1. Indians' domestic success is throttled by bureaucracy . 2. Indian quotas kill meritocracy. #Wokeism is a rounding error compared to quotas. 3. #EnglishApartheid ensures only a fraction of India's talent develops vs China eg.
First step is translation. The Chinese govt has invested $ billions . Here a fabulous IIT Bombay project for machine translation of technical books is begging for basic funding. Where is the Rs. 10,000 Cr annual allocation for translation @narendramodi?
Selectivity ratio means that out of a billion people, a few outliers succeed. Even IITs are what they are because of high selectivity, much higher than an US university.
But with #EnglishApartheid we've made talent a rarity rather than the norm.
In Asia, universities from China, with Chinese-medium, dominate. Other Asian countries, using their own languages, also excel. (Singapore is city-sized—an outlier).
No Indian University is in the top 50 in Asia. "English advantage" in higher education? 😆 usnews.com/education/best…
A few Indian graduates do well abroad due to the sheer selectivity ratio. Of the 1.3 billion population .0001% may succeed in this manner, just because in such a large set there will be some brilliant people who succeed *despite* the education system.
We've adopted "cutting the cake" for birthdays. This originates from Christian weddings, where "cutting the wedding cake actually represents breaking the bride's hymen." (for end of virginity).
We Indians copy blindly just like we sing "ring-a-ringa roses" uncomprehendingly.
A large majority of farmers across India support the unshackling of Indian agriculture.
But a small fraction wants the cartel to continue. They also have money and muscle power as big landowners. No surprise that they're lynching small dalit farmers.
I've not heard a single argument against the farm law reform which is not based on speculation and fear-mongering. If there is, I'm happy to listen. These kind of arguments make no sense.
How exactly does the ability to sell anywhere hinder farmers?
The "liberal" discourse in India is to cater to the powerful claiming to speak for "marginalized."
1. The concern for "tribals" is not for those who'd resist Christian conversion. It is to sever cultural ties and show Hindus as enemy to aid $powerful evangelical conversion war.
2. The concern for "dalits" is not because they care the least for "dalits." If they did, they'd have been agitating for the removal of Article 370, which deprived Dalits of rights in J&K they got elsewhere. But they *opposed* that. Why? To serve the agenda of powerful Islamism.
3. The narrative on "atrocities on dalits" is for a singular purpose. A stick to beat Hindus with to aid powerful #ChristoIslam. This is why they bury the many cases of Muslim atrocities on Dalit Hindus. It doesn't serve the agenda of the powerful.
The Puritan ideology of Protestant Christianity dubbed all expenditure on entertainment as "wasteful", indeed anything used for other than the glory of the Christian God.
"Modern Hindus" replicate these arguments determining what is "wasteful" in how others spend their money.
When the British Empire impoverished India by draconian taxation, destruction of industry and colonial loot, villagers still managed to scrounge up some money for the wedding of their children.
The British then dubbed wedding expenditure as "wasteful" and the *cause* of poverty.
The same arguments are replicated by the colonial courts and the colonial Indian state to civilize the natives and control who they should be allowed to spend their own money.