upvote
It's pretty clear lol. OP definitely thinks we were living in mud huts before the British gifted us railroads.
reply
1000 years ago is not mud huts. Although in terms of civics and rights I would say India seems quite a lot further back than 1000 years, if you take the ancient Greeks as your yardstick.
reply
> Although in terms of civics and rights I would say India seems quite a lot further back than 1000 years

How so?

> if you take the ancient Greeks as your yardstick

You mean the slave owners? Who only allowed free men to vote? And required property ownership to hold office?

I'm not aware of widespread slavery in India, nor a requirement to own property to hold public office. Women are allowed to vote there. They've even had a woman be Prime Minister and two women Presidents.

reply
> I'm not aware of widespread slavery in India

Goodness, there was a huge amount of slavery, back into prehistory, then lots African slaves from the 6th century, then when Islamic conquest hit almost 1000 years ago many Indians were enslaved. Just as slavery was everywhere, it was in India. The big event was in 1843 when Britain did the moral thinking and emphasis to abolish it throughout their empire and also just in general, with British ships going to war against slaver ships and the British Empire buying slaves' freedom. The two big things about India and abolition were 1) the East India Company was definitely not as morally clear as the people in England, and 2) there was a worry that ending slavery in India would be too disruptive to the local culture, it was so embedded. So it was only abolished 10 years after the rest of the Empire.

Today, with 70 years of independence and self-rule, India has the most modern slaves in the world[0].

> Women are allowed to vote there.

Yes, as of 1950 when democracy was copied and pasted from other civilisations - some, like ancient Greece, almost 2000 years prior - who did all the discovery and moral thinking for this. It's not hard to copy something, particularly when declaring it to be so is what's measured, and not how well it's implemented.

[0] https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie...

reply
Quite a motte and bailey there. You said India is backward today compared to ancient Greece. Then when I pointed out all the ways in which ancient Greece was backward you began comparing to something else. To be clear: ancient Greece, the "fountain of democracy" had legal slavery. Modern India does not.

The US has the most people in modern slavery in the Western hemisphere: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie....

And that's even counting Mauritania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania

"Countries with large populations have large numbers of people doing <insert illegal act>" is hardly a revelation.

> Yes, as of 1950 when democracy was copied and pasted from other civilisations

So weird that those "moral" British didn't allow Indians to vote before that. I thought you said they were the good guys!

No extant country has adopted democracy from first principles. Everyone copy-pasted it. 1950 was the first time India had the choice and chance to do it, and they took it.

reply
> You said India is backward today compared to ancient Greece

No, I didn't mean that. I said if Ancient Greece is your yardstick, India would be more than 1000 years behind today without external influence. Ancient Greece was 2000 years ago, not 1000.

> The US has the most people in modern slavery in the Western hemisphere: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie....

Okay, but it's also a huge country the size of a continent, so of course it's got more than most of Western Europe. If Luxembourg had a million modern slaves there'd be nowhere to hide them. And it has much, much more sensitive systems for detecting this sort of thing than India does, so you can imagine that number is not lowballed.

reply
> India would be more than 1000 years behind today

Behind what? And what are you basing this on, other than vibes and your biases?

> without external influence

Of course it would be externally influenced even without being colonized. It isn't an island. It couldn't shut itself away like Japan did pre-19th century. Japan is more modern than India because it wasn't colonized. They just took ideas from abroad - industrialization, mass literacy, (some) democracy (pre-WW2) - and adopted them.

> Okay, but it's also a huge country the size of a continent, so of course it's got more than most of Western Europe

And India isn't?

reply