Have you seen politicians accusing Indian government in allowing theft and organised crime? Because if not, there is no reputation loss. And I think politicians can close their eyes on the few scammers here and there for the access to Indian markets.
Besides, there is an angle of view "rich westerners extortioned our country for centuries, and now are accusing us with the same because of few scammers we're certainly honestly (not) trying to catch" which will be very popular in a certain parts of the world.
Much of the world views India as a corrupt, low-trust society, and it is things like scam centres operating as full blown, in the open operations that built and maintains this reputation.
And of course there are costs. China has shot miles ahead of India. Despite all of the advantages India enjoyed it has a GDP per capita below Congo. An economy with a strong scam and corruption basis will always falter.
Even if you think this is some sort of poetic justice tax[1] on ugly Westerners, this sort of criminality always goes hand in hand with corruption at all levels of government, in policing, and so on. Always.
[1] quoting from the Narcissist's prayer: "And if I did, you deserved it.". Criminals through history have justified their actions by claiming that it is merely righting some historic wrong.
> Much of the world views India as a corrupt, low-trust society
Not really sure if much of the world shares your opinion.
> Despite all of the advantages India enjoyed it has a GDP per capita below Congo.
Congo-Brazzavile, which has GDP per capita slightly above India, is a petrocracy with only a 5 million people. DR Congo, which may be comparable, has GDP per capita four times lower than in India. Applying the same logic, I can say that US is more corrupt and low-trust because Qatar has higher GDP per capita.
> An economy with a strong scam and corruption basis will always falter.
If 7% average annual GDP growth for the last twenty years is now considered "faltering", I don't know what to say.
> Even if you think this is some sort of poetic justice tax[1] on ugly Westerners
Yes, most of the world views India as a fundamentally corrupt nation. I mean, you literally described a tacit acceptance of scammers as a norm...
>If 7% average annual GDP growth for the last twenty years is now considered "faltering"
After 20 years of that GDP growth, India now has a GDP per capita between the Ivory Coast and Nicaragua. When you have nowhere to go but up, and are basically a ship being lifted by a rising tide, it isn't that demonstrative.
India had the English language and a membership in the commonwealth in a world where that was a tremendous advantage. While Hong Kong, Singapore, and others became incredibly rich, India became known as a corrupt nation where public corruption was endemic and criminality/scamming was tolerated (again, you literally did exactly this justification). When criminality is tolerated it levies a cost on the entirety of that society. India should be decades further in prosperity than it is, and I think you might be missing the point. And at some point, someone is going to say "you know, being internationally infamous for scam centres isn't good for us" and there'll be a concerted effort to shut them down.
>Applying the same logic, I can say that US is more corrupt and low-trust because Qatar has higher GDP per capita.
That isn't the same logic, and I don't think you're following.
> Yes, most of the world views India as a fundamentally corrupt nation
I can't tell if this is satire or not but I don't think a "world [that] views India as a fundamentally corrupt nation" would have good ties with such a nation. Unless the US, France, and some African nations are all too "fundamentally corrupt" in some way. Perhaps only a few nations on this planet are blessed enough to be deemed fundamentally (not-)corrupt by you.
> That isn't the same logic, and I don't think you're following.
Why not? They applied the same logic that you used in your original comment, but this time applying it to a different set of countries. Does logic automatically become invalid when it no longer supports your statement? You
If this indeed was a satirical statement, I apologise in case I took your comment too literally.
Nation states will happily lever anyone they can exploit. As China ascends out of the "cheap labour" stage, and starts to become formidable on its own, everyone is looking at India as the next "China 30 years ago" -- lot of cheap exploitable labour. "Good ties" is quite a reach.
I mean...India should have been the "China 30 years ago" 30 years ago, but exactly the corruption I mentioned is why it wasn't. Defensiveness by Indians doesn't change this fact.
>They applied the same logic that you used in your original comment
They applied boorish, childish sophistry of busted logic out of defensiveness. I said that India's GDP is disastrous despite massive advantages. Replying "Well someone else has a good GDP therefore they something something" is just tired nonsense.
>If this indeed was a satirical statement
The "oh gosh this must be satire" tactic has always been incredibly lame.
If you mean to say that India on its own is not formidable in its current condition, you are living in an echo chamber. Several of India's achievements have made it a formidable country in its own right
> "Good ties" is quite a reach
Again, it appears that you are the only one with this view. In 2023, 70% of all Americans were held favorable views with regard to India [0].
> they applied boorish, childish sophistry of busted logic out of defensiveness. I said that India's GDP is disastrous despite massive advantages. Replying "Well someone else has a good GDP therefore they something something" is just tired nonsense.
Yet you were quite eager to use the measurement GDP per capita to somehow to portray India in an inferior light? Perhaps you need to read your own comments again, lest you contradict yourself again.
And I suppose being the country with the 3rd largest GDP (based on PPP) is "distastrous", right? Again something you got incredibly wrong. India is also the 5th largest country by nominal GDP.
> lot of cheap exploitable labour
Ah yes, explains the extremely good ties US has with Cuba (a country with no minimum wage). Accusing other countries of not fully cooperating in the fight against terrorism [1] is something that only the best of friends do, right?
> The "oh gosh this must be satire" tactic has always been incredibly lame.
Well the things you said in your comment were so mind bogglingly wrong that I had to include that. Comparing India with Congo? Really? Then you started crying when the other guy used your own method to say that Qatar was better than US.
>Again, it appears that you are the only one with this view
Sure.
I don't think the discussion is of value. I responded to someone who claimed there was no reputational harm if politicians aren't pounding a point, which is of course absurd and India is notorious worldwide as the home of endless scams. That endemic corruption is why it has remained shockingly poor[1] relative to many peers, despite enormous advantages. If a twisted national pride blinds you to this, that's a you problem.
[1] - Ignoring that you cite the hilarious PPP, India has 1.4+ BILLION people and is the most populous nation on Earth. It only recently passed Canada, a country 1/35th the size, in economic output. That is absolutely disastrous (I actually spelled it correctly while you didn't, despite "quoting").
The "the discussion isn't valuable" tactic has always been incredibly lame.
> shockingly poor
If you had actually done any research, you would have known that this is not in fact due to any "reputation loss" from scammers; that is utter nonsense. India wasn't always poor, but after the Portuguese and British invaded it (history lesson, somehow I get the feeling you're gonna need it) that its relative wealth began to diminish. Even after independence it remained a largely socialist society until 1991. It has mostly enjoyed spectacular growth since then
> endemic corruption
Like most of your statements, you have provided no source. Interesting.
> twisted national pride
If I have a twisted national pride, at least I use sources and facts to back up any opinions I base on that pride. Your twisted racist side doesn't do that.
> hilarious PPP
Again, no elaboration on why you think the PPP is hilarious. I will have to assume that you have nothing else to add and therefore jumped on the lowest hanging fruit. I also mentioned that India is the 5th largest country based on nominal GDP. Pretty comvenient, skipping past portions of my comment without addressing them.
> Canada, a country 1/35th the size, in economic output
Canada wasn't invaded by multiple countries, who systematically oppressed its residents and suppressed their trade for their own profit, was it? Oh also did I forget to mention that the aforementioned invaders stayed in the country for 500+ years [0], ruling it for 89 of them?
Also I'm sure the UN would use GDP based on PPP in its human development index because its so hilarious, right?
> actually spelled it correctly
Red herring much? English is my fourth language, which I started learning about 5 years ago. I actually think I'm pretty good at it, but maybe I'm not. I tried to type in everything that I quoted so I must have mistyped.
Also no, I'm not bragging. A lot of Indians know a lot of languages, because of the diversity of the country. The language you speak (or at the very least, its dialect) changes every few kilometres depending on the area. I know 4 languages (2 Indian, 2 foreign) and thats not a lot for an Indian.
That doesn't follow from what I said. Scam centres might contribute an absolutely tiny, minuscule amount of economic activity. But the fact that they openly exist, do effectively nothing to hide, and authorities do little to nothing to combat it, demonstrates pervasive corruption and criminality.
Besides, there is an angle of view "rich westerners extortioned our country for centuries, and now are accusing us with the same because of few scammers we're certainly honestly (not) trying to catch" which will be very popular in a certain parts of the world.