Thread: Division of Indian Sub Continent

Originally Posted by Stroller

I am disappointed our Pakistani members don't have more to say on this, or what the vision for the future is.

The British came in and colonized the whole sub-continent.Hindus were the second class people and the Muslim were the third class,they were sick and tired of being servants of the British so thats the piont when Jinnah and Gandhi popped in and started the struggle for freedom.

The future of India and Pakistan is very Dark cos both are nuclear powers.I knew that the current peace process wont last long cos it has been like this for quite long.Every time they become friends something goes wrong and they start pointing at eachother.

Originally Posted by Mhz

Hindus were the second class people and the Muslim were the third class,

I agree about the Hindus, but the Muslims were the ruling class and for most of our time there were treated accordingly. The Muslims also pretty much ran all the businesses in Delhi, and the vacuum left after partioning was very noticable here, as the Hindus who came in the fill the void were nothing more than farmworkers and totally incapable of doin anything constructive.

This is one reason why I'm surprised that Pakistan is such a basket-case, as the Muslims were educated and skilled. What went wrong?

Originally Posted by stroller

India was ruled to benefit Britain economically, investment was part of this, and they only let go when it became financially unfeasible.

Yes, colonization is about extracting resources and financial interests.

It still affects many of the formerly colonized nations in many ways.

Similar to how many blacks in America still can't get a break despite slavery being outlawed for over 140 years?

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Mhz

Hindus were the second class people and the Muslim were the third class,

I agree about the Hindus, but the Muslims were the ruling class and for most of our time there were treated accordingly. The Muslims also pretty much ran all the businesses in Delhi, and the vacuum left after partioning was very noticable here, as the Hindus who came in the fill the void were nothing more than farmworkers and totally incapable of doin anything constructive.

The Hindus in the business class left for North America due to the quasi socialist post-independence government. In the US, we are the elite of the society. The Hindus are the wealthiest and most educated ethnic group in the US, having overtaken the Japanese. To even compare us to English immigrants or anyone from European stock would be an insult. And I don't know why the British think a unified India is a great legacy. Could you imagine imposing a centralized government on the English, German, and French? They have the same commonalities a Gujarati has with a Kerala resident or Goan. In addition to opening up the economy in the early 90s, the state governments have been gradually usurping federal authority. This slightly ambiguous, decentralized system modeled after American-style federalism is far superior to a unitary government for such a large and diverse nation. This way the Gujaratis and Punjabis can accelarate the pace of reforms and infrastructure improvements, while the Biharis can continue to live in shit and emigrate to Thailand to sell me peanuts.

As for the Muslims in Gujarat, they are the ones you go to when you want to buy hashish, guns, or alcohol.

Originally Posted by njdesi

And I don't know why the British think a unified India is a great legacy.

I suppose a load of smaller staes constantly fighting would be better?

Originally Posted by njdesi

Could you imagine imposing a centralized government on the English, German, and French?

Yes. It's a reality and it's called the European Union.

Truth be told the EU is merely a collective bargaining agreement between the nations of Europe to compete on a one-to-one basis with the U.S. since the last world war effectively neutered the ability of any of them (especially the UK and Germany) to be a major world power (well, France arrogantly still thinks they're a world power).

The day that India, China, and Japan all work together is the day we're all doomed.

Originally Posted by surasak

Truth be told the EU is merely a collective bargaining agreement between the nations of Europe

I think you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. They pass really important laws telling us that our bananas have to be straight and things like that.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by surasak

Truth be told the EU is merely a collective bargaining agreement between the nations of Europe

I think you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. They pass really important laws telling us that our bananas have to be straight and things like that.

I want you to take this matter a bit more seriously!
More respect please! I pay a lot of taxes, and I want to know what those idiots are doing in Brussels.

http://europa.eu.int/unitedkingdom/p.../myth05_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/query/resultaction.jsp

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

I want you to take this matter a bit more seriously!

Sorry Dad.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by surasak

Truth be told the EU is merely a collective bargaining agreement between the nations of Europe

I think you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. They pass really important laws telling us that our bananas have to be straight and things like that.

I bet they don't spend hundred of thousands of Euros doing studies on ketchup viscosity like our wonderful government does! There, take that!

^
That's not far from it!
Some of these Euro-norms are utterly laughable, if they weren't imposing them on everyone's products.

Don't forget that London has the futures markets (oil) along with New York. Europe, Inc. is never going to be the power the UK or the US currently are.

The UK is part of the EU.

Originally Posted by njdesi

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by njdesi

And I don't know why the British think a unified India is a great legacy.

I suppose a load of smaller staes constantly fighting would be better?

From the 1500s to the 1800s, I suppose Europe was an oasis of peace with no kingdoms engaged in wars of conquest?

So we're agreed that India is a few hundred years behind modern Europe?

Originally Posted by stroller

The UK is part of the EU.

Not on an economic way (England still uses the quid, doesn't it?)

In principle, maybe. In reality, not at all.

As said already, the EU is not a nation, each member country has much more independence than what you'd find within the US or India.
The UK is very much economically part of the EU, but has its own currency. It has changed its weight and size units to the metric system. The economic goals of a united Europe have been much more in the foreground than political unity.

As for the Indian subcontinent, I don't know enough about it to say whether breaking it up into numerous independent nations which could then form a federation would have been a feasible option.

The EU is primarily an economic union with the power to pass laws which affect the running of the economies of the countries of that union in order that there be a 'free market' across the Union. It has no armed forces of its own nor the power to direct the armed forces of the sovereign states which are members. It has no power over the taxation of its individual members. It has a common currency which the UK opted out of joining when it was introduced. It's important to bear in mind that its members are sovereign states and not part of a federation. It's difficult to compare it to anything else because I don't think anything like it exists elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by njdesi

From the 1500s to the 1800s, I suppose Europe was an oasis of peace with no kingdoms engaged in wars of conquest?

So we're agreed that India is a few hundred years behind modern Europe?

Anglophile historians emphasize how the British ended the wars between various Indian kingdoms from the 1500s to 1800s. My point is that European monarchies were engaged in the same type of warfare during this time period.

Especially over colonies and territories overseas.

Originally Posted by surasak

Especially over colonies and territories overseas.

That means that the wars in Europe were in fact the fault of the countries outside of Europe, because it was them that we were fighting over. Right?

Well, European countries just didn't fight amongst themselves in Europe. There were many wars fought between European nations but on other continents.

Originally Posted by surasak

Well, European countries just didn't fight amongst themselves in Europe. There were many wars fought between European nations but on other continents.

And Russia and Britain got very close to fighting over India in the late 1800s. Ever read Kiplings "Kim"? A 19th century spy thriller.......