Comments on: India’s Role in Darfur: Not just China and al-Bashir in Sudan

By: sarat

sarat — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:46:38 +0000

the perspective is entirely based on religious terms like RC[SONIA GANDHI],These kinds of ideas are dangerous.

By: singh

singh — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:02:12 +0000

India isn’t a democracy — its a castocracy. Do yourself some justice and research before you call India a democracy. The Indian Government has always put puppets like Manmohan to fool the illiterate into thinking non-Hindus have a say in India. These puppets were meant to fool the illiterate masses of India –they must be overjoyed that they are fooling the “literate” too.

By: Peace

Peace — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:51:36 +0000

I really don’t know what to say anymore…

By: H Singh

H Singh — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:39:20 +0000

“Hari Singh”

India has outlawed democratically elected governments in Punjab and Kashmir and imposed dictorial rule. The Governors of state are not elected by the people and yet the Governors can outlaw a state government to impose President’s rule. The President who never is an elected rep of people. Lastly, India doesn’t has any requirement for EVEN the PM to be an elected representative of people. The current PM is the best example. Yes, you may still call it a democracy but it is sham democracy where the democracy only means rights of Hindu majority. Hence, the shame-ness that is being veneered doesn’t fully cloak the truth that burgoes underneath.

By: Jhon Smith

Jhon Smith — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:22:45 +0000

WORD

By: Hari Singh

Hari Singh — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:20:09 +0000

If democracies do not engage in state terrorism, then perhaps no country on earth including USA is democratic. We have to keep the democratic and human rights issues separate.
I am all for bringing India accountable for its human rights abuses during its counter-insurgency operations. However, we should not start an anti-India tirade as this article certainly does by calling it a sham democracy. India is certainly is a genuine democracy in which parliament is supreme and national elections are held to form the government. Had there been any military coup or overthrow of government by revolution to impose dictatorial regime for indefinite time? Therefore, in case it has proven that India has the ability to work as democratic. However, I do believe that most of the poor people in India believe that government in India is oppressive rather than sympathizer. Perhaps, this is next challenge before India that it can bring development which is inclusive of all groups.

By: H Singh

H Singh — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:21:41 +0000

India is successful in creating a sham veneer to cloak the crimes of Hindu India.

India denies Sikhs to be Sikhs and enforces Hindu Laws on Sikhs as a national policy yet the Hindu Propagandists spread the absurdity that India accepts all people.

By: Gus

Gus — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:22:04 +0000

india is democracy but Indian leaderships is stupid and only focussed in politics and petty vote getting…

Indian media if they bring all this to Indian people’s attention then these cheats and self serving beurocrats and politicians of india will look into…

India is democracy ..Yes . it accepts diff. religion people on top..yes , but then all these are to stay in power. If musharaff can win elections for them..these indian leaders will fall on his feet…

By: Jodha

Jodha — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:50:27 +0000

US Democrat, Michael Steele is now the Chairman of the RNC, while Howard Dean is the Chairman of the DNC. That must mean that the RNC is much more sensitive about race than the DNC. Right? Easy answers to easy questions: On the Sikh PM - he was not elected, but selected for the seat. The reason he was selected, because was essentially because he could not even win a regional election and is filling the seat until Sonia Gandhi's son, the heir-apparent Rahul Gandhi is ready to continue the feudal Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. On the Italian-born Catholic woman power-player - if merely marrying into the Nehru-Gandhi family is the only requisite for political power and becoming a 'power-player' in India, it seems we have a feudal dynasty in place Then you, asked:

If that isn’t a democracy for you, what is, dude?

Answer: Democracies don't engage in 'state terrorism' against its own citizenry. Shouldn't we hold India to this standard?

By: US Democrat

US Democrat — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:18:30 +0000

India’s current PM is a Sikh gentleman (accomplished economics scholar). An Italian-born Catholic woman is a power player. Until recently, it had Muslim gentleman (a highly accomplished physicist) as its President. All of this in an 80% Hindu majority country. If that isn’t a democracy for you, what is, dude?