i disagree.
europe has a very distinct history with democracy and the struggle to democracy. this is why it "works".
And yet a modern Europe, that was born out of the renaissance, directly contributed to some of the greatest slaughters in human history; culminating in world wars one and two.
You are just proving my point by the European example; that "no country in the world truly understands the basis on which it was formed".
In 1517 Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses as the basis of Protestant reform against Catholicism. In large part the rebellion - based on a more practical, logical humanitarian version of Christianity, helped to form modern Germany. Yet, by the 1920s there was active support for Nazi Germany.
France is the cradle of modern enlightenment; yet their track record in third world countries is among the worst.
most reasonably educated europeans understand important european experiences such as the role of religion in europe and the renaissance.
I could day that most 'reasonably educated' Indians also understand the role of religion in India. These are just general statements.
and then ofcourse EVERYONE knows to hate the nazi's and hitler, therefore on a basic level thats very powerful since it is rooted deeply that what they are in large part can be defined as what they are not, and what they are not and never wish to be regarded as is nazi's - just this simple but powerful notion can instill democratic values and easily help everyone understand the so called basis of their nation - its why in the uk there are common references about what "our grandfathers fought for" etc etc
I disagree with your use of the word EVERYONE, but let that be.
Your example of Nazism ignores a more in depth study of history.
That it was a European country that developed, nurtured and supported Nazism.
That most European countries wanted to bargain with the Nazis before they fought them.
That the full impact and meaning of Nazism never became known to the world until the
end of the second world war.
The war that Britain and the allies fought had more to do with territorial and political disagreements than any moralistic defence of humanity.
Don't get me wrong; Nazism was a curse and an evil we are well rid off. But 'the atrocities of the Nazis' is a post facto justification for WWII.
So, the grandfathers of present day Europeans quite rally did not fight to rid the world of Nazism; they fought to defend their countries.
On a more general basis, it was Great Britain, that bastion of humanity, that was responsible for large scale famines and millions of deaths round the world. That fire bombed Dresden for no ostensible strategic gain.
It was Belgium that surpassed all inhumanity through its policies in 19th century Congo.
It was Spain that brought to the modern world the dubious pleasures of the inquisition and Torquemada.
So yes, the humanist origin of countries is often lost in most countries at key points in their histories.
india basically instantaneously became a democracy, theres no so called deep historical basis pertaining to democracy that truly resonates with every indian, they all have their own biases/perspectives/views -
That India 'basically instantaneously became a democracy' is, IMO, facile analysis, short of simple propaganda.
It ignores the decades of a freedom struggle conducted largely in a democratic way by Indian parties.
It neglects the democratic basis of associations by Indians. It ignores the democratic leaders, the elections.
It ignores the broadly stated goals of the majority of Indian leaders - self rule in a democratic system.
That India 'instantaneously' became a democracy is a canard; it ignores what happened on the ground, what the struggle was all about. It ignores modern history.
I am not comparing India's democratic evolution to Europe's; obviously Europe is more developed. Of course our democratic history is nowhere as old as Europe's; but in intensity and desire for change it is, IMO, equivalent.
its the same with pakistan, the vast majority have no connection with democracy and are torn between an islamic or western democratic identity - and its because of this division that neither has truly worked and why there is periodic chaos, but i suppose this is a seperate topic.
I disagree.
It is not the same with Pakistan. Not at all. These are basic facts - since independence Pakistan has had more army rule than democratically elected governments. India has not had a
single period of army rule.
We had an Emergency once; and Indira Gandhi quickly came to understand what Indians thought of it. Through an election.
i am no authority on the media in india, however those events could hardly be glossed over could they?
so its perhaps misleading to portray them as revelations.
No, absolutely not. Yes, the riots in Gujarat by themselves would not have been glossed over. But the scale and the participation of local authorities would absolutely have been hidden were it not for the Indian media.
I can substantiate this in a separate post if you want. Just google 'hidden camera revelations Gujarat massacre'; look at the sources.
That the majority of human rights violations in Kashmir are not taken from Indian sources?
We can discuss this. I know for a fact that the bulk of the reports that Amnesty and HRW publish on Kashmir are significantly based on Indian newspaper reports.
I know this because I know people who work there. But obviously this is not authoritative info, so will try and look for links.
but from my initial post i was referring to the people who tend to use democracy as an epither to leverage moral superiority - and i contest that these people are a significant amount (that or they are the loudest) who do not understand what they preach, or do not wish to adopt what they preach.
I'll only focus on one argument; whether these people are in the majority. I don't think so. But it's a matter of opinion, yours or mine.
