nirm - That’s obvious. If you’re an outsider to a society, your opinions are really not being solicited unless you’re bearing compliments. Especially a nation which has been on the receiving end for far longer than you’ve been alive. And this is not really limited to India either if you want to go down that route. Ever wonder why Russians get defensive if you criticize them on democracy?
Palantir Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nirm - That’s obvious. If you’re an outsider to a > society, your opinions are really not being > solicited unless you’re bearing compliments. > Especially a nation which has been on the > receiving end for far longer than you’ve been > alive. > > And this is not really limited to India either if > you want to go down that route. Ever wonder why > Russians get defensive if you criticize them on > democracy? Exactly what I said, just give me a defensive response rather than acknowledge the problem. Sure if I say something negative, nobody will welcome it with a parade. The point I am trying to make is if something is negative then it is negative, and it should be okay to acknowledge it and to talk about it. Instead all I will ever get is a defensive response, never an acknowledgement, and that is the problem. And sure it may be a problem in some other countries as well, but that doesn’t make it okay.
Ok. Go ahead and keep lecturing Indians from your high horse then.
nirm41 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Palantir Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nirm - That’s obvious. If you’re an outsider to > a > > society, your opinions are really not being > > solicited unless you’re bearing compliments. > > Especially a nation which has been on the > > receiving end for far longer than you’ve been > > alive. > > > > And this is not really limited to India either > if > > you want to go down that route. Ever wonder why > > Russians get defensive if you criticize them on > > democracy? > > > Exactly what I said, just give me a defensive > response rather than acknowledge the problem. > > Sure if I say something negative, nobody will > welcome it with a parade. The point I am trying to > make is if something is negative then it is > negative, and it should be okay to acknowledge it > and to talk about it. Instead all I will ever get > is a defensive response, never an acknowledgement, > and that is the problem. > > And sure it may be a problem in some other > countries as well, but that doesn’t make it okay. As if Fox News is any better.
dude obviously anything negative in India is a result of Pakistani ISI conspiracy… duh!
nirm41 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with ChickenTikka on this. You cannot say > anything even mildly negative that has anything to > do with anything relating to India, without people > getting all defensive about it. And I think it has > a lot to do with the people of India being fed > only pro-India propaganda for at least 2 > generations now. > > The only time negative comments about India are > acceptable, is if they are jokingly made, and by > an Indian person. It’s like black people and a > certain word that starts with N. If you’re part of > the group, you can joke about it, otherwise your > comment is just plain wrong, and you don’t know > anything about India. And you’ll here defensive > statements very soon. You racist bigot!
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ChickenTikka Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That’s your perception because The economist > told > > you to think that. > > > > India does not have freedom of the press > anymore > > than Russia. You will not see anything > negative > > printined in Indian newspapers about the ruling > > politicians. > > > > It is rules by a political dynasty that is > hardly > > much different than Putin, except it has been > > around a hell of a lot longer. > > > Thats not true…I read news from different > countries and see a lot of trash talk about the > Gandhi dynasty in Indian news media. The problem > is there are a lot of ignorant illiterates in > India who do not know anything better than voting > for a Gandhi. Plus you have a lot of muslims in > India. They will never talk about how the son in law of the Gandhi family became an overnight billionaire with significant stakes in biggest real estate, hospitality and telecom companies here. They will never discuss why the most powerful women here, Ms Sonia Gandhi, hasn’t yet surrendered her Italian passport to receive Indian citizenship. They will never talk about why the supreme court or high courts refuse to pick up any case against her which alleges her in corruption. They will never talk about the fake degree of her son. These things besmirch the good name. I never see such things on TV here. Btw, current Gandhis and the original don’t have anything common, not even the bloodline. According to a very senior bureaucrat I know who works with central government, no one gives a damn about the name. Gandhis are there because of their wealth and network with businesses and the rich ethnic groups, including the elite Parsi and other economically very powerful ethnic groups which are apparently in minority. Moreover, Gandhis do not indulge much in policy-making or anything, it’s the ministers (legislators) and civil servants (executives) who run the show. Having a Gandhi on top is helpful because it avoids any power clash between members for the race to the top, a Gandhi is de-facto head of Congress because that’s what the policy of party is, it is to simplify things. And Gandhis have a reputation of not messing up in affairs of Legislators and executives, so the full freedom of operation if given to these two to make money and retain power. Ministers like Gandhis because Gandhis do not ask them questions. Executives (civil servants), who essentially have all the power of execution and broker the elections, want a Gandhi headed govt, because Gandhis do not ask question to them too. It’s raining time for executives (civil servants) as well as ministers when a Gandhi headed govt is in power. In return, Gandhis get the ultimate power and the kickbacks. That’s why a Gandhi headed govt remains in power. Though any other govt wins by far in terms of development when compared to Gandhi headed govt, but it’s really not possible to win elections in India without taking the power brokers (civil servants, rich and powerful ethnic groups, media) on your side, really it doesn’t matter what people think, a machine without grease is destined to fail, though media’s work as a broker is to keep quiet. Corruption is not the problem of India, corruption is the system in India. White collar corruption is prevalent and widespread in India. PS: I’ve used the term “Gandhis” here to represent current name in power, the same family was “Nehrus” in earlier days, and may very well go by the name “Vadras” in future. There’s nothing in the name, all three are synonyms here.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nirm41 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Palantir Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > nirm - That’s obvious. If you’re an outsider > to > > a > > > society, your opinions are really not being > > > solicited unless you’re bearing compliments. > > > Especially a nation which has been on the > > > receiving end for far longer than you’ve been > > > alive. > > > > > > And this is not really limited to India > either > > if > > > you want to go down that route. Ever wonder > why > > > Russians get defensive if you criticize them > on > > > democracy? > > > > > > Exactly what I said, just give me a defensive > > response rather than acknowledge the problem. > > > > Sure if I say something negative, nobody will > > welcome it with a parade. The point I am trying > to > > make is if something is negative then it is > > negative, and it should be okay to acknowledge > it > > and to talk about it. Instead all I will ever > get > > is a defensive response, never an > acknowledgement, > > and that is the problem. > > > > And sure it may be a problem in some other > > countries as well, but that doesn’t make it > okay. > > > As if Fox News is any better. Not sure what Fox has to do with any of this, but you’re right, and that’s why I don’t watch it any more than I have to.
Wait. SG still doesn’t have an Indian passport? I did not know that.
Politics drives India. The Indian posters here or the commentators on television are not reflection of majority of Indians. In my country, 2/3rd of the population lives in villages and is dependent on the agriculture. They are hardly visible to me though. They vote and decide who will rule this country. Politicians communicate, rightly so, with them and I might crib all my age how India is not improving, I am doing almost nothing to change it.
Palantir Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wait. SG still doesn’t have an Indian passport? I > did not know that. This is apparently the weirdest fact. She hasn’t renounced her Italian citizenship but she has still managed to find Indian citizenship, she has both the passports. Leaving aside the invalid status of her passport, even if she has made her way to become a naturalized citizen, Indian constitution doesn’t say that naturalized citizens can hold a public office, but she is a Member of Parliament. She wrote “not applicable” in response to the renouncement of Italian citizenship. Ideally, the govt. office should throw such application in trash, but she managed to get the citizenship when her mother in law (the then prime minister) was in dictator mode. Why this is so, is beyond my understanding, apparently there are number of cases lined up in Supreme court which are requesting lawmakers to probe it, because it’ll illegal according to Italian constitution as well, but she continues to be a Citizen of Italy as well as India. Not surprisingly, none of these cases are being picked up for investigation, in-spite of the graveness of offence. Her Indian citizenship is basically invalid and requires fraud probe, and that’s the same reason she was blocked from becoming a Prime Minister, otherwise every Gandhi of Gandhi family (Nehru dynasty) has been a Prime Minister. If some other party takes office in next election, her citizenship is first to get axed. She has number of other frauds, like earlier she had declared that she has Masters in English from Cambridge, but when people probed Cambridge, Cambridge denied existence of any such student. In further independent probes it was found that she hasn’t been to even high school. Later she defended it by saying it was blunder in her application. How can you make such a big blunder in your declaration to hold public office? aren’t you liable of penalty for lying to such a big extent? It doesn’t just end there, her father was a Nazi fascist, convicted in war crimes and served jail time. Apparently there are number of cases asking for a probe into her connection with the KGB itself because of her father’s later association with KGB. Her complete story is one complex web of controversies and conspiracies. She was a waitress in London, who came from a fascist family in small Italian town and didn’t even attend high school, but went on to become the most powerful person in India - how that happened and why she’s not yet renouncing Italian citizenship - is beyond anyone’s explanation.
Palantir Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nirm - That’s obvious. If you’re an outsider to a > society, your opinions are really not being > solicited unless you’re bearing compliments. > Especially a nation which has been on the > receiving end for far longer than you’ve been > alive. > > And this is not really limited to India either if > you want to go down that route. Ever wonder why > Russians get defensive if you criticize them on > democracy? This is true but pathetic, Palantir, and India does it only because the people in power do not want to accept any criticism or potentially relinquish any of their power/monitory gain In the name of improvement. The most important book ever written about the American government was written by an outsider, a French guy who came to study the prison systems in the 1830s and ended up writing Democracy in America instead. India and Indians will benefit from accepting valid criticism from wherever and doing something about it aside from denying the existence of the problem and claiming to be the victim.
Yups, you really can’t speak anything that might hurt fragile egos of politicians here. Recently, couple of well known activists and actors called the ruling party a party of thieves, and they were slapped with charges of “Breach of Privilege” and everyone of them was asked to furnish an apology or face legal action… now what the hell is that seriously, they have laws to avoid criticisms. I wish Indian accept a culture of debates and discussion, right now the only culture is to create larger than life figures and follow them blindly.
Oh. Btw, surprised no one has touched on this. One of the reasons (I suspect the main reason) the western media tends not to criticize the current ruling party in India is because, well most foreign nations are pretty happy with the Gandhi/Nehru/Congress faction ruling India. It’s not about lack of freedom of speech. What the media is really afraid of is if the “opposition” takes power.
That’s a good point; it makes a lot of sense, Palantir. India sits right in the middle of some of the worst governments (note: I did not say people) in the world: myanmar, Pakistan, China. When we criticize a government it does not need to be taken as a criticism of the people. India’s government does deserve some respect for holding together such a diverse country where people can barely communicate state to state. Still, the politicians and the bureaucrats steal, cheat, and corrupt what could be a much better nation and view this as their god-given ancestral right.
CT - No one really disagrees with your comments on India’s pols doing what they do. Do you really think Indians are happy with the way things run? Criticizing them is probably India’s favorite pastime after cricket. Point is - what exactly are you (not specifically you, but the broader western media) adding that people already don’t know? Btw, in my earlier comment, by the opposition, I actually meant the BJP. But not going to go there.
I didn’t know about all that Ghandi dirt. I thought BBD/CT’s posts were all interesting and informative. I am sorry if they offended your fragile ego.
Palantir Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CT - No one really disagrees with your comments on > India’s pols doing what they do. Do you really > think Indians are happy with the way things run? > Criticizing them is probably India’s favorite > pastime after cricket. Point is - what exactly are > you (not specifically you, but the broader western > media) adding that people already don’t know? > > > > > Btw, in my earlier comment, by the opposition, I > actually meant the BJP. But not going to go there. South Asians love to gossip, ask raj rajararatnaramamamalamadingdong from Galleon. But very few will go on record against these politicians and if they do they are absolutely ripped apart by the system. The western media is no more courageous. All BBC world seems to want to do is kiss Monomohar Singhs butt and brag about “the Boom” incessantly. Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that there are literally millions dying of simple things like diorrheah in India each year. The government has the money but not the will to make a difference. if this happened in Russia bbcworld would blame Putin. But Indian politicians get a pass in both I dia and abroad in the media. I know the guy who writes for the economist here in Mumbai. I asked him and the chick from BBc world at a party to do a piece on the types of luxury cars driven by India’s politicians and bureaucrats who usually make salaries less than 500$/ month. These western journos won’t touch stories like this because they will be booted straight out of India. My favorite is dikshit up in UP. Meanwhile, they will report on another story of “the boom” and show prime minister chin pubes as if he invented the Invisible Hand himself.
As I pointed out, BBC loves the ruling party because they are much friendlier than the opposition. Do you feel the West/other nations would prefer dealing with MMS/SG or would they prefer Modi/Advani/Jaitley in power? Remind me the last time foreign news outlets said anything nice about LKA.
I get your point, but BBC world and CNN do criticize leaders they like, but never the Indian ones. Look at all the potshots theyve taken at Obama lately over the solyndra solar scandal. Something like that happens in India almost everyday. None of it gets reported.