Interesting.
Compare Nepal's insurgency, its duration and cost.
Bangaldesh's liberation was not paid by Bangladesh. It was between India and opposed by Pakistan. The cost was borne by both.
Sri Lankan insurgency, calculate the cost and duration.
The cost of any insurgency is also dependant on the duration and the intensity.
Now compare all those with the insurgency that has been raging in India practically ever since Independence and the cost.
In so far as other countries mentioned, nowhere has anyone used such racist terms that you are using. And do check if their progress has been disrupted and also calculate the foreign assistance they have been receiving.
Philippines alone has an insurgency to tackle.
South Africa has a good reserve of gold and diamonds and is a market leader.
HDI can be attended to if there is no unproductive and expensive distractions such as wars and ongoing insurgencies.
It cannot be convenient forgotten that others did not have wars (four of them) to address since their independence.
And comparing countries is an exercise that is futile since each have different inputs.
Indeed, India has to improve, but lamenting and comparing with others does not help.
Let's take your examples case by case -
Nepal's "insurgency" was actually a full fledged civil war - started in 1996 and ended in 2006. 10 years of actual civil war has only been seen in the Northeast of India. Most of Nepal's state apparatus was destroyed by the Maosists and what little remained was used to protect the ruling elite. Given the relative sizes of Indian and Nepalese state apparatus, economy and manpower resources, I would say that the Nepalese situation is pretty comparable.
Bangladesh liberation was truly financed and to a large extent enabled by India, but the price Bangladesh had to pay was no mean task - most of their intellectuals were killed or run out of the country, their industry and middle class was gutted and their economy was destroyed. Ever since then Bangladesh has gone through military rule, insurgency of it's own and sectarian clashes.
Sri Lanka has seen not one but two civil wars - anyone remember JVP - the pro-marxist Sinhalese group - they waged a war from 1987-1989 against the government. Then there was LTTE war - from 1976 to 2009 - which in duration and intensity is graver than anything in India.
The so-called racist terms that you say I used were actually taken from some other discussions I have seen elsewhere on this forum - I was merely using them as a satire.
Insurgency in other countries may not be reported in Indian media - it does not behoove to dismiss other countries troubles and highlight our own. We in India do have a sh!t load of problems, but we are not unique in that - others have them too. Here are the facts ...
Brazil -
The most "stable" of the countries listed saw violent insurgency bordering on civil war from 1965 to 1972. Went through a bloody military rule from 1964 to 1985. Even today, organized criminals, druglords and marxist insurgents are a serious problem for state rule. Brazil is called the most "criminalilzed country" in the world. Yet, it is doing really well in terms of social and human development.
Turkey -
Has gone through several "crisis", war and insurgencies with it's Greek population in the west from 1930s to 1980s. Turkey still have problems with Kurds in their Eastern border, with a violent insurgency going on since 1984.
China -
I am not going to discuss China becuase it requires a separate post altogether. But as we all know, China has many small and large conflicts going on inside and is a political powderkeg.
Thailand -
Communist insurgency has been active in Thailand from 1960 till 1987. There is a huge Malaya-Muslim insurgency going on in southern Thailand since 2004, which has links with Al-Qaeda.
Malaysia and Indonesia both suffer from similar insurgency and islamic fundamentalist terrorism as Thailand - Jemaah Islamiyah being the most famous group of them all.
South Africa may have diamonds and gold, but they had very little development in terms of industry and technology for a long time and have HUGE income inequality due to Apertheid. They have a raging AIDS pandemic in their country. Still they have managed their affairs better than India in the last 20 years.
My point in comparing my country with all those other countries (both in terms of HDI and in general) is to show that we in India do not value life and quality of life for the common man. We still have a big feudalistic mindset, which you can see in castism, regionalism, tribal affairs and politics, not to mention bureaucratic shenangians. Just looking at the booming economy and pointing at GDP growth means nothing - Mexico (which I forgot to mention) has higher per capita GDP than India and a better HDI, inspite of their awful political system and some of the worst drug violence in the world.
India indeed needs to improve, but the range and scope has to be acknowledged first - and HDI is one of the many relevant indices.
