ViruRulez Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 I would rather live in complete abject poverty throughout my life with my free will than have the goverment tell me how many childs to raise or anything else. Of course people outside India in countries like UK and US' date= which ae much freer than India will want all of us back here to be the goverment's slaves. After all, its not their lives which are being affected. If we had just let the British rule over us instead of demanding independence, we would have made so much progress I agree with most of your views MTC but FFS if you think that producing a cricket team is acceptable then we are heading for disaster. Just to give you an idea, if we continue at the current rate of population growth then there is a distinct possibility of us not being able to continue to sustain leave apart grow. Only the creamy class will grow but rest will only face more and more difficulties in sustaining their livelihood. If you idea of cricket teams in families becomes a reality in the present era then you will see people fighting over food too in the next few decades. Have you ever realized that we have a lot higher population density compared to any nation with either land area or population size compared to us. Sorry but it is high time the one child and one wife/husband policy needs to be implemented possibly in a democratic way. A policy should be made where all privileges provided by the govt. would be taken away as soon as a couple crossed the first child. Or maybe some privileges and benefits can be taken away on the second child and on a third child all benefits taken away completely. If population explosion is not taken care of soon we are going to end in a big mess. Just the national GDP means BS till we fix the per capita income and at least the basic necessities for all people. You would also perhaps feel this lady is right. She got ONLY 15 kids and 2 daddys for her babies and is now cringing that she is not well supported by the US govt. :winky: bavou_SEj1E
Alchemist Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 I think , Shubhash Chandra Bose said this 60 years ago.
CSK Fan Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 I agree with most of your views MTC but FFS if you think that producing a cricket team is acceptable then we are heading for disaster. Just to give you an idea, if we continue at the current rate of population growth then there is a distinct possibility of us not being able to continue to sustain leave apart grow. Only the creamy class will grow but rest will only face more and more difficulties in sustaining their livelihood. If you idea of cricket teams in families becomes a reality in the present era then you will see people fighting over food too in the next few decades. Have you ever realized that we have a lot higher population density compared to any nation with either land area or population size compared to us. Sorry but it is high time the one child and one wife/husband policy needs to be implemented possibly in a democratic way. A policy should be made where all privileges provided by the govt. would be taken away as soon as a couple crossed the first child. Or maybe some privileges and benefits can be taken away on the second child and on a third child all benefits taken away completely. If population explosion is not taken care of soon we are going to end in a big mess. Just the national GDP means BS till we fix the per capita income and at least the basic necessities for all people. You would also perhaps feel this lady is right. She got ONLY 15 kids and 2 daddys for her babies and is now cringing that she is not well supported by the US govt. :winky: bavou_SEj1E Well population expansion is a terrible problem. And China has been able to arrest this because its goverment is able to pass a dictate banning people from having a second child. Till here, I am with you. but I am also of the opinion that people should be educated, the schemes should be pro an only child than against a second child like is the case with China
CSK Fan Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 This As opposed to autocracy where the decision making is pretty fast because its based on one person's/one set of people's opinion
Mariyam Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Less democracy better for India, says Mahathir HT Correspondent Former Malaysian prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad, on Friday said India could be China in terms of development if it was somewhat "less democratic". Looks like all you guys haven't read the article properly. It clearly says that Dr Mahathir bin Mohammad was tun when he made those statements. No reason to take him seriously.
Tiger80 Posted December 4, 2011 Author Posted December 4, 2011 Looks like all you guys haven't read the article properly. It clearly says that Dr Mahathir bin Mohammad was tun when he made those statements. No reason to take him seriously. Any specific reason for mentioning Tun?
Mariyam Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Any specific reason for mentioning Tun? In the first sentence of the HT article you posted, his name is given as Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohammad. When HT interviewed him he was already talli and tun.
Tiger80 Posted December 4, 2011 Author Posted December 4, 2011 In the first sentence of the HT article you posted, his name is given as Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohammad. When HT interviewed him he was already talli and tun. That is a Malayasian title that existed from centuries or these days apart from sir no other title is honourable :winky:
Holysmoke Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Looks like all you guys haven't read the article properly. It clearly says that Dr Mahathir bin Mohammad was tun when he made those statements. No reason to take him seriously. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Clarke Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Sure, India with its multiple states & languages, its various religions, in essence various unique cultures should follow the chinese model of a powerful central body dictating the terms, i'm sure it will be acceptable across the country :wall: I agree with this man majority of people don't understand what will the impact of Govt decisions on their lives whatever media tells them they just believe in it. coz the CPC pays you to do so ? How many more China threads do you plan to open ? lol @ less democracy ? either you can have democracy or be socialist .In between will only cause trouble . You mean communist i guess. There are various forms of democracy though, some more in league with the opinions of citizens than the other, which is why they are called as 'more' democratic. Not a single word written in that article is wrong. But only people residing outside India can be honest and get away with it. Comparing India's size and diversity to the island of Singapore or the Han Chinese dominated PRC is not sensible to begin with .. not that you were expected to know/understand that.
Tiger80 Posted December 4, 2011 Author Posted December 4, 2011 coz the CPC pays you to do so ? How many more China threads do you plan to open ? Do you have some kind of problem with even word China? The thread has nothing to do with China it mentions what ex Malayasian Pm said and BTW Just go and Check Political section of ICF recently 2 China specific thread were posted by Icfers
ViruRulez Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Well population expansion is a terrible problem. And China has been able to arrest this because its goverment is able to pass a dictate banning people from having a second child. Till here' date=' I am with you. but I am also of the opinion that people should be educated, the schemes should be pro an only child than against a second child like is the case with China[/quote'] Makes sense now. Population explosion is the worst menace we are facing and though nobody is highlighting it that much but it is one of the root causes of most of the problems in our nation. A lot of problems starting from poverty to corruption to inflation are directly or indirectly related to it. And more importantly, the current level of expansion is not sustainable. At the dawn of the new millennium we just crossed 1 billion and now a decade later we are at 1.21 billion. So, 20% increase in just a decade and literacy rate has increased a lot during this period too. This will give you a good idea of the problem we are facing. We have 17% of the world's population and this percentage is increasing rapidly year on year and only 2% of the world's land area. If this rate of population growth continues then instead of growth of the nation sustainability of the nation would be a problem. Hope this is taken a lot more seriously otherwise there would be a massive problem in the next few decades. At this current rate we will cross 2 billion in 2050 (hopefully not) and maybe will have half or one-third of the world's population by the next century. The one thing which we are guaranteed to reach the top very soon is highest population in the world especially with China enforcing the one child policy. :giggle:
Mariyam Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 ^^ What has population control to do with democracy? Don't really get that part? Do we have statistics on number of children per woman in British/Medieval/ Ancient times? Would be higher than that in modern India, I guess. The best contraceptive is education, not a govt. diktat.
surajmal Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 for majority of human civilizational history, Indian subcontinent has been the most populated landmass. Around the time of the black plague in Europe, India's share in the world population reached about 50 percent. India only lost the top population spot to china in early 19th century. Still, an undivided India would be the most populous nation on the planet. Even then, theoretically, Indian land is fertile enough that it can support this booming population with plenty to spare, if managed properly. Water is the big problem in the coming century. So, India is going to have to invest heavily in desalinization technologies to process salt water on mass scale.
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 I agree with this man majority of people don't understand what will the impact of Govt decisions on their lives whatever media tells them they just believe in it.Totally agree...democracy is not perfect and it is not the best way to govern nations that have large populations like India. The original idea of Socialism is a very good idea especially in countries with large and diverse populations like India. But even that has its ills in the form of too many hurdles for entrepreneurs to become mightily successful. Capitalism while encourages entrepreneurship also brings about too much of distance between the haves and have-nots. If only we were a more spiritually evolved species, self governance would be the ideal.
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 who said US is a true democracy? That country is run by bankers and corporations. Like George Carlin used to say (I'm paraphrasing)' date=' In US, you only have the illusion of choice.[/quote']I actually agree with this. A democracy where you have only two ideologies (Democrats or Republicans) to choose from in most cases is not at all a democracy. A democracy necessarily means plurality of ideas and philosophies which I am not sure exists in US polity. The US is a truly plural society and its ethos are on the whole very plural but its polity does not seem to be so - you can actually generalize Bush's expression of "either with us or against us" to almost all situations when it comes to the US polity
surajmal Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Totally agree...democracy is not perfect and it is not the best way to govern nations that have large populations like India. The original idea of Socialism is a very good idea especially in countries with large and diverse populations like India. But even that has its ills in the form of too many hurdles for entrepreneurs to become mightily successful. Capitalism while encourages entrepreneurship also brings about too much of distance between the haves and have-nots. If only we were a more spiritually evolved species, self governance would be the ideal. actually its the exact opposite. Socialism has only proven to work in homogenous countries like Norway and Sweden. In diverse countries such as US and India, Free market and limited government is the only way forward because people of different regions have different viewpoints and ambitions. So you can't have one size fit all method that socialism offers.
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 actually its the exact opposite. Socialism has only proven to work in homogenous countries like Norway and Sweden. In diverse countries such as US and India' date=' Free market and limited government is the only way forward because people of different regions have different viewpoints and ambitions. So you can't have one size fit all method that socialism offers.[/quote']I don't think any of these ideologies are a one stop solution for all social problems and eventualities...that is my point. Also, my point is that each of thee ideologies have some benefits in them. I don't know what is the ideal and I don't think any of these ideologies are ideal - history and current social scenarios are enough evidence for it. But we need to adopt something and move forward. Free market capitalism introduces problems that things like socialism can tackle. Free market causes huge divide between haves and have-nots...consider our own case. India in the 80s and India today are very different animals. Our problems these days are more to do with economic differences between peoples than superstitions and illiteracy caused ones. While free market has allowed us to have more choices as consumers it has also increased poverty in the country. Now the good thing about capitalism and free market is that while in the 80s opportunities for growth and realizing aspirations were few and far between today that is not the case. I still feel India's liberalization should have come along with the risk mitigation for the distance it introduced between economic strata of society. Free market while has helped by giving opportunities to many I am afraid it is also responsible for making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Again, I am not arguing against it and neither am I arguing for socialism. I am opining that neither of them is a one stop solution. As an individual I prefer free market. But who knows if my t,s,p,c was different, for ex if I was a laborer then I may have preferred a socialist economy? As a constitution we are a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic...so we are already a socialist country and since the 90s we have also become a capitalist nation. Being a Democratic country, I feel, is better than being a Communist nation. Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
surajmal Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 people have written books on the merits and demerits of different systems. So we could go in circles all day and not be able to decide what is best. In India, however, from what we have seen (i.e. the level of governance), limited government is the only option. Because the more reins you hand these politicians, the harder they'll fvck you from behind.
Recommended Posts