- Simarjit Kaur
- United Kingdom
This conversation is closed.
Why is the world's largest democray, India, unable to evolve positively in its human rights its identity?
I wonder How a country that is described as the world's largest democracy, like India, can at this point in time execute a political dissident, a political refugee like Professor Bhullar, despite the lead judge Justice Shah, finding him not guilty, because he went up against the police to investigate 42 missing students who disappeared at the hands of the police in 1992
Is it possible for India to look back and create justice after the genocide of the sikhs in 1984-94, after the genocides in Nagaland of the christian miniorities and its military occupation, after the military occupation of Kashmir and police states in Assam.
A country that created ideologists like MK Gandhi and a country where three major religions of the world: hinduism, buddhism and sikhism were born?
How can the world's largest democracy create more justice in its own land as it emerges as a rising nation? If it does not evolve in human rights then is it an emerging nation?
Without an evolution of human rights can it really be called the world's largest democracy despite its electoral system?
Why are young Indian citizens so nationalistic and the media falling prey to extreme right wing views? Will this mean a more democratic, open India?
Where has the vision for MK Gandhi's humanity gone? Was it ever there- there have been political commentators who have shown that even MK Gandhi's vision was for a Hindu nation.
How do we as global activists create positive change in countries we come from or in countries where political dissidency is a crime?
How can global activists really effect change?