>>97555>>97538That reputation only developed because of hippies in the 70s projecting their philosophy onto the Hindus. What would happen is a hippie would go to India, get flattered and patronized because he's a white person (whites were seen like gods to brown people in those days, the disparity between the first and third world was massive). He'd assume this nice, flattering and patronizing treatment was how Indians really were, and write lots of novels talking about how kind and spiritual these people are. Not once did they peer in the slums and see exactly how they treat one another.
Indians online don't believe me when I say this but if they came to the west anytime between 1970-1990, they could've had their fill of hippie pussy.
>>97539Europeans in the 19th century selectively mined certain texts for their romanticism. Schopenhauer did this with the Upanishads. Buddhism was actually lost knowledge in India until the Europeans came and rediscovered it. Actual Hinduism as practiced by Hindus is very materialistic, and victim blaming. It's not like Christianity where there's concern for the poor, in Hinduism if you're poor, stupid, low caste or ugly it's not just you that's bad, it's that your soul is effectively tainted for sins in a past life.
>>97553>>97555There's no real evidence that Colonialism did overall harm to India. Most of their problems seem to stem from the Cold War era where they just didn't grow in the slightest on a per capita basis for 40 years. It's arguable they've barely grown since the 90s either, India is actually deindustrializing in a lot of areas and people are fleeing the cities for the countryside. A good percentage of their GDP growth has come from the Green Revolution giving better fertilizers that allow for more crops.
The reason you see so many Indians online starting petty fights with westerners is because a lot are unemployed NEETs.