Pashtuns United

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Germans were also apart of the Imperial game were they not? And you prove my point really, Nationalism is a European concept, so it's assocations with Imperialism cannot be denied.

Not at the time they espoused this nationalism. Obviously they can't be imperialistic towards their own, it would defeat the point of nationalism. BTW what are your parameters of imperialism? From what I take it is particularly concerned with Colonialism, right?

That is an unfair statement. Just because two ideas or parts of history came from a common origin (Europe) does not imply that both are inter-related. Where is the historical proof for this? Which one influences the other more (if they can)? For the good portion of the past 400-500 years have been influenced by Europe or people of European descent...should they all be related to imperialism by default?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Not at the time they espoused this nationalism. Obviously they can't be imperialistic towards their own, it would defeat the point of nationalism. BTW what are your parameters of imperialism? From what I take it is particularly concerned with Colonialism, right?

That is an unfair statement. Just because two ideas or parts of history came from a common origin (Europe) does not imply that both are inter-related. Where is the historical proof for this? Which one influences the other more (if they can)? For the good portion of the past 400-500 years have been influenced by Europe or people of European descent...should they all be related to imperialism by default?

Well Germany didnt invent Nationalism; Johan Gottfried Herder merely coined the term.

This is what Britannica rights

nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history. Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour. Actually, the American and French revolutions may be regarded as its first powerful manifestations. After penetrating the new countries of Latin America it spread in the early 19th century to central Europe and from there, toward the middle of the century, to eastern and southeastern Europe. At the beginning of the 20th century nationalism flowered in the ancient lands of Asia and Africa. Thus the 19th century has been called the age of nationalism in Europe, while the 20th century has witnessed the rise and struggle of powerful national movements throughout Asia and Africa.

So is it all just a COINCIDENCE that in places colonized by Europeans that Nationalism spread under this idea where the Europeans automatically demarcated Asia, the Middle East and Africa?

My definition of Imperialism is exploitational hegemony.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

He was a german right? Obviously a state does not unilaterally create an idea that would most likely predate its existence. You need nationalism before you get a nation-state.

Also don't confuse things Scimitar. Those countries gained their liberation from their colonial masters. How are you, in that regard, mixing the two together. They were colonized, started a struggle to overthrow them and in some instances were successful.
Europe's demarcation of Africa and Middle-east had little to do with say a nation's desire for freedom or nationalism (if we can use the term loosely)...it had to do with interests of the colonial powers (i.e. scramble for Africa and in the case of middle east the Sykes-Picout agreement). What are you trying to get at?

[ScimitarXEdge]

He was a german right? Obviously a state does not unilaterally create an idea that would most likely predate its existence. You need nationalism before you get a nation-state.

Also don't confuse things Scimitar. Those countries gained their liberation from their colonial masters. How are you, in that regard, mixing the two together. They were colonized, started a struggle to overthrow them and in some instances were successful.
Europe's demarcation of Africa and Middle-east had little to do with say a nation's desire for freedom or nationalism (if we can use the term loosely)...it had to do with interests of the colonial powers (i.e. scramble for Africa and in the case of middle east the Sykes-Picout agreement). What are you trying to get at?

Him being German doesn't equate to Germans developing Nationalism; he just coined the term.

they gained their liberation from colonial masters?

What liberation do any of us have when we're subject to an International Global Scheme by which we must ratify our economic, political and environmental interests. We're still under colonial rule except now it's called Hegemony.


The point being when these Nation states formed; they were left with special agreements and defacto control of the socioeconomic order of the society was still in European hands. Pakistan and India are beautiful examples of this. Therefore the demarcations of National-State identities was a craft of European design , because if Europeans can make people have to compete with each other like Pashtuns competing with Punjabis and Tajiks against Pashtuns They will always be dependent on Europe or America or ant of the Capitalist Block Countries. If they were united; they'd become interdependent and no longer dependent on Europe. Hence the colonial structure still exists.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Him being German doesn't equate to Germans developing Nationalism; he just coined the term.

they gained their liberation from colonial masters?

What liberation do any of us have when we're subject to an International Global Scheme by which we must ratify our economic, political and environmental interests. We're still under colonial rule except now it's called Hegemony.


The point being when these Nation states formed; they were left with special agreements and defacto control of the socioeconomic order of the society was still in European hands. Pakistan and India are beautiful examples of this. Therefore the demarcations of National-State identities was a craft of European design , because if Europeans can make people have to compete with each other like Pashtuns competing with Punjabis and Tajiks against Pashtuns They will always be dependent on Europe or America or ant of the Capitalist Block Countries. If they were united; they'd become interdependent and no longer dependent on Europe. Hence the colonial structure still exists.

I just said that, if I initially gave a wrong impression I apologize, I probably did not word it properly. However I mentioned romantic nationalism, which basically started with the individual gottfried. Having said that, nationalism is no longer a single monnolithic terminology and has different sub groups such as ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism, etc.
Well there some truth and relevance to what you said, no doubt. However, you are mixing and matching events in history when it suits your thesis. The supposed "imperialistic structure" is not some concrete entity, and has changed hands. The latin american countries drove out their Iberian rulers, and then as time went by the US became the policy maker in the region. Similarly, there was once a capitalist bloc but realistically no longer exist. Today's system is not capitalist by any measure. It may have certain attributes of capitalism, but is not a capitalist system. Europeans no longer run the world, they have influence but as of now the world (at least for the nearest future) is under US hegemony. Tomorrow who knows it may be the BRIC group. Time will tell.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I just said that, if I initially gave a wrong impression I apologize, I probably did not word it properly. However I mentioned romantic nationalism, which basically started with the individual gottfried. Having said that, nationalism is no longer a single monnolithic terminology and has different sub groups such as ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism, etc.
Well there some truth and relevance to what you said, no doubt. However, you are mixing and matching events in history when it suits your thesis. The supposed "imperialistic structure" is not some concrete entity, and has changed hands. The latin american countries drove out their Iberian rulers, and then as time went by the US became the policy maker in the region. Similarly, there was once a capitalist bloc but realistically no longer exist. Today's system is not capitalist by any measure. It may have certain attributes of capitalism, but is not a capitalist system. Europeans no longer run the world, they have influence but as of now the world (at least for the nearest future) is under US hegemony. Tomorrow who knows it may be the BRIC group. Time will tell.

You're right and I wasnt trying to say it's a concrete entity; now Imperialism is less about a centralized geographic location and more now about Hegemonic Predominance.

I do see the distinct between Local/Indigenous resistance being termed Nationalism; and Nationalism. But I also see the misnomer; I think Indigenous resistance should be simply called Indigenous resistance. The Term Nationalism is an external term internalized. Just like "Afghan" was a foreign term that people internalized.

Latin American countries may have "seemingly" drove out the Iberian rulers; but Iberians remaining in Latin America still retained hegemony of Iberia and also maintained the upper crust of Latin American societies; even going as far as to persecute their Non-Latinized Indigenous people.

Samuel Huntingtons "Clash of Civilization" thesis is eye opening; in that he very accurately identifies that Europeans do in fact still retain power, U.S. is a European society; everything it holds predominately embodies extension of Europe. In Fact Europeans and Americans for the most part can be identified as a Single Block; this is what Samuel Huntingrton does. It's very accurate. NATO, European Union,

Notice all these countries which have either been galvanized, facilitated or embarked on imperialism are apart of the socioeconomic oligarchy of the world? This is no coincidence.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

You're right and I wasnt trying to say it's a concrete entity; now Imperialism is less about a centralized geographic location and more now about Hegemonic Predominance.

I do see the distinct between Local/Indigenous resistance being termed Nationalism; and Nationalism. But I also see the misnomer; I think Indigenous resistance should be simply called Indigenous resistance. The Term Nationalism is an external term internalized. Just like "Afghan" was a foreign term that people internalized.

Latin American countries may have "seemingly" drove out the Iberian rulers; but Iberians remaining in Latin America still retained hegemony of Iberia and also maintained the upper crust of Latin American societies; even going as far as to persecute their Non-Latinized Indigenous people.

Samuel Huntingtons "Clash of Civilization" thesis is eye opening; in that he very accurately identifies that Europeans do in fact still retain power, U.S. is a European society; everything it holds predominately embodies extension of Europe. In Fact Europeans and Americans for the most part can be identified as a Single Block; this is what Samuel Huntingrton does. It's very accurate. NATO, European Union,

Notice all these countries which have either been galvanized, facilitated or embarked on imperialism are apart of the socioeconomic oligarchy of the world? This is no coincidence.

Indigenous resistance in itself is quite a european term, no? There are many terms in society that are external and have been internalized, so I don't see the problem in internalizing nationalism. However like any other term or rather movement I expect to see sincerity in it, and not rhetoric (to be fair they are not the only ones and should not be sidelined continuously).

Again that is an outcome of their invasion, the entire society changed...the majority of the population is inter-mixed (bar Bolivia which I believe is indigenous and Argentina and Uruguay which are majority white).

Huntington again has one opinion of the world, and there are many others. I don't agree that they are entirely one bloc, they are culturally very similar and if we are going to be pedantic then Northern, Western Europe is closer to US, and the rest of Europe is a bloc onto itself. I doubt the Balkans, Eastern Europe would count under it.

Were, not are. Were. The only real hegemon today is US and that too doesn't look it is staying for long. France is not the power it once was and in real terms doesn't dictate to the US, and for that matter I doubt neither does any of the major countries. US, was not really a colonial power in the traditional sense. It had certain interests in Latin America and later became the worlds super power. It isn't, though, a traditionally imperialistic country per say (at least not along the lines of European states).

Do you think this socio-economic oligarchy is there to last? And who makes up this oligarchy specifically?>

[ScimitarXEdge]

Indigenous resistance in itself is quite a european term, no? There are many terms in society that are external and have been internalized, so I don't see the problem in internalizing nationalism. However like any other term or rather movement I expect to see sincerity in it, and not rhetoric (to be fair they are not the only ones and should not be sidelined continuously).

Again that is an outcome of their invasion, the entire society changed...the majority of the population is inter-mixed (bar Bolivia which I believe is indigenous and Argentina and Uruguay which are majority white).

Huntington again has one opinion of the world, and there are many others. I don't agree that they are entirely one bloc, they are culturally very similar and if we are going to be pedantic then Northern, Western Europe is closer to US, and the rest of Europe is a bloc onto itself. I doubt the Balkans, Eastern Europe would count under it.

Were, not are. Were. The only real hegemon today is US and that too doesn't look it is staying for long. France is not the power it once was and in real terms doesn't dictate to the US, and for that matter I doubt neither does any of the major countries. US, was not really a colonial power in the traditional sense. It had certain interests in Latin America and later became the worlds super power. It isn't, though, a traditionally imperialistic country per say (at least not along the lines of European states).

Do you think this socio-economic oligarchy is there to last? And who makes up this oligarchy specifically?>

Well everything we're saying is technically European; osanai mung yaw bel sara pa yurobi zhaba ki ghago kana? lol lakin der asan dai chi sakhta andeshoona pa angrezi ki wayaley shoo

But Indigenous reflects the character of the people more than Nationalism does. As the construct of being Nation is a manufactured order. Indigenous says what it does; it's indigenous.

Well you not seeing something doesn't mean that it's not there. Nationalism as a term embodies the idealizations and aspirations of European Designs, I could just as easily say Capitalist Designs, Industrial Technocracy Designs to me they're all more or less synonymous terms for more or less the same beast.

Even in Latin societies which are Mestizo there is a caste system OF SORTS; the Mestizo is generally in the middle while indigenous peoples are the lowest rung but the remnants of the Iberians who are the minority have the most sway and pull in Latin America; they're also very deeply connected to their Iberian roots. This is true even in America, where people of Anglo , Germanic or Dutch heritage are still very deeply tied to Europe.

You're right Huntington too sees a sort of separation between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. he doesn't consider Eastern Europe the West. But he says they're more akin to the West than the East. So they're 'negotiable? However Northern/Western Europe is all interwoven. Eastern Europe is "subpar" but a necessarily ally to keep the rungs on us brown (in respects to Europeans at least) skinned folk. Clearly Albania and Turkey are flung out of that mix too.

We're going in circles here; to me France, America, Britain, all different facades of the same thing. French may not have it's own unique hegemony, but North Africa still rifes under basically Franco predominances So it still exists and on that basis Francs (which is where the word farangay comes from) identifies it's interests with America's because it is essentially the same. It's not a marriage of convenience but a marriage of soulful character,

The Oligarchy can be broken down as follows

U.S.-France-Germany-Britain
then one notch down
Holland-Scandinavians-Swiss-Belgium
Then Italy-Spain-Portugal

they're a bit on the lower rung because these last few countries have strains of North African genetic permeating amongst them.

[ScimitarXEdge]

And to answer your question; I don't think it is there to last .....but we have fith columnists (to use a term many nationalists use) who want so badly for us to be aligned with it various ways; that we'll have permanent entrenchments of their ideologies, mode of thinking and mores.

I mean am I the only one here who sees the contradiction?

Take Maseed or Toramana for example; all this talk about trying to "resist" and protecting Pashtun identity one minute

next minute they're advocating that Pashtuns should start embodying artificial and deviant behavioral mores which are predominant in North America and Europe. and pretty much violates any essential set of values amongst Pashtuns. All under the Guise that Their cultures are far more Advanced (a euphemism for superior); even though much of their mores are despicable and loathsome and are actually quite ancient.

If they were merely advocating Scientific and Technological Progress then I could to some degree work with it (as long as it's not the mass production style capitalist version); but even on this issue they would try to use it to spring board altering the moral values of Pashtuns and replacing them with deviant ones popular in Modern Europe and America.

I too want to see the amendment of certain cultural/behavioral practices; But I am more consistent in that I don't claim to be a nationalist or ethnocentrist. I however do not want to replace those cultural/behavioral practices with European ones because of some absurd claim that they're "more advanced" so we copy them. But rather because some things are either corrupted forms of their original intended purpose (swara and walwar for example) and have become currently harmful in their present form. Their solution is to replace those with consuming intoxicants, women dressing up like prostitutes in public and moral looseness in general. I would never discard the essential morality of Pashtuns as that is core and has universal merit.


This sort of attitude that they possess seems to cater to the Designs of Hegemony in Asia to manufacture and mold mores which are despicable to be seemed a normative practices. This is wholly detrimental.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

How so? How does indigenous describe it better than say a generic definition of nationalism?
You could just as easily say it but that doesn't mean they are the same terminologies. Industrial technocracies are not synonymous with capitalism, there may be industrial technocracies within a capitalist society, but they are not one and the same. So technically you really can't use those terms (unless of course you have a seperate definition of capitalism and industrial technocracy). Even scholars who were more to the left like Daniel Bell discussed the idea of post-industrial societies placing a high emphasis on technocrats and academics.

In regards to your breakdown of the world "power structure" it seems to me that it is primarily race-based. And I don't see this as the case. At least not anymore. The world powers are shifting and what were once powers in the early 19th and twentieth centuries are no longer powers today.
North Africa is rife with French influence for sure, but to say that French power is at one with the rest of Europe/america as some sort of symbiotic relation I don't agree. I think to an extent their interests post-world war 2 have come together. However I don't consider them one monolithic bloc.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

In regards to Toranama or Maseed, well I can't speak for them. They can speak for themselves.

Fair enough if this is what you perceive than it is based on your understanding of the western society and your own...and how you wish to change it. And the end of the day, they have their idea of what they want their society to be, and to them they see the west as a better model to embody. I doubt their end goal is promiscuity and prostitution in society anymore than yours is a supra-arab state.

[ScimitarXEdge]

How so? How does indigenous describe it better than say a generic definition of nationalism?
You could just as easily say it but that doesn't mean they are the same terminologies. Industrial technocracies are not synonymous with capitalism, there may be industrial technocracies within a capitalist society, but they are not one and the same. So technically you really can't use those terms (unless of course you have a seperate definition of capitalism and industrial technocracy). Even scholars who were more to the left like Daniel Bell discussed the idea of post-industrial societies placing a high emphasis on technocrats and academics.

In regards to your breakdown of the world "power structure" it seems to me that it is primarily race-based. And I don't see this as the case. At least not anymore. The world powers are shifting and what were once powers in the early 19th and twentieth centuries are no longer powers today.
North Africa is rife with French influence for sure, but to say that French power is at one with the rest of Europe/america as some sort of symbiotic relation I don't agree. I think to an extent their interests post-world war 2 have come together. However I don't consider them one monolithic bloc.

Well indigenous implies an organic relationship a people tied to a certain ecological niche. It embodies natural connections to things. Where as Nationalism is some artificial bureaucracy

technocracies are at least in the defacto sense complimentary with capitalism; even if you use a loose idea of capitalism to include communism as a type of statist capitalism. Technocracy lends itself to capitalism and capitalism to technocracy, as if they were specifically organized for each other. I'm not against the use of technology in the temporal sense. I do ultimately hope mankind eventually matures one day and abandons the use of machines into something more ecologically harmonious. But for right now we need to utilize them in so much as counter balancing current power structures are concerned.

The left is not somehow the antithesis of the right. The left is just more centered in social programs where as the right wants more individual autonomy when it comes to economics. I don't see much of a difference between Obama and Bush, republicans and democrats for that matter..

The powers of the 19th and twentieth century are powers of today; you don't see people in France living having to suffer for their countries immense dependence on foreign AID. Even India, touted as the "world's largest democracy" is more or less a giant slum. I mean have you been there? There are conditions there worse than Afghanistan. Clearly the heavy kleptocracy in India is to blame, but again it's a power structure maintained by current Hegemonic order.

True there is a certain degree of race-basis for the hegemony. I mean Although anthropologically we share the Caucasian Racial Phenotype with them, we're not deemed "Whites" The White Nations have predominance, even now, China rather than India seems to be the key to breaking out of that rut, but even Chinese kind of suffer a degree of subservience.

[ScimitarXEdge]

In regards to Toranama or Maseed, well I can't speak for them. They can speak for themselves.

Fair enough if this is what you perceive than it is based on your understanding of the western society and your own...and how you wish to change it. And the end of the day, they have their idea of what they want their society to be, and to them they see the west as a better model to embody. I doubt their end goal is promiscuity and prostitution in society anymore than yours is a supra-arab state.

Whatever I say about them, I'm just going by their comments, things I can actually quote; their remarks in response to me , they simply invent some fallacious deceptive accusation against me in some pathetic attempt to red herring and discredit my position without having to actually make a sound logical rebuttal and to use Divisive Tactics to divert people into secondary squabbles. I have discredited Arab Autocrats and Puppet Governments, Pakistani Government and most others alike without the slightest reservation for ethnic affiliations. I certainly dont idolize contemporary Arab society, honestly who'd idolize a bunch of fat lazy Sheikhs who grovel before the feet of a farangy only play with birds all day. At the same time I see a merit of breaking free from these structures so that Arabs unite with Kurds, Kurds with Turks Turks with Iranians, Iranians with Pashtuns, Pashtuns with with Indians , Indians with Pakistanis and so on and so on; a new network based on a common ground between us all where we can mutually exchange, develop technology and infrastructure without begging for foreign AID hand outs. There's a lot of potential for the Muslim world; we just need to be willing to see it ourselves.

Their idealization of European society is mental colonialism. and if you can tell by at least Maseed's words; Toramana at least seems to be reforming somewhat, He'd rather we remain dependent on foreign AID from the West which will always give it an upper hand over us rather than working with regions which have suffered similarly as we have so we can be self sufficient. if that's not working for an Imperial Agenda , what is?

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Well indigenous implies an organic relationship a people tied to a certain ecological niche. It embodies natural connections to things. Where as Nationalism is some artificial bureaucracy

technocracies are at least in the defacto sense complimentary with capitalism; even if you use a loose idea of capitalism to include communism as a type of statist capitalism. Technocracy lends itself to capitalism and capitalism to technocracy, as if they were specifically organized for each other. I'm not against the use of technology in the temporal sense. I do ultimately hope mankind eventually matures one day and abandons the use of machines into something more ecologically harmonious. But for right now we need to utilize them in so much as counter balancing current power structures are concerned.

The left is not somehow the antithesis of the right. The left is just more centered in social programs where as the right wants more individual autonomy when it comes to economics. I don't see much of a difference between Obama and Bush, republicans and democrats for that matter..

The powers of the 19th and twentieth century are powers of today; you don't see people in France living having to suffer for their countries immense dependence on foreign AID. Even India, touted as the "world's largest democracy" is more or less a giant slum. I mean have you been there? There are conditions there worse than Afghanistan. Clearly the heavy kleptocracy in India is to blame, but again it's a power structure maintained by current Hegemonic order.

True there is a certain degree of race-basis for the hegemony. I mean Although anthropologically we share the Caucasian Racial Phenotype with them, we're not deemed "Whites" The White Nations have predominance, even now, China rather than India seems to be the key to breaking out of that rut, but even Chinese kind of suffer a degree of subservience.

What things? How are people ecologically tied? Pashtuns certainly don't entirely fit this mold as they have moved from one part to the other...kindly elaborate on this? Manana

Technocracies exist in almost any society since the first civilization. Do you know of a society or civilization that does not have a technocracy in some form or the other?
Is communism really state capitalism? Communism itself is the final stage which leads to a stateless society, no? Sure some so-called socialist countries are state capitalist in some form or the other, but can we say ideologically at least if communism is state capitalist?

Well I never said the left is the anti-thesis to the right, and I don't see any of the two political parties in US as being quite different than the other. It basically boils down to a few side-show issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc). The real deal meat of US politics is outside the scope of the average individual and quite frankly centered a few major stakeholders (both within the state and arguably outside).

Scandinavia doesn't suffer the immense poverty or the issues of the third world, yet they do not (besides the dutch) have a colonial heritage. Arguably Russia has a bigger stake in the world (as well as post-ww2 under the USSR) than France or UK, yet had a lower living standard.

India is the worlds biggest democracy and has a poverty problem. However it is an improvement from 1947.

I can't speak for China and their "subservience" but fundamentally I don't really see the point. What would your idea of a better world be (in simple terms)?

[ScimitarXEdge]

What things? How are people ecologically tied? Pashtuns certainly don't entirely fit this mold as they have moved from one part to the other...kindly elaborate on this? Manana

Actually Pashtuns fit this mold very well, the strong precedence of Pastoral Nomadism is demonstrative of that.

Technocracies exist in almost any society since the first civilization. Do you know of a society or civilization that does not have a technocracy in some form or the other?

Technocracy is a very recent advent, how it could exist since the dawn of a civilization; now if you're defining technocracy as the use of tools, then it would have existed since pre-civilization.

But the formal definition; if you dare me to be pedantic again centers around the primacy of technology or people involved in technology as the central deciding factor of social and political governance. I.e. he who has the biggest, best, most advanced utilities should run the show.

Is communism really state capitalism? Communism itself is the final stage which leads to a stateless society, no? Sure some so-called socialist countries are state capitalist in some form or the other, but can we say ideologically at least if communism is state capitalist?

I would argue yes, if we take Marxian idealizations out of it. But let's not draw straw hairs here, I'm not here to debate communism but highlight what we face now.

Well I never said the left is the anti-thesis to the right, and I don't see any of the two political parties in US as being quite different than the other. It basically boils down to a few side-show issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc). The real deal meat of US politics is outside the scope of the average individual and quite frankly centered a few major stakeholders (both within the state and arguably outside).

But you presented an argument which insinuated a contrast between left and right on such a measure. Now obviously they contrast but the degree to which they do is not as great as their words suggest. And I agree they create this hoopla over side show issues and it seems to the populace raised on what I term the spoiled brat mentality to base their lives around it. Everything else you stated I concur with.

Scandinavia doesn't suffer the immense poverty or the issues of the third world, yet they do not (besides the dutch) have a colonial heritage. Arguably Russia has a bigger stake in the world (as well as post-ww2 under the USSR) than France or UK, yet had a lower living standard.

Well Scandinavia used to be one of the poorest parts of Europe, but I digress, Scandinavia is seen as the citadel of the Northern European race, land of Vikings. Also it's not true that Scandinavia was somehow not an Imperial Heritage, Danish Indian and African colonies existed; and furthermore Scandinavia is such a small population even factoring Norway, Denmark and Sweden..

India is the worlds biggest democracy and has a poverty problem. However it is an improvement from 1947.

Improvement on what scale relative poverty or absolute poverty? Absolute Poverty has increased in India. Hence the large slums of Mumbai, Calcutta and so on, rampant human trafficking which was at one time virtually non-existent. But it's true India always had relative Poverty; most Indians were simple agriculturalists living of the Ganges and it's tributaries. Despite the creation of a "middle class" the most destitute are the most destitute and the population of that destitution is massive.

I can't speak for China and their "subservience" but fundamentally I don't really see the point. What would your idea of a better world be (in simple terms)?

China is great as a springboard, I think they're our best option.