Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 2:48 am

I read the Shah of Iran was very corrupt, but did bring lots of improvement to Iran.
As Macchiavelli says:
"It doesn't matter how good a ruler is, in time people will demand change."
The question is how much improvement makes repression acceptable. What about Suharto?
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/worl ... 42684.html
What about Pinochet?
Before the invasion of Iran even Saddam did very well. These were all cruel people. Did they do well instead of being cruel or because of being cruel?

Democratic India's Modi is interesting in this context. He pushed enormous important reforms. I believe because of his massacre early in his career people within his party opposed to him shut up.
As Macchiavelli says:
One has to be proper cruel the moment one takes power, otherwise people will sit on one's head.

My mother in law was free to criticize the government all her life. But she lost a child because of diarrhoea. Infant mortality is never included in judging human rights violations. Should it be?
These are tricky questions and I believe in comparison China is doing great.

Germany became rich under Wilhelm I.
That's more tricky.
Roughly 100 years since the French Revolution had passed. Napoleon had already introduced his Napoleonic code.
Could he have done so without bloodshed?
Under Wilhelm I there was corruption and one had to be careful what one said, but he was not cruel in a Sadam Hussein or Pinochet sense.
Again Macchiavelli:
It's easy if one inherited the throne.
Even in democratic India children may inherit party presidency.
What about Ivanka?

Any ideas how to transform Irak, Syria or the Palestinians into liberal societies?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Kno
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:27 am

No
 
chimborazo
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 7:43 am

I worked in Kurdistan for approximately 7 months over a number of visits. The folks I worked with were from all over Iraq, both Arabs and Kurds, and further afield from Syria and Jordan. Have spent many hours with a coffee and a cigarette discussing exactly this point.

Two of the guys are some of the gentlest and nicest people I’ve met and they both thought that, although Saddam was a Bastard, the country worked under him (and one of them had spent a few weeks in prison getting the shit kicked out of him by the Ba’ath party for disagreeing on a procedure of how a university would celebrate Saddam’s birthday...).
Others commented that “The Arab mind” needed a dictator in charge because of their mentality, the tribal base of that part of the world. Their thoughts not mine Tribal ...

But as Sokes noted, the country worked until all the wars.

Having worked extensively in Egypt, they definitely need a tyrant in charge. The only way stuff gets done is when people get a good shouting at.

I don’t think “Cruel” is necessary. But “hard” seems to be in some of the places I’ve visited.

Although advanced in many ways, there is a fundamental tribal system in Iraq and other Arab countries. Liberal democracy is hard to implement there.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:52 am

chimborazo wrote:
I worked in Kurdistan for approximately 7 months over a number of visits. The folks I worked with were from all over Iraq, both Arabs and Kurds, and further afield from Syria and Jordan. Have spent many hours with a coffee and a cigarette discussing exactly this point.

Two of the guys are some of the gentlest and nicest people I’ve met and they both thought that, although Saddam was a Bastard, the country worked under him (and one of them had spent a few weeks in prison getting the shit kicked out of him by the Ba’ath party for disagreeing on a procedure of how a university would celebrate Saddam’s birthday...).
Others commented that “The Arab mind” needed a dictator in charge because of their mentality, the tribal base of that part of the world. Their thoughts not mine Tribal ...

But as Sokes noted, the country worked until all the wars.

Having worked extensively in Egypt, they definitely need a tyrant in charge. The only way stuff gets done is when people get a good shouting at.

I don’t think “Cruel” is necessary. But “hard” seems to be in some of the places I’ve visited.

Although advanced in many ways, there is a fundamental tribal system in Iraq and other Arab countries. Liberal democracy is hard to implement there.

I worked in Egypt, Libya and Palestine .. I fully agree with your assessment. Some societies need a strong or hard leader. Might be due to their history...
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:55 pm

Let me ask you this, what would China be like today without Mao?

He dragged China kicking and screaming into the 19th Century and barely into the 20th Century. I doubt Chang Kai Sheik would have been able to attract enough people to unify China. Even his economic miracle in Taiwan would likely not have been possible without the threat of Mao.

Now, the need for a 'cruel' ruler - or rather I prefer the term benevolent dictator - had disappeared by 1980. China since had demonstrated the bad side of such leadership.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:06 pm

IMO, this entire notion is based on the following;

1. The dictator will be benevolent.

2. That his decrees will actually work.

What is the evidence for either.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:01 pm

And to follow up on the previous comment, it works as long as that unique leader exists for the people (and they can exist in the minds of the citizens, they don't have to only be alive).

I think the strength of the "western" ideal of leadership is that it churns regularly, every 4 to 8 years, which makes the leaders less important and the process and bureaucracy more so.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5537
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:21 pm

Instead of making comparison across different geographical area, I think it would make more sense to comoare along the axis of time on the European continents. Yes, there were strong and powerful kings in the continent of Europe that brought their nation to prosper, but they don't last, after long enough amount of time there prone to be someone bad and will bring the country down. And as people learned from the process and fought for a better system, we now have what we see in the Europe now.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
YokoTsuno
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:21 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:06 am

rfields5421 wrote:
Let me ask you this, what would China be like today without Mao?

He dragged China kicking and screaming into the 19th Century and barely into the 20th Century. I doubt Chang Kai Sheik would have been able to attract enough people to unify China. Even his economic miracle in Taiwan would likely not have been possible without the threat of Mao.

Now, the need for a 'cruel' ruler - or rather I prefer the term benevolent dictator - had disappeared by 1980. China since had demonstrated the bad side of such leadership.
Countries develop because conditions are present for this to happen, something that's a lot easier to achieve in small nations (Singapore, Taiwan, HK,...) and ethnically very homogeneous places (Japan).

China doesn't need to be China in order to develop, it could have perfectly done so as a number of independent nations and would most likely have succeeded by now. The CCP's primary goal is not development but staying together as a nation in order to exercise hegemony over other countries. Size matters.

Look at the Europe. This continent might have developed into peace, it is by no means free of rivalry or what do you think Brexit is about? So if you apply the TS's logic here you could just as well say 'Does Europe need a dictator?" Is this peace and prosperity eternal? How unlikely would that be.

In fact if you look at the US at this moment it seems it needs one as well, which is ironic, he just got voted out.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:57 am

You’ll probably find a lot of famous well respected and praised leaders were “cruel” to a lot of people as well.

Go and look at Winston Churchill and his actions in India and Africa.

Woodrow Wilson and his comments about Black Americans and minorities after WW1.

FDR and internment camps.

Teddy Roosevelt and Native Americans/Filipinos

Gandhi and his views on race and sex

US Founding Fathers and slavery.

Even in the 21st Century, look at how warmongerer George W Bush has been rehabilitated as a charming responsible guy, hanging out with Democrats and celebrities like Ellen (and there’s another “nice person” who’s been exposed as a cruel bully!)
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:44 am

rfields5421 wrote:
Let me ask you this, what would China be like today without Mao
...
Now, the need for a 'cruel' ruler - or rather I prefer the term benevolent dictator - had disappeared by 1980. China since had demonstrated the bad side of such leadership.

After Mao came Deng Xiaoping.
After Stalin came Khrushchev.
After Hitler came Adenauer.

I believe terrible misfortune often leads to radical improvement. Old ideas are discarded, people formerly disinterested in politics feel it worth their time.

But of course it's pure speculation if Deng Xiaoping could have done the reforms without the recent history.

You think China in 1980 should have adapted a constitution like India?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:01 am

bennett123 wrote:
IMO, this entire notion is based on the following;

1. The dictator will be benevolent.

2. That his decrees will actually work.

What is the evidence for either.

Agreed, 99% of dictatorships are scrap.
But my question is if countries without liberal values can develop under a liberal leader or if a dictator and human rights violations are required?

What about England and the US? These may be two countries where my hypothesis doesn't fit. The book "Why nations fail" attributes the success of early US to lack of natural resources and fertile land. There just wasn't enough surplus value of labour to exploit. Well, cotton fields excluded.

What about England? There was the Glorious Revolution 1688. But then there was Elisabeth around 100 years earlier.
Can somebody from Britain expand?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:11 am

c933103 wrote:
Yes, there were strong and powerful kings in the continent of Europe that brought their nation to prosper, but they don't last, after long enough amount of time there prone to be someone bad and will bring the country down.

Long enough is not very long:
Wilhelm I versus his son Wilhelm II.
Well, Germany did get a miserable constitution type democracy after WWI.
Assuming Wilhelm I had to introduce a good constitution type democracy: could it have worked?

Which raises the question: when should China introduce democracy?
Though China of course isn't a one man show. There is rule of law and division of power.

Did India get democracy too early?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:28 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
...
and there’s another “nice person” who’s been exposed as a cruel bully!)

Winston Churchill is an excellent example. Before WWII he was considered war monger. But he was opposed to the treaty of Versailles.
He thought one has to defeat an enemy decisively, but has to be gracious afterwards.

In short:
He understood the "dominance and submission" mind. He was willing to use violence, but his motives were good.

Who is the other nice person? Obama in Libya/ Syria?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5537
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:02 am

rfields5421 wrote:
Let me ask you this, what would China be like today without Mao?

He dragged China kicking and screaming into the 19th Century and barely into the 20th Century. I doubt Chang Kai Sheik would have been able to attract enough people to unify China. Even his economic miracle in Taiwan would likely not have been possible without the threat of Mao.

Now, the need for a 'cruel' ruler - or rather I prefer the term benevolent dictator - had disappeared by 1980. China since had demonstrated the bad side of such leadership.

A non-unified China is better for China itself.
The era when China see the most advance in culture and technology was when China was divided in the Warrior State period. Yes there were also many wars, but only in such period that we see many different schools of thoughts growing and prospering, unlike later dynasties that only maintain one single of them for the purpose of ruling. Especially in the modern tine when coubtries are harder to go at war against each other should such benefit be more observable.

Sokes wrote:
Which raises the question: when should China introduce democracy?
Though China of course isn't a one man show. There is rule of law and division of power.

The current leader in China is overturning these traces of systemic ruling as he want to enjoy Mao's power and honor as well as telling the court system to follow the party's direction
Did India get democracy too early?

I don't think the question is democracy itself, but rather, the entire country's legal/administrative/political system, whether they have adopted to the need of democracy or not
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:54 am

Not sure about the success of the early US.

Native Americans may view it differently.

As for the UK, Elizabeth was broadly a good Queen in a very violent age. Catholics and the Irish would probably disagree.

Equally the Glorious Revolution was only glorious if you were English and Protestant (Quakers also had a rough time of it).

This whole notion of enlightened despotism ignores the large groups who lose out.

There is also the assumption that it will lead to Liberal democracy. Not sure that that is a given.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:51 am

bennett123 wrote:
Not sure about the success of the early US.

Native Americans may view it differently.

As for the UK, Elizabeth was broadly a good Queen in a very violent age. Catholics and the Irish would probably disagree.

Equally the Glorious Revolution was only glorious if you were English and Protestant (Quakers also had a rough time of it).

This whole notion of enlightened despotism ignores the large groups who lose out.

There is also the assumption that it will lead to Liberal democracy. Not sure that that is a given.

The treatment of blacks/ native Americans in the US has to be attributed to democracy, not tyranny.

I thought Elisabeth was rather religious tolerant for her age?

The Glorious Revolution was important for the division of power. England was still far from what we would consider democracy.

My question about Glorious Revolution/ French Revolution:
Was the mentality behind it already grown under an enlightened monarchy or did the defeat of monarchy led to more enlightened thinking?

Of course most dictatorships don't lead to anything good.
I assume those who do have some rule of law concerning investment. But that's an assumption.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:00 am

c933103 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Did India get democracy too early?

I don't think the question is democracy itself, but rather, the entire country's legal/administrative/political system, whether they have adopted to the need of democracy or not

Nothing wrong with the political system. It is even federal. The British would be fine with it.

The legal system is a consequence of the political system. What laws are passed? How much money for ministry of justice to enforce these laws? What court procedures does politics decide for?
E.g. can a party with a loosing case drag on for decades?

What should be wrong with the administrative system? Anyway parliament can change it if they don't like it.
Last edited by Sokes on Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:02 am

Those groups might see it differently.

On Elizabeth and the Glorious Revolution, whilst I broadly agree, we need to look at both sides of the coin.

On the final point, the rule of law is about more than investment opportunities.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:57 am

Sokes wrote:
Any ideas how to transform Irak, Syria or the Palestinians into liberal societies?


foreign tool or their own bastard?

Is the negative image projected in the media a fair representation?

bringing destruction cloaked in "democratic transformation" hasn't really helped any of the nations inundated with this "altruistic care".

Would another system ( than the existing one) be workable?

Iraq may have had an unpleasant dictator.( but it was their own bastard when the US became active.)
But it also had a well established fast growing/rising middle class.
( laicistic, good education, healthcare, .. behind Israel at the time the best standing in the region.
Without the incompetent (vs the proclaimed objective ) workings of the US this would have continued and forced _a workable_ emancipation movement.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5537
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Sun Nov 15, 2020 1:22 pm

Sokes wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Did India get democracy too early?

I don't think the question is democracy itself, but rather, the entire country's legal/administrative/political system, whether they have adopted to the need of democracy or not

Nothing wrong with the political system. It is even federal. The British would be fine with it.

The legal system is a consequence of the political system. What laws are passed? How much money for ministry of justice to enforce these laws? What court procedures does politics decide for?
E.g. can a party with a loosing case drag on for decades?

What should be wrong with the administrative system? Anyway parliament can change it if they don't like it.

"Political system" cannot be simplified to such extent. It refer to how and in what way the government interact with the entire country population and how the population feedback to the governance of the country.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate 求同存異 よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
Fitting foreign event into local context for lessons will only be able to tell local values instead of foreign ones
You're now at your youngest moment in your remaining life
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:40 pm

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Cruelty is never a virtue! Choosing a ruler because of his cruelty is never an ideal! Liberty. Equality. Uniting people not dividing people on religion/caste/color/language. Those are the ideals that we should be passing on to our children. Not stupid ideas like "15 years of Dictatorship will clean India for good"!

Sokes wrote:
Democratic India's Modi is interesting in this context. He pushed enormous important reforms. I believe because of his massacre early in his career people within his party opposed to him shut up.

Interesting? Can someone name ONE reform in the 6 years he has been "Dear Leader"? Privatizing Profits and Nationalizing Losses is NOT reform! Demonetization was Reform? Legitimizing Tax Havens is reform? Destroying National assets and selling them off to cronies for a pittance is Reform? SOP for all the dictators BTW from Hitler to Modi! The biggest contribution Modi has made to India is normalizing violence against Christians and Muslims. The Gujarat pogrom hasnt stopped him. It has incentivised the current round of systemic abuse of religious minorities!

Dictatorship looks like a very nice idea when you dont have to personally deal with it. US/Canada resident Indians love the idea of Dictatorship in India because they dont have to deal with the negative effects of dictatorship. Would you like to live under a dictatorship? Upper caste people like us can still escape the RSS terror. Rich people can move out. Like many of us chose to do. Not an option for the vast majority of Indias poor.

But imagine a Christian, Muslim or Dalit family growing up in this poisonous dictatorship - living under the constant fear of being lynched by mob of RSS terrorists or being shunted off to a NRC detention camp because of the new Citizenship laws!

Sokes wrote:
Any ideas how to transform Irak, Syria or the Palestinians into liberal societies?


Providing the right Education is the biggest weapon against Dictators. A liberal university can change a persons perspective. Makes them less tolerant to dictators.

Second, building strong institutions that can stand up to dictators. That is something America has done right. Their democratic institutions were strong enough to kick wannabe tinpot Trump out of office after one term. Brazil, India, Turkey, Russia dont have that and that is why they have dictators in power.
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:35 pm

bennett123 wrote:
IMO, this entire notion is based on the following;

1. The dictator will be benevolent.

2. That his decrees will actually work.

What is the evidence for either.


dictators worked in recent past because the countries were undeveloped. Let's not forget dictatorship started with the British colonies to support colony rulings. The British thought that dictatorship was ok as long as they developed the country, it was the for the better good. I believe there is less than a handful of recent dictators who actually benefited from benevolent dictators.

Singapore
Turkey
Seychelles
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:14 am

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
Singapore
Turkey
Seychelles


Singapore - yes. Dictatorship worked for them. But Singapore is a city state with a total area less than the West Delhi Parliamentary constituency and a population that is half that of West Delhi! So in small city states, possibly dictatorship works. Is it the best system? No! But it has worked in some cases! And it has not worked with other similar sized states!

Its a whole different ball-game when you talk of ruling large, populous countries with diverse races, languages and religions like India, Turkey, Russia and the United States. The dynamics in these countries is radically different. Here dictatorship makes zero sense!

Lets say we do get a "benevolent dictator" - if at all there is such a thing. The closest example I can think of is Kemal Ataturk in Turkey who dragged the carcass of the Ottoman Empire into the modern era. He was a dictator who ruled with an iron hand. But he was secular and well educated and so could give the country the direction it needed at the time. But after him? His iron fisted rule meant that democratic institutions could never take root which is how Turkey ended up with a *err* not so benevolent, semi literate dictator like Erdogan.

In India we had Mrs.Gandhi - the only woman on the list of dictators who Nixon used to call "that Old witch". He was not wrong. She ruled with an iron fist and systematically dismantled the democratic institutions that the founding fathers had so painstakingly created. 30 years after her, a crazy dictator like Modi only had to point to a Mosque demolished by RSS terrorists and scream "We will build a Temple HERE!" to gain power. Modi would never have happened if the democratic institutions had not been destroyed by "that Old Witch".

Dictatorship is NEVER a good option. You will never want to live in a dictatorship yourself. Or want your children to grow up in one. But some NRI (Non R̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶
Reliable Indians) and Pakistanis have a tendency to sit on the porch of their cushy home in Alberta, sip their chai and say stupid things like "15 years of dictatorship will clean the country for good"!
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:45 am

BawliBooch wrote:
Choosing a ruler because of his cruelty is never an ideal! Liberty. Equality. Uniting people not dividing people on religion/caste/color/language. Those are the ideals that we should be passing on to our children. Not stupid ideas like "15 years of Dictatorship will clean India for good"!

We agree with the aim. We disagree about the methods.
Even Milton Friedman said he agrees with the political left about aims and disagrees about methods. (He wanted a negative income tax to prevent social hardship.)

Would you like to live under a dictatorship?

I assume with my free mind I may be among the first to be killed.
But then I also wouldn't like to live in 98% of societies mankind had so far.
What you think about my infant mortality point earlier?

But imagine a Christian, Muslim or Dalit family growing up in this poisonous dictatorship - living under the constant fear of being lynched by mob of RSS terrorists or being shunted off to a NRC detention camp because of the new Citizenship laws!

You think Dalits were treated better under Congress governments?
In capitalism people don't ask for caste. It is since the IMF forced reforms on India that the Dalit situation improves. Since Modi favours capitalism I believe he is good for them.
Do you know anybody who was arrested and now lives in a detention camp? I don't, nor have I heard stories about it.

Providing the right Education is the biggest weapon against Dictators.

Finally something we can agree on.
But how to provide primary education for all?

Democratic India has to be considered a failure in this respect.
In 1993/ 94 the District Primary Education program was started, but this was mostly financed by World Bank and UNICEF.
In 2002 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan tried to expand.
By 2010 the Right To Education Act was passed, free and obligatory education for all.

When my son reached schooling age I didn't know what to do. I considered schools with more than 30 children per class unacceptable. Somebody told me the government village school teaches in the local language, but classes are small.

I went to see myself. It seems one teacher has two classes at the same time. However the children were from quite small to quite big. The teacher explained she has four classes today. I asked what happened to the other teacher. "She went to a wedding."
This is when I discarded the idea of government school.

Maybe around 2010 an uneducated friend from a small village explained to me:
"Around 2000 if a 12 year old child got bored with school parents would agree for the child to help in the fields instead. But now (2010) parents insist the child visits school."

What happened?
After the IMF arm twisted India to discard Licence Raj and open the economy to foreign direct investment, the economy improved. In socialist enterprises those with the right connections get jobs. In capitalist enterprises those with best skils get the jobs.
Once parents saw that jobs better than farming became available, they desired education for their children.
And since education costs money parents reduced their number of children. As you know even poor people try to put their children in private schools.

I believe education follows jobs, not the other way round.

Even though, I agree with you.
The West should stop any aid to governments of poor countries.
If those governments agree not to poke their nose, the West should finance AND RUN schools in these countries.
Free meals and rewards for high performers should additionally be given as incentive.

Do you have an example where a "dominance and submission" society changed mentality through education in a situation where no good jobs were available?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:30 am

BawliBooch wrote:
DLFREEBIRD wrote:
Singapore
Turkey
Seychelles


Singapore - yes. Dictatorship worked for them. But Singapore is a city state with a total area less than the West Delhi Parliamentary constituency and a population that is half that of West Delhi! So in small city states, possibly dictatorship works. Is it the best system? No! But it has worked in some cases! And it has not worked with other similar sized states!

Its a whole different ball-game when you talk of ruling large, populous countries with diverse races, languages and religions like India, Turkey, Russia and the United States. The dynamics in these countries is radically different. Here dictatorship makes zero sense!

Lets say we do get a "benevolent dictator" - if at all there is such a thing. The closest example I can think of is Kemal Ataturk in Turkey who dragged the carcass of the Ottoman Empire into the modern era. He was a dictator who ruled with an iron hand. But he was secular and well educated and so could give the country the direction it needed at the time. But after him? His iron fisted rule meant that democratic institutions could never take root which is how Turkey ended up with a *err* not so benevolent, semi literate dictator like Erdogan.

In India we had Mrs.Gandhi - the only woman on the list of dictators who Nixon used to call "that Old witch". He was not wrong. She ruled with an iron fist and systematically dismantled the democratic institutions that the founding fathers had so painstakingly created. 30 years after her, a crazy dictator like Modi only had to point to a Mosque demolished by RSS terrorists and scream "We will build a Temple HERE!" to gain power. Modi would never have happened if the democratic institutions had not been destroyed by "that Old Witch".

Dictatorship is NEVER a good option. You will never want to live in a dictatorship yourself. Or want your children to grow up in one. But some NRI (Non R̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶
Reliable Indians) and Pakistanis have a tendency to sit on the porch of their cushy home in Alberta, sip their chai and say stupid things like "15 years of dictatorship will clean the country for good"!


don't get me wrong, I am against dictatorship's, I was trying to pointing out there were only three dictatorship that worked. 2 out of the three, populations are very small as you pointed out. Turkey, is really the only country with a large population that worked and there a long story to why it worked.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:43 am

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
Turkey, is really the only country with a large population that worked and there a long story to why it worked.

Not sure if I agree. I already mentioned Suharto.
Germany's Wilhelm I was royal, but then what's the difference to dictatorship?

Can you expand on Turkey? I don't know much about it.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:08 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
...
don't get me wrong, I am against dictatorship's, I was trying to pointing out there were only three dictatorship that worked. 2 out of the three, populations are very small as you pointed out. Turkey, is really the only country with a large population that worked and there a long story to why it worked.


I would say it worked for India in the past and continue to work.

Foreign rulers before Independence and Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and now Modi. I have a feeling, India loves cruel rulers. Except for a short-time period during independence when a minority revolted, in general Indians were/are always ok with their cruel rulers.

Feared but not hated(The Prince) working well in India.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
fallap
Posts: 1054
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:36 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:05 pm

BawliBooch wrote:
DLFREEBIRD wrote:
Singapore
Turkey
Seychelles



Lets say we do get a "benevolent dictator" - if at all there is such a thing. The closest example I can think of is Kemal Ataturk in Turkey who dragged the carcass of the Ottoman Empire into the modern era. He was a dictator who ruled with an iron hand. But he was secular and well educated and so could give the country the direction it needed at the time. But after him? His iron fisted rule meant that democratic institutions could never take root which is how Turkey ended up with a *err* not so benevolent, semi literate dictator like Erdogan.
!


Tito who ruled Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1980 comes to mind as well.
Ex grease monkey buried head to toe inside an F-16M
Now studying Political Science
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:29 pm

What happened after he died?..

The attached is perhaps also of interest to anyone thinking Tito was benevolent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_ ... of_victims
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:15 pm

The only thing worse than orderly dictatorship is disorder, gang warfare and violent starvation. Which is a low bar, but an important one.n.
 
User avatar
fallap
Posts: 1054
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:36 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:29 pm

bennett123 wrote:
What happened after he died?..

The attached is perhaps also of interest to anyone thinking Tito was benevolent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_ ... of_victims


Yugoslavia was bound to fail eventually, sadly the break-up couldn't be solved by peaceful means as has been seen in other cases. Tito was by far benevolent, and even an ineffective democracy is preferable to an effective autocracy. That is why I will never pay homage to states such as Singapore, regardless of how efficient and successful. The basic human desire requires freedom above everything else, and no amount of economic advances can act as a substitution
Ex grease monkey buried head to toe inside an F-16M
Now studying Political Science
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:58 pm

Sadly ineffective democracy tends to lead to aotocracy in the end.

Freedom is all very well, but it doesn't pay the bills or put food on the table.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:26 am

Sokes wrote:
Democratic India's Modi is interesting in this context. He pushed enormous important reforms. I believe because of his massacre early in his career people within his party opposed to him shut up.

You're a German working in India, correct ? I'll apply your basic standard here back towards your country, and offer you some examples from there, since the standard seems low enough:

Angela Merkel

She fits the measure of a cruel ruler same as Modi does. She's an East German and has a controversial history during her days in GDR. She's since led the Christian Democrats in Germany. Christian democracy, a political platform with widespread base in mainland Europe, is essentially exactly the same political foundation upon which the BJP exists in India - Hindu revivalism. She has no opposition within her party and has ruled for 3 terms now. Her leadership of the EU has ensured a level of German control over the bloc that has alienated variously Greece and other indebted southern European countries, and been a factor that led to Brexit.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:39 am

fallap wrote:
...
Tito was by far benevolent, and even an ineffective democracy is preferable to an effective autocracy. That is why I will never pay homage to states such as Singapore, regardless of how efficient and successful. The basic human desire requires freedom above everything else, and no amount of economic advances can act as a substitution

You got me here. People like Sadam can only be tolerated as a temporary necessary evil until economic circumstances make success of democracy likely. But how many dictators are like this?

Pinochet was a cruel dictators. But:
"In the 1960s and 1970s, the country experienced severe left-right political polarization and turmoil. This development culminated with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état that overthrew Salvador Allende's democratically elected left-wing government and instituted a 16-year right-wing military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet that left more than 3,000 people dead or missing.[11] The regime ended in 1990 after a referendum in 1988 and was succeeded by a center-left coalition which ruled until 2010.

Chile is a World Bank high-income economy with high living standards.[11][12] It is among South America's most economically and socially stable and prosperous nations and it leads Latin American nations in rankings of competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[13] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[14] Currently it also has the lowest homicide rate in the Americas after Canada."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

There are very few dictators under whom the economy prospers. And Pinochet is the exception of the exceptions.
Dictatorships should be limited to 25 years. But how to convince dictators to take Pinochet as example?

Though I don't consider China a dictatorship:
When should they jump off?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:56 am

BarfBag wrote:
You're a German working in India, correct ? I'll apply your basic standard here back towards your country, and offer you some examples from there, since the standard seems low enough:

Angela Merkel

She fits the measure of a cruel ruler same as Modi does.
...

I'm not sure what you try to say.

1) I believe Modi is neither sadistic, nor paranoid, nor communal. He studied political science. He must have read Macchiavelli and followed the advise.
Modi was originally offered the deputy chief minister post. He became chief minister of Gujarat because he refused the deputy post. But he knew half the Gujarat party was against him. Without massacre he may have been chief minister for half year. But since he swept the election after the massacre his position became strong and his critics shut up.

But Macchiavelli clearly says that proper violence in the beginning means no need for violence later. Macchiavelli also says good policy is important for long term success. People disagree with Macchiavelli's methods, not his aims.

2) I'm a Modi fan. More often than not I also prefer BJP. To do good policy one has to get votes by emotional issues or identity policies.
The conservative Party in Bavaria worked the same way. It's not exactly intellectual stimulating, but I accept it as a necessary nuisance.

If you think I pick on Modi: I don't. I am his supporter.

3) I doubt Merkel follows Macchiavelli.
Do you know she has the nickname "Mutti"= mother?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:23 am

In a dictatorship who is going to enforce the 25 year rule?.

Why pick 25 years anyway?.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10813
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:27 am

If you have a massacre, then clearly your critics do shut up especially the ones you massacred.

Perhaps someone can define 'proper violence'.

It would be interesting to know how many advocate a dictatorship for the country that they live in.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:03 am

bennett123 wrote:
If you have a massacre, then clearly your critics do shut up especially the ones you massacred.

Perhaps someone can define 'proper violence'.

It would be interesting to know how many advocate a dictatorship for the country that they live in.

It would be interesting to know how many Germans of the time advocated for an invasion by Napoleon.

I wonder how many Iraqis advocated the invasion by democratically elected Bush?

I can't answer your other questions.
At any rate I assume none of us intends to start a dictatorship. However sometimes in politics the question arises if a certain dictator should be overthrown.
If one mentions the massacre to Modi supporters they usually don't like it. I dislike if people refuse to accept reality as is.

The people of Iran or some Arab countries may have also profited from this discussion. I believe self determination for Palestinians also can't work until their economic situation and probably also mentality changes.

Would Chile be better off today if Pinochet had not overthrown the democratically elected government?

What about the Turkish military repeatedly overthrowing governments?
Is it good that the military respects the democratically elected leader now?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:31 pm

BarfBag wrote:
Angela Merkel

She fits the measure of a cruel ruler same as Modi does..


No she doesn't. Merkel accepted more refugees than any other world leader in recent history. Comparing her to Modi, who never allowed any refugees and actively trying to revoke citizenship from those who made it, is a disgrace.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:11 pm

fallap wrote:
The basic human desire requires freedom above everything else, and no amount of economic advances can act as a substitution

True for some people. I'm not even sure if it is true for most people.
Even in wealthy societies some women marry men only for their money. In poor societies economic situation becomes the dominant factor in choosing a man.

My wife's nices sometimes ask me if my wife can come to visit them. That's because their father more often than not doesn't allow his wife to visit e.g. her mother (when the mother was alive).
I always answer: "That you have to ask herself. "

From my experience as a drafted soldier in Germany I don't feel people desire freedom above all else. Most not only submit, but even embrace a system of dominance and submission.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:06 am

Sokes wrote:
I'm not sure what you try to say.


Nothing more than the thread topic. Leaders are quoted as examples. You quoted mine. I added your own country's leader to the list. She matches all the parameters by which you chose India's leader as an example. Plenty of basis:

We must stop Angela Merkel’s bullying
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ece-europe

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... yed-europe
"Kundnani sees Merkel as a cynical operator, who is “Machiavellian” in her ruthless sidelining of political opponents and who acts generally in the way she believes will most appeal to voters. (Her statement on Trump can also be seen in that light, he says: “There are points to be scored in Germany by standing up to a US president.”)"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html
Greece bailout revives image of the ‘cruel German’
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:49 am

BarfBag wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Democratic India's Modi is interesting in this context. He pushed enormous important reforms. I believe because of his massacre early in his career people within his party opposed to him shut up.

You're a German working in India, correct ? I'll apply your basic standard here back towards your country, and offer you some examples from there, since the standard seems low enough:

Angela Merkel

She fits the measure of a cruel ruler same as Modi does. She's an East German and has a controversial history during her days in GDR. She's since led the Christian Democrats in Germany. Christian democracy, a political platform with widespread base in mainland Europe, is essentially exactly the same political foundation upon which the BJP exists in India - Hindu revivalism. She has no opposition within her party and has ruled for 3 terms now. Her leadership of the EU has ensured a level of German control over the bloc that has alienated variously Greece and other indebted southern European countries, and been a factor that led to Brexit.



Aaah! Defense of Dear Leader and very much on expected lines! :)

Did Angela Merkel or her party supervise any anti-Muslim/anti-Jew pogrom when she was a junior minister?
Did Angela Merkel lie 4 times on 4 election affidavits about her election qualifications, financial assets and marital status?
Has Angela Merkel ever given incendiary speeches attacking a particular religion alluding to how Jews procreate and how "they" seduce innocent Germanic women?
Before or after becoming Chancellor, has Angela Merkel or her party ever sent out lynch mobs to murder Christians/Muslims/Jews/other minority? Burnt down/demolished churches/temples/mosques?
Has Angela Merkel clamped down on the German media to get them to be subservient using arrest, blackmail and murder?
Does Angela Merkel employ full time "IT cells" with people employed full time to troll opponents/critics/journalists on Social Media/Forums like these with threats of murder/rape and worse?
Did Angela Merkel push laws through to allow tax evasion for her corporate friends?
Did Angela Merkel push Nuremberg style Citizenship Laws designed to strip people of their citizenship and freedoms depending on their religion and race?
Did Angela Merkel push laws designed to specifically target the LGBT community? Does Germany now have any law like the "Transgender Rights Act" that makes it impossible for them to prove their identity?

So how is Angela Merkel similar to Modi? The only reason IT cell trolls are now bringing in her name into this discussion is because a German(???) asked this question.

Sokes wrote:
1) I believe Modi is neither sadistic, nor paranoid, nor communal. He studied political science. He must have read Macchiavelli and followed the advise.
Modi was originally offered the deputy chief minister post. He became chief minister of Gujarat because he refused the deputy post. But he knew half the Gujarat party was against him. Without massacre he may have been chief minister for half year. But since he swept the election after the massacre his position became strong and his critics shut up.


Did Modi actually study Political Science?

In his first election affidavit submitted before the 2001 State elections in Gujarat, Modi claimed to be a High School passout (Class 10). In his second affidavit (2007), Modi claims to have dropped out in Second of year of Graduation in Arts. In his final affidavit he claimed to have cleared "Diploma in Entire Political Science" - Only problem is that DU has no degree by that name - not in 1977 (when he claimed to have completed it) and not in 2014 when this diploma was fabricated.

I changed schools 4 times before signing up for my masters from JNU. But classmates from every school I attended, Rohtak, Vancouver and Delhi remembers me 30/40 years later! How is it that the only people who remember "Dear Leader" only recall him leaving school when he was in 7th grade? The last attested school record of Modi is of him attending 7th grade. Thats it! The "degree in Entire Political Science" is a total fabrication.

The Attorney General defended the fake certificate issued in Press Releases as a "artistic representation". Can Modi show the people his degree and end the speculation?

Like every other tin-pot dictator propped up by corporates, Modi is a semi-literate, pathological liar who has risen to power by inciting violence against religious minorities. Just like Hitler did!
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:12 am

BarfBag wrote:

To quote:
"“Much of what we think we know about Merkel is either spin or speculation,” says Hans Kundnani, senior research fellow at Chatham House. “The extraordinary thing is, after 13 years in the chancellery we still don’t really know who she is.”
That is soooo true.
Most politicians are easy to understand. There are two exception, Gandhi and Merkel.

I often feel there is/ was some hidden intention.
E.g. Merkel: by allowing refugees into Germany, US wars probably became a big issue in US-Europe relations. I suspect that may have been one of her thoughts. I have no evidence in favor or against that hypothesis. But I read Helmut Kohl nearly always did whatever his party wanted. Only concerning Europe he insisted on his own views. Merkel is his "politically adopted child". I come from a conservative state. Being the head of the conservative party her refugee policy was political suicide. Something she must have disliked. She stood her ground.

E.g. Gandhi: I believe he wanted "Quit India" to fail. But then he had to do something if he didn't want to loose control over Congress.
I'm not even sure if he really wanted the British out. His usual policies were evolution, not revolution. "Reform always comes at a snail's pace", as he himself wrote.
Similar his caste policies were very smart and very snail paced.

By the way: Gandhi wasn't a democrat.
When Congress 1939 elected militant Subhas Chandra Bose as Congress President Gandhi rallied all his supporters and forced Bose to step down.
Can a democrat support Gandhi?


Recently I read following question on the German Quora. A woman said she suspects her 14 year old son to be gay. She wanted to know if she should allow him to stay overnight with a fifteen year old friend.
Most answers were like "What should happen? You think they may both become pregnant? "
Macchiavelli doesn't apply to liberal societies.

Your first Guardian article is five years old. AFAIK Greece is doing much better now.
The IMF helped India to reform. Good if Merkel remained a bit tough.
Sometimes democracies need a little undemocratic help.
And then Europe is not a closed system. Some Greek industries may compete with China, not Germany. It's not like Greek loss is German gain.

Good point about banks having to think whom to lend money.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:17 am

BawliBooch wrote:
Did Modi actually study Political Science?
...
The Attorney General defended the fake certificate issued in Press Releases as a "artistic representation".

A source would be appreciated.
So it is true then that he is a chaiwala.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaiwala

And that's why I support BJP.
I work with very smart people. One has five years, one seven years school education.
That somebody smart and ambiguous as Modi doesn't even have tenth standard is symptomatic of many decades of Congress rule.

He didn't rise to power through religious violence. He stabilized his power through it.
It was because of the violence that he swept the election. Doesn't that give democratic legitimation to it?

Indian liberals blame Modi. Be happy you got him. Sooner or later somebody with true hatred or paranoia would have risen to power. It is the mentality of people voting for such violence that is the problem.
As long as Modi rules, Muslims are save.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:30 am

Sokes wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Did Modi actually study Political Science?

A source would be appreciated.



Ok here goes.

Narendra Modi degree row: DU college says it has no data of students passing out in 1978
The controversy over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's degree refuses to die down. Delhi University's School of Open Learning (SOL), from where he is said to have passed out in 1978, says it doesn't have records for that year as these are maintained only for one year.

In response to an RTI query by an IANS correspondent seeking a list of students who had qualified for a BA degree in 1978, the SOL said, "The data is not maintained in the branch in the order as desired by the applicant."

Replying to two other queries on the results of students who qualified for the same degree in 1978, including their roll numbers, names and father's names, the SOL said, "No such list is maintained in the branch. As per weeding rules of the university, spare copies of the published result is kept only for one year."

Information Denied Citing Invasion of Privacy

A consolidated reply from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Meenakshi Sahay, on the same query said, "The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Dean (Exam), OSD (Exam), Joint Registrar (Degree) and Section Officer (Information) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) and 5(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."


Another:
RTI Appeal Seeking Corroborating Details for Modi's BA Degree Blocked
While dealing with another appeal related to the issue, the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had last year directed the universities of Delhi and Gujarat to respond to all RTI applications on the issue and ordered the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) to facilitate their search and disclosure, has this time refused to intervene, saying the matter was pending before the Delhi high court.

In a recent order, Central Information Commissioner Manjula Prasher, while dealing with an appeal filed by Rajender Singh, a resident of Delhi, seeking a copy of “all marksheets or degree, copy of degree entry register, copy of register which contains signature of receipt of degree of Modi along with the convocation list of the year 1979,” held that as per Delhi University’s submission, the matter was the same as one pending for adjudication before the Delhi high court and that a stay had been granted by the court on January 23, 2017. Therefore, she held that “no intervention is required on the part of the commission” and disposed of the appeal.


How strange! The Information Commissioner who is supposed to, by law, give information denies to issue the submitted affidavits and evidence to corroborate the claim that Dear Leader did indeed get a degree! Court appeals are blocked by Govt Lawyers. The excuse given is "violation of privacy". Somehow the CIC has no such problems in responding to similar RTI requests for opposition leaders! Strange! What is Mr.Modi hiding?

Sokes wrote:
And that's why I support BJP.

Hmm! A "German" guy (according to the other Modi fan BarfBag) is supporting a dictator in India! Very strange! Or perhaps not! :lol:

Sokes wrote:
That somebody smart and ambiguous as Modi doesn't even have tenth standard is symptomatic of many decades of Congress rule.

Changing tack I see! The IT cell would be proud! Many people have left formal schooling to join the fascist RSS (google it). Most of the RSS top leadership barring 2 do not even have a high-school diploma. All evidence points to the fact that Dear Leader did the same. Is that the Congress' fault that Modi left high-school to join a fascist paramilitary organisation? I do know the kind of people who follow that line of thinking!

Sokes wrote:
He didn't rise to power through religious violence. He stabilized his power through it.
It was because of the violence that he swept the election. Doesn't that give democratic legitimation to it?

Aaah! Let me just repeat what you said just to make sure I understood you correctly!

"He didnt rise to power through religious violence. He just stabilized his power through it! That gives DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMATION (legitimization??) to religious violence?

OMG! A GERMAN (according to BarfBag) says THIS on a public forum without any sense of irony or shame? :shock:

By the same logic, Hitler won "democratic" elections and was voted into power! Does that legitimize whatever he did before and after he became Reichsfuhrer? No SERIOUSLY!


Sokes wrote:
Indian liberals blame Modi. Be happy you got him. Sooner or later somebody with true hatred or paranoia would have risen to power. It is the mentality of people voting for such violence that is the problem.

The mentality of the people voting for violence is the problem. But the person inciting religious violence is not at fault? THINK about what you are saying for a minute!

And yes! We do have a Yogi Adityanath (google him) waiting in the wings to take over. This guy puts Modi behind when it comes to inciting hatred for Religious Minorities. I wont repeat his words because my upbringing and value system do not allow me to do that. But check for his hate speech on Youtube!

Sokes wrote:
As long as Modi rules, Muslims are save.


That line makes as much sense as saying, "As long as Hitler rules, Jews are SAFE!

HOLY COW-PISS BATMAN! I am shocked to see this line of reasoning on a public forum.

PS: Many of us have been on Social Media long enough to see through the IT Cell games. On Twitter, Facebook, Insta etc we often see many IT Cell accounts (aka Andaa/Egg DP accounts) pretend to be Muslim, Christian, Sikh, American etc just to push through a point!

Germans are hard-working people who have lived through the horrors of the Nazi regime. I do not think ANY sane German person would say the kind of things you said in defense of a man who is replicating the Nazi policies in India.

SHEEESH! :banghead:
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:49 am

BawliBooch wrote:
Sokes wrote:
He didn't rise to power through religious violence. He stabilized his power through it.
It was because of the violence that he swept the election. Doesn't that give democratic legitimation to it?

...
By the same logic, Hitler won "democratic" elections and was voted into power! Does that legitimize whatever he did before and after he became Reichsfuhrer? No SERIOUSLY!

It's called Socratic dialogue. These questions intend to make one think about what one assumes to know. In this case I question what can and what can't be democratically justified. I question the holy grail of majority opinion.
To many of the questions I ask I myself don't know the answer.

And no, Hitler was not elected.
The March 1933 elections were no real elections.
"To ensure a Nazi majority in the vote, Nazi organisations also "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia, 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Der Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as so-called deputy sheriffs or auxiliary police (Hilfspolizei) in another decree by acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_193 ... l_election

That leaves the November 1932 elections. Communists and two right wing parties had more than 50% of votes. Ironically these parties didn't believe in democracy. We call the Weimar Republic the "democracy without democrats".
Hitler got 33%. Germany had a funny constitution. President Hindenburg declared Hitler as chancellor.

After that the Reichstag caught fire for which the communists were blamed. Conspiracy theorists (including myself) believe the Nazis themselves put the fire. A lot of violence followed.

But if I see the Gujarat elections after the violence I wonder if you are right.
But isn't that exactly the point of this topic, that democracy requires a certain mentality?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:02 pm

Sokes wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Did Modi actually study Political Science?
...
The Attorney General defended the fake certificate issued in Press Releases as a "artistic representation".

A source would be appreciated.
So it is true then that he is a chaiwala.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaiwala

And that's why I support BJP.
I work with very smart people. One has five years, one seven years school education.


I posted the fake certificate in the past, it was promptly deleted.

There is still debate whether he ever sold tea, or that is just another persona created by an IT cell, just like kid Narendra fighting Crocodiles.

Gujaratis are very smart people and successful businessmen throughout the world with or without higher education. He is an exception.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
There is still debate whether he ever sold tea, or that is just another persona created by an IT cell, just like kid Narendra fighting Crocodiles.

So Monday the IT cell claims he is an academic, Tuesday they claim chaiwala?

I was asking for a source of the Attorney General calling Modi's certificate an artistic representation.
Last edited by Sokes on Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are cruel rulers necessary?

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:38 pm

BawliBooch wrote:
PS: Many of us have been on Social Media long enough to see through the IT Cell games. On Twitter, Facebook, Insta etc we often see many IT Cell accounts (aka Andaa/Egg DP accounts) pretend to be Muslim, Christian, Sikh, American etc just to push through a point!


Is this technique unique to BJP IT cell or common practice by others like PLA, DPRK or Russian PR missions?
All posts are just opinions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CaptHadley and 29 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos