Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeng_xinren
In my opinion, we had different systems because we had different history. If British did not colonize India, you probably will not have your today's system. Therefore, we need to look at things in a historic perspective.
I agree that economical development can never be a substitute for Human Rights. But I think that they help each other in sometime or historic period.
I repeat one more time, I consider that child malnutrition rate, infancy mortality rate and literate rate are part of the human right.
Do you agree with me on the above statement? Don't you agree that those are part of the human right?
Please read the second post you cited in #33.
|
dont get me wrong
but i believe indian democracy was hard fought for by indians rather than the commonly perceived that democracy was britain's gift to india (for the brits post war india is like what iraq is to america today - they wanted to get out ASAP)
i understand what u mean when u say that malnutrition, infant mortality must be reduced and literacy rates must increase but can u accuse a govt of being ignorant of its people need if it doesn't have the economic means of achieving the? (indian govt though i believe odes have the the economic means to deliver some of these goods and services )