That's alarming, I wonder how these kinds of things skew global population.
If we assume girls are not preferred in the two most populous countries in the world (China, India) and their societies have a lower ratio of females to males, then the global trend of 1:1.08 female to male ratio must be skewed in a similar way somewhere else? right? Or does this account for that?
In other news, I thought we were headed for a different problem[0].
>the global trend of 1:1.08 female to male ratio must be skewed in a similar way somewhere else?
It's skewed everywhere simply by the fact that women live to be older. When looking at people under 30, the male skew is even worse. Here's a population pyramid for example
For me it's a simple "if we allow people (in India or China) to abort based on gender society can't continue to function". If it's necessary it doesn't matter if it's repressive or abusive (and I disagree that this example even is abusive, or particularly repressive, but that's beside the point).
Wow!
I just released a data story on Indian population with a section on "Case of the missing women"[0]. This has profound effects on a society like India, even 2-3 decades later!
beautiful work Vivek. one typo... your graphic on the food landscape says "MishItidoi" instead of "Mishtidoi"... the text heading is fine. Since this was so well done and clearly prepared with (heart)... didn't want that to stick out... especially to a bong like me :P
Nice work! I created a couple of charts illustrating similar ideas before (https://sainathadapa.github.io/blog/population-pyramids/). Minor request for change: In the graphs for population, density and fertility rate, you are showing the district boundaries, but it seems the underlying data you are using is for states isn't it? Why then show the boundaries of individual districts?
This one might be a bureaucratic issue/miscalculation more than anything else. Even in the dark days when female foeticide was prevalent, it never happened at the same level. If the reporting is correct, and there is a high probability it is not given the propensity of Indian media to report news based on sensationality rather than facts, the findings would be really shocking.
I can only imagine that there are a number of secondary effects of creating a skewed male/female ratio.
Simply put, there are not enough women to go around.
I suspect this leads to lots of overly fierce competition for women. Women treated more as precious commodities and less as human beings. Men lacking experience dealing with women. A certain percentage of men being unhappy much of the time because finding a mate is frustrating, or they've simply given up on it.
This is only conjecture but it's hard to imagine it being otherwise.
Well I know that in places in China with similar issues the chinese are basically "importing" wives from Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.
As for India, I'm not Indian but all of the indian women I've worked with were in arranged marriages or in "matches" that had been made by their parents. Obviously India is a big place but they were all from different areas (two punjabi, one from center-west India, one from Kerala in the south, one from north east). I was told that it's very widespread. I wouldn't know how this translates for men but it seems like it's not like in the west where men or women have to search for their partners themselves; families and match-making sites are a lot more prominent (any Indian around please feel free to correct me).
It is probably both really as it varies by agency of the women. Horribly if they can't say no (trafficed) then they can't be picky and the increased demand leverage goes not to them but their traffickers. Economics and literal slavery starts horrifying and only gets worse.
- sexual frustration, which is already booming in India, could increase tenfold. Sexually frustrated males can lead to being apathetic or aggressive, none of which is good for society.
- more competition means bigger delta between the winners and the losers. And they already have a large money gap. Making this difference wider can only build more social tensions.
- not a biologist, but I imagine this affects the gene pool, and overall (including social) diversity as well.
-
> not a biologist, but I imagine this affects the gene pool, and overall (including social) diversity as well. -
I wouldn't worry about gene pool diversity in India (I agree with the first two statements though):
,,A 2005 study from Rutgers University theorized that the pre-1492 native populations of the Americas are the descendants of only 70 individuals who crossed the land bridge between Asia and North America.''
The article doesn't indicate how the villages were sampled.
Suppose a village has a birth rate of 8 babies a year (2 babies every 3 months). There's (roughly) a 50% chance the babies will be male and female, 25% chance that they're both female and 25% chance that they're both male.
That means that if you're sampling from a district that has 1,000 villages (with the average birth rate of 2 babies / 3 months, roughly the birth rate indicated by the article), one quarter of the villages will have 2 male babies - that's 250 villages with 0 female babies born in the last 3 months.
Not making any claims regarding foeticide in India - just saying that the way they chose the villages matters a lot.
The phrase "in area of India covering 132 villages" seems to imply that it's a compact region, and if that's the case the suspicion of cherry picking would lose foundation.
It would still be possible to find a compact subregion of a large region where no girls were born. However, the fact that it was 132 villages makes this seem unlikely, unless the large region contained many thousands of villages.
I know that was probably a random percentage, but for a different perspective a 0.001% chance of an airline crash would still result in an accident each day just because of the sheer amount of air traffic, and that's just for one of the world's more "exotic" modes of transport. In a world of 7 billion people things that should happen extremely rarely still happen every day/month/year only because the dice get rolled so often
If I flipped 216 coins, the exact sequence that I get back also has a probability of 9e-66.
If I flipped 532 coins, the probability that I get any specific subset that share the same side is the sum of all probability that gives that result.
What we know is that 132 out 694 villages, with the average number of born children for 3 months being 1.6, had zero girls. The other 562 villages with unknown average of children had girls. As such we can conclude that the probability must be the sum of all sequences of births that results in 132 out of 694 villages having exactly no girls born under the period of 3 months.
The probability of the 132 villages is thus undefined as we simply do not have enough data on the spectrum of sequences. Based on the global census of 943 females per 1,000 males we can suspect a bias and create a ball park guess, but there is simply not enough to say an exact number like 9e-66.
You don't have to guess, it's right there in the first sentence of the article. There have been 216 births, so about 1.6 per village, which makes having zero female birth statistically normal in each village individually, but possibly not over the whole area if these villages are all in the same area.
no girl in 216 birth is a probability of 1/(2^216) : it's either cherry picking or criminal. The article is ambiguous on the way the villages were identified ("a red zone" ???).
Ah! That sort of proves the point, doesn't it? 25% of 694 is 173, which is even higher than 132 villages where there were no female babies. That means there are actually more female babies than you'd predict in advance. Or is my math wrong somehow?
Before I get pummeled for that just be honest here. As soon as we state it is okay to abort for personal choice the discussion ends there. Why do we get to call in the woman's choice simply because we don't like the reason.
It will get to be seriously interesting if DNA testing comes common place and women or couples decide to abort for reasons from sex, skin color, and if ever proven genetic orientation.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the woman is in control of her reproductive process or she is not. There is no, but....
I think that's completely intellectually honest to say that if you value woman's choice at all costs, then you can't really be too upset at this outcome.
You could also argue that this is basically eugenics--selectively breeding/aborting to get a desirable trait, which in this case is sex.
That's one of the reasons why abortion is so contentious. To some personal freedom and choice outweigh any negative consequence to society. To others the well-being of society outweighs personal freedom. It's the same reason why gun ownership and drug use is contentious.
> As soon as we state it is okay to abort for personal choice the discussion ends there. Why do we get to call in the woman's choice simply because we don't like the reason.
It is incredibly common where you can do something for almost any—or no—reason, but that doesn't mean you can do it for a bad reason. For instance, in the US: a business can refuse service to anyone. But, that doesn't mean they can refuse service to someone because they are black. If you live in certain states, your company can fire you at will, for no reason whatsoever. But they can't fire you because you're a woman.
Well that doesn’t follow. Intent always matters. There are a lot of things that are legal if some for no reason at all, but illegal if some for specific impermissible reasons (firing and hiring come to mind, serving someone at a restaurant or hotel).
"Until the 14th week of pregnancy, baby boys and girls look exactly the same on ultrasound" [0]
"Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands having more extended time limits. After the first trimester (Ed : after 12 weeks), abortion is generally allowed only under certain circumstances, such as risk to woman's life or health, fetal defects or other specific situations that may be related to the circumstances of the conception or the woman's age." [1]
It's not the child. It's a fetus. It does not have rights that trump the right of the mother to abort.
Also, if having a son is so important for them, there is a reason for that. We are talking about very poor people. Whole thing is about their material well-being!
Pretty sure we should target those reasons which enable those with sons to have better economic wellbeing then. Your offspring's gender should not determine your economic potential unless you livebin a dowry system or only have a manual labor workforce
It's assuming abortion. I doubt most families from those villages have access to a facilities to allow the procedure, not to mention the equipment to detect the baby gender in the first 3 months of pregnancy.
I'd imagine it's either very late abortion, or straight post delivery murder. Which is more problematic.
> Unless it can be shown that they are being forced to abort
This is actually very common in rural parts of India. Families often force the women to abort female children. The reasons are given in the article: In India's patriarchal society, male children are seen as future breadwinners and caregivers who have an obligation to look after their parents when they age.
> I really don't see a problem
A skewed sex ratio has _very_ serious implications for the country, and I say this as an Indian. I don't know enough about this subject to elaborate, but there are many other comments in this thread that you should read.
It's perfectly possible to think both a) Women are free to abort & b) It's a societal problem if women as a group choose to heavily bias their abortion pattern by the fetus' gender.
Its a clickbait headline. Not saying that there isn't an issue with female foeticide in India but this study isn't it.
There are nearly 700 villages in the district, and most of them are small enough to have <2 births in the given time frame.
Out of all those villages they just picked the ones which happened to have had no females. It is no coincidence, whoever did the study clearly knew what they were doing and cherry picked the data to sensationalize. You could do the same to any other similar sized district and get the same results.
Have you read the study? Are you qualified to evaluate the statistical methodology and have you done such an analysis? If so fine, but otherwise neither you nor I are qualified to make a statement like that.
There does seem to be something going on. According to Wikipedia only 43% of the population of the region are female.
If 63 million women are statistically missing from the Indian population, I think it's pretty clear possible outliers like this need investigating, not denigrating.
Anybody can and should feel free to offer their analysis regardless of their level of qualification. Otherwise we all just sit around waiting for the experts to chime in. And if it's wrong enough, it will prompt one to correct it.
This type of elitism has no place in intellectual pursuits.
Think about it. If there is no expert in the room, then nothing is lost by openly trying to reason out the truth of the matter and seeing what sticks to the fly paper of reality. This is how new experts form.
If there is an expert in the room, they will be more than happy to point out issues, and attempt to offer points to guide the intellectual endeavor within the bounds of their expertise. This is also how new experts take shape.
The knowledge wielded by an expert is what makes them an expert. We call it expertise.
It is not the fact they are an expert that makes their knowledge expertise. The knowledge needs no particular person to prove itself useful.
An appeal to personal credentials as the primary determined as to the veracity of an argument is known as an appeal to authority, which is a very common fallacy.
My point is it's not analysis. It's a completely unsubstantiated assertion of fact based on what's actually a wild guess.
The info in the article isn't a study, it barely even summarises a study, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the commenter hasn't read the actual study. If so saying "this study isn't it" isn't simply an opinion, it's misrepresentation.
I'm not telling anyone to shut up. i'm perfectly willing to read any reasoned counter-point to the article. I'm also completely willing to accept the information in the article, by itself, isn't clear evidence of anything.
However it quotes local officials who did do the study and have the detailed analysis saying there's a serious problem that warrants further investigation. They may be right or they may be wrong. Saying on the basis of what's here that the study is definitively bad or good isn't warranted though. That's all I'm saying.
The entire comment section is full of Indian bros reflexively inventing reasons why something like this is a put on in order to make India bad. Every comment section of any article that might put India in a bad light is. It's a particular brand of motivated reasoning, and I get it.
But yeah India is not a great place for girls and women. That's changing bit by bit in the more advanced places but it's such a vast country with so many backward regions that the laggards will come along very slowly.
Comments are swarming with misdirection from Indians right now.
Even if you cherry pick data, what even is probability of getting consecutive 216 heads on a coin toss? It is amazing that Indians here are acting as if female infanticide/foeticide is not a big menace in India.
> Even if you cherry pick data, what even is probability of getting consecutive 216 heads on a coin toss?
I think the accusation here is that what happened is someone asked a couple hundred people to do two coin tosses, then grouped together those who got both heads and called it a statistical anomaly.
I agree with your statement in general (including the distinction between backwards regions and more advanced places), but I do think that India is doing much better than other countries in the region in this regard. It's only notable because India tries, unlike other countries that don't.
This is a fantastic point. Let's be real, Pakistan is hardly a paragon of virtue but you're not going to get any real reporting out of that country. The openness of Indian society relative to much of the rest of Asia is pretty amazing and doesn't often get credited well enough.
> According to Wikipedia only 43% of the population of the region are female.
That is very different from the distribution of the sex of babies. Regions end up with skewed demographics for various reasons like distant factories, war, etc.
Honestly, it doesn't matter how sensationalist it is. It should not take major funding to have an informational campaign to let them know adoption is a real and viable option.
Haven't actually read the study but not sure I understand your comment. Even if every village has only one birth, the probability of having no girls at random is 1/(2700) which seems practically impossible. Perhaps there is something else that made you response critically of their methods?
Over 700 villages, all with a birth rate of about two births per 3 months, there might very well be 132 villages with no girls born, 140 villages with no boys born, and 428 villages with one boy and one girl born. It wouldn't be alarming at all.
But if these villages represent a contiguous area, then it is alarming. The article doesn't really give enough information to say anything about this really.
Data is from a single district, and then blocks. So blocks are contiguous. Analogous to say New York metro area, and then Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens etc.
He was saying that 132 villages out of 700 villages had no female babies.
> The 132 villages where no girls were born over three months have all been marked as part of a “red zone”, which means local data will be scrutinised more closely and health workers have been asked to be vigilant.
The "red zone" is not a single area, it's a black list.
There's just not enough information in the article for any of us to know. If every village had one birth, you'd expect half of them to have had 'only girls'. It's hard to believe it's that simple a case though. Some of the villages may have had a dozen or more births, we just don't know.
Well the thing is that doesn't neccessarily disprove it either - if the only births allowed are male then that may be why it is <2 - if the practice is widespread enough it won't even stand out statistically - the ones that don't would and even then there are many other confounding variables like wealth level and density.
Generally internal instability from internal competition by discontent men, attempts to retain power by trying to "burn off" excess discontent fighting aged men with wars against some sort of external threat/scapegoat, or flat out exogamous raids to seize women - that has been an ancient dubious tradition since at least the bronze age.
How applicable it will be in the modern context is another story as ancients didn't have the degree of interconnectedness, offense/defense asymmetry of weapon superiority, or the "play nice or else" of Pax Atomica which has kept Pakistan and India shockingly civil even with terrorist attacks, border skirmishes, and similiar incidents.
I feel like Indians need to learn to take criticism in a better way. Every time something like this comes up, there's swathes of apologists claiming cherry picked/tampered data. In this case, no matter how cherry picked the data is, the probability of such an event is really low
Disclaimer: I am from India
Ok, but please don't post flamebait comments to HN and certainly not religious flamewar.
If you think a story is bad for the site, the thing to do is flag it, not post comments that only make things worse. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Would you mind reviewing them?
Edit: you've posted nationalistic flamebait in the past too, unfortunately. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't.
I didnt intend for religious flamewar. It is my position that these news are sponsored by christian missionaries. I thought reporting the same in comments is the best way to highlight it. How else do you suggest I claim my position ?
Not sure which of my posts constitute nationalistic flamebait. If you could highlight ill try to steer clear. Thx.
The way to steer clear of flamebait is to provide factual information and avoid pejoratives. Your comment upthread was low on information and high on pejoratives. Flip that ratio and it will help a lot.
India is building more and more tensions, and it's really worrying me.
They have 1.3 billions of people, living under an unbelievable social pressure (casts, diversity, religion, money...), on a land saturated by pollution with less and less water to drink.
Reading this article, it seems possible they are running toward a gender crisis as well. Sex frustration is already a terrible thing there, and a big source of trouble. If this proves right, I don't see a way for it to end well.
Now add on top of that they have very unstable borders and the nuclear weapon, and we got all the ingredients for something bad to happen.
Well, assuming they don't get into a nuclear war, it sounds like things might work themselves out after a generation or two if they keep going like this. As you point out, they have a huge number of people; well, if they don't have many girls, after a couple of generations they're not going to have many children and the population will shrink drastically.
Female foetecide has been a big problem in India and it's being tackled by the Government as well as the Civil society. However, this particular story has a lot of inconsistency and doesn't provide a true picture. The problems with it are being actively discussed here:
99 comments
[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadIf we assume girls are not preferred in the two most populous countries in the world (China, India) and their societies have a lower ratio of females to males, then the global trend of 1:1.08 female to male ratio must be skewed in a similar way somewhere else? right? Or does this account for that?
In other news, I thought we were headed for a different problem[0].
[0]: http://theconversation.com/the-y-chromosome-is-disappearing-...
It's skewed everywhere simply by the fact that women live to be older. When looking at people under 30, the male skew is even worse. Here's a population pyramid for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#/media/File:Indien_Bev%C...
It's a sober reminder of the feel good cultural relativism propped up by some
[0] https://numbersofindia.github.io/stories/population-06-2019/...
Simply put, there are not enough women to go around.
I suspect this leads to lots of overly fierce competition for women. Women treated more as precious commodities and less as human beings. Men lacking experience dealing with women. A certain percentage of men being unhappy much of the time because finding a mate is frustrating, or they've simply given up on it.
This is only conjecture but it's hard to imagine it being otherwise.
- sexual frustration, which is already booming in India, could increase tenfold. Sexually frustrated males can lead to being apathetic or aggressive, none of which is good for society.
- more competition means bigger delta between the winners and the losers. And they already have a large money gap. Making this difference wider can only build more social tensions.
- not a biologist, but I imagine this affects the gene pool, and overall (including social) diversity as well. -
I wouldn't worry about gene pool diversity in India (I agree with the first two statements though):
,,A 2005 study from Rutgers University theorized that the pre-1492 native populations of the Americas are the descendants of only 70 individuals who crossed the land bridge between Asia and North America.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
https://caravanmagazine.in/science-technology/what-genetics-...
Suppose a village has a birth rate of 8 babies a year (2 babies every 3 months). There's (roughly) a 50% chance the babies will be male and female, 25% chance that they're both female and 25% chance that they're both male.
That means that if you're sampling from a district that has 1,000 villages (with the average birth rate of 2 babies / 3 months, roughly the birth rate indicated by the article), one quarter of the villages will have 2 male babies - that's 250 villages with 0 female babies born in the last 3 months.
Not making any claims regarding foeticide in India - just saying that the way they chose the villages matters a lot.
1,000 births (a random guess) with 50% chance of girl, never happening once?
yikes
If I flipped 216 coins, the exact sequence that I get back also has a probability of 9e-66.
If I flipped 532 coins, the probability that I get any specific subset that share the same side is the sum of all probability that gives that result.
What we know is that 132 out 694 villages, with the average number of born children for 3 months being 1.6, had zero girls. The other 562 villages with unknown average of children had girls. As such we can conclude that the probability must be the sum of all sequences of births that results in 132 out of 694 villages having exactly no girls born under the period of 3 months.
The probability of the 132 villages is thus undefined as we simply do not have enough data on the spectrum of sequences. Based on the global census of 943 females per 1,000 males we can suspect a bias and create a ball park guess, but there is simply not enough to say an exact number like 9e-66.
You don't have to guess, it's right there in the first sentence of the article. There have been 216 births, so about 1.6 per village, which makes having zero female birth statistically normal in each village individually, but possibly not over the whole area if these villages are all in the same area.
You can find the census for Uttarkashi district at https://cdn.s3waas.gov.in/s3ef575e8837d065a1683c022d2077d342...
Page 12 says there are 694 villages and 330,086 people in the district.
I don't know if you got the memo, but equal rights is a pretty Big Thing lately.
I'm pretty sure most mothers would have preferred to keep all their children, and a society without women isn't going very far.
Before I get pummeled for that just be honest here. As soon as we state it is okay to abort for personal choice the discussion ends there. Why do we get to call in the woman's choice simply because we don't like the reason.
It will get to be seriously interesting if DNA testing comes common place and women or couples decide to abort for reasons from sex, skin color, and if ever proven genetic orientation.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the woman is in control of her reproductive process or she is not. There is no, but....
You could also argue that this is basically eugenics--selectively breeding/aborting to get a desirable trait, which in this case is sex.
That's one of the reasons why abortion is so contentious. To some personal freedom and choice outweigh any negative consequence to society. To others the well-being of society outweighs personal freedom. It's the same reason why gun ownership and drug use is contentious.
It is incredibly common where you can do something for almost any—or no—reason, but that doesn't mean you can do it for a bad reason. For instance, in the US: a business can refuse service to anyone. But, that doesn't mean they can refuse service to someone because they are black. If you live in certain states, your company can fire you at will, for no reason whatsoever. But they can't fire you because you're a woman.
"Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands having more extended time limits. After the first trimester (Ed : after 12 weeks), abortion is generally allowed only under certain circumstances, such as risk to woman's life or health, fetal defects or other specific situations that may be related to the circumstances of the conception or the woman's age." [1]
0 - https://www.livescience.com/45582-boy-or-girl.html
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Europe
Also, if having a son is so important for them, there is a reason for that. We are talking about very poor people. Whole thing is about their material well-being!
The reason having a son is so important to them is that they're treated like shit and forced to work their ass off to survive.
None of this is fine, it all has to change if we want to go anywhere worth going.
I'd imagine it's either very late abortion, or straight post delivery murder. Which is more problematic.
This is actually very common in rural parts of India. Families often force the women to abort female children. The reasons are given in the article: In India's patriarchal society, male children are seen as future breadwinners and caregivers who have an obligation to look after their parents when they age.
> I really don't see a problem
A skewed sex ratio has _very_ serious implications for the country, and I say this as an Indian. I don't know enough about this subject to elaborate, but there are many other comments in this thread that you should read.
There are nearly 700 villages in the district, and most of them are small enough to have <2 births in the given time frame.
Out of all those villages they just picked the ones which happened to have had no females. It is no coincidence, whoever did the study clearly knew what they were doing and cherry picked the data to sensationalize. You could do the same to any other similar sized district and get the same results.
There does seem to be something going on. According to Wikipedia only 43% of the population of the region are female.
If 63 million women are statistically missing from the Indian population, I think it's pretty clear possible outliers like this need investigating, not denigrating.
That's something we should be doing more.
Even non-expert should read the study and not comment on news articles.
Think about it. If there is no expert in the room, then nothing is lost by openly trying to reason out the truth of the matter and seeing what sticks to the fly paper of reality. This is how new experts form.
If there is an expert in the room, they will be more than happy to point out issues, and attempt to offer points to guide the intellectual endeavor within the bounds of their expertise. This is also how new experts take shape.
The knowledge wielded by an expert is what makes them an expert. We call it expertise.
It is not the fact they are an expert that makes their knowledge expertise. The knowledge needs no particular person to prove itself useful.
An appeal to personal credentials as the primary determined as to the veracity of an argument is known as an appeal to authority, which is a very common fallacy.
The info in the article isn't a study, it barely even summarises a study, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the commenter hasn't read the actual study. If so saying "this study isn't it" isn't simply an opinion, it's misrepresentation.
However it quotes local officials who did do the study and have the detailed analysis saying there's a serious problem that warrants further investigation. They may be right or they may be wrong. Saying on the basis of what's here that the study is definitively bad or good isn't warranted though. That's all I'm saying.
IAAS (Ignorance As A Service).
No thanks.
But yeah India is not a great place for girls and women. That's changing bit by bit in the more advanced places but it's such a vast country with so many backward regions that the laggards will come along very slowly.
https://caravanmagazine.in/science-technology/what-genetics-...
"People tend to think of India, with its more than 1.3 billion people, as having a tremendously large population"
and
"The truth is that India is composed of a large number of small populations"
(There is incredibly little marrying outside ones own group.)
Even if you cherry pick data, what even is probability of getting consecutive 216 heads on a coin toss? It is amazing that Indians here are acting as if female infanticide/foeticide is not a big menace in India.
I think the accusation here is that what happened is someone asked a couple hundred people to do two coin tosses, then grouped together those who got both heads and called it a statistical anomaly.
That is very different from the distribution of the sex of babies. Regions end up with skewed demographics for various reasons like distant factories, war, etc.
But if these villages represent a contiguous area, then it is alarming. The article doesn't really give enough information to say anything about this really.
> The 132 villages where no girls were born over three months have all been marked as part of a “red zone”, which means local data will be scrutinised more closely and health workers have been asked to be vigilant.
The "red zone" is not a single area, it's a black list.
"now new data has revealed that only female children were born in 129 different villages in the same district."
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/uttarkashis-genderbe...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Can we also get more Trump hate, global warming, white man bad, globalism good, taxes good?
That would be sweet.
How applicable it will be in the modern context is another story as ancients didn't have the degree of interconnectedness, offense/defense asymmetry of weapon superiority, or the "play nice or else" of Pax Atomica which has kept Pakistan and India shockingly civil even with terrorist attacks, border skirmishes, and similiar incidents.
There are a lot of things horrible about christian missionaries but their internet propaganda division is killing it.
If you think a story is bad for the site, the thing to do is flag it, not post comments that only make things worse. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Would you mind reviewing them?
Edit: you've posted nationalistic flamebait in the past too, unfortunately. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't.
I didnt intend for religious flamewar. It is my position that these news are sponsored by christian missionaries. I thought reporting the same in comments is the best way to highlight it. How else do you suggest I claim my position ?
Not sure which of my posts constitute nationalistic flamebait. If you could highlight ill try to steer clear. Thx.
They have 1.3 billions of people, living under an unbelievable social pressure (casts, diversity, religion, money...), on a land saturated by pollution with less and less water to drink.
Reading this article, it seems possible they are running toward a gender crisis as well. Sex frustration is already a terrible thing there, and a big source of trouble. If this proves right, I don't see a way for it to end well.
Now add on top of that they have very unstable borders and the nuclear weapon, and we got all the ingredients for something bad to happen.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/cgvumc/we_need...