dasparrow:
India is a terribly racist place. Why do you want to go there? Why do some of you keep seeking to go to racially hostile countries? Dem swear for una? You think racism is a joke? By the time those indians beat you up, break your head or even worse kill you, you will know what's up.

Indians usually are rare to be racist towards Africans or any other community, at least more rare than Americans or Europeans. They although won't mind to thrash you in case of a personal argument, accident because of violating traffic rules or found selling weed or gangwars in streets of cities. Indians facing racism acroos Europe, North & Latin America, East Asia and even Africa is a reality although, they never complain because migrant Indians are mostly rich entrepreneurs and privileged enough that they don't bother to take rallies.

Indian attitude towards Africans is anything but racist. Africans don't occupy their minds and aren't seen as people to be even bothered about.

And why he wants to go? Indians have much better institutions and will offer a internationally accepted degree at a fraction of of cost what you'll have to pay in from Europe to Africa.

dasparrow:
And rather than go for a degree, learn a technical skill instead. So many Africans have degrees yet they can't find employment. Learn a skill like floor and wall tiling, P.O.P, building construction, computer technology, etc and you will make money right here in Africa.

A floor maker can't earn more than a doctor. Indeed he is just saving his money and looking ahead to work in Africa thereafter.

dasparrow:
Yet, you will rather waste your life in some racist, xenophobic, overcrowded, cow-worshipping shithole like india. So unfortunate!

LOL, read your post again fluently loud and you would know what racism looks like.

Indians even though not having high living standards like Europe, they have something significant in name of industry, technology, economy and education which is further improving. African "shitholes" have simply nothing unlike the Indian "shithole" which has something it can actually talk about. Your place is also a dirty slummer dweller place like India. Just with much much more slums, even more poverty, less education, no technology, high population growth rates, civil wars, no income growth, no or little science and inventions, weak governments, strong terrorists and no positive future unlike India which will catch up with eastern Europe in next 30 years.

Justnotyou:
Indians made it to Africa as European servants they didn't integrate with Africans until the 20th century so no they didn't bring wealth or knowledge, they couldn't.

Indians just rank next to whites in wealth ownership just in Africa. And they strictly are not the group brought as servants by Brits. They have been migrating and settling around world, in Americas, Europe, Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore for long, as early as 19th century.

Justnotyou:
Europeans arguably brought their language but to say wealth would be ironic, they stole wealth, they did not bring it.

They "brought" it than handing it over to Africans. They stole African resources, made themselves wealthier and some families moved to Africa who had more seed money before settling.

Their wealth, settlement and things they made is counted as a part of wealth of particular African country. But it benefits African people too little. That's why I said North Africa (Arabic) and South Africa (Indo-European) are special cases.

Justnotyou:
Also who compares settlements to normal African countries lol.

I didn't. People here start it with bringing Algeria, Egypt and Seychelles into discussion when they find it hard to defend countries like Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya.

Justnotyou:
Consumption, It's literally the point I was bringing out. Now you're bringing south Asia into this discussion, what happened to India Vs Africa, finding it a lil steamy for you huh? The essence of argument was Africa Vs India not what you decide also stop bringing China into this discussion, strategically speaking most of those counties won't be trading with India incase of an all out assault on Africa. Africans can utilize their resources it's only that this is a hypothetical scenario, reality doesn't even support the existence of anything less than 55 Africas so you see, it's in the details, while some africas can't manage theirs, other africas say Botswana, Egypt, Gaddafi Libya are/were utilizing their resources well enough.

Lol why are you going after essence? I gave that because you brought Bangladesh and Pakistan. Look, I'm dropping South Asia, it doesn't affect my argument because India itself is 80% of South Asia and has all indicators above South Asian average.

Justnotyou:
Post the link(s) for the gdps.

https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

Justnotyou:
I understand that India isn't static, that wasn't the focus of this discussion, also no African even called India out what you're seeing is a reaction from your actions, you ironically called out the entire Africa here when Just40 was arguing about Indian Vs Chinese trucks & I was just correcting your earlier ignorant assertions.

No, they called out first, I don't even jump in discussion otherwise.

When I push for automotives or sometimes we talk about poverty reduction and slum population, somebody again comes and post, "look Cape Town is better than Delhi" and things always go like it.

Justnotyou:
Also rvp20182 already brought in a valid argument on which between ppp & nominal gdp is way better for an internal country analysis, & which works for a country Vs country/continent analysis. Still there is nothing wrong with regarding either of the two.

GDP is strictly for indicating internal trade. Countries which have been developed for a long time have low GDP to wealth ratios while those growing have it higher.

We have a lot of things, "percentage of population in industries vs farms", innovation and a tonne of development indicators and further indicators. You can't describe any comparison that simply.

Also, both a country and a continent are just two settlements. Their political discourse is different but they still are settlements. In that regard, if they are of same size, indeed we can compare Europe vs China vs India vs Africa.

jln115:
Who are the foreign settlers?.........secondly GDP per capita, Wealth per Capita, QOL, HDI, Infrastructure ect ect South Africa destroys India...........

Foreign settlers are non Afriacns essentially which own larger portion of wealth, they settled their cities like Cape town stayed for decades which was inherited by RSA.


As for infrastructure, it's too broad again,
Including length of network (India would lead), selected urban roads (don't know who leads for density), density of roads and railways, metros as well new projects in construction.

Also according to the WB 35% of India's population live in slums....not 24%

Could you provide me year of data (mine was from 2014) and formulation of slum (methodology or source WB used)?

Just30:
India cant even reach Pakistan let alone reaching every corner of Africa.

Abeg shun

India occupied Pakistan's larger part twice and scored even a complete submissive surrender letter from Pakistan in 1971.
Trolling apart, by reaching, I strictly mean reaching. Indian naval ships and aircrafts have that range. Missiles cover up to Atlantic ocean and can even hit anywhere in entire Europe. Same capability doesn't lie with anyone in Africa.

Justnotyou:
Being AU & Arab isn't something unique to Egypt I don't know why you feel they'd be less African by that association. Pic 1.

You know what I'm trying to say but ignoring deliberately. Africa is the land of blacks. Foreign settlers like Arabs, Indians or Europeans who came to Africa brought their wealth and knowledge from their origin. Their settlements are no way comparable to a normal African country.

Justnotyou:
That’s not why. Africa is a continent that until recently 2021 didn't have open borders to facilitate such production unlike China or India.

Again vague man. Production requires consumption which wasn't ever an issue with African population. Africa's problem was lack of skill development and integration. China and India were integrated as single countries to work for themselves, Africa was broken into small countries with issues with each other.

Justnotyou:
Imagine if India or any country had 55 Pakistani-Bangladeshi like countries within itself that had to pay taxes & have good diplomatic relations to get anything they didn't have or want, I'm assuming you're level headed enough to understand why such a scenario will be more of a disadvantage.

I am afraid that you are unaware of history saying that hardships of your countries were any more than those in South Asia. We didn't have anything and never got benefits of friendship as had hostile relations with big powers initially. This led to attempts to localise, although of poor quality but localised production and relations with west became normal after 80s.

Justnotyou:
Even then you've been picky on production, Africa excels in raw material production say cobalt, uranium, copper, oil, gold... So Africas total output by item should be >>> Indias.

That's what I'm critique of, stop losing the essence of argument. Africa's natural resources are far larger than India who had nothing to start with, yet has an overwhelming industrial advantage because of processing.

India doesn't have much petroleum but is world's largest producer of petroleum products. Same goes with other things and Chinese list is even longer.

Justnotyou:

Africa has the resources by far say longer coastline, raw materials so there are very few strategies that will help you there. Your best chance will be to end the war early like the Israeli did in their 6 day war, if it even stretched out to a year you'd have no raw materials to stall the fight to your advantage aside your uranium reserves, what else do you have to maintain a war, which nation do you think will choose to trade with India for you to maintain this war over cobalt, oil or anything they're leaching away from Africa rn.

Strategically speaking, India doesn't have to depend solely upon Africa (and doesn't even now either) for raw materials. Australia, Brazil, Russia, China etc. are there.

Issue was if Africa was China.
China has one of largest ores or Iron and enormous capacity to make steel. That's why even US can't dare to touch their shores. Same case doesn't lie with Afriacns who can't utilise what they have naturally.

Justnotyou:
Post the current or 2020 nominal gdp figures of Africa Vs India from an authentic source.

MER (nominal) total for 2019 nearly per IMF and world bank:
India: 2.95 trillions
Africa: 2.6 trillions
Stable figures for 2020 will come sometime in mid of 2021.

Justnotyou:
Africa isn't as enterprising as India yet the two are still very much comparable economically. If Africa picked itself up, you'd not feel comfortable to engage Africa with from a western stereotypical stance. Europeans & Americans come from a far better place than Africans that's why their ignorance works, Indians should not attempt to ride on their prejudice since it does not work.

Seems that you don't even bother to read.

India's GDP per capita was a fraction of Africa in past few months decades. Surpassed only around 2014-17 and yet is heading to become double in mid of next decade. Why? Africa's population growth is way higher and India's GDP growth is.

I'm not saying that India is a too great place to live in like Europe and US are, I'm saying that Afriacns calling out India is like pot calling the cattle black. I stand correct there as it is.

Even the current similar economic size of India and Africa is an illusion simply (PPP) and is temporary. This is like comparing Ukraine and Moldavia to Namibia etc.. All have similar per capita GDPs for now but Ukraine is a completely different kind of economy and right now below its "normal position" for some reason. It will eventually go there. India is in transition stage and just surpassing them.

Have a good read to get what I'm trying to say:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Complexity_Index

IGpro1:
when you remove South Africa and Nigeria India might have an edge over other African countries combined.

Even including them doesn't impart any edge in any sector. Once again, "we are great" just in statements without statistics or attributes doesn't change it. South Africa's larger wealth is in hands of foreign settlers and it lags far behind India in terms of inequality adjusted HDI and indicators?

And Nigeria? It isn't something even by African standards.

IGpro1:
But you see, India is a big slum..

Percentage of population living in slums:
China: 25.1%
India: 24%
Brazil: 22.3%

South Africa: 23%
Ghana: 38%
Kenya: 56%
Nigeria: 50.2%
Uganda: 53%
Rwanda: 53%


Besides few exceptions like South Africa which are at best comparable with India, this figure goes over 50% mostwhere in Africa and even 70-80% and over 90% in some countries.
"India is a big slum" is a belief encrypted in "another group of countries" sitting thousands of kilometers away in northern part and are richest in world. Repeating their lines doesn't make you one of them. Selected shots of slums are outnumbered by tonnes of cities which get built every year.

IGpro1:
India should be ahead of China and Africa, by virtue of your relationship with world powers.

Which relationship and how?

IGpro1:
Sadly you can hardly differentiate between an African country and India.
West African Sub region alone can stand India.

In which sector?

IGpro1:
Just don't come here and spread your propaganda. India = Pakistan = Africa. India civilization is more than a thousand years, yet South African cities are heaven to India.

I have been to Nigeria and South Africa. "South African" cities are best is a vague statement limited in Africa only. New Mumbai, Surat, Chandigarh, Dholera, GIFT Gujarat, New Amaravati, there are plenty of cities in service and in construction in India.

Over it, these aren't inherited infrastructure. They were built and after independence and will continue to be built even more.

Justnotyou:
Egypt is a member of the AU, you should probably get someone competent to help you interpret the world map.

Being a member of AU doesn't change the fact that Egypt is an Arab settlement. Global ethnicity map suggests it.

Just as being member of East Asia summit doesn't make Indians as East Asian people like China, Japan & Korea.

Justnotyou:
I guess the 1 billion population does not help in inflating the production.

Indeed it doesn't alone. That's why
China > India >> African Union

Justnotyou:
Militarily except for nuclear what else gives you any edge incase of a confrontation?

India dominates by long gaps in naval and air powers and non-nuclear weapons including strategic expeditionary systems which can reach every corner of Africa (and AFAIK no African country has anything capable of reaching Indian shores), single handedly controls Indian Ocean to keep US and China out and has far greater edge in SATCOM, Lasers, Microwaves and Net Centric Warfare.

Further, its own weapon production is a factor. This military superiority is a different case anyway.

They were built because India had enemies in neighborhood and US and USSR were against India during independence. Indian nuclear weapons came after China tested its nukes and US & UK threatened India in 1971 and not a will to dominate smaller countries.

Justnotyou:
India isn't a thing in common thing in African minds in general. Economically India 2.6 Vs Africa isn't going in favor of India unless you're only considering gdp ppp.

Despite close populations, India's nominal GDP is more than African content in total and per capita terms while 3 decades ago India was one third of Africa. Africa's population growth is 2.5 time of India while India's GDP growth is more than double of Africa.

India's GDP is further a product of more domestic consumptions, industrial productions and opening of new sectors. PPP only reflects that India is far more ahead than it looks because localised production is cheap and provides Indians with low cost luxuries.

Justnotyou:
Africans are far more introverted when it comes to interests. In case you didn't notice association with foreign countries or people is used as a jab here, little Indian, will be owned by Chinese, Lebanese are building your ek... Europeans built your country, whoever deceives you that xenophobia isn't a concern in Africa should be considered your enemy.
[quote author=Justnotyou post=98500171]Well you should try to feel comfortable that we engage in a healthy dialog from time to time.

I will. India has its own set of serious problems but Afriacns and Latinos denouncing it is like pot calling the kettle black.

Just40:
Just say you dont know much about Africa

The double deckers you see in London are produce by an Egyptian company( either Egypt or Morocco ) ive forgotton.
India has nothing on African countries

Egypt is an Arab state so far. And as for double decker buses etc., not even Egypt stands anywhere near India in terms of vehicle production. From buses to even common cars and bikes.

Once again, these things are a thing in Africa the way you guys are sharing pics of these things being in your country. In India, it isn't even significant despite being on world's top 5 in nearly all of major type of productions.

The problem is real. South Africa is populated by European and Indian immigrants who are far richer than their native counterparts and have control of most of wealth and innovation. Seychelles and Mauritius are Indian settlements and North African countries are Arabic settlements.

Just40:
India has nothing on African countries

Africa isn't a thing in common thing in Indian minds in general. Entire African continent combined is incapable of even bothering India even once economically or militarily either.

Indians are more interested in Asia-pacific and North Atlantic geopolitics and to some extent in middle-eastern issues.

I'm a special case among Indians who visits this forum to see issues on which Nigerians, Kenyans and Ghanians fight.

Just30:
Nothing from India can even compete with China, let alone Europe

Indians at least have balls to try to be in competition, are dependent upon themselves for such things and even create world class products sometimes. What most African countries have achieved so far?

Flamemignon1:

Oh believe, discrimination is rife among dark tamils, I witnessed it firsthand during my Azim Premji Foundation Fellowship Program.

Among themselves or with them?

And further what kind of discrimination you witnessed?

Flamemignon1:

Representation matters, she's not just half indian but tamil (darker indians) which are the most discriminated group in india

"Tamil's are most indiscriminated group"
Lol, that is something new for me. All Tamils don't look dark.
Tamil's aren't even seen as backward people for centuries, leave alone discrimination. They are among richest Indians along with Gujaratis, Marathas, Punjabis and Delhites.

Discrimination is India on the basis of cast occurs and not on color and ethnicities.

Cousin9999:



https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/news/poverty-in-india-602


https://qz.com/india/1013004/the-five-half-truths-that-explain-why-millions-of-indians-remain-poor/

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/10/world/i-on-india-income-gap/

In India,
If you go through sources, 5% live on less than $1.9 a day, 40-45% live $3.2 a day and 80% on less than $5 a day. Unlike Nigeria where 45-50% live on less than $1.9 a day. India's poverty ratio was always declining since 90s and had become low enough on 2010, not something to be compared to countries like Nigeria. Nigeria and Congo have more people than India with just a fraction of India's population.

Irregular wealth distribution balance is common and similar for nearly all countries in world like India. Still median wealth per adult (excluding richest people) for India is double of Nigeria or Africa on average and will go even higher if we compare the cost of luxuries in India.

obaaderemi:
But it's still believed that Ghandis subtle moves are very crucial to India's freedom despite his many shortcomings.

It's India anyway, and I respect your opinion and belief. Regards.

Which of Gandhi's acts were ever directed against empire?

privaldo:


I agree with most of what you've said, they are really great arguments. Do you see a war breaking out in the Horn of Africa between Ethopia and Sudan? Also, in the event of a war, do you see India projecting power or taking sides?

A war in horn of Africa is imminent. But India or any other country taking sides here is far fetched for at least 30-40 years till this region gains some economic value.

obaaderemi:
What about his 240 mile march to the sea to collect salt in defiance to the british decree in 1930? Many believe that single move was critical to India's independence.

As told before, "belief" by a selected group supporting INC can be anything. British prime minister Winston Churchill (who killed one third of Bengali population) called Gandhi "someone not to be even bothered about".

If you believe that an old man doing fast and making a fist of salt from saline water is more "critical" than Bhagat Singh and Lajpat Rai who killed a number of British officers and were most wanted criminals of British Raj, SC Bose who almost threw away British military from eastern India or Savarkar and British Indian soldiers who had planned a revolution like 1857 again to kill all Britons in India (reason why Brits didn't stay in India unlike South Africa), I can't help you.

This stupid propaganda is same as how tribal dance of Akambos helped Kenya to get freedom. These people are mostly supported by colonialists themselves (because they don't want revolutionaries to make government) or pro imperialist parties in the country. No matter which scholars and universities are paid to write nonsense again and again, nonsense is nonsense. If Gandhi's protests were anything, Brits would have left India in first boycott in 1922. They left India because of pressure of WW2 recession and rising anger in Indian revolutionaries not Gandhi.

juman:


Of course it can happen. Check what happens in other countries.

So far as of yesterday:
Number of corona death in america = 373, 000.
Number of corona death in india = 151,000.
Number of corona death in brazil = 203, 000.

These countries have tested large percentage of their populations. US and Indian corona, each country's tests are equal to Nigeria's total population. They are launching vaccines and developing methods to treat people.

How much Nigeria has done to even scan why and how many of its people died during last year?

China, India and Brazil have tested each 15% of their populations till now. US and other rich countries have tested 50-80%. Nigeria has tested only 0.0023% and similar for other African countries.

privaldo:
I can agree with you that most of these countries are no match for the people they pick on but Turkey can stand toe-to-toe with France. They both have one of the world's most powerful military, and economy.

Turkey will have a huge influence on French colonies in Africa, which are mostly Muslim majority and that's where the Turks will have an upper hand. I don't foresee a military showdown between the two, maybe we would see some sort of cold war and proxy war on foreign soil.

Turkey has just 20% of French economy and even far weaker militarily, technology and industrial base. Nor it does have a fractional clout of French investments around world. French international policies too don't care much about Turkey.

I have barely seen a strategic journal even mentioning Turkey in geopolitics. Turkey is just a self appointed "player" againsy any European country.
It's in fact the sick man of Europe with lowest per capita income there, competing with emerging economies like China and Iran and being caught up by India in terms of living standards and strategically more equal to Indonesia and Mexico than France. In fact, to some extent, Turkey is more of a match to Nigeria and South Africa.

And Indonesia and Mexico too have a faster growing geopolitical relevance than Turkey.

privaldo:
Pakistan may be able to hold their own against India militarily from what I have seen of recent.

India's reluctance to capture Pakistani land is a product of international pressure and not Pakistan's own capacity. Soviet threats in 1965 and American & British threats in 1971. India's increasing strength will lower their diplomatic guards also.

Pakistan used a squadron of 20 against 6 Indian planes and started writing letters to UNSC to avoid an Indian invasion, left captured pilot next day to avoid war.

It rather depends upon their relevance in India as gap between India and Pakistan has only been growing even faster for past 40 years. Pakistan is losing relevance in Indian politics with Indian population now finding it impossible, the reintegration of radicalised Pakistani Islamic population in India. And positive jibes over India being progressive (and negative jibes about India being like world's next Nazi Germany) are emerging in Pakistan.

So, if India finds Pak still useful, a war is coming or Pakistan will become like next use and throw neighbor like Sri Lanka for India.

privaldo:
While Iran's military assets may be substandard, they seem like a decent ally in the Gulf region due to them not being compromised by the West. We already have military pacts with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but these two countries hardly have a mind of their own they bend to whatever direction the West dictates.

Arab states lately have developed strong relations with India too while Iran ditched these from India for sake of Islamism.

Indeed an economically powerful Nigeria will find their favour more likely than a radical state like Iran who will demand your support for Palestine.

privaldo:
India is already Nigeria's largest trading partner, and China also wants a piece of that pie from all indications. America may not be a serious partner for Nigeria even in the nearest future, Nigeria would most likely turn to Asia to find new friends.

You will have a large population and will be a great place for cheap labor as well as market. This is sufficient reason that all big countries will race to Nigeria. Story ends

privaldo:
Nigeria's military would need to grow larger in terms of manpower, and arsenal to project the kind of power that would make it feared on the African continent. If they can ward off Western Armies successfully off the continent, and also intervene swiftly in times of trouble then we would return to the position of the "Big Brother of Africa" sooner than expected.

Nigeria doesn't have so many enemies. It will be less military and more about economic hold like Brazil.

privaldo:
We would be at loggerhead most of the time but I would like to be more of partners instead of rivals. The competition may not be as fierce as that of France, and Britain though.

Loggerhead doesn't matter because once you an economy equal to them, you could buy technology and weapons from other countries if you don't have.

privaldo:
I would have put Turkey in place of Iran but I don't think we need to worry about the Turks because they will naturally come to us due to their rivalry with France, and our long-standing rivalry with France (In realpolitik an enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Turkey is no match for France. It's just noisy empty vessel. Some countries love to appoint themselves as rivals of countries they can never compete with and troll them.
Be it Turkey towards France, Pakistan towards India, Philippines towards China, Ukraine towards Russia and North Korea towards US. They don't have any influence on their stronger counterparts except news headlines. Coz Turkey, Pak, Ukraine or DPRK stand nowhere against their larger enemies in any aspect.

privaldo:
Iran made my list because we have almost the same situation but the Iranians have learned how to develop and adapt in such a situation, and they possess a large military.

Iran has a large military only by standards of Islamic world where other most countries are failed states, not really a large military per global aspects.

Their milliary products are just lower quality license produced copies of Russian and Chinese equipments. If you ever have a dig, see specifications of their weapons, missiles, space launch vehicles and general scientific equipment. They are just a small prototype version of Russia.

privaldo:

I put India there because they're our largest trading partners and I foresee a future where we also become partners militarily and align our other interests.

I put China on the list because we are obviously in an "unhealthy romance" with them economically, and I would like to see it go beyond just that, I hope it transcends to other things. The Chinese are going to conquer the world sooner or later, and it will be nice if we would be in their good books.

You are going to be a place of quest for influence for China, India and ASEAN and may be even USA. You are Africa's most populous country, will match China and India in population by century end and will be a great market for these countries. Over it, you may possess a significantly large military worth of notability in operations around Africa.

You are even more important for our India as you are an alternative source of oil instead of Islamic middle-east countries which tend to support Pakistan and oogle us in Kashmir issue. So, India may even do more to snatch you from China until you go for "Islamic brotherhood" with Pakistan.

privaldo:
I feel Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa are other countries that would make good partners if Nigeria is to be a force to reckon with on the international scene.

They will be your competitors and equal collaborators like Japan, UK and France are towards each other today.

obaaderemi:
This is absurd if it's true. Why would he support Muslims against Hindus? Clearly, he wanted India to remain as one, and you guys are lucky Pakistan refused to stay with India in 1947 at independence. I wonder how you would be coping with the Muslims now.

More than it being about Hindu vs Muslims, Gandhi was even seen as a British agent by his critics. He tried to recruit Indians to die for British in wars and sabotaged or halted every effective Indian movement againsy British and restricted Indian independence movement to a "peaceful" sit-in. He too pushed for British administration system, proposals and values to India which Indians otherwise wouldn't ever have accepted.

While British used to crush Indians, Gandhi was their favourite brown guy, often used to take him to dinners in Paris and London. He used to stay in a beautiful Bungalow in Delhi when Gandhi-haters used to feed homeless immigrants in streets.

Dividing India into smaller and weaker countries was a British requirement otherwise India would have emerged as another China or Soviet Union to challenge west at that time.

obaaderemi:
But I guess the main reason Indians and much of the world respect Ghandi so much is many, including my humble self, see him as leading the rebellion against British economic and political hegemony over India, then his lack of worldliness.

Well in general, I'm seen as a quite neutralist in political context.
Gandhi was anything but an anti-British rebel. He in fact was the one who prevented rebellions against British. He was all about perception than action but even his ways to persuade will sound stupid to a normal person.

You are free to prove me wrong by making any point from history. When did he rebelled against British?

Regards

Mystiquefia:
It is traditionally permissible for African men to have children from different women because we own up to responsibilities.

Having multiple wives was trend in Eurasia too in past. But later it was banned.

Mystiquefia:
Why not go to India, marry several husbands, cater for their needs and recycle your children amongst them.

Having multiple wives or husbands isn't a normal thing in India either. These are just special legendary stories or rare cases in far history.

obaaderemi:
But millions of Indians marched for his funeral in 1947. Probably the latter attempt to demystify the great man came from his detractors.

Millions is a pathetic propaganda. The person who killed Gandhi himself was no less known and probably had even more supporters. His last speech in court caused agitations and his book "Why I killed Gandhi" was banned in India.
http://indiansaga.com/whoswho/godse_letter.html
And this is not only him, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh and so many other freedom fighters have been eclipsed and villanised by Indian National Congress.

The party has many dark secrets and possibly its leaders will be killed by Indian people secrets are released.

IGpro1:
In ASIA, India on paper is not a super power but when you talk Economy or military you can't leave out The US or INDIA, hope I schooled you today.

That is undisputed that India is a significant power. But India isn't a superpower and is probably only a great power.

US is a first tier power and to some extent China. Rest like Russia, India, Japan and France etc. are just second tier powers where India is only rising one of them and may become a superpower in future. But future is uncertain.

Daftyouth:


Quoting and misquoting, eh? You’re daftly confused and thus welcomed to the daft party, thank me later.

AFAIK, I quoted the correct person.

Brainless retard alert!

Daftyouth:
Again, agreed. No nation should build anything until everyone is well fed in society.

No nation can feed all its people until it has built something for wealth generation or is rich enough with natural resources.

Daftyouth:
That England industrialised in the midst of excruciating poverty, hunger and deaths among the poor is why I hate them.

I hope you are able to quote exceptional cases then because I don't see any in existence. Throughout European Great divergence to Asian Renaissance, countries have transited to higher income level gradually.

England with some portion of people dying wasn't because of industrialisation but declined because of it. Results today are much better than countries with loudmouth people where all of them are poor and dying.

Daftyouth:
I dislike India too, (second most poverty stricken nation after Nigeria)

1. Nigeria and DRC both have higher number of poors than India.
2. Poverty sticken tag here again is shill and bullshit.

India having equal or low number of poors than Nigeria with 6-7 times bigger population isn't a thing to compare in list, nor it was ever for past two decades.

With 5-8% poverty rate, if you think that the comparison is legit, you are too stupid.

Daftyouth:
sending rockets to the moon when millions live in poverty. Stupid people developed nuclear power before and during when India and not Ethiopia was byword for starvation. They built Mombi and are now laying foundation for Hyperloop, amidst million living in grinding poverty.

India doesn't invest in technology at cost of its poor. India's annual budget is $750 billions and cost of such R& missions or research projects lies in millions.


It's in any case is way better which neither have ever launched a mouse in space nor have pulled their population outta poverty. In fact, India's poverty ratio is now quite low and declining faster while that in Africa ranged from 30%-50% and yet rising up.

Daftyouth:
You tok say, “people know the consequences of these laws they flout but they still go ahead and damn the consequences, not because they see themselves as invincible but because hunger must be quenched first, then we can discuss”.

Hunger can't be quenched with freebies. India tried for 40 years with doles. Even if they do for one generation, the other generation too will come to beg government. The only solution of the problem is to facilitate a system where man can work to pull out his family from generational poverty.

Obviously you have to work your ass out, there is no other way you can lift yourself and your country up which are in dire situation. This is the beauty of capitalism, you get what is deserved.

genq:
Now matter how westernized Indian and Chinese women are, they know their place in the household. They do not challenge and insult their husbands.

Insult? Wives and even girlfriends even beat us black and blue even if you are a billionaire and she's a waitress.

Good wives are just like friends. Women being subservient to men are a thing of past in Asia. But it may still exist in rural parts.

obaaderemi:
Woah, woah, woah! If all this about Gandhi is true, then there's truly more than meets the eye.
Some South Africans feel the same way about Mandela. Somebody once asked: Why was Biko killed and Mandela spared? Food for thought.

I don't know much about Mandela.

This all about Gandhi is true and no supporter of Gandhi will say it is false. They just stayed silent instead of lying about him and will call us extremists for talking about him. Still, they can't deny recorded facts. He was overhyped for benefit of his political party and every other (real) freedom fighter was either downplayed or labelled as extremists. Obviously western colonisers liked Gandhi for supporting them in massacres unlik Indian nationalists who could thrash them away.

Even today, whenever Indian government is other than that of Gandhi's party, they call them extremists. Despite fact that they have contributed more to India than combined 54 years rule of Gandhi's party.

obaaderemi:
The question remains: What is the secret of India lifting millions out of poverty? It's still a poor country though compared to China. But India has progressed a lot over the years. Is the secret education, industry, new tech, or what?

Stable government + Diverse industry and institutions + Economic liberalisation
Results into generation of wealth which flows through all sections of society. Hence, richer get richer but poor also get richer. The model is same all over world.

India is a third world but a stable democracy without any big internal conflicts or military rule. Hence, government functions. It has been investing in industries and institutions immediately since independence despite being poor.
India is still poor because it couldn't manage them but is growing because is learning to manage them, first by liberalisation of 90s.

Saddamochieng00:


Yet black people still adore this scumbag. We need to revisit who our heroes really are as the African people.

Same case applies to this so called "saint"

His all embraces in India are restricted to either his party or uneducated children. He isn't a hero in India unlike projected in UK.

obaaderemi:
Ghandi of India opened the eyes of Indians to the thievery of the British. (Maybe Goel can say something here without his usual larger than life ego. ) The Indians burnt every article of British made fabric on their backs and started making their own textile. India was nicknamed The Jewel in the British Crown. But they freed themselves not only politically but economically and socially. Why can't Africans try same?

First, Africans as a United Country would have done much better. They would have a denser road and dial network if united which would have boosted internal trade. Resources would have helped which don't have while their cheap labor would have helped other parts in Africa. India was in a much worse situation during independence with 80% poverty, hostile neighbors as enemy, Soviet Russia enemy because of Kashmir and US & Europe as enemies because of Portugal. We now are second largest investor in same Britain and largest shareholders of their companies, literally we control their economy. Are now much stronger than them.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=india&country2=united-kingdom&Submit=COMPARE
Case is different that we yet have a long way to go because UK is a useless country.

Now,
Gandhi no way "opened" the eyes of Indians. He was overhyped by India's political party INC to gain power. They painted everyone who opposed Gandhi as villain despite fact that they did much more than sitting on fast like Gandhi. Indian communists literally fought on streets till got killed with their families. Subhash Chandra Bose collected army, directly fought with British empire and even defeated them in some parts of India and liberated them. Hindu nationalists built a strong base of revolution to make a plot to kill all big British officials in India and even shaken feet of British empire when they came to know about plan.

Gandhi never let his supporters raise weapons against British but never uttered a word to what British did. He convinced Indians in lakhs and millions to die for Brits in world war. He never spoken against Jalianwala Bagh massacre but called Udham Singh a mad man.

He supported hanging of Indian freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev because they killed a British butcher called Sanders. He supported giving up more territory and money to Pakistan. He never let India make even a proper army till his death.
http://indiafacts.org/happy-birthday-mr-gandhi/
[URL='http://indiafacts.org/happy-birthday-mr-gandhi/'][I]H[/I]appy Birthday Mr Gandhi![/URL]

[COLOR=#0000b3]Dear Mr Gandhi,


Since childhood, we are taught to worship you as the best thing to happen to this country, the perfect human. There is no escaping you in India. Your face smiles at us on banknotes, your name is given to every other road or government project. All others, most of whose contributions far exceeded yours, are cunningly pushed to the background or obliterated from history by the elements whose very business runs on deifying you.


Your greatness began in South Africa, they tell us, which starts with you being thrown out of the train compartment for not being white.[SIZE=15px][U] [SIZE=15px]For all your nonviolence, why were you so supportive of every British war effort, from the Zulu war to both the world wars?[/SIZE][/U][SIZE=15px] You called blacks ‘kaffirs’ and saw them as someone inferior. No wonder they still hate you there. [U]You even recruited Indians for his majesty to die like flies in the WWI (more than 100000), for which you were [URL='http://indiafacts.org/deconstructing-gandhi-gandhi-recruited-indians-world-war/']awarded[/URL] the title of Kaiser-e-Hind.[/U][/SIZE][/SIZE] Your arrival in India in 1916 was most likely not a coincidence either, since you arrived exactly when the British needed cannon fodder after the manpower losses in Somme and Verdun. On the other hand, you suspended the Non Cooperation movement because you were saddened by the burning of a few policemen serving the empire, leaving everyone who had followed you for two years feeling cheated. Because the lives of a few policemen serving the empire was worth more than the lives of thousands of Zulus, Boers and of thousands of Indian soldiers who died in a useless war. [U][SIZE=15px]You never condemned the Jallianwaala Bagh massacre, yet called Udham Singh a madman. What kind of Satyagraha or [URL='http://www.dailyo.in/politics/mahatma-gandhi-subhas-chandra-bose-non-violence-british-raj-independence-nehru/story/1/4225.html']nonviolence[/URL] was this?[/SIZE][/U]


Hindu Muslim unity was your ultimate goal, at any cost, [SIZE=15px][U]which was to be borne by Hindus alone.[/U] [U]Backing Khilafat movement, which aimed at reinstating the Ottoman Empire that had ruined Asia for five centuries and had killed a million plus Armenians just a few years before, was the only way to Hindu-Muslim unity in your opinion[/U].[/SIZE] On the contrary, the very man who led to the defeat of the Caliphate, is the reason for what Turkey is today. [U]Y[SIZE=15px]our Khilafat dreams cost India dearly, because it soon became an anti-Hindu movement, the most horrific of which was the Moplah riots in Malabar where thousands of Hindus were butchered. But you called the Moplahs brave and patriotic for doing their duty! Khilafat[/SIZE][/U] also strengthened the Muslim League, making leaders of people like the Ali brothers who swore by your name, but abandoned you soon as a dirty Kafir, the moment they didn’t need you to give them legitimacy, and fuelled separatist tendencies, which would cause the vivisection of the country less than three decades later.


You made tokenism and symbolism as our national character, with your preaching, which was very nice to hear, but never had concrete impact. So, just giving the depressed classes a name like Harijan does not elevate them. No wonder that calling anyone a Harijan today would result in a beating. Remaining shirtless to show sympathy for poor doesn’t make their lives easier. Calling manual scavenging as the “highest of work” did not honour the manual scavengers. How many of India’s poor was your charkha able to clothe, excluding your party members? Did it make enough cloth to cover the body of even one woman raped in the partition riots? [U]W[SIZE=15px]e are taught that you singlehandedly destroyed the British empire, an empire, which was ruling over one fourth of the world , which withstood the Nazi Army alone for a year and a half ,which kept 300 million Indians under their thumb with less than a force of one hundred thousand civil servants.[/SIZE][/U] The fact is that your methods were tolerated because your activities helped the British Empire, by blunting the anger of the masses. British Empire mercilessly destroyed all those who posed a real danger to them, be it the armed revolutionaries or the armed uprisings. [U]T[SIZE=15px]he likes of Veer Savarkar, Lokmanya Tilak were put away in jail for many years, in conditions you wouldn’t have lasted more than a day.[/SIZE][/U] All your fasts and marches were weekend getaways compared to the unimaginable and inhuman tortures that our real freedom fighters went through. [SIZE=15px][U]Clement Attlee had only one word to say when asked about the effects of your activities on the British Empire: “Minimal”.[/U][/SIZE]


You stood not for the truth, but for the distortion of it, of promoting Sanatana Dharma as pacifism and surrender. You parroted “Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaha”, while conveniently ignoring the fact that us of Himsa for Dharma is considered Dharma itself in Hindu tradition. All this talk of turning the other cheek is actually found in the New Testament, and not in any Hindu scripture. What this skewered teaching did to the psyche of this country can be seen even today. [SIZE=15px]Despite being the biggest democracy and a formidable military power, we hardly inspire any fear in our enemies as they are confident that their attacks will go unanswered.[/SIZE]


Your minority appeasement is nothing less than shocking. Moplahs were brave and patriotic, but no words were spared by you for sympathising with their victims. [SIZE=15px][U]Shivaji Maharaj, Maharana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh were misguided patriots, but you called Abdul Rashid who killed Swami Shraddhanand as Bhai.[/U] [U]Why did you not make any effort to save Bhagat Singh, Shivram Rajguru or Sukhdev Thapar from the gallows while signing the pact with Lord Irwin to end the Civil Disobedience Movement?[/U][/SIZE] You remained tepid about the hundreds of Muslim league fuelled religious riots, which took place from the Khilafat movement to the partition. In 1932, you went to fast until death on the matter of separate electorates for the depressed classes as it was divisive to the society, but were silent on the issue of separate electorates for the Muslims .


[SIZE=15px][U]During WWII, you advised the English to vacate their houses for Hitler and called for the Jews to commit collective suicide in order to become immortal in history[/U], but you forgot Mr Gandhi, that you couldn’t fool anyone other than the gullible masses of India. [U]After the Direct Action Day massacre in 1946, you went around preaching peace tagging yourself with HS Suhrawardy, the very man who was on the forefront of causing them.[/U] [/SIZE]You denied that anything was happening in Noakhali, while thousands of Hindus were being butchered there and you went there only when the situation was calmed. You gave the title of Qaid e Azam to Mohammad Ali Jinnah and upheld Jawaharlal Nehru everywhere (the party needed his father’s money) and pushed the capable Sardar Patel to a secondary role. [SIZE=15px][U]You had absolutely no sympathy for Hindu and Sikh riot victims of the partition riots, and advised the Hindus and Sikhs of West Punjab to bravely court death and chided the ones who had escaped to India for “cowardice”, you advised the women threatened with rape in West Pakistan to lie still with their tongue between their teeth to cooperate with their “brothers”[/U][/SIZE] On the other hand, during your peace march to Noakhali, you told the Hindus to flee if they wanted to save their lives. Why this double standard, Mr Gandhi? And what does this tell us about your mentality[/COLOR]


[SIZE=15px][COLOR=#0000b3][U]But your last fatal blow was yet to come. It was your fast unto death demanding that Rs 55 crores be given to Pakistan, which it gleefully used in its Kashmir invasion of Oct 1947. [B]Had David Ben Gurion been like you, Golda Meir like Nehru or had the Jewish leadership been like the Congress, the Jews would have joined the Sumerians and Babylonians as museum artefacts.[/B][/U][/COLOR][/SIZE]


[COLOR=#0000b3]Could you have been repackaged by Congress and your disciples like Birla and Bajaj (who benefitted the most from the four decades of license permit raj) as a Mahatma had you died a natural death, instead of being shot dead by Nathuram Godse? Did the Congress follow nonviolence by not controlling the riots which were engineered post your murder, which cost the lives of more than 6000 Chitpavan Brahmins (because Nathuram Godse was one)?


No Mr Gandhi, I cannot call you a Mahatma even by the wildest stretch of imagination. Mahatma is someone who has a vision to make his country and people great and leads like a warrior from the front. You could never go beyond pious platitudes. India is an eternal land, not formed by a mandate or signature on a piece of paper. Why then should you be called as its father?


Happy Birthday Mr Gandhi, out of formality.[/COLOR]

Brits left India because of another wave of rebellion among Indian soldiers and this time they were outnumbered by Indians in 1946, not because of Gandhi. And that's why whites didn't stay in India unlike they did in South Africa.

codemaniacs:


go and do your research and on "U.S india relations", it is a topic on its own... you can read an excerpt below from wiki:

I'm very well aware of aware of US India relationship and history of Indian foreign relations too has been one of my subjects. The "training" you are talking about is nothing more than a paper hoax came of Nike Cajun sounding rocket while India's own Vikas engine was produced with help of France.

Jet engines were imported and never a technology transfer from US. And because they later attached sanctions strings with them, India went ahead with France and Russia for making its own jet engine.

India itself was sanctioned in 80s by US and got electronic weapons in service only after 2000s. So not sure which tech US transferred in 80s.

If you can refute, list me any 2 significant technologies India gained from US diplomatically or by investment. Any two. India has technological inspiration from any country but USA. We were never really connected to them.

India's only significant foreign controlled supply lines were of Japanese origin. And later on tech was acquired by purchasing of Korean and British companies by Indian conglomerates.

mustyguy:
bro you be fool, so you mean say education minister no fit read and write, that was why he graduated from an ivy league University in US which is rated among top ten best Universities, keep wasting your time insulting northerners on nairaland while they are achieving what you can never achieve, if English is the measure of intelligence most countries like china, Korea, France, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Japan, India will be behind nigeria.

Indians, Koreans, Chinese, French, Saudis and Emiratis are more likely to speak English than Nigerians. They have way higher percentages of people speaking English or capable of it.

codemaniacs:


Like I told you already, India got training from the U.S govmt in the 1980s on engineering.

What is the source? We learnt from France, not US or even Russia and Israel. US hated us like North Korea at that time and even once sent nuclear flotillas in Indian ocean.
Indian metal industrial machine has existed even before British arrived in India.

codemaniacs:


you are entitled to your own opinion..

foreign tech firms have to teach the factory workers how to assemble to products and from this the factory workers ( some of whom may be government sponsored agents ) get knowledge and share it with their government.

the U.S did a program ( I've forgotten the name) specifically for empowering indians in technology and engineering in the early 1980s.

Then be specific. The basic industrial structures of China and India have existed even before world war 2. The training and cultural discipline in industry is sufficient for manufacturing when RnD and knowledge comes from foreign. No country ever shared IPR with us in name of investment.

Coming to advanced technologies, China was transfered with those by USA in Laurel satellite deal in 90s while India bought several companies from UK, Europe, South Korea, Australia and Japan to get access to them.

codemaniacs:
Knowledge was shared with China, India e.t.c. that's why they're improving. How many apple, Android and other tech and non tech factories are in Africa?

Foreign tech factories don't count on knowledges of China & India. Their have been pouring money like water to develop west like technologies for past 40 years even when they were poorer than Africa.

As for west, West stole much more knowledge from China and India in past 500 years what developed them.

And these are Afriacans who asked for charity. China and India were enemies of west and sanctioned for many decades. They developed their own factories and supply chains. Later west signed trade deals to manufacture cheap goods by use of Chinese and Indian supply chains.