Any Federalist or Zhili or Manchu Qing cow jokes?Some nice KR two cows jokes, about China!
Any Federalist or Zhili or Manchu Qing cow jokes?Some nice KR two cows jokes, about China!
The Dominion of India shouldn't even even have democracy (or exist) at all. They're the remnants of the British Raj, a colonial regime that treated the Indian people like dirt and actively exploited and killed them throughout its history. The Brits would never be willing to give any sort of equality or self-rule to the Indians when they never even saw them as actual people.They also ignore the fact that India has democracy for example.
No, the point break down to "it was the will of the people to end the previous regime and because of that retaking the homeland would be like firing at protestors"I mean, it is a bit of a left wing term (suggesting a bias).
and there point basically breaks down to "how dare the Entente resist our volient over throw of the goverment".
I feel you are being a bit hyperbolic here, but you are right. Delhi should not exist.The Dominion of India shouldn't even even have democracy (or exist) at all. They're the remnants of the British Raj, a colonial regime that treated the Indian people like dirt and actively exploited and killed them throughout its history. The Brits would never be willing to give any sort of equality or self-rule to the Indians when they never even saw them as actual people.
a. I some how dought that it was the will of the peopleNo, the point break down to "it was the will of the people to end the previous regime and because of that retaking the homeland would be like firing at protestors"
No, the point break down to "it was the will of the people to end the previous regime and because of that retaking the homeland would be like firing at protestors"
Very few revolutions succeded when most of the population didn't want it, and point b is irrelevanta. I some how dought that it was the will of the people
b. Force has been used, the rebels and Canada are at war, if not actively persuing it.,
Very few revolutions succeded when most of the population didn't want it, and point b is irrelevant
1. Those aren't "elections" as we think of them, they're more an elective monarchy deciding whose bloc should be in charge.There are events where you have elections!
No. It is run by trade unions. It is at best an incredibly olgicaral democracy.
Incorrect.FTFY.
That's not democracy, it's a bunch of local rulers united by a fig leaf jockeying for position to see whose bloc takes charge.Uhm, the nicest possible interpretation of Delhi definitely covers democracy given they have, you know, elections that decide the government and can be won by multiple parties covering a wide political range (unlike, say, the Long's AUS) - even parties led by people willing to negotiate and unite with an amenable Bharatiya government (eg., with Gandhi).
Or a Republican Delhi under some sort of "Republic of India" tag, for that matter. If I did KR's India, Delhi would be a bunch of republicans under the right-wing faction of the Indian National Congress while the Princely Federation would be the remnants of Entente rule there.Now, you can certainly argue it is unrealistic (my own take is that it is unrealistic, but more realistic than a figleaf of British rule managing to cling on to a significant part of India any other way, so the alternative should be no Delhi, not dictatorship Delhi).
a. I some how dought that it was the will of the people
The Bharatiya Commune doesn't even abolish the caste system, the Totalists do it during the course of their path.the Bharatiya Commune is literally a popular movement that seeks to put power in the hands of the common Indian people.
"elective monarchy deciding whose bloc should be in charge" is the Princely Federation, not Delhi.
The Bharatiya Commune doesn't even abolish the caste system, the Totalists do it during the course of their path.
It is a democracy.British royalist exiles...and yet it's allegedly a democracy??? How and why does that work or make sense at all?
If anything, I would argue that the lack of socail engerneening suggests it is a popular movement.Yeah, even OTL Gandhi was pro-caste-system. Bharat is still clearly presented and operates as a popular movement.
The only explanation for India as presented (a British dominion that never breaks from the Entente unless Canada is taken and literally everybody else leaves, that's more focused on retaking the rest of India and run alternatively by Eddie or Ganga Singh) that makes a lick of sense to me is that it's an alliance of princely states who are anti-Nizam for various reasons and cling to the Canadians for a supply of surplus ships and weapons from the former British navy that the Canadians can no longer maintain (see Australasia's whole mothball fleet crisis). There's just no realistic way that a true democratic Indian state would be so loyal to a rump British Empire-in-exile. It's a bunch of local strongmen and dirtbags professing loyalty to Canada to get support in military matters to keep the populace down and fight off native-ruled states to the south and east.As Delhi is at the moment, then no, the events do indicate they are elections as we think of them ("Four major parties are competing for the people's votes.", "The Swaraj Party Dominates at the Ballot Box", "Jinnah's Leftists Sweep the Elections" - that last also putting someone unfriendly to continued Dominion status in power, you may notice). Where did you get the idea they aren't? Now, you can certainly argue it is unrealistic (my own take is that it is unrealistic, but more realistic than a figleaf of British rule managing to cling on to a significant part of India any other way, so the alternative should be no Delhi, not dictatorship Delhi).
I would scrap the Raj remnant entirely. South India would be a right-wing republic playing the Japanese and Germans off each other, Delhi would be a group of princely states banding together rather than hanging separately, and Bharat would be a broader coalition of the left. I'd definitely have to ask someone well-versed in late colonial India for lore work though, I'm not sure if having the south be an intensely traditionalist, Hindutva-dominated state and Bharat be divided between people who just want the British and nobles out and those who want to straight-up remake society and junk the caste system would work.Or a Republican Delhi under some sort of "Republic of India" tag, for that matter. If I did KR's India, Delhi would be a bunch of republicans under the right-wing faction of the Indian National Congress while the Princely Federation would be the remnants of Entente rule there.
That literally makes no sense at all. Why would a democratic late/post-colonial Indian state have any loyalty to the bastardized exiled rump of imperial Britain whatsoever?It is a democracy.
It is loyal to the Enente due to the people in goverment
The simple explanation is that it doesn't make sense, because the lore for India was created a decade ago and not changed a bit since then. It's not ruled by British exiles, though, no clue where you're taking that from. But that's what it is like in KR right now - Delhi is an Indian state with dominion status and a democratic form of government.
- Then what actually IS Delhi? It's based in the area that was mostly Princely States (while the Federation is in the more republican and formerly directly-ruled south), it's ostensibly loyal to the British royalist exiles...and yet it's allegedly a democracy??? How and why does that work or make sense at all?
- Yeah, even OTL Gandhi was pro-caste-system. Bharat is still clearly presented and operates as a popular movement.