offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by SultanOfSwin » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:13:51


Quote:


> > Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> > slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> > which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> > is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> > invasion.

> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> like to admit.

   I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
   on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
   Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
   Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
   religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
   the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
   Congress' intentions.
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Mad Hamis » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:17:27


Quote:


>> India was not a single entity prior to British invasion.

>You need to read Indian history. Mughal India was one single entity
>though there
>were still a few separate provinces. Under Akbar/Sher Shah, India was
>doing really well. The Mughals united most of  India and a few of their
>rulers except Aurangzeb were really wise and had respect for Hindu
>traditions and literature.  

apparently it basically dated between 1527 the early 1700s

The Maratha Empire took over after that but reached its peak in 1761
when they lost the Third Battle of Panipat
After that you got the empire being split into largely autonomous
districts.

The British East India Company came into the picture after the 2 main
empires in India had died down.

Quote:
>Taj Mahal was built during Mughal rule.

Yes, and the cost of it and other building efforts contributed fairly
heavily to the empire's problems

Quote:
> Hindustani/Carnatic music matured and were
>thriving from 13th-16th centuries.
> And India had brilliant scientists/thinkers  like
>Aryabhatta

a brief read suggests that he was a pretty handy mathematician

Quote:
> and Chanakya
>much before British came.

If you name somebody who died a couple of hundred years BC and
somebody else from the 400s -> 500s it suggests you are struggling to
think of many

Quote:
> So if you think science progressed
>in India due to the British, it shows your lack of understanding of
>Indian history and culture.

If you look at damned near anywhere in the world science and
technology in the last 150 years or so it's made more impact than in
the previous couple of thousand.

In the most past the science has been driven from Europe and the USA,
although I think this is changing and will change further in the
future

Quote:
>And if you don't know, most of the Greek
>scientific theories were there in the Vedic texts of ancient
>India predating Greek inventions by a few thousand years.

Yeah right...

Quote:

>And even if there were quiet a few separate entities/provinces in 16th
>century India, that is true even of countries like Germany which were
>unified only in the late 19th
>century. There's noithing to say India wouldn't have followed the same
>path even if British had not arrived.

It would have required massive changes in culture.

Quote:

>> you'll soon realize that the British inadvertantly might have helped to
>> fast-track us on to the road to being a superpower

>Typical colonial slave mentality.

typical revisionist crap.

What the British did was abhorrent, basically invading a country to
ensure that they can sell *** to another one, but there's no denying
how much influence it's had on what India is now.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws


 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Vig » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:22:51

Quote:



>>> Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
>>> slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
>>> which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
>>> is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
>>> invasion.
>> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
>> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
>> like to admit.

>    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
>    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
>    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
>    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
>    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
>    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
>    Congress' intentions.

Not Jinnah... Don guessed right though :)

Cheers!
--
Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Vig » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:25:40

Quote:

>> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
>> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
>> like to admit.

> Referring to Gandhi???? Hmm..that explains your overall mentality and
> how much
> regard or the lack of it you have for India.

I am not using the word paedophile as is used by some posters here on
rsc. I am using it to refer to the fact that he had young *** girls
'warm' his body to prevent those shivering fits.

Lack of regard for Gandhi != lack of regard for India

But I do personally look at India objectively since I think patriotism
is a very silly emotion.

Cheers!
--
Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Gilly's Dand » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:14:47

OT

Quote:



> > > Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> > > slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> > > which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> > > is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> > > invasion.

> > Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> > certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> > like to admit.

>    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
>    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
>    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
>    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
>    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
>    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
>    Congress' intentions.

It might also have been that he was power-hungry, suffering from
tuberculosis from the mid-1940s onwards, and jealous of Nehru (who
didn't help matters by jilting Jinnah at every opportunity). Was Gandhi
a saint? No, probably not, and one might question how much
applicability principles like non-*** have when the enemy isn't
willing to budge, as Mandela did and does in his autobiography.

There is a pretty convincing thesis that Gandhi didn't have a lot to do
with independence anyway, and that the British didn't have the economic
might to sustain an empire after WW2 and the toll it took of Britain.
They were always going to leave for economic reasons. Gandhi and Nehru
gave them a m***imperative, and with Jinnah, influenced the shape of
independent India and Pakistan. If Nehru had been more conciliatory, we
might not have had Pakistan. If the British hadn't sent an idiot like
Radcliffe to draw the maps of modern India and Pakistan, problems might
have been averted and they may have not. If Mountbatten hadn't been
influenced by his wife, to be so vehemently pro-Indian, modern
relations between India and Pakistan may have been very different.
(Jinnah, after all, kept his house in Bombay, expecting to flit between
India and Pakistan at will. Maybe he was naive, maybe other factors
were beyond his control.)

But the problems of partition go far deeper than these simplistic
analyses - as is anything bordering on an intelligent discussion of
what the Mughals did and didn't do for India (like hell they united
most of India - the Portuguese were still in Goa, and the French in
Pondicherry, until well after the Mughals had been turfed out), the
British contribution or lack thereof to India (when are we getting
their crown jewels back?), and the Maratha/Sikh empires. What beggars
belief most of all is that anyone seems to think that this will be
achieved in a discussion on rsc. With Shridhar.

A
A

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:25:01


Quote:



> > I guess that you never studied history?  "always hides behind American
> > assess"?  Britain was fighting WW1 for like 3 years before the US joined
in.

> I know England under Churchill defended their country against German
> invasion.
> Compare England in the 2 World Wars to Germany. Germany single-handedly
> fought so many countries together. England had to take help from US and
> Russia
> in WWII. Germany was very powerful after its unification in the late
> 19th century.
> (look i am in no way defending Nazism here but just highlighting
> Germany's self reliance).

Guess you never heard of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?  Britain was all alone
in summer 1940 when operation sealion was being planned and attempted. USA
had made it clear that it wasn't going to get involved, and the Soviets were
semi-allied with Nazis. Can't remember when Italy declared war in Britain,
but it might have been around this time.

In 1st world war, Germany was allied with Austria and Ottomans, and were
therefore not alone.

Reason why there are so many call-centres in India / IT in India is largely
due to British influence.

I was in Bangalore last year was told that any mail still sent to Bombay
instead of Mumbai would not be delivered.  I asked why not?  and was told it
was due to national pride, and that India was reverting city names to Indian
names, and not British names  (since when has Bombay / Calcutta and Madras
been English names?)  We were driving past the "Electronic City" part of
Bangalore, and I asked my Indian colleague what was Hindi for "electronic
city"?  He looked at me for a while, and realised  and acceded to my point ~
suits the Indians to use English words when it suits them...  I wondered
about how much money was wasted in changing Bombay etc. to Mumbai, etc. when
there was so much abject poverty ingrained everywhere. My colleague agreed
that the money should have been spent on more needful things.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >  If the British are as shite as you say, why is it that we
> > are presently using English language right now?

> What can i say? My country was invaded and ruled by the British for 300
> years. I am forced to use English language. Before British invasion,
> the Indian land was thriving.
> All its languages, tradition and indigenous literary works were
> thriving. See, China was not invaded but yet is a world power. So it
> would not have been suprising that even if India had not been invaded
> by British, it would have grown and become more of a world power than
> it is now. Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> invasion. If Brazil, Argentina, China and lot of European countries can
> do well despite not knowing English language, India would have done
> much better by now and more than that had respect for local languages
> and tradition as it was way ahead of China and lot of other countries
> in the 16th century in most respects.

> Don

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:31:08


Quote:

> > Andrew Dunford as usual chose not to understand the post:

> >> The real action is Sunday's playoff for last place between South Africa
and
> >> ........ India.

> > Where did i compare them with India? I never described Ind as a
> > sporting nation.
> > Compare Eng to Germany or Aus and you get what i am saying. They are
> > shit as compared to their other West European neighbours and even East
> > European
> > countries.

> Don't get all pissy, but

> Premier League >> Bundesliga and the English soccer team is about as
> good as the German soccer team is and way better than the socceroos (no
> matter what the world cup results were...no one is harping about senegal
> or south korea anymore...)

> In the most watched sport, the British have always had several drivers
> in the F1 racing circuit with champions like Damon Hill. They also have
> DC, Button etc. Again, Australia is nowhere, although the Germans have
> just as many drivers (including one Michael Schumacher)

> Let us see... As far as cricket goes, they are the second best test team
> in the world and Germany does not even play.

> I think it is a joke to compare GB with India citing Leander Paes. Tim
> Henman is easily a more successful player than any Indian tennis player
> EVER...unfortunate as that might be.

I remember reading in the Hindi Times before the last olympics about all the
Indian medal hopefuls; they were going to do really well, etc.  They got 1
medal in the end; think it was a silver perhaps.  Hong Kong also got 1 medal
too... So 7 million population HK gets the same as 1000 million India?
China got absolutely loads.
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:06:00


Quote:

> >  If the British are as shite as you say, why is it that we
> > are presently using English language right now?

> What can i say? My country was invaded and ruled by the British for 300
> years. I am forced to use English language. Before British invasion,
> the Indian land was thriving.

There is very little you can say upon this matter.  How could a nation so
far away as Britian was rule over another nation immensely more populous
such as India was, for such a long period of time?  15 million Britain / 400
million India, so far away?  The Suez C***was yet to be built to, to
Britian and India were really very far apart in terms of shipping etc.  The
educated Indians that I know speak very highly of English influence.  The
English are not bound by the illogical fatalistic concepts and the idea that
you can actually make your own luck is a good thing to consider, etc. One of
the scariest moments of my life was driving between Bangalore to Mysore
several years ago.  The remains of wrecked trucks all over the road were
stark reminders of what a perilous place the Indian highway really is.   We
were  driving along in the Mahindra 2x4  (was not even 4WD!)  jeep, and come
to a bend in the road; around the corner there are 2 trucks bearing down on
us, one was overtaking the other around a bend!  The driver took immediate
evasive action by veering wildly off the road and we had a sort of semi
controlled crash.  Was better than the other alternative of becoming yet
more wrecked truck debris to slowly rust away and body parts strewn
around...  I never ever felt at ease on the Indian roads at all after
that...

You know, everytime we came across a bridge over the Cauvery river, our
driver proudly exclaimed to me that the British built this bridge, often
there would be a railway or aquaduct, and on most occasions, the driver
would alert the construction to me, and say to me in his enthusiastic manner
"british build!".

I have been to India 15 times, so I am quite familiar with the country and
its people.  Don't get me wrong,  there is a lot that I like about India,
and in general I like being there, and find it fascinating too.  What I do
have grievance about is total chip on shoulder about the Raj and all that.
I suppose that the parody is the old Monty Python film "Life of Brian", when
there was the debate held at the People's Front of Judea HQ, and there was
the famous question of, "So what have the Romans ever done for us?"  We
Brits acknowldge that we were ruled by the Romans for 400 years, and
actually we learned a lot from their occupation.  Shit happens, and you deal
with it; don't look back with languid eyes ~ QED

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by SultanOfSwin » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:59:41

Quote:




> >>> Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> >>> slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> >>> which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> >>> is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> >>> invasion.
> >> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> >> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> >> like to admit.

> >    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
> >    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
> >    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
> >    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
> >    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
> >    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
> >    Congress' intentions.

> Not Jinnah... Don guessed right though :)

   Any proof that Gandhiji was a 'paedophile'? Or is this
   another wild senseless allegation against MK Gandhi??
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by SultanOfSwin » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:31:14

Quote:

> OT




> > > > Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> > > > slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> > > > which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> > > > is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> > > > invasion.

> > > Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> > > certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> > > like to admit.

> >    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
> >    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
> >    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
> >    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
> >    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
> >    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
> >    Congress' intentions.

> It might also have been that he was power-hungry, suffering from
> tuberculosis from the mid-1940s onwards, and jealous of Nehru (who
> didn't help matters by jilting Jinnah at every opportunity). Was Gandhi
> a saint? No, probably not, and one might question how much
> applicability principles like non-*** have when the enemy isn't
> willing to budge, as Mandela did and does in his autobiography.

   Gandhi wasn't a 'saint', I agree. But at least, he had the courage
   to stand by his convictions. Unlike Jinnah who started of as an
   advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity, became disillusioned with the
   Congress and then became the torch-bearer for the demand for
   a separate Muslim nation. The problem is with films like "Gandhi"
   by Attenborough that put him on a pedestal, but actually ended
   up making him more inaccessible to the general public.
   In recent years, Gandhi has been reduced to only a historical
   figure in textbooks or on Indian currency notes. Gandhi-bashing
   has also become somewhat of a fad, especially for right-wing
   intellectuals.

Quote:
> There is a pretty convincing thesis that Gandhi didn't have a lot to do
> with independence anyway, and that the British didn't have the economic
> might to sustain an empire after WW2 and the toll it took of Britain.
> They were always going to leave for economic reasons.

   Agreed, WWII broke the back of the British empire. Also the
   fact that the Labour Party which was more favourably disposed
   to the idea of an independent India won the general elections in
   1945. Churchill, the ardent conservative was never in favour of
   granting independence to India. In fact, he called Gandhi a
   '*** fakir' on a few occasions.

Quote:
> Gandhi and Nehru
> gave them a m***imperative, and with Jinnah, influenced the shape of
> independent India and Pakistan. If Nehru had been more conciliatory, we
> might not have had Pakistan. If the British hadn't sent an idiot like
> Radcliffe to draw the maps of modern India and Pakistan, problems might
> have been averted and they may have not. If Mountbatten hadn't been
> influenced by his wife, to be so vehemently pro-Indian, modern
> relations between India and Pakistan may have been very different.
> (Jinnah, after all, kept his house in Bombay, expecting to flit between
> India and Pakistan at will. Maybe he was naive, maybe other factors
> were beyond his control.)

   Actually Radcliffe had a lot of power since he drew up the
   maps of modern India and Pakistan and could actually
   decide which cities and villages would go to either country.
   IIRC, before Partition a lot of people felt that Lahore
   would remain in independent India, although it had a Muslim
   majority (~ 60% Muslims), since a lot of Hindu and Sikh traders
   had their investments in that city. But Radcliffe decided that
   Lahore would go to Pakistan (economic factors did not influence
   this decision) and almost all the Hindus and Sikhs had to flee
   Lahore with just their clothes on their back. Almost 1 million
   people were killed in the sub-continent in the aftermath of the
   Partition riots. Ironically, the post-Partition riots ended only
   when Gandhi was shot by a fanatic on 31st January 1948.
   Gandhi was vehemently  opposed to the Partition and had
   once said these words "Partition on my dead body".
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:31:50

Quote:

> Reason why there are so many call-centres in India / IT in India is largely
> due to British influence.

Bullshit. India's matehmatical skills date back 4000 years around Vedic
culture
of India. Ever heard of the great mathematician Ramanajum of the early
20th century, maybe the last best mathematician the world ever saw???
Know who invented the number zero??? Aryabhata from India much before
the Greeks had any sense of it. Imagine whether there would have been
any software/digital electronics if the binary number 0 was not
there???? For all your visits to India, your knowledge of India is
zilch.

I know what many of you visitors do when you come to India. You stay in
5-star hotels in all luxury and then talk about shit roads, cattle,
snake-charmers etc in India. If you want to know the real India whose
culture dates back 5000 years and which reached its heights in the
Vedic culture which was formed 4000 years back, read some books on
Indian history and show the willingness to know it from learned people
of India and not the roadside vendors or taxi-drivers of India. All the
concepts of matchematics, geometry, chemsitry, physics etc were
embedded in the form of verses recited in the Vedic culture, the scared
texts of Vedic Hindu culture.

Quote:
> I was in Bangalore last year was told that any mail still sent to Bombay
> instead of Mumbai would not be delivered.  I asked why not?  and was told it
> was due to national pride, and that India was reverting city names to Indian

No not due to national pride or anything but since the original names
had been twisted by the British to suit their own selves. Bombay was
Mumbai, Calcutta was Kolkata. Just like Peking was chaged to Bejing.
So???? We have not changed names given to cities by Mughal rulers
because they had built the original city themselves instead of just
changing their names by twisting them.  Hyderabad, Ahmedabad(Hindu name
is Karnavati) are few examples.

Don

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by davidf.. » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:55:53

Quote:

> Guess you never heard of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?  Britain was all alone
> in summer 1940 when operation sealion was being planned and attempted. USA
> had made it clear that it wasn't going to get involved, and the Soviets were
> semi-allied with Nazis. Can't remember when Italy declared war in Britain,
> but it might have been around this time.

I'm not getting involved in the history of India, about which I am no
expert in.

With regard to the para above:

Following the Fall of France, Britain was alone, if one discounts
places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and the
rest of the Empire and Commonwealth, and if one also discounts the
assistance of the various "governments-in-exile" (such as the Poles,
Czechs, Free French, etc).

Operation Sealion was planned, although never attempted. Given the
planning and resources allocated to Sealion, its chance of success was
as near zero as makes no difference. There are many subjects about
which I have a lot to be modest about, but not about my knowledge of
Operation Sealion.

Describing the USSR as semi-allied to Germany is a massive
oversimplification of a complex situation. The USSR was supplying goods
to Germany, but was cutting back because German financial resources
were pretty close to being exhausted, and while Stalin was happy enough
to sell raw materials to Germany, he didn't regard himself as a charity
and wasn't going to just give the stuff away. The USSR was also in the
process of restructuring its army in the aftermath of the Winter War
with Finland, which didn't go as well for the USSR as it would have
liked.

Italy declared war in the final days of the Battle for France. As a
result, Italy was in the war on the side of Germany once France had
fallen.

We now return you to our regular cricket coverage.

Obligatory Cricket Content:
Is it my imagination, or are the West Indies, while still astonishingly
brittle in batting, starting to recover some of the lost ground they
have had over the last decade or so? From what I've seen, they've got
some potentially very good players, and almost look like they might be
a team rather than a loose band of warring factions.

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by eusebiu » Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:45:44

Quote:

> OT




> > > > Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> > > > slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> > > > which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> > > > is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> > > > invasion.

> > > Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> > > certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> > > like to admit.

> >    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
> >    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
> >    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
> >    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
> >    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
> >    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
> >    Congress' intentions.

> It might also have been that he was power-hungry, suffering from
> tuberculosis from the mid-1940s onwards, and jealous of Nehru (who
> didn't help matters by jilting Jinnah at every opportunity). Was Gandhi
> a saint? No, probably not, and one might question how much
> applicability principles like non-*** have when the enemy isn't
> willing to budge, as Mandela did and does in his autobiography.

Gandhi pretty well put the idea of non-*** resistance on the map.
Talk of him being a paedophile (by Vig) seems ludicrous. Muhammad is a
much better candidate. For generations in India, child marriages were
common. To accuse Gandhi of paedophilia for merely having children warm
his body? Bizarre.

Quote:

> There is a pretty convincing thesis that Gandhi didn't have a lot to do
> with independence anyway, and that the British didn't have the economic
> might to sustain an empire after WW2 and the toll it took of Britain.

There is a lot of substance to that argument, I think. It no longer
made economic sense to have a large, disparate, and more and more
rebellious empire. The US created an empire within, a massive discrete
economic union, which chose to be American because they wanted to be.

Imperial possessions had increasingly become economic albatrosses. Now
multinationals from rich countries can exploit poor workers and
countries without having a second thought for building up
infrastructure, health, education.
Obviously Britain's objective in India wasn't a primarily philanthropic
one (or Africa), but because it proclaimed itself as benign it at least
had to go through the motions of spending money on its imperial
subjects in less developed countries.

Quote:
> They were always going to leave for economic reasons. Gandhi and Nehru
> gave them a m***imperative, and with Jinnah, influenced the shape of
> independent India and Pakistan. If Nehru had been more conciliatory, we
> might not have had Pakistan. If the British hadn't sent an idiot like
> Radcliffe to draw the maps of modern India and Pakistan, problems might
> have been averted and they may have not. If Mountbatten hadn't been
> influenced by his wife, to be so vehemently pro-Indian, modern
> relations between India and Pakistan may have been very different.
> (Jinnah, after all, kept his house in Bombay, expecting to flit between
> India and Pakistan at will. Maybe he was naive, maybe other factors
> were beyond his control.)

Ultimately, though the cost in human terms was high, it seems that
partition ultimately freed India from the baggage associated with past
imperial domination of foreign powers, namely the Arabs and Mughals.
And just as a sidepoint, according to some sources, the genocides
inflicted on India by the Arabs and the Turko/Mongols make what the
British did at times look like an absolute picnic. The 1st few decades
of Islamic rule and the incursions of Timur are claimed by some to have
cost 100 million+.

Quote:
> But the problems of partition go far deeper than these simplistic
> analyses - as is anything bordering on an intelligent discussion of
> what the Mughals did and didn't do for India (like hell they united
> most of India - the Portuguese were still in Goa, and the French in
> Pondicherry, until well after the Mughals had been turfed out),

It seems to be assumed that the Mughals were Indian. Of course, they
were not. They became gradually assimilated more and more, just like
the Manchus (and of course, their kin the Yuan in China). But the fact
remains that they were imperialistic foreigners.

Not that Goa and Pondicherry were that significant in the overall
scheme of things :-) but there were significant portions of the country
outside Mughal control. But of course, like any other empires, the
Mughal empire was created by the sword, and it remains debatable
whether the decadent Mughal empire posed any more of a threat to
British domination than the individual states.

Quote:
> the
> British contribution or lack thereof to India (when are we getting
> their crown jewels back?), and the Maratha/Sikh empires. What beggars
> belief most of all is that anyone seems to think that this will be
> achieved in a discussion on rsc. With Shridhar.

> A

Have you heard of the thugees you dork?
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by eusebiu » Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:05:11

 If you want to know the real India whose

Quote:
> culture dates back 5000 years and which reached its heights in the
> Vedic culture which was formed 4000 years back,

Stupid. Do you really think that Harappan India, (essentially
Dravidian- perhaps this is your  true Dravidian soul coming through,
despite all your attempts to deny your true Dravidian nature) is
superior to modern India? Yes, Harappan India was one of the most
advanced civilizations in the world at that time. But civilization has
moved on a bit since then.

And it appears fairly clear, to me at any rate, and those who aren't
influenced by the constraints of nationalism and perhaps Hindu
supremacism, that 'India' didn't even exist then. India was formed, it
appears to me and I would say most non-Indian scholars (not that I am a
scholar on India, but nor are you) that India was created by the
marriage of the Dravidian culture with the Indo-Iranians, who adapted
much of Dravidian culture wholesale and further developed the
philosophy of Hinduism. Obviously the Greeks to played a role in
developing Indian artistic, philosophic, and scientific culture at a
later stage. Greeks played a sugnificant role in the development and
spread of Buddhism e.g.

Quote:
> read some books on
> Indian history and show the willingness to know it from learned people
> of India and not the roadside vendors or taxi-drivers of India. All the
> concepts of matchematics, geometry, chemsitry, physics etc were
> embedded in the form of verses recited in the Vedic culture,

Utter rubbish. One can interpret almost anything one likes in texts
like these, but I doubt that the theory of relativity, gravity, and
quantum mechanics can be found in them. Also, the great civilizations
of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley were all at a superior
level of development in regards to other tribes. From about 1000 BC,
the Indo-Europeans (as distinct from the Dravidians, a
non-Indo-European people) made massive gains also, much more in the
direction of what we today would understand as 'science'. Although the
initial breakthrough from 0 to 1 is undoubtedly a greater proportional
leap than 1 to 16. If you know what I mean. Ah you probably don't.

Quote:
> the scared
> texts of Vedic Hindu culture.

Why are they frightened? What have you been doing to them?
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:13:10


Quote:


> > Reason why there are so many call-centres in India / IT in India is
largely
> > due to British influence.

> Bullshit. India's matehmatical skills date back 4000 years around Vedic
> culture
> of India.

It is  English language that assisted this more than anything else.