Sad shameful situation - student from India stalking white woman, why is this a pattern.

[Bilal9]

Tell me BEFORE you go to Kolkata next time.

Sounds like a plan Dada.

 

[ThunderCat]

My objection is that you are stretching it too much.

Between the Sintashta culture and the Kalash, there is no known link.

Between today's Pakistan's languages and Proto-Indo-Aryan (Punjabi and Sindhi) and Proto-Iranian (Eastern Iranian => Pashto), there are dozens of transmutations and transitions; that also extends backwards to the original Proto-Indo-Iranian.

These are far-fetched extrapolations, to say the least. They also ignore completely the consequences of the Iranian Empire's hold on the Gandhara and Sindh provinces (two of them), the influence of the Bactrian Greeks, the influence of the Sakas (whose influence should not be ignored although they too probably were Eastern Iranian speaking), the Kushana, who were at an unknown distance from Sintashta, if we are to give any credit to the connection of the Kushana-Yueh Chi with the Tocharian Centum language, or the Huns, who had a horrific impact.

In spite of these repeated incursions, there were still some common threads leading to Sintashta, until the Arab conquest of Sindh, and until the Turkish conquest of parts of today's Afghanistan, that led in turn to a Turkish influence on south Asia. The last incursion was the irruption of various flavours of Mongol.

That was, in summary, not wrong, but not right either. If you are determined to push those links, knowing what is known about those, it is too little a matter to contest. Entirely up to you.

I still don't see the disagreement. It's still has it's origins in Sintashta. Which was also a grave culture and not a cremating one.

And it's Iranic languages, not "Iranian." Same thing for Turkic and not "Turkish" invasions of South Asia. Same thing as in Proto-Indo-Iranic:

 

[Joe Shearer]

I still don't see the disagreement. It's still has it's origins in Sintashta. Which was also a grave culture and not a cremating one.

And it's Iranic languages, not "Iranian." Same thing for Turkic and not "Turkish" invasions of South Asia. Same thing as in Proto-Indo-Iranic:

That was, in summary, not wrong, but not right either. If you are determined to push those links, knowing what is known about those, it is too little a matter to contest. Entirely up to you.

 

[jamahir]

Communists are responsible for all problems of India and the west .

How are Communists responsible for the 150 deaths during "Demonitization" ( "Note-bandi" ) in India and for the homelessness of 70,000 people in Los Angeles ( home of Hollywood - the richest film industry in the world ) ?

How ?

 

[hatehs]

Take them one at a time.

I should have clarified that I don't mean personal negative experiences with Hindus or Sikhs. Nor am I suggesting they were converted into "Hindu-haters". Sir Syed only began personally involving himself in asserting Muslim interests after seeing Hindus organize and take a communal line in support of Hindi over Urdu, which they saw as a foreign Muslim invader's language.

 

[hatehs]

The British intensely distrusted Nehru's associations with the Bloomsbury Group, and with the kind of Fabian Socialism that was a popular theme then, and that the British establishment, including Churchill, distrusted deeply.

It's funny how Churchill and co. become the British establishment while Attlee who had presided over the British government since 1945 is an outsider dissident Fabian socialist who was distrusted by "the British".

believing that an independent nation as half-heartedly hinted at by them would be more reliable in holding the line against the Soviets than India led by Nehru would be.

This was AFTER their hopes of a united subcontinent which would be the best deterrent against Soviet aggression was dashed.

The British were committed to Pakistan before the Muslim League was committed to Pakistan.

Which is why they spent years in the run-up to partition trying to avert it?

particularly in Gilgit-Baltistan

How exactly?

and insistence on partitioning the provinces of Punjab and Bengal.

So? The Congress was just as ready to partition those two regions. The only reason an independent Bengal doesn't exist today is because of Nehru.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I should have clarified that I don't mean personal negative experiences with Hindus or Sikhs. Nor am I suggesting they were converted into "Hindu-haters". Sir Syed only began personally involving himself in asserting Muslim interests after seeing Hindus organize and take a communal line in support of Hindi over Urdu, which they saw as a foreign Muslim invader's language.

An excellent point.

It's funny how Churchill and co. become the British establishment while Attlee who had presided over the British government since 1945 is an outsider dissident Fabian socialist who was distrusted by "the British".

Not particularly funny.

Again, you are found distorting small facts in order to dress up your case. This is deplorable. As late as the 60s, Wilson was under surveillance by British intelligence.

Churchill's personal obsession with India, and need to exercise authority over India was rooted in the ravings of his thoroughly mentally addled father, who fancied himself an expert on India. The Tories, Conservatives, label them as you wish, were always the county party, opposed to city-bred progressives.

This was AFTER their hopes of a united subcontinent which would be the best deterrent against Soviet aggression was dashed.

My own reading drives me to a radically different conclusion, and I have adduced evidence about that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Which is why they spent years in the run-up to partition trying to avert it?

Every single action of the British in the run-up to partition was devoted to supporting it. You might like to read The Viceroy at Bay, written by Linlithgow's son. I can give you a wide reading list, but you have to get rid of the notion that the Muslim League was anything but a King's party, led by someone of integrity and character whom the British disliked, but with whom they nevertheless collaborated because they saw him and the political group he led as very conveniently mentally positioned to break up the detested Congress.

How exactly?

Please see post #134.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It's funny how Churchill and co. become the British establishment while Attlee who had presided over the British government since 1945 is an outsider dissident Fabian socialist who was distrusted by "the British".


This was AFTER their hopes of a united subcontinent which would be the best deterrent against Soviet aggression was dashed.

Which is why they spent years in the run-up to partition trying to avert it?

How exactly?

So? The Congress was just as ready to partition those two regions. The only reason an independent Bengal doesn't exist today is because of Nehru.

<sigh>

It was, and it was not.

What you do not know is that Suhrawardy was as strong a Bengali-first politician as might be imagined. Between him, and Dr. Sarat Bose, Netaji's brother, a prominent but Bengal-first politician, and Kiron Shankar Roy, a kinsman, they came to the conclusion that Bengal would do better as a third Dominion, one of the three 'parts' contemplated in the Cabinet Mission Plan, again, one of the two Muslim majority parts, but not part of Pakistan.

Should I go on? Let me know.

A hint: the only reason an independent Bengal doesn't exist today is because of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.

I still don't see the disagreement. It's still has it's origins in Sintashta. Which was also a grave culture and not a cremating one.

I have already explained why, in great detail, and have no intention of pursuing this through the alleys and byways of a committed narrow point of view.

And it's Iranic languages, not "Iranian." Same thing for Turkic and not "Turkish" invasions of South Asia. Same thing as in Proto-Indo-Iranic:

You have a point, but I was brought up to refer to Iranian, not Iranic, Turkish, not Turkic, and at the age of 73, feel no urgent need to change.

 

[ThunderCat]

You have a point, but I was brought up to refer to Iranian, not Iranic, Turkish, not Turkic, and at the age of 73, feel no urgent need to change.

Turkish is not Turkic and Iranian is not Iranic. They have different meanings. Don't confuse them. Use the correct term so you can be understood correctly.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Turkish is not Turkic and Iranian is not Iranic. They have different meanings. Don't confuse them. Use the correct term so you can be understood correctly.

Yes, I got that, but it is not such a major difference, and can be understood. Changing everything I have posted is unrealistic.

If you yourself understand what is being communicated, that will serve the purpose.

 

[hatehs]

You might like to read The Viceroy at Bay, written by Linlithgow's son.

I'll give it a read.

I can give you a wide reading list, but you have to get rid of the notion that the Muslim League was anything but a King's party

I don't disagree that a large chunk of Muslim influentials were British loyalists, but this wouldn't be enough to wave off the idea of Pakistan as being a British machination. Maybe reading the book you mentioned might change my view, but as of now, it doesn't mean anything. The biggest British loyalists in Punjab were anti-ML and anti-Pakistan until it became an unpopular political position (For the Muslims).

Please see post #134.

I'll need to look into it. I read Major Brown's account of the rebellion a couple of years ago and he mentions his motivation was knowing how despised the Dogra was by the locals (shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since this sentiment was shared across J&K State with the exception of Jammu).

 

[Tigers]

The girl didn't have an ounce of interest in him. I hope this insufferable creep was deported back to India.

 

[Chute]

The Tories, Conservatives, label them as you wish, were always the county party, opposed to city-bred progressives.

It's amazing how few people actually know the deep enough contours of this in that era.

There was a lot of acrimony within the tories in the 19th century as urbanisation and industrialisation happened.

The tories supported a large amount of policies that sought to stem this current and try retain as much of the agricultural population as possible....to prop up their own political power and bargaining, by essentially having as little market opportunity and scope for the worker population to seek maximum return for their labour.....and forcing them to put social constraints (and the argued "better" social order and way of things) first.

Over time they were forced to adapt to the reality and introduce more compromise and nuance in their positions but it took a really long time. i.e Conserve things that appealed to enough folks regarding politics of this newer reality (that had now been much influenced by the progressives and liberals w.r.t industrialisation, freer markets, urbanisation)....after it was realised the old situation would simply not return....and new generations had simply now been born and bred in the cities and freer labour and freer market situation.

But in that interim they always promoted and appealed to certain nativist, tribalist, ruralist sentiment (to bring old order of serfdom they could lord over) that had its bleed over into the colonial (anti humanist) and mercantile (anti free market) mindset for the foreign possessions.

i.e Social order by stagnant social stratification....dont think and reason for yourselves, we'll do that for you, we know whats best for you.

This phenomenon of the interim continues in its own way today w.r.t conservatism broadly (or in some measure depending on your perspective), it is most studied w.r.t the developed world generally though.

People actually dont study where the word conservative comes from.... I've lost track of how many people blindly say conservative = free market/capitalism (and vice versa that progressives and liberals are anti free market or marxists or whatever else) and that they are the one and the same, when these realities and compromises have much longer timescales to look at. Free markets and capitalism were at one point quite anti-conservative (new + progressive) phenomenon especially in their application, institutional contours and political heritage which all needed time to form (and for later conservatives to reference as the starting basis to then argue to conserve).

@VCheng

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'll need to look into it. I read Major Brown's account of the rebellion a couple of years ago and he mentions his motivation was knowing how despised the Dogra was by the locals (shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since this sentiment was shared across J&K State with the exception of Jammu).

It is a never-ceasing source of wonder to me that no Pakistani, living or dead, sees the contradiction between hating the Dogras, and insisting that their methodical acquisition of culturally and linguistically diverse territories into one realm (with the exception of Gilgit-Baltistan) should be adhered to, when demanding a solution for 'Kashmir'.

The Dogras were not hated in Jammu precisely because they were kinsmen of the last independent Raja of Jammu, and their being awarded the jagir of Jammu was the first step in their rise to power (followed by the acquisition of several small statelets outside the Vale, to the south, Kishtwar and the like, the acquisition of Poonch, a kinsman's jagir, through manipulations at the Lahore Durbar, the conquest of Ladakh, the conquest of Baltistan, and the unsuccessful attempt at conquering Guge; finished off by the notorious acquisition of the Vale, and the joint conquest of Gilgit).

When fanboys go hysterical about demanding a common solution to the former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir (not Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir), but reject the princes who actually put that jigsaw puzzle together, this refugee from a linguistically, politically and administratively homogenous state that paid no attention to religion until literally dragged into doing so in 1905, can only smile.

The other, even larger paradox is the elephant in the room, and no Pakistani can even consider it without bursting his brain, so, best left alone.