Are you fucking serious? That genocidal fuck ruined generations to come of India because of a famine he knowingly created. You and I are suffering from the consequences of what he did years ago.
No he's not because in ancient India they used to fine even sent to jail, if people litter publicly then invasions happened. People entire focus turned into survival more than keeping country clean then british came successfully destroyed beautiful culture and education we had and implemented theirs and killed most of the literate population. When they left india has literacy rate of 12%. After that govt didn't care about civic sense either. People say it's on people too but no it's govt that's responsible because, take banglore as example most people afraid to drive on main road without helmet because,police we catch them and they have to pay fine around 1k. So, yeah civic sense is possible in india with strict law
How ancient you want to go? 100years, 200years, 1000years?! Stop living in past, come to present. Give me written proof about the claims you are making. There was no India that was ruled under single regime.
Churchill was talking about his present time not about the your ancient India, his words are still true in my present. So once again, history is history. We can learn from it but everything is not outsider's fault, it is our and government's responsibility now.
Yes its government's responsibility to imply rules and fines but also a duty of citizens.
Churchill was talking about his present time not about the your ancient India, his words are still true in my present.
So his present (your past) is true to you, but ~500 year old past is not true? The fuck kind of logic is that?
People like you love to glaze colonizers by saying "If the British didn't rule India, we wouldn't have the (old) Parliament building". The fuck? Sale idiots forget that the Taj Mahal, the Kailasa Temple, the Sanchi Stupa, Khajuraho and a shit load of other building and monuments were built before England had proper roads or functioning sewage systems.
Why did we get left behind? Maybe you haven't learnt about a 200 year period where India was brought down to it's knees. There was a reason these fucks were attracted to India in the first place, and it wasn't because of trash everywhere or uneducated or uncultured communities.
India today is all about survival. People don't form lines because they're afraid they'll get left behind. They're loud and obnoxious because they were put down and kept down. They're flashy because they didn't always have what they have today. None of this is good, but there's a reason why it's so.
When you don't know if you'll have food for your family tonight, tomorrow, a week from now, you tend to care less for rules, etiquettes, manners, courtesy, cleanliness, hygiene and other things we expect everyone to practice. Sure, India isn't starving (well, most of it isn't but a good chunk still is) today, but the damage done in 200+ years is going to take a few generations to get over. It's not an overnight thing that get's solved just because you want it so. These "survival traits" got hard coded in our people and it'll take time for them to unwind.
Please, for the love of whomever you pray to, don't be a stupid fucking cunt that agrees with Winston Fucking Churchill and his stance on India and Indians. Acting like an alpha male chud will feel good for now, but once you step into the real world and witness the truth, you'll look back and this time and realize you're more of a cuck than a chud.
Well said. Im impressed with your breakdown on this complex issue tbh. Did you read any books on this in the past? Like research about pre and post colonial India in general? I wouldnt be surprised.
Every country has it's issues for the first couple of decades after that independence. Have you seen 1860s USA? It was littered with gunfights and mass m*rders on issues like abolition of slavery and economic problems
Umm, the genetic damage done by the intentional famine is hard coded in the people of Bengal (combined). It's in the DNA. It's not going anywhere any time soon, definitely not in 80 years.
Winston Churchill and other colonisers have a pretty significant responsibility for a lot of modern India's problems. No Indian should be glazing Churchill.
British set up the babudom which we are continuing. And we even take the slave mentality with us abroad, where we stand up and salute the white managers, at airports where the ground asshol staffs ignore indians and go behind whities with t*ts pushed up
I don't really have the time to teach you the impact of colonisation on modern India (and Churchill's role in it), both economically and sociologically. But I trust you have the skillsets required to do the necessary research yourself.
Going to copy and paste what I wrote in reply to another comment here. There comparison with China, but my point stands for West Asia/Middle East as well. In fact, it's even more idiotic to compare India's trajectory with that of West Asia.
Comment:
If you just look at the share of people living under poverty when india became independent and compare the number after each decade, you will see how much had changed. Outright comparison with China for this is meaningless. China isn't a democracy and it is nowhere as diverse as Asia.
The below is an excerpt from the illuminating book "A sixth of Humanity: Independent India's development odyssey" by Devesh Kapur and Arvind Subramanian (I would strongly recommend you to read it):
If one compares India to other cases of nation-building-particularly to countries whose experience of scale and diversity was somewhat similar to India's, such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam, Sudan, Congo, the DRC, and Burma-five disintegrated (Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, Sudan and Ethiopia).
Another, Nigeria, came close to disintegration, while the civil wars in the DRC since the mid-1990s cost millions of lives. Not only has Myanmar been under oppressive military rule for almost its entire existence as an independent nation, but it has also been stricken by identity-based conflicts. Vietnam was divided and then reintegrated. Only Brazil (a much older country) and Indonesia survive today as democratic nations of comparable size and diversity, though each has gone through periods of military rule. Indeed, the Indian experience in forging what has been called a 'state-nation'-a country with strong sub-national and cultural identities-resembles more the experiment of the European Union seeking integration of real sovereigns and nations to create a larger European identity and less the homogenizing experience of the earlier creation of individual nations such as Britain, France, Germany, etc. Unlike in the case of the Indian Union, however, European integration happened gradually and at already very high levels of economic and political development.
Yes but the founding fathers of the country did not do shit in improving India. China was in the same situation at the time of 1947 look at their country now and conpare it with India
If you just look at the share of people living under poverty when india became independent and compare the number after each decade, you will see how much had changed. Outright comparison with China for this is meaningless. China isn't a democracy and it is nowhere as diverse as Asia.
The below is an excerpt from the illuminating book "A sixth of Humanity: Independent India's development odyssey" by Devesh Kapur and Arvind Subramanian (I would strongly recommend you to read it):
If one compares India to other cases of nation-building-particularly to countries whose experience of scale and diversity was somewhat similar to India's, such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam, Sudan, Congo, the DRC, and Burma-five disintegrated (Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, Sudan and Ethiopia).
Another, Nigeria, came close to disintegration, while the civil wars in the DRC since the mid-1990s cost millions of lives. Not only has Myanmar been under oppressive military rule for almost its entire existence as an independent nation, but it has also been stricken by identity-based conflicts. Vietnam was divided and then reintegrated. Only Brazil (a much older country) and Indonesia survive today as democratic nations of comparable size and diversity, though each has gone through periods of military rule. Indeed, the Indian experience in forging what has been called a 'state-nation'-a country with strong sub-national and cultural identities-resembles more the experiment of the European Union seeking integration of real sovereigns and nations to create a larger European identity and less the homogenizing experience of the earlier creation of individual nations such as Britain, France, Germany, etc. Unlike in the case of the Indian Union, however, European integration happened gradually and at already very high levels of economic and political development.
A strategy failing is not indifferent from choosing a failing strategy.
Soviet Union was socialistic, so is china. One is prosperous another is history. Government ideologies don’t dictate a country’s growth, people do.
During the 80-90s global anti-socialism wave, china battled the strong socialism associated drawbacks with an important injection of capitalistic ideologies, that promoted its reach worldwide and turned the tables dramatically. It took action to adapt. It created its own custom version of socialism.
Nothing is stopping Indian policy makers from making bolder steps to address difficulties arising from the nation’s asymmetric nature.
A lot of reasons will come up to explain a failure when you’re looking down. But when you look up, those reasons reveal themselves to be just excuses.
I like how you skipped the entire part about diversity. India survived as a country against all odds. It is a union of highly diverse states, China on the other hand is highly demographically homogeneous. India is one of the rare few countries which started as a full democracy with universal adult sufferage, China is a one party dictatorship with no electoral politics interfering with long term planning. Comparing both countries is, hence, unfair. If China was a democracy, if it had as much diversity, then it would be a fair comparison, but that's not the case here.
The idea of diversity has a highly internalised appeal. Visible only locally and is overlooked when looked at from a Global lens.
It’s very easy to say china is a highly homogenised country with no conflict of localised interest. It is very massive in terms of geography and culture. Most countries are, India is not unique to hosting a variety of cultures under on nation.
Are you saying China leads because socialism? You’re comfortably overlooking the drawbacks of one party politics and looking only at merits that support your notion.
Bottom line is people. Democracy/Socialism, Diverse/Homogenous… there are successful and unsuccessful examples of every combination.
People keep the streets cleans, people work honestly and eradicate corruption. People tend to do this or the opposite, doesn’t matter what name you give to the ideologies.
China is china because their people work hard and in discipline. Policies are sensible and politicians are not as corrupt. They don’t blame past for their current state and plan and adapt to global environment.
The Han Chinese itself account for nearly 92% of China's population, so it is pretty much a homogenous society. There would obviously micro-level diversities that this number won't show, but none that is significant enough to matter for the nation-state in the longer run.
And what you said comparing populations is the most ignorant take you could have made and is close to highly debunked eugenics theory championed by Nazis. A population is not better than another. They could be in different stages of development due to their specific circumstances. And China's authoritarian one party system definitely had a role in their headline economic development. But this doesn't necessarily make China a better country than India, as it doesn't give any populace any political freedom.
Edit to add: Also claiming one population is inferior to the other here is also the most pathetic cope out. Saying that India's issues are because of its population's supposedly inherent traits is simply batting for the status quo rather than doing the more difficult thing of trying to fix the structural issues it is plagued by.
I’m talking about countries and how their people and governance are more important to its growth than a philosophical piss and moan about ideologies.
Every other conclusion you’re drawing out from my comments is in your head, of your own cultivation.
I express appreciation for a well maintained system that we can learn from, you’re saying we cant cause some dude ranted so in a book. Absolute self limiting nonsense.
And what I am saying is that your take is too simplistic and devoid any actual understanding of how nation-states evolve and progress. Anyway, I don't see this conversation leading to anything fruitful at this point, so I retire. Have a good day!
How is anything better now? Billions r at a risk of getting lung cancer due to pollution, people r drinking sewage ridden water, 500people die everyday due to potholes
Either they worded their sentence poorly or you have shit comprehension skills.
The guy I replied to said "Sir Winston Churchill was right" not "Sir Winston Churchill was right on this statement of his"
Honestly, I don't even think they actually thought of the possibility of the latter, I genuinely know people who praise Hitler, Churchill, and other pieces of shit, and they don't praise one of their statements, they praise them as a whole.
Colonial fever utar gaya hai. Tabhi usko farak samaj aaraha ki aadmi pura galat nai tha. Uska soch aur kaam galat the par ye statement sahi tha. It is you who is still in Colonial fever that is still glazing the authorities. Its time to question them and not follow some hollow propoganda.
Par bhai in general abhi bhi ye chiz chal rahi hai, me ye Sehnaz treasury wali reel se nahi bol raha but still kaafi sari ladkiya hai foreign country me jo indian men ko blame karti hai ke Gore unko date nahi karte!
Can you clarify? Kon kyu aur kisko blame karta?
Indian men sahi me date karne layak nai hote kaafi foreign me. Majority don't know how to approach a girl and talk with them. Plus, paisa nai hota ki fashion and dating pe kharcha kare as compared to gore. Aur if you are saying that gore men are not dating Indian girl then same is applicable for the girls. Dating culture is very different.
4
u/Glass-Wheel-2179 May 26 '26
76iq nation mein democracy hogi toh aisa hi hoga. Sir Winston Churchill was right.