I wish that NYTimes would differentiate between Individual indian States. Individual states have significant autonomy and depending upon the government elected can range from moderate to leftist. Largest indian states have populations similar to large nations such as Mexico ~ Maharashtra. And have huge variation in metrics like literacy rates ranging from 93% (Kerala ~ Canada ) to 63% (Bihar ~ Philippines).
~ is used to show country with similar population.
Who cares? The government is hardly the solution here. This kind of problem usually requires major grassroots efforts, usually lead by insiders within all these sub-cultures. The government at best could band-aid the solution, at worst, it'll antagonize them.
> I know they are openly anti-Muslim in some times and places.
What makes 'anti-Muslim' inherently right-wing? Certainly in the US and Western Europe, there's no shortage of Islamophobia to go around in the left-wing parties.
But Internationalism[1] is a left wing doctrine, and while it can be quite anti-religious it promotes unity across ethnic and religious divides.
It's probably fair to say most left-wing anti-Muslim movements are anti-religion in general. I'm sure the exceptions to this will be pointed out to me soon (The Zionist movement is probably worth noting here. Interestingly the early (pre-WW2) socialist Zionist weren't particularly religious and generally had quite good relations with Muslims).
Left-wing nationalism[2] is worth examining in this context. For example the Indian National Congress is generally seen as a left-wing nationalist party, and primarily endorses social liberalism – seeking to balance individual liberty and social justice, and secularism – asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings.[3]
Hmmm ... could you give examples? In my experience nationalism, xenophobia, and religious prejudice overwhelmingly are only on the agendas of right wing parties.
"right wing" in the US has a very different meaning than the rest of the world. At its core, left/right is a statement about social (in)equality and the government's involvement in the same. It often is tied with conservative or nonsecular politics (inextricably so in the US, less so elsewhere), but that does not define it.
India's government is pretty heavily involved in trying to break down social inequality. Whilst people disagree about the intentions and/or impact; we have plenty of policies trying to break down this inequality. We're also more on the socialist side of the capitalist-socialist spectrum (the constitution, for example, explicitly calls India socialist).
As far as cross-party agreement on government "interference" in equality is concerned, India has it much more than the US AFAICT. Whether this makes the main parties left-wing; I don't know, but it's not clearly right-wing. Then again, Wikipedia seems to call the BJP right-wing.
.... terminology sucks.
(IMO this dichotomy isn't particularly useful in India.)
> India's government is pretty heavily involved in trying to break down social inequality.
Is the current BJP administration trying to do that, or is that the long-term trend? Also, is the BJP trying to help the Muslim minority or only Hindus?
As far as the Muslim minority is concerned, there haven't been any changes in law that I am aware of regarding them (besides, India has a bunch of laws that make it hard to remove laws pertaining to minorities without involvement from minority leaders. Or something like that).
There probably have been internal policy changes. I don't know. One would expect them to focus on fixing "Hindu rights" issues over Muslim rights, sadly. I'm not sure what they have done so far in that direction (and there's a lot of debate over this right now; whether or not the atmosphere in the country has changed due to them). I'd rather not get into that debate here.
Obviously googling will quickly show each party's stance on any issue of interest. There are a finite number of significant parties in the EU and they are not secretive about what they stand for.
And it's hard to imagine anyone being unaware of a US politician's alignment or the difference between say Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on say the issue of xenophobia. But perhaps chimeracoder is such a person.
I do not know about India but chimeracoder only mentioned Europe and the US
In fact, the US definition of left vs right is nearly identical to the European understanding of that difference. What differences there are would stem from the prominence of far right ideas in the US: In Europe, parties form all sides generally agree on issues such as firearm regulation, climate change, the wisdom of the metric system and the right to medical care
Right-wing parties often sell themselves as bringing more order. Famously, Benito Mussolini, who openly embraced fascism in Italy, promised to make the trains run on time.
(It's order for the groups the fascists represent but state-imposed disorder for the minorities and others that are oppressed.)
Because this is Hacker News and we can have opinions with more nuance and respect people with intellectual differences to improve our understanding of the world...
we should also note that, at its best, there can be wonderful things that you get from certain principles of order and uniform civil codes and right-wing thought, such as the Rule Of Law (Not Of Men) and the idea of Equality Under The Law. but we shouldn't.
These principles, if combined, mean that no one is unfairly oppressed by the legal system and the government (that most powerful of all potential oppressors) and that no one is favored with special rights and privileges and handouts. This is not the sole essence of freedom in and of itself in isolation, but it's an important component of the foundation of freedom, and a powerful check on dictators like Mussolini. Our strong tradition around these principles here in the Anglosphere is why our tyranny rate has been so incredibly low for centuries.
If you are attributing to me any disrespect toward conservative members of HN, please point out the words. We need to be able to say things that are critical of ideas without people jumping to the conclusion that it's personal disrespect.
I absolutely agree that order and many other ideas that are more associated with the right, such as the free market, are extremely valuable. I don't happen to agree that everything you named is actually right-wing, including the rule of law, equality under the law, or resistance to tyranny. As a simple example, conservatives in the US supported slavery and segregation for centuries, and still work to limit voting and other rights of minorities.
Nah, I'm not accusing or anything. though I should have stricken the "because we shouldn't." from the previous post but didn't because I was on the edge of falling asleep and editing nonlinearly and missed it. But if you can compare a wing to Mussolini I can surely point to the virtues, no? :)
> conservatives in the US supported slavery and segregation for centuries
while progressives in the US only supported eugenics and forced sterilization of minorities - thank God that's behind us, amirite?
> and still work to limit voting
You mean that they work to limit voter fraud? ;)
> I don't happen to agree that everything you named is actually right-wing, including the rule of law
Look at the current American right wing's complaints about President Obama and the rule of law. They've been complaining since his administration railroaded the GM bankruptcy settlement through the courts and gave big-money to the unions (reliable Democratic campaign contributors) instead of the senior bondholders who had paid extra for the legal right to first dibs. Later, it became a question of executive agencies being Excessively Creative with the way they wanted to enforce things: The use of the Clean Air Act, originally passed to clean up acute and toxic pollution like acid rain, in order to fight global warming, a gas which has always composed a substantial portion of the atmosphere. Various maneuvers regarding Obamacare, like whether an exchange established by the federal government should count as "established by a state". Immigration laws.
Is this noise at least as much situational whining as it is right-wing principle? Hell yes it is. Normal in most parties, obviously - one of the reasons they need each other to be healthy, and keep each other honest.
I have no idea whether the right wing of India (which sparked this thread) does the same. I won't dismiss the idea out of hand just because they're being dinged as 'right-wing' and they're pursuing uniform civil codes (though the allegations of being hostile to religious freedom will in fact bother me).
Khemer Rouge, Gulags in USSR, The Great Leap and Cultural Revolution in China etc. Sorry , Commies/Left too sold themselves to people as crusaders of justice and there by order. The trains on time, thing was also promised in India esp. in a era that is remembered in INDIA as "EMERGENCY", and that violation of civil rights was brought to you by....(drum roll) Center-Left Indian National Congress.
> Khemer Rouge, Gulags in USSR, The Great Leap and Cultural Revolution in China
I agree these groups are radical left (Communist) and did horrible, horrible things. However, I don't think they are examples in this case:
1) I was talking only about some specific problems as characteristic of the right wing: nationalism, xenophobia, and religious prejudice. The Communists were anti-nationalist; a core tenant was internationalism, effectively erasing national borders for their movement (their anthem was The Internationale[1]), incompatible with xenophobia. Secularism, or an outright rejection of religion, was another principle, IIRC.
2) I was referring more to current parties in democracies (though I did bring up the Italian fascists as an example).
So I agree, the radical left can be just as dangerous as the radical right - in fact I agree with many who think the political spectrum is more of a O shape, with the extremes closer to each other than to the center. But in my comment above I was speaking about the characteristics of the current mainstream-to-far (not extreme) right.
> The Communists were anti-nationalist; a core tenant was internationalism, effectively erasing national borders for their movement (their anthem was The Internationale[1]), incompatible with xenophobia.
In theory, sure.
In practice, have you no idea about ethnical relations and discrimination in USSR?
I agree that theory and practice are much different. However, Russia long has had those problems (and still does); I don't see it correlated with the Communists. Also, the USSR supported communists all over the world, from China to Angola to Nicaragua.
The problem with India is that no stereotype really exists. For every truth, the opposite is also true. I wonder why the NY Times, the BBC etc.. focus so much on the negative. Does the idea of India go synonymously with poverty for them?
Yes. India has enormous challenges. But the fact remains that hundreds of millions of people have come out of poverty in just 25 years.
It's true of any country. Positive news doesn't get too many people's attention. If you listened to Democracy Now! every single day, you'd think the USA was a fascist state. This is not to disparage either Democracy Now! or say that the US doesn't have problems. The point is to look at a broad variety of sources and try to eliminate selection bias from your own news consumption.
Democracy Now! has a mission of focusing on issues that should be fixed. There are plenty of outlets to get feel-good journalism and I must say that I get a powerful sense that many people are working hard to fix the issues that face the United States, rather than just an enumeration of its faults and deficiencies. It's nice to listen to educated and knowledgeable people make forceful arguments about problems and solutions, and it lends a sense of forward progress, even if that progress is minimized or difficult in the face of the status quo.
I assume this article is reporting the truth about the culture and hardships these women face. If it's true, then it's not a stereotype or a false narrative. It's an honest look at what's going on in that region of India.
Unfortunately they are not reporting any truth. Coverage of India in BBC, NY Times and western media in general is still only using Oriental tropes that are as much based on fact UK/USA are based in India. Which is to say, none at all.
Reality is that women are lot more autonomous and free to do what they want to do in rural areas as well as are men. Gender ratio is much much better in rural areas all over the India over urban "educated" westernized cities. (The same westernized Indians are actually the first one to criticize anything Hindu traditionalist or rural). Women work in fields as well as men. Of course in a traditional agrarian family based society of Indian villages, gender roles are defined - but they are defined for men as well as women and none are more oppressive than the other.
Unfortunately those are all nuances that don't sell well in English speaking people who are suffering from superiority complex.*
*Which includes English speaking Indians and foreigners.
The statistic that stood out for me was the drop in the fraction of labor that are women. This is also true for China in the last couple of decades, admittedly from a much higher level.
Anecdotally, I hear from business people in India that hiring is very tough at all levels and there are simply not enough qualified people available. How does that square with declining participation of women? Perhaps the increased wealth is making all of the labor in the lower rung drop out of bad jobs? Is this statistic reliable to begin with?
This wasn't really a focus of this article but I wish it was.
That statistic may not be accurate, as more and more women have been entering workforce for the past 2 decades in India. However most such jobs, such as working as a maid or cook at some one else's house, may not be documented and hence probably doesn't figure into the statistic.
Please realize that this article is not fundamentally about India, nor just about the plight of rural women there. It is about injustice, and the aspiration to improve yourself, and the obstacles that prevent that. The kind of taboos that were enforced against these women can be found in all traditional cultures, from the rural South in the US today to many Catholic developing world countries.
All of us should be grateful that we were not raised in an environment where we were told not to do untraditional things, with the warning backed up by the threat of violence.
This article is intellectually dishonest. It tries to subtly weave this narrative as causal to the declining participation of women in the workforce.
This is data fudging of massive proportions. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the participation of women is decreasing because of worsening social conditions for women. The social conditions for women have definitely become better over the last decades. The declining percentage of women in the workforce could be a result of a hundred other factors even if we assume that data is correct which I would be rather skeptical of.
Maybe it's just that the life has been so terrible in India a while ago that women were just forced to work regardless of the cultural norms, and now when it got better, these norms kicked in?
Life is still terrible for a lot of people - it is terrible for all poor people - it is terrible for all poor men and women - and it is terrible for all kinds of poor people.
But that still doesn't take away the fact that India is changing dramatically for the better for everyone including men and women and lower castes and what not, and the pace of change is accelerating. But no matter how much it changes, some of these stories will be there even decades from now.
The only reason reporting such a story makes sense is when it is indicative of a larger trend and when the writer chose to link it to the dubious statistic, she gave her intent away.
What the author needs to do is to dig deeper into the statistic, how is that collected, what is the segmentation and then align that research with broader economic and social trends to get a true picture. Only after all of this is done that she can take pick an anecdotal case and use that to better articulate her findings.
That research which changes everything wasn't done.
I am not sure what's going on at NY Times. They seem to write a lot of articles focusing on negative things about India. In a country as large as India, you can always find something exceptional. This article about Indian women is as much a news to me as it is to anyone else. From the place where I come from, I don't know of any woman who doesn't work because of some family/societal pressure. That doesn't mean that there are no other issues, but a balanced narrative would have been nice.
Actually, the real question should be what's going on in India. Your personal anecdote about not knowing women who don't work due to family pressures is ridiculously easily contradicted by the actual statistics.
But here's a personal anecdote as well. My father's company had a female worker quit after she was promoted to basically being 2nd in charge from a fairly low position in HR (she's really brilliant) because her family insisted she had to have a child, and once she did they insisted she quit the job (she was offered 6 months maternity leave, as well as the ability to work from home. Her family was against it). He's also seen 2 other women have to quit their jobs because of family pressures in the past 2 years. So he's seen more women quit work in the past 2 years because of family pressures than the entire 2 decades he was running the company prior to these 2 years. And this is in Mumbai, not a distant rural village.
Everytime someone writes/says something negative about India the first (and often, the only) response is to whine about the messenger instead of actually doing something about the issue at hand. After we do nothing to actually fix the issues, we wonder why people keep writing about all the issues India has.
I had a look through New York Times on India (note: I have no connections with India, it was in response to a poster's comment about prejudice toward India and its subsequent brash dismissal that caught my attention).
Many of the articles on India are negative. However, bad news sells. So, I wouldn't have expected anything different. There were some general non-negative articles (Whales dying on shores, LGBT laws gaining momentum). There was an absence of positive articles about India from a quick search.
By contrast, I looked at Australia in the New York Times. Most of the articles were on sport and bushfires, so, there's definitely a different focus and attitude. Australia seems to be social events, India social unrest and injustices.
I consider the New York Times to be prejudiced at times though. However, the article in question was well written, despite a lack of explanation of why there are less women in the Indian workforce than there were in the past. One example of NYT prejudice I remember was about Australia's first female PM, Julia Gillard. The NYT described Australians (collectively) as misogynistic because we dared to criticise a female Prime Minister about her looks. I searched at the time and found ONE media reference to a criticism from Germaine Greer - a prominent feminist - about Gillard's fat ass (I saw 'ditch the witch' after this article). I contrasted this to other PMs: John Howard in a bondage pose with his nose up George Bush's ass among many personal attacks on him (conveniently ignored), tony Abbott in his budgie smugglers and exaggerated lips, etc. The NYT must have had very big blinkers (or my prejudice comment holds).
The reality is that India does bad things AND the media is very prejudiced. I think the dismissal of prejudice in the media is dangerous.
Maybe, a letter to NYT suggesting some positive things in India may help raise awareness.
I'm curious what positive articles do people think the NYTimes could carry about India? Keep in mind that being a US based newspaper, human interest stories about positive contributions by individuals outside the US are very unlikely to make it into a US based paper. What usually works is a wide systematic positive story, often through the lens of a few individuals.
When India was growing rapidly, and basically created a massive new middle class in the 90s on opening its borders, the NYTimes had a lot of positive stuff to say (Friedman, of The World is Flat fame, was one of the biggest promoters of India). This was a massive positive systematic change, that was covered widely.
But since then what positive systematic changes does India present that would be useful for an audience halfway across the world to know? There are a ton of individuals doing amazing work in India (and note, even this article focuses on the strength and bravery of individuals who fought the system) Indian institutions are famously terrible, and are getting worse. Frankly, the only possible positive stories that you could do about India that come to mind are the rapid rise of solar energy (however, all of that is in the planning stage at the moment...we need to see how it materializes). That's pretty much all I can think of.
Frankly, India doesn't help itself by screwing up situations we could have used to build a better image. You bring up Australia and sports. China did the Olympics, and it was an amazing spectacle. It truly changed people's perspectives of what China was capable. India had an opportunity to do something similar with the Commonwealth games (although that would understandably be ignored by the US media anyways)and that was a massive disaster which only served to emphasize how terrible and corrupt our institutions are.
Edit: I think the NYTimes could do a really great positive (and relevant to the US) article on the Indian Electoral Commission. They basically moderate the elections, and have done a really great job in ensuring largely free and fair elections in a chaotic country which is otherwise awash with corrupt institutions. It's actually pretty amazing that India has maintained and strengthened democracy in the past ~70 years, and the EC has a huge role to play in that.
India has 7-8 major languages (and many minor ones), a couple major religions, culture variations, and lots of people.
Has a lot of problems no doubt, but it is amazing they can keep the country together and make it work. Plenty of countries with only two languages that have internal strife.
I have no intention of defending the NY Times or the person you are replying to. I have a general question. Why is it necessarily good that the country is kept together? Would India be better off if, e.g., partition had not happened?
India and world would've been better off without partition. It has only created regional instability. The government could do a lot better, I mean there are still many archaic laws, from before India got freedom, in the constitution. Overall India seems to be on better track even though the progress is slow. Amount of educated youth is also rising. Corruption is declining as a result of media coverage. There is a lot of room to improve, but the fundamentals look good.
Because of partition part of british india was turned into Pakistan. Pakistani civilians do not hold any grudge against Indians is my general opinion. Its their Army and ISI that does not like peace for very silly reasons. I do not get what they are trying to achieve. I hope they'll clean up the mess they have created and finally become a good, democratic and progressive country.
But India is too huge and varied for a normal guy to fix issues. I am from south coastal area. These days i hear govt radio ads about "beti bacho" save girl child. Down here the idea of abortion because girl is not common at all( Does not mean they don't want a boy). Or having a toilet in house. Of course i don't the case in rural areas, most near by places would be considered as towns rather then rural area.
To be sure, I love India (from afar), but they have a looooooooooooot of work left to do to become anything close to a first-world nation. Fixing infrastructure and cultural issues (neither of which will be easy) would be a massive first step.
Also, India is so large that trying to claim that "India is like this" or "India is like that" seems futile, as evidenced by your (admittedly anecdotal) example.
"India is so large that trying to claim that "India is like this" or "India is like that" seems futile"
Out of curiosity, which country is small enough to be able to say "Foo is like this" "Foo is like that"? Brazil? Italy? Switzerland? What's the right size to be able to qualify a country with one sentence?
Solid point. It's homogeneity vs. heterogeneity that matters, rather than the size. And being heterogeneous in one respect doesn't guarantee heterogeneity in others.
For instance, America is a large country, and has people who live all sorts of lives. And yet when asked whether women have the same rights as men, the responses are incredibly homogeneous. On the other hand, opinions about whether abortion is morally acceptable are significantly different between urban (and suburban) populations and rural populations.
America is large. And you can very well claim that Americans believe men and women should be treated equally. No futility there.
And India is no different. There are issues with opinions which have broad appeal there and issues on which opinion is divided. Nothing is served by pretending that some group of individuals is so diverse that there is no issue on which they overwhelmingly favour one opinion. That's rarely (if ever) true.
Are you completing my list or answering and saying that everybody in Vatican/San Marino/Andorra is the same, and that it is acceptable for example to say "everybody in Andorra is nice", or "everybody in San Marino likes gold"?
India is a developing economy and a society that is rapidly modernizing, bringing many folks into a brighter future as quickly as they can from my perspective. I'm a white American who has visited different parts of India three times over the past four years and each time I find the amount of progress and change remarkable.
This doesn't mean that there aren't many issues and major tasks to tackle but I find the resilience and pluck of the whole spectrum of Indians I've met to be commendable and invigorating.
>but they have a looooooooooooot of work left to do to become anything close to a first-world nation.
ur bias is leaking. being a 'first world' nation (a very arbitrary classification in the first place) is not a necessarily desirable attribute for a country to have. u can keep ur defacto oligarchy, ur mind numbing culture and media, which brainwashes citizens to conform and support foreign wars at enormous expense to human life and effort (through wasted tax money), let us keep our poverty, culture, and sane values...
normally i wouldnt be so forthright and defensive, but the arrogant blindness of the comment really struck me as needing a counter, however unsupported by sources it may be (at this point, the futility and greed behind these wars and the global interference of wester nations, one in particular, is common knowledge).
A first-world nation has a highly reliable electrical, water, sewage, garbage collection, road, fuel, transportation, communication, financial, and (now) Internet infrastructure.
These services are, arguably, literally necessary for the country as a whole to grow at (or exceed) a pace equal to a first-world nation.
Last I heard, India (on the whole) was deeply lacking in those areas.
You guys can start with that. ;)
I'm hardly biased, I'm a pretty big fan of India (in fact, one of my best friends is Indian and he is AWESOME!), I just know what needs to be done to succeed in the long term.
> which brainwashes citizens to conform and support foreign wars at enormous expense to human life and effort
Lol.
Not that I disagree about the americans spending too much on defense, but how can you say this with a straight face while India continually engages in a military dick-swinging contest with Pakistan?
a lot of pakistans intelligence services are financed by the cia (seriously, search it) and it is well-documented that the 'militants' coming over the border r paki agents. the dick swinging is over ownership of Kashmir, and no surprises, US-published maps of India do not include Kashmir as part of it. and india is never the aggressor in borded encounters, this is verifiably true.
please i sincerely request u to watch this - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qVHzAinRH4g - to see the sort of propoganda us regularly engages in to dupe the global discourse. it is a very intense 1 hr watch and i daresay ull enjoy it more than many movies. noone has anything against americans themselves. just that their money is going to finance a govt that is increasingly mort aggressive at establishing global domminance, and that too using underhand tactics. please watch it and tell me ur opinion of it. my american friends liked it a lot.
> And yeah, Pakistan is obviously doing some awful stuff too. But you're not gonna convince anyone sensible that India is completely innocent.
"some awful stuff" such as three invasions, several incursions by army regulars and by proxy, actively financing and training militant groups that attack India? Are you seriously comparing that with a couple instances of artillery shelling? Pakistan also routinely provides artillery cover fire for militants infiltrating into India.
You know it's much more than that right? Read that wikipedia page.
Just based on 10 seconds of skimming through that page: BSF shot and killed a couple of kids, in one instance BSF fire killed a 60 year-old man while he was farming.
Are you seriously giving the BSF a total free pass?
It's "third world" as in "third party", i.e. everyone who wasn't either NATO or Warsaw Pact. First and second worlds were coined later. It doesn't mean "third class", never did.
What part of India are you from? Rural or urban? The article seems to be focused on women in rural communities.
Also, I don't think India is unique in negative coverage. With a newspaper as big as the NYT you're bound to find something negative, but every country gets primarily negative coverage, including the U.S. That's the news that sells.
Urban, but I am also not well informed on social issues. I don't deny the existence of whatever issue that the article mentioned but I just find it interesting that they don't showcase any progress India makes in these regards.
Because India has made very little progress in rural areas. We've largely regressed. Just look at the farmer suicide situation.
This is my biggest frustration with the urban Indian middle class (which forms a very small slice of the population). We are almost completely unaware of how the rest of the country has been suffering over the last many years. A very visible example of this was the BJP India Shining campaign, which led to a massive electoral defeat. The BJP thought India was doing awesome because their entire worldview was centered around the Delhi middle class, while the rest of the country looked upon buses driving by with India Shining posters as a cruel joke. And the BJP faced the consequences in that election.
Maybe you are right. However, please remember that economy is as much dependent on public outlook as it is on other fundamentals like infrastructure, literacy, health, etc., If people think that the country is going somewhere, they will be excited to take risk and move forward in their life. So I don't see anything wrong with India Shining.
With respect to rural India, I honestly don't know enough to comment.
Not to mention the racist cartoon which New York Times published in 2014 after the success of India's Mars mission and it's subsequent apology. There is clearly history of focusing on negative things about India, but bad news sells.
This article is written to be a fantastic Bollywood movie. One that could potentially have a huge impact. Indian pop culture wields tremendous power, how about they use it more often?! Hollywood does this on a daily basis.
This story is heartbreaking. Who is looking out for these downtrodden women? Who is looking out for their rights? It is admirable how these women continue to fight and have hope despite their problems.
Adults curse; sometimes too much. It makes them look stupid, too. But there's no need to be both annoyed and offended. Be annoyed, sure, but then perhaps consider that you're simply a better person. Consider, too, that going to HR over something like this _will_ make you enemies.
Finally, consider just how much care and feeding that moral high-horse costs you, in emotional and mental energy.
I don't know and I don't care. I don't think she cares about caste etc. But she is pretty aggressive like she will come and shout at your face and undermine you.
It's just a title.. and most titles on HN are taken verbatim from the source's title. Its rare for it to be edited and I see no reason here for it to be changed.
Usual Sanghi response of denial, deflection, and ad hom. The BJP isn't even mentioned; In fact, the most senior governmental figure mentioned is a former village chief and a Muslim.
~ is used to show country with similar population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_liter...
http://www.economist.com/content/indian-summary