To question, to challenge, to verify, to ask for accountability from the government is the right of every citizen under the Constitution. These rights...
During a meeting with India's Ambassador to the US, the leadership of the India Caucus in the House of Representatives also condemned the violence in Delhi on 26 January.
The defacers of the Capitol have inadvertently offered Biden a rare opportunity — to rebuild America’s relationship with the world & advance the cause of democracy worldwide.
The irony with PC Alexander was that when Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she handpicked him as Principal Secretary and he became her political adviser, conscience keeper and administrative trouble-shooter.
The 125 APAs include 86 Unilateral APAs (UAPAs) and 39 Bilateral APAs (BAPAs). The total number of APAs since the start of the APA programme has risen to 641, with 506 UAPAs and 135 BAPAs.
Depends on how you define progress. How you define wealth. I am sure money accounts for a lot. But a few questions to ponder over:
1. Who benefits?
2. At what cost?
As cliche as it is, money can’t buy true liberty. It has to be fought for.
Alright, so do you propose that a country like India should forego democracy and instead choose an authoritarian path? It may lead way to progress- the exact same way there was a significant amount of development during the period of the 70s Emergency here. But at what cost? Constant state surveillance? Suppression of dissent? Violation of basic human rights? While in my opinion, these are the kind of things that many are currently experiencing today in a democratic India, what is different is that there’s hope- hope for a change. Would this hope be there had this been an authoritarian country where like you said, there are just 3 Presidents in a span of 30 years, with no changes in ideologies? What democracy gives us primarily is choice. The very thing you’re doing- criticizing the functioning of a democracy- can only be done in a democratic arrangement. So in my opinion, taking from my 9th standard Civics textbook- maybe stop comparing perfect authoritarianism with an imperfect democracy, and instead compare it with a perfect democracy instead.
Depends on how you define progress. How you define wealth. I am sure money accounts for a lot. But a few questions to ponder over:
1. Who benefits?
2. At what cost?
As cliche as it is, money can’t buy true liberty. It has to be fought for.
It’s socialism and red tapism that let us down if Indira lost to the swatantra party we would be like china today
Alright, so do you propose that a country like India should forego democracy and instead choose an authoritarian path? It may lead way to progress- the exact same way there was a significant amount of development during the period of the 70s Emergency here. But at what cost? Constant state surveillance? Suppression of dissent? Violation of basic human rights? While in my opinion, these are the kind of things that many are currently experiencing today in a democratic India, what is different is that there’s hope- hope for a change. Would this hope be there had this been an authoritarian country where like you said, there are just 3 Presidents in a span of 30 years, with no changes in ideologies? What democracy gives us primarily is choice. The very thing you’re doing- criticizing the functioning of a democracy- can only be done in a democratic arrangement. So in my opinion, taking from my 9th standard Civics textbook- maybe stop comparing perfect authoritarianism with an imperfect democracy, and instead compare it with a perfect democracy instead.
Bro, the US has managed to build a strong economy despite having a democracy
u must be a BJP supporter right.