India's Caste System Still an Obstacle to Modernization

[Infohawk]

Today's interpretation of caste system is extremely ridiculous and not even a shadow of its original idea.

Today, almost all believe that people are born into a particular caste. Like a boy born in a Brahmin family automatically becomes a Brahmin. If that would have been the case originally.. then Vyasa Maharshi could not have written the Mahabharata.. since was born in a family of a fisherman and he is also called as "compiler of Vedas." one cannot imagine someone from a family of fisherman reciting Vedas today.

With regards to OP; corruption and caste are major hurdles in today's India.

I have a question regarding the title of this thread; What is your definition of modernization? The articles deals with the issues of caste system preventing a true labor reform.. How does modernization have anything to with this?

It sounds like you're saying the castes don't mean the exact same thing they did in ancient times. That's fine but that's not really the issue. The article suggests castes still have meaning and that people are denied jobs based on their caste. Do you deny that?

Modern = the economies of Japan, Western Europe and the US. The labor market is a huge part of an economy. An economy where 90% of the people have under-the-table jobs is not modern.

 

[Infohawk]

Please elaborate on what a third world outlook happens to be. Thanks.

Many Americans do give a crap about the UK, including yourself. You yourself believe that the UK is a white homeland and thus my criticism of that country's policies is viewed as a racial attack against your racial pride. You don't seem to be able to go beyond the color of my skin.

Sorry, but I don't have any allegiance to another country. I have to ask why don't you free yourself of your hatred and old allegiances. Most other Americans have done so. Most Americans don't go around denying holocausts, freak out when someone criticizes Europe, etc.

Can you link to the thread where I said I was white? I don't think the UK is a white homeland. I just referenced the fact that many (more normal) Indian immigrants live there.

You can say you don't have any allegiances but the fact is your crazy focus on Europeans is born out of some butt-hurt nationalisic feelings you have.

Actually, most Americans think Churchill was a hero compared to Hitler. You think the opposite. Pointing out that you're crazy for saying Churchill is worse than Hitler doesn't mean I have allegiances to Europe (especially since both are European).

Unfortunately I can see your to the point where you're parroting back my posts. I can't keep feeding you if you're going to do that. It's bad enough you call everyone who you disagree with a white racist .

 

[busydude]

The article suggests castes still have meaning and that people are denied jobs based on their caste. Do you deny that?

Absolutely not. I was born and raised in that system.. and I despise it. In my view.. it just gives one more reason for people to discriminate each other.

 

[CanOWorms]

Can you link to the thread where I said I was white? I don't think the UK is a white homeland. I just referenced the fact that many (more normal) Indian immigrants live there.

Sorry, I don't catalog all the crazy coming out of you.

You can say you don't have any allegiances but the fact is your crazy focus on Europeans is born out of some butt-hurt nationalisic feelings you have.

I've already said why I'm interested many times. I went over there and experienced bigotry there first-hand. Ever since then I've been interested in European politics, especially in regards to minorities.

You're just playing upon some bigotry by trying to link it to my background.

Actually, most Americans think Churchill was a hero compared to Hitler. You think the opposite. Pointing out that you're crazy for saying Churchill is worse than Hitler doesn't mean I have allegiances to Europe (especially since both are European).

That's because most of us don't know the truth on Churchill. I'm sure in the future most will realize his atrocities, especially as the countries he brutalized are rising. Similar to how praising of Hitler is viewed in shock today, praising of Churchill will bring shock and condemnation in the future.

Unfortunately I can see your to the point where you're parroting back my posts. I can't keep feeding you if you're going to do that. It's bad enough you call everyone who you disagree with a white racist .

Sorry, but I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a racist. However, I call you a racist because you believe in white supremacy, disagree that Europeans can enact a genocide against non-whites, etc. You have radical far-right racial-political views. Any thread on a minority group is graced with your presence and racial bigotry.

 

[busydude]

An economy where 90% of the people have under-the-table jobs is not modern.

You need to understand how India's economy works before making that statement.

Take retail stores, or Kirana as they call it in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retailing_in_India

Organized retail market accounts for <5% of the total market. There is a reason why India is not allowing FDI's in retail sectors.. it puts the rest of 95% at risk.

Your definition of modern does not apply, as almost all of the markets in India are unorganized.

 

[Infohawk]

You need to understand how India's economy works before making that statement.

Take retail stores, or Kirana as they call it in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retailing_in_India

Organized retail market accounts for <5% of the total market. There is a reason why India is not allowing FDI's in retail sectors.. it puts the rest of 95% at risk.

Your definition of modern does not apply, as almost all of the markets in India are unorganized.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with me on. Are you saying disorganized markets are modern? It seems like you're agreeing with me.

 

[busydude]

Are you saying disorganized markets are modern?

I never said that.. and no they are not modern. I am saying that is how things in India work. Just like retail.. labor market is highly unorganized. It will be that way in foreseeable future. Your definition of modernity cannot be achieved in India, ever.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry, I don't catalog all the crazy coming out of you.

It would be crazy for me to say I'm white? Since you say I'm a white supremacist one would think you are able to confidently say I am white, but you can't.

 

[Infohawk]

Your definition of modernity cannot be achieved in India, ever.

I find that hard to believe...

 

[CanOWorms]

It would be crazy for me to say I'm white? Since you say I'm a white supremacist one would think you are able to confidently say I am white, but you can't.

We've had this discussion before. You claimed you were white before. No, I'm not going to look through thousands of your posts. I don't know why I would have to find your posts anyways. It's a strong presumption that those who espouse white racial supremacy theories tend to be white.

 

[Infohawk]

We've had this discussion before. You claimed you were white before. No, I'm not going to look through thousands of your posts. I don't know why I would have to find your posts anyways. It's a strong presumption that those who espouse white racial supremacy theories tend to be white.

White supremacists generally are proud to say they're white. I tend not to share any personal information on this forum. You're assuming I'm white because so that you can make me into a boogeyman. (And ultimately you can never back up your lies about me. You say I'm racist but I don't think race is important and you can't find any posts where I say one race is better than another. Hell, you can't even prove I'm white. On the other hand I can find your posts where you say you want to bomb London and that Churchill is worse than Hitler. I don't make stuff up, but you do.)

 

[CanOWorms]

White supremacists generally are proud to say they're white. I tend not to share any personal information on this forum. You're assuming I'm white because so that you can make me into a boogeyman. (And ultimately you can never back up your lies about me. You say I'm racist but I don't think race is important and you can't find any posts where I say one race is better than another. Hell, you can't even prove I'm white. On the other hand I can find your posts where you say you want to bomb London and that Churchill is worse than Hitler. I don't make stuff up, but you do.)

And I can find posts from you attacking all sorts of minority groups, claiming that whites cannot enact a genocide against non-whites, that Churchill is not worse than Hitler, deny Churchill's atrocities, that whites have a genetic condition that make them automatically integrated into society, etc. I don't make stuff up, but you do.

 

[CanOWorms]

I never said that.. and no they are not modern. I am saying that is how things in India work. Just like retail.. labor market is highly unorganized. It will be that way in foreseeable future. Your definition of modernity cannot be achieved in India, ever.

His definition of modern is basically to be European. It's very narrow.

 

[Infohawk]

And I can find posts from you attacking all sorts of minority groups, claiming that whites cannot enact a genocide against non-whites, that Churchill is not worse than Hitler, deny Churchill's atrocities, that whites have a genetic condition that make them automatically integrated into society, etc. I don't make stuff up, but you do.

You can't find posts where I attack racial groups. I also never said that whites cannot enact a genocide against non-whites or that whites have a genetic condition that makes them more integrated into society. You're a liar and you know it. Anyway, you're doing the COW parrot dance of shame again so I'm gonna' ignore you in this thread now...

 

[CanOWorms]

You can't find posts where I attack racial groups. I also never said that whites cannot enact a genocide against non-whites or that whites have a genetic condition that makes them more integrated into society. You're a liar and you know it. Anyway, you're doing the COW parrot dance of shame again so I'm gonna' ignore you in this thread now...

There you go again, acting like some spoiled child when I remind you of your past behavior.

 

[busydude]

I find that hard to believe...

It does not matter what you believe, but it is extremely naive of you to think that way. Do you think the world will be same as today when an average Indian consumes the same resources as an average American.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

And I can find posts from you attacking all sorts of minority groups, claiming that whites cannot enact a genocide against non-whites, that Churchill is not worse than Hitler, deny Churchill's atrocities, that whites have a genetic condition that make them automatically integrated into society, etc. I don't make stuff up, but you do.

You need to learn some fucking respect kid.

If it wasn't for Churchill your backwards shithold country (India) would be speaking German right now.

And England did way more good in India than they ever did bad. They built the countrys entire infrastructure.

How many railroads were there before the English rocked up?

 

[CanOWorms]

You need to learn some fucking respect kid.

If it wasn't for Churchill your backwards shithold country would be speaking German right now.

Fuck Churchill, he deserves no respect, only hostility.

America would be speaking German? I don't think so. Churchill and the British Empire at that time was a little runt compared to the US.

And England did way more good in India than they ever did bad. They built the countrys entire infrastructure.

No, they did not. The British Empire destroyed most of their colonies. Contrast it with Japan, quite a brutal colonizer, that actually increased the GDP of its colonies. The opposite happened with the British. Hundreds of millions were killed, life expectancy dramatically declined, communal tensions were exploited, etc.

Your proposition is like saying the Nazis did a lot more good than bad for the European Jewish community!

How many railroads were there before the English rocked up?

Oooh, railroads! Wow! That's really worth hundreds of millions of lives and deep poverty!

Choooo chooo!

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

America would be speaking German? I don't think so. Churchill and the British Empire at that time was a little runt compared to the US.

No, they did not. The British Empire destroyed most of their colonies. Contrast it with Japan, quite a brutal colonizer, that actually increased the GDP of its colonies. The opposite happened with the British. Hundreds of millions were killed, life expectancy dramatically declined, communal tensions were exploited, etc.

Your proposition is like saying the Nazis did a lot more good than bad for the European Jewish community!

Oooh, railroads! Wow! That's really worth hundreds of millions of lives and deep poverty!

Choooo chooo!

I was talking about India, not America. And when the war stated the UK was still the richest country in the world, so I don't know what this 'little runt' shit is.

The English killed hundreds of millions? Are you fucking nuts?

Caused poverty? LOL.

The place was a shithole when they got there. They did their best to fix the place up.

 

[CanOWorms]

I was talking about India, not America.

That's even more ridiculous then.

 

[CanOWorms]

The English killed hundreds of millions? Are you fucking nuts?

Are you fucking nuts? Are you seriously denying the genocides they enacted? Just looking at the data from their man-made famines in India alone, it seems about 75 million were slaughtered by the British. That's one geographic area and only one cause of death. Expanding that to their entire ridiculous Empire and all causes of deaths would easily expand into the hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions.

Caused poverty? LOL.

Are you fucking nuts?

The place was a shithole when they got there. They did their best to fix the place up.

The British had no desire to fix anything up. They desired to extract wealth from their slave colonies. If they wanted to fix things up, then why did Canada receive most of the wealth plundered from their slave colonies?

 

[busydude]

The place was a shithole when they got there. They did their best to fix the place up.

Wow.. just wow. I agree that they united the nation.. and built railroads.. but do you realize that India was the richest region before Europeans invaded.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Are you fucking nuts? Are you seriously denying the genocides they enacted? Just looking at the data from their man-made famines in India alone, it seems about 75 million were slaughtered by the British. That's one geographic area and only one cause of death. Expanding that to their entire ridiculous Empire and all causes of deaths would easily expand into the hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions.

Are you fucking nuts?

The British had no desire to fix anything up. They desired to extract wealth from their slave colonies. If they wanted to fix things up, then why did Canada receive most of the wealth plundered from their slave colonies?

"seems about 75 million were slaughtered by the British."

Link? You won't be able to find one because that's total bullshit.

 

[Steeplerot]

How many railroads were there before the English rocked up?

Ok, don't go getting all rule Britannia Noble savage on us, they did build that infrastructure for their own purposes. For naked imperialist resource extraction and exploitation of the vast labor pools. Colonialism was a money losing aspect in the long term of the Empire if they did not do such things. I understand your point but don't act like they colonized for humanitarian reasons.

The past is what it is. I wouldn't talk to much shit about India being a hole, considering certain large islands were not even colonized for resources it was such a shithole, the Empire just wanted to ditch their criminals there it must have sucked so bad.

Just kidding, but you get my point. Trying to pin some kind of moral superiority on UK's colonialism back then is kinda transparent and bullshit. He hates people and thinks everyone is against India for some reason. Good luck with that.

 

[CanOWorms]

"seems about 75 million were slaughtered by the British."

Link? You won't be able to find one because that's total bullshit.

This is pathetic. It's like someone disputing the Holocaust.

Wikipedia has a crude summary. It's not exhaustive, but it's a good place for you to start:

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

Just counting those listed on that page, it appears to be ~60 million, and the data is missing from some of them and it's missing many other famines. I suppose I would argue that 75 million is extremely unrealistic as it's likely too low.