Now "laws" are essentially tools that citizens of a nation to ensure that disputes amongst each other eighter do not occur, or get resolved if they occur, so that each citizen can move ahead, and waste only the minimal time in disputes. Now compare US and India. US is a nation of 25cr citizens, and India has some 100cr citizens. US uses far better tools i.e. laws, which reduce the nuimber of disputes and enables the citizenry to resolve them speedily and FAIRLY. While India uses out-dated laws, in which probability of disputes happening is much higher, and resolution is slow-paced and very unfair. As a result, the "first group of 25 cr individuals", namely US, is progressing at a much much faster pace than "second group of 100cr individuals" namely India. In international politics, such imbalance in progress can mean death. To understand international politics, I will give two analogies --- the analogy of ocean, and analogy of Bihar.
In contrast, due to our slow/unfair laws, the industries are moving at snail pace, and practical engineering skills remain low. And due to slow/unfair tax laws, the collection is low, and agains thanks to slow/unfair laws, siphoning via corruption and diversion via lobbying is high. As a result, the military of India is highly under-equipped compared to West. What happened in Iraq can be easily explained by ocean-nanalogy and Bihar-analogy. In terms of military, the US is 100ft long fish while Iraq was just 1ft long. Despite all the oil and money, Iraqies never built advanced weapons that can deter a 100ft long fish. So it became lunch. Now what happened in Iraq, can also happen in India, unless India also harvests a powerful military, which is pssoible ONLY if India's laws become fast/fair, at least as fast/fair as those of US/West. A comparison with history may be worthwhile. In 1600s, there were several significant changes in UK's democratic setup (namely Jury System) due to which political inequality reduced, and fairness/speed of its court and administration increased. And with that, UK's industry and military also started growing. And it started waging wars with France, Spain etc. But by 1700s, those countries too had become strong enough that UK could no longer defeat them. As the rule of ocean goes, a 10ft fish may drop the idea of devoring 5ft fish, and instead prey on 1ft fish. UK dropped the idea of defeating France, Spain, Germany etc and started taking over weaker nations like African countries, India, Middle Eas countries, South East Asian countries etc. By 1700s, UK had become so strong, in terms of discipline, advanced weaponery and taxtics, that mere group of some 5000 to 10000 soldiers of East India Comoany could defeat an army of 500000 of Siraj-ud-Duala. Basically, that gap between speed/fairness of English law and the then Indian laws (of 1700s) had grown so wide, that while UK was progressing at a frantic pace, India was moving sluggishly. As a result, UK had become a 10ft fish, while Indian states were just 1ft fish. UK devored India. The history is repeating itself --- India's laws remain slow/unfair while those in US/West are much faster/fairer. Hence, higher progress of US/west and far far stronger military. Unless India makes her laws faster/fairer, the possibility of re-enslavement is now real, given the Iraq example. |