Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Behind The Continued Poor Governance in India

Behind The Continued Poor Governance in India

Ever wonder why there is still so much corruption, poor planning, inefficiency, malnutrition and other manifestations of poor governance in India?

It is meant to be that way.

Got it? Yes.. it is intentional. It has little to do with democracy, IQ, caste, cultural norms or any other of the myriad excuses offered for the abysmal governance seen in India.

Let me explain that concept in some detail. Throughout history, India rarely lacked the human and material resources for prosperity. Indeed, most of India had a reasonably stable and prosperous existence from at least 300 BC to 10-13th century AD. Sure, it was a period with much stagnation- but the living standard and quality of life for your average person was pretty good, especially when compared to so-called “high IQ” parts of the world like Europe, China and much of the Middle East. Read accounts of travelers from China and the Middle East during that period and you do not see much talk of poverty, dishonesty or bad governance.

So what happened?

Muslim incursions from the 11-12th century onwards, reaching their maxima in the 1500s, created a lot of strife and problems in India. However the most unfortunate legacy of muslims in India was their effect of the structure of governance.

Prior to muslim invasions of India, the ‘governor’ and ‘governed’ had similar interests and a symbiotic relationship. The relationship between muslims and non-muslims in India, unfortunately, had far more similarity to that between a parasite and its host. Moreover, many of the more sociopathic Indians collaborated with muslims in furthering this exploitation.

Therefore, the relationship between the ‘governor’ and the ‘governed’ became one between a voracious sociopathic parasite and an unwilling host. Even Hindu kings and regents from later eras, with a few exceptions, ruled in this mould. The ‘governors’ always wanted to keep the ‘governed’ as poor, insecure and miserable as possible.

The British took over from the local feudal lords during a collapse in the Indian political scene in the late 1700s. They also recruited the very same people who had played ‘governors’ in earlier eras- thereby perpetuating the abusive nature of governance. In any case, they were merely interested in extracting revenue, resources and gold from India.

Many people believe that the Indian freedom movements were led by people who wanted a modernized India. The reverse is true- as the majority of those who led India’s freedom struggle were sons and daughters of the old elite who were unhappy about the British stealing their birthright to exploit, abuse and pauperize average Indians.

So when India got its independence in 1947 (because of the “effects” of ww2 on Britain) the direction of governance was regressive- apart from some modernization meant to benefit the old elites and their underlings. The political leadership and administrative scum got what they always wanted.. their old fiefdoms.

Therefore any real change in India will require many dead politicians and death camps for ALL non-entry level bureaucrats. China partially achieved this as an unintended consequence of their cultural revolution.


  1. MeMyselfI
    April 11, 2011 at 6:38 am

    Gee… universal outcome – the sociopaths dominate the non-sociopaths. Who’d a thunk it?

  2. Columnist
    April 11, 2011 at 8:58 am

    “The relationship between muslims and non-muslims in India, unfortunately, had far more similarity to that between a parasite and its host.”

    That is hate speech. You can be jailed for that in many areas of the world.

    LOL.. Good point.

    But one of the problems of our era has been the unwillingness to talk about uncomfortable points of view.

  3. April 12, 2011 at 12:14 am

    The Islamic rulers of India never cared about their non-Muslim Indian subjects, except maybe one of the Mongol padishahs. All they cared was to extract from them jizya and kharaj.

  4. DoesNotMatter
    April 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Good Post! How do you suggest we achieve some dead politicians? Let’s talk about “How it can be done” rather than “what should be done”. We’ve had enoigh of should.

    I have written about that before, for example-


    • DoesNotMatter
      April 13, 2011 at 8:08 am

      What you’ve written about is dealing with people who come into contact with you. A politician hardly comes into contact with you. Neither does a high level bureaucrat. How the hell are we supposed to achieve their dead-ness? Become suicide bombers?

  5. commie.basher
    April 26, 2011 at 6:24 am

    Even the united states had had lots of corruption, bad governance etc., How would you explain that ?

  6. May 18, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    So most of the Indian freedom fighters were just in it for themselves…just like Gandhi (hagiographers notwithstanding). I’ve read some articles on this subject, but Stefan Molyneux sums this up better.

    • hoipolloi
      May 21, 2016 at 10:40 am

      @ehrgeiz0: I watched the 42 minutes of the Gandhi YouTube by Stefan Molyneux posted by you. To put it mildly, it is malicious propaganda. It does not diminish the stature of Mahatma Gandhi even a bit. Please consider the following:

      India was not ruled by Moghuls for 800 years as the video says several times. They ruled for may be 200-250 years.

      The video totally misinterprets Gandhi’s reaction to British interference with dalit’s civil rights. The British wanted to divide and rule Indian society by dividing 20% dalits as a separate nation and give them separate voter registration. Gandhi went on fasting protesting that Hindus are one nation. I have never heard any dalit leader blaming Gandhi for this. Even today dalits have 20% reservation in Indian parliament and a chunk of high government jobs (at IAS level) are reserved for them on a yearly basis for the last 60 years. This is all due to Gandhi’s efforts. What British tried was separate but equal designation between two caste groups which is morally repugnant. That is what southern whites wanted for blacks in the U.S., segregation and separate but equal status which the supreme court did not allow.

      In the 4,000 year history of ill treatment of dalits in the Indian society (give or take a thousand), Gandhi is the only leader who took up the cause of dalits and achieved results. I can’t think of any historical figure, including Dr. Ambedkar, who did as much as Gandhi to emancipate the dalits. Let us not throw the baby with the bath water.

      This kind of proves my point about the futility of this video.

  1. April 13, 2011 at 6:28 pm
  2. April 17, 2011 at 1:12 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: