- Joined
- Oct 9, 2021
- Messages
- 12,838
- Likes
- 34,529
Why not Sanpada , halde ?Ya'll Nibbiars Jui Nagar.
Why not Sanpada , halde ?Ya'll Nibbiars Jui Nagar.
Ya'll Nibbiars that I located in Jui Nagar. There they have 130 acres of land. That they are developing into high tech industrial, IT, WTC, Office, Retail, Residental developments.Why not Sanpada , halde ?
Sri Lanka should be compared to southern Indian states that have a more similar history, culture and geography which is basically only Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In the same way West Bengal should be compared to Bangladesh and Pakistan Punjab to Punjab. Sri Lanka is more developed than India for the same reason that Kerala is more developed than UP. The southern Indian Subcontinent never suffered the horrors of the Turkic invasions.Comparing two political entities simply based on GDP or even Per Capita income is inherently faulty.
One has to look at the whole range of spectrum before making a judgement.
Some mineral rich african countries have disproportional GDP as well as GDP per capita( eg Equatorial Guinea,Angola,Nigeria) but most of their population are impoverished.And there are countries with low per capita income(eg Kyrgyzstan) with very low levels of poverty.
Here is what matters the most......
View attachment 122722View attachment 122723
View attachment 122724View attachment 122725
Last But not the least
View attachment 122729
What has that medieval thing got to do with modern day socio economic problems ?Sri Lanka should be compared to southern Indian states that have a more similar history, culture and geography which is basically only Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In the same way West Bengal should be compared to Bangladesh and Pakistan Punjab to Punjab. Sri Lanka is more developed than India for the same reason that Kerala is more developed than UP. The southern Indian Subcontinent never suffered the horrors of the Turkic invasions.
That means nothing as they retain their access to India with OCI cards. OCIs allow NRIs to work just like locals. The only difference is that they can't buy agricultural land and can't participate in elections.Over six lakh Indians gave up their citizenship in last five years: Govt
Union Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai also said that as per the information available with the Ministry of External Affairs, a total number of 1,33,83,718 Indian nationals are living in foreign countries.economictimes.indiatimes.com
The Hindi heartland has been poorer and less developed that the south for hundreds of years because they have a different history. The southern hindu kingdoms did a much better job of reducing of poverty and improving human development than the Turkic ruled states in the north. Also Sri Lanka was already richer and more developed than India as whole at independence. It had a literacy rate of more than 50% which was greater than even Kerala and much more than the 18% literacy that India had. If you looked at other factors of human development you would probably find that the gap has narrowed as an absolute percentage since independence.What has that medieval thing got to do with modern day socio economic problems ?
south
What has turkic invasion got to do with building a sewerage line ? or ensuring children don't end up malnourished ? or the people have access to clean drinking water ?
you have some academic paper in mind that can back these assertions?The Hindi heartland has been poorer and less developed that the south for hundreds of years because they have a different history. The southern hindu kingdoms did a much better job of reducing of poverty and improving human development than the Turkic ruled states in the north. Also Sri Lanka was already richer and more developed than India as whole at independence. It had a literacy rate of more than 50% which was greater than even Kerala and much more than the 18% literacy that India had. If you looked at other factors of human development you would probably find that the gap has narrowed as an absolute percentage since independence.
The study on Kerala was posted on this very thread. I don't remember the exact details though, @gslv markIII , @Hariharan_kalarikkal would know better. Most of the claims made by @blackleaf are indeed true here.you have some academic paper in mind that can back these assertions?
Sri Lanka is a completely gone case like pakis. A nation just cannot survive on debts and bailouts; howsoever small its economy might be. Today begging to India, tomorrow china and finally to the IMF. They do not produce anything meaningful to grow their economy nor they can fudge their data like Bangladeshi BBS (such is the extent of the crisis). They are bound to be stuck in a never ending middle income trap (towards the absolute lower end of that income band).Sri Lanka should be compared to southern Indian states that have a more similar history, culture and geography which is basically only Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In the same way West Bengal should be compared to Bangladesh and Pakistan Punjab to Punjab. Sri Lanka is more developed than India for the same reason that Kerala is more developed than UP. The southern Indian Subcontinent never suffered the horrors of the Turkic invasions.
Any comments on turkeySri Lanka is a completely gone case like pakis. A nation just cannot survive on debts and bailouts; howsoever small its economy might be. Today begging to India, tomorrow china and finally to the IMF. They do not produce anything meaningful to grow their economy nor they can fudge their data like Bangladeshi BBS (such is the extent of the crisis). They are bound to be stuck in a never ending middle income trap (towards the absolute lower end of that income band).
It is a meme. Erdogan thinks higher interest rates trigger higher inflation.Any comments on turkey
Yes they are basically bankrupt now. On the way to becoming a south asian Venezuela. But they started off richer and more developed than India. India is likely to have a higher gdp per capita than Sri Lanka within the next decade.Sri Lanka is a completely gone case like pakis. A nation just cannot survive on debts and bailouts; howsoever small its economy might be. Today begging to India, tomorrow china and finally to the IMF. They do not produce anything meaningful to grow their economy nor they can fudge their data like Bangladeshi BBS (such is the extent of the crisis). They are bound to be stuck in a never ending middle income trap (towards the absolute lower end of that income band).
it’s not the south part I have doubts on, it’s the revenues of the northern principalities I wanted to enquire on.The study on Kerala was posted on this very thread. I don't remember the exact details though, @gslv markIII , @Hariharan_kalarikkal would know better. Most of the claims made by @blackleaf are indeed true here.
Go through this threadThe Hindi heartland has been poorer and less developed that the south for hundreds of years because they have a different history. The southern hindu kingdoms did a much better job of reducing of poverty and improving human development than the Turkic ruled states in the north. Also Sri Lanka was already richer and more developed than India as whole at independence. It had a literacy rate of more than 50% which was greater than even Kerala and much more than the 18% literacy that India had. If you looked at other factors of human development you would probably find that the gap has narrowed as an absolute percentage since independence.
you have some academic paper in mind that can back these assertions?
The study on Kerala was posted on this very thread. I don't remember the exact details though, @gslv markIII , @Hariharan_kalarikkal would know better. Most of the claims made by @blackleaf are indeed true here.
Tamils had not just Fertile lands of Tungabadra Doab, but also the Diamond mines of Golconda, until 16th century the only source of diamondsit’s not the south part I have doubts on, it’s the revenues of the northern principalities I wanted to enquire on.
Kerala had their spice trade and ports, Tamil Nadu had their Cauvery delta and ports, nizam had his diamond mines and rich Godavari and Krishna delta. had checked British revenue records of that time many years back, have a rough idea.
It’s the north I have no idea on, never bothered to check.
I am quite sure that there was no turkish invasion in the past 75 years.The Hindi heartland has been poorer and less developed that the south for hundreds of years because they have a different history. The southern hindu kingdoms did a much better job of reducing of poverty and improving human development than the Turkic ruled states in the north. Also Sri Lanka was already richer and more developed than India as whole at independence. It had a literacy rate of more than 50% which was greater than even Kerala and much more than the 18% literacy that India had.
We were fcked by socialism , licence raj , bureaucratic misgovernance , caste politics etc . And excess population in non costal states like UP , Bihar dint help . Central india got fckd due to communist violence . NE already has a rough geography and add conflict to that . Same with respect to kashmir and panjab .I am quite sure that there was no turkish invasion in the past 75 years.
And 75 years is more than enough to build some basic infrastructure or set up basic healthcare and education.
I am amused you haven't even blamed the British rule Yet.
There are countries like South Korea which turned from Pauper to developed state in less than 50 years.
There is a China which turned from one of the poorest to a upper middle income country in less than 30 years.
And you are saying that the reason behind Mali and Liberia type living standards even after 75 years of independence is due to 13th and 14th century turkish invasion ?