India has lost confidence of the world: Ratan Tata

[Foo_Fighter]

Sir, when you talk bout Modi and coming him to power then democracy actually comes in the picture, one can't avoid it, India being a democracy.

I agree our media blows out of proportion but don't you think western journalist can do the same??? It's medias education and the level of educated people they cater to decides most of the content. I haven't seen the video so I won't comment on it... however from what you have said I think journalist was fool. And yes.. Modi and coming to power has everything to do with democracy.

It's not about democracy or not.

Even in the most advanced democracies they have laws on libel. You can't publicly make a libelous claim about someone unless it is true.

See the NDTV debate posted here with the British MP Gartiner (the one who invited Modi). When he pointed out that Modi was cleared by the supreme court, the NDTV anchor started lecturing him about democracy!

It's nothing to do with democracy, it's to do with libel.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

When did I defend the corrupt??? Please read and try to interpret what I said correctly. And when did I say Democracy is gods gift or whatever metaphor you plan to use it with? Please don't put words in my mouth.

India is a Democracy and yes it is an inevitable truth of India, being an Indian you should believe in it and have faith in it, I am not saying that you should be obsessed with it. You last sentence is just an idealistic statement which means nothing in practicality.

Stop defending the corrupt in the name of democracy.

And for heaven's sake stop worshipping democracy. It is just a damn form of government; not the ultimate gift of nature to mankind.

Seriously. What's with Indians obsessed over democracy?

Practical governance should be the motto; not rigidly one inept and nepotic system.

 

[Lightningbolt]

I agree with you.

Personally, I always believed that every country that develops and has a significant amount of illiterate or poor people, it must have a semi-authoritarian rule.

Mustafa Kemal of Turkey was an authoritarian ruler till a war-ravaged Turkey was developing and poor, Lee Kwan Yew was a strong authoritarian leader who set rules in stone and led to the success of his nation.

There are many more examples.

But in our country, it has been the opposite.

Yes, I believe in Britain back in the 1800's they only allowed the upper class people to vote. Apparently their reasoning was that poor people are not educated enough and thus don't have the ability to choose wisely. Something like that.

Developing countries have many poor people. Poor people will vote for whatever policy that gives them food, water, shelter, etc. it might be massive welfare which might not be ideal to grow a developing country.
But those poor people will vote for whichever party/politician that gives them what they need despite it being bad for the country. The politicians will take advantage of this massive voting public (poor people) and design policies that will make them vote for you.

Educated people understand the needs of the economy and the policies needed to grow the economy.

Democracy is good that it gives the public a say, but the population need to be well educated. Sometimes the majority is wrong and the minority is right. Thus democracy will silence the minority in favour of the majority.

People also vote on emotion, say a charismatic leader rather than the policies he stands for.

But if you have authoritarian rule, you have to hope they will reform the country for the better. No point getting authoritarian rule but nothing happens.

 

[Cheetah786]

This Crisis is a blessing in disguise ..... hopefully this crisis will make people elect a strong govt. next year ...everything in the world happens for a reason ...

L O L let me guess, If Indians vote for your candidate every thing will be OK?

 

[indianpunjabi]

now only hope is modi

 

[Star Wars]

L O L let me guess, If Indians vote for your candidate every thing will be OK?

A lot better than where we are now ....

 

[Jade]

It is surprising to see that people are venting their anger on democracy for India's woos that are transient . Chinese success was not due its communist regime but because of the capitalist policies it followed since 1980s.

In history, there are very few regimes that are authoritarian that achieved development. Majority of the dictators have amassed wealth for their own. In fact in the present world, all the major economies except China are democracies.

India can and should flourish under democracy as has been proved in the last decade. What we need is a government that has clear economic policies that are commensurate with actions on ground.

I firmly believe that present woos are short term and some are beyond the control of the government. Once a new government is in place everything should improve.

And given so many different cultures, languages, states and ethnicities, India has no option but to be a democracy.

 

[Tshering22]

L O L let me guess, If Indians vote for your candidate every thing will be OK?

Then it will be good for everyone because there is a proven economic track record for that candidate who has done wonders for the government headed by him and the people whom he serves.

 

[indianpunjabi]

Then it will be good for everyone because there is a proven economic track record for that candidate who has done wonders for the government headed by him and the people whom he serves.

100% right bro

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

Only Solution!!

 

[Tshering22]

When did I defend the corrupt??? Please read and try to interpret what I said correctly. And when did I say Democracy is gods gift or whatever metaphor you plan to use it with? Please don't put words in my mouth.

India is a Democracy and yes it is an inevitable truth of India, being an Indian you should believe in it and have faith in it, I am not saying that you should be obsessed with it. You last sentence is just an idealistic statement which means nothing in practicality.

How?

After the blatant purchase of MPs for auction during the trust vote, HOW on earth do you have faith in something that has openly been bought for?

When the people's opinions are outweighed by illegal black money buy outs, there is no reason and no excuse whatsoever to have trust in a system that has failed the country and made a mockery out of the aspirations, expectations, security and dignity of a billion people.

Face it: majority of those who vote are either 'minorities' (those who have the blessings of secoolar messiahs, other genuine minorities don't count) or marginalized sections who have to worry about their next meal which can easily be bought over.

This is not how a democracy is supposed to function. I suggest you travel around the world especially in the west and see how democracy has been implemented in those countries. The true democratic structure can only exists when the population of a country and majority of it, know their rights, duties and know what to do incase either of that is violated.

Here there are people who get converted for votes by showing a wooden religious mark floating in a bucket while a stone statue drowns and you are talking about having faith in a complex, mature and rational structure like democracy which was never implemented in India right from before the time we became proud Indians.

Tell me, if a voter cannot know the basic concepts of a democratic system and can easily be bought over with some material benefit passed onto him, where a voter cannot see the bigger picture that is impacting the country and he himself is in now way contributing to the well-being or the betterment of the country's economy.... how and why should we believe in democracy when such people decide the fate of the country while the general working class and the middle class population is the reason which has upheld the economic life of this country?


If you research democracy thoroughly you will understand that democracy was never implemented in India except for the time when Sardar Patel asked for each states to join India. Other than the unification of the country, there was nowhere where people were given a chance to directly vote their PMs.

All the PMs were elected through the winning parties and always were propped up due to internal decision of the party in favour and in majority.

This is not democracy.

Even if it is a form of democracy, then it doesn't suit India who has still 40 crore people who cannot differentiate between a corrupt regime drowning the economy and offering them chikan and daaru for voting them, and what they are actually supposed to do.

 

[seven7seven]

Sir, when you talk bout Modi and coming him to power then democracy actually comes in the picture, one can't avoid it, India being a democracy.

I agree our media blows out of proportion but don't you think western journalist can do the same??? It's medias education and the level of educated people they cater to decides most of the content. I haven't seen the video so I won't comment on it... however from what you have said I think journalist was fool. And yes.. Modi and coming to power has everything to do with democracy.

You are missing Chinese-Dragon's point completely. What he is saying is that in the West, journalists might be able to sensationalize or embellish news stories, but they cannot flat-out accuse someone of being, for example, a murderer or a thief, if there is no evidence of that person ever being convicted of such crimes. In the West, the journalist making such a unsubstantiated accusation will be liable to a lawsuit. Libel, slander and defamation laws exist in the West to protect a person's reputation, which Chinese-Dragon was trying to make the point, does not exist in India.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

It is surprising to see that people are venting their anger on democracy for India's woos that are transient . Chinese success was not due its communist regime but because of the capitalist policies it followed since 1980s.

In history, there are very few regimes that are authoritarian that achieved development. Majority of the dictators have amassed wealth for their own. In fact in the present world, all the major economies except China are democracies.

India can and should flourish under democracy as has been proved in the last decade. What we need is a government that has clear economic policies that are commensurate with actions on ground.

I firmly believe that present woos are short term and some are beyond the control of the government. Once a new government is in place everything should improve.

And given so many different cultures, languages, states and ethnicities, India has no option but to be a democracy.

Hmmm .... with very few exceptions, all developed countries were either dictatorial or authoritarian during their high growth phase. Those few exceptions are tiny states that have less population than a tier 2 city in India and have rich neighbours who ... you guess it ... were highly authoritarian.

 

[Jade]

Hmmm .... with very few exceptions, all developed countries were either dictatorial or authoritarian during their high growth phase. Those few exceptions are tiny states that have less population than a tier 2 city in India and have rich neighbours who ... you guess it ... were highly authoritarian.

At least, I don't recall studying a correlation between authoritarian regime and high growth phases. It would be great if you can provide a link or study that provides a correlation.

Capitalism is in fact a form of freedom and has nothing to do with communism or authoritarianism.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

At least, I don't recall studying a correlation between authoritarian regime and high growth phases. It would be great if you can provide a link or study that provides a correlation.

Capitalism is in fact a form of freedom and has nothing to do with communism or authoritarianism.

Neither is there a correlation between democracy and capitalism. But there is a strong correlation that all, with the few exceptions, highly developed countries went through a period of dictatorship or authoritarism.

Since China has become highly capitalistic and is authoritarian, how does that fit into your statement?