Now Chinese Communists also want Rule of law

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Democracy is best. But rule of law is not necessarily democracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

Or the result will be same as it happened in erstwhile USSR The Russia

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

Or the result will be same as it happened in erstwhile USSR The Russia

I was thinking the same thing - the very definition of Marxism makes communism a losing proposition since change is inevitable and no situation can be permanent. No system is perfect either since all systems come with loopholes including democracy which is probably the best option we have as of now...China is already leaning towards socialism which is one step forward and sooner than later Democracy is bound to become a way of life there as well...

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

Or the result will be same as it happened in erstwhile USSR The Russia

I was thinking the same thing - the very definition of Marxism makes communism a losing proposition since change is inevitable and no situation can be permanent. No system is perfect either since all systems come with loopholes including democracy which is probably the best option we have as of now...China is already leaning towards socialism which is one step forward and sooner than later Democracy is bound to become a way of life there as well...

The Soviet Union came to existence after uprooting the Tzarist dictatorship. so far, nowhere Communists have replaced demorcracy. Pt Nehru our first Prime minister aimed at democracy and socialism both. Democracy and dictatorship are forms whereas communism, socialism or capitalism are content. Basically, communism is democratic as this means economic welfare of workers or masses. Capitalism is undemocratic as this means rule of the few big capitalists even though the form may be democratic. It goes to credit of Pt Nehru that he aimed at democracy in content and form both. He hence came with unique view of 'democratic socialism' or 'socialistic pattern of society'.

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

Or the result will be same as it happened in erstwhile USSR The Russia

I was thinking the same thing - the very definition of Marxism makes communism a losing proposition since change is inevitable and no situation can be permanent. No system is perfect either since all systems come with loopholes including democracy which is probably the best option we have as of now...China is already leaning towards socialism which is one step forward and sooner than later Democracy is bound to become a way of life there as well...

The Soviet Union came to existence after uprooting the Tzarist dictatorship. so far, nowhere Communists have replaced demorcracy. Pt Nehru our first Prime minister aimed at democracy and socialism both. Democracy and dictatorship are forms whereas communism, socialism or capitalism are content. Basically, communism is democratic as this means economic welfare of workers or masses. Capitalism is undemocratic as this means rule of the few big capitalists even though the form may be democratic. It goes to credit of Pt Nehru that he aimed at democracy in content and form both. He hence came with unique view of 'democratic socialism' or 'socialistic pattern of society'.

Well said. But what is the difference between Capitalism and Communism? In the former man exploits man and in the latter it is the reverse !!! These days Nehru is out of favour.

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

Or the result will be same as it happened in erstwhile USSR The Russia

I was thinking the same thing - the very definition of Marxism makes communism a losing proposition since change is inevitable and no situation can be permanent. No system is perfect either since all systems come with loopholes including democracy which is probably the best option we have as of now...China is already leaning towards socialism which is one step forward and sooner than later Democracy is bound to become a way of life there as well...

The Soviet Union came to existence after uprooting the Tzarist dictatorship. so far, nowhere Communists have replaced demorcracy. Pt Nehru our first Prime minister aimed at democracy and socialism both. Democracy and dictatorship are forms whereas communism, socialism or capitalism are content. Basically, communism is democratic as this means economic welfare of workers or masses. Capitalism is undemocratic as this means rule of the few big capitalists even though the form may be democratic. It goes to credit of Pt Nehru that he aimed at democracy in content and form both. He hence came with unique view of 'democratic socialism' or 'socialistic pattern of society'.

It is a well known and well established fact that Nehrus so called experiment with Socio Democracy was a total failure and his daughter took it further since she was an autocrat who was not ready to heed to advise even from experts on the field and institutionalising corruption - together they made a mess of things slowing down the growth for which we all have been paying the price !!1

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/The-god-that-failed-Nehru-Indira-socialist-model-placed-India-in-precipitous-decline-relative-to-the-world/articleshow/26112532.cms

All civilized countries are governed by rule of law as against rule of whim. In ancient days, word of king was law. It goes to Britis that they introduced ule of law in India. happily now Chinese also intend to go by rule of law.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Communist-Party-of-China-begins-annual-plenum-with-rule-of-law/articleshow/44893829.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section

There is no way out. They will have to come to terms sooner than later.

yo
How long will a billion plus people be kept under non democratic  rule

Dmocracy is best. But rue of law3 is not necessarily dmocracy. Rule of law means absence of arbitrariness. British introduced rule of law in India. Rule of law means that as ong as you go by rules. you need not fear.

But in China rules are made by a few for everyone and in democracy rules are made by everyone for everyone. China has to give way to democracy sooner or later. It is generating fantastic economy which needs to be shared by every Chinese and not only the very limited handful of Communist Party members.

Or the result will be same as it happened in erstwhile USSR The Russia

I was thinking the same thing - the very definition of Marxism makes communism a losing proposition since change is inevitable and no situation can be permanent. No system is perfect either since all systems come with loopholes including democracy which is probably the best option we have as of now...China is already leaning towards socialism which is one step forward and sooner than later Democracy is bound to become a way of life there as well...

The Soviet Union came to existence after uprooting the Tzarist dictatorship. so far, nowhere Communists have replaced demorcracy. Pt Nehru our first Prime minister aimed at democracy and socialism both. Democracy and dictatorship are forms whereas communism, socialism or capitalism are content. Basically, communism is democratic as this means economic welfare of workers or masses. Capitalism is undemocratic as this means rule of the few big capitalists even though the form may be democratic. It goes to credit of Pt Nehru that he aimed at democracy in content and form both. He hence came with unique view of 'democratic socialism' or 'socialistic pattern of society'.

It is a well known and well established fact that Nehrus so called experiment with Socio Democracy was a total failure and his daughter took it further since she was an autocrat who was not ready to heed to advise even from experts on the field and institutionalising corruption - together they made a mess of things slowing down the growth for which we all have been paying the price !!1

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/The-god-that-failed-Nehru-Indira-socialist-model-placed-India-in-precipitous-decline-relative-to-the-world/articleshow/26112532.cms

Nehru was a true democrat and really architect of India. Indira gandhi is much different. She was not sincerere. she just raised slogan like 'garibi hatao' to meet her own greed for power. She demolished all democratic institutions. In fact, the ery idea of democracy, socialism and secularism ended with Nehru.

Nehru lacked vision and political authority which is why we have border problems with both China and Pakistan today, also Kashmir issue was left unresolved which has become a nightmare now....Just because of his lack of vision we had to suffer a war with China, this inspite of his nowing border tensions, but to show he was under control he kept putting off the issue until it exploded. It is thanks to him and that we have so many peoblems and Indira Gandhi only made things even worse ...

Nehru lacked vision and political authority which is why we have border problems with both China and Pakistan today, also Kashmir issue was left unresolved which has become a nightmare now....Just because of his lack of vision we had to suffer a war with China, this inspite of his nowing border tensions, but to show he was under control he kept putting off the issue until it exploded. It is thanks to him and that we have so many peoblems and Indira Gandhi only made things even worse ...

Nehru was pioneer of industrialization of India. He laid the basic infrastructure. He laid foundation of five years plans. He was among the three top worl leaders of non alignment along with Nassar and Tito. Whatever achievements we make today or likely to do in future is rooted in Nehru's ground work.

Nehru lacked vision and political authority which is why we have border problems with both China and Pakistan today, also Kashmir issue was left unresolved which has become a nightmare now....Just because of his lack of vision we had to suffer a war with China, this inspite of his nowing border tensions, but to show he was under control he kept putting off the issue until it exploded. It is thanks to him and that we have so many peoblems and Indira Gandhi only made things even worse ...

Nehru was pioneer of industrialization of India. He laid the basic infrastructure. He laid foundation of five years plans. He was among the three top worl leaders of non alignment along with Nassar and Tito. Whatever achievements we make today or likely to do in future is rooted in Nehru's ground work.

Nehru is being held responsible for attacks by China and Pakistan on India. By that logic should we hold Modi responsible for recent firing by Pakistanis across the cease fire line resulting in displacement of more than 30,000 people on the borders. To say that Nehru lacked vision and political authority is negating the reality. He did not anoint Indira as his successor.

Nehru lacked vision and political authority which is why we have border problems with both China and Pakistan today, also Kashmir issue was left unresolved which has become a nightmare now....Just because of his lack of vision we had to suffer a war with China, this inspite of his nowing border tensions, but to show he was under control he kept putting off the issue until it exploded. It is thanks to him and that we have so many peoblems and Indira Gandhi only made things even worse ...

Nehru was pioneer of industrialization of India. He laid the basic infrastructure. He laid foundation of five years plans. He was among the three top worl leaders of non alignment along with Nassar and Tito. Whatever achievements we make today or likely to do in future is rooted in Nehru's ground work.

Nehru is being held responsible for attacks by China and Pakistan on India. By that logic should we hold Modi responsible for recent firing by Pakistanis across the cease fire line resulting in displacement of more than 30,000 people on the borders. To say that Nehru lacked vision and political authority is negating the reality. He did not anoint Indira as his successor.

Rightly pointed that Nehru did not appoint Indira gandhi as his political heir. As a true democrat, he won't do any such thing. for record, Indira Gandhi was a minister in Lal bahadur Shatri's cabinet also. Nobody is successful in war eery time. China is a very big power. Naturally, India was not prepared for war with China. Incidentally, the current ruling leaders criticized the UPA govrnment for engaging talks with pakistan even while hostilities occured. It can be well asked why the current P.M. was welcoming the chinese President even during border violations and other hostile activities.

Nehru lacked vision and political authority which is why we have border problems with both China and Pakistan today, also Kashmir issue was left unresolved which has become a nightmare now....Just because of his lack of vision we had to suffer a war with China, this inspite of his nowing border tensions, but to show he was under control he kept putting off the issue until it exploded. It is thanks to him and that we have so many peoblems and Indira Gandhi only made things even worse ...

Nehru was pioneer of industrialization of India. He laid the basic infrastructure. He laid foundation of five years plans. He was among the three top worl leaders of non alignment along with Nassar and Tito. Whatever achievements we make today or likely to do in future is rooted in Nehru's ground work.

Nehru is being held responsible for attacks by China and Pakistan on India. By that logic should we hold Modi responsible for recent firing by Pakistanis across the cease fire line resulting in displacement of more than 30,000 people on the borders. To say that Nehru lacked vision and political authority is negating the reality. He did not anoint Indira as his successor.

Rightly pointed that Nehru did not appoint Indira gandhi as his political heir. As a true democrat, he won't do any such thing. for record, Indira Gandhi was a minister in Lal bahadur Shatri's cabinet also. Nobody is successful in war eery time. China is a very big power. Naturally, India was not prepared for war with China. Incidentally, the current ruling leaders criticized the UPA govrnment for engaging talks with pakistan even while hostilities occured. It can be well asked why the current P.M. was welcoming the chinese President even during border violations and other hostile activities.

Let the present rulers make their name and fame by their achievements and contributions. Why do they have to humiliate past PM's and leaders. After all in their time they did their best and then people loved them and voted them to power repeatedly. Judging past events by today's yardstick shows a bias, agenda and lack of confidence. They are trying to build economic relations with a country which has attacked us , continues to violate our borders, issues warnings to us every few days, but will go on condemning past leaders.

It appears that Chinese communist Party is sincere about 'rule of law'. That is why now it will be easier to sue the government.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Its-now-easier-for-citizens-to-sue-China-government/articleshow/45017606.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=digest_section