Go back 50 to 100 years.. and then yes.
More evolved maybe, hardly better. We still have and allow cults that abuse children, sweet shops and do not in any way hit down hard enough on the exploitation of women and children in human trafficking.
India has not changed that much. It is an ancient society with various traditions in various areas that seem alien to us and barbaric. It takes many generations to change attitudes and you can not do it by just banning it.
Look at honour crimes in India... huge amount of "kitchen fires" killing thousands of women each year, and the police does nothing because local cops dont think it is wrong.
We punish the people who do these things and we punish them severely. Until last year, punishment for rapists in India was a joke.
And we do try everything to stop human trafficking. There are arrests and crackdowns on white slavery networks consistently.
You do know how Ceaușescu treated women right? And children?
Like it or not, in the west there are plenty of boneheads that live in the past and want women barefoot and pregnant, and many of those boneheads are rather powerful. While we have evolved, often kicking and screaming, there are still religious and traditional issues all across West that are similar in its barbaric nature towards women as what is happening in India.
A good example is rape. Rape today is highly reported compared to say 30 years ago. During the 1960s and 70s, rape against women was considered "they had it coming" because of what company they kept or how the dressed. Even today that attitude is active in certain conservative sides of society. Rapes were not reported much in the past (relatively speaking), because the police often did not care or thought it was the womans own fault. It takes time for such changes... generations.
India is far from perfect, but it is hardly the only place where this crap is going on. Just here in Spain a few weeks ago, a Brit was arrested for holding 9 women against their will in his personal harem.. he was rich and powerful, so people protected him until one of the women escaped and altered authorities.
...
If we are to talk about Ceasescu it will take a long discussion. I don't think you can attribute communism doctrines and policies to something condoned or encouraged by the people. You don't get to pick and choose your leader and the ruling party in a totalitarian regime. But since the communist regime fell, Romania did a lot of progress and a lot of catching up to the free countries of the west in human rights and especially womens' rights.
But let me tell you something, back then there was a lot of police brutality and it happened to discourage people from doing all sorts of crimes or things that were considered undesirable or at least, if you did it once, you wouldn't do it again. It was not uncommon for the police to lock you for a day or two if you were being particularly... lets say disruptive. I know that they did that to a lot of drunks for instance but also to men who were bothering women unjustly and got reported. This is especially more true in smaller towns and cities. People got locked up and came out one or two days out of the police station and they wouldn't touch a drink or cause a disturbance a long time after that... call them model citizens if you will, with some broken ribs...
Ofc, that's one side... the other side is the immense corruption and abuses of power on people who did nothing wrong but just happened to piss off someone in the police force.
As to the example of the british guy. Look, the difference is that this behavior is looked down upon. Was there any public outrage to the fact he got convicted? Do people think that the behavior and actions he took are desirable? He was a twisted individual whose actions are looked down upon by society and whom, when caught, will be struck down by the law. Which is not what is happening in India. In India people get away unless there is a huge public outrage and a lot of people see no problem with their behavior as long as it doesn't happen to one of their acquaintances.
And another crucial difference is that while there are people who would much rather see womens' rights turn back a century, there are lot of people who don't support that. And while we are debating how we want the society of our future to look like and how both men and women fit in that society, we are at least pioneering there. We are exploring these dynamics in our world. there isn't a predermined plan that we can follow to make sure everyone is happy and it all turns well. Like the whole thing about letting women in the army. And each country has its own varying policies. Some allow them to serve in front line combat, others not at all, others just in some branches of the army. Some countries have implemented these policies a long time ago, others more recently. If my memory is not failing me, Norway has allowed women to serve in the army since before WW2 and France is the first country to allow women to serve in all branches of the army after WW2. I could be mixing things up a bit but I am sure I'm not far from the truth.
