What has Democracy solve for India? Lesson for us.

[TenjikuKensei]

Well, Chinese society/history has always been about the "greater good". The needs of society as a whole, have always been more important than individual freedoms.

Other countries put more emphasis on the individual, and that is their choice, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Well I'm not criticizing his views, everyone is entitled to his/her own. I was simply surprised.

I'm against any such heavy handed government action; as it simply makes the wound fester in secret till the rot threatens to corrupt the entire body. Most cases of dissent at least have a kernel of real grievance in them, as humans (apart from religious nuts.lol) dont go about creating problems if they dont have(or think they have) a reason for it.

As a native of Lanka, I can relate to this "making people vanish in the night" thing..and I loath it. Action like those were one of the main reasons the country is in the dire states it is now. Instead of listening to, and accepting the proper judicial methods used by the dissenters (they were opposing systematic institutional discrimination); the government unleashed a reign of terror which pretty much stifled any dissent but did nothing to solve the core issue. Such draconian actions only result in the elimination of the symptoms but not the causes. The cause not only lingers on, but takes on a far more virulent form and causes more issues than ever thought possible.

Furthermore, those who have such power become addicted to it...and its a slippery slope one does not want to even consider. First it starts as "for the good of the state"...later the "state" becomes synonymous with those who wield such power. Even rivals would be termed "enemies of the state" and made disappear... A classic case of the wolf guarding the sheep. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

btw this post is not about China, but about using such methods

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well I'm not criticizing his views, everyone is entitled to his/her own. I was simply surprised.

I'm against any such heavy handed government action; as it simply makes the wound fester in secret till the rot threatens to corrupt the entire body. Most cases of dissent at least have a kernel of real grievance in them, as humans (apart from religious nuts.lol) dont go about creating problems if they dont have(or think they have) a reason for it.

Furthermore, those who have such power become addicted to it...and its a slippery slope one does not want to even consider. First it starts as "for the good of the state"...later the "state" becomes synonymous with those who wield such power. Even rivals would be termed "enemies of the state" and made disappear... A classic case of the wolf guarding the sheep. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

btw this post is not about China, but about using such methods

Fair enough, I respect your opinion.

I can also make many arguments against the utilitarian concept of the "greater good of society" and the related diminishment of individual freedoms. There are plenty of flaws in this line of thought, and I would be the first to point them out.

However it is my personal belief that the Chinese government has generally got the idea right... even if I disagree with some individual cases, such as the jailing of the father in the melamine milk scandal.

Right now, "stability" is the most important thing for China. And it has always been the case here, for most of recorded history.

 

[CardSharp]

^^^^ then I guess you didn't read my complete series of posts

Maybe it's because the CCP was an insurgency at one point in its history but it understand the social factors in these conflicts much better than the Indians. As a result its counter-insurgency efforts are 90% social manipulation and 10% fear and brute force, whereas the Indian army is just clueless.

I talk about fear and force in those cases where there is no other solution. It is there for when socially based plans fail.

 

[CardSharp]

Also I bring this relevent passage to your attention

If we shift from state-majority-minority relations to the relations between the State and the ethno-nationalist movements in the periphery, again there are some apparent differences between China and India. Protests in Tibet in 2008 were quickly followed by a complete expulsion of foreign media, a crackdown, and a denunciation of the Dalai Lama and foreign forces for encouraging separatism. Ethnic violence in Xinjiang in 2009 was handled slightly differently. More foreign media were allowed (mainly because the government knew that, in contrast to Tibetan Buddhists, Westerners were unlikely to have sympathies for Uyghurs Muslims) but the attitude toward demands made by the protestors remained uncompromising. Internet is severely restricted in Tibet and Xinjiang and was in fact completely banned in the latter for many months after the protests. It has become clear that the Chinese government will not accept any outside pressure on matters it considers to be ‘internal affairs.’ Nor will it recognise as legitimate any demands made by citizens for greater participation; any change that comes, must occur from the top-down. Even a whiff of separatism and a crackdown is inevitable.

Kashmir is different, partly because the Indian system is different, but mainly because the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognised dispute. Unlike Tibet or Xinjiang, where no sovereign state questions Chinese sovereignty, all international actors see Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory between India and Pakistan and so sovereignty is already an unsettled question.

If we look at the most recent protests in Indian-controlled Kashmir, we find that more than 100 Kashmiris, mostly boys and young men, have been killed by the security forces. The Indian response to this ‘threat to sovereignty’ is different from the Chinese one. Kashmiri political leaders, including moderate as well as hard-line separatists remain very much in public, announce their protest calendars, denounce the Indian government, and the media can approach them. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the internet has been utilised by Kashmiris to mobilise and raise awareness, even as local journalists face severe restrictions. The Indian prime minister has appealed to the youth for calm, politicians visit Jammu and Kashmir capital Srinagar for ‘fact finding’, and an eight-point plan has been put forward to solve the problem.

But, and this is a significant but, it is a mistake to over-valorise the differences between India and China. The Indian approach is no less repressive when you look at the actual experience of Kashmiris, or many other ethno-nationalist communities living in north-eastern regions of the country. The face of Indian democracy that the marginalised communities witness here is worlds apart from the celebratory tone of the overwhelmingly nationalist Indian media, as well as compliant Western commentators.

Democracy for Kashmiris and many in the North East has meant corrupt and compliant local elite propped up by the Centre through fraudulent elections; everyday humiliation and reminders that mainstream India does not trust them; the overwhelming presence of the security forces, protected by special laws; the onslaught of Indian propaganda, often with active complicity of broadcast media, to misrepresent all demands made by the ethno-nationalist activists as illegitimate and as stemming from extremism.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1310067-post281.html

 

[TenjikuKensei]

Fair enough, I respect your opinion.

I can also make many arguments against the utilitarian concept of the "greater good of society" and the related diminishment of individual freedoms. There are plenty of flaws in this line of thought, and I would be the first to point them out.

However it is my personal belief that the Chinese government has generally got the idea right... even if I disagree with some individual cases, such as the jailing of the father in the melamine milk scandal.

Right now, "stability" is the most important thing for China. And it has always been the case here, for most of recorded history.

One of the major advantage China has is its (almost) mono-ethnic population. This results in a general consensus that is not found in India or in some other Asian countries.

In fact one could even hazard a guess that democracy works best in a nation which is truly diverse, like India. The fact there is no distinct majority ...be it ethnic or linguistic In India, is also one of its biggest strengths as it ensures that ethnic-based parties do not form. The Federal model of the government also ensures that the states have only minimal influence from the central government

However, Srilankan democracy was set up to fail from the start because of the fact that there were only 2 main ethnic groups..and one held a decisive numerical advantage over the other 70% vs 30%. The lack of any federal structure (as in India, America) was the final nail on the coffin as it ensured that the ethnicity with 70% will "Always" win the election.

 

[below_freezing]

One of the major advantage China has is its (almost) mono-ethnic population. This results in a general consensus that is not found in India or in some other Asian countries.

In fact one could even hazard a guess that democracy works best in a nation which is truly diverse, like India. The fact there is no distinct majority ...be it ethnic or linguistic In India, is also one of its biggest strengths as it ensures that ethnic-based parties do not form. The Federal model of the government also ensures that the states have only minimal influence from the central government

However, Srilankan democracy was set up to fail from the start because of the fact that there were only 2 main ethnic groups..and one held a decisive numerical advantage over the other 70% vs 30%. The lack of any federal structure (as in India, America) was the final nail on the coffin as it ensured that the ethnicity with 70% will "Always" win the election.

sri lanka had the worst of both worlds.

it had a majority, but not an overwhelming majority.

then it got stuck with democracy.

then what's worse, it was unable to repress the minority.

think about what would happen if blacks in the US got their voice and were able to organize? they tried, and the whites broke it up with water cannon and machine guns, then they gave a few token blacks rewards to silence them. sri lanka has the same problem, but its minority is even bigger and has significant power.

india seems to be more stable, as race becomes less of a limiting factor in both extremely diverse and extremely homogenous societies. though do note that china has 56 ethnic groups, only 2 of which are separatists.

 

[TenjikuKensei]

^^^^ then I guess you didn't read my complete series of posts

I talk about fear and force in those cases where there is no other solution. It is there for when socially based plans fail.

I did read your previous replies. Yet I do not agree with such measures even in extreme cases as it will only be detrimental to the nation. A good example would be the Americas Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Even though it had some notable successes, in the end the collateral was much worse than the gains.

Also, I have personally seen the effects of such programs and they all inevitably result in the deterioration of human rights. Worse yet, they give rise to entrenched corruption. Oft those who were targeted during such "operations" and made disappear were not real culprits..but those who had some disagreements/issues with the local/regional politicians/military leaders. When such power is given to select members; members who would already have an inherent dislike of proper judicial systems(otherwise they would not have been in such a program in the first place), they will not think twice about using it for furthering their personal vendettas...or to even line their pocket.Oft the "threats to national security" are those who failed to cough up the protection money demanded by a local politician or military head honcho.

This was the case with every similar program around the world...from the jungles of Vietnam..to Lanka and to south America.

But, and this is a significant but, it is a mistake to over-valorise the differences between India and China. The Indian approach is no less repressive when you look at the actual experience of Kashmiris, or many other ethno-nationalist communities living in north-eastern regions of the country. The face of Indian democracy that the marginalised communities witness here is worlds apart from the celebratory tone of the overwhelmingly nationalist Indian media, as well as compliant Western commentators.

I do agree there is repression in Kashmir, however I have to be up-front about one of my ideological stands.

I cannot accept any "religion" based arguments as I believe religious-fanaticism to be the biggest threat facing humanity right now. Its illogical, fundamentalist and does not adhere to any recognized norms. How can one argue with a person who thinks he will gain heaven by ensuring my death?

The stupid congress party plan to rig the Kashmir election to support their pet candidate did worsen the situation; however, the religion based demand for separation from India existed from the time of the partition.They could have a valid say if they stopped identifying themselves as Muslims, and as a secular people who want more rights/their land. But this is definitely not their intention as they were more than willing to chase away Hindu Kashmiris who have been living in that land for millennia.

 

[CardSharp]

sri lanka had the worst of both worlds.

it had a majority, but not an overwhelming majority.

then it got stuck with democracy.

then what's worse, it was unable to repress the minority.

think about what would happen if blacks in the US got their voice and were able to organize? they tried, and the whites broke it up with water cannon and machine guns, then they gave a few token blacks rewards to silence them. sri lanka has the same problem, but its minority is even bigger and has significant power.

india seems to be more stable, as race becomes less of a limiting factor in both extremely diverse and extremely homogenous societies. though do note that china has 56 ethnic groups, only 2 of which are separatists.

We have 56 Han Chinese tourist destination where we can see people in funny hats dance.

I really don't believe the government line about China is a diverse nation. We're not.

 

[below_freezing]

We have 56 Han Chinese tourist destination where we can see people in funny hats dance.

I really don't believe the government line about China is a diverse nation. We're not.

you are entitled to your view, but there are enough muslims in china that our universities have halal cafeterias for muslim students only. also notice that most minorities dress and look the same as han.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

We have 56 Han Chinese tourist destination where we can see people in funny hats dance.

I like those hats.

 

[CardSharp]

you are entitled to your view, but there are enough muslims in china that our universities have halal cafeterias for muslim students only. also notice that most minorities dress and look the same as han.

Hmmm you maybe right I forgot about the Hui Muslims.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

also notice that most minorities dress and look the same as han.

That is true, look at Li Ning for example, the guy who lit the Olympic torch in Beijing 2008.

I always thought he was Han because of his last name (&#26446, however he is actually a minority, of "Zhuang" ethnicity.

It's often hard to tell the difference just by looking at them.

 

[indushek]

Perhaps my words too intense? Only debate, in fact, the Chinese system is somewhat similar to Singapore, I ask you, do you think Singapore is a communism country? At least you need to know that.

No i don't find ur words intense, a honest debate is itself intense so no problem. I haven't got much idea about Singapore except that it was for some 100 years or so under UK and then it was transferred to China right?? am i right?

Also i have read some where that Singapore is a autonomous region in China and i know that is a internationally famous trade destination. Other than this haven't got much idea.

 

[huzihaidao12]

No i don't find ur words intense, a honest debate is itself intense so no problem. I haven't got much idea about Singapore except that it was for some 100 years or so under UK and then it was transferred to China right?? am i right?

Also i have read some where that Singapore is a autonomous region in China and i know that is a internationally famous trade destination. Other than this haven't got much idea.

Singapore is not a chinese autonomous region, Singapore is an independent country, although her majority of the population are Chinese. Government of Singapore is actually a liberal dictatorship, and if you really understand, you will be surprised for the Singapore government's efforts to control a number of areas of society.

 

[Avatar]

I want to watch the funny hat dance