3 ms·

India is quite big. Any Indians around here want to comment on whether these shenanigans are common there? I have the impression they're not but maybe I'm wrong

India is quite big. Any Indians around here want to comment on whether these shenanigans are common there? I have the impression they're not but maybe I'm wrong. Talking about India, Lex Fridman interviewed Modi [1] recently, worth a listen or read. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43405546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43405546

eggsome 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rupee_note https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rupee_note
addicted 2y ago
India has its own set of political issues, but as far as I can tell nothing this egregious. Lets consider the fact that after 10 years of Modi and the BJP having overwhelming majorities in Parliament, with Modi’s personally popularity close to all time highs, over a period where many external watchdogs essentially claimed democracy was dead in India, in an election where the BJP was expected to completely whitewash the opposition, not only did the BJP do worse than the previous election, they lost their standalone majority in parliament and had to form a government in coalition with other parties, and were a handful of seat losses away from losing to the opposition coalition. In general the parliamentary system with a figurehead president as well as India’s extremely culturally diverse nature and weak federal government system, and strong judicial system, seems to have kept Indian democracy almost unreasonably effective relative to India’s poverty, education, and development levels.
harshreality 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar
- manishsharan 2y ago
  Not sure what your point is. Nijjar was a terrorist linked to assassinations in Punjab and committed to destruction of India. A nation , democracy included, has a right to protect itself.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    A nation has a right to protect itself. It does not have a right to use extrajudicial assassins in a foreign country to kill someone who does not actively pose a threat. In a democracy you have a right to a trial, to see the evidence against you, etc. you don’t just kill people. By the same logic, India would be fine if Canada sent covert assassins to India to go after the assassins and the people that ordered it? Should Canada send assassins into India to go after the people that have been illegally influencing Canadian elections? After all, they pose a threat to the country, and a country has a right to defend itself… There is a process for extradition, and international prosecution. India chose to not pursue that process, and assassinate a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.
    - manishsharan 2y ago
      That's a interesting point considering that Nijjar had been denied asylum more than once and caught lying on his application. Giving him asylum was a result of weird ghetto vote bank politics of Brampton and Surrey. It's not that Canada has never sent assassins to foreign nations. Canada participated in Afghanistan war and people including children, in Pakistan were killed by NATO airstrikes. Where was the due process for those kids playing soccer who were killed? I do not condone any killing by anyone. But people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
      - dghlsakjg 2y ago
        > Canada participated in Afghanistan war and people including children, in Pakistan were killed by NATO airstrikes. That's horrible. It should not happen. I was very clear that extrajudicial killings of civilians are wrong. > I do not condone any killing by anyone. But people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Agreed. If NATO did something that you find comparable and you condemn it, then by your own standards, what India did is also a violation and never should have been done. What India did is arguably even worse, since the killing of kids in a war zone at least had no intent or malice, just incompetence. Whereas the killing in Canada was a purposeful and intentional violent and public assassination, performed by hired civilians outside of internationally agreed military command and justice structures, it should be seen as an even more egregious violation of international standards.
- ivell 2y ago
  If your point was the Indian government was involved, there is not evidence to it. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/no-hard-proof-canadas-trudeau-admits-he-had-no-evidence-against-india-regarding-nijjars-killing/articleshow/114291337.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/no-hard-proof-canadas...
hattimaTim 2y ago
[dead]

eggsome 2y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rupee_note https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rupee_note

addicted 2y ago

India has its own set of political issues, but as far as I can tell nothing this egregious. Lets consider the fact that after 10 years of Modi and the BJP having overwhelming majorities in Parliament, with Modi’s personally popularity close to all time highs, over a period where many external watchdogs essentially claimed democracy was dead in India, in an election where the BJP was expected to completely whitewash the opposition, not only did the BJP do worse than the previous election, they lost their standalone majority in parliament and had to form a government in coalition with other parties, and were a handful of seat losses away from losing to the opposition coalition. In general the parliamentary system with a figurehead president as well as India’s extremely culturally diverse nature and weak federal government system, and strong judicial system, seems to have kept Indian democracy almost unreasonably effective relative to India’s poverty, education, and development levels.

harshreality 2y ago

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

manishsharan 2y ago
Not sure what your point is. Nijjar was a terrorist linked to assassinations in Punjab and committed to destruction of India. A nation , democracy included, has a right to protect itself.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  A nation has a right to protect itself. It does not have a right to use extrajudicial assassins in a foreign country to kill someone who does not actively pose a threat. In a democracy you have a right to a trial, to see the evidence against you, etc. you don’t just kill people. By the same logic, India would be fine if Canada sent covert assassins to India to go after the assassins and the people that ordered it? Should Canada send assassins into India to go after the people that have been illegally influencing Canadian elections? After all, they pose a threat to the country, and a country has a right to defend itself… There is a process for extradition, and international prosecution. India chose to not pursue that process, and assassinate a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.
  - manishsharan 2y ago
    That's a interesting point considering that Nijjar had been denied asylum more than once and caught lying on his application. Giving him asylum was a result of weird ghetto vote bank politics of Brampton and Surrey. It's not that Canada has never sent assassins to foreign nations. Canada participated in Afghanistan war and people including children, in Pakistan were killed by NATO airstrikes. Where was the due process for those kids playing soccer who were killed? I do not condone any killing by anyone. But people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      > Canada participated in Afghanistan war and people including children, in Pakistan were killed by NATO airstrikes. That's horrible. It should not happen. I was very clear that extrajudicial killings of civilians are wrong. > I do not condone any killing by anyone. But people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Agreed. If NATO did something that you find comparable and you condemn it, then by your own standards, what India did is also a violation and never should have been done. What India did is arguably even worse, since the killing of kids in a war zone at least had no intent or malice, just incompetence. Whereas the killing in Canada was a purposeful and intentional violent and public assassination, performed by hired civilians outside of internationally agreed military command and justice structures, it should be seen as an even more egregious violation of international standards.
ivell 2y ago
If your point was the Indian government was involved, there is not evidence to it. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/no-hard-proof-canadas-trudeau-admits-he-had-no-evidence-against-india-regarding-nijjars-killing/articleshow/114291337.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/no-hard-proof-canadas...

hattimaTim 2y ago

[dead]