Indian Liberals

[Gollum]

Libbus (and of course you know who) hate Jains more than lowly Hindus. What am I missing? 

[Stradlater]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

Libbus (and of course you know who) hate Jains more than lowly Hindus. What am I missing? 

All Jains are upper caste. Perhaps that could be the reason. 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

Libbus (and of course you know who) hate Jains more than lowly Hindus. What am I missing? 

Like who?

[diga]

43 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

All Jains are upper caste. Perhaps that could be the reason. 

They dont claim reservation in the name of being minority.. The jains I have interacted lead an extremely frugal life and are extremely caring for the society around them 

[Stradlater]

26 minutes ago, diga said:

They dont claim reservation in the name of being minority.. The jains I have interacted lead an extremely frugal life and are extremely caring for the society around them 

Agreed. Jains are one of the coolest and simpler people one would ever meet even though vast majority of them are rich af. 

[Gollum]

 

[someone]

^Since independence, India has remained one nation, only due to its hard power. And we need it even more, if we aspire to be a global leader.

 

Its soft power is very fragile, and history is always written by the stronger.

[coffee_rules]

 

All newsoutlets reported about Muslim men helping a Hindu family cremate when nobody from the family was ready to do it in these times. Turns out it is fake. These people came in , asked if they can be around the funeral. Took a pic carrying the dead body and left. This is how news is manufactured in India, tantriks turn out to be Irfaans. Pathetic.

[bhakum20]

On 4/18/2020 at 11:17 PM, Stradlater said:

Agreed. Jains are one of the coolest and simpler people one would ever meet even though vast majority of them are rich af. 

They’re rich because they work hard and don’t indulge in victim mentality due to being minority. Very admirable qualities, kinda like parsis and jews.

 

 

[bhakum20]

On 4/21/2020 at 2:54 AM, Gollum said:

 

Anyone questioning defense spending are a threat to national security and should be locked up in a mental asylum. Haven’t they read history???

 

I don’t agree with many silly projects of the govt like ayush or the many freebie projects which could be used to boost healthcare, policing and law, but national security is non-negotiable.

 

These should be the priorities IMHO:

defense

healthcare

education and business

policing and law

[Mariyam]

3 hours ago, bhakum20 said:

Anyone questioning defense spending are a threat to national security and should be locked up in a mental asylum. Haven’t they read history???

 

I don’t agree with many silly projects of the govt like ayush or the many freebie projects which could be used to boost healthcare, policing and law, but national security is non-negotiable.

 

These should be the priorities IMHO:

defense

healthcare

education and business

policing and law

Wait a minute. Those questioning a certain% of the GDP to defence are now a threat to national security?

Of the four that you've listed, in a country like ours, Defence should be the lowest priority. Obviously it mustn't be neglected and the minimum spends required to counter external threats are necessary, but that is symptomatic treatment.

If our house is in order, we have better policing, forensics ( criminal and accounting both) and a faster justice dispensing mechanism, we would be a much more equitable and prosperous society. Then even a small % of the GDP would be than sufficient  to cover all defence expenses.

[someone]

46 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Wait a minute. Those questioning a certain% of the GDP to defence are now a threat to national security?

Of the four that you've listed, in a country like ours, Defence should be the lowest priority. Obviously it mustn't be neglected and the minimum spends required to counter external threats are necessary, but that is symptomatic treatment.

If our house is in order, we have better policing, forensics ( criminal and accounting both) and a faster justice dispensing mechanism, we would be a much more equitable and prosperous society. Then even a small % of the GDP would be than sufficient  to cover all defence expenses.

You have a flawed thinking. To grow, India needs A, B, C, D simultaneously, not in an orderly manner. 
 

India has similar Bhooka/Nanga people as Africa, yet it is in the top 10 countries. The single biggest reason is its hard power.

[Mariyam]

3 hours ago, someone said:

You have a flawed thinking. To grow, India needs A, B, C, D simultaneously, not in an orderly manner. 
 

India has similar Bhooka/Nanga people as Africa, yet it is in the top 10 countries. The single biggest reason is its hard power.

You can't have A,B,C,D simultaneously! It is a zero sum game. You have to prioritize.

Top 10 in what? If nominal GDP is your barometer of success we are probably in the top 6/7.

But what has that to do with hard power?

 

Not really comparable, but those societies which spend a disproportionately large of their revenue on defence are either failed states or in the process of getting there. From the top of my head: Pakistan, Iraq (before they were 'liberated' by the Americans), USSR, Nigeria. 

The USA is probably the only exception to this. But they have a developed economy.

 

[Sachinism]

4 hours ago, someone said:

You have a flawed thinking. To grow, India needs A, B, C, D simultaneously, not in an orderly manner. 
 

India has similar Bhooka/Nanga people as Africa, yet it is in the top 10 countries. The single biggest reason is its hard power.

I believe your thinking is the flawed one here.

Who in the hell decides what things are needed without an assesment on how much of each thing is required? When it can be lowered, when it's needed to be increased?

Who decides on priorities and then just allocates an equal amount of funding to each thing?

[someone]

56 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

You can't have A,B,C,D simultaneously! It is a zero sum game. You have to prioritize.

Top 10 in what? If nominal GDP is your barometer of success we are probably in the top 6/7.

But what has that to do with hard power?

 

Not really comparable, but those societies which spend a disproportionately large of their revenue on defence are either failed states or in the process of getting there. From the top of my head: Pakistan, Iraq (before they were 'liberated' by the Americans), USSR, Nigeria. 

The USA is probably the only exception to this. But they have a developed economy.

 

You are contradicting yourself. Those failed states failed because they focused on one side excessively.

 

Next, one cannot apply some Scandinavian model to India. That is not just amateur but fraud analysis. A SWOT analysis is needed, and it's clear we have unique threats. Thus, there has to both internal and external growth, and that includes military. India is no position to focus on one side and avoid the other side.  And if India aspires to be Top 5 nations, it needs a much more hard power.

[Mariyam]

22 minutes ago, someone said:

You are contradicting yourself. Those failed states failed because they focused on one side excessively.

 

Next, one cannot apply some Scandinavian model to India. That is not just amateur but fraud analysis. A SWOT analysis is needed, and it's clear we have unique threats. Thus, there has to both internal and external growth, and that includes military. India is no position to focus on one side and avoid the other side.  And if India aspires to be Top 5 nations, it needs a much more hard power.

There is no contradiction (nor any analsysis). I have not said India doesn't need to spend on defence!

Where do you see the Scandinavian model? 

Currently, The defence budget is much higher than the health budget. In my opinion, that is wrong at many levels for a country like India. Bettering the lot of our own people is definitely more necessary expense than buying a fancy weapons system at an exaggerated price from an "ally" that we almost will NEVER use.

What is this top 5 nations that you keep referring to? Top 5 in what?

 

Also questioning the defence budget doesn't make on a threat to the nation, as the earlier poster mentioned.

 

 

[someone]

9 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

There is no contradiction (nor any analsysis). I have not said India doesn't need to spend on defence!

Where do you see the Scandinavian model? 

Currently, The defence budget is much higher than the health budget. In my opinion, that is wrong at many levels for a country like India. Bettering the lot of our own people is definitely more necessary expense than buying a fancy weapons system at an exaggerated price from an "ally" that we almost will NEVER use.

What is this top 5 nations that you keep referring to? Top 5 in what?

 

Also questioning the defence budget doesn't make on a threat to the nation, as the earlier poster mentioned.

 

 

It is unfair to compare a singular yet unified defense with a broader health subject. There are many items involving health and we are gradually improving our systems. It obviously is priority for the government, like with Ayushman Bharat. Next, you obviously don't know what is deterrence. You cannot foolishly call them some fancy or redundant weapons.

 

It seems if it was up to you, you would also stop all space exploration. Thus, I submit your SWOT analysis is not accurate enough. We will need to spend more money on both defense and economy.

[coffee_rules]

The debate of what should be given priority should be at a policy making level and not by activists or selectivists of Bollytards tweeting 1 missile = 40000 ventilators, when these is a pandemic. Of course ventilators will be of shortage in the time of need, as nobody plans for a sudden pandemic to strike. Such kind of message is from a weak and lazy activist. People are dying even in rich nations with no elevators.

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, someone said:

It is unfair to compare a singular yet unified defense with a broader health subject. There are many items involving health and we are gradually improving our systems. It obviously is priority for the government, like with Ayushman Bharat. Next, you obviously don't know what is deterrence. You cannot foolishly call them some fancy or redundant weapons.

 

It seems if it was up to you, you would also stop all space exploration. Thus, I submit your SWOT analysis is not accurate enough. We will need to spend more money on both defense and economy.

You obviously don't know what is counting. Or debating. See, I can throw in a few of these too.

 

I am going to ignore your comments on Space Exploration. That has nothing to do with the topic. Besides, ISRO is a net earner. It adds to the exchequer. They launch and maintain satellites of various nations.

The military and health spends are different. They are necessities which are not necessarily on the right side of the balance sheet. .

 

For starters, read up on what the Budgets have been historically. Health vs Defence vs Education. Today, India spends less than 1.3% of its GDP on health. This is inclusive of schemes like Ayushman Bharat. Though some of the costs associated with Ayushman Bharat are administrative and accounted for as such. India's defence spend is more than 2.5 times the health spends. Just to give you an idea.

The sheer number of working man hours that can be saved, by a better health care system and the amount of tax payer INR that it would add is phenomenal. 

According a study by the WHO, just mental health issues may cause India losses of USD 1.03 trillion. Yeah the number seems exaggerated to me, but you get the picture. One could argue if the onus of these spends are on the government or the private sector, but that is a different issue altogther.

 

What exactly is your objection? What kind of a Top 5 do you aspire India to be?

 

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Mariyam

[someone]

47 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

You obviously don't know what is counting. Or debating. See, I can throw in a few of these too.

 

I am going to ignore your comments on Space Exploration. That has nothing to do with the topic. Besides, ISRO is a net earner. It adds to the exchequer. They launch and maintain satellites of various nations.

The military and health spends are different. They are necessities which do are not necessarily on the right side of the balance sheet. .

 

For starters, read up on what the Budgets have been historically. Health vs Defence vs Education. Today, India spends less than 1.3% of its GDP on health. This is inclusive of schemes like Ayushman Bharat. Though some of the costs associated with Ayushman Bharat are administrative and accounted for as such. India's defence spend is more than 2.5 times the health spends. Just to give you an idea.

The sheer number of working man hours that can be saved, by a better health care system and the amount of tax payer INR that it would add is phenomenal. 

According a study by the WHO, just mental health issues may cause India losses of USD 1.03 trillion. One could argue if the onus of these spends are on the government or the private sector, but that is a different issue altogther.

 

What exactly is your objection? What kind of a Top 5 do you aspire India to be?

You are writing about why heath is important, and obviously I agree with that. But the discussion and disagreement is on your inability to undertake SWOT analysis of India and like foolishly calling weapons system as fancy and redundant.

 

We have threats (T), and thus need a strong defense. We have opportunities (O), like our space exploitation. We have weakness (W), and so we spend on healthcare. We cannot neglect or replace them. All has to worked upon simultaneously.

 

In the past, there were also many armchair experts, and celebs lamenting on why India become nuclear power since it has many bhooka nanga people. Today, it's obvious it was a great decision and so your critical thinking is weak.

Edited April 22, 2020 by someone