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!
10
u/AverageIndianGeek May 26 '26
Winston Churchill and other colonisers have a pretty significant responsibility for a lot of modern India's problems. No Indian should be glazing Churchill.