Topic: India - deteriorating?

[west_london_red]

Why is that ?

Goes back to the Cold War, India received a lot of aid and weaponry from the USSR (where as the US generally supported and supplied Pakistan), the USSR supported India in the UN over Kashmir (using its veto), stayed neutral when India and China had (and continue to have) border disputes and skirmishes, and because of all of that Indians (especially older ones) have a very favourable view of Russia.

[Bullet500]

Tell me you know nothing about India without saying you know nothing about India.

The Russia India love in is much bigger and longer then Putin and Modi, and any Indian leader would unfortunately do exactly what Modi is doing when it comes to the Russians.

yes!

Why is that ?

The western powers during cold war were always aligned with Pakistan (or vice versa) and India who started the Non-Aligned Movement had to face the brunt. Naturally, India's ties with the Soviet Union grew better.

The US and (West) Pakistan were in cahoots so much that the US totally ignored the genocide West Pakistan perpetrated in East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Search about "The Blood Telegram". When India intervened because refugees were flowing in, the US threatened India by sending an aircraft liner to the Bay of Bengal. Of course, the Soviet Union also sent theirs.

[Yorkykopite]

Goes back to the Cold War, India received a lot of aid and weaponry from the USSR (where as the US generally supported and supplied Pakistan), the USSR supported India in the UN over Kashmir (using its veto), stayed neutral when India and China had (and continue to have) border disputes and skirmishes, and because of all of that Indians (especially older ones) have a very favourable view of Russia.

But why not a favourable view of Ukraine instead? Aside from questions of natural justice and national self-determination, wasn't Ukraine also in the old USSR?

in other words why support the imperialistic segment rather than the segment that is trying to break free?

[west_london_red]

But why not a favourable view of Ukraine instead? Aside from questions of natural justice and national self-determination, wasn't Ukraine also in the old USSR?

in other words why support the imperialistic segment rather than the segment that is trying to break free?

Its pretty simple, in most people’s minds the USSR and Russia is pretty interchangeable just as people will say England when they mean the UK, especially if they are foreign and not aware of the intricacies of another country’s constitutional setup. And I don’t think Indians are anti-Ukraine, they are just prepared to turn a blind eye to Russia (not that it helps Ukraine) and this is just a guess on my part they buy into the Russian narrative that it’s not a war against Ukraine but a war against NATO and the US.

[Bullet500]

But why not a favourable view of Ukraine instead? Aside from questions of natural justice and national self-determination, wasn't Ukraine also in the old USSR?

in other words why support the imperialistic segment rather than the segment that is trying to break free?

For what it's worth, we do. We are sending aid to Ukraine but we are also buying hoards of cheap oil from Russia, unfortunately. We need the latter to drive our own economy and keep inflation in check. It's not like only the west is allowed to act in self-interest.

[Yorkykopite]

Its pretty simple, in most people’s minds the USSR and Russia is pretty interchangeable just as people will say England when they mean the UK, especially if they are foreign and not aware of the intricacies of another country’s constitutional setup. And I don’t think Indians are anti-Ukraine, they are just prepared to turn a blind eye to Russia (not that it helps Ukraine) and this is just a guess on my part they buy into the Russian narrative that it’s not a war against Ukraine but a war against NATO and the US.

I think that's probably right. They need educating obviously. But their present government won't do it. Would any other?

[west_london_red]

I think that's probably right. They need educating obviously. But their present government won't do it. Would any other?

I don’t believe any government in India would act much differently then the current with regards to Russia and Putin.

We’ve probably overlooked one of the other key factors at play here and it’s China. If India turns its back on Russia it will only be pushed further into China’s orbit and that will be viewed as a disaster for India as China is perceived as the real enemy now and all India is doing is walking the fine line of keeping Russia friendly yet knowing it’s needed by the West to keep China in check.

[Yorkykopite]

I don’t believe any government in India would act much differently then the current with regards to Russia and Putin.

We’ve probably overlooked one of the other key factors at play here and it’s China. If India turns its back on Russia it will only be pushed further into China’s orbit and that will be viewed as a disaster for India as China is perceived as the real enemy now and all India is doing is walking the fine line of keeping Russia friendly yet knowing it’s needed by the West to keep China in check.

True.

Anyway, perhaps NATO will collapse if Trump becomes President. And then Russia and China can do what the hell they like.

[west_london_red]

True.

Anyway, perhaps NATO will collapse if Trump becomes President. And then Russia and China can do what the hell they like.

NATO shouldn’t collapse without the US, it will just be a lot weaker and we’ll just have to spend a lot more on defence. Ukraine has with its own blood bought the rest of Europe time to prepare at least but that’s probably for another thread.

[Yorkykopite]

NATO shouldn’t collapse without the US, it will just be a lot weaker and we’ll just have to spend a lot more on defence. Ukraine has with its own blood bought the rest of Europe time to prepare at least but that’s probably for another thread.

To an extent.

But obviously a powerful NATO, spearheaded by the United States, does keep China as well as Russia in check. This matters to India. I don't think Indians would want to see China running amok in the Pacific and east Asia. Or is there a popular feeling in India that a colossal and hegemonic China could not be any worse than what 'the West' has to offer.

[afc tukrish]

Good discussion above, enjoyed reading it...

[itihasas]

But why not a favourable view of Ukraine instead? Aside from questions of natural justice and national self-determination, wasn't Ukraine also in the old USSR?

in other words why support the imperialistic segment rather than the segment that is trying to break free?

1) White supremacists at the top levels of Ukraine government, saying Indians and Chinese have "low intellectual potential" doesn't really help their cause : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgeAXMbbl5M.
2) Ukraine 'White first' policy for evacuating refugees.
3) Ukraine consistently voting with Pakistan at the UK
4) Ukraine condemning India for going nuclear

[Bullet500]

3) Ukraine consistently voting with Pakistan at the UK

I know it's a typo, but

[Bullet500]

"Economic inequality in India: the “Billionaire Raj” is now more unequal than the British colonial Raj" - https://wid.world/news-article/inequality-in-india-the-billionaire-raj-is-now-more-unequal-than-the-british-colonial-raj/

[Sangria]

1) White supremacists at the top levels of Ukraine government, saying Indians and Chinese have "low intellectual potential" doesn't really help their cause : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgeAXMbbl5M.
2) Ukraine 'White first' policy for evacuating refugees.
3) Ukraine consistently voting with Pakistan at the UK
4) Ukraine condemning India for going nuclear

If the above is reason enough to side with Russia, then I'd question your objectivity. Liberalism is an artefact of western civilisation. The further east you go in Europe, the less liberal the country gets. If, living in the established liberal UK (or even the Anglicised Aussie), you find fault with the racism in Ukraine (and there is racism in Ukraine), you'll find that Russia is even worse. That's if you bother to look at Russia with the same eyes that are finding fault with Ukraine.

In India, AFAICS, the grade seems to run north-south; the further north you go, the less liberal.

[itihasas]

1) I do not agree that ""Liberalism is an artefact of the West" but I have no desire to get into a political debate on a football forum. I just answered the above because it is so obvious to the us yet so oblivious to a Westerner.
2) You could argue that racism is as prevalent in Russia as it is in Ukraine or whatever but the reality is we don't have and never have had top Russian government officials and advisors spouting rhetoric that would be at home in a KKK meet-up.
3) The North-South difference more complex than that. Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state has one of the highest literacy rates and per capita income in India yet one of the lowest inter-caste marriage rates lower than a place like Haryana which is in the Hindi speaking heartland.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

1) I do not agree that ""Liberalism is an artefact of the West" but I have no desire to get into a political debate on a football forum. I just answered the above because it is so obvious to the us yet so oblivious to a Westerner.
2) You could argue that racism is as prevalent in Russia as it is in Ukraine or whatever but the reality is we don't have and never have had Russian government officials and advisors spouting rhetoric that would be at home in a KKK meet-up.
3) The North-South divide more complex than that. Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state has one of the highest literacy rates and per capita income in India yet one of the lowest inter-caste marriage rates lower than a place like Haryana which is in the Hindi speaking heartland.

Ross Kemp did a whole show about exactly that.

[Bullet500]

3) The North-South difference more complex than that. Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state has one of the highest literacy rates and per capita income in India yet one of the lowest inter-caste marriage rates lower than a place like Haryana which is in the Hindi speaking heartland.

To be fair to Haryana here, it has the highest per capita income in India if we ignore smaller states (Goa, Sikkim, Delhi etc.) and a literacy rate pretty much comparable to Tamil Nadu.

A disproportionate number of sportswomen also come from Haryana but then it also lags in behind female workforce participation which would be a better metric to compare the North vs the South. The same situation with Punjab which is generally more progressive than other North Indian states but severely lags behind in female workforce participation vs the South.

India has a lot of such counter intuitive things going on: perception vs reality.

[Bullet500]

If the above is reason enough to side with Russia, then I'd question your objectivity. Liberalism is an artefact of western civilisation. The further east you go in Europe, the less liberal the country gets. If, living in the established liberal UK (or even the Anglicised Aussie), you find fault with the racism in Ukraine (and there is racism in Ukraine), you'll find that Russia is even worse. That's if you bother to look at Russia with the same eyes that are finding fault with Ukraine.

In India, AFAICS, the grade seems to run north-south; the further north you go, the less liberal.

It's a really big thing to claim. May be West Europe went through its illiberal phase and the rest are still going through their illiberal phase.

[Sangria]

It's a really big thing to claim. May be West Europe went through its illiberal phase and the rest are still going through their illiberal phase.

Liberalism, which the poster judged Ukraine adversely by, is the exception in the world, and mainly confined as an established thing in western Europe, the US, and countries strongly influenced by them. Not all of us are westerners who know only of the west. Some of us are non-westerners who also know of the world outside the west, and recognise the differences.

[itihasas]

To be fair to Haryana here, it has the highest per capita income in India if we ignore smaller states (Goa, Sikkim, Delhi etc.) and a literacy rate pretty much comparable to Tamil Nadu.

A disproportionate number of sportswomen also come from Haryana but then it also lags in behind female workforce participation which would be a better metric to compare the North vs the South. The same situation with Punjab which is generally more progressive than other North Indian states but severely lags behind in female workforce participation vs the South.

India has a lot of such counter intuitive things going on: perception vs reality.

I downloaded the data from RBI, table 6 and table 25. I could not find anything for female participation. https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head=Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20on%20Indian%20States

State    INR   Literacy Rate Telangana   312398   67.02 Karnataka   301673   75.37 Haryana   296685   75.55 Tamil Nadu   275583   80.09 Puducherry   251344   85.85 Gujarat   241930   78.03

Haryana is behind Telangana and Karnataka but the fact that it came after them did surprise me. Literacy rate is 80% in Tamil Nadu vs 75% in Haryana. Punjab fairs poorly coming in at rank 20 out of 34 for per capita income.

Interestingly enough the correlation between per capita income and literacy rate is only 0.44. Telangana has one of the lowest literacy rates at 67% (lower than the average of 74%) but the highest per capita income. A combination of the fact that the growth is being driven by a few economic centres and the way we define literacy may be too weak is probably the answer for this.

All of this will be upended in the coming decades anyway, the future is in urban agglomerations not Gandhi's vision of self-sustaining villages. The Gujarati-Marathi axis might get the biggest, a lot of things are aligning for them the big two being the Gujrati business culture and it being a major stronghold of the BJP. No surprise the first bullet train is Mumbai - Ahmedabad. The Tamils will want one in Chennai but the wet bulb temperature there is touching uninhabitable numbers, they would be better served moving it inland near the mountains. Hyderabad will be another, the Telugus have done well there. I don't have a positive outlook for Bengaluru, it might be the 4'th richest city in India but the Kannadigas have no vision and the culture is maybe a little too laid-back. UP is hitting impressive growth numbers but starting from a really low base so the jury is out for them. We will definitely need a few economic hubs to serve the heartland. Bengal needs one with their massive population but their politics, culture and ideology are an utter mess. Quite a few spots are up for grabs

[Bullet500]

I downloaded the data from RBI, table 6 and table 25. I could not find anything for female participation. https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head=Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20on%20Indian%20States

State    INR   Literacy Rate Telangana   312398   67.02 Karnataka   301673   75.37 Haryana   296685   75.55 Tamil Nadu   275583   80.09 Puducherry   251344   85.85 Gujarat   241930   78.03

Haryana is behind Telangana and Karnataka but the fact that it came after them did surprise me. Literacy rate is 80% in Tamil Nadu vs 75% in Haryana. Punjab fairs poorly coming in at rank 20 out of 34 for per capita income.

ohh, Haryana was ahead of both Karnataka and Telangana a few years ago! Time to boot out the current state government. Edit: Yep, Haryana was ahead two years ago. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1942055

You can check here for state-wise statistics on women participation in workforce: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1805783

Southern states are all roughly 30% and above. Haryana is 15%. Uttar Pradesh is 17%. Punjab is 22%. Bihar is 10%.

Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand doing good here, however.

All of this will be upended in the coming decades anyway, the future is in urban agglomerations not Gandhi's vision of self-sustaining villages. The Gujarati-Marathi axis might get the biggest, a lot of things are aligning for them the big two being the Gujrati business culture and it being a major stronghold of the BJP. No surprise the first bullet train is Mumbai - Ahmedabad. The Tamils will want one in Chennai but the wet bulb temperature there is touching uninhabitable numbers, they would be better served moving it inland near the mountains. Hyderabad will be another, the Telugus have done well there. I don't have a positive outlook for Bengaluru, it might be the 4'th richest city in India but the Kannadigas have no vision and the culture is maybe a little too laid-back. UP is hitting impressive growth numbers but starting from a really low base so the jury is out for them. We will definitely need a few economic hubs to serve the heartland. Bengal needs one with their massive population but their politics, culture and ideology are an utter mess. Quite a few spots are up for grabs

What's there in Gujarat? It looks like it's getting all the good projects but still somehow lagging behind states that do not have a 'business culture'. 

[Bullet500]

Liberalism, which the poster judged Ukraine adversely by, is the exception in the world, and mainly confined as an established thing in western Europe, the US, and countries strongly influenced by them. Not all of us are westerners who know only of the west. Some of us are non-westerners who also know of the world outside the west, and recognise the differences.

Of course in 2024, it's quite obvious to me. I am a non-westerner living in the west since a long time. I do travel to India frequently, however.

But if you want to call liberalism an artefact of western civilisation, it has to be with an asterisk. These countries didn't arrive at liberalism by being liberal. Most of these countries were imperialists and were anything but liberal just a while back. Good quality of life makes it quite easy to pontificate about being liberal. This is another reason why liberals in India failed. They were relatively rich and just too smug.

[west_london_red]

Im surprised illiteracy is still a thing in India. My family is all rural ,isnt particularly wealthy, well off or liberal, yet everyone in my family of my parents generation (so those born around 1940's to 1960 lets say) with the exception of one of my dads brothers went to school, both the men and women. Dont get me wrong, none of them are highly educated (most of them only up until the 8th year) but they all went to school and are literate and i dont think they paid for it either. None of my grandparents were literate, but then there isnt much of that generation left now either obviously. 

[Yorkykopite]

Of course in 2024, it's quite obvious to me. I am a non-westerner living in the west since a long time. I do travel to India frequently, however.

But if you want to call liberalism an artefact of western civilisation, it has to be with an asterisk. These countries didn't arrive at liberalism by being liberal. Most of these countries were imperialists and were anything but liberal just a while back. Good quality of life makes it quite easy to pontificate about being liberal. This is another reason why liberals in India failed. They were relatively rich and just too smug.

The big picture in the West is that liberalism was a bottom-up movement. The impetus came from those excluded from power, not the rich (or smug) elite. In the 19th century that meant trade unions as well as the professions and the nonconformist churches. Much of this eventually spilled over into socialism of course. But liberalism was something you had to fight for. It was also linked, by the 1880s, with anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism.

Authoritarianism and illiberalism however is definitely an ideology of the rich and smug. Especially in India I would think.

If India does have illiteracy rates of 25 percent (lower for men and higher for women) it would go a long way to explaining why an autocrat like Modi can generate widespread support. Illiterate people are notoriously easy to manipulate, frighten, delude. In rural areas they do what the landlord tells them to do, not what the liberals hope they will do.

[west_london_red]

The big picture in the West is that liberalism was a bottom-up movement. The impetus came from those excluded from power, not the rich (or smug) elite. In the 19th century that meant trade unions as well as the professions and the nonconformist churches. Much of this eventually spilled over into socialism of course. But liberalism was something you had to fight for. It was also linked, by the 1880s, with anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism.

Authoritarianism and illiberalism however is definitely an ideology of the rich and smug. Especially in India I would think.

If India does have illiteracy rates of 25 percent (lower for men and higher for women) it would go a long way to explaining why an autocrat like Modi can generate widespread support. Illiterate people are notoriously easy to manipulate, frighten, delude. In rural areas they do what the landlord tells them to do, not what the liberals hope they will do.

You have to remember the starting point, India has only been independent for 77 years, in the journey from authoritarianism to liberalism India is where Western countries were in the 1800's I would say, primary a rural society, high levels of poverty, tribalism, low levels of education, corruption etc its not always a linear journey either as we have seen in much of Europe in the early 20th century.

I also wouldnt discount the amount of support authoritarianism has among the poorer classes in India, there is a penchant for 'strong' leaders just as I would imagine most poorer people in Europe were supportive of their respective monarchs the empires while their own belly was empty. People are not rational, and Indians are no different.

[Yorkykopite]

Sure, I wouldn't expect India to take the same trajectory to liberalism as western countries did - not that there was much communality of experience among European nations. There were no real fascist or communist movements in Britain for example, and absolute monarchy died a death in 1688 and was still going strong in most of Europe as late as 1918.

But there are advantages in following a path that has already been beaten. European nations struggled to democracy through civil and religious wars, reformations, and ideological strife.There was certainly no "linear journey" to liberalism!  Democracy was opposed by the rich because it was subversive and seemed to threaten their property but also because it was an untested idea that, on the face of it, looked stupid. That objection has been swept away now. The system demonstratively works. And Democracy and liberalism have, with all their vicissitudes, produced prosperity and 'the good life'. Liberalism also produced, as I said, the doctrine of anti-colonialism (a genuinely new idea for the world when it came in with the Enlightenment).

But there's nothing inevitable about liberal democracy. India for most of my lifetime seemed to be on its own distinctive route towards it. It was indeed proud to be called the world's largest democracy. But now it is going the other way. I think that's a pity, but who am I to judge?. If Indians prefer a Chinese or Russian model that is their choice. There was always a strain of this as Subhas Chandra Bose shows. Modi is certainly the bloke to take them in that direction. I just fear for the victims. Not just India's vast Muslim population who are now being terrorised by the regime and often by their neighbours, but anyone who would prefer to move towards a freer society.

[itihasas]

What's there in Gujarat? It looks like it's getting all the good projects but still somehow lagging behind states that do not have a 'business culture'. 

You're correct. Some of it may or may not be marketing but the base of India is still so low, poverty so abysmal that I would use these numbers to keep track of what is happening but use them with other factors to try and predict what might happen (culture, governance, ideology). One state outperforming another for a full-term and that chart starts to look different and of course development takes time.  Assuming our growth rates remain constant we should overtake Latin America, Central Asia and South-East Asia in the next 10-15 years and reach a per-capita income of around $25k USD in 30 years. Theoretically, once you reach this level it becomes about the systems, culture, philosophy  etc that have an impact on quality of life rather than dollar quantity and people seeking opportunity elsewhere tends to drop-off. Our size also ensure that total GDP which has the most impact on Geopolitics, Space exploration etc we could be #2 or at a minimum #3.

As for what's in Gujarat, India's wealth so far has been built around services - Bengaluru (Karnataka) and Hyderabad (Telangana) have been the biggest beneficiaries but in our quest for self-reliance we've realized we need to develop all pillars (Agriculture, Manufacturing, Defense, Space etc). I believe that when manufacturing starts to gather momentum, Gujarat will be the biggest beneficiary. Favorable location, pro-business culture, state patronage, links to the financial centre and existing small-industry acumen (Diamonds etc) could see them pull ahead.

The drawback I do see is Gujarat will struggle to attract talent with it's ultra-orthodox culture. Young Indians flock to the cities for obvious reasons and you can tempt any capable foreigner who has skills we need to Mumbai, Bengaluru or Hyderabad for a stint with money, gated communities etc. They can at least go out have a drink, catch a play etc etc. Tell someone you have to buy Alcohol from the back of a shop in Gujarat and it's a tough sell

These countries didn't arrive at liberalism by being liberal. Most of these countries were imperialists and were anything but liberal just a while back. Good quality of life makes it quite easy to pontificate about being liberal. This is another reason why liberals in India failed. They were relatively rich and just too smug.

I could not agree more. "Liberalism" in the engine of the West (America) was top-down not bottom-up. They still had slaves if I'm correct. "Liberalism" in France didn't stop them for trying to re-take Algeria by force or lets not forget the Dutch trying to sail all the way back to Indonesia after being liberated from the Nazis. The Upanishads pre-date Western liberal philosophers by at least 1500 years so India doesn't need or want lectures from anyone. We will do what we think is best and if we fail then so be it. We'll try again till we succeed.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Liberalism, which the poster judged Ukraine adversely by, is the exception in the world, and mainly confined as an established thing in western Europe, the US, and countries strongly influenced by them. Not all of us are westerners who know only of the west. Some of us are non-westerners who also know of the world outside the west, and recognise the differences.

I've no idea why anybody to the right of Liberal would follow a Club like ours.

Maybe their definition is different.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Sure,

Spoiler

I wouldn't expect India to take the same trajectory to liberalism as western countries did - not that there was much communality of experience among European nations. There were no real fascist or communist movements in Britain for example, and absolute monarchy died a death in 1688 and was still going strong in most of Europe as late as 1918.

But there are advantages in following a path that has already been beaten. European nations struggled to democracy through civil and religious wars, reformations, and ideological strife.There was certainly no "linear journey" to liberalism!  Democracy was opposed by the rich because it was subversive and seemed to threaten their property but also because it was an untested idea that, on the face of it, looked stupid. That objection has been swept away now. The system demonstratively works. And Democracy and liberalism have, with all their vicissitudes, produced prosperity and 'the good life'. Liberalism also produced, as I said, the doctrine of anti-colonialism (a genuinely new idea for the world when it came in with the Enlightenment).

But there's nothing inevitable about liberal democracy. India for most of my lifetime seemed to be on its own distinctive route towards it. It was indeed proud to be called the world's largest democracy. But now it is going the other way. I think that's a pity, but who am I to judge?. If Indians prefer a Chinese or Russian model that is their choice. There was always a strain of this as Subhas Chandra Bose shows. Modi is certainly the bloke to take them in that direction. I just fear for the victims. Not just India's vast Muslim population who are now being terrorised by the regime and often by their neighbours, but anyone who would prefer to move towards a freer society.

[close]

Good post.

Now I feel dirty.

[Sangria]

I could not agree more. "Liberalism" in the engine of the West (America) was top-down not bottom-up. They still had slaves if I'm correct. "Liberalism" in France didn't stop them for trying to re-take Algeria by force or lets not forget the Dutch trying to sail all the way back to Indonesia after being liberated from the Nazis. The Upanishads pre-date Western liberal philosophers by at least 1500 years so India doesn't need or want lectures from anyone. We will do what we think is best and if we fail then so be it. We'll try again till we succeed.

It still doesn't make Russia preferable to Ukraine though, as was your point.

[Yorkykopite]

Russia is obviously hideously racist. As is China. It's one of the reasons why Africans would never want to make a life there or settle their families there. You'd have to be insane to want to do that.

[itihasas]

Sorry, it must be our "low intellectual potential" that does not allow us to "fully comprehend the modern world".

Please excuse us while we focus on things that actually matter to us

[Yorkykopite]

Sorry, it must be our "low intellectual potential" that does not allow us to "fully comprehend the modern world".

Please excuse us while we focus on things that actually matter to us

Never hide behind the collective when trying to excuse personal shortcomings!

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Sorry, it must be our "low intellectual potential" that does not allow us to "fully comprehend the modern world".

Please excuse us while we focus on things that actually matter to us

No c*nt on here has said that.

[west_london_red]

Russia is obviously hideously racist. As is China. It's one of the reasons why Africans would never want to make a life there or settle their families there. You'd have to be insane to want to do that.

Indian are incredibly racist by the way.

[Bullet500]

I could not agree more. "Liberalism" in the engine of the West (America) was top-down not bottom-up. They still had slaves if I'm correct. "Liberalism" in France didn't stop them for trying to re-take Algeria by force or lets not forget the Dutch trying to sail all the way back to Indonesia after being liberated from the Nazis. The Upanishads pre-date Western liberal philosophers by at least 1500 years so India doesn't need or want lectures from anyone. We will do what we think is best and if we fail then so be it. We'll try again till we succeed.

Now, what have Upanishads got to do with the India's illiberalism in 2024...!!!

[Bullet500]

The big picture in the West is that liberalism was a bottom-up movement. The impetus came from those excluded from power, not the rich (or smug) elite. In the 19th century that meant trade unions as well as the professions and the nonconformist churches. Much of this eventually spilled over into socialism of course. But liberalism was something you had to fight for. It was also linked, by the 1880s, with anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism.

Authoritarianism and illiberalism however is definitely an ideology of the rich and smug. Especially in India I would think.

If India does have illiteracy rates of 25 percent (lower for men and higher for women) it would go a long way to explaining why an autocrat like Modi can generate widespread support. Illiterate people are notoriously easy to manipulate, frighten, delude. In rural areas they do what the landlord tells them to do, not what the liberals hope they will do.

I agree with the bottom-up vs top-down example. But I wonder about the reasons at play. I don't know what was the literacy rate in the UK in 1880s, but a quick Google tells me it was comparable to or better than what India has now (i.e., 77%). The working class could read and the dominant propagandists of the time were siding with the working class.

In India's case, the ones exposed to relative liberal ideas were mostly privileged folks and India's literacy was just 12% back in 1947. They wrote India's constitution and it's a fairly liberal piece of document for its time. But then it's too liberal to accept everyone's illiberalness (e.g., religion specific laws). Now in the last decade, with WhatsApp and cheap internet, it's the illiberal propagandists who made the first move and won. I think it's just that simple.

[Bullet500]

Indian are incredibly racist by the way.

[2017] " Tarun Vijay lands in trouble with 'black people' remarks, later apologises on Twitter. Denying racism in India, the former BJP MP told Al Jazeera television, 'If we were racist, why would we live with South Indians.' " - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/if-we-were-racist-why-would-we-live-with-south-indians-tarun-vijay/article17866698.ece

This is very good example of how people think in India. Dharmic texts are seemingly more liberal than Abrahimic texts? India can't be illiberal. Some historical figure (or may be mythical) espoused democracy? India is the mother of democracy and can't be undemocratic.

[Yorkykopite]

I agree with the bottom-up vs top-down example. But I wonder about the reasons at play. I don't know what was the literacy rate in the UK in 1880s, but a quick Google tells me it was comparable to or better than what India has now (i.e., 77%). The working class could read and the dominant propagandists of the time were siding with the working class.

In India's case, the ones exposed to relative liberal ideas were mostly privileged folks and India's literacy was just 12% back in 1947. They wrote India's constitution and it's a fairly liberal piece of document for its time. But then it's too liberal to accept everyone's illiberalness (e.g., religion specific laws). Now in the last decade, with WhatsApp and cheap internet, it's the illiberal propagandists who made the first move and won. I think it's just that simple.

By the 1880s that's true. But the initial push from below - even if we discount the popular movements of the English Civil War - were from an earlier period. EP Thompson's 'The Making of the English Working Class' covers the period from 1790 to 1832. Literacy rates were far lower then. And workers ran tremendous risks to combine and agitate (deportation etc). But that's where 'Reform' came from. One literate worker too could read aloud from a great Chartist newspaper like 'The Northern Star' and educate ten illiterate ones.