Thoughts on economics and liberty

Indians – the slave “species”

In 1947 there was one Britisher in India for every 1,000 Indians (300 million Indians, 300,000 Britishers). 

A more useless group of people can't be imagined where 1000 of them will point a finger towards ONE person and say: "You are evil since you are oppressing us". All that is needed is to KILL the oppressor. End of oppression.

Unless, of course, we are talking not about humans but about a slave species.

The truth remains that Indians could not organise themselves to defeat the British till the British left largely on their own accord because they had been weakened by two World Wars, and governing India was becoming a drain, not a source of wealth.

For 999 Indians to fight ONE Britisher was just too hard. That systematic organisation is needed to overcome such oppression did not strike the Indians.

I'm not undermining the enormous contributions of the independence fighters, but let it be known and always remembered (when we try to point fingers at the British for what they presumably did to India) that for every 1000 Indians there was just one Britisher

A more damning criticism of a "race", than this, can't exist.

And now that the British have left and gone – long ago – why do we still follow ALL their systems and practices without even reviewing whether they themselves follow such things any longer?

Does the idea of a slave "species" come to mind? 

Mt Everest

Mt Everest had been sitting next to India's borders for 10,000 years, but no Indian ever dared to climb the mountain. Instead, Indians worshipped the mountain: any mountain. Anything difficult was worshipped, not conquered.  

It took the planned organisation of tens of dedicated mountaineers from the West (a) to identify that climbing Mount Everest is a valid challenge, and (b) to organise systematically to meet the challenge.

Many Western lives were lost in the process, the unsung heroes of the great conquest of nature by man. But the West kept studying and attacking the mountain until it was vanquished. Today people climb it without even oxygen masks. Only after the West had opened the road, did Indians follow, claiming to be great heroes, even though they had failed to show any heroism in this regard for 10,000 years.

The poles

Similarly the North Pole and South Pole. It was not Indians, I can assure you, who identified the challenge and determined to overcome it. Today, some Indians work at the magnetic poles, but they are merely following like sheep behind those who had opened the path and demonstrated that this could be done.

Australia and America

In 1999 (or early 2000), Liberty Institute Delhi organised a seminar in which they invited me as a speaker. One of participants was a BJP MLA. Among the ridiculous claims this man made was to criticise the West for having "taken over" the vacant lands of the Americas and Australia and "oppressed" the aborigines and native Indians. In response I asked him: What had prevented India from occupying these lands first? Surely if you don't have the courage to explore new lands and settle them, you can't complain when others do it.

The West lost thousands of ships and millions of lives in its quest to find and populate new continents. Why were Indians sitting on their haunches for 10,000 years? Praying to the Gods without having the GUTS to get out into the deep ocean and fight the elements. 

Each such story shows only one thing: that Indians are probably a slave "species". Not for them the independence of mind and determination of purpose that Vivekananda talked about. Content to be copycats and followers, they are happiest when governance is left to the hands of Westerners.  Indians are the happiest, for instance, in the West, where high quality governance is provided by others and they enjoy the benefits.

When it comes to governing their own nation, though, they are totally unable to organise themselves to overcome any challenge.

All am asking is that Indians organise themselves to defeat 500 corrupt incompetent socialist MPs. Just 500. Not even 300,000.

And what's the response? It is too difficult.

Too difficult to defeat an enemy force of 500 people? We can't do that?

Note that no achievement comes from wishful thinking. It requires ENORMOUS preparation.

Are Indians ready to work hard to prepare? That's why the Freedom Team of India.

To beat this enemy force of 500 MPs, we need to organise systematically.

निर्बल जन को प्रबल संग्रामी, समग्र उग्रामी बनाती नहीं क्यों?!!!!!!!!!!!!

The people remain निर्बल.

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
36 thoughts on “Indians – the slave “species”
  1. Anil Girotra

    You have been very harsh in your comments aginst Indians as a class of people.Indians have been oppressed by britishers for 350 years.May be they were good administrators-Actually the oppression and exploitation was possible as they did not allow indians to get empowered or to enable them to get educated.The britishers never bothered to improve the plight of local population..You may also have the same views(as you have for Indians) about africans who too have been exploited by West.Hpw can you give credit to ritishers who exploited us to the hilt.Problem was that we had Royals who had no guts to stand up to britishers and almost transferred power to the British for personal comforts.Can you blame Indians as a race for enabeling the British to have ruled us.Indians inspite of constraints of infrastructure bounced back in 90s and the last decade in IT and related fields.I agree that corruption is eating us.See the movement which ANNA and BabaRamdev has led and gathered the support of masses,it shows that Indians are not going to going to allow plunderes to continue their party anymore.I largely agree with lot of your views but i feel that to condemn Indians as a class is not fair

     
  2. B Shantanu

    Sanjeev: Hurried response…I take strong objection to the tone and content of this post…If you are deliberately being provocative, that is fine but one must remember History and the complex socio-cultural past of India before makin sweeping generalisations..

    Just a few points of rebuttal to start with..

    1] “The truth remains …the British till the British left largely on their own accord..” Not true at all. Pl re-read the History of the Period. The Naval Mutiny was the last straw that broke the British – not to mention numerous events before (pl also read 2ndlook.wordpress.com’s latest post on 1857)

    2] “..Anything difficult was worshipped, not conquered”: The ancient people and sages saw life and God in everything and therefore the kind of “adverserial relationship” that you paint between man and nature is alien to the Indian psyche. Also these same sea-worshipping Indians had been navigating the seas for hudreds of years before the West “conquered” the seas..

    As for “…even though they had failed to show any heroism in this regard for 10,000 years”, are you now accepting that ancient Indian history goes back to 8000BC? And how do you explain these timid Indians building the fine setllements scattered along the Saraswati-Sindhu? the monolithic “walls” along the Gujarat coast? the extraordinary art of massive stone carved temples and numerous other such things?
    And please spare us the though that the West’s “conquest” of Africa, Americas was driven by courage – It was dirven by greed, wealth and slaves – not courage or heroism – or in deed, quest for knowledge.

    Finally, if you are so utterly dismissive of Indians in general, perhaps you must examine your own inclinations/ desire to work for the betterment of such a “slave” species?

    Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
    Shantanu @ http://Satyameva-Jayate.org

     
  3. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Anil

    I do NOT condemn Indians. I challenge them to rise and unite against oppression. My message is of hope, not of failure. Please read carefully what I’m saying.

    Anna and Ramdev have NOT offered a solution. Just doing a dharna is NOT enough. You have to actually contest elections and DISPLACE these modern oppressors.

    s

     
  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Shantanu

    I appreciate your points. As you’ll readily note, I’m not debating history but challenging Indians to RISE AGAINST OPPRESSION TODAY.

    Why do we accept the oppression of just 550 looter MPs TODAY? That is my question.

    Why do Indians do NOTHING to fight this WELL-KNOWN enemy? That is my question.

    I’m challenging Indians to UNITE and fight this enemy by actively contesting elections with preparation to dislodge/displace/replace these enemies.

    s

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    From FB:

    NM: It is true that indian mindset from centuries is to be ruled by others..like Mughals and britishers. At the time of Chanakya he only thought of conquering the small states and made them united with Mauryan empire to establish a centralized government. But due to Jainism and Budhism nonviolence theory came into picture to discourage the people from fighting .

    we were always divided from centuries . It was very easy for invaders to attack india from thousands of years. They came to india to loot some gold but they found this country is divided in different casts ,sects . Fours Casts were there since log time divided by Brahmins. Out of four only one Kshatriya is made fighting with enemies ,remaining 3 casts remained silent . After Mughals again india divided in smaller states and ruled by britishers. They had known they will use indians to rule india. In british forces only indians were put to torture fellow indians. They never brought english troops to india to fight with others.

    Now also they are divided in Casts, it is becoming more complex now to unite them . People want MLA and MPs from their casts more and more ,eventhough they most corrupt persons. may be they most educated class of indian society ,they support cast based politics. We hope for good in future.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1

     
  6. allwyn

    amazing post i mean these things and ideas keep going on in my mind literally ALL THE TIME but the way you write and present is too good and gripping.

    and abt indians wanting to live abroad I think what u said doesnt matter any more since today its the global village and as citizens on the world we can live where we want and enjoy our pathetically short lives.

     
  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Allwyn

    What I said is the true reflection of what is going on. Indians are FLEEING India in ever larger numbers. It may be a global world but Indians prefer to live abroad since the governance is looked after by the Westerners. They are a slave species who can’t put the effort and hard work to fix India’s governance.

    s

     
  8. Munish Raizada

    Very provocative in a sense that it provokes and inspires to throw out these greedy, spineless, corrupt political leaders of India. Indians must wake up to bring in a TOTAL change in our political system if we want a progressive country. Otherwise, the loot will continue.

     
  9. allwyn

    its not SLAVE MENTALITY at all wanting to live in better place and have a good life. Where did you make that connection? As I said life is PATHETICALLY short and not everyone will devote it to reform a country of billion fools. Nothing wrong in it but everyone will make their choices to how they want to spend their lives doing what and where.. expecting everyone to be patriotic or become a politician etc etc is just wrong there will always be ppl who just won’t care.

     
  10. khagendra

    Dear Sabhlok sir,

    I agree with the core point of the blog(irrespective of history & Everest) that 500 500 MPs vs 120 cr people.But I think India is lacking of a intellectual leader who can throw the root of this problem.

    that’s why i have some request(on behalf of us) u should come to India & join with the movements(BABA RAMDEV & ANNA HAZARE) to share the favolus structure u have…
    Because

    ->your voice is at a far distant from indians
    ->students like me unable to get your points.
    please reply..

     
  11. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Khagendra

    My voice is with India at all times. Most FTI members are from India and we need more who will throw off their slavery and demand freedom.

    And no, I’m NOT a supporter of Baba Ramdev/ Anna Hazare movements because they do not aim to overthrow the 500 looter MPs of India, simply complain about them. They too are slaves. I don’t work with slaves.

    s

     
  12. Arvind Iyer

    The point on organization is well-taken and so is the point that the blinkered legislative obsession of the Jan Lok Pal agitation will not make any longstanding headway. However, there seems to be at least one historical instance, where a form of exploitation that was a lingering legacy of slavery, was driven towards eradication without any formal partisan political mobilization and without relying wholly on a legalistic route. Quoting from this article:

    //Americans did not vote to end racism. They began to choose, first individually, then collectively, to judge themselves by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. They did not need to attach a badge of ‘non-racist’ to themselves to proclaim their commitment. They did not view their mission as simply legislative and did not simply call the political classes into account, but viewed it as transformative and began first of all with self-examination… The lasting social change we struggle for today, is less about the ballot or badges, and more about our conduct and the conversations that we must begin by staking our popularity. //

    Acknowledging that there is some distance we can travel even without formal organization, does not of course rule out the need for organization outright. However, the model of organization is an open design problem with an unprecedented set of contemporary challenges. Quoting Jeremy Rifkin from here:

    //”The young kids, they don’t think Right-Left. Not October 15th movement. They don’t think Capitalism-Socialism, Liberal-Conservative. When they judge institutional behavior, the Internet generation, they ask if this institution is…
    centralized, patriarchal, top-down, closed and proprietary…
    or is this institutional behavior distributed, collaborative, open, transparent and lateral. That’s all the spectrum we need to get it right.”//

     
  13. khagendra

    sir,
    then i have one complain because when i was sharing your thoughts with my roommate, i got one question(which i unable to answer) that we all know about the problem but we don’t know
    ->how we can start the battle
    ->how we can eliminate 500 looter gang from india by staying inside their territory (considerable to slavery) because they are playing divide & conquer game over the indians
    ->how we can unite to all

     
  14. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Khagendra

    The solution is actually very simple. Let good people stand up to contest elections. They should NOT contest without preparation. That’s why FTI. The more the people who join FTI the easier will the task become.

    s

     
  15. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Arvind

    I’m talking PURELY about electoral reform and governance (ie. laws/ policy), not about social change (e.g. racism).

    Second I had a quick look at the video you linked and watched it horrified for six minutes. I’ve never heard more drivel in my life. This man has no clue what he is talking about. I agree even such a man might occasionally talk sense, but let’s discuss the views of more sensible people henceforth.

    s

     
  16. Arvind Iyer

    I’m talking PURELY about electoral reform and governance (ie. laws/ policy), not about social change (e.g. racism).

    I agree that choosing our problem and staying at it is a saner approach than attempting catch-alls. However, the challenge while talking of electoral reform and governance is to convince citizens to stake their vote, election after election, for the prospect of long-lasting liberty at the cost of a good deal of immediate gratification. For a citizenry to make such calculations may itself demand some training and education that would be in the realm of ‘social change’. Quoting again from the same article as before:

    A vote may not win us a seat, but it can definitely help us take a stand. While your vote may have little impact on the immediate election, it is not to these elections alone that a vote’s impact is limited….
    If and when they (Loksatta, PPP or FTI for that matter) eventually win, the victory will be owed in part to the votes cast for them conscientiously in every losing battle earlier. There is no telling when a merely ‘expressive’ vote will turn ‘instrumental’, but so that there is a chance at all of this happening, we must continue to express, conscientiously and consistently.

    How best do you think efforts by different groups in the ‘social sphere’ and the ‘electoral sphere’ can be harmonized and synergized?

    Further, staying with Rifkin just a second more, what you propose does seem in large part to meet the description of a system that is distributed, collaborative, open, transparent and lateral. Wouldn’t emphasizing these aspects more explicitly help enhance the appeal for younger members as well as elicit more prospective participation from them (maybe I should say ‘us’)?

     
  17. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Arvind

    I’m not sure we are talking at all on the same wavelength. There is NO possibility of loss of “immediate gratification”. FTI’s model is for a VERY SIGNIFICANT racheting up of incomes at all levels in India. Liberty is causal for wealth. In that way, what FTI stands for is prosperity. Its message is ALL about prosperity. No loss of “immediate gratification” – except for the corrupt.

    FTI (and my work) is purely in the political domain, and while social efforts can be useful (e.g. efforts to remove caste discrimination, etc.), I don’t believe in any useful interaction with such efforts. FTI also does not collaborate with just ANY political entity, e.g. PPP which doesn’t have an agenda for liberty but offers more of the same (mostly socialist policies). Lok Satta is far more liberal and FTI members have joined Lok Satta and vice versa (FTI is not a political party).

    Re: younger members – the idea of liberty is what we are talking about. Other terms are secondary and may mean different things to different people. These other things could be derivatives of liberty in some cases, but are not necessarily related to liberty. Liberty is simple, clear, cogent and self-sufficient as the ONLY political idea that India needs. Liberty does not require any distributed/collaborative etc. approach. It leaves the choice open. It leaves people free to choose. That is simple, clear, and sufficient.

    I trust you’ll consider these ideas further and if you are willing to lead India to freedom, will consider joining FTI.

    s

     
  18. Arvind Iyer

    I guess our wavelengths aren’t all that different on this issue, since what I had in mind when I said ‘immediate gratification’ was the electoral freebies and stop-gap sops doled out and lapped up for myopic gains in the current fragmented political scene, which I am sure you are as dismayed by as I am. To offer the lasting gratification of liberty and create a nation of liberated and liberal citizens out of a ‘slave race’ is a much longer haul for reasons you are better acquainted with than I am. Thank you for the invitation to join FTI, which I will consider by first reading Breaking Free of Nehru as carefully and critically as I call for any purportedly magisterial manifesto to be read here.

     
  19. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Arvind, I know what you are talking about. What I’m saying, though, is that the electorate can be DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN that it will WIN from liberty at all levels, including economic. So there is no loss of ANY ‘gratification’, but an INCREASE in ‘gratification’.

    s

     
  20. radhakrishna

    british civilizaion itself is going to peirsh..and all these physical acitivies are futile as no record is permanent like our VEDS..a group of learned brahman wil sattvik guna can still bring rains with mantra or hymns..

     
  21. Nishanth

    Mr. Sabhlok, I feel the pain in your writing, but don’t put things out there you are not entirely certain about. For example, I find it amusing that you are very well versed with all that had been happening for over 10,000 years, since you proclaim that no indian ever climbed Mt. Everest before the Westerners did?! When you talk about history, there’s also the history that goes without recording, meaning somebody does something but nobody records it anywhere. Just because there’s nothing mentioned in the books, it don’t mean it never happened. Don’t be talking on the surface, you need to dig deep, my friend.

    Jai Hind

     
  22. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I don’t publish such pointless comments, but since you claim to “know” these things let me ask you for proof.

    What’s below the “surface” that you know of that the rest of the world doesn’t?

     
  23. Nishanth

    Did you even understand my comment? Where does it say that I know anything about all that history that went without recording. It just said you don’t want to talk about the things you are not entirely sure about. All you had to do was some thinking, which I was hoping you would do, but instead you had to use your natural human instinct to counter and defend yourself.
    Well, it’s obvious that you can’t even understand what is being said, no point in advancing a conversation without me having to post another comment to clarify my last. Have a good life, and good luck with this blog or whatever you call it to have your shallow minded thoughts satiated.

    Jai Hind

     
  24. SHI

    I actually like the way the author has written this article and agree with many of the finer points he makes. Just to qualify them a bit more:

    A more useless group of people can’t be imagined where 1000 of them will point a finger towards ONE person and say: “You are evil since you are oppressing us”. All that is needed is to KILL the oppressor. End of oppression.

    The real reason is Indians did not want to unite themselves against foreign rule. As a nation, we were divided by language, caste, religion, wealth disparity and so many other barriers.

    The only reason British rulers flourished is because Indians instinctively trusted them for governance more than their own countrymen.

    Even today, Indians have a frog-in-the-well mentality, they do not want other Indians to shine. Outstanding geniuses like Amartya Sen are only honored if they were first recognized in the West.

    Content to be copycats and followers, they are happiest when governance is left to the hands of Westerners. Indians are the happiest, for instance, in the West, where high quality governance is provided by others and they enjoy the benefits.

    Hit the nail on the head! I really get tired of stories when Indian governments hero worship these NRIs and hail them as successful entrepreneurs living in foreign lands. Well what has stopped them from succeeding in their own country, no-one really bothers answering that question. As a race, Indians are extremely docile and are taught not to question higher authorities.

     
  25. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Re: hero worship – I sense that you think Amartya Sen is a “genius”. That’s part of the same hero worship. Look within, I’d suggest.

    In particular, Sen is a full-fledged enemy of India. He is a socialist par excellence, hates liberty and would have been a nobody but for a “Nobel” prize in a discipline which he doesn’t understand; or governance which he has no clue about.

    I agree with your broad thrust of ideas, though.

     
  26. SHI

    Re: hero worship – I sense that you think Amartya Sen is a “genius”. That’s part of the same hero worship. Look within, I’d suggest.

    In particular, Sen is a full-fledged enemy of India. He is a socialist par excellence, hates liberty and would have been a nobody but for a “Nobel” prize in a discipline which he doesn’t understand; or governance which he has no clue about.

    I would disagree. The “anti-India” label is a figment of imagination created by fanatical Narendra Modi supporters just because Amartya criticized him. This man is an outstanding genius and a real thought leader on a variety of topics including welfare economics, social inequality and female empowerment.

    I’m a graduate in economics at Princeton. In my institute, Amartya’s research was highly sought after by students and faculty and we extensively used them in our dissertations.

    The reason Amartya Sen is more popular in the West than in India is because of his remarkable findings in welfare economics (in W. Europe, Canada and among US democrats). In India, welfare is given a bad name because of possible associations with Communism, nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s about bridging social inequalities, creating more services for the common good (high quality public transportation, maternity leaves, universal healthcare and so on) and creating more opportunities for betterment for the lower classes.

    Of course such things won’t fly in India because this nation is ruled by a corrupt, diseased, self-serving oligarchy where the closer you are to the ruling elite, the better for you.

     
  27. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Sorry, young man. I’m not influenced by criminals like Modi.
    And re: Sen, do read my manuscript DOF.
    s

     
  28. Peterparker

    Further analysis needed on this. Why are these people like this? Where was that noble race which these prior worship? Were they themselves conquerer who kept on migrating? Why is that one Parshuram was able to defeat many Kshatriya (in vedic era, these were functions and not caste)? And why there was only was vijaynagar laid by Vidyaranya in response to attacks of khilji,babur, etc? Even today the mindset of Indians is still the same.

     
  29. Krackjack

    Sanjeev,
    I like your article. Truth always hurts and pains. It reflects one’s face in the mirror and people get uncomfortable. What did you expect, a set of people that have been slave minded for 1000 years and cushy on it, settled, will like to see their reflection? So here’s the question.

    What you are saying, I am thinking of taking forth. I have a party named, I have my agendas but I wont disclose this early. We have the Indian machinery to move forward. Coming to your article though is this race right to be saved? Should I stand up and make a change and will such a nation even change or should I just sacrifice myself for them.

    Again, reviewing the 100% of this population not the 10% or 25%, its frankly uncivilized, unethical and not fit to be a human in sense of possibly what God made in the image of its own. These are degraded populations. The population has nothing to offer to the world in values. It reminds me of a movie you must see called Doctor Moreau’s Island. We can be that Doctor, change the Animals to human but in their hearts and culture they are primitive. They wont like to hear it but they are.

    The only reason why I may run is to conquer this country back and change it to our own system as it may be, and put all the people in their right positions. Maybe have a more Plato’s Republic running instead of this dog eat dog system. When system is bad no good people will remain well. Its a bad system that takes out bad results.

    I do not think with current status this nation will remain intact for another 50 years even 25 I’m not sure. it may be one but weakened, Naxals all over the place. Kashmir lost. And stronger states going for Autonomy.

    While it sounds unwell, it possibly IS the best option for India. To be like Europe, as an Indian Union but each Province running its own nation. There will be more Freedom. BJP has its role in history, only it is capable of ending the idea of India. So its doing is Karmic duty.

    All in all a nice and valid article. But did you ever consider WHY this happened, and why it wont change. You used the right word Race. But Indian is not a Race. its a citizenship and if it may be called ethnicity in a way. But races are more complex. Then you have to dwell into a murky area that again Indians and maybe you as well wont like. That the only period of India’s glory was from dawn of Aryans till their last dynastical lineages, that once converted to Buddhism, was the end of a way of “Aggressive Thinking”. When Puranic Hinduism took over the Vedic Aryanism it changed the culture into enslaved one.

    Rest is history – Invasions, Mughals, Europeans, British, and here we are.

     
  30. Raj

    Laudable words. It’s worth noting that pretty much every other nation except the Germanic (specifically Northern Germanic ones) and possible France + Northern Italy would fall into the “slave species” category.

    And again, freedom never has come easy. Countless people have been willing and actually have DIED for the cause of protecting one’s liberties in these nations. We’re not talking about having the courage and perseverance to advertise the party page on Instagram, but literally having been savagely killed after having consciously chosen to speak their minds.

    It’s no wonder most of us can just sit and awe at this marvel of human perseverance and triumph. The world would be nothing but an 8th century shithole if Northern Europe and its handful of million people didn’t exist. Sure, they were cruel in colonisation. But I always ask, “How differently would YOU have acted were you in their situation?” Situations ought to be judged with respect to circumstances, always!

    Now that they fall in numbers and their nations are weakened by more illiberals immigrating there. We ought to do our bit to become a Free nation and consolidate the Rule of the Free in the world, once and for all. Obviously, would’ve been nicer if China, Iran etc. wouldn’t be the way they are in the first place!

     
  31. Raj

    Watch the recent video of Sadhguru on India becoming superpower and one of the top comments states something like they just want to leave by in peace.

     
  32. Raj

    The video states something like if India proclaims to be a superpower then they will have a large target on their mark and the western world will challenge them militarily. Watch the Sith vs Jedi philosophy and it is interesting to note that a lot of westerners support sith philosophy, that is we take because we can and we have the power to take.

     
  33. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I don’t watch gurus. And no, I disagree with your arguments. The POOR OF INDIA MATTER. We need to ensure the common man in India is better off than their counterpart in the West.

     
  34. Raj Iyre-Chatterjee

    Hey “Raj”. I see your inferiority-complex mate. Sadhguru doesn’t make sense and has a deep inferiority-complex. Trying to make sense of stones prayed to. Wow! I’m impressed!

    Coming to the West is big and bad — Look at our nation.. it is the more civilized being uncivilized by conquering the uncivilized. Just because they engage in uncivility — doesn’t make us people who respect freedoms. Indians live like rats on a pan.

    And even if you shout and try to make moral high-ground that the West want to “take”.. you seem to like the fact that they are that way? Hate much?

    Now, the US is the PROTECTOR of freedoms, it has done wrong many times — yet, it seeks free markets in all nations (its goods will benefit, yet aren’t we protecting our liberties in doing so, anyway?)

    How disgusted I feel I’m born here. And having to deal with egotistic, clannish dirt-warriors of your like.

     
  35. tanee

    hi there I think your article is valid in a number of ways and what you are saying makes sense. However I do think you need to take into consideration that
    -India has got an incredible range of diversities from north to south, east to west etc. We have more ethnicities and cultural differences than the whole of Europe combined. it is worth noting that Europe has caused 2 world wars and India has caused none. however, the point I am trying to make here is, that it would be incredibly difficult to make these people work together, because they’re so different. its why British divide and rule tactics work out. look at china, same population, far more successful. thats because they work together. why? the cultural differences aren’t as insanely vast.
    -because Indians have been ruled so long for under the British most of the country lives in poverty. the Indians very obviously, even if there was 1000 of them, all had a collective mindset that the British rule was okay because of how they were educated. its always the minority controlling the majority. for example in Germany during hilter’s rule, the masses were brainwashed about jews. the textbooks for children had all this information on jews so the whole country bereaved him. that was a million germans against one man. similarly under Stalin people adored him because that is what they were taught to do.
    -in addition to this lack of education, for a long time under the British rule, it was the maharajas who were still ruling the people, while the taxes went to the British. the people still had no idea who their umbrella rulers were
    – yes these westerners were looking for a challenge and all of that but it must be understood, that India was a paradise before the British rule. Indians felt no need to venture out of India. countries like Britain were barley liveable before the industrial revolution. Its no surprise that they would venture out of their lands to look for other places to exploit and conquer.

    keeping all the points in mind, I personally feel it isn’t as simple as the 1:1000 people thing, especially if you look at the examples I gave above. I mean Europe is divided into so many different countries because of this, India is still one. you get the idea. I know some point sounds contradictory but they make more sense in my head and require a lot of of tiyping so id be more than happy to expand into them later. However I do respect your opinion. Have a nice day!

     
  36. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I’m afraid these are the most lame excuses – totally pointless.

    There is no reason for India’s dismal performance except socialism.