Would India have been a first world country if the Kashmir Conflict didn't exist?

[Moochad]

13 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I think that discussion is in open and wide meaning of first world country, which means developed country with low poverty. Like South Korea today, or even what China is today. 

There is no 'open and wide' meaning of first world country.  There is just you making up your own definition.

 

There is the definition of first world country which is what I posted based on what scholars say it actually means, and then there is what the OP considers is a so-called firstworld country when he made the thread. That is why I asked him to define it.

 

 

Quote

Secondly, the whole basic structure of India is based upon Capitalism. I doubt that Indian economy has any basic communist element. The so called Leftists/Communists of India too at maximum practising the Social work within the boundaries of Capitalism, just like many Western European countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden etc.  who have the social programs for the poor citizens.

That is why, I don't agree to this accusation that India is run by communism and leftists have any kind of monopoly over the government. In my opinion government at moment is fully run by BJP, and thus BJP is fully responsible for any black or any white at moment.  

Nothing about India's basic structure is based on 'capitalism'. Since independence India was ruled by socialists. People in India don't even have proper property rights. Even in the constitution Socialism was forcefully inserted. You are ignorant of even the basics as per usual. 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moochad

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

With the amount of population we have, it is not possible.

Exactly, you are very correct. 

Do you think there are any chances of one or two child strict policy in India as we saw in China? 

[Moochad]

13 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I doubt that other kings of earlier times were any different than Mughuls. 

Therefore, I think that Hindu Rajas were also the same. 

No one cared much about the normal people, and they were all basically more interested in their personal interests. 

I think British also looted India, but still did much more modern development work in India as compared to the Mughals or other Rajas/Maharajas. 

There may be some exceptions here and there, but in general I don't know any other person who felt the pain of "untouchables" and worked for their betterment, except of great Buddha. 

 

 

Go ahead and prove that the other kings looted India, or that the British did development, otherwise stop bothering me with your propaganda. Your bigoted agenda is getting as tiresome as your need for attention. 

 

It's like you are innumerate  or something. When a country goes from greater than 20% of world GDP to 2 percent, you call that development?

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moochad

[Alam_dar]

5 minutes ago, Moochad said:

When a country goes from greater than 20% of world GDP to 2 percent, you call that development. 

I believe it has to do with the Industrial revolution, where other parts of the world started generating a lot of output, including the black Gold (Oil), but India didn't have so much share in the Industrial revolution and increase in output was minimal. 

 

Alone USA is generating about 30% of GDP of whole world today, while it was negligible during the Mughal era. 

 

[sukhoi]

Do not think so -

1) If not Kashmir there will be some other things blocking our interest - Ex: Punjab, Eastern States (Sponsored by a Frenemy Country on our Western Side which would also had some part on Eastern side - BANGLADESH)

2) There would be a high octane clash for water resources with the FRENEMY Country on the western side (Most of the Indus Water, will not be touched by India - Leading to a conflict in the way like Karnataka & TN over Cauvery)

3) There are many Mosques which FRENEMY Country on the Western side will take advantage to boost its population and to make another division so as to dupicate what happened to Soviet Union.

 

 

One thing the OP - should consider is

 

Philipines - Moro People's Issue 

Thailand - Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and part of Songkhla Region

Nigeria - North and South

France - Algeria Migrants issue

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by sukhoi

[Clarke]

2 hours ago, Moochad said:

 

We had high GDP share during Mughal era, but also before, pretty much entire history pre-British. Mughal era was actually the beginning of the decline of India as wealth was concentrated in the pockets of Mughals and their zamindars/chelas while the common people were looted. 

 

 

I wasn't crediting the mughals or anything, just stating the last time "Indian" gdp as world share percent was high.

[Moochad]

23 minutes ago, Clarke said:

I wasn't crediting the mughals or anything, just stating the last time "Indian" gdp as world share percent was high.

I wasn't trying to imply that you did, sorry if it came off that way. I was trying to show that it was a consistent trend in our history! According to the chart it looks like even at 1 AD it was around 35%.  

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moochad

[Temujin Khaghan]

@Vilander

Vijayanagara kingdom during the reign of Sri Krishna Deva Raya was legit first world. 

 

//From contemporary accounts, it appears that the city was rich and very beautiful—The city is such that eye has not seen nor ear heard of any place resembling it upon earth", says Abdur-Razzak from Central Asia.

There were arcades and magnificent galleries for the bazaars, and rising above them all was the palace of the king surrounded by "many rivulets and streams flowing through channels of cut stone, polished and even."

 

 

The whole city was full of gardens, and because of them, as an Italian visitor in 1420, Nicolo Conti writes, the circumference of the city was sixty miles.

 

 

A later visitor was Paes, a Portuguese who came in 1522 after having visited the Italian cities of the Renaissance. The city of Vijayanagar, he says, is as "large as Rome and very beautiful to the sight"; it is full of charm and wonder with its innumerable lakes and waterways and fruit gardens. It is "the best-provided city in the world" and "everything abounds." The chambers of the palace were a mass of ivory, with roses and lotuses carved in ivory at the top--"it is so rich and beautiful that you would hardly find anywhere, another such.

[DHONI_FANN]

If Modiji rules for a decade or so, we will surely become a Middle Income Country. I am very much sure about this 

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/sas-geelanis-apartment-seized-owes-over-rs-4-crore-taxes/articleshow/68672440.cms?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=TOI&utm_content=om-bm

[someone]

Kashmir conflict should have been a warning and remainder of past mistakes and history. We dont want another Kashmir in other parts of country. Yet, it seems we are making the same mistakes and have whitewashed crimes.

 

Now, Kashmir just isnt the only issue, its other parts of country...

[DHONI_FANN]

22 minutes ago, someone said:

Kashmir conflict should have been a warning and remainder of past mistakes and history. We dont want another Kashmir in other parts of country. Yet, it seems we are making the same mistakes and have whitewashed crimes.

 

Now, Kashmir just isnt the only issue, its other parts of country...

100 percent agreed. Its not only Kashmir, we are on the verge of losing Waste Bengal and Kerallah too. Hindus need to wake up. Actually Civil War will be good for country at this moment before it is too late. Once they outnumber us, we wont even require civil war. 

[Tibarn]

 

A simple chart answers the OP's question. Break out the popcorn for cartoonish answers like true "secularism", true "democracy", true "Ingliss language advantage", true "ina, meena, dika"  

 

Kashmir has nothing to do with it. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

7 hours ago, Moochad said:

The 3 factors to fit the definition:

Democracy (check)

Capitalist (x)

Industrial(x)

By that definition, Singapore wouldn't be a "first world country." This tells you how political the definition is. The goal should be to be a developed country.

 

A developed country is one with a certain level of income ie GDP/capita. All the rest is just the noise of propagandists. A country requires economic freedom to become a developed nation. It sounds simple enough, but liberandus struggle to grasp this even today. They will promote some voodoo economics where if one throws enough money at a problem, it will be solved automatically. The sheer arrogance of some people to think that they can "manage" an economy is astounding. A lot of these same people haven't even organized a successful community event, yet they somehow have the ability to give gyaan on managing economies of trillions of dollars and millions of people. 

7 hours ago, Moochad said:

We had high GDP share during Mughal era, but also before, pretty much entire history pre-British. Mughal era was actually the beginning of the decline of India as wealth was concentrated in the pockets of Mughals and their zamindars/chelas while the common people were looted. 

Not only was it the beginning of the decline, it was one of, if not the most exploitative regime in recorded economic history. I will have to share the book with you the next time I am in India. I can't remember the name, but it is in my library on my other computer. 

6 hours ago, Moochad said:

Go ahead and prove that the other kings looted India, or that the British did development, otherwise stop bothering me with your propaganda. Your bigoted agenda is getting as tiresome as your need for attention. 

Looks like someone got triggered by your condemnation of brutal tyrants in the Mughals and British. Evil Kuffar Hindoos aren't allowed to criticize brutal tyrants 

Quote

When a country goes from greater than 20% of world GDP to 2 percent, you call that development?

This is oversimplified in my opinion. While the British did indeed contribute to the overall destruction of the Indian economy, there was at least some positive contribution by them to it, in the form of some technology transfer that happened. One has to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something positive from them, and it is far outnumbered by the negatives, but it is there. The laughable propaganda that the British helped India's development is house-*ing at its finest.  

 

By 1950, the GDP/capita was $619, from $673 in 1913 (WWI), but even that peak of $673 is less than the value it was in 1600 of $682.   

In some 313 years, the average Indian lost $9 GDP/capita. 

 

Then we inherited that dastard Bandit Nehru and his merry band of Socialists and didn't even exploit what advantages we had post "Azaadi." Here is a "fun fact" that shows the "Gungadeen rate of growth" The gap between India and the West was bigger in 1998 than in 1870. (It turns out speaking English doesn't actually give Gungadeens any extra IQ points, it just makes it easier to flirt with Gorimemshahibas).    

 

This is opposed to the Mughals, where there was a consistent decline in the economy, particularly of "North India." From the Mughal era 1600 to 1800, the per capita GDP of India dropped from $682 to $569. By the end of it, the whole subcontinent was in upheaval, so, to some extent, that is excusable, but the biggest fall was from 1600 to 1650, so it can't be due to war only. (It turns out raping/pillaging/looting/slaving isn't a valid economic model. Who would've thought?). 

 

From the 1830s to 1840s the GDP/capita increased --> stagnated --> went into another severe decline from 1850 to 1860. As the pommies decided to genocide 10 million people after 1857, that probably had a fair share of the blame of the decline between those decades.  

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Tibarn

[Vilander]

4 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

Vijayanagara kingdom during the reign of Sri Krishna Deva Raya was legit first world

True i thought about it too. Their architecture surely gives that feel. But much lesser period of stability than the other two.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

 

From the 1830s to 1840s the GDP/capita increased --> stagnated --> went into another severe decline from 1850 to 1860. As the pommies decided to genocide 10 million people after 1857, that probably had a fair share of the blame of the decline between those decades.  

 

You are forgetting the biggest reason for India's poverty in the industrial era: the active british policy of banning industry in India.

[mishra]

Kashmir is not the reason why Nehuru family has been ruling India for past 70 years.

[Muloghonto]

Indian wealth peaked at around the Kannauj triangle era ( 700s AD-1000AD), then it declined severely in the following centuries, due to breakdown of Indian systems. 

People should look up what Srenis were - they were corporations and laws regarding Srenis were extremely complicated and intricate - as is the case with corporate law.

One must realize, that the secret to Indian wealth in pre-industrial era, was that we were in a unique position like Australia/Norway/Canada - a resource exporting nation that is also high level manufacturing exporter. Manufacturing in pre-industrial era, in terms of bulk goods, consisted of textiles, dyes and perfumes. 

While silk was the most prized commodity of the ancient Eurasian trade routes, cotton was the dominant clothing item traded. Each and every Roman senator for eg, wore cotton togas, with cotton not growing in Egypt until 200 AD at the earliest ( some say even later). Its like Silk was the Rolls Royce, but Cotton was the Honda Civic of the ancient world. 

 

But we didn't export uncarded or carded cotton in bales to the mediterranean, we exported finished product - actual clothing. We also held an unique position in jewellery trade, mostly due to the fact that diamonds were incredibly expensive in pre-modern world and ONLY came from the Golconda region of India till 1850s (when non-Indian sources were found). The Koh-i-noor, when stolen by Nader Shah in 1700s AD, was considered of enough value to feed the whole world's food intake for 3 days. 

We also were the foremost producers of dyes such as indigo, tyrean purple ( though originating in Tyre, became a thriving industry in India) and tinctures of perfumes, aka attar. 

Combined with our raw material export - such as spices, jute, hemp & rice, we were a manufacturing cum resource based economy.

This gave rise to the Srenis, which we know for a fact were extremely powerful and present in Indian trade systems from at least 400s BC till around 1000 ADs, when the Sreni system started to weaken. 

 

A big part of the sreni system's weakening is due to the Islamic boycott of Indian srenis - they refused to do trade with us ( which in turn, perpetrated the Arabian Sea trade stake-holders from Indian subcontinent- like wealthy Gujaratis & Sindhis - to turn to Islam) and this Islamic boycott of our trade guilds played an instrumental role in spreading Islam in the subcontinent as well. The Tamils for eg, were impervious to this along with the Oryas (Kalingans) due to their sphere of trade dominance being the BoB network, something that didn't turn to Islam till 1500s AD ( islamization of SE Asia is 500-ish years old) and their version of Islam is also way more syncretic with local beliefs and customs. 

 

The Islamic invasions of India weakened these economic institutions of ancient India severely, but we still retained a manufacturing cum resource based industrial base. Our share of the world market decreased, but we were still near the top of the curve.

 

The Industrial revolution changed everything, because the KEY to British Empire's economic success, was turning its colonies into resource exporters only, with all the processing done in Britain. Why do you think Charles Dickens and William Wordsworth write about the cotton mills of Manchester and Liverpool ?  Its because the British put restrictions on the quantity of loom industries in Indian subcontinent.
IIRC ( i cant remember which paper i read it in, but i have it somewhere in my library of documents) the British, in 1850s issued a directive to India that we were not allowed to have iron foundries that turned out more than 200 tonnes of steel per annum. This is a piddly amount, even by 1850s standard. The key to British economic success, as well as Indian poverty, is preventing the industrial revolution in India by British policies. 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Moochad said:

There is no 'open and wide' meaning of first world country.  There is just you making up your own definition.

 

There is the definition of first world country which is what I posted based on what scholars say it actually means, and then there is what the OP considers is a so-called firstworld country when he made the thread. That is why I asked him to define it.

 

 

Nothing about India's basic structure is based on 'capitalism'. Since independence India was ruled by socialists. People in India don't even have proper property rights. Even in the constitution Socialism was forcefully inserted. You are ignorant of even the basics as per usual. 

 

disagree. If privatized means of production and free market pricing exists, then by default, it is a capitalistic system. For it to not be capitalism, it must have no free market pricing of goods. As long as Indian farmer has the option of going ' Rs 4000 per kg of aloo', it is a capitalistic, free market system.

[Moochad]

18 hours ago, Tibarn said:

By that definition, Singapore wouldn't be a "first world country." This tells you how political the definition is. The goal should be to be a developed country.

 

 

Yeah, but that is the definition. You can't have people making up their own definitions for everything and then arguing from the position that their definition is the correct one. I also don't care about being a so-called first world country, but when the OP uses that benchmark the question should be asked, what does he think one is. I only put the actual definition. What is important is for the OP to define what he thinks it means, so we all can answer from there. The textbook definition is academic in that sense depending on if the OP meant something else, but he hasn't responded to his own thread since the first post, so its basically pointless to discuss these definition issues.  

Quote

A developed country is one with a certain level of income ie GDP/capita. All the rest is just the noise of propagandists. A country requires economic freedom to become a developed nation. 

That is a bare bones definition or a lowest common denominator definition. I can agree with it, but other factors such as environment, crime, homogeneity may also affect getting to that point and being actually 'developed'. The latter is common among democracies it seems with diversity coming after the fact rather than during or before. Begs the question, how does India proceed doing something the others didn't have to?

18 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Not only was it the beginning of the decline, it was one of, if not the most exploitative regime in recorded economic history. I will have to share the book with you the next time I am in India. I can't remember the name, but it is in my library on my other computer. 

I think you had shared it on the other site one time, at least teh excerpt.  

18 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Looks like someone got triggered by your condemnation of brutal tyrants in the Mughals and British. Evil Kuffar Hindoos aren't allowed to criticize brutal tyrants 

Proper Islamist the bigot is  

 

18 hours ago, Tibarn said:

This is oversimplified in my opinion. While the British did indeed contribute to the overall destruction of the Indian economy, there was at least some positive contribution by them to it, in the form of some technology transfer that happened. One has to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something positive from them, and it is far outnumbered by the negatives, but it is there. The laughable propaganda that the British helped India's development is house-*ing at its finest.  

 

By 1950, the GDP/capita was $619, from $673 in 1913 (WWI), but even that peak of $673 is less than the value it was in 1600 of $682.   

In some 313 years, the average Indian lost $9 GDP/capita. 

 

This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel though. You can stretch the definition to include anything as a positive contribution of Brits or Mughals. Libtards say salwar kameez and kebabs are some great contribution of Mughals to India. Millions murdered, enslaved, etc, and all we get are kebabs for dhimmis. Like meat on a stick was some great intellectual achievement or that putting meat on a stick somehow changes its value over eating meat stickless 

 

I remember Ravan Guha giving a speech to a English crowd, as a display of 'patriotism', meant as an in-your-face to Churchill's prediction of India's disintegration. This guy said India is united because of English language, railroads, and cricket.  

 

The real 'contribution' of Brits to India was facilitation of tech transfer of certain technologies/industry into India. However, a number of early Indian industrialists had their origin during British rule, ie Birla and Tata. Tata was able to import a more advanced type of  machinery for his mills. IIRC, I think India even had produced a war plane by the early 1900s, on behalf of the Brits of course. The British didn't ban industry, just didn't facilitate its growth in India. Tata attempted to expand heavy industry in India, but the Brits didn't provide capital.

 

The decline of industry was in areas like handcrafted goods and textiles, which India lost competitiveness in. There was also only one way free-trade. The Brits could trade and sell in India, but the Indian craftsmen couldn't sell in Britain. 

Quote

Then we inherited that dastard Bandit Nehru and his merry band of Socialists and didn't even exploit what advantages we had post "Azaadi." Here is a "fun fact" that shows the "Gungadeen rate of growth" The gap between India and the West was bigger in 1998 than in 1870. (It turns out speaking English doesn't actually give Gungadeens any extra IQ points, it just makes it easier to flirt with Gorimemshahibas).     

This is the salient point. Our intellectual Nehru couldn't keep the growth high in a country where people were subsistence farmers, despite having some backbone for industry left when the Brits left. He was busy scamming and awarding himself Bharat ratna.

 

A country with a low income should easily have a high growth rate. 1 Rs to 2 Rs is 100% growth.  

Quote

This is opposed to the Mughals, where there was a consistent decline in the economy, particularly of "North India." From the Mughal era 1600 to 1800, the per capita GDP of India dropped from $682 to $569. By the end of it, the whole subcontinent was in upheaval, so, to some extent, that is excusable, but the biggest fall was from 1600 to 1650, so it can't be due to war only. (It turns out raping/pillaging/looting/slaving isn't a valid economic model. Who would've thought?). 

 

 From the 1830s to 1840s the GDP/capita increased --> stagnated --> went into another severe decline from 1850 to 1860. As the pommies decided to genocide 10 million people after 1857, that probably had a fair share of the blame of the decline between those decades.  

Right, the imaginary wealthy Mughal rule is just hagiography by Ganga-Jamuna Tehzeebis 

[Alam_dar]

20 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Looks like someone got triggered by your condemnation of brutal tyrants in the Mughals and British. Evil Kuffar Hindoos aren't allowed to criticize brutal tyrants 

Surely I am not triggered by condemnation of the Mughal or British tyrants. Please do as much condemnation of the tyrants as you can and I am with you.  But I am triggered from the Hypocrisy and Double Standards of the RW. They are able to see a straw in the eyes of others, but not able to see a pillar in their own eye. 

And the worst part is this that they still don't able to see their immense biased attitude. 

 

In name of proof that only Mughals were corrupt and tyrant, he came up with this statement:

On 4/1/2019 at 1:56 PM, Alam_dar said:

wealth was concentrated in the pockets of Mughals and their zamindars/chelas while the common people were looted. 

Did only Mughals have the zamindars/chelas while the Rajas and Maharajas were free of zamindars/Chelas? 

What answer could be given to this senseless and foolish argument? 

And when one differ from their extreme biased opinions, then such people could do only one thing and that is start using abusive language. 

And then they claim that the RW Hindutva is not fanatic, but civilized and educated one. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Alam_dar