20th-21st century India

What was India like immediately after gaining independence? How did it become what it is today?

>inb4 poo in loo

pee in lee

...

It was busy creating the Indian """""""""nation"""""""" by telling all those independent princely states that they are all "Indian" now apparently.

Pretty much like today, a country with an educated elite but most of the population being illiterate peasants.

A country with illiterate majority, weak industry, pre-capitalist relicts (such as zamindari and other forms of landlordship).
>How did it become what it is today?
They tried to zamindari and peasants into farmers and that wasn't a success. If the land reform was a success, there would be no naxalites
They decided to build the industry of their own, but they needed money, So, in 1948 they said "we're welcoming all the investments from all sides of the world". At the first time they have recieved some money from the US. After the beginning of US military aid to Pakistan India had to search for another investor. And so begins the russian-indian friendship. Russians are funding the indian industry and sometimes participate in the building process as the engineers and architects. And indians deliver them rails for the railways and medicine (such as aprophenum aka taren for military and civilian individual medicine boxes).
And that's how India exists as it is - a country where production is satisfying the needs of foreign companies

>They tried to zamindari and peasants into farmers and that wasn't a success. If the land reform was a success, there would be no naxalites
>naxalites
>land reform

The maoists that are present today are mostly tribals you retard.

Also very reductionist in history

I am sure you have some sources.

Butthurt hyderabadi detected.

India was always a federalist nation and the language riots pretty much made hindi obsolescent on the national scale while making english the de facto language of governments across india.

Officially, india still has the
>hindi is the national language of india
misnomer, but Hindi is the official language of India, along with english.

Every other major language in india is given the status of scheduled language and is as such protected by the government of india.

Hindi itself was coalesced into a more centralized language post independence during the 50s by the indian government on the lines of sanskrit.

>The maoists that are present today are mostly tribals you retard.
How does that contradict with my words?
Those tribals have been working as tenants before the 1967, haven't they?
>reductionist
How?

The regions affected by maoists are largely non agricultural land and filled with hills and forests, not agricultural equipment.
The naxalite movement was started by the educated youth in calcutta who were going to have glorious red revolution and create a classless society and then got stomped flat by the police quite brutally.

The current maoists have more to do with tribals not being compensated adequately for their lands being acquired for mining and industrial growth.

Your entire industrial post was half informed at best.
Several factories were initially built in india using foreign aid, yes.

But India went full soviet support after 1965 when american support to pakistan continued while support to india stopped

The green revolution that was instituted did a lot to increase farmer productivity in india, and land reform didn't happen other than abolishing the zamindari system. The majority of indians are still farmers, and most of them are still farming on a subsistence level with low technology implements that limits farm productivity.

India went sovietboo in 1970 after pakistan started to become a cartoon villain and signed the indo soviet friendship treaty.

India still continued to trade with nato members other than america like the UK and France and bought hardware off them, because americans are notoriously bad at doing tech transfer or continuing supplies.

When the BJP first came to power, india became far more friendly with israel, especially using israeli aid to build fences and in agriculture.

to further add, most farm laborers are north indian in origin, from bihar and some from UP. They aren't famous for their subversive activities.

>The naxalite movement was started by the educated youth in calcutta
Not quite
>The green revolution that was instituted did a lot to increase farmer productivity in india
Yet the green revolution has helped the large farms.
>are largely non agricultural land and filled with hills and forests,
Slash-and-burn agriculture.

>slash and burn
not really. There haven't been large cases of slash and burn farming in india on the scale of South america or australia.

The naxalite name comes from naxalbari, a district in west bengal, which coincidentally dropped the entire militant communism thing.

.

>I am sure you have some sources.
I'm Indian.

yeah, feel free to overlook the explosion of education that took place in post independence india, or the major role modern tech plays in keeping the population educated, or the increased proliferation of newspapers.

Pretty much

you tards speak as if modern countries exist by a historic process of anything other that immigrating, conquering, mixing, exchanging.
"India is just a country because it was unified!"; so has any country has existed for all times or exists of a single lineage?

don't bother.
it's probably a butthurt gook that believes china was eternal.

They went pinko so all the human capital fucked off. Their truant cognitive elite is a perpetual structural defect.

The irony is that while India as an independent nation was ruined by socialist, the Indian diaspora who managed to get out keep voting for socialist parties in their host countries.

When will they learn?

>india was ruined by socialists
ok bud.

Maybe this is true. I don't know enough about the early power struggles following independence or the contemporaneous potential for red-leaning parties to vie effectively, and it does seem that most of India's famous early leaders were fervent capitalists.

But I will say this: Indians do superbly abroad, in almost every nation which will receive them, and yet their homeland is, in many regards, a veritable source of shame. The disparity is confusing; maybe threats of communism in the early history of the nation played a role?

>nehru
>capitalist
>IG
>capitalist
capitalism was a dirty word in india, and it made perfect sense. Colonial India was the product of capitalism gone rampant and it left a deep mark on the psyche of the country

The indians who do are abroad are by far the best of the best india has to offer. Its just that india has such a huge population that the cream of it's HR crop is huge for a single nation.

>It is a veritable source of shame
because it behooves the world to believe that india is doing terrible and is full of the memes that they learned in school. Being one of the largest consumers of solar power, or using telecommunications services rapidly to improve governance and the like is too boring for people in the west.

For them india = Taj Mahal, Spicy food, rape, and now street shitting. My generation will probably not change that, but at least several states other than north india have done well economically, and socially, with the sole exception of gujarat.

>india will never completely balkanise

oh well

>country is doing fine on it's own
>"Why doesn't it balkanize?"
why the autism?

My understanding was that IG was disposed to capitalist sympathies? She was certainly no leftist, but again, I am mostly ignorant on this general subject.

It seems as though communism gets a terrible rap among contemporary Indians, and Modi appears staunchly opposed to leftist policy, economic or otherwise. Would you say they are, ergo, headed in the right direction?

>several states... have done well...

You wouldn't argue that India, though, overall, is a decidedly developed nation? Believe me, it pains me to see a nation from which some of my ancestors hailed do so poignantly, but metrics such as HDI (HDI was in fact invented by South Asians, whose nations presently fail by them, what irony!) objectively quantify certain useful elements of a nation, and India does not excel by this criterion or any other similarly broad one.

Hopefully you're right, and India requires first to appeal to globalist, laissez-faire demands before it can capitalize on its resources, human or otherwise. It would at least pin down the problem.

Oh, what a day that would be. In today's climate of Pakistani animosity though, the Indian identity seems to weather any internal strains for Balkanization. I know he Tamils might be a exception, but otherwise they've made peace, it seems, with heterogeneity.

Who knows what would come of a splintered India? Perhaps it's better this way, or worse, we won't be finding out anytime soon, cause it would be a nightmare for even a single state to secede, for both parties.

Modi is literally following the same policies that Singh was doing, only his army of fanboys are marketing it better.

Which is no doubt a good thing, reducing bureaucracy is important for a more business friendly environment, and every little helps in india. Having a uniform tax all over the country would also help the indian economy in the long run.

Indira gandhi was the person who nationalized most national banks and added all the latter words in the constitution.

One thing to keep in mind is that in india, everyone has to be left of center from a political perspective, because the vast majority of the voting population is still engaged in manual or agricultural labor. Telling them
>fuck you, we capitalist Nao
means that you lose the next election, the reds come in power and roll back economic reforms like they did in west bengal.
>india
>as a whole

At some point this statement becomes largely baseless. Most states in india have the population of many countries or have landmasses equivalent to many countries. India started from a very low level of HD when it became independent. The strides it makes are very difficult to do while maintaining a political.coherency in a democratic country.

Kerala and several south indian states were focused on improving the quality of life of their citizens and succeeded extremely well in that, while Northern india has pretty terrible records of that due to a lot of factors, but largely a rapidly growing population, and a hands off approach by successive congress governments to minorities chimping out.

India is also in an extremely hostile neighborhood, as it is surrounded by a country that is pretty much a suicide bomb painted with islamic green colors, and a bigger, more centralized state that is hostile to India, and both are nuclear powers.

It's in a pretty uniquely shitty geopolitical place that requires it to spend a lot of money on defence.

bump