Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vayuu1

China Again Blocks Move to List JeM Chief Masood Azhar as Global Terrorist by UN Security Council

Recommended Posts

United Nations: India’s bid to get Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed's chief Masood Azhar as a "global terrorist" by the UN Security Council was once again blocked by China as it placed a “technical” hold on the resolution on Wednesday. This is the fourth time that China has blocked the resolution against Azhar since 2009.

The proposal to designate Azhar under the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council was moved by France, the UK and the US on February 27, days after the Pulwama terror attack carried out by a suicide bomber belonging to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) that led to a flare-up in tensions between India and Pakistan.

The Committee makes its decisions by consensus among its members.

China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, and an "all-weather ally" of Pakistan had previously blocked India's proposal from being adopted by the Sanctions Committee in 2009 and 2016. In 2017, Beijing also blocked a move by the US, the UK and France to designate Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN.
A UNSC designation would have subjected Azhar to an assets freeze, travel ban and an arms embargo. An assets freeze under the Sanctions Committee requires that all states freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities.

The travel ban entails preventing the entry into or transit by all states through their territories by designated individuals.

Under the arms embargo, all states are required to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related material of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities.

Hectic diplomatic and political parleys had preceded the closely-watched March 13 deadline as New Delhi reached out to member countries of the 15-member UNSC.

In the wake of the terror attack in Pulwama, India launched a major diplomatic offensive against Islamabad, holding briefing for envoys of 25 countries, including from the five permanent UNSC members — the US, China, Russia, the UK and France — to highlight Pakistan's role in using terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

India also handed over to Pakistan a dossier on "specific details" of involvement of the JeM in the Pulwama terror attack.

Days before the March 13 deadline on Azhar's possible listing, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale met Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi said in a statement that Pompeo expressed his "understanding" of India's concerns on cross-border terrorism.

"They agreed that Pakistan needs to take concerted action to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and to deny safe haven to all terrorist groups in its territory. They also agreed that those who support or abet terrorism in any form should be held accountable," the MEA said.

On Wednesday, the US said Azhar meets the criteria to brand him as a "global terrorist" by the UN and China's opposition to the move to "update" the designation list went against the interests of Washington and Beijing in achieving regional stability and peace.

"The United States and China share a mutual interest in achieving regional stability and peace, and that a failure to designate Azhar would run counter to this goal," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Robert Palladino said in response to a question on previous successful attempts by China to block the UN designation of Azhar.

An inkling of China's stand on the issue had come during Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's press conferences on Monday and Wednesday in Beijing when he was asked about the proposal to list Azhar as a global terrorist by the UNSC.

"The UN Security Council and its subsidiary bodies are run on strict rules. We already stressed China's position on the listing of terrorist organisations and individuals in the UN Security Council 1267 Committee on many occasions," Lu said on Monday.

"China will continue to adopt a responsible attitude and participate in the deliberations in the UNSC 1267 Committee," Lu said on Wednesday.

On the issue of listing Azhar, he said, "I want to say that China always adopts a responsible attitude, engage in consultations with various parties and properly deal with this issue."

"The discussions, I want to say must follow the rules and procedures of the relevant bodies and only the solution that is acceptable to all sides is conducive for resolving the issue," he said, indicating that Beijing may again block the move to list Azhar as a global terrorist.

What kind of a sick nation does that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, velu said:

1) ban huawei first ..

2) send notice to oppo , redmi , lenova ..

 

totally disappointed with modi and bjp ..

Even if import duty is not raised significantly by Indian government, people can stop using Lenovo, Oppo, Vivo, Huwaei,Mi etc. Govt. Interference is must because most of iNdians are not even aware which products are Chinese and which aren't.  Import duty increase is a better top level strategy to make large impact.

 

After sanctions for Huawei by US, China too needs trade with India to blossom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to cultivate some of those Uyghur jihadis. 

A couple of years back we bowed before Chinese pressure and cancelled the visa of an Uyghur activist.

Also time to re-evaluate the "One China policy" Recently the spineless GOI bowed before Chinese pressure and forced Air India to remove 'Taiwan' from its website :facepalm:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Even if import duty is not raised significantly by Indian government, people can stop using Lenovo, Oppo, Vivo, Huwaei,Mi etc. Govt. Interference is must because most of iNdians are not even aware which products are Chinese and which aren't.  Import duty increase is a better top level strategy to make large impact.

 

After sanctions for Huawei by US, China too needs trade with India to blossom.

 

 

china is literally begging trump now .. 

worst thing for china is that both republicans and democrats are together to contain china ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, velu said:

 

china is literally begging trump now .. 

worst thing for china is that both republicans and democrats are together to contain china ..  

Indeed US has been successful in contain information China. Certainly they are feeling economic pressure.

 

Impact of Huwaei is better explained in this link.

 

https://www.channele2e.com/business/enterprise/huawei-banned-in-which-countries/

Edited by Straight Drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think JeM Masood Azhar is also Chinese asset. Pakistani establishments will and continue to rent the land and its people to some country.

In past, it has Sold itself to US against Russia, Now its China against India.

Right now. Chinese dragon is in adult phase while Indian elephant is just a kidult. I expect elephant to be adult in next 8-10 years

Edited by mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sootiya hindus are hooked on cheap chinese imports. No Indian govt would dare bring in sanctions. And since BJP lost 3 key states, even if they come back with a majority in may, labour laws aint getting changed for the foreseeable future. 

 

Accept it, democracy is a millstone around Bharat's neck. Get a fecking dictator or keep crying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Sootiya hindus are hooked on cheap chinese imports. No Indian govt would dare bring in sanctions. And since BJP lost 3 key states, even if they come back with a majority in may, labour laws aint getting changed for the foreseeable future. 

 

Accept it, democracy is a millstone around Bharat's neck. Get a fecking dictator or keep crying. 

Except you wouldn't be singing this tune if the dictator was not from your camp of stuff. Careful what you wish for. Spreading the whole ' democracy isn't working in a complex nation like India' is a cat-call for commies and its a proven fact that third world nations with poor education has a far likelier chance of putting forth a commie dictatorship than anything else. 

Your fascistic dictator ( which is what they'd have to be, if they are to promote nationalism, protectionism of local industry etc - definition of fascism FYI) doesn't stand much of a chance against the commie or the military junta type in terms of odds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Except you wouldn't be singing this tune if the dictator was not from your camp of stuff. Careful what you wish for. Spreading the whole ' democracy isn't working in a complex nation like India' is a cat-call for commies and its a proven fact that third world nations with poor education has a far likelier chance of putting forth a commie dictatorship than anything else. 

Your fascistic dictator ( which is what they'd have to be, if they are to promote nationalism, protectionism of local industry etc - definition of fascism FYI) doesn't stand much of a chance against the commie or the military junta type in terms of odds.

 

Why would I agree to a commie or a gungadeen dictator? Obviously, dictator has got to be of saffron tinge.  

RSS are basically socialist. I'm sure a saffron dictator can pander to the poor double digit IQ hindus just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Except you wouldn't be singing this tune if the dictator was not from your camp of stuff. Careful what you wish for. Spreading the whole ' democracy isn't working in a complex nation like India' is a cat-call for commies and its a proven fact that third world nations with poor education has a far likelier chance of putting forth a commie dictatorship than anything else. 

Your fascistic dictator ( which is what they'd have to be, if they are to promote nationalism, protectionism of local industry etc - definition of fascism FYI) doesn't stand much of a chance against the commie or the military junta type in terms of odds.

 

I  agree. Very dangerous in a country like India. There has never been a dictator with high morals or has been an outstanding citizen. 100% of the dictators have been douchebags of the highest order.

 

What are the odds that the guy has a pure bias against a caste or a region or even a religion. Can you imagine a guy from DMK school of thought  or for arguments sake someone from the North who hates people from the South or someone from MNS who puts Maharashtrians first etc etc, recipe for disaster.

 

Obvioulsy ruling out failed ideas like communism.

 

Our best bet is having a shrewd but honest politician elected from a democratic process who plays from the inside . I thought Modi was the guy but so far meh.

 

Our democracy for all its flaws has what has kept this country alive and kicking 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, surajmal said:

Why would I agree to a commie or a gungadeen dictator? Obviously, dictator has got to be of saffron tinge.  

RSS are basically socialist. I'm sure a saffron dictator can pander to the poor double digit IQ hindus just fine. 

Arre baba, your chances of getting anything but a commie dictator in a low education, low economics country is very slim. Look at fecking world history FFS!

Low education + low economics in a country that goes dictatorship route = 1. commie is the runaway winner. 2. distant second is military dictatorship. 3. rest hardly ever factors.

 

So asking for a dictatorship in India is an odds-on own-goal from your part. 

 

Nevermind the fact that dictatorships almost never work out to serve the masses better and only serve the elites associated with the dictatorship. Why the * would we want to be like China ? Odds are, we are more likely to end up as Chinese masses, that are severely oppressed, than the elites of the CPC that get all the privilege. Ofcourse, RSS links = you may have an inside track to being an elite in this scenario and serve yourself at the expense of the people of the nation.

 


Yet another example why nationalism is far inferior and a bakwaas ideology in contrast to patriotism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Why would I agree to a commie or a gungadeen dictator? Obviously, dictator has got to be of saffron tinge.  

RSS are basically socialist. I'm sure a saffron dictator can pander to the poor double digit IQ hindus just fine. 

Are you deluded? RSS is no different from a rotary or lions club in term of an organization at best . To take over you need to be a different level player  may be not the most flattering  example but  like say the Taliban or some communist guerilla forces in South America.

 

Any way Khayali pulao is always the tastiest dish.

 

This pessimism coming from someone who is a supporter of RSS ideology and manifesto

Edited by maniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, maniac said:

Are you deluded? RSS is no different from a rotary or lions club in term of an organization at best . To take over you need to be a different level player  may be not the most flattering  example but  like say the Taliban or some communist guerilla forces in South America.

 

Any way Khayali pulao is always the tastiest dish.

 

This pessimism coming from someone who is a supporter of RSS ideology and manifesto

He is confused between a socialist and a fascist.

RSS ultras are fascists, not socialists. Fascism = protection of national/local industries, nationalism and using nationalism to boost profits of the protected industries ( by citing nationalism as a reason for stagnant wages/pay-cuts etc). Socialists = nobody owns anything, the people/nation own everything. RSS by definition are more fascism leaning than socialism leaning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment but you got into tldr bong mode. 

 

So here is why I want a dictator for the next 20 years... Cuz I'm **** scared of AI. And Bharat better get its act together sooner rather than later. Because when the Almighty goes online in the next 50 years ( probably earlier), its gonna start doing some house cleaning. And if the subcontinent (further ravaged by global warming) is still the toilet bowl of the world, even a fecking paperclip maximizing machine is going to find 2 billion people redundant. 

 

All your socio-economic-political theories are about to go for a toss in front of a real GOD. If the worst case scenario is a commie dictator (as long as it is swadeshi), I will take it. At Least we may become a middle income economy before our number is called. 

 

As a mahagyani said, "Democracy is an excuse for the tentative and weak." 

Another thing this mahagyani said, " You are either a doer or a bong". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, maniac said:

Are you deluded? RSS is no different from a rotary or lions club in term of an organization at best . To take over you need to be a different level player  may be not the most flattering  example but  like say the Taliban or some communist guerilla forces in South America.

 

Any way Khayali pulao is always the tastiest dish.

 

This pessimism coming from someone who is a supporter of RSS ideology and manifesto

I didn't say RSS is ready now. But MP elections prove that Indian electorate can't be trusted to think for themselves. Dictatorship is only rational. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

He is confused between a socialist and a fascist.

RSS ultras are fascists, not socialists. Fascism = protection of national/local industries, nationalism and using nationalism to boost profits of the protected industries ( by citing nationalism as a reason for stagnant wages/pay-cuts etc). Socialists = nobody owns anything, the people/nation own everything. RSS by definition are more fascism leaning than socialism leaning.

 

RSS is at best a  desi version of the YMCA  in theory that’s about it.

 

Apart from issuing a manifesto that talks about nationalism, RSS has never done anything that fits your definition of fascism.

 

You are probably confusing them with Bajrang Dal etc who are seperate entities and they get more attention than they deserve.

 

 I hope RSS becomes the force and power people assume it to be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, surajmal said:

I didn't say RSS is ready now. But MP elections prove that Indian electorate can't be trusted to think for themselves. Dictatorship is only rational. 

Firstly a shrewd politician can have his way in a democracy. Abraham Lincoln got his way and abolished salvery of all things that lot of people were not in agreement of. Infact Lincoln himself didn’t do it for a humanitarian cause. He did it for political purposes.

 

Bush went for a pointless Iraq war for personal reasons playing within the system even though he had a lot of opposition he got the vote.

 

Maybe dictatorship might have worked for us in 1947 but in 2019 it will be recipe for disaster. Won’t work in a multi-cultural society like India especially when we are this far along with the mess our regional political systems have become.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maniac said:

Firstly a shrewd politician can have his way in a democracy. Abraham Lincoln got his way and abolished salvery of all things that lot of people were not in agreement of. Infact Lincoln himself didn’t do it for a humanitarian cause. He did it for political purposes.

 

Bush went for a pointless Iraq war for personal reasons playing within the system even though he had a lot of opposition he got the vote.

 

Maybe dictatorship might have worked for us in 1947 but in 2019 it will be recipe for disaster. Won’t work in a multi-cultural society like India especially when we are this far along with the mess our regional political systems have become.

 

 

American population under lincoln - ~ 30 million. 

China has proven that billion+ can be put under the hammer. Time to take a page from their book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, surajmal said:

American population under lincoln - ~ 30 million. 

China has proven that billion+ can be put under the hammer. Time to take a page from their book. 

Yes and its been better for 95% of Chinese people, eh ?


Typical desh-dhrohi talk from you to progress your own cause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gollum said:

Expected, we have to continue this fight ourselves. To the economists and geostrategy experts on ICF, any way we can get back at China without harming ourselves more? 

Move production to India, use Indian companies & forget this sham called "Make in India" for Chinese sh!t that exploits the tax benefits only to screw us more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, surajmal said:

I didn't say RSS is ready now. But MP elections prove that Indian electorate can't be trusted to think for themselves. Dictatorship is only rational. 

Yeah...either vote for us or we will rule you with danda.

Sick !

This is the reason people need to vote out govts( parties) from time to time. So they don't think they have a natural right to govern.

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chewy said:

Out of curiusity, what changes happens if Massood is on official UN terror list?

Will it invite sanctions if he is not arrested?

 

 

Same thing as Hafiz Saeed & JuD/LeT. It doesn't matter until FATA blacklists pakistan to begin with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on derailed topics of the thread

Spoiler

A form of government in and of itself isn't an accomplishment. That so many of us have been brainwashed into thinking that "Democracy" is, in and of itself, is an accomplishment, is an example of the power of indoctrination through the education system. The central government, with few actual tangible accomplishments over the 70+ years of Independence has sold us that Democracy is such a boon on humanity and the Indian populace that people without roads, electricity, toilets, hospitals, water, food, etc should be thankful anyway.  

 

Democracy, which we aren't by the way, we are a Democratic Republic,  should, like any form of government, be praised or criticized on the basis of the actual goals of a society/nation. The same goes for any type of government one can think of.

 

Neither is there much compelling evidence that Indians actually care about Democracy much anyway. People regularly elect/support dynasties, many of whom have done very little for the betterment of the people who voted for them/the states they govern/the nation as a whole. People also support the erosion of Democracy, largely by the mechanisms of Judicial Overreach and the ever-growing Babudom("Deep State"), so long as these institutions do what these interested people want. Translation: democracy for when it gives me what I want, but I will coerce the populace and subvert Democracy, when it doesn't agree with me.  

 

There isn't much compelling evidence that any form of government is in particular a panacea, ie adopt X form of government and then your country suddenly becomes a Superpower/Economic Power/ Military Power or whatever "power." The correct policies are much more likely, IMO, to be what actually drives success, not giving XYZ a vote or making ABC the emperor for life! 

 

It is much more likely, IMO, that all forms of government have their merits and demerits and that each country should fluidly adopt whichever form of government best leads to the desired result, IMO that is becoming a "Superpower".  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case of Abraham Lincoln actually goes against the concept of Democracy producing great leaders. Abe was elected in 1960, with <40% of the popular vote in the election, in a quadrilateral election, so he wasn't universally popular at the time of his election, and some credit his very election, including some of his positions on issues, as being the "straw that broke the camel'l back" for the secession of "The South." 

 

Abe is remembered as arguably the greatest US president, because he won the Civil War and the US retained its territory. However, during the time of the war, he did things which would be described as "dictatorial", the most prominent of which was the suspension of Habeas Corpus. He had the power to jail people arbitrarily during the war, in direct violation of the US constitution and people's conception of fundamental rights!

 

Add to that, the population of the US at the time was ~31 million, of which, of which less than 5 million voted for president! Abe was elected basically by only ~6 percent of the population of the US!  Old Abe is more of an example of the power of a restricted electorate, which most people in modern times, of the group which would be willing to fall on the sword of Democracy, would find unpalatable. 

 

This is similar to most/if not all of the great US presidents, those who came immediately after their War of Independence. They were all elected by a small fraction of their population, and many of them ended up being some of the most brilliant/visionary/competent leaders to ever govern a country, especially a new one. People like JQA or Thomas Jefferson. Even their tier of leaders who didn't get elected as president, ie Franklin or Hamilton, were far more intelligent than the likes of our clowns who are sold as "great" or "intellectual" like Nehru, Ambedkar et al.  There is a reason that the US became the largest economy in the world hardly 100 years after Independence, while we are left scraping the bottom of the barrel for accomplishments like IITs or Bollywood. After 70+ years we finally have almost 100% village electrification or 70+% toilet coverage.  

 

That illustrates it is more who is the leader(s) and what are their policies rather than Democracy, in and of itself, being the key impetus for the success of a nation. I say this as a disillusioned fan of democracy :((  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

RSS has the manpower, but not the ideology to become a dictatorship. Pretty much all of their senior leadership are obsessed with democracy. One can look up Vajpayee or even Modi's speeches on the topic. There is one where Modi starts choking-up talking about how he would prefer Democracy over even food! They were also at the forefront of rebelling against would-be dictator Indira. Not that their "rebellion" was the reason for the failure of The Emergency. Indira would have actually become a dictator if the army was so inclined as to support her. The army didn't so she couldn't become one.

 

Even in the famous GE of 1977, which was supposedly a slap in the face of her tyranny, she got ~40% vote-share and ~190 LS seats. Look at the map yourselves.

450px-Wahlergebnisse_Indien_1977.svg.png

What is funny is that many of the "backwards", "ganwar" states were the ones who supposedly "saved Democracy." Also note, Indira lost less than 3 % of her vote-share from before the Emergency. :phehe: Her loss was more along the lines of others ganging up to defeat her, rather than her losing popularity. 

 

On topic:

 

China has no reason to label Azhar as a terrorist. He and Bakistan are assets for them. The US and whatever other countries people want to support India's stand, can't do anything. The UN is now and has always been a farcical organization.

 

Although I agree with @SinghBling, India should show some spine and do something, even if they don't want to go that far. Suspend any monetary and military contribution we give to the UN. We are paying in Rupees and Blood to basically serve an organization where 5 countries have some undeserved final say on any key action. 

 

A big boost for Make in India would be duties or even banning Chinese products, so long as we take advantage of it.   

 

We can't really use Uighurs, I don't think, as the Chinese will turn them into Dog food  and then eat them at the Yulin Dog Festival :fear1:

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

My opinion on derailed topics of the thread

  Hide contents

 

<snipped because i am not countering a specific point but overall point>

It is all fine and dandy to say that the governments should be appraised based on the objective goals of the society. However, you should read late 19th century and early 20th century pro-democratic literature from Europe regarding WHY democracy is preferrable to dictatorships.

I know you have a reflexive bias against Europeans and tend to throw everything those humans do in the trash or minimize their accomplishments, but bear with me here - the main focus was the fact that democracy neuters the government from doing severe harm or something incredibly rash. The main casualty of it, is that it also hobbles the government from doing a lot of productive good. 
Given human history and burden of evidence, we have seen over and over and over again - from India to China to Arabia to Europe- everywhere - that 90% of people in power prefer to screw the weak and helpless of their society and 10% are actually the 'enlightened, civil servants who want betterment of entire society'. 

 

Even in our history, dictatorships have yeilded extremely silly wars and loss of life - Cholas and Chalukyas fought several of their wars solely on the premise of ' the @sshole king divorced his Chola princess wife/ set aside his son from the Chalukya princess for succession' etc. We all know the Aaluddin Khilji and Padmavati. 


Now compare it with wars waged by the Greek city states that were democratic or the janapadas that were democratic - hardly any such instances.

 

And this is why democracy is the best way forward - most people are @ssholes. they are in it for themselves and they will happily slit the throat of another for personal profit if they can get away with it. Democracy is a system that mitigates the negatives of humans rulership at the expense of also neutering the positives. Given that dictatorships have a losing track record by a landslide in the 'maniac vs rational' divide, its the best system FOR a society. 

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On topic:

 

China has no reason to label Azhar as a terrorist. He and Bakistan are assets for them. The US and whatever other countries people want to support India's stand, can't do anything. The UN is now and has always been a farcical organization.

UN is only good for PR and getting populist support. It gives a certain 'window of opportunity' in a world-wide frame to do something drastic and get away with it. 

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Although I agree with @SinghBling, India should show some spine and do something, even if they don't want to go that far. Suspend any monetary and military contribution we give to the UN. We are paying in Rupees and Blood to basically serve an organization where 5 countries have some undeserved final say on any key action. 

No, i think India should persist. We are a rising power and over this century, at worst, we will the third ranked country in terms of force of weight ( most likely behind China and maybe still behind USA). As such, Indian involvement WHILE India grows stronger, provided we maintain a consistent stance towards our objectives in the UN and the reforms we want, can either lead to its reform or its fracturing akin to League of Nations fracturing. 

Right now, leaving or withdrawing gains us nothing but loses a lot of topical support and diplomatic leverage. 

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

A big boost for Make in India would be duties or even banning Chinese products, so long as we take advantage of it.   

Can't do that. China will successfully sue our ar$es off in the WTO and EU will side with them, because at the end of the day, fair trade is their mantra and in turn, that will screw us ( as they are our biggest export partner). 

A non-official 'boycott China' campaign via social media and exerting populist rejection of Chinese made goods will be far more productive - it lets India off the hook in official/diplomatic/international trade forums ( look, what can WE do if our people won't buy the goods ? can't blame businesses for not importing Chinese products, if Chinese products are not moving off the shelf!) and also signal a far bigger 'actual power' to China in return.


Ultimately, China is a nation that preens too much because they like to avoid confrontation. Its the classic 'don't call my bluff' strategy of over-betting : we saw this in Doklam. As such, Chinese are concerned with the $$ and as soon as an Indian govt. can signal China that we have the power to influence our public to a level that makes a big $$ difference to China, they will back down from supporting the Bakis - we still earn them way, way more $$ than the Bakis do.

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

We can't really use Uighurs, I don't think, as the Chinese will turn them into Dog food  and then eat them at the Yulin Dog Festival :fear1:

Yep. 100% true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, we have to ditch the 'one glove fits all' strategy of our international policy. 

The Congressi mantra of 'lets make everyone richer and more trade-connected, because if we are all connected, we all have equal stakes in stability' is a CLEAR failure regarding Pakistan - history has proven to us that a richer Pakistan is more of a menace than a poorer Pakistan, regardless of how well/not well they are connected to us. 


Similarly the BJP mantra of ' its our right, this is the correct action re: terrorists' is also a failure, albeit less clear, largely due to the 'optics' of opposing such a stance. But look closer and you will see that several countries ( China, to a lesser extent USA, etc) don't really care.

We have to have a 'horses for the courses' strategy. 

Realise what each player wants and cater to that want, to maximize our results.


Pakistan for eg, will only listen to being utterly destituted and potentially, broken up. 


China on the other hand, pays keen attention to its pocketbook : become more integrated with their economy ( without becoming their slaves) is the best way to exert influence on Chinese diplomatic policy.

 

USA cares most about being perceived as the world hegemon and symbolic gestures of 'we listen to our big bro USA' works wonders with the US government & media. Look at Israel - they do the 'we lick US boots' routine on a day to day basis over nothing important. But the moment they wanna do something big for them in Gaza/Palestine, they don't give a toss about US and US is placated with the whole ' we lick your boots 360 days a year, so give us these 5 days where its REALLY important to us'. 

 

EU on the other hand, cares most about being 'listened to' about human rights and lack of trade barriers.

 

Australia - they are just a more honest and simpler Canada - buy their raw minerals in zillion tonnes per annum quota and they will happily go along with whatever you do. 

 

India needs a multi-faceted strategy for each and every player, instead of using tired cliches from the MEA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

In short, we have to ditch the 'one glove fits all' strategy of our international policy. 

The Congressi mantra of 'lets make everyone richer and more trade-connected, because if we are all connected, we all have equal stakes in stability' is a CLEAR failure regarding Pakistan - history has proven to us that a richer Pakistan is more of a menace than a poorer Pakistan, regardless of how well/not well they are connected to us. 


Similarly the BJP mantra of ' its our right, this is the correct action re: terrorists' is also a failure, albeit less clear, largely due to the 'optics' of opposing such a stance. But look closer and you will see that several countries ( China, to a lesser extent USA, etc) don't really care.

We have to have a 'horses for the courses' strategy. 

Realise what each player wants and cater to that want, to maximize our results.


Pakistan for eg, will only listen to being utterly destituted and potentially, broken up. 


China on the other hand, pays keen attention to its pocketbook : become more integrated with their economy ( without becoming their slaves) is the best way to exert influence on Chinese diplomatic policy.

 

USA cares most about being perceived as the world hegemon and symbolic gestures of 'we listen to our big bro USA' works wonders with the US government & media. Look at Israel - they do the 'we lick US boots' routine on a day to day basis over nothing important. But the moment they wanna do something big for them in Gaza/Palestine, they don't give a toss about US and US is placated with the whole ' we lick your boots 360 days a year, so give us these 5 days where its REALLY important to us'. 

 

EU on the other hand, cares most about being 'listened to' about human rights and lack of trade barriers.

 

Australia - they are just a more honest and simpler Canada - buy their raw minerals in zillion tonnes per annum quota and they will happily go along with whatever you do. 

 

India needs a multi-faceted strategy for each and every player, instead of using tired cliches from the MEA. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

It is all fine and dandy to say that the governments should be appraised based on the objective goals of the society. However, you should read late 19th century and early 20th century pro-democratic literature from Europe regarding WHY democracy is preferrable to dictatorships.

I know you have a reflexive bias against Europeans and tend to throw everything those humans do in the trash or minimize their accomplishments, but bear with me here - the main focus was the fact that democracy neuters the government from doing severe harm or something incredibly rash. The main casualty of it, is that it also hobbles the government from doing a lot of productive good. 
Given human history and burden of evidence, we have seen over and over and over again - from India to China to Arabia to Europe- everywhere - that 90% of people in power prefer to screw the weak and helpless of their society and 10% are actually the 'enlightened, civil servants who want betterment of entire society'. 

 

Even in our history, dictatorships have yeilded extremely silly wars and loss of life - Cholas and Chalukyas fought several of their wars solely on the premise of ' the @sshole king divorced his Chola princess wife/ set aside his son from the Chalukya princess for succession' etc. We all know the Aaluddin Khilji and Padmavati. 


Now compare it with wars waged by the Greek city states that were democratic or the janapadas that were democratic - hardly any such instances.

 

And this is why democracy is the best way forward - most people are @ssholes. they are in it for themselves and they will happily slit the throat of another for personal profit if they can get away with it. Democracy is a system that mitigates the negatives of humans rulership at the expense of also neutering the positives. Given that dictatorships have a losing track record by a landslide in the 'maniac vs rational' divide, its the best system FOR a society. 

UN is only good for PR and getting populist support. It gives a certain 'window of opportunity' in a world-wide frame to do something drastic and get away with it. 

No, i think India should persist. We are a rising power and over this century, at worst, we will the third ranked country in terms of force of weight ( most likely behind China and maybe still behind USA). As such, Indian involvement WHILE India grows stronger, provided we maintain a consistent stance towards our objectives in the UN and the reforms we want, can either lead to its reform or its fracturing akin to League of Nations fracturing. 

Right now, leaving or withdrawing gains us nothing but loses a lot of topical support and diplomatic leverage. 

Can't do that. China will successfully sue our ar$es off in the WTO and EU will side with them, because at the end of the day, fair trade is their mantra and in turn, that will screw us ( as they are our biggest export partner). 

A non-official 'boycott China' campaign via social media and exerting populist rejection of Chinese made goods will be far more productive - it lets India off the hook in official/diplomatic/international trade forums ( look, what can WE do if our people won't buy the goods ? can't blame businesses for not importing Chinese products, if Chinese products are not moving off the shelf!) and also signal a far bigger 'actual power' to China in return.


Ultimately, China is a nation that preens too much because they like to avoid confrontation. Its the classic 'don't call my bluff' strategy of over-betting : we saw this in Doklam. As such, Chinese are concerned with the $$ and as soon as an Indian govt. can signal China that we have the power to influence our public to a level that makes a big $$ difference to China, they will back down from supporting the Bakis - we still earn them way, way more $$ than the Bakis do.

Yep. 100% true. 

For once I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Can't do that. China will successfully sue our ar$es off in the WTO and EU will side with them, because at the end of the day, fair trade is their mantra and in turn, that will screw us ( as they are our biggest export partner). 

Successfully sue us how? Most of the essential patents in the tech industry are held by US, Japan, SK & European firms while Huawei, ZTE only have a handful of telecom patents. In other industries as well US & EU lead the charts, so why would EU side with China anyway - since China has already screwed much of West by stealing their tech like Maglev :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

Successfully sue us how? Most of the essential patents in the tech industry are held by US, Japan, SK & European firms while Huawei, ZTE only have a handful of telecom patents. In other industries as well US & EU lead the charts, so why would EU side with China anyway - since China has already screwed much of West by stealing their tech like Maglev :no:

I am not talking about Huwawei or any particular company. Most Chinese goods in the Indian market are cheap consumables - like patakaas, clothing, cookwares, toys etc. We can't just up and ban them when we are signatories to the WTO and Free Trade regulations. 

Governments trying to do so have been successfully sued in the world court systems and whether they've averted the lawsuit or succumbed to it, it still cost them millions to do so. Those millions are much better spent in creating a 'people blackballing wave'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is all fine and dandy to say that the governments should be appraised based on the objective goals of the society. However, you should read late 19th century and early 20th century pro-democratic literature from Europe regarding WHY democracy is preferrable to dictatorships.

Except I have read pro-Democracy literature, along with the major Enlightenment philosophers from who actually seeded the key ideologies of "Classical Liberalism" including "Democracy" and they, like all philosophers, are only speculating and/or articulating their own biases.  Some of their basic assumptions underlying the entire Enlightenment, which is where this love for democracy comes from, are demonstrably false. Some of it is steeped in Christian theological concepts. There is no reason for me to accept any philosophy simply because their flowery language gives people warm feelings. 

 

Literally every philosophy in the world appeals to certain people, and those particular people find it profound/true. I have a friend who thinks the Koran is the most beautiful piece of literature/philosophy she has ever read, and she is training to become a Pharmacist. I am supposed to accept this simply because she likes what it says and it convinced her, someone already predisposed towards it, even if she will not be able to quantitatively explain why it is so beautiful? That's not going to fly.   Flowery rhetoric =/= a basis of accepting one system/ideology over another. 

 

Data and effectiveness is what matters, not rhetoric. 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I know you have a reflexive bias against Europeans and tend to throw everything those humans do in the trash or minimize their accomplishments,

This is bold is an ad hominem.

 

There has never been an instance of me demeaning actual so-called "European" accomplishments. I praise "Europeans" for what they actually do/did objectively well and trash them for what they don't/didn't. I also am not someone who groups "Europeans" as a single group: I speak of countries in Europe.  I understand that they are not a single entity which can be painted with a single brush. Asking for data/analysis over rhetoric and bold proclamations of amorphous "European exceptionalism" isn't bias, it is far closer to objectivity. More people should actually learn beyond a superficial level of what they did/do, to actually provide evidence/data/proof of what policies the "Europeans" actually used/did and what conditions actually led to their current status.  

 

It is far more accurate to say that you are far more reflexively biased in favor of Europeans without actually critically examining what they actually do and why they actually succeeded. I can give at least one example from memory as well.  You are far more likely to actually refer to them/praise them as the nebulous mass of along the lines of "Europeans"/ something similar. Again, I can give an example.  

 

I can support my claims of your bias far better than you can claims of my alleged "bias". 

Quote

but bear with me here - the main focus was the fact that democracy neuters the government from doing severe harm or something incredibly rash. The main casualty of it, is that it also hobbles the government from doing a lot of productive good. 

Again, this is empty rhetoric by those philosophers. There is no quantitative data which shows that a Democracy prevents rash actions any more than a Monarchy, a Republic, or a Dictatorship. 

 

I've seen Monarchists say that Monarchy prevents bad decisions, because the cost of failure in a Monarchy is the death of one's entire family if peasants revolt. That is similarly unsubstantiated. 

 

Even if one were to accept this basis of this theorizing, then it is also dependent on one's views what exactly is a rash decision and what isn't.

 

The flip side of the coin would be accusations of: policy paralysis and government lethargy. The easiest example of this is the Climate Change, as well as other existential issues. How exactly is it good if a government can't act on existential issues? 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Given human history and burden of evidence, we have seen over and over and over again - from India to China to Arabia to Europe- everywhere - that 90% of people in power prefer to screw the weak and helpless of their society and 10% are actually the 'enlightened, civil servants who want betterment of entire society'. 

Again, this is a made up stat and can effectively be seen as slandering countless people who also think they were doing what was "good" for society.  I don't think you will really be able to give any compelling, objective data that what you claim is/was for the "betterment of entire society" is actually better. 

 

That people have a different views on what is good or bad for society is an inherent reality. Assigning malevolence to their intentions is assuming one has the correct answers. It's a meaningless, endless argument unless one defines and agrees upon what parameters equal "betterment of entire society."

 

Without those parameters, it's just empty proclamations by various people of "what I say is better because I say so."

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Even in our history, dictatorships have yeilded extremely silly wars and loss of life - Cholas and Chalukyas fought several of their wars solely on the premise of ' the @sshole king divorced his Chola princess wife/ set aside his son from the Chalukya princess for succession' etc. We all know the Aaluddin Khilji and Padmavati. 


 

Not agreeing with those reasons for war, but war is war. Everyone thinks their war is a war for a good cause or for a good reason. There isn't really a set, universal definition of what exactly is a good reason for war. Some people would say all war is wrong, except for self-defense.  

 

Some argue war itself is profitable. 

Quote

Now compare it with wars waged by the Greek city states that were democratic or the janapadas that were democratic - hardly any such instances.

This is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak, as the Greek city-states   themselves were essentially so small that they hardly can be seen as some view on effective governance for societies many more times greater in size and scale. Athens herself was at one time a direct democracy, IIRC, which would be so difficult to implement in any even moderately sized country today.

 

Communists also cite some random communes in (Arabia iirc) which were similar to their dream societies, where everyone worked without profit, despite the fact that a small Indian village governs more people than these communes.  

 

This is also fallacious as there is the fact that small societies can hardly war for the same reasons as a large society.

 

Djibouti or North Korea, if they were to wage a war against some other country, would have to be more selective on both for what reason to go to war and who to go to war with. The US and China in comparison could wage war for a far greater range of reasons and against a greater range of opponents. 

 

All around, the Greek city-states are a non-descriptive example of human societies. 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

And this is why democracy is the best way forward - most people are @ssholes. they are in it for themselves and they will happily slit the throat of another for personal profit if they can get away with it.

I disagree, this seems more like an assumption of Original Sin, rather than anything which has a basis. Humans have different priorities and self-interests. 

Quote

Democracy is a system that mitigates the negatives of humans rulership at the expense of also neutering the positives.

Again, that's an vague, unsupported hypothesis. First one has to set the parameters: 

What aspects of Humans are positive/negative? That definition itself will come with biases. 

 

Then how does Democracy actually neuter both the positives and negatives of it?

 

Quote

Given that dictatorships have a losing track record by a landslide in the 'maniac vs rational' divide, its the best system FOR a society.

Once again this relies on what is the definition of maniac/rational, as well as what is "good for society". I'm sure what you think is good for society wouldn't necessarily be congruent with what many other people think is good for society. 

 

This is also a case of recency bias: most large governments throughout history were essentially dictatorships, if one equates dictatorship to monarchy. When the base is larger, it's easier pick more examples from it.  It's also a bias in history to look for "exceptional characters." No one reads about some unexceptional 8th century king of some Bantu tribe.  The "Era of Democracy" is the current era, and even Universal Democracy is hardly ~100 years old. There has been numerous leaders/governments in this era who have shown plenty of "irrational"/violent policies with similar/worse human costs.    

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indians themselves are divided, as this thread shows. Putting up an united fight against dictatorships like Pakistan and China is out of he question until all major political parties in India don’t agree on a common national security plank, which does not look to be happening in the near future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Except I have read pro-Democracy literature, along with the major Enlightenment philosophers from who actually seeded the key ideologies of "Classical Liberalism" including "Democracy" and they, like all philosophers, are only speculating and/or articulating their own biases.  Some of their basic assumptions underlying the entire Enlightenment, which is where this love for democracy comes from, are demonstrably false. Some of it is steeped in Christian theological concepts. There is no reason for me to accept any philosophy simply because their flowery language gives people warm feelings. 

Enlightenment literature is not the same era of late 1800s-early 1900s. I am not talking about the enlightenment era literature talking about theory of democracy and its ethics, i am talking of the literature of a later period that pointedly notes how democracy is a neutered option than the 'high risk, high reward' scenarios of dictatorships. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Data and effectiveness is what matters, not rhetoric. 

Data clearly shows that good dictators are far more rarer than bad dictators and dictators have a far bigger effect on society than democratic governments. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

This is bold is an ad hominem.

 

There has never been an instance of me demeaning actual so-called "European" accomplishments. I praise "Europeans" for what they actually do/did objectively well and trash them for what they don't/didn't.

I am yet to see actually any instances of your claim of you praising any subset of Europeans in a positive manner for anything they've done. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I also am not someone who groups "Europeans" as a single group: I speak of countries in Europe.  I understand that they are not a single entity which can be painted with a single brush. Asking for data/analysis over rhetoric and bold proclamations of amorphous "European exceptionalism" isn't bias, it is far closer to objectivity. More people should actually learn beyond a superficial level of what they did/do, to actually provide evidence/data/proof of what policies the "Europeans" actually used/did and what conditions actually led to their current status.  

It is a geographical term as well and used as such in my writings. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

It is far more accurate to say that you are far more reflexively biased in favor of Europeans without actually critically examining what they actually do and why they actually succeeded. I can give at least one example from memory as well.  You are far more likely to actually refer to them/praise them as the nebulous mass of along the lines of "Europeans"/ something similar. Again, I can give an example.  

You can give plenty of examples of me praising as well as criticizing Europeans on this website alone. I am yet to see one from you where you praise anything/contribution of the Europeans without presenting caveats like you do with our ancestors. Feel free to correct me with actual examples, as i am merely stating i havn't come across such from you, not saying you have not made such (since i don't read everything here). 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

I can support my claims of your bias far better than you can claims of my alleged "bias". 

Above is a classic example of personal observer bias. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Again, this is empty rhetoric by those philosophers. There is no quantitative data which shows that a Democracy prevents rash actions any more than a Monarchy, a Republic, or a Dictatorship. 

Show me how many democracies have waged war on the basis of the top ruler wanting to shag someone ( Alauddin) or getting irked at their family member being divorced ( Cholas) or passed up on succession order ( Chalukyas).

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

The flip side of the coin would be accusations of: policy paralysis and government lethargy. The easiest example of this is the Climate Change, as well as other existential issues. How exactly is it good if a government can't act on existential issues? 

Because a government that is paralyzed from doing harm, is also paralyzed from doing good. Since we actually have evidence of far more instances of dictatorial powers subverting entire national policy for PERSONAL wars and destruction than democracies, maybe the reality is, humanity is incapable of forming a government that can act on existential issues either way.


Ergo, logical to go for the paralyzed government than the sadistic government. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Again, this is a made up stat and can effectively be seen as slandering countless people who also think they were doing what was "good" for society.  I don't think you will really be able to give any compelling, objective data that what you claim is/was for the "betterment of entire society" is actually better. 

 

That people have a different views on what is good or bad for society is an inherent reality. Assigning malevolence to their intentions is assuming one has the correct answers. It's a meaningless, endless argument unless one defines and agrees upon what parameters equal "betterment of entire society."

Casus belli for wars is an objective parameter. Should you wish, i can compile a list historically of casus belli for war in democracies vs dictatorships and the results are abundantly clear - dictatorships are far more prone to sacrificing civillian lives for the sake of honor/gain of the elites than democracies have been. 

If we grant the notion that there is no objective parameter of 'doing good for society', perhaps we can agree that sending your people to die by the thousands in a war just because your daughter was insulted and you are the most powerful family/person in your kingdom, is by definiton, anti-patriotic and pro-plutocratic. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Without those parameters, it's just empty proclamations by various people of "what I say is better because I say so."

 

Not agreeing with those reasons for war, but war is war. Everyone thinks their war is a war for a good cause or for a good reason. There isn't really a set, universal definition of what exactly is a good reason for war. Some people would say all war is wrong, except for self-defense.  

Sure. In this hazy sliding scale of warfare, you will find that MOST people will agree, that going to war and killing thousands/altering trade networks as a consequence etc. all to mollify the honor code of the upper class, is near the bottom end for a justified war and dictatorships are chock full of such wars through human history. 

You cannot really blame it on 'different times different rules' argument, because i will cite Sparta vs Athenian policies as a direct contrast - Sparta has fought far more wars due to their king being insulted or marriage contract being broken than Athenians have in their psuedo-demcratic framework 2000+ years ago.

 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Some argue war itself is profitable. 

It is, for the very few who are in position to profit. Yet to see any evidence that it is profitable for an entire society unless decisive victory can be achieved and punitive surrender terms can be imposed. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

This is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak, as the Greek city-states   themselves were essentially so small that they hardly can be seen as some view on effective governance for societies many more times greater in size and scale. Athens herself was at one time a direct democracy, IIRC, which would be so difficult to implement in any even moderately sized country today.

Sure, but like-for-like comparisons in the Greek city-states will show that the psuedo-democratic ones are less prone to 'honor warfare', aka on the basis of egos of their elites, than the autocratic Greek city states, from the same period. 

 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Djibouti or North Korea, if they were to wage a war against some other country, would have to be more selective on both for what reason to go to war and who to go to war with. The US and China in comparison could wage war for a far greater range of reasons and against a greater range of opponents. 

This assumes that all the executors of the government are equally rational. 
An autocracy with a schizophrenic dictator has no such safeguards as you are implying with rationalism. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

I disagree, this seems more like an assumption of Original Sin, rather than anything which has a basis. Humans have different priorities and self-interests. 

No assumptions, the fact that humans in general are self serving than altruistic has plenty of objective proof in the modern day world as well as through history. The original sin comment is irrelevant, since this observation is inherently not tied to Christianity or the desert cult philosophies, as can be seen from even our own literatures sans desert cultist effects. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Again, that's an vague, unsupported hypothesis. First one has to set the parameters: 

What aspects of Humans are positive/negative? That definition itself will come with biases. 

See above in terms of proposal of agreement towards high probability of considering a 'unjustified war'. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

This is also a case of recency bias: most large governments throughout history were essentially dictatorships, if one equates dictatorship to monarchy. When the base is larger, it's easier pick more examples from it.  It's also a bias in history to look for "exceptional characters." No one reads about some unexceptional 8th century king of some Bantu tribe.  The "Era of Democracy" is the current era, and even Universal Democracy is hardly ~100 years old. There has been numerous leaders/governments in this era who have shown plenty of "irrational"/violent policies with similar/worse human costs.    

If you claim recency bias carte blanche, i will simply counter with ' eden syndrome bias' in your case. Plenty of examples also exist of people wanting change just for change's sack and thinking the grass is greener on the other side just because they are bored with their current scenario. 

 

I have not said democratic leaders are less irrational or less violent than autocrats. I have simply stated that they have less power to affect their constituents than an autocrat and objective evidence, as well as rational quantification of the mechanics of power in either system makes this abundantly clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FischerTal said:

Indians themselves are divided, as this thread shows. Putting up an united fight against dictatorships like Pakistan and China is out of he question until all major political parties in India don’t agree on a common national security plank, which does not look to be happening in the near future. 

if a country of 1.3 billion people representing more than 1/7th of humanity, with 25+ major languages and cultures are NOT divided on the semantics of foreign policy, it can only mean one thing - that country has no freedom of thought or is a country of retards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, beetle said:

Yeah...either vote for us or we will rule you with danda.

Sick !

This is the reason people need to vote out govts( parties) from time to time. So they don't think they have a natural right to govern.

 (more) Right people should be preferred to govern over those who are (more) wrong. Pretty straight forward reasoning. Nothing Sick about. But again, SSC lost after overseeing double digit economic growth for 3 consecutive terms. Especially astonishing since MP was literally a gangland democracy prior to his arrival. Hence, MPites ought to lose their voting cards. "Stupidity is like death. It's only painful for others". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, surajmal said:

 (more) Right people should be preferred to govern over those who are (more) wrong.

Since you are only a member of species homo sapiens without any AI advancements made to their CNS, your idea of 'more right' is 1 outta 1.3 billion Indians. 
You don't get to tell others your idea of 'more right' is actually more right than their's just like they don't get to tell you that, either. 

36 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Pretty straight forward reasoning. Nothing Sick about. 

Commies who think they are more right than you for their flavor of dictatorship, says hello.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surajmal said:

 (more) Right people should be preferred to govern over those who are (more) wrong. Pretty straight forward reasoning. Nothing Sick about. But again, SSC lost after overseeing double digit economic growth for 3 consecutive terms. Especially astonishing since MP was literally a gangland democracy prior to his arrival. Hence, MPites ought to lose their voting cards. "Stupidity is like death. It's only painful for others". 

Who gets to decide who is right snd who is wrong ?

In a democracy.....it is the people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, beetle said:

Who gets to decide who is right snd who is wrong ?

In a democracy.....it is the people.

 

let me see - SSC is right, Digvijay and murderer Kamal nath are wrong?

Its pretty effin clear, who right and wrong are in Indian Political scenario. This is not a theoretical exercise. If 70 years of data points don't tell you what is best for you ,atleast to pick the least worst option (and what that least worst option is), then the problem is you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, surajmal said:

let me see - SSC is right, Digvijay and murderer Kamal nath are wrong?

Its pretty effin clear, who right and wrong are in Indian Political scenario. This is not a theoretical exercise. If 70 years of data points don't tell you what is best for you ,atleast to pick the least worst option (and what that least worst option is), then the problem is you.  

least worst option for whom ? 1.3 billion people don't have the same linear goals. The least worse option are in power currently and they are getting the window of opportunity - to either make enough rope to hang themselves or prove that they are the least worst option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×