• 5 Posts
  • 102 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle











  • The problem is that India has many local languages. So you need one language, equally foreign to everyone (so no one has an unfair advantage) for things like federal laws, national-level competitive exams and inter-state communication (each state is, in theory, composed of the people speaking one language). English conveniently fits that bill.

    We almost had civil war in the 1960s over this. The compromise was that (1) India has no national language, (2) all federal documents would be in both English and Hindi (the biggest Indian language) and (3) all schools must teach any three languages, including English.








  • Countries do not have, or lose, interest in doing this or that on a whim. The British government agreed to Indian independence because continued large-scale protests were making it difficult to profitably exploit India’s natural resources, and the home economy (and army) were in a state of rebuilding after WW2. Also, there was diplomatic pressure from the two superpowers to end colonialism.

    Russia claims to be concerned with (1) Ukraine joining NATO, and (2) the treatment of the Russian minority in Ukraine. (In addition, Putin is probably using this war to rally domestic support, and weaken / arrest the opposition.) Would either of these concerns have been assuaged by a stronger Ukrainian military?

    Again, I am not saying that violence should never be used. The Nazis, clearly, had to be defeated militarily. France had to be driven out of Vietnam. But violence should always be the last option. And the buildup of weapons encourages politicians to respond to any problem with force, which just makes things worse for everyone.