And democracy and economic success have nothing to do with each other. The fact that USA is so rich is because of its Capitalistic ideals, not because of Democratic morals. So, lets not mis-diagnose the effects of democracy. The fact that India is still so poor is because of corruption, population explosion, and the basic behavioral characteristic that Indians look before they leap (i.e. less risk taking).

Brunei, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain all have per capita incomes over $25,000. The UAE is ranked third richest above the USA. According to this list:

http://www.aneki.com/countries_gdp_per_capita.html

the majority (by far) of the world’s hungry and extremely poor people live in democracies like India and Bangladesh. There are more abjectly poor, illiterate, starving humans living in democracies than under any other system of government …..That of course, is because there are more democracies than any other form of government.

There are at least 50 nations of the world that are not democracies including China the largest country by population. Some one-third of the total world population still lives under non-democratic govts. Democratic India (with around 15% of the global population) alone accounts for more than half the world’s extremely poor and hungry! That glaring failure of a long term stable democracy makes a mockery of your claims. Add the poor and hungry in other democracies like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Phillipines, Guatemala, the various african democracies etc and one can see that a disproportional number of the poor and hungry live in democracies.

it bears mentioning that the fact that the overwhelming majority of rich, prosperous people live in liberal democracies cancels out your assertion.

Do explain how the miserable failure of democracy in India is “canceled out” by the successes of democracy in western europe, north america and east asia??

If you were to look at this issue seriously, you’d find that democracy is generally quite good for business. Just look at the Korean peninsula. Or Taiwan.

China is considered excellent for doing business as well. So is Dubai. Much better than most democracies including India. So whats your point? Democracy is not a necessary requirement for capitalism to flourish as China is showing.

I suppose because it still beats all the other systems they’ve tried

What other system has INdia tried in the 60 years it has been independent?

Also, let’s not get too carried away with your exaggerations of the differences in poverty between China and India.

You have to be really ignorant to deny that China is miles ahead of India. The most extreme manifestation of poverty is hunger. India leads the world in this metric both in total numbers and in percentage. One has to be really thick-skinned, truly heartless and totally shameless to ignore India’s inexcusable callousness towards the worst suffering in the world and instead taunt nations like China which has a far better record feeding (and educating, and employing) its citizens.

Why do we have to talk about Tibetans just by themselves? What about the Uighurs and the Muslim west of China?

Who ever said we had to talk about Tibetans in isolation? I’m happy to talk about how badly China is screwing over the Uighurs.

Of the two links I posted, the 2nd one was more interesting. Other links I’ve posted in this thread were discussions on India being a net-aid giver.

These are all good articles that I like that I never see make it to Sepia. I’m just surprised they don’t get caught by such a well-read readership. A bias of some kind?

I’m not one to talk about bias or deny anyone who’s moving forward with a cause. I just like a bit more rational approach. And, in this forum, I think Vyasa has carried the day.

Why do we have to talk about Tibetans just by themselves? What about the Uighurs and the Muslim west of China?

And their current policies?

Well, they’re no different than India. The march toward modernity/development/progress/whatever-you-want-to-call-it will bring all sorts of challenges to these countries.

And this is not India doing this, this is an NGO displacing millions in their blind quest for ‘conservation’.

http://www.guernicamag.com/features/556/post_1/

Almost four million people were at that time living inside India’s formally protected areas, and alongside several million others in surrounding towns and villages. Most of them resided there before the protected areas were created, and all were heavily dependent on local natural resources for fuel, fodder, medicines, fish, water and non-timber forest products. “To pass an order that denies all ‘rights and concessions’ to such people is virtually like telling them to pack up and go,” proclaimed Indian sociologist Ashish Kothari. “Both the WWF petition and the learned judges’ order are, to put it bluntly, devoid of any sense of grounded reality. Even if the procedure for inquiry was to be done properly, it could be grossly unjust to villagers.”

I’m planning a candle-light vigil to protest the arrests, who’s with me? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/world/asia/17torch.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

If you actually followed SM closely enough to be able to critique it, you’d know that there was already an entire post/thread lambasting India for not being more supportive of Tibet and less deferent to China. But, hey, why resist a cheap shot?

While many governments now involve indigenous groups in environmental conservation, India is on the verge of creating what might become the largest mass eviction for conservation ever. Groups like India’s Adivasis have come to be called “conservation refugees.” But many conservationists now say conservation initiatives are doomed to fail without them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/world/asia/17torch.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

That highlights your cynical, selfish, amoral callousness.

Uh huh. Maybe next time you could at least quote the entire sentence before launching into the unfounded characterizations.

Its so easy for people like you, having escaped the grinding poverty and hunger of India,

More baseless assumptions about my life and background, from someone that’s never met me. Why is it that you can’t make an argument that does not depend on the identity of the person it’s addressed to?

to talk so glibly about political rights being more fundamental than the right to food and water.

I wasn’t glib at all, despite your selective quoting. I want everyone to enjoy all rights. You’re the one arguing that it’s okay for China to override Tibetans’ rights.

Would you feel similarly if you were watching your children starve before your eyes?

Would you feel the same way if the CCP were subject to electoral control, and so it wasn’t a matter of national pride to defend authoritarianism?

Wrong. A number of them are monarchies.

Oh yeah? Name one.

Secondly, and more tellingly, the majority (by far) of the world’s hungry and extremely poor people live in democracies like India and Bangladesh. There are more abjectly poor, illiterate, starving humans living in democracies than under any other system of government.

That, of course, is because there are more democracies than any other form of government. With the exception of a few stubborn hold-outs, everyone in the world has realized that it’s a superior form of government to all others that have ever been tried. That poor countries are among those that realized this and acted upon it is not a fault of democracy; quite the reverse, in fact.

So much for your ignorant correlation of democracy with prosperity.

I was pointing out that there is no correlation between being undemocratic and prosperity, which is not the same thing as asserting that there is a correlation between democracy and prosperity. I.e., Tibet is not faced with a choice between democracy + poverty, or authoritarianism + prosperity (except to the extent that China would work to undermine them if they managed to get a democracy of their own, that is). That said, correlation is an average quantity, and so it bears mentioning that the fact that the overwhelming majority of rich, prosperous people live in liberal democracies cancels out your assertion. To really answer this question, you’d need to look at how well the various democracies in the world have faired compared to their previous forms of government (there were plenty of poor people in India before they got democracy, after all). If you were to look at this issue seriously, you’d find that democracy is generally quite good for business. Just look at the Korean peninsula. Or Taiwan.

The questions you need to ask are: why does democracy work for people of european and east asian extraction but not for indians and africans?

Actually, the question on my mind is: does Vyasa really think he’s proving anything except that he’s a racist?

and why should a nation continue to cling to a system of government that has failed to deliver the basic requirements of its citizens even after three generations?

I suppose because it still beats all the other systems they’ve tried, which were at least as bad in terms of basic services, and ALSO deprived people of their rights. Not that I accept the premise that India hasn’t seen massive strides forward in the last 60 years (people have been predicting large-scale starvation there for generations, and yet the population keeps growing… and the decline the percentage of people below the poverty line in recent decades has been similar to other spots in Asia).

Also, let’s not get too carried away with your exaggerations of the differences in poverty between China and India. Despite all of the growth in China in recent years, there is still a 9-digit number of poor people there. Huge swaths of the country do not have access to running water, much less clean running water. This is no surprise: one of the keys to Chinese manufacturing growth has been the massive supply of desperately poor people willing to work for peanuts. For hundreds of millions of Chinese, the only thing the CCP has done about their living conditions is to paper over them by suppressing protests and preventing media coverage. Naturally, your insecurity about the huge problems remaining in China is one of the major factors motivating you to demonize India but, still, for someone who’se going to call others glib…

Moreover, why are you even bothering to wrap your invective in sham arguments in the first place? If you aren’t going to make even a token effort at a substantiative argument, it doesn’t add anything to your credibility. Obviously, your strategy is to keep taking cheap shots at India in the hope that you’ll hit a nerve somewhere and provoke an embarassing response. In which case, why the pretense of seriousness? Is it just in hopes that the interns won’t delete your posts and ban you? It certainly doesn’t add any heft to your assertions of righteousness.

My apologies to any third parties that have actually read this thread.

That highlights your cynical, selfish, amoral callousness. Its so easy for people like you, having escaped the grinding poverty and hunger of India, to talk so glibly about political rights being more fundamental than the right to food and water. Would you feel similarly if you were watching your children starve before your eyes?

the richest, most prosperous countries in the world are all liberal democracies

Wrong. A number of them are monarchies. Secondly, and more tellingly, the majority (by far) of the world’s hungry and extremely poor people live in democracies like India and Bangladesh. There are more abjectly poor, illiterate, starving humans living in democracies than under any other system of government. So much for your ignorant correlation of democracy with prosperity.

The questions you need to ask are: why does democracy work for people of european and east asian extraction but not for indians and africans? and why should a nation continue to cling to a system of government that has failed to deliver the basic requirements of its citizens even after three generations?