Delhi gang rape and item number culture

Water Cooler
#181

Not strictly true, Black Label. I mispoke, I didn’t personally buy land in my name. The company that I am a director of did. It is an Indian entity with foreign ownership and there’s nothing secretive about it. I’ve intimated and received permission from tasildar, the collector, the MH government, FIPB and the RBI. Nobody has any qualms with it, yet.

Furthermore foreigners are allowed to purchase land to engage in certain types of development. It’s complicated. Very complicated. And yep, they might just change the rules again before I’m through. Who the Hell knows?

But actually, these difficulties are the reason I have a job. Thank you, India.

#182

I knew that you will find a way out of it.

#183

One of the great things about India is that there is almost always a way out, especially if you have some paisee.

…Unless, you do something so bad that it gets on CNN and embarrasses India’s political elite. Then you are f’ed.

Those Delhi Bus rapists did exactly that. These kind of things have been going on forever, but for some reason these guys got themselves on the news. Big trouble.

The same thing happened with that blasphemy bs charge in Pakistan. Mustlims and Christians alike are victims of those laws all the time in Pakistan. The politicians don’t do anything about it, as they like using blasphemy laws as a tool when it suits them.

… And then some Iman frames a mentally retarded christian girl by ripping up a quaaran and embarrasses the Hell out of Pakistan internationally (which is hard to do I’ll add).

Big mistake for that guy!

#184

why you assuming?.known historians have never been able to come to a definite conclusion.

the fact remains that the wealth/trade was on a scale enough to attract the whole world and columbus to set of in search of this land.when the british left we were a third world country,crippled by partition,poverty and famine.

that number was not for india but for a small kingdom called travancore which is now part of kerela

#185

There is no question about that, most historians pretty cleanly agree that British rule intentionally destroyed and debilitated industries, economic structures, knowledge systems, among other things in India, extracting tons of wealth and impoverished the nation leaving it an third world, bloody mess ripped apart by brutal riots. Foolishly Congress rule continued this stupidity that India is still working itself out of.

But all this is off topic…

#186

It is always interesting to me that whenever a former British colony does badly (Pakistan, India, Zimbabwe), they blame the british, but when things go well they pat themselves on the back (singapore, hong kong, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ). There were a lot of British colonies and many of them have done very well for themselves and plenty of them have reverted back to barbaric stoneage tendencies. Many were arguably better off under colonial rule. So can we really all blame the Brits for all our miseries? Or do we need to look inward? I think we need to look in the mirror.

isildurrr is right that there was never unity in India, except briefly under Asoka, until the Raj era. So while there were pockets of brightness on occasion in the country here and there the modern Indian nation is achieved only through British and other colonial rule. While it wasn’t always pretty, that might have been a miracle in a way.

Simply put, it is only through having superior force, as the British had, that a nation as large as India and diverse could ever have hoped to be united or created without mass mass genocide. (The english did do a little themselves)

For this to happen locally would have required huge deaths. This is basically what Ashoka did. His youth was spent banging his harem and killing people. He converted to buddhism and mellowed out a bit after killing a few hundred thousand people, which for ancient days, is a huge number. I mean, the guy was a total jerk, a total blood thirsty tyrant. The kind of guy we’d compare to Hitler, if he were alive today. A genocidal maniac, or in Pre 20th century thinking, a great warlord.

Travancore was another upstart that never really got going. It became big through conquest and became a British ally because it needed support in its wars with Mysore. To blame the Brits for its failure is a bit unfair; the Brits are probably the reason it survived as long as it did as they were pretty big allies. Without the English they probably would have been destroyed or spent God knows how long fighting wars and committing genocide against other Indian tribes. India would look like Syria does today, tribes killing tribes along ethnic/religious boundaries endlesly, unless a powerful enough dictator had emerged and wiped out everyone.

So hate the Brits all you want, but I think they (and granted many enlightened Indians like Ghandi) saved India from that fate. India isn’t exactly pretty now, but it’s a Hell of a lot better than any other government in the region. I believe India is probably better off than if it had been left to fight one another as it had been doing since our the last great Indian Hitler, Ashoka unified the country briefly 2000 years ago.

I am from a country that used to be an English colony, the USA. We did really well after the English left and largely in part due to the fact that we took the English system and improved on it. I’d feel pretty damn pathetic if I had to blame the English for my country being a dump a whole lifetime after the English left.

This leads me to think that really, your country India is far more influenced by its own people than a fleeting association with the English. Afterall, the Raj lasted only less than 100 years. Hindu marriages last seven lifetimes. So the Raj wasn’t even a proper Hindu marriage between Hindustan and the English. It was like a summer romance. Hardly any time at all in the grand scheme of India’s 5000 year history.

#187

There are 2nd and 3rd generation Indo-Canadian families that STILL treat their women like 2nd class citizens, I don’t think moving to the city and gaining some wealth will wash all of that misogynistic/tribalistic elements of a culture away.

#188

Nah, I think its mostly religious, one of the central beliefs within the Vedic tradition is not to harm other beings. This is the rationalisation for vegetarianism for alot of hindus/buddhists/hippies

#189

I wouldn’t be so sure about the British being a necessity for Indian unification. The Indo-Gangetic plain has often been united in its history, whether it be the Nanda Dynasty, Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, Pala Empire, Harsha, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, Maratha confederacy, or later the British. There is a reason (as you know) large stretches of this land share a culture and language.

South India (Cauvery and Narmada) on the other hand has also often been united whether it be the Pandyas, Cholas, Chalukya, and Vijaynagara among others.

Now uniting south and north India has been rare, but has been done under the Mauryans, Marathas, and Mughals, to a lesser extent the Guptas. Furthermore, the notion of India as a nation goes back pretty far into the Puranas. There is no rule that India would not be united if not for the British. It is also possible that India could be *bigger* than it is now. :slight_smile:

As for the British, you can say all you want on the “blame yourself for your problems”, but there is no denying the massive economic detrimental impact of British rule (haven’t even gotten to the mental colonization part). Furthermore, nobody is suggesting that India’s problems are solely due to the British, nor has anybody on this thread ever implied that. Since 1947 India has been independent and had plenty of opportunity to be far more developed than it is, noone but India is responsible for that, and I don’t think anyone has suggested otherwise.

#190

As an aside, I *believe* pigs are taboo because in ancient times, they used to be used to eat human waste from primitive toilets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_toilet

But I could be wrong.

#191

what am i reading?some of it was correct but some of it was grossly inaccurate and you twisted some facts to suit you.

india’s time under the british/european influence was for the better part of 350 years not 100.even after '47 goa remained a portugese colony till the mid '60’s before it was taken back forcefully.

I don’t share your view that we would have been like syria.that’s stretching it.after asoka left his legacy was that most of the land became hindu.we were united by a common religion.look,this place was exactly like europe before the europeans came,it was how they managed the ‘divide and rule’ so effectively.it took world war 2 before europe could finally get along.we had achieved enlightenment and fought all our wars between each other before they came.i have no doubt if they hadn’t come we would have had our own version of the european union 3 centuries ago.

it is impossible to compare india,pakistan,zimbabwe to us,australia,new zealand,singapore and HK.

  1. If our population was as small as singapore,NZ,HK we would have already entered the first world.

  2. the mindset with which the british approached the colnies doing well and india,pakistan,zimbabwe etc was vastly different.USA,aus was seen as barren land where the anglos could settle after killing the locals.when they arrived in india,pakistan etc they realized it would be impossible and even the attempted propogation of christianity proved futile.the vast population of locals meant there was no room for anglos to come en masse like america and australia.the large number of anglos in america/australia meant they had vested interests to build the nation.

the few number of anglos in other countries meant they wanted to exploit it.make no mistake we funded the british empire,most of ww 2 blood spilled was indian and we were the nation the british were loathe to let go.there’s a reason churchill fought so hard for this place.im sure he’s a hero in the western world but he was a deluded cunt when it came to india.

travancore was just an example man.i can name a hundred more.historians have proved and wriiten about the fact that india’s history has been littered with wealth and prosperity mostly from indus valley to mauryan empire to cholas to guptas to the muslims with jahangir and shah jahan.the monuments of this wealth is there for everyone to see from taj mahal to udaipur palace.

No point in pointing fingers but there’s no denying that the majority of the mess we’re in can be laid directly at the british door.but yes,it’s time to move on

#192

Castrating will eliminate sex drive altogether and may be they wont commit the same crime again. What if they become so humiliated, frustrated, depressed and become a violent psycopath.

#193

One of my points that you fail to address is why India never had its own renaissance, enlightenment, reformation, and finally the industrial revolution between the 12th and 18th centuries long before the English had any meaningful way of interfering with the bulk of India. I mean really, what happened there? Why’d India get left in the dust? It wasn’t the brits. I doubt it was the Mughals warring even. Hell, Europe had plenty of wars during this period and still managed to progress rapidly.

The Raj didn’t start until 1850, but before that the English weren’t exactly controlling the entire country either as you claim. They were there all right in coastal trading cities pushing their weight around buying stuff. But not in great numbers. Not enough to make a dent. Even at the height of the Raj we are talking 40,000 british troops verses hundreds of millions of Indians.

In my mind a failure to innovate and modernize was why India’s GDP got left in the dust. It remained an aggrarian country long after it was cool to be an aggrarian country. 500 years ago we were all pretty much aggrarian economies. The only people who did any real trading were Indians, Chinese, and the Vikings through Ukraine down to Constantinople. Europe was pretty much in the dark.

How does a country with such an amazing GDP as India had manage to fail to develop better defenses and systems of government to the point that they are no longer competitive and easily taken over by many second rate European countries like the Pourtugese? We’re talking 100 guys with guns taking over millions of people. Why has nearly every innovation in Asia for the past 500 years come from the West? (The last great truly Asian invention was gunpowder)

India was not alone in this failure to industrialize. Another Asian super power that was way beyond europe at the time was China. They had everything they needed to have an industrial revolution hundreds of years before Europe did in the 15th century. They were trading up and down the coast of africa hundreds of years before Columbus was born. Yet, they stopped. They descended into obscurity and didn’t industrialize until the 1950s. There are lots of theories why this didn’t happen. Most of them boil down to culture and religion.

I’ll bet India’s reasons for failing to industrialize and modernize boil down to culture and religion as well and not “The British,” who are a convenient scapegoat. This failure to modernize and industrialize is the reason India’s GDP got left in the dust for two hundred years.

If I had to choose between being born in the cold terrible weather of UK 500 years ago or a nice warm place like Karela 500 years ago, I’d probably pick Karela. Born in either place, I was most likely iliterate and a farmer. My life would be almost identical in every way in either place, except in one I’d have a cold ass winter to contend with. Winter was, and is, a big disadvantage for life, especially in human life. This is why European civilization came way after Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Indian civilization. Warm countries had the advantage for 1000s of years. At some point though, modernization and industrialization changed all that.

Long before the first English traders showed up on India’s doorstep Europe was already beginniing the process of the enlightenment. It created the printing press and the protestant reformation occurred. Life was still mostly aggrarian but these things were happening in key cities throughout Europe. You might argue that similar things were happening in India, and you may be right about that. But why didn’t India quite get there in the end?

We all know the Visigoths sacked Rome. But historians don’t blame the Visigoths for Rome being sacked. They blame it on the collapse of Roman civilization. The English might be the visigoths in India’s history. But they weren’t responsible for the collapse of Indian civilization or it getting left behind in a modern world until very recently.

#194

Are you a Niall Ferguson fanboy, CT?

#195

interesting but im a little confused now.

we exported yoga,vedas and the upanishads.we wrote languages and books on the ways of life.

we had the kamasutra,tax was introduced,laid the foundations for modern medicine along with persia.

we gave birth to hnduism,buddhism,sikkhism and jainism.what is this if not ‘enlightenment’?

for every aristotle we had bhaskara and charaka.

not sure how to respond so just some general points.

Portugal was not a third rate european country at that time.the portugese and spanish empires were dictating the rest of the world.It was not 40,000 british soldiers against indians.the major turning point was a battle in the delta of bengal where a british general was leading other ‘indians’ against a bengali kingdom.like i said we weren’t the same people and the british played us off against each other.we were getting along fine before the brits came along and when they started playing us off against one another too much effort was diverted into armies and wars and the british stepped into the vaccum gap.

they were able to keep control not because they had superior arms(though they had that) but because we were so different they got people from various parts of the land to govern areas that they weren’t from.china did this in the pro-democracy protests of 89 too.we lacked a unifying figure and that’s why gandhi’s appearance changed everything.

the dates you gave for the industrial revolution are not accurate.it all kicked off somehwere around 1750 and gathered pace.the starting blocks were

textiles,steam engines and a few others.

India had a decent sized textile industry which is why when the brits got firm control the first thing they did was de-industrialize it.raw material was taken from here at knock down prices,manufactured in manchester and sold back to indians at inflated prices.it was a completely false market which is why gandhi’s first moves was to introduce the spinning wheel and this led to the decline of manchester.there are stories when he first visited manchester they were ready to lynch him,when he left he was their guy.

by the time the industrial revolution was in full swing we were in firm control of the british and they denied us the chance at that.

the problems were further compounded because of churchill’s stupidity and the fact that the empire disintegrated so rapidly that we were left with india,pakistan,nigeria and zimbabwe.mish-mash of cultures and poverty riddled.the west got rich and then had to deal with multi-culturalism.we had to do it backwards.

I don’t know why we are debating this.books have been written by people far more knowledgable than you or i which confirm that the blame for india’s poverty (if you want to blame someone) can be laid firmly at british doorsteps.

#196

What about the railways, ports, postal service, English education we gave you?

#197

Exactly, so India invented all sorts of shit for thousands of years and then stopped. All those things you mention predate Jesus Christ. China did the same thing. Their last substantial contribution to the world was gunpowder.

The number 1 and 2 civilizations in the world at the time perhaps both just gave up trying for at least 500 years and got left in the dust. And this happened long before the brits showed up.

#198

I dont think its because of British invasion it all happened. Its way before that and all these invasions just contributed to the ruin…

#199

I’d argue that foreign invasions of India took place because of the stagnation and rot that had already started. It appeared to be a rich but conquerable country to the invaders. A bit like the proverbial ‘low hanging fruit’.

The lazy, hedonistic and out-of-touch-with-reality Maharajas and Nawabs were feudal at best and were too quick to collaborate with the British against their neighbouring kingdoms and to facilitate exploitation of their own populace.

Having said that, it is no secret that the colonial powers (such as my own country) left India economically worse off, after siphoning off her wealth to fuel the industrial revolution back home.

#200

There is no way I can differ with you on this mate. Majority of the maharajas just joined hands with British to exploit neighbouring kingdom. Thats why we keep saying that this feeling of “India as a single country” is pretty recent. Historically it was disparate kingdoms in this reqion.

Bottom line is how do we stop these incidents from happening? Stricter punishments!!!