish in the background in world affairs, in spite of being on track to be the most populous country, to be because of American and British (and for a while European) interference? The nations stopping the likes of Japan, Germany and India from joining the UN security council are those within. Britain has gained a lot more from the relationship with India, just as India has gained a lot from the same. The Indian power bloc in the UK parliament and the power it has wielded for a few decades now is solid evidence of this. To correct your preconceived BS, the CoN is a meaningless patchwork of nations of the British empire for Britain. The only benefit it provides to the UK is monarchial rights to a few island nations (and an increasingly lower number by the year, Barbados just voted to become a republic within the CoN), while giving citizens of CoN nations voting rights within the UK, which is a pretty huge trade off on the UK's part. India is not a pathetic colony of Britain. If you'd been involved with the economic landscape of Britain recently, it was more or less the other way round. India has already overtaken Britain by the GDP numbers. Yet you also willfully ignore places such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa or France's former African colonies, all of which have become worse shitholes than India. You have clearly no understanding of the situation in either India or the UK currently. Wish I could extend a time machine to bring you here in the present, but unfortunately it doesn't admit for close-mindedness.
- disown 6y ago
  > I'm not upset. "I'll just respond with most of your horseshit assertions with one statement:" Seems like you were upset. > Just correcting false facts propagated by ignorant folks. Such as yourself. Seems like you are still upset which is shocking since I agree with you. > India has been a democracy in spite of the monarchies the UK used to support in Indian territory, in spite of the regional and sectarian conflicts the British tried to impose on (and succeeded) India. You are repeating yourself. I agreed. > Have you ever considered the reason why India has been forced to languish in the background in world affairs, in spite of being on track to be the most populous country, to be because of American and British (and for a while European) interference? Less american. More british, but yes. I agree with you. And the reason why britain succeeded is because the indian elites are sell-outs. That's my point. It's why india willingly rejoined the british empire. > To correct your preconceived BS, the CoN is a meaningless patchwork of nations of the British empire for Britain. It's not meaningless. It's symbolic. It reveals the mentality of the leaders of the colonies. If it is meaningless, why is india even in it? Isn't it humiliating? > India is not a pathetic colony of Britain Sure it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the british empire. It willingly joined. Do you think think would allow hong kong to join the commonwealth? Do you think the US would join the "commonwealth"? > India has already overtaken Britain by the GDP numbers. Considering india had 1.4 billion more people... And yet still britain is a permanent security council member and india is not. > Yet you also willfully ignore places such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa or France's former African colonies, all of which have become worse shitholes than India. Puerto rico and american samao are doing much better than india. Go look it up. And as for france's african colonies, I believe they should liberate themselves as well. What's your point? Puerto rico isn't a country of 1.4 billion people. I'm not the one being closeminded. You are. It seems like something triggered you and you act like I'm insulting india. I'm not. I'm saying india should become an independent power jusst like china. Not a british slave colony. If china was still in the british empire, I'd say the same thing. Imagine after ww2, china decided to rejoin the japanese empire. That would have been insane right? That's what india did. The only reason that happened was because the indian leadership/elite are sellouts. No other explanation for that. And it's also why india is so poorly developed. After ww2, india shouldn't have begged their way back to the british empire, they should have demanded a seat at the UN security council. As it stands, india today can't demand a permanent seat at the UN security council since they are a colony of britain. Can't have britain and their colony both in the permanent security council...

by disown 6y ago

fakedang 6y ago

I'm not upset. Just correcting false facts propagated by ignorant folks. Such as yourself. India has been a democracy in spite of the monarchies the UK used to support in Indian territory, in spite of the regional and sectarian conflicts the British tried to impose on (and succeeded) India. Have you ever considered the reason why India has been forced to languish in the background in world affairs, in spite of being on track to be the most populous country, to be because of American and British (and for a while European) interference? The nations stopping the likes of Japan, Germany and India from joining the UN security council are those within. Britain has gained a lot more from the relationship with India, just as India has gained a lot from the same. The Indian power bloc in the UK parliament and the power it has wielded for a few decades now is solid evidence of this. To correct your preconceived BS, the CoN is a meaningless patchwork of nations of the British empire for Britain. The only benefit it provides to the UK is monarchial rights to a few island nations (and an increasingly lower number by the year, Barbados just voted to become a republic within the CoN), while giving citizens of CoN nations voting rights within the UK, which is a pretty huge trade off on the UK's part. India is not a pathetic colony of Britain. If you'd been involved with the economic landscape of Britain recently, it was more or less the other way round. India has already overtaken Britain by the GDP numbers. Yet you also willfully ignore places such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa or France's former African colonies, all of which have become worse shitholes than India. You have clearly no understanding of the situation in either India or the UK currently. Wish I could extend a time machine to bring you here in the present, but unfortunately it doesn't admit for close-mindedness.

disown 6y ago
> I'm not upset. "I'll just respond with most of your horseshit assertions with one statement:" Seems like you were upset. > Just correcting false facts propagated by ignorant folks. Such as yourself. Seems like you are still upset which is shocking since I agree with you. > India has been a democracy in spite of the monarchies the UK used to support in Indian territory, in spite of the regional and sectarian conflicts the British tried to impose on (and succeeded) India. You are repeating yourself. I agreed. > Have you ever considered the reason why India has been forced to languish in the background in world affairs, in spite of being on track to be the most populous country, to be because of American and British (and for a while European) interference? Less american. More british, but yes. I agree with you. And the reason why britain succeeded is because the indian elites are sell-outs. That's my point. It's why india willingly rejoined the british empire. > To correct your preconceived BS, the CoN is a meaningless patchwork of nations of the British empire for Britain. It's not meaningless. It's symbolic. It reveals the mentality of the leaders of the colonies. If it is meaningless, why is india even in it? Isn't it humiliating? > India is not a pathetic colony of Britain Sure it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the british empire. It willingly joined. Do you think think would allow hong kong to join the commonwealth? Do you think the US would join the "commonwealth"? > India has already overtaken Britain by the GDP numbers. Considering india had 1.4 billion more people... And yet still britain is a permanent security council member and india is not. > Yet you also willfully ignore places such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa or France's former African colonies, all of which have become worse shitholes than India. Puerto rico and american samao are doing much better than india. Go look it up. And as for france's african colonies, I believe they should liberate themselves as well. What's your point? Puerto rico isn't a country of 1.4 billion people. I'm not the one being closeminded. You are. It seems like something triggered you and you act like I'm insulting india. I'm not. I'm saying india should become an independent power jusst like china. Not a british slave colony. If china was still in the british empire, I'd say the same thing. Imagine after ww2, china decided to rejoin the japanese empire. That would have been insane right? That's what india did. The only reason that happened was because the indian leadership/elite are sellouts. No other explanation for that. And it's also why india is so poorly developed. After ww2, india shouldn't have begged their way back to the british empire, they should have demanded a seat at the UN security council. As it stands, india today can't demand a permanent seat at the UN security council since they are a colony of britain. Can't have britain and their colony both in the permanent security council...