Lee Kuan Yew

[harpoon]

India was a geographical expression and a civilization prior to the arrival of British. It was not and never a political entity.

So was China...the current boundary of PRC is established by CCP.

 

[faithfulguy]

People of Indian descent and judging by the reactions of some of them, they seems to have a superiority complex over native Indians much like Hong Kongese have over Mainlanders and we don't hate Singapore, on the contrary happy for them and wishes them best of luck on their progress..... but its hard to digest criticism from a president of country of 5 million on how to run a country like India for the simple reason that Mumbai mayor administers 4 times the population of Singapore.



Whats you benefit in this?

Lee has cultivated a reputation as the wise man of Asia. And he was clearly a remarkable human being. So what he said was widely respected. You can disagree with him. But his words are highly regarded by others. So his statement about India deserve some introspection from Indians.

So was China...the current boundary of PRC is established by CCP.

Actually, it was there prior during ROC time line. But China was not a geographical expression as it always have a central government with the emperor. Countries in east Asia like Korea, Vietnam and Japan were already countries with a king or emperor for thousands of years. India has kings, but they are not the king of India, but their own respective kingdoms.

 

[shuntmaster]

India was a geographical expression and a civilization prior to the arrival of British. It was not and never a political entity.

Hmm.. I would tend to agree with this assessment. BTW what defines a political entity?
Also, the age old civilizational thread binds all Indians together into a nationhood, stronger than any socio-political-military entity can ever do.

 

[faithfulguy]

Hmm.. I would tend to agree with this assessment. BTW what defines a political entity?
Also, the age old civilizational thread binds all Indians together into a nationhood, stronger than any socio-political-military entity can ever do.

My statement shows facts. A political entity would be the people and the government agree that its one nation. And one nation means that there is one political power that is over others within the country. And that even if there are political changes, either through election or revolution, its accepted that the country remain the same. For example, if someone overthrow the government of India, they would create a new government from the previous one. And if someone else also claim to be the legitimate government of India, then the country of India is now in a civil war. When Maratha take over land from Mughals, it was a war between two government that try to take over the land of another. Maratha leader wage war against Mughals, Hyderabad and Mysore, but they never claim that the rulers of these other places are illegitimate governments and only Maratha can rightfully be the government of India. But today, if the head minister of Tamil or Punjab wage war against the union government, it would not be a war among nations, but a war within a nation.

 

[harpoon]

Lee has cultivated a reputation as the wise man of Asia. And he was clearly a remarkable human being. So what he said was widely respected. You can disagree with him. But his words are highly regarded by others. So his statement about India deserve some introspection from Indians.

and who gave him that title..You??? Mr. Lee ,with all due respect to him, is a benevolent dictator who presided over a city state with a population who as one poster noted earlier who doesn't think outside the box. His way of governance may be a huge hit in Singapore but I guarantee if he had tried that in India he would have been booted out faster than he would realize it.

Actually, it was there prior during ROC time line. But China was not a geographical expression as it always have a central government with the emperor. Countries in east Asia like Korea, Vietnam and Japan were already countries with a king or emperor for thousands of years. India has kings, but they are not the king of India, but their own respective kingdoms.

Tibet was annexed by CCP in 1950 and China had its share of warring Kingdoms.

 

[faithfulguy]

and who gave him that title..You??? Mr. Lee ,with all due respect to him, is a benevolent dictator who presided over a city state with a population who as one poster noted earlier who doesn't think outside the box. His way of governance may be a huge hit in Singapore but I guarantee if he had tried that in India he would have been booted out faster than he would realize it.

Tibet was annexed by CCP in 1950 and China had its share of warring Kingdoms.

Tibet was de facto independent. But they didn't even declared independent. Tibet has always been part of China for hundreds of years... Lee was a great leader.

 

[shuntmaster]

My statement shows facts. A political entity would be the people and the government agree that its one nation. And one nation means that there is one political power that is over others within the country. And that even if there are political changes, either through election or revolution, its accepted that the country remain the same. For example, if someone overthrow the government of India, they would create a new government from the previous one. And if someone else also claim to be the legitimate government of India, then the country of India is now in a civil war. When Maratha take over land from Mughals, it was a war between two government that try to take over the land of another. Maratha leader wage war against Mughals, Hyderabad and Mysore, but they never claim that the rulers of these other places are illegitimate governments and only Maratha can rightfully be the government of India. But today, if the head minister of Tamil or Punjab wage war against the union government, it would not be a war among nations, but a war within a nation.

In other words a empire/kingdom/dynasty is a single political entity during its consolidation phase. Every empire goes through the steps of rise/expansion, consolidation and decline/fall. In India too there were many empires/dynasties which lasted many centuries and had long periods of consolidation with internal peace and property. The dynastic successions were relatively smooth during those times. During the intervals between cycles of rise and fall of empires, there were periods of chaos and fragmentation. The Maratha empire was on the rise and was almost on verge of filling the vaccuum created by fall of Mughal empire, until the British came around and hijacked the empire. This has been going on for over 2.5 millenniums..

Tibet was de facto independent. But they didn't even declared independent. Tibet has always been part of China for hundreds of years... Lee was a great leader.

The Mongols during the Yuan dynasty brought Tibet into Chinese orbit of influence in 11th century. It was a Chinese vassal until 1910 when the Manchu dynasty in China fell. From then on, it was an defacto independent country with it own currency and foreign affairs. Even the major powers of that time like the British empire recognized this.

 

[American spying]

India was only considered a single country after the British. Before that there was no such thing as 'India'. It's like saying Africa is a single country. Most minority groups in India want independence. Sikhs, Tamils and Muslims being the most vocal.

 

[harpoon]

India was only considered a single country after the British. Before that there was no such thing as 'India'. It's like saying Africa is a single country. Most minority groups in India want independence. Sikhs, Tamils and Muslims being the most vocal.

Try something different..Your supervisor may not be happy.

 

[American spying]

Try something different..Your supervisor may not be happy.

I'm just telling you the truth. Don't get so emotional over it.

 

[harpoon]

I'm just telling you the truth. Don't get so emotional over it.

I' m not emotional ...just sad that your supervisor may replace you as you are repeating the same thing over and over again. Try something different...show your cent's worth.

 

[gambit]

That +a Benevolent Dictator = Instant Development.

Lee Kuan Yew was indeed a 'benevolent dictator'. Does not mean such a dictator is perfect, all wise, and all knowing, but only that this dictator is sufficiently introspective of his flaws, how those flaws could lead to his country's ruination, and that he is not afraid of publicly changing his mind when signs of impending policy failure are evident. Leaders like him are rare. The problem for the world is that there are far too much leaders who thinks they are like Lee Kuan Yew but absent his character traits.

 

[gambit]

Calling India a country is like calling Africa a country.

Technically speaking...

- Nation: A group of people with a common bond and that bond can contain many items usually with language, history, culture, and racial characteristics as most notable. A nation can be without a government and country such as world Jewry before the creation of Israel or the Romani (Gypsies) of Europe.

- State: A political entity that have effective moral and political leadership over a nation. It is possible for a nation ruled by a state to be without a country. The many Amerind tribes in the US are examples of this condition.

- Country: A geographical locale without any political connotation. The word can and often is used to denote the combination of all three but is not restricted to that context.

So yes, India is a country in both contexts, the same way Europe and America are.

Just look at what a flawed concept the European Union is, same thing with India.

A bad example. The EU was never intended to be a cultural union but primarily an economic one with less emphasis on some shared politicized ideologies such as human rights, respect for laws, and security. No member is forced to adopt another's cultural traits. If the EU fails, it will be because of unacceptable disparity of economic and political power among the members, not because of cultural and ethnic divisions.

Unions of different ethnicities NEVER last long.

Only if differences are emphasized instead of a common bond.

 

[asad71]

even with caste system, India was able to produce 25% of worlds GDP before European colonization.

1.For that you need to thank the Muslims and the Muslim rulers. The Hindu cast distribution covers all vocations except for leadership / rulers. Brahmins and Khsatryas have squabbled for this but their vocations temple management and warfare, respectively.

2. For salvation of SA, including present day India and Indians, a reversion to Muslim rule is essential.

 

[faithfulguy]

In other words a empire/kingdom/dynasty is a single political entity during its consolidation phase. Every empire goes through the steps of rise/expansion, consolidation and decline/fall. In India too there were many empires/dynasties which lasted many centuries and had long periods of consolidation with internal peace and property. The dynastic successions were relatively smooth during those times. During the intervals between cycles of rise and fall of empires, there were periods of chaos and fragmentation. The Maratha empire was on the rise and was almost on verge of filling the vaccuum created by fall of Mughal empire, until the British came around and hijacked the empire. This has been going on for over 2.5 millenniums..



The Mongols during the Yuan dynasty brought Tibet into Chinese orbit of influence in 11th century. It was a Chinese vassal until 1910 when the Manchu dynasty in China fell. From then on, it was an defacto independent country with it own currency and foreign affairs. Even the major powers of that time like the British empire recognized this.

There were empires and kingdoms rise and fall in the Indian subcontinent. But their existence is more like empires of western Europe. They may be Charlemagne, Holy Roman empire, or Austrian empire. But they are empires that represent an area. Not the whole Europe. What Lee was trying to say is that India is similar to the European union. Different historical countries that try to come together.

Tibet never have any de jure independence. As it never seek for one. Even the Dalai Lama never seek for independence.