The Guardian's blinkered view of India

The Guardian view of India is that it should be ruled by Europeans- or at least half  Europeans. Anything else is dictatorship. 

The Guardian view on India at a crossroads: development, not dictatorship

Hindu nationalism in India is writing an epitaph for the country’s experiment with multi-ethnic secular democracy

Hindu nationalism triumphed in 1947 just as Islamic nationalism triumphed in that very year. Democracies are majoritarian. They may or may not be secular. Britain has an established Religion. Northern Ireland still has a blasphemy law which protects only one Faith.  

Becoming the world’s most populous nation allows India to burnish its credentials as a global economic and political heavyweight.

No it doesn't. India's dependency ratio is too high and its participation rate for women is too small. Population pressure is pitting communities against each other. Those states which have achieved demographic transition resent having to transfer money to those which lag behind. If seat redistribution goes through after 2026, secessionist sentiment- at least in the far South- might revive. 

With a population that is much younger than those of China, the US and the EU, there will be renewed interest in India’s potential to be a beacon of liberal values.

No there won't. The West's decline will continue. Pi jaw about human rights will die out.  The question is whether America will become isolationist. What of Europe? Will Orbanism be eliminated or will it spread? 

The west is eager to draw a democratic giant into its orbit.

Not really. The West has nothing to offer and, any way, is too Racist to want to try. Quad will fall apart soon enough. Either America does nuclear proliferation as China did in the Eighties and as Russia is threatening to do in Latin America or it will have no local partners in likely trouble-spots. Recall, the US and UK, along with Russia, guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for its giving up nukes. Those guarantees were worthless. Nukes and nukes alone constitute a credible offensive doctrine for smaller states.

India is a big state. It will expand military training- this is the 'Agnipath' scheme- for the young and use its demographic advantage to deter China and Pakistan- perhaps using asymmetric means. But China's attitude to India may change. It may prefer to transfer its low value manufacturing chains to India- parts of which will always remain low wage for Malthusian reasons. But, it has become clear, India is more stable than Pakistan which, currently, is not able to protect Chinese businesses. 

Once China arrives at a modus vivendi with its southern neighbor, India integrates into a Chinese led greater Eurasia. This was the deal Mao offered Nehru in 1954. But, China was behind India in some respects back then. Once they jumped on the 'export led' bandwagon they have risen and risen. Meanwhile, the West's war of revenge on Islam has ended in humiliation and defeat. 

China and India will together account for about half of all global growth this year. But

China has got a lock on the enormous resources of Russia. It may become the peace-maker in the MENA. France's Macron seems very chummy with Chairman Xi. Imagine a second Biden term. All one can say is that it would be better than Trump's return. 

India risks emulating its bigger northern neighbour’s economic ascent under tight political control by a dominant authoritarian party.

Fuck off! If the thing were possible we'd have had it long ago. The Communist Party in China came to power by wading through an ocean of blood. Mao, like Stalin, crushed opposition in the countryside.  Nothing similar happened in India. As Disraeli said, the Brits didn't conquer India. Neither did the Congress Party. Its 'struggle for Freedom' consisted of sulking in jail till America pulled the financial plug on the Raj. 

Hindu nationalism in India

Gandhi, in 1939, said Congress was a Hindu party. What nobody guessed was that Nehru- who was consecrated using ancient Hindu rites- would become the founder of a Dynasty presided over by a nice Italian lady. 

is writing an epitaph for the country’s experiment with multi-ethnic secular democracy.

Hindus tend to be brown. They mustn't have a nation of their own. At the very least, we should be allowed to try doing 'regime change' there and kill lots of soi disant Hindu terrorists- right?  

Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) has weakened institutions meant to keep the state both transparent and accountable.

No institution can make the state transparent or accountable. At any rate, that is the British experience- in the opinion of the Guardian's own writers.  

Information is censored,

It was the Dynasty which bothered with censorship. The thing is a waste of resources.  

civil society hounded

under laws Manmohan put in. The plain fact is taking money from abroad for trying to stall Indian development, or fight some mythical Fascism, is against the law. Charities must do first order good or else they aren't allowed to take foreign money. Incidentally, the BJP is based on an actual Civil Society organization- i.e. one which is broad based, purely voluntary, and not receiving money to perform a function of the State or oppose that State as the agent of a foreign power or vested interest group. 

and protests suppressed.

Were the Farm Bill protests suppressed? No. What about the anti-CAA protests? They helped the BJP and AAM. They harmed the Left. Even the Muslims of Kerala whose PFI activists had sought to recruit in Shaheen Bagh are now regretting that action because a Muslim boy from there came down to Kerala and killed some Muslims on a train. No doubt, his noble intention was to kill kaffirs. Nobody told him Kerala had a lot of Muslims.  

It is absurd that opposition leaders have been targeted to the extent that Mr Modi’s main rival – Rahul Gandhi – is currently disqualified from parliament.

Only because the guy didn't apologize and say he misspoke. He'd have got off with a fine. What is absurd is that Rahul's lawyers could have gone straight to the Supreme Court and had the thing quashed within two or three weeks. The Bench would not dare send the hereditary leader of a party with 45 million members to jail. Their own lives would not have been safe. The Bench would have reversed its 2016 decision and decriminalized defamation.  

Such is the polarisation in politics that India’s last parliamentary session was the least productive since 1952.

These cunts think the parliamentary session during which Indira arrested her opponents and amended the Constitution was more productive. Congress chose to disrupt the current Parliament but the Government had a big enough majority to pass whatever it needs to.  

Mr Modi’s party has bent state institutions to service its ideology.

The Dynasty bent the country to enrich itself and preside over a kleptocracy.  

This has effectively rendered minorities second-class citizens.

Muslims became second class citizens in 1947 when the were slaughtered and ethnically cleansed.  

The suppression of the civil rights of the world’s largest minority group, about 200 million Muslims, is unlikely to be viable over a long period without giving up on democracy.

Nonsense! If Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and Myanmar can do it, so can India. Indeed, parts of India did it back in 1947.  

This would be a terrible outcome for India and the world.

Nobody would give a crap. The West just killed 1.3 Muslims and displaced over ten million more. Has terrorism increased? Nope. It has fallen.  

.00000

Most western countries only enfranchised all voters after industrialising.

Ceylon enfranchised all voters in 1931. France only gave women the vote in 1945. So what?  

India had been an exception to the rule that capitalism comes before democracy.

Sri Lanka did ethnic cleansing after independence. Myanmar was a democracy in the Fifties. So what?  

Its citizens acquired the right to vote well before modern industrial development.

Large swathes of India don't have 'modern industrial development'.  

Autocrats have long claimed that democracy was inefficient.

No. They have said they and they alone could save the country.  

That argument entrenches at best “enlightened despotism”

Which is what India was supposed to get under the Dynasty 

, but more often just brutal dictatorship.

hereditary dictatorship- because assassination tempers autocracy 

Deng Xiaoping told foreign observers in 1987 that democracy on the mainland might be viable in “half a century”. That prediction – of Chinese elections by 2037 – looks unlikely to be fulfilled.

A hereditary leader is not a democratic leader. Not till Congress is released from bondage to the dynasty could India be called a democracy. 

Until 1990, India’s per capita income was higher than that of China;

this had nothing to do with Democracy. It's just that Socialism was slightly less shit than Communism. 

now it is only about a fifth of China’s.

For a reason Edwin Lim of the World Bank explained. He saw that in China there were big rewards for officials if they sponsored growth. In India, there was a bigger reward for 'activists' to use foreign money from NGOs and Foundations to prevent Development. That's why Manmohan wanted to crack down on 'Civil Society'.  

Beijing’s success was to integrate into the world economy without losing control of its domestic one.

No. Its success was to stop girls in rural areas from having babies. It got them into giant factory dormitories instead. It smashed the 'iron rice bowl', kept out or beat to death 'activists' of all descriptions and pretended it would become sweet and democratic. Jimmy Carter's Institute was invited to help China hold democratic local elections. Clinton and Bush removed all trade restrictions on China. It grew rapidly while the West was busy killing innocent Muslims in remote deserts and mountains. By 2012, it was in a position to tell the Carter Institute that it didn't want to hear any more talk of Human Rights and Democracy.  

This was more about economics than politics.

It was about people in politics getting rich and then killing or jailing those who weren't toeing the Party line or whom it was convenient for the new 'Great Helmsman' to scapegoat or extort.  

Mr Modi’s bet is that a single Hindu identity can transcend Indian society’s faultlines of religion, caste, region and language.

That is what happened in 1946. The Dynasty- despite being half European- is of the Brahmin caste.  

Yet his parliamentary majority rests on the votes of just a quarter of the electorate.

Rather than slavish obedience to a hereditary Party leader 

Large parts of India, especially its more developed regions, are resistant to his polarising politics.

They have their own regional dynastic satraps 

His crackdown on dissent is about weakness, not strength.

There is no crackdown on dissent. Modi is answerable to a Civil Society organization- viz. the RSS.  

India’s democratic reversal

the Guardian thinks that if an Italian stops ruling Indian, then democracy has gone into reverse

is also rooted in a development model that suits global concerns rather than domestic ones.

Fuck off! India doesn't give a shit about 'global concerns'- save climate change.  

Because of its economic heft, India is a member of the G20. Its citizens, however, are the poorest in this group.

Only if they have babies like crazy. Poverty is purely Malthusian. China had a draconian one child policy. Now it is no longer needed because fertility will fall for the same reason that it has done so in South Korea.  

The richest 5% of Indians can consume the same goods as the average Briton. Therefore the outside world tends to be interested in Indian success as defined by the growth in this class – as the greater their purchasing power is, the larger the market for global goods and services.

The Guardian does not understand that the 'outside world' contains a lot of Muslim who are pissed off with the West. Killing 1.3 million members of a particular Faith can really chop the onions of people of the said Faith.  

The latest Lamborghini sports car models, which cost £400,000, are already sold out in India.

Lamborghinis are sold out all over the world. The Guardian is as stupid as shit.  

But 350m Indians went hungry in 2022, up from 190m in 2018.

According to the Guardian, under the Tories, half the population of the UK is dependent on food banks.  

Rather than taxing the rich and corporates to fund health and education,

in which case the tax base will collapse and there will be no funds for public health or education- both of which are shitty because Government teachers play truant and most public hospitals are utterly shit.  

the BJP has taxed the poor to pay for public services.

Which is why there are public services- shitty though they may be.  

India added zero net new jobs

in the formal sector 

over the past decade,

because the formal sector had to shed workers because of rising compliance costs and low productivity caused by crazy labor regulations

even as the number of people in the labour force rose by more than 100 million.

and were absorbed by the informal sector. Pro Labor legislation harms the vast majority of workers. 

The country’s democratic rise is far from assured.

It is more democratic today than under the Dynasty.  

But for it to be sustained, there must be a political consensus that the prosperity of all its people, not just those at the top, should be increased

There is such a political consensus just as there is a religious consensus that God should favor the good and smite the evil. Sadly, economics doesn't work that way. The Guardian will publish shite about India because India does not matter to its readers and the Guardian does not matter to Indians. No market forces can operate here. All that we see is the recycling of racist garbage by rabid virtue signallers. 

 

.