7 ms·
India is increasingly going down the slippery slope of repression that we have seen frequently in countries about 5-10 years before they lose their collective m
by InTheArena 4y ago
India is increasingly going down the slippery slope of repression that we have seen frequently in countries about 5-10 years before they lose their collective minds, and everyone wonders when the state "went bad".
- mikymoothrowa 4y ago[flagged]
- shadowfox 4y ago> India is much more robust democratically. Out of curiosity, why do you think that is the case?
- rusticpenn 4y agoI would agree, many Indians, the democratic majority support this.
- 01acheru 4y agoThe fact that you agree doesn't make it correct, and there is no such thing as "democratic majority" in supporting something without a proof. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
- rusticpenn 4y agoI am sorry if you missed my sarcasm.
- 01acheru 4y agoThey are probably Indian and feel it a lot.
- sfifs 4y agoNot OP but Many many instances of corrupt leaders or leaders with unpopular policies/poor governance being thrown out of power in elections peacefully. If anything, the fatalism & inability of Americans to change their political establishment tends to be puzzling for us.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 01acheru 4y agoI'm sorry but I really don't think this is true and almost any source would prove you wrong. Like this one for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Almost all countries up in the list are so called "Western", while India is number 46. Most sources would more or less agree with this index.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mikymoothrowa 4y agoobviously indices created by the west would rank themselves higher. India has a much more robust democracy because Indians have several dozen political parties to choose from unlike the US which has only 2 recognised parties. India has had Prime Ministers from even very small regional parties that formed giant coalitions. Americans meanwhile are stuck with 2 parties they perpetually hate
- anaganisk 4y agoYou are clearly in denial, tell me what are the two parties that can form the central BJP or Congress? > India has had Prime Ministers from even very small regional parties that formed giant coalitions. Key word is "has" what about the last 3 decades? Having to choose between 2 or 1000 parties from is not democracy, India terribly suffers from incumbency peoblems. Most of those regional parties you talk about unless there is a significant change, most of the time, many seats are won back by incumbents. During every elections there is horse-trading, bribing of voters, rigging, there have been major scams all which are not signals of a robust democracy. Thousands of farmers protesting against a govt rule for almost an year is not a robust sign of democracy.
- 01acheru 4y agoYou know that you are just throwing anecdotes around that don't reach any point right? Just admit it, you are an Indian nationalist, who cares? Why should I be bothered by what you guys do at home? Just don't go around preaching how cool and open and democratic India is because anyone with a little bit of culture knows that it is only propaganda you're drinking and spitting.
- rhaway84773 4y agoIndia is not even a hundred year old democracy. It’s way too early to speak about its robustness as a democracy. Especially considering India has already had a non-Democratic period during emergency, which the previous leadership of the BJP understood the dangers of, since many of them were arrested then, but the current leadership seems keen on basically establishing as the norm. Unfortunately the hubris and over-confidence you’re displaying is in itself a huge factor in a country losing its democratic nature.
- mikymoothrowa 4y agothen imagine what the collective hubris and arrogance displayed by the people in this sub-thread would imply about their respective countries’ democratic nature.
- sockaddr 4y agoThis is probably the most ridiculous statement I've read all week. It's only Wednesday, but still.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago[flagged]
- InTheArena 4y agoyes.
- MisterBastahrd 4y agoYou should really try reading entire articles when you think you're posting gotchas.
- zackees 4y ago[dead]
- JamesBarney 4y agoA more nuanced and informative view of this incident basically shows it was bureaucracy gone awry due to funding cuts and abuse. Not a top-down witch hunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
- Pegasus930 4y ago[flagged]
- poxwole 4y agoYou do know OpIndia is Hindutva Propaganda Magazine
- anaganisk 4y agoAnyone who share OPIndia links, we can safely assume, is a "Bakth", Bakth is equivalent for MAGAhat. Or they're in denial and think this kind of oppressive tactics are something to be proud of and come up with how its actually good for the nation. BJP has been nothing opressive, jailing people on sedition charges. Banning content that speaks against them. Calling anyone who questions them an Anti-National. Man, I dont care if Obama did it or Queen of England did it, but why the heck do you want to think its okay because they did it.
- moremetadata 4y ago[flagged]
- MPlus88 4y ago[flagged]
- oa335 4y ago“The Hindus are bullies” is too broad of a generalization.
- simonh 4y agoFair enough, they knew that the minorities would be bullied by Hindus.
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoSorry but that's still an extremely simplistic take, if not to say ignorant. The poor bullied minorities™ went on to genocide Bangladeshis in East Pakistan for wanting independence and raped hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi women, only a few years after Pakistan itself had seceded. I know many Westerners love a good minority story but Islamists aren't that.
- oa335 4y agoLol now you are doing the same type of generalization but for the other side, sarcastically labeling Muslims in Pakistan as “poor bullies minorities” and “Islamists”. The point isn’t that one side is inherently better the other, the point is that people feared minorities wouldn’t fare well in a United India due to longstanding communal issues. Bangladesh war for independence is just supporting that point, as is RSS/Hindutva, etc.
- chimeracoder 4y ago> The point isn’t that one side is inherently better the other, the point is that people feared minorities wouldn’t fare well in a United India due to longstanding communal issues. Bangladesh war for independence is just supporting that point, as is RSS/Hindutva, etc. This is nonsensical. The Liberation War is absolutely not an example of how "minorities won't fare well". For starters, the group targeted by the genocide was not an ethnic minority: they constituted the majority of the population of Pakistan! If anything, the Liberation War is a story of people coming together across ethnic and religious divides in order to stop a genocide - literally the antithesis of "communal divides".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]