What's new

India: A Failed State and Sham Secular Democracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
plz guys there is no point in showing each other down

there is still a long way to go for each of us


i reuest u alll to refrain from this

no need to get emotional lets us show them in works how we are not failed state
 
@ambidex

Really appreciate your post.However I find this nomenclature of "3rd world countries" as backward a falsified generalisation.
I think the 3 blocks stood for U.S. aligned nations , U.S.S.R. aligned nations & NAM countries. Newly independent afro-asian nations formed the bulk of NAM. But over the years western nations & some of us have somehow expanded this generalisation to mean 3rd grade or 3rd rate.If at all, its a matter of pride that we were non-aligned nations & it was a very active response to the geo-strategic realities of the world at that point of time.Our nascent democracies were shielded from adverse impact.
If 3rd world means that we are behind the powerblocs now ( in economic terms..yes) , it may be correct . But if it means that we are following a growth model or standard set up be west to ape, than it is prejudice-ridden.
Every country has its peculiar way of growing & strengthening owing to its own set of fundamental blocs of nation building & socio-historical realities. I find the term "developing" more apt & suitable.
 
@ambidex

Really appreciate your post.However I find this nomenclature of "3rd world countries" as backward a falsified generalisation.
I think the 3 blocks stood for U.S. aligned nations , U.S.S.R. aligned nations & NAM countries. Newly independent afro-asian nations formed the bulk of NAM. But over the years western nations & some of us have somehow expanded this generalisation to mean 3rd grade or 3rd rate.If at all, its a matter of pride that we were non-aligned nations & it was a very active response to the geo-strategic realities of the world at that point of time.Our nascent democracies were shielded from adverse impact.
If 3rd world means that we are behind the powerblocs now ( in economic terms..yes) , it may be correct . But if it means that we are following a growth model or standard set up be west to ape, than it is prejudice-ridden.
Every country has its peculiar way of growing & strengthening owing to its own set of fundamental blocs of nation building & socio-historical realities. I find the term "developing" more apt & suitable.

To be clear nowhere did he use the term "3rd world".

I did.

But your point is taken.
 
lol...I'm sorry to Ambidex.

@Oceanx
Yes it was a reply to you...appreciate you understood the point..:)

@ ambidex
sorry again mate :agree:
 
Another interesting point about FAILED STATES is the total absence of "Self Introspection" of their governing system and class. Neither India nor Pakistan let thier system go UN-CRITICIZED, by any yardstick. In fact the people and media in the two countries are always eager to EXPOSE the weeknesses and so help in identifying the potential problems early.

These are among the signs of progressing and forward looking states not of "failed states".

Fighter
 
lol...I'm sorry to Ambidex.

@Oceanx
Yes it was a reply to you...appreciate you understood the point..:)

@ ambidex
sorry again mate :agree:
I know what i am saying mate, no need to be sorry.

Don't try to project your self a better patriot then others.
As i mentioned I know what we are honestly doesn't' mean we are all about only 11 points i mentioned negative about India. There are hundreds negative points i can write about India at the same time i can defend endless positive points about India at any fora.
Chillax.
 
I know what i am saying mate, no need to be sorry.

Don't try to project your self a better patriot then others.

I didn't get that line...

secondly I was replying to Oceanx but quoted your name so my apologies were simply for that..(there is nothing complicated )..

anyways:cheers:
 
My reasons for saying that India is a failed state are simple: More than Pakistani state, the Indian state has miserably failed in meeting the very basic needs of its people (particularly children) for food, clothing, shelter and basic sanitation. In addition, India has larger swaths of its territory in central and eastern where state authority does not exist.

The reality of the failure of Indian state is as obvious as daylight. The Indian state's abject failures in delivering basic services and solving India's basic problems are there for everyone to see, as long as the observer's eyes and years are intact and open.

Do any serious analysts challenge the poverty and hunger figures for India, or the strength and scope of the Maoists insurgency? Absolutely not! Even Indian officials, including Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, agree with the data on hunger, poverty and malnutrition, as well the Maoists threat assessment.

To put it in plain language - which the NCTC is unlikely to use - India is host to some of the fiercest conflicts in the world. Since 1989 more than 80,000 have died in insurgencies in Kashmir and the northeastern states.

Manmohan Singh himself has called the Maoist insurgency centred on the state of Chhattisgarh the biggest internal security threat to India since independence. The Maoists, however, are confined to rural areas; their bold tactics haven't rattled Indian middle-class confidence in recent years as much as the bomb attacks in major cities have.

Last year, Indian Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed acknowledged that India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement.

Speaking at a conference on "Malnutrition an emergency: what it costs the nation", she said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during interactions with the Planning Commission has described malnourishment as the "blackest mark".

"I should not compare. But countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are better," she said. The conference was organized last year by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region.

According to India's Family Health Survey, almost 46 percent of children under the age of three are undernourished - an improvement of just one percent in the last seven years. This is only a shade better than Sub-Saharan Africa where about 35 percent of children are malnourished.

Haq's Musings

Haq's Musings: India Deploys 100,000 Troops Against Maoists Revolt

Haq's Musings: Food, Clothing and Shelter in India and Pakistan

Haq's Musings: Fixing Sanitation Crisis in India
 
^^^^did u go through various posts in btw

the reason wy india cannot be catogrized into top failed state(india ranks somewhere in 85 to 87)
coz india is developing


every year middle class is growing by 2013 india will have 300million middle class
or every year a country like australian population moves into middle class in india
 
Last edited:
well i just listened the youtube video and i must say i have to agree............................... we have far better infrastructure in Pakistan comparing to India

and India dominate us in other sectors such as education, democracy and economy
 
well i just listened the youtube video and i must say i have to agree............................... we have far better infrastructure in Pakistan comparing to India

and India dominate us in other sectors such as education, democracy and economy

Well infrastructure is a comprehensive term, you cannot just call roads & airports as infrastructure. That is just one form of physical infra.
Anyways our new airports of mumbai, Delhi, hyderabad, Bangaluru are either inaugurated or about to be completed.

The surface transportation has seen tremendous improvement for ex- dedicated freight corridors & our NHDP programme.

Ports, electricity, housing, water-supply etc are other parameters of infra.

Then the vital infra i.e. health & educational infra which includes several tiers.

I don't wanna compare anything. just wanted to point out that saying infrastructure is better by pointing out that roads are good , is a complete misnomer. It should be judged holistically.

If you wanna talk about physical infra then roads in not the only criteria.

Hope I have made myself clear.
 
Well infrastructure is a comprehensive term, you cannot just call roads & airports as infrastructure. That is just one form of physical infra.
Anyways our new airports of mumbai, Delhi, hyderabad, Bangaluru are either inaugurated or about to be completed.

The surface transportation has seen tremendous improvement for ex- dedicated freight corridors & our NHDP programme.

Ports, electricity, housing, water-supply etc are other parameters of infra.

Then the vital infra i.e. health & educational infra which includes several tiers.

I don't wanna compare anything. just wanted to point out that saying infrastructure is better by pointing out that roads are good , is a complete misnomer. It should be judged holistically.

If you wanna talk about physical infra then roads in not the only criteria.

Hope I have made myself clear.

i understand what infrastructure means my friend

we have better Roads, transport (except trains), schools, hospitals, even education system (but not the literacy rate), sewarage system in some parts of Pakistan is awesome i would far better than europe too but in most parts its very bad and similar is the case in India

So i was just saying overall we have better infrastructure than India........ india will need to spend billions of dollars to become like Pakistan since the poverty ratio in india is too high........ but indeed India is economy rich so if she wants she can afford to improve its infrastructure in future unlike us (we need more time :cry: )
 
My reasons for saying that India is a failed state are simple

Riaz, but who and what defines a failed state?

If we were to see what Wikipedia has to say about this:

The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:
  1. loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
  2. erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
  3. an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
  4. an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

None of which fit the bill for India.

Wikipedia further states that "Often a failed nation is characterized by social, political, and economic failure"

This, is something, which can be attributed to Pakistan. Yes, always debatable on finer points and i personally believe Pakistan to be a "Country robbed of its potential by its own policies and people".

I do agree with the author on many of the points it highlights specifically on the weakness in our democracy. But his points on calling India a failed state is damned.
 
well i just listened the youtube video and i must say i have to agree............................... we have far better infrastructure in Pakistan comparing to India

and India dominate us in other sectors such as education, democracy and economy

Dear Mr X
Many Pakistanis actually believe that Pak has better infrastructure. For them Pak is Punjab and certain parts of Sindh only. Pl also consider the infrastructure in Balochistan, Sindh and ur part of Kashmir incl Northern Areas. Then they would see that even in infrastructure they lag far behind. Infrastructure is also railways, ports, airports, IT infrastructure, educational infrastructure. I think u cannot even compare the infrastructure of the two coutries. India is way ahead.
Pl do not take this as trolling, just wanted to put things in proper perspective.
Cheers:cheers:
 
Dear Mr X
Many Pakistanis actually believe that Pak has better infrastructure. For them Pak is Punjab and certain parts of Sindh only. Pl also consider the infrastructure in Balochistan, Sindh and ur part of Kashmir incl Northern Areas. Then they would see that even in infrastructure they lag far behind. Infrastructure is also railways, ports, airports, IT infrastructure, educational infrastructure. I think u cannot even compare the infrastructure of the two coutries. India is way ahead.
Pl do not take this as trolling, just wanted to put things in proper perspective.
Cheers:cheers:

Well i consider Pakistan 4 Provinces and 3 territories of Pakistan and my above post mentioned the definition of infrastructure in my eyes

and i am well aware of india though i have not been there but i know many places that you would probably not know yourself being an indian. I love to read about countries, their history, culture, pictures etc etc. I got thousands of pictures stored of different countries and their places. Pakistan is far ahead of india in many sectors while india is strong in some other sectors...... you can read my above post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom