The level of corruption in India is beyond belief - and the issue is not just with the politicians. The general populace itself is extremely corrupt.
It does not help that the dominant religion thinks of truth and morality as extremely subjective.
All of this leads to a very low trust society where each person is only for themselves and their families. So it is not at all surprising that the biggest cities where people live in extremely densely populated clusters turn out to be extremely unlivable places.
You'd think so, but things are a LOT worse in the country's rural/sparser spaces in every aspect. Urban citizens are at least mostly self-aware, and high population density in cities has some dampening effect to prevent most of the social bads from going beyond intolerable limits.
It all stems from the general phenomenon of Indians still being stuck in the subsistence mindset - including those who don't need to. This is because 1) unlike the US and Europe, (almost all of) India has never had a nontrivial period of continuous and consistent economic security, and 2) The country has a MASSIVE load of "liability" population of a size ridiculously disproportionate to the "asset" population, despite having the largest youth count in the world.
India is one of the very rare wonder countries that would have fared much better (nonviolently) balkanized.
You’ve gone from corruption (which I agree with) to something about dominant religion thinking of truth and morality as subjective ( which is debatable as you have cited nothing - infact seems like it’s your opinion and nothing else) to low trust ( which I agree with). What’s the logical link to cities being unlivable? The article says that mayors and councillors lack powers which is the major problem.
Not sure about the subjective part though I feel that the OP is right.
My experience growing up in India is that we are extremely tolerant of corruption and self aggrandisement. In fact, people speak of envy and admiration of folks working in govt who even takes bribes even to issue death and birth certificate.
The corruption of the profession of teachers and doctors is something I've witnessed myself. In just the last 20 years, no one in my village shows any respect for both of them. Things were very different when I was a kid.
Personally I do believe that ours is a very cynical, low trust and 'corrupt' society. Though southern India is much better than North (especially the Ganges planes).
I grew up in South India and spent a lot of my adulthood in the North, and I don't think the South is much better. It's different in many ways, which makes some people think it's better, but it's just as corrupt and messed up.
Your politician is as corrupt as any, but people have more trust among each other. It's far easier for women to go out alone, camp outside in the night. It's getter better as you go more south. Not sure about AP/Telangana though!
The culture of selfishness, cheating and corruption IS a major factor in making a city unlivable. I've lived for a long time in a city somewhere in between on such scale, here are my observations:
Trash and graffiti are directly proportional to the levels of selfishness of the population. At the extreme point there are those horror videos of rivers covered in trash and trash mountains near residential buildings.
Grassroots organization of building inhabitants into an org which collect fees and is responsible for the building maintenance and cleaning is impossible below certain level of egoism of the citizens.
Disregard for the neighbors leads to the same disregard by the officials and thus abandonment of investing of the public transit. It then degrades or stays at trash tier and everyone tarts buying cars. Those cars are then parked everywhere, completely destroying all lawns near housing and near offices. Sidewalks are blocked by parked cars too.
In some cities egoistic citizens are burning trash for heating (it's cheap) and pollute air for millions living in the city.
Officials work expecting bribes and nothing is done without greasing someone's pocket.
And the list goes on and on. At a certain point just visiting a city populated by the more empathetic people, or at least governed by such, becomes a revelation. Especially if such city is poorer by the numbers, so makes do with less.
If you believe that what is wrong for others is right for you (subjective morality), you can find ways to do whatever you want to do irrespective of the negative consequences to others.
Combine this with the idea that people are born poor / disadvantaged because of their sins from the previous birth and now you can justify anything you do to them - including making them work in slave-like conditions.
These types of thinking has consequences that you cannot simply wish away.
I agree on the first paragraph. But the second is out of touch with how people think about Hinduism in India, it's a mistake many people in the west seem to make with regards to it. It is not like Abrahmic religions where there are mandated precepts with regards to sins, it's closer to eastern religions in a way. That is all to say, most people do not think of Hinduism, and its being open to various truths, on a day to day basis that then informs how they traverse the world. It's all cultural, a backdrop. There is no "Catholic guilt" type phenomenon from people growing up being told certain things are bad and then feeling bad when they do them.
Hinduism is really not thought of for the vast majority of people beyond festivals and it does not inform their corruption. That corruption exists due primarily to economic conditions, to get ahead of others due to the population. You see the same phenomenon in China which decidedly does not have Hinduism.
In every country in every region everyone will only look after themselves and their families, and their community. To the degree which they do this, is the degree to which a punishment is to be expected and enforced, and the degree to which the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
The topic of Indian history is beyond my depth, but conjectures and conjectures on the inferiority of other people in regards to their own, coming from an Ivory tower, are the common vice of the westerner, historically.
Take away power tripping officers that would turn you into swiss cheese for smiling, add more precarity, colonialism, bring in a couple of nation wide disasters, the great depression was a play field, in comparison, and suddenly people would bold up, people would have to adapt to survive, sometimes at the expense of being civic, and the culture would change, it has to.
Yes, those poor Indians living in precarity are the same as any westerner. No, not everyone in India is trying to rob their way to freedom.
My conjecture, unlike yours, that I'm unable to state as matter of fact out of respect to mine and other's intelligence, is that colonialism and famine is more likely to be the culprit behind a take-to-get-ahead culture, of course the first is never the culprit.
It's funny I never noticed anything in Hinduism that would claim truth or morality are subjective. Can you list —I don't know— some Upanishad or the Baghavad Gita? I was always under the impression that the Indian mess was a side-effect of centuries of British rule traumatizing society.
You just have to look at the Hindu scriptures such as Manusmriti, Skanda Purana etc where it is clearly mentioned that what is right/wrong is determined by the caste that you are born into and that it is actually a sin to perform the duties (dharma) of a caste that you aren't born into - which is the crux of the argument that Krishna made to Arjuna in the Bhagwat Gita.
Links:
Skanda Purana on the punishments for actions from the previous births - special emphasis on what happens to people who killed or mistreated Brahmins in their previous births.. note that, it doesn't mandate these punishments for killing lower castes.
Bhagwad Gita 4:13 - Talks about Krishna have created the 4 castes.
Bhagwad Gita 18:41-43 - The different duties assigned to the different castes
Bhagwad Gita 18:47 - "It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions."
For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. (Manu's code I-31,)*
God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91) Manu is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudras to be expressed in the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says:*
Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaishyas with wealth but a Shudra’s express something contemptible. (Manu II. 31.)*
The second part of a Brahmin’s name shall be a word implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s (a word) implying protection, of a Vaishya’s a term expressive of thriving and of a Shudra’s an expression denoting service. (Manu II. 32.)*
A hundred year old Kshatriya must treat a ten year old Brahmin boy as his father. (Manu 11-135)*
The Brahmin should never invite persons of other varnas for food. In case, the latter begs the Brahmin for food, the Brahmin may give them some left-over. Even these left-over must be served not by the Brahmin but by his servants outside the house. (Manu II2).*
He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha. (Manu III. 156.)*
A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra.It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81)*
"Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudras." (Manu IV. 61)*
He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras. (Manu IV. 99.)*
Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed. (Manu VIII-20 to 22)*
A Brahmana who is only a Brahman by decent i.e., one who has neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may, at the king’s pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e., act as the judge, but never a Shudra (however learned he may be). (Manu VIII. 20.)*
The Kingdom of that monarch, who looks on while a Shudra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in the morass. (Manu VIII. 21.)*
Any Brahmin, who enslaves or tries to enslave a Brahmin, is liable for a penalty of no less than 600 PANAS. A Brahmin can order a Shudra to serve him without any remuneration because the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins. Even if a Brahmin frees a Shudra from slavery the Shudra continues to be a slave as he is created for slavery. Nobody has the right to free him. (Manu VIII-50,56 and 59)*
A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII. 270.)*
If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth. (Manu VIII. 271.)*
If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears. Manu VIII. 272.)*
A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher caste guarded or unguarded shall be punished n the following manner; if she was unguarded, he loses the offending part; if she was guarded then he should be put to death and his property confiscated." (Manu VIII. 374.)*
A Brahman may compel a Shudra, whether bought or unbought, to do servile work for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a Brahmana. (Manu VIII. 413.)*
No Shudra should have property of his own, He should have nothing of his own. The existence of a wealthy Shudra is bad for the Brahmins. A Brahman may take possession of the goods of a Shudra. (ManuVIII-417 & X129)*
A Brahman may seize without hesitation, if he be in distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one occupation. This is one of the inexorable laws of Manu. says Manu. (Manu VIII. 417)*
A Shudra who wants to just fill his stomach may serve a Vaishya. If he wants a permanent means of living he can serve a Kshatriya. But if he wants to go to heaven or wants higher or superior birth in the next generation he must serve a Brahmin. (ManuIX334 & 335)*
The most sacred duty of a Shudra is to serve the Brahmins, always, reciting the words "Brahman" with utmost devotion. Such a Shudra will get salvation. Otherwise he will die a worst death and will go to the worst hell. (Manu X-121)*
But let a (Shudra) serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next) for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends. (Manu X. 122.)*
The service of Brahmans alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Shudra for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (Manu X. 123.)*
They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support. (Manu X. 124.)*
Brahmins to give Shudras food leftovers, old torn clothes, spoiled grain and old utensils (Manu X-125)*
No superfluous collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he has power to make it, since a servile man, who has amassed riches, becomes proud, and, by his insolence or neglect, gives pain to Brahmins. (Manu X. 129.*
*A Brahmin shall never beg from a Shudra, property for (performing) a sacrifice i.e., for religious purposes. All marriages with the Shudra were prescribed. Marriage with a woman belonging to any of three other classes was forbidden.
So are you claiming that Manusmriti is not valid? Manusmriti explains the rules of how castes interact. I have already given specific quotes from the Bhagwad Gita about Dharma being tied to caste.. you call it varna but even the sankaracharya from Govardhan Mutt says there is really not much of a difference between varna and jati.
> So are you claiming that Manusmriti is not valid?
Another bad faith argument. The topic in question is Bhagwat Gita not Manusmriti. Filling 3/4 of your comment with quotes from Manusmriti makes you disingenuous to say the least. And yes, Manusmriti is indeed irrelevant for most Hindus.
> I have already given specific quotes from the Bhagwad Gita about Dharma being tied to caste.
Which I have replied to and don't support your initial claim, even with bad faith interpretation.
> sankaracharya from Govardhan Mutt
I don't know who this person is, But the articles I linked in my previous comment interpret Varna tied to abilities not based on birth.
Is there a source of truth which states which jati belongs to which Varna?
There are many of castes which do not cleanly belong one Varna including my own.
> Just saying that I am saying this in "bad faith" doesn't make it so.
To remind you of your initial claim
> that it is actually a sin to perform the duties (dharma) of a caste that you aren't born into
> which is the crux of the argument that Krishna made to Arjuna in the Bhagwat Gita.
To justify your claims, you had to refer to quotes from Manusmriti. That is why I called you bad faith.
I am assuming that the downvotes are less about the fact that your parent comment is wrong, and more about the fact that the grandparent is not "categorically" false. It has some accurate aspects, but cannot be easily dismissed away.
A lot of accommodation to context (NOT subjectivity) in ethical considerations in many of the Indian epics and religious texts, which a lot of western-oriented viewers who've grown up with more black-and-white mentalities regarding good and bad might view as corruption. Add to that a preference for oral retellings of such topics, and viewpoints start differing regarding the same topic even within the same country. However, deeper readings of the same might tell them that concepts of duty and truth are still paramount, which kind of negate the argument.
It's far easier, however, for critics to think that citizens tend to cherry-pick the arguments in such texts which somehow might justify bad actions, while ignoring the importance of personal duty, honor and search of truth. And thus, it's easier for said critics to blame things on the subjectivity of said religion instead of looking at the context, and call it a day. But there's more to the argument than that; you also need to consider the history of the land, major events, and economic and social patterns which have nothing to do with religion. You also need to consider that some individual states which have the religion as dominant are institutionally much stronger than other weaker states; also, the "extreme subjective morality" part is also prevalent in some other religions, and the countries they dominate are not necessarily corrupt.
> I am assuming that the downvotes are less about the fact that your parent comment is wrong, and more about the fact that the grandparent is not "categorically" false. It has some accurate aspects, but cannot be easily dismissed away.
First, the parent comment just stated that out as fact without any argument or evidence, so I don't feel the need to provide any of my own to dismiss it. As the old adage goes, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Then, if it was just that I asserted that the GGP was wrong (which they are, 100%), then the sibling comment asking for more evidence wouldn't also be in the negatives, which it is at the time I write this.
The simpler idea is this: GGP (or someone like them) is just downvoting people calling out their orientalist woo about "[Hiduism] thinks of truth and morality as extremely subjective", which is simply false. The only "strains" of Hinduism that you could even remotely argue have relativistic worldviews are ancient philosophies that are not held by any practicing Hindu today, so even with whatever you're arguing their statement, as written, is categorically false. It's like saying Christianity is a mystical religion because the Gnostics existed.
I'm assuming the rest of your comment is written by AI because it sounds like AI, so I'm not going to bother responding to that.
Providing a link to Manusmriti as evidence. Before you trash it, saying that the Manusmriti is not relevant - may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti.
> you claim that I am wrong - but you provide no evidence whatsoever.
You didn't provide any evidence either, so before you cry foul start with an actual argument.
> In Hinduism, dharma is prescribed based on the person's caste and so also the punishments
How is this implying "truth and morality [is] extremely subjective"? If one's dharma varies by caste, does that mean "truth" is "extremely subjective"? The degree to which one's duty, and therefore morals, vary by caste is also not such that murder is good for anyone. In the Gita, Arjuna's caste is mentioned as why killing in war is his duty, but it is also clearly stated that doesn't mean any murder is allowed. There is a clear and consistent undercurrent to the morality in Hinduism. Does dharma changing by caste mean the sun doesn't rise in the east for some castes? You're implying corruption is caused by "truth and morality" being subjective, but does Hinduism therefore imply that being corrupt is okay for some castes?
> may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti.
This is straight up false - your article itself says that they were arrested for the confrontation that followed the event, not for any religious intolerance.
E: I just want to add - caste and casteism are evil and vile.
> Before you trash it, saying that the Manusmriti is not relevant - may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti.
I haven't met anyone who actually read about Manusmriti. I don't think most Hindus know about what is in it.
Few people few going to jail in one state doesn't make Manusmriti valid. Most states in India have their own language and their own distinct culture.
Saying that most Hindus haven't read the Manusmriti is similar to saying that most Muslims haven't read the Shariah law; because the ignorance of the majority doesn't mean that there isn't sufficient support on the ground for its implementation.
And also, the RSS - the ideologues behind the current Indian govt, have expressly stated their support for the Manusmriti. In their magazine Organiser, RSS expressly stated their opposition to the current Indian constitution because it did not include the laws of Manu from the Manusmriti.
https://sabrangindia.in/how-rss-denigrated-constitution/
> I'm assuming the rest of your comment is written by AI because it sounds like AI, so I'm not going to bother responding to that.
Should I also assume that you're going to just dismiss stuff you do not want to talk about as "written by AI"? Nothing I wrote was AI-generated. I have better stuff to spend AI tokens on than HN comments, of all things.
I also believe that the downvoting people have a bent towards the "orientalist woo", and getting them to put their bias into words and fact/evidenced-based discussion is expecting too much out of smaller minds, but it's not as unfounded as you think it is.
> ancient philosophies that are not held by any practicing Hindu today
You'd be surprised as to how much these ancient philosophies (or whatever translations/strains people ascribe to) still hold fort. I've seen people debating them in Indian management classes, and hold them as closer to fact instead of ancient opinions.
For instance, the Brahmins - the highest caste, are the priests and the teachers. They are allowed to perform religious rituals, to study the scriptures etc but lower castes are not allowed to do these things.
Fact is, even now, in many parts of India lower castes may even be stopped from entering temples.
Coming back to the subject of duties - tasks such as cleaning etc are assigned to the lower castes and the upper castes look down on the lower castes who perform these duties. This may explain why India struggles with hygiene and cleanliness.
Now, apart from the whole subject of duties being tied to a person's caste, Hindu scriptures also prescribe very different punishments for the same crime with the upper castes getting the least punishment.
Also, intermarriage or intermixing between castes is discouraged in the Hindu scriptures.
Of course, over the years with greater education, more western influence etc, the hold of the caste-based thinking has reduced but it is still quite strong.
But if people start to understand this they'll start to understand how their interpretation of Gandhi was total bullshit. That Gandhi in reality wasn't against violence, in fact the was pro-violence. He was above violence. I believe he said at one point that he sees violence as one way to achieve an outcome. Not the only way, ideally not the best way, but sometimes necessary. As in, he wants violence done, but not by him, and not against him or any Brahmin. He, personally, shouldn't be anywhere near it. He is not a man of peace, he is a general sipping tea over maps, hundreds of kilometers from the front.
I mean Gandhi achieved a lot. Just not by peaceful means. Multiple millions died in the partition wars, giving Gandhi what he wanted (ie. India). He just wasn't directly involved in the killings (I mean, yes, arguably only Pakistan was, but ...) Hell, it's even true that he actively tried to prevent it and succeeded in some of that ... with more violence.
> Also, intermarriage or intermixing between castes is discouraged in the Hindu scriptures.
That's putting things mildly. Very mildly. There are prescribed punishments.
First and foremost majority of people need to agree that there is a problem and it needs solving. Most people living in urban cities are too busy to just survive and fulfil the basic needs, they dont have time to think of pollution, corruption, devolution etc , ironically so. A leading tv news host even said India is already a developed country and when he lands in Mumbai traveling back from London he feels as if he coming from a developing country to a developed country. If majority of educated city dwelling folks now feel there is no problem in India and never challenge the status quo then there is nothing to be improved. Many are happy to just live in the unliveable cities simply thinking its better than their neighbours at the very minimum. Where will the outrage come from.
Secondly, the government does its best to distract people from questioning about such basic issues. They seem to be busy capturing more power and delivering so called growth for the sake of it and very good at advertising every single thing they have done (and yes some progress has been seen in last 20 years). Ever since the current government is in power noone has been allowed to challenge any of their decisions or lack thereof. Also outrage or questioning the authorities is now seen as a anti-national sentiment.
Becoming? They were always unliveable. The difference is that the dysfunction is a lot more visible than before, and even then it was a disaster. The problem is that in India things tend to get very visibly worse before they get _much_ better, and then there are other things that pop up which are also visibly bad; the cycle goes on. It is highly likely of our current problems will get solved in the next 20 years, only to be replaced with other problems of a similar magnitude, and thus the country will keep getting tagged as unlivable even though efforts do get made.
This is primarily because most of the problems have their roots in the very flexible mindset Indians tend to adopt; it's basically the antithesis of the "Deutsche Bahn" issue pointed out in another HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46419970.
The air quality issue alone is mind-boggling. The air quality index nominally tops out at 500, corresponding to 'hazardous.' Major Indian cities blow past this threshold on a regular basis in the winter months. In Delhi, poor air quality is responsible for one in seven deaths annually [0]. People born in Delhi now are estimated to lose 8-12 years in life expectancy, depending on the study [1]. This is the norm for now, but it's hard to imagine how much worse things can get.
I was in India for a wedding a few years back and spent a couple days in New Delhi. I remember stepping out into the 6AM brisk morning air and feeling like I was going to cough up a lung.
It tasted like what I imagine a finely aged glass of acid rain would taste like.
You know how when you open the weather app on your phone, in normal places it says things like: sunny, cloudy, rainy? The weather app just showed SMOKE (this was an actual weather report).
This is partially a result of agricultural burning in the surrounding states which is one of the fastest (and cheapest) ways to clear out the fields for the next crop.
New York City is not just financial capital of the US but also the world.
San Francisco is not just technological capital of the US but also the world.
Inspite of that, NYC and SFO both with far less population cannot solve crime and human poop problem. But the scumbags expect India to solve all its problems in spite of massive population and loot and wars waged against India in the last 1000 years.
Furthermore China had the same issues not more than 20 years ago and US cities had unlivable air quality including California before 1970s Clean Air Act. Even rivers were on fire at point in the US. Google the pictures.
Will the same scumbags recite American or Chinese manusmriti and their dominant religions as the root cause?
It does not help that the dominant religion thinks of truth and morality as extremely subjective.
All of this leads to a very low trust society where each person is only for themselves and their families. So it is not at all surprising that the biggest cities where people live in extremely densely populated clusters turn out to be extremely unlivable places.
reply