If India becomes another Israel

[Tshering22]

India doesn't need to become another Israel, it needs to become another Nazi Germany.....hopefully without the mass extermination of minorities. Elected governments have failed Indians since independence, what is needed is a strong authoritarian leader who will direct all of the country's resources towards building a strong economy and massive military that establishes India's supremacy from Kabul to Yangon and throughout the Indian Ocean. India has historically been a soft state with pussy leaders who are either too ideologically disinclined towards war (ahimsa) or worried that a war may upset their apple cart of corruption.

India needs someone from a military background, a hard-nosed realist who understands the means and utility of projecting national power beyond its borders. India needs a Nazi party, that is the only way she will ever rise to her rightful place among the comity of nations.

I like the way you talk about military pragmatism and economic development. I think another version of semi-authoritarian realist government than Nazi germany would do fine. And you're right; democracy has let down Indians many times. We have the freedom to do all the nonsense but we cannot even get economic benefits to lower and lower-middle class people.

 

[Yusuf]

Though some would like an authoritarian regime for it's stronger (relatively at least) performance. Such regimes are always built on dead bodies of millions and history is replete with the proof of it. No matter what high ideals a totalitarian regime starts with, it soon turns bloody to just stay in control.

 

[Illusive]

Though some would like an authoritarian regime for it's stronger (relatively at least) performance. Such regimes are always built on dead bodies of millions and history is replete with the proof of it. No matter what high ideals a totalitarian regime starts with, it soon turns bloody to just stay in control.

True.......people blame democracy for India's tolerant or soft attitude. But its the babus who are making democracy look bad. Infact any system in the right hands would always be successful. We need to be authoritarian where we need to be. Defiantly not like China.

 

[Known_Unknown]

The world got China as Nazi Germany, we just need to be more aggressive, and respond head on to situations like.........well lets say i saw news today of Chinese incursion at demchok.

What you say, sounds like world domination if you were not being sarcastic that is...

I'm not being sarcastic at all. China is to India what the USSR was to Nazi Germany. India need not go to war against China, just make a pact with her to divide the world between them.

However, a pact such as this can only be made between equals. At the moment, India remains a poor, third world country with no capacity to fight a war beyond 3 weeks.

The Nazis may have done a lot of bad things, but they strengthened their economy, accelerated their R&D and made super-weapons that none of the allies possessed, and which gave them a huge advantage in the war. They fought the war for 6 years, 4 out of which were on two fronts simultaneously, against the combined might of US, UK and USSR. The Indian Army today can only dream of such capability.

Forget the US or Russia, India is not even certain that she can fight and win a war against Pakistan.

There are so many things that could be done.....round up all the scientists at the DRDO and elsewhere and transfer them into work camps. There, give them an ultimatum to produce practical weapons of war, else shoot them. That's how the USSR developed science and technology in their country.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Though some would like an authoritarian regime for it's stronger (relatively at least) performance. Such regimes are always built on dead bodies of millions and history is replete with the proof of it. No matter what high ideals a totalitarian regime starts with, it soon turns bloody to just stay in control.

Authoritarian regimes have existed throughout history, even the "greatest" Indian empires were all authoritarian. In fact, you are focusing on the relatively short history of the 20th century to argue that such regimes always cause the death of millions. Even in the 20th century itself,such regimes have been in a minority. Besides a handful of autocrats who have engaged in genocide, the vast majority (Arabs, Turks, Singapore, many Latin/South American countries, Spain, Portugal and even Pakistan under army rule) have not been built on "the murder of millions".

This propaganda has been spread by Western democracies bent on imposing their values and hegemony on the rest of the world.

 

[Yusuf]

Authoritarian regimes have existed throughout history, even the "greatest" Indian empires were all authoritarian. In fact, you are focusing on the relatively short history of the 20th century to argue that such regimes always cause the death of millions. Even in the 20th century itself,such regimes have been in a minority. Besides a handful of autocrats who have engaged in genocide, the vast majority (Arabs, Turks, Singapore, many Latin/South American countries, Spain, Portugal and even Pakistan under army rule) have not been built on "the murder of millions".

This propaganda has been spread by Western democracies bent on imposing their values and hegemony on the rest of the world.

I think we will play it safe and better be a democracy and try to improve our system than look at autocratic ways. I think you forget east Pakistan when you say Pakistan has not been controlled by killing millions.

I am sure if we had an authoritative regime after independence, the survival of India in it's present form would have not been possible. We would have various revolts against such a regime which would have led to fragmentation of the country. One attempt at subverting democracy showed how the people could rise in 1978.

 

[Known_Unknown]

I think we will play it safe and better be a democracy and try to improve our system than look at autocratic ways. I think you forget east Pakistan when you say Pakistan has not been controlled by killing millions.

I am sure if we had an authoritative regime after independence, the survival of India in it's present form would have not been possible. We would have various revolts against such a regime which would have led to fragmentation of the country. One attempt at subverting democracy showed how the people could rise in 1978.

Pakistan's 1971 situation was unique. A country comprised of two parts, on either side of an enemy, and where one part was exploiting the other.

The example of Emergency is incorrect. People may have ousted Indira Gandhi in the elections immediately after it was lifted, but two years later, she returned with a thumping majority bigger than ever before.

Five decades after independence, we are still tottering along the road to self-sufficiency. I'd rather be a Germany, who under authoritarian rule conquered all of Europe, was devastated by the war, and rose up again to be the world's 5th largest economy in the same 5 decades.

Indian citizens have little or nothing to be proud of since independence, hence the reliance on past glories (Shivaji/Hindutva/Akhand Bharat et al).

 

[Yusuf]

Germany rose to greater heights under democracy and peacefully at that and compelled it's eastern neighbor which was authoritarian to merge back. We know how east germany was. It's better to have a chaotic democracy like India than have an authoritarian regime which makes brothers spy on brothers etc.

Japan rose to greater heights under democracy.

Mate what's required is a good system. Honesty and integrity. That would be all.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Germany rose to greater heights under democracy and peacefully at that and compelled it's eastern neighbor which was authoritarian to merge back. We know how east germany was. It's better to have a chaotic democracy like India than have an authoritarian regime which makes brothers spy on brothers etc.

Japan rose to greater heights under democracy.

Mate what's required is a good system. Honesty and integrity. That would be all.

Germany was not a sovereign country until 1991. The Berlin Wall collapsed because of American and Soviet negotiations, and Germans themselves had little to do with it. In fact, even today, Germany is a semi-slave to the Two plus Four arrangement, and has to adhere to its clauses indefinitely, which means that Germany can never be a military power or possess nukes. It has been emasculated, as has Japan. Japan's constitution, which was drafted by Americans, don't allow it to have any offensive forces or wars, even if they are pre-emptive. In addition, they have to permanently provide bases to American troops.

So excuse me if I don't see today's Germany or Japan as model examples to follow. If we want to be a client state of the US, they are certainly excellent examples.

 

[civfanatic]

Are people here actually demanding for an authoritarian government? I bet none of you have actually experienced authoritarianism, or else you wouldn't be advocating such a thing.

Funny thing is, a lot of the Indians that advocate authoritarianism in India will also criticize China for being an "evil commie dictatorship".

 

[Yusuf]

Germany was not a sovereign country until 1991. The Berlin Wall collapsed because of American and Soviet negotiations, and Germans themselves had little to do with it. In fact, even today, Germany is a semi-slave to the Two plus Four arrangement, and has to adhere to its clauses indefinitely, which means that Germany can never be a military power or possess nukes. It has been emasculated, as has Japan. Japan's constitution, which was drafted by Americans, don't allow it to have any offensive forces or wars, even if they are pre-emptive. In addition, they have to permanently provide bases to American troops.

So excuse me if I don't see today's Germany or Japan as model examples to follow. If we want to be a client state of the US, they are certainly excellent examples.

They still prospered under peaceful conditions and being a democracy. It's the discipline that did the trick for them that in spite of being ravaged by war, they quickly rose to be economic power houses.

The time to "be in US protectorate" is over. I would not have had a problem if we were aligned with the US during cold war and prospered like many other nations did.

 

[Singh]

We are a HUGE nation, an unique nation. We cannot emulate others, cannot be boxed in and are beyond one size fits all.

The only way we'll prosper is if we hold steadfastly to centrist policies rather than out and out leftist,rightist or extremist ideologies.

 

[agentperry]

the foundation stone of israel is to protect the holy place of Jerusalem from arab and subsequently make a safe place for jews... something like all the jews will be loyal to a place( as it has ancient connection). india on the other hand cant be like that even if it wants to be cuz which india you wanna convert to israel, lots of religion like hindu, sikh, buddhism, jainism, gowda, santhal, jain, mundas and many more tribal and non-tribal religion in india. even the religion which many says are introduced as a result of invasion like christianity and Islam are 4-5 century old, so u cannot say that they are foreign religions they are domesticated to an extent that they are now inseparable entity.
so india going israel is not possible however we can adopt the pratices of israel in being dominating and pragmatic and self-centered in the time of crisis-dealing

 

[S.A.T.A]

The remarkable aspect of the Israel-US polemics is that all the sobriquets hoisted on the state of Israel visa viv its ties with US,be it the pining lapdog or the lording master descriptions,all these have by and large come from non Israelis,and most of time it is intended to criticize the US and not specifically directed at Israel.Through all this,here is a small country,with a very large heart,bravely contending all challenges,in its case mostly existential in nature,and still be able to carry its head high among the gathering of world nations,making no less a contribution to all those pursuits that characteristic human excellence.

How do they do that ?....It probably boils down to a very simple approach,at no stage in its short national career,has the Jewish state ever compromised the interests of her core society,over some exalted principle of international statecraft.If they had to raze down a township, that threatened the Jewish society,they did it with a moments hesitation,if they had to violate sovereign airspace,storm another nations air port,in order to protect their citizen,they did,international opinion be damned.

India and Israel provide contrasting images of evolving nationhood,Here are two modern countries,both products of infinitely ancient civilizations,yet have adopted diverging outlooks to state forming.One has formed a state and its society,towards securing whose interests,all principles of political organization become subservient,then there is the other country,where the exercise of state formation and nation building,is held hostage to an antiquated principle.

 

[vishal_lionheart]

NO We cant become another ISRAEL, Indian don't have that kind of attitude and arrogance against their enemies, we can only dream.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

LF I`m hope that are pretty much sure about the source and if so then the author is not mentally retarded because the words he wrote are a reason for aggression for Indians?

"India has been crushing the Kashmiris, who have been struggling to liberate themselves from the Indian slavery."

WTF

 

[bengalraider]

The one thing that scared me about the entire article was that the freakozoid who wrote is an actual professor, which neanderthal education would make such a cretin a professor, the man has no idea of history or of world politics at large does he?

India cannot become Israel, as a nation we are far more pluralistic than the Jewish homeland can ever aspire to be far vaster and with far greater diversity in the ecological and societal stages as well.Also as a people we do not share the same suicidal fatalistic mindset that the "tribesmen of david" have.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

LF I`m hope that are pretty much sure about the source and if so then the author is not mentally retarded because the words he wrote are a reason for aggression for Indians?

"India has been crushing the Kashmiris, who have been struggling to liberate themselves from the Indian slavery."

WTF

This retard claims to be a Phd at a university, teaching the next generation this nonsense.

 

[johnee]

India and Israel provide contrasting images of evolving nationhood,Here are two modern countries,both products of infinitely ancient civilizations,yet have adopted diverging outlooks to state forming.One has formed a state and its society,towards securing whose interests,all principles of political organization become subservient,then there is the other country,where the exercise of state formation and nation building,is held hostage to an antiquated principle.

I think the distinction comes from how these nations were formed. Israel was forged through hard violent struggle. India gained independence through transfer of power on the imperialists' terms. The power was transferred to certain individuals chosen by the imperialists. The people, largely, had no say. It is this contrast in inceptions, that is carried forward...

 

[S.A.T.A]

I think the distinction comes from how these nations were formed. Israel was forged through hard violent struggle. India gained independence through transfer of power on the imperialists' terms. The power was transferred to certain individuals chosen by the imperialists. The people, largely, had no say. It is this contrast in inceptions, that is carried forward...

Indian freedom struggle did not demand any less sacrifice of blood and sacrifice,the passive resistance movement,this didn't mean less violence was inflicted on it,went in tandem with the revolutionary movement and organized military resistance,moreover the formation of the state of Israel, in its inception, received a lot of moral and ideological support from Britain.

I think the difference was that nascent leadership of these merging nations drew different interferences from their respective political movements,The Jewish people had no doubt in their mind that the country they wanted would be for,by and off the Jewish society,that Judaism would be at its national core.

The Indian leadership,particularly the Hindus,was weaned on the notion that,that the national core was the race,to be precise a so called Indian race,and that individual societies were merely its constituents.hence the nation would be formed by the race and not necessarily by societies.That this belief was flawed from the beginning, was made more certian when the Pakistan movement gained pace and the republic of Pakistan came about.

The partition of India and with it the dissolution of the idea of one race,one country,shook the Indian intellect badly,as Indian intellect began a process of introspection,leaders like Pt Nehru,unto whom the mantle of leadership fell,internalized this moral-intellectual crisis and found ways to deflect the blame on to anything other than now defunct belief in 'One Indian race'.They found a convenient scapegoat in the so called Hindu revivalism and it was concluded that it was the Hindu domineering which was to be blamed for the partition.There are reasons to believe that,to an extent large parts of the Indian society too believed in it(many still do)

The Marxist vision of nation state of people and classes,removed from their cultural moorings,which had failed to keep India united,was adopted with greater vigor,for this to succeed the the natural claim of the Hindu nation had to be suppressed.