India is a territorially massive nation, with among the richest concentrations of natural resource deposits in the world. From lithium to metals and gems.
India also possesses some of the largest and most fertile river systems on earth and pastural ranges ideal for cultivation of cattle
And yet what is done with those resources? Utterly nothing. The river systems run polluted with chemicals and corpse matter. The industry is laughably colonial and unorganized.
The reason India's population is so high is because of those very river systems. If you look at the areas where those rivers run, you'll find every inch of land covered in farms. The areas where those rivers run are also the most population-dense and the poorest in the country, mostly because they have forever been overpopulated. Population precludes development, I suppose, because the high supply of labour prevents wage workers from ever being able to transcend beyond subsistence. Either way, development is more complex than simply selling off natural resources; the Dutch disease is plenty proof of that.
Pastoral lands often serve as depos for heaps of trash as their very culture bars any possibility of profitable or advanced cattle herding.
Just because you find trash heaps in cities doesn't mean the whole country is a never-ending dump. It's not clean by any means, but to feed so many people, you need farms. Cattle and livestock in general provide protein but are highly inefficient in providing energy if you slaughter them for their meat, simply because of biology. 30% of India is vegetarian - but the remaining 70% have never been rich enough to regularly afford meat. Thus most land used for agriculture goes towards crops for humans rather than animals. And even so, buffalo rearing is fairly common, and India is the world's largest exporter of buffalo meat.
They breed like vermin and unstoppably. Ask yourself the following. How can you possibly develop and grow in a society that has normalized exponential biological bloat? How could a child get the love and attention from his parents when it probably can't even get the proper nutrients. How can that child develop a sense of community when it probably needs to compete for the same nutrients with his own siblings from the day it is born? How can you learn and develop nuanced perspectives on life if from birth to death you simply struggle for survival?
Might I remind you that only a century ago, most European countries had fertility rates of 3 to 4, and that most of your grandparents had several siblings? And that India's overall Total Fertility Rate has already reached the replacement rate, and most states within India are already below it, with fertility rates comparable to European countries? Indian society is so community-focused that the individual is practically non-existent - unlike the West where the nuclear family has been normalized, most Indians still live in joint families. I'd argue that such communitarianism has in fact held the country back - if only people tried to follow their own morals rather than pandering to the community - tried to follow their own wills instead of bowing to the will of the mass. Oh well.
Indian railways were laid during the British colonial government and have mostly been reduced due to disrepair instead of being expanded and adapted to the particular needs of the country. The scenic narrow-gauge lines built to reach the summer retreats in the Himalayas haven't been maintained since the British left, and are systematically being closed as infrastructure collapses.
This is categorically false. India has added over 28,000 km of railways since the British left (to the ~40,000 km present initially), and has electrified most of railway network. Roughly a billion tonnes of freight and over 10 billion passengers travel over rail every year. The Mountain railways continue to operate and are in fact being expanded. I have no idea what you're going on about.
The Rashtrapati Bhavan, the presidential palace, one of India's prides of architecture was built during the colonial administration and by European architects. The famous and beautiful rail stations were all without exception built by the British. The Taj Mahal and the Red Fort, arguably one of the only "modern" monuments of any relevance built in the past 500 years were built by Turco-Mongol Muslims. And so are most "Indian" monuments of any modernity built by the Muslims who conquered Northern India.
...because the people with the money and resources to build monuments are executed kings and vanquished rulers. If most of the subcontinent was ruled by foreign invaders for the past thousand years, why would you not expect monuments from that time period to be built by them? I can list various monuments built post-independence, but due to subjective experience I doubt you would appreciate them. I can even list various monuments built by native empires that I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate much either. But I'll list some anyway: the Golden Temple in Punjab, the Hawa Mahal in Rajasthan, the Sun Temple in Gujarat and the Meenakshi Temple in Tamil Nadu.
Meanwhile the Indian squats in the ruins of his "civilization" built thousands of years ago, by who knows who, indiscriminately polluting and littering in an endless cycle of cultural debasement. Expressing no creative or artistic inclination of his own the Indian will most likely delegate even these gems of Euro-Asian architecture to the slow process of decay and ruination helped out by his apparent distain for anything of beauty.
Indians lack civic sense, and respect for things around them - I agree to a certain extent, but to call the entire nation creatively bankrupt is again a wild exaggeration when even non-"jeet" posters in this thread admit that India has had famous artists. I doubt I'll be able to sway you - I write most of this simply because I feel more satisfied having at least attempted to stand up for my nation and brethren, no matter how pitiful my attempt may be or how ineffectual or even counter-productive it is. After all, this is the Thunderdome. If debate is not allowed here, where would it be permitted?
The only way India could progress and elevate itself if they had a ruthless cultural revolution and strictly enforced birth control or a one child policy until getting to a level of population that would allow for the growth and development of a better living standard.
A one-child policy would probably just result in further sex imbalance and more rapes, probably. China succeeded in spite of this and their Cultural Revolution - it succeeded because the CCP can strongarm the entire country into doing what it wants, so there is far more stability there than here. Note that even with their one-child policy, China's population ballooned to 1.4 billion, and it is likely they will face severe issues with their population pyramid becoming very top heavy in the coming decades as single children have to support both of their parents and all four of their grandparents in their old age.
And then in face of terrifying truth when they realize that they are a pajeet after all they are mindbroken and can just rage with a sticker bloody madarchod !!!
I would not call most of that truth. Which is why I disagree.
Imagine going to a website about gossiping and shit talking, going to a thread about your disgusting rat-like countrymen and then trying to defend their foul practices with "But saar, it is not all Indian sarr! Only rural saar and only sometimes please saar do not redeem bloody bastard benechod!!" What other country has rural niggers acting like that? The only one I can think of the does or did something similar is China and never to the degree pajeets do. You people are fucking disgusting, stop trying to excuse the foul shit they do poo nigger
You'd never see half the things the Chinese get up to simply because you aren't exposed to the Chinese Internet, for one, and China is careful about maintaining their image (and their government has the ability to do so). Their social credit system speaks for itself, doesn't it? You behave like a nigger, you're not allowed to leave the country. I have great respect for the Chinese because they actually made things work even though they faced many of the same problems as India (though,
perhaps, not to such a great degree - perhaps). I don't appreciate the way my countrymen behave and I don't want to excuse it, either - but I find most things in this thread blasted wildly out of proportion, and which made me speak out. I don't expect to change any of your minds, and I don't have to, really. I write most of this for my own satisfaction. And, this being Deep Thoughts, I'm not detracting from the thread or deviating from the main topic.
the Raj was just the last of a very long list of foreign empires that established themselves as suzerains over the sub-continent. I mean Jesus when you a few minutes doing just a tertiary look at the larger Indian polities you get this:
Most of them only ruled over a part of the subcontinent - not even particularly large parts. The three main subcontinental-wide empires were the Mauryan empire (Ashoka), the Mughals, and the Raj. And only the Raj managed to cover the whole subcontinent, the previous two never managed the southern tip.
Indian hsitory from the POV of the average jeet is just hopping from one foreign ruling class to another over a span of literal millenia.
Hardly. As with feudal Europe, the ruler of the peasant and thus their living conditions and environment usually stayed the same - the top layer tended to change a lot.
@Shalalallah Akbar How many bob and vagene pics did Elon promise you for running defense?
I respond to this thread at my own pleasure. I welcome your insults - I should build thicker skin anyhow.
