faintwhenfree

No the archaeological survey result just mean it's inconclusive whether the situation is exactly same or not. No evidence doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, it just that we don't know for sure if it happebd or not.

In case of Hagia Sophia, the structure was kept more or less the same, with some features added to make it a mosque. Mosque that was built at the place article is talking about completely razed previous structure (verified by archaeological survey of India) that was built at believed birthplace for one of the more prominent deity and a new mosque was later torn down by crowds in 1992.

Supreme court in India around 2019 decided that since this site holds a lot more significance for one religion than other (no real religion wide belief for location) the land in question would be allocated to Hindus while another location would be allocated to Muslims to reconstruct the mosque.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_the_Babri_Masjid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mandir

Not claiming anything about Modi, just trying to present unbiased facts.

First you commented from McDonaldIsHealthy@lemmus.org and then deleted it. And commented same thing from another account

I don't think it's prefer one over the other. For India world is not binary. There is a reason it's called third world country, Russian partnership doesn't meant distance from West and western partnership doesn't mean distance from Russia. India doesn't have the luxury to pick sides. It has to keep engaging all global partners.

India is not distancing itself from West, but geopolitics are different for India. West has not been a reliable trading partner in last 8 decades, last decade West has been reliable but that's mostly because now they want to counter China. USSR/Russia has been more reliable.

But if you take a subset of defense trading partner, West has been very unreliable period. If you look at all the corruption scandals in Indian Defense history you'd realise almost all are with the west, France, Sweden, Italy.

Now going back to broader business and economic development, your argument is probably valid, but from the point of view of India, it is in position of most relative strength in geopolitics than it has ever been, if India can play both sides, it will and it must.

If any dealings with Russia were followed by sanction from the west, I think that's when you'd see who does India favor more. But west won't do it, because West needs India to be strong to counter China and if the cost is delayed fall of Putin, I think west is willing to take that risk, since Russia is no longer the threat it was to the west 3 decades ago.

So, from Indian's point of view if it can both have a cake and eat it too, why would it not?

You're right, i meant to say, anything larger than a single island nation. Will edit original comment.

You're right oil and gas companies have more funding for CCS but it's not like agri has 0 funding, they have also gotten single digit billions so far. UCS https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/agricultural-practices-and-carbon-sequestration-fact-sheet

World economic forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/how-carbon-smart-farming-tackles-climate-change/

Nature.com https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0108-y

Other less known sources https://techxplore.com/news/2021-09-agricultural-sector-capture-co2.html

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-adding-rock-dust-to-soil-can-help-get-carbon-into-the-ground

Anyway if you go down this road, you'd realise some projects talk sense, but some funding has gone to non sense projects that effectively just say like "oh farming is growing plants, plants absorb CO2, we are naturally a carbon sink, daddy give me money"

Not really no, some nordinc countries with geothermal and tidal options on top of wind and solar maybe, anything larger than an island nation, cannot reach net zero without some form of carbon capture, even if electricity is fully renewable we will still need steel, cement, we'll still have to refine metals for electronics and batters all of which emit GHG, so everyone has to use offset carbon somehow.

One way Iceland claims carbon neutrality is because they don't produce a lot of steel, but if you look from a consumption point of view, how much steel Iceland consumes, I guarantee you, it will look worse.

Maybe USA should also do it, USA had close to 50% of lands covered with forests in late 1600s which is now only close to 20% it increased by 0.03%in the last decade. That would go a long way toward a net zero target.

Or they can buy into big agri and big pharma's bullshit and keep giving them billions in subsidy to work on something that clearly is failing now as an option..