Posted on: 19-02-11 00:28:44
“People get the government they deserve.”
Do you really mean that people of India deserves Congress? This is a popular fallacy which is repeated time and again. Congress has less than 30% of the votes including that of its allies. It is so obvious that it does not deserve to rule. However, the whole concept of democracy has been distorted in India. I have many times heated debate when I say that there is no democracy in India. Democracy has to have a Constitution certain parts of which can not be altered. India does not have that as a servile judiciary has distorted its basic tenets. For example, equality. We know that in India certain people are more equal than others and now people of certain states like Tamilnadu are more equal than others. Democracy has to have independent judiciary. In India, Supreme Court judges are corrupt and their only interest is about the assignment that they would get after retirement. It has to have independent Press. Nira Radia tapes have exposed the ugly truth that most so called frontline journalist are engaged in political prostitution.
I believe that the kind of leadership that India got at the time of independence was very unfortunate as it is the leadership that sets the direction. India was singularly unlucky that we got womanizer Nehru and Sardar Patel died very young. India would have been very different under Sardar Patel who was the one of the brightest man and a true statesman.
Further, unlike USA where the president vacates the office after 8 years, India had the misfortune of Indira ruling for many years and she was very wile and corrupt politician who killed the nascent democracy.
Even a country like Sri Lanka could sort out its internal problem even though it took them a few decades caused by India's meddling. They have ensured the rule of the majority i.e., right minded, right thinking and law abiding citizens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is something called "G mein dum"....which India/Indians don't have. That is because India/Indians have always be ruled by others... so the people have developed what is called the slave mentality which they cannot come out of....
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightmare
“People get the government they deserve.”
Do you really mean that people of India deserves Congress? This is a popular fallacy which is repeated time and again. Congress has less than 30% of the votes including that of its allies. It is so obvious that it does not deserve to rule. However, the whole concept of democracy has been distorted in India. I have many times heated debate when I say that there is no democracy in India. Democracy has to have a Constitution certain parts of which can not be altered. India does not have that as a servile judiciary has distorted its basic tenets. For example, equality. We know that in India certain people are more equal than others and now people of certain states like Tamilnadu are more equal than others. Democracy has to have independent judiciary. In India, Supreme Court judges are corrupt and their only interest is about the assignment that they would get after retirement. It has to have independent Press. Nira Radia tapes have exposed the ugly truth that most so called frontline journalist are engaged in political prostitution.
I believe that the kind of leadership that India got at the time of independence was very unfortunate as it is the leadership that sets the direction. India was singularly unlucky that we got womanizer Nehru and Sardar Patel died very young. India would have been very different under Sardar Patel who was the one of the brightest man and a true statesman.
Further, unlike USA where the president vacates the office after 8 years, India had the misfortune of Indira ruling for many years and she was very wile and corrupt politician who killed the nascent democracy.
Absolutely. The same way Canadians deserve Conservatives even though they represent about 30 % of Canadians.
Further, look at the most current example, Egypt and Tunisia, exemplifying how much power does citizens have. When someone has the power but does not exercise it then who is to be blamed? When people of egypt and tunisia got together and rose against the regime it was matter of days the strong rule of 30 - 40 years of rule was dismantled. The same way "Indians" opposed britishers and won freedom, only that it took us 200 years. (I think diversification was the cause)
Freedom is not FREE. Freedom from corruption is also not free. Freedom of all sorts is under constant attack and needs consistent fight. To sustain such a fight you need citizens ready to voice their concerns. If they don't, they loose the right of freedom. Look around you, G20 fiasco in Toronto and wikileaks are good examples of how freedom is undermined everyday.
I am not saying all is doom & gloom for India. There are lot of brave men and women in India putting up fight for injustice. But then it won't result in a major shift unless majority of the people are on the same page. Until majority of citizen understands that Government is for their service and not other way around they deserve to be ruled by goons.
Recently, I was in India and was complaining about excessive inflation and so on (all the things most of us complain about). One of my cousins (early teens) answered if firm voice "What do you expect from the government? Government can't do everything. It can provide roads, schools and control inflation at the same time". That stopped me to argue further. Unless the pressure is from people why does a ruling party have to cater to things which matter?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manjeet Singh
Quote:
Originally posted by icecube
There is something called "G mein dum"....which India/Indians don't have. That is because India/Indians have always be ruled by others... so the people have developed what is called the slave mentality which they cannot come out of....
"G mein dum"? There is a lot of it. You should test it out by outraging any of the religious group, regional group and so on? (This is true now a days with Hindus as well and rightly so, thanks to the global fundamentalists.)
With so many cultures, languages, customs barriers its just natural to get your point across with effort and set aside all these differences. As it did when Britishers ruled us. The battleground is the same just that the enemy is different. With the improvement in communications and information revolution, I don't think it will take 200 years this time around.
India is a large country with diverse cultures. Most people are still worried about food on table. Most people still sell their votes for daily needs. I am very hopeful that the day is not far (not likely in my lifetime) when a common man thinks in his/her heart that government is chosen by them and is for them. And that my friend will show how much "G mein dum" 1 billion people have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manjeet Singh
see this Excerpt
Why India is a Weak Power - b/c the top job is reserved for a family??
Why no outrage against Gandhi (Feroze Gandy aka Feroze Khan) family
Dictators' Sons, From Egypt to Libya, Are Doomed
Hosni Mubarak is falling from power in Egypt partly because he refused to heed one of history’s hidden lessons: Dictators shouldn’t have sons.
Most do. That often hastens their downfall or that of their nations.
Egyptians might have been willing to accept their lot for a while longer if the ailing Mubarak had not made it clear he intended his son, Gamal, to succeed him in power. Of all his arrogant acts, none insulted his people more than his insistence that of the 80 million Egyptians, Gamal Mubarak was best qualified to lead the country. The plan was for him to rise to power not by popular vote, but only because his father wished it that way.
Barely a week after protests exploded in Egypt, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen publicly promised that he would stop maneuvering to place his son, Ahmed, in the presidency after he departs. At the same time, King Abdullah of Jordan, who succeeded his father on the throne, sacked his government in an effort to shore up his regime. His monarchy seems secure for the moment, like that of his namesake in Saudi Arabia, but the idea that sons have the right to succeed their fathers in positions of near absolute power has ever fewer supporters.
A few sons of dictators have managed to hold on to the family business, notably Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Most, however, fail abjectly. Africa is especially rich with examples. The sons of Idi Amin, Daniel Arap Moi, and Jomo Kenyatta could not manage the power their fathers tried to give them. Closer to home, Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier ascended to the Haitian presidency after his father’s death but could not keep it; his effort to return to power is severely handicapped by people’s memories not only of his corruption and brutality, but that of his father.
In some countries, even the prospect of dynastic succession is now enough to ignite popular outrage. This might give pause to dictators like Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, two of whose sons are said to be leading candidates to succeed him after he is gone. Even if they do not manage to take and hold power, they are examples of the dissolute lives that sons of dictators often lead.
One of Gaddafi’s sons, Saif, was investigated for arms smuggling in Germany. Another, Hannibal, set off a diplomatic row with Switzerland when he was arrested in Geneva on charges of abusing his housekeeper. His résumé also includes charges of attacking policemen in Italy, driving his Porsche against traffic and at high speed on the Champs-Élysées while intoxicated, and causing police to be summoned to Claridges Hotel in London when his wife was heard screaming in their room (she later said a fall had caused her cuts and bruises).
Quote:
Originally posted by sguk
see this Excerpt
Why India is a Weak Power - b/c the top job is reserved for a family??
Why no outrage against Gandhi (Feroze Gandy aka Feroze Khan) family
This family you are talking about has shown more " G mein dum" then any other leader in India.
Perhaps you need a quick lesson on Indian history. In 1971 at the height of cold war - inspite of American presidents warning, Indira Gandhi went ahead and broke Pakistan. She showed the same "G mein dum" when in 1984 she was able to get control of Siachin, which was a stategic victory.
Compare that with the impotence show by out leadership during the Kargil crisis or after the parliament attack. In the first instance it had to rely on American support to have Pakistan vacate the heights. Then again after the parliament attack they mobilized the army and had them battle ready for six months. In the end the leadership buckled under pressure from America and had to withdraw without getting anything in return.
In the recent case of mumbai attack, again the leadership of the country showed maturity and did not do any sabre rattling but instead got involved in serious diplomatic initative. That is the reason today every country from US to Uk to Germany to France are calling on Pakistan to act against the militants inside its territory.
This post was started on comparing between India's and Pakistan's action. To a person who thinks negatively about India, it would seem that India was not strict. But again the facts are there in the open now. Rahat commited an economic offence and he had to pay the fine before he was allowed to leave the country. Pakistan could not say a word ....... On the other hand the way Pakistan has handled the Raymond Davis affair, it has done nothing but earned bad rep for itself. A number of people in Pakistan are begginning to relize this. But then that is a different story ........
