Can India lead Asia?

[DSingh04]

Dassault is more on the military side but Total is an oil company and automobile companies like Renault & Citroen makes vehicles for both military & civilian use. Not to mention majority of luxury brand companies call France their home and many of us have done their shopping in Carrefour.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that for me.
But what I meant with the companies though was more to the general public. Like, here in the States EVERYONE and their mothers know about Audi and Beamers, and a lot of commercial Japanese and South Korean companies, as well. Honestly, not a lot of people here know much of Citroen and Renault...I meant respect on that level.
Though as far as the foreign policy thing is concerned, I agree. Though I'd rather India get a more refined version of her current FP as opposed to completely going France's way. A lot of people (at least foreigner's I've talked to here) still see France in America's camp...broadly.

 

[NeutralCitizen]

Well our Indians members say NO, case closed mods please close this thread it's becoming a breeding ground for trolls.

 

[Mo12]

I think no nations want China to lead Asia apart from 1-2 nations.

India is not powerful enough to lead Asia yet.

 

[Galaxy]

90% Indian members already said big NO. What's point of thread continuing further ?? NO means NO. Thanks but no Thanks!!

 

[asad71]

1. India at the moment is ruled by a Brahmonic oligarchy. History tells us that Brahmonic rule was at best limited to states/provinces. The mighty empires of India/Hindustan emerged only under the Buddhists or Muslims. And you may want to add the British.

2. Buddhists are a disappearing people. Even the Constitution of India calls them Hindus - like the Sikhs, Brahmo Samaj, Jains, Dalits and others. Thankfully Muslims, Christians and Jews have been left alone. Therefore, it follows logically that India ought to wait for the inevitable rise of the Muslims. Forty / fifty years may be; and then she can be a leader.

 

[aakash_2410]

1. India at the moment is ruled by a Brahmonic oligarchy. History tells us that Brahmonic rule was at best limited to states/provinces. The mighty empires of India/Hindustan emerged only under the Buddhists or Muslims. And you may want to add the British.

2. Buddhists are a disappearing people. Even the Constitution of India calls them Hindus - like the Sikhs, Brahmo Samaj, Jains, Dalits and others. Thankfully Muslims, Christians and Jews have been left alone. Therefore, it follows logically that India ought to wait for the inevitable rise of the Muslims. Forty / fifty years may be; and then she can be a leader.

I'm sorry but that was the biggest load of cr*p I've ever heard.

What the heck is 'Brahmonic rule'? Seriously! This is the first time I ever heard this term so I goggled it and guess what I came up with? Your post on this thread. I swear down that's the only place where GOOGLE THE SEARCH ENGINE could find that word.

so I suggest you stop chatting sh*t.

not really. The first king ever to unite India was king Bharat. He was Hindu. Plus Founder of Maurya and Gupta dynasty were Hindus and later kings converted to Budhhism. Gupta empire or Early middle kingdoms [Hindu kigdoms] are reffered as 'Golden Age of India'. British occupation is seen as a dark page in Indian history not as Golden Era! Hinduism and Buddhism? All the theoris of 'Karma', 'Dharma', 'Yoga', 'Afterlife', 'Cremation' are the SAME! Just the difference being that Buddhist pray to Lord Budhdha and Hindus pray to their gods according to their belief. And it may also interest you to know that Gautam Budhdha is considered reincarnation of Hindu Lord Vishnu so technically speaking Buddhists are Hindus and Hindus are Buddhists.

Plus term 'Hindu' is western coined term. The original term for Hinduism is Vedic religion [religion of Vedas]. and according to Indian constitution 'Hindu' is anyone who follows Dharmic/Indian religions. Whether be it someone who fellows Vedic religion/Sikh/Buddhist or Jain.

You what? Buddhists are disappearing? Mate, I'm yet to see a Hindu who has got a bad thing to say about Buddhists or Sikhs no matter how far right he is. In fact the more far right he is the more he is likely to say how common Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs are. That's what irks some Buddhists and Sikhs. Not because there is repression but because there is too much love they feel their identity is getting lost.

SO SERIOUSLY DON'T GET IT TWISTED AND THIS WAS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT.

 

[IndoCarib]

1. India at the moment is ruled by a Brahmonic oligarchy. History tells us that Brahmonic rule was at best limited to states/provinces. The mighty empires of India/Hindustan emerged only under the Buddhists or Muslims. And you may want to add the British.

2. Buddhists are a disappearing people. Even the Constitution of India calls them Hindus - like the Sikhs, Brahmo Samaj, Jains, Dalits and others. Thankfully Muslims, Christians and Jews have been left alone. Therefore, it follows logically that India ought to wait for the inevitable rise of the Muslims. Forty / fifty years may be; and then she can be a leader.

Please smoke some more of what you are smoking ! Make use of your imagination and write Harry Potter part 7 !

 

[Zabaniyah]

1. India at the moment is ruled by a Brahmonic oligarchy. History tells us that Brahmonic rule was at best limited to states/provinces. The mighty empires of India/Hindustan emerged only under the Buddhists or Muslims. And you may want to add the British.

2. Buddhists are a disappearing people. Even the Constitution of India calls them Hindus - like the Sikhs, Brahmo Samaj, Jains, Dalits and others. Thankfully Muslims, Christians and Jews have been left alone. Therefore, it follows logically that India ought to wait for the inevitable rise of the Muslims. Forty / fifty years may be; and then she can be a leader.

Currently, India is by definition is a democracy. That means any Tom, Dick or Harry can be leader in whatever India is going after.

This is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages.

with 370 million poor and insurgency in 330 districts...smallest penises in the world according to BBC...I DONT THINK SO

Btw, post reported.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

1. India at the moment is ruled by a Brahmonic oligarchy. History tells us that Brahmonic rule was at best limited to states/provinces. The mighty empires of India/Hindustan emerged only under the Buddhists or Muslims. And you may want to add the British.

2. Buddhists are a disappearing people. Even the Constitution of India calls them Hindus - like the Sikhs, Brahmo Samaj, Jains, Dalits and others. Thankfully Muslims, Christians and Jews have been left alone. Therefore, it follows logically that India ought to wait for the inevitable rise of the Muslims. Forty / fifty years may be; and then she can be a leader.

I am afraid there is hardly any Brahmin at the top.

The top chaps are Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox Christian, Sikh, Chettiyar, Dalit, Baniah, Khattri and so on. Pranab Mukherjee is the only Brahmin.

Yes they various offshoots are clubbed under Hindus for legal issues, but they have their individual religious rights protected.

I reckon, Shia, Sunnis, Sufis, Wahabis, Ahmediyas and so on are not different,.or are they? They are not Muslims as a group?

 

[jdme]

1. India at the moment is ruled by a Brahmonic oligarchy. History tells us that Brahmonic rule was at best limited to states/provinces. The mighty empires of India/Hindustan emerged only under the Buddhists or Muslims. And you may want to add the British.

2. Buddhists are a disappearing people. Even the Constitution of India calls them Hindus - like the Sikhs, Brahmo Samaj, Jains, Dalits and others. Thankfully Muslims, Christians and Jews have been left alone. Therefore, it follows logically that India ought to wait for the inevitable rise of the Muslims. Forty / fifty years may be; and then she can be a leader.

I pity the education you got.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

with 370 million poor and insurgency in 330 districts...smallest penises in the world according to BBC...I DONT THINK SO

Good to know that you are a penis voyeur!

I will stay far from you!

Thanks for letting us know your choice of titillation and sexual arousing!

 

[lem34]

Why on earth would any country want to lead any other country

 

[jdme]

I am afraid there is hardly any Brahmin at the top.

The top chaps are Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox Christian, Sikh, Chettiyar, Dalit, Baniah, Khattri and so on. Pranab Mukherjee is the only Brahmin.

Yes they various offshoots are clubbed under Hindus for legal issues, but they have their individual religious rights protected.

I reckon, Shia, Sunnis, Sufis, Wahabis, Ahmediyas and so on are not different,.or are they? They are not Muslims as a group?

Shh...Are you seriously trying to educate him? He is only repeating commonly held belief in Pakistan. They say knowledge is power. Now you understand why they are powerless.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Shh...Are you seriously trying to educate him? He is only repeating commonly held belief in Pakistan. They say knowledge is power. Now you understand why they are powerless.

I go by what the good Lord said.

Help those who are living in darkness!

 

[IndoCarib]

-------------