What's new

India - "Made in Britain"

Err.. You must be slow in reading before arguing. There is a difference between consent of people and consent of Nizam. And people of Hyderabad wanted to join India. But even then 'several independent states' have come down to a single one, Hyderabad. Good :partay:

And your theorey completely fails when you apply the same logic on Kashmir.

Now try that.

One rebuttal at a time. :-)
 
.
And your theorey completely fails when you apply the same logic on Kashmir.

Now try that.

One rebuttal at a time. :-)
I already accepted it, didn't I? Kashmir's annexation to India will be complete and legitimate only when we conduct a referendum there. This is my personal opinion though.
 
.
We all know the that India was made for the profit by some English shareholders. It was a company called "East India trading" that made India that you know today. The question here is should Indian's do Puja to East India Company because it made India for them.

So should Indian's be thanking this company ( no it is not Mcdonald's ) that did fast food equivalent of making a country? I bet the Indian's wish it had been Mcdonals Fast Food franchise that had come and Made India. That way they would have secretly been enjoying Big Mac meals since 1750 and India would have been called "Big Mac country". No such luck instead India got fathered by boring English "East India Company".

Before East India Company came along to make few pounds most Hindus were playing muppets to Muslims. So much for the Hindutwas of today. So most of these Hindus ought to be thanking the British for giving them "Azadi" from the Muslims overlords. Had they not come maybe today the Hindu's would still have been playing muppets to Muslim rule?

Below is the badge of the company that Made India and freed the Hindu from slavery under Muslim rule.

Father of India - Link > East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2000px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_East_India_Company.svg.png


I will let @nForce who apprently has read lot of books on Hindu mythology have his say here to disprove that East India Company is not father of Indians.

This is the inspiration of this thread. SAUDI ARABIA PATENTED ISLAM | Page 2

East India Company Flag

1100px-Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_%281801%29.svg.png


Had the Indians been lucky they could have had this flag and got to call themselves "Big Mac Country".

Big_Mac_2002.png

Big Mac India's national anthem would have been

McDonald%27s_i%27m_lovin%27_it.jpg


@save_ghenda @ Comments?

India - A country made by Britain
Hindu - A religion named by Persians
Hindi - A language standardized by English.
Think Tank eh?:drag:
 
. . .
If you create an artifical country by force combining several independent states into one, it is destined to be divided once the binding force that held it togehter leaves.

No rocket science there.
Are you talking about Bangladesh and Pakistan ?

The modern day India even has several states which were occupied after British left and fighting for independence, so what makes you think you can force artifical "Indian identity" upon them?

You are talking from the point of view of creation of Pakistan. My take on the matter is partition was the right thing to happen for the wrong reasons, considering how the present state of Pakistan has evolved. But let's keep that aside for now.

Let's talk about how large nations keep it together and why do they disintegrate.
There can be multiple reasons for unity, nationalism, mutual benefit, mutual respect, greater common cause, even sometimes a common enemy, common language - most of the World is divided on linguistic basis, common race, or common ideology , as for example Socialism. India has many of these features.
our founding fathers realized that India is going to be a diverse nation, and we need mutual respect and cooperation with each other to succeed. That's why India is secular, that's why India has so many National languages, that's why we have representation from every sections of the society.

India is a modern idea, much advanced than it's time when it was formulated. The idea is dependent upon realization among the leaders of all the states that, we need to stand united and benefit from each other and set our differences aside. You saw that happening after 50 years, in the form of European Union, which is still in a nascent state, while we have achieved a greater degree of success so far as nation building and national unity is concerned.

The creation of Pakistan was on the other hand an artificial idea, which did not have much connection with the ground realities. It was mainly created by Muslim elites, feudal lords, the oligarchs who wanted to avoid being treated same as the rest of the population. They wanted preferential treatment. But they could not get any staying in India. So, they created a new country where they will have their own set of rules and subjects to rule over. That's why Pakistan never had proper land reforms, while it was one of the very first thing to happen in India.

Pakistan was created on the basis the religion can be the basis of nationality. The idea fell flat on it's face when Pakistan had general election for the first time in it's history and the country was divided into two parts.Interestingly enough, the Bengalis were not fighting for the religion, but for their language, more than anything else. That, in itself had undone an artificial coalition less than 25 years after it's creation.

Probably India will grow bigger now, may be India will form economic Unions with Bangladesh and Nepal and Myanmar, because that is the modern idea, the way forward.
 
.
I already accepted it, didn't I? Kashmir's annexation to India will be complete and legitimate only when we conduct a referendum there. This is my personal opinion though.

I think the background why Atnaz started this thread is to let Indians know that Pakistan has never been a part of modern day India.

It was British India (an artifical entity) which was divided into two major countries. Modern day India did not even exist at that point.

And it is wrong on Indian's part to falsely claim the heritage of the region. The oldest civilizations in this part of the world existed in modern day Pakistan and not India.
 
.
Yeah right, like Nizam of Hyderabad voted for India with such a fervor that India had to send military force to thank him personally. [/Sarcasm]

And into the thin air goes your theorey of "Not a single princely state (except kashmir) had been included in the Indian republic without the consent of its people who voted overwhelmingly in favor of India."
Yes, you are right to point it out. we simply cannot have islands of some other country within India, just to appease some monarch and his personal fantasies. That is not beneficial for the people. So, we created a single, uniform nation.

I think the background why Atnaz started this thread is to let Indians know that Pakistan has never been a part of modern day India.

It was British India (an artifical entity) which was divided into two major countries. Modern day India did not even exist at that point.

And it is wrong on Indian's part to falsely claim the heritage of the region. The oldest civilizations in this part of the world existed in modern day Pakistan and not India.
You keep repeating the term artificial entity. What is artificial, according to you ? and what is real ?
 
.
You keep repeating the term artificial entity. What is artificial, according to you ? and what is real ?

British India was an artificial entity. Just like Soviet Union.

What is there so hard to understand my (modern day) Indian friend?
 
.
British India was an artificial entity. Just like Soviet Union.

What is there so hard to understand my (modern day) Indian friend?
You lack basic comprehension skills or what ?
Did I tell you, give me an example of artificial state. I said, define artificial state. Thereby define what is real.
 
.
You lack basic comprehension skills or what ?
Did I tell you, give me an example of artificial state. I said, define artificial state. Thereby define what is real.

If you by force and war combine several independent countries into an artifical union, you create an artifical entity. Just like British India and Soviet Union. Such entities are bound to be separated once the binding force leaves.

Now tell me which part of this you do not understand?
 
.
If you by force and war combine several independent countries into an artifical union, you create an artifical entity. Just like British India and Soviet Union. Such entities are bound to be separated once the binding force leaves.

Now tell me which part of this you do not understand?
If you force some foreign identity upon someone, then relation that develops is artificial. That's why Pakistan broke into two parts and now Balochistan is fighting for freedom as well, while Hyderabad in India has become one of finest cities of India, a center for higher studies, trade & commerce.

Now, you tell me which part of this you do not understand ? In your case, you have some practical examples as well.
 
.
I think the background why Atnaz started this thread is to let Indians know that Pakistan has never been a part of modern day India.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan was never part of Republic of India, both of them were created in 1947. Even 1st standard student knows this which does not need repetitions every week in this forum by privileged members.
It was British India (an artifical entity) which was divided into two major countries. Modern day India did not even exist at that point.

Again the same boring parroting. Each and every modern state is an artificial entity. Whats there for India or Pakistan to be an exception?

And it is wrong on Indian's part to falsely claim the heritage of the region. The oldest civilizations in this part of the world existed in modern day Pakistan and not India.

Indus valley civilization did not stop at river Indus. In fact major sites of IVC does not even fall on the banks of Indus. People moved over thousands of years slowly but consistently towards the Gangetic plain as the mode of living changed, human habits changed. With in the first millennium BC, modern Indian republic was already a solid foundation of spiritual belief which have birth to the vedanta and other offshoots of Hinduism, a number of regional languages and food habits. It needs only an exceptionally fanatic genius to cultivate such ludicrous idea that Indian civilization ended with IVC.

By the way, this discussion goes really boring and circular and I have much important things to do. So, sayonara.
 
.
If you force some foreign identity upon someone, then relation that develops is artificial. That's why Pakistan broke into two parts and now Balochistan is fighting for freedom as well, while Hyderabad in India has become one of finest cities of India, a center for higher studies, trade & commerce.

Now, you tell me which part of this you do not understand ? In your case, you have some practical examples as well.

Non-sense. There are freedom struggles going on in some 25+ states in India. Your own ministers are on record saying that. The intensity of these keep changing from time to time.

So do not tell me everyone in India is fine with this artificial entity.

And I for once have no problem accepting India as a country (of course that does not include Kashmir) , if they drop this trash idea that Pakistan was ever a part of India.

Indus valley civilization did not stop at river Indus. In fact major sites of IVC does not even fall on the banks of Indus. People moved over thousands of years slowly but consistently towards the Gangetic plain as the mode of living changed, human habits changed. With in the first millennium BC, modern Indian republic was already a solid foundation of spiritual belief which have birth to the vedanta and other offshoots of Hinduism, a number of regional languages and food habits. It needs only an exceptionally fanatic genius to cultivate such ludicrous idea that Indian civilization ended with IVC.

By the way, this discussion goes really boring and circular and I have much important things to do. So, sayonara.

Thanks for accepting that Indus valley civilization started at river Indus and thus India has no business falsely claming that it originated in India.

Yeah with that, Adieus amigo.
 
.
Non-sense. There are freedom struggles going on in some 25+ states in India. Your own ministers are on record saying that. The intensity of these keep changing from time to time.

25+ ? Can you name the states ? Or you just imagined that figure ?
I will tell you what nonsense is. You already lost half of your country and half of the other half is fighting for freedom, and you think it's India which is artificial. Let me know when India loses any province to separatism.

So do not tell me everyone in India is fine with this artificial entity.
Is India a a utopian state ? No it is not. Is India better than what you think to be your basis, yes. Is India developing, yes, rapidly.

And I for once have no problem accepting India as a country (of course that does not include Kashmir) , if they drop this trash idea that Pakistan was ever a part of India.

Did I ask you to accept India ? :lol::lol:

What does it matter ? What does your opinion matter ?
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom