Comment by samarthr1
1 year ago
As for the Indian government, I would argue that it is still largely socialist (high direct and indirect taxes that translate to strong social spending in poorer parts of the society, and rural areas[1]), and is still considerably more to the left than much of the west.
I would concede that on social matters the government does lean conservative, and is not as liberal as one would expect, but in many ways, that is an indictment of current society, and a part of life, that I don't see changing in the near term (25 years or so).
The social fabric of a nation is intrinsic to it's continued stable existence. Mass upheaval in a short duration is dangerous for the continued improvement of welfare of the people. So, it can be argued that preventing mass change demographics is a part of the duties of the government. [2]
[1] See central government schemes like Jal Shakti, LPG subsidy, Urea Subsidy etc
[2] This is a subjective opinion, but imo mass immigration is dangerous, and recent examples in Europe do demonstrate the dangers of sudden changes in demographics. At the same time, diversity is important, and so is immigration by _skilled_ professionals, with the eventual transfer of skills (and technology) to native (for whatever value of native) people.
Really, it’s that Musk likes authoritarians and nationalists and Modi’s government meets that test quite well. After all, Musk has no problem with high government spending if it’s spent on him.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there has been no investment/subsidy/sop given to musk by this government?
Modi and the BJP are avowed, proud ethnic nationalists, seeking to preserve and enforce their version of traditional religion.
Last I checked, being nationalist is not a bad thing?
If your government does not stand up for your country, who else will?
Two things:
First, I said they were 'ethnic nationalists', which is not about a country but about an 'enthnicity', in this case Hindus. Inside their own country, they 'stand up for' Hindus ...
Second, that phrase, 'stand up for', misrepresents nationalism in the most serious way. Here's the Oxford English Dictionary's defintion of nationalism:
Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.
Whereas patriotism usually refers to a general sentiment, nationalism now usually refers to a specific ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism. In earlier use, however, the two appear to have been more or less interchangeable.
Nationalism includes discrmination against others, in Modi's case against Muslims and other non-Hindus. 'We're superior' inevitably leads to rationalizing harming others; it's been responsible for much of the worst of humanity - millions dead, over and over, including in India's post-colonial history. Allied leaders in WWII, including Churchill, though it was a leading cause of that war. We can already see violence and opression against Muslims in India - we can't wait to see if this time will be different.
That's why universal human rights is so essential. It says we stand not for ourselves, not for our superiority, but for our equality. It says people in India of every religion, and people elsewhere, have the same rights and are fundamentally equal in their value.