Page 3 of 5

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:23 pm
by Ram
iffo wrote:Quite disappointed with India, I thought it was a secular country. Not sure if this woman was Muslim but even of she is Hindu arresting her for a comment on her face book is pathetic. It's exactly what Saudi Arabia did. These third world countries will never become civilized .

http://dawn.com/2012/11/19/indians-arre ... -shutdown/

This is very disappointing and shameful. Police in Maharashtra are sympathetic to Bal Thakerey. But it does not give them the right to harrass people who express their opinion.

But you can be sure of one thing - many newspapers in the country will not spare the conduct of the police.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:24 am
by Idesigner
Ram wrote:
pr126 wrote:Yohan wrote:
Only USA has full 'freedom of expression' rights.

For now. This may change.

Obama: “The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam”

pr126, I don't know if Obama said that. But Obama did not speak against the freedom of expression. You are saying that because you hate Obama, matters not what Obama says. The Republican President Richard Nixon was the biggest culprit for suppressing the freedom of expression, and you know what happened to him. Americans will never tolerate the suppression of any freedom, so stop bellyaching.


Yes Obama gave that speech.His speech in Cairo was still worst. Many presidents have uttered Dhimmi words but when Obama parrots it , it is considred as destroying first amendment or attacking free speech, Well after all he has power to change constitution!! :D

When Obama attacks muslims with drones and killed Osama , our FFI Pundits dismiss it as muslims killing muslims , hence it doesn't matter or worst its all conspiracy as Osama was not killed and those drone killing was done by Pakistan :drool: They are all together in it.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:48 am
by Yohan
Idesigner wrote:Yes aftermath of 1857 was extremely brutal. So far number goes we dont have any historical witnesses. Mittal and others often takees lots of undelivered mail from those days as proof. As if nascent postal system was widely used by numeous illiterate people.It was not in distance past. We have records from many princely states. Few I am bit familiar.My small town in India was at cross road wheere Tatya Topes soldiers took refuge. All talk about hanging of lots of captured soldiers and theirsupporters, sympathizers and people who gave them refuge.

Yes English leveled quite afew villages around Delhi and in UP. If Mittal can locate numerous mass graves in UP I would believe the number. Brit troops used to bury hindus and burn muslims. If we can locate lots of cemeteries of muslims following the aftermath then we can check out his numbers. This didnt happen in historic past.

Brits of Clive time were pretty brutal and predatory when they got hold of Bengal. Lots of looting, brigandary by Brits took place. Later they will destroy lots home industry related to weaving.They were foreign rulers who came to India for business and later loved to rule innferior races.

British were brutal, early on, while conquering the subcontinent. It was a brutal world then. For example, one should know what the punishement was if a Dalit happened to be in the eyesight of a Brahmin in those days. On the whole, British were rather fair, even with all the deficiencies one may fault them for.They should be credited for creating India. It remains one of the crowning achievements in Indian history. Indians should be grateful, and in general Indians are, except for a few fanatics.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:44 am
by Nosuperstition
Yohan wrote:British were brutal, early on, while conquering the subcontinent. It was a brutal world then. For example, one should know what the punishement was if a Dalit happened to be in the eyesight of a Brahmin in those days. On the whole, British were rather fair, even with all the deficiencies one may fault them for.They should be credited for creating India. It remains one of the crowning achievements in Indian history. Indians should be grateful, and in general Indians are, except for a few fanatics.


If the shadow of a Dalit fell on a Brahmin,the Brahmin would do penance for the rest of the day to purify himself.I do not find it brutual .It is insulting but not brutual.

Sten wrote:
LCD wrote:you want to say the OT God is a monster, that's fine---then you must show me that every deed he ever did was wrong in every way. You must also then show me that when he helped people, that that was wrong.


Why? Is a murderer who spends most of his life doing good deeds not a murderer? Do good deeds cancel out horrific atrocities? And the most relevant question of all: What is god's motivation for his helpful or good deeds? You will notice that god's "help" always has conditions attached to it, in a lot of cases there are threats of wrath if his help is not reciprocated. Surely if god's help was truly selfless, he would want nothing in return. When you help someone out of the kindness of your heart, do you attach conditions to it and then beat them up later if they go back on the deal?

Don't forget that if the myths about god being omnipotent are to be believed, when god helps someone, there is no sacrifice or effort involved.


viewtopic.php?f=71&t=10229&start=20

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:33 pm
by skynightblaze
Yohan wrote:British were brutal, early on, while conquering the subcontinent. It was a brutal world then. For example, one should know what the punishement was if a Dalit happened to be in the eyesight of a Brahmin in those days. On the whole, British were rather fair, even with all the deficiencies one may fault them for.They should be credited for creating India. It remains one of the crowning achievements in Indian history. Indians should be grateful, and in general Indians are, except for a few fanatics.


As usual you love to provoke Indians and I know you do it deliberately but I am an old player of such games and so I am going to entertain you . The brits were no less and they resorted to looting India. Sure they made a lot of reforms and none is taking away credit from them but not before India paid its own price . It is like taking 100 bucks and providing you services worth 20 bucks and then asking people to be grateful to you. The proportion of what they took was much more than what they did for India. I don't call that a fair deal. It was not just about looting either . Jallianwala bagh massacre has been the ugliest episode in the indian history.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:01 pm
by Yohan
Nosuperstition wrote:
Yohan wrote:British were brutal, early on, while conquering the subcontinent. It was a brutal world then. For example, one should know what the punishement was if a Dalit happened to be in the eyesight of a Brahmin in those days. On the whole, British were rather fair, even with all the deficiencies one may fault them for.They should be credited for creating India. It remains one of the crowning achievements in Indian history. Indians should be grateful, and in general Indians are, except for a few fanatics.
If the shadow of a Dalit fell on a Brahmin,the Brahmin would do penance for the rest of the day to purify himself.I do not find it brutual .It is insulting but not brutual.

Correction, It should have been "For example, one should know what the punishment was if a Dalit intentionally happened to be in the eyesight of a Brahmin in those days".

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:21 am
by Yohan
skynightblaze wrote:
Yohan wrote:British were brutal, early on, while conquering the subcontinent. It was a brutal world then. For example, one should know what the punishement was if a Dalit happened to be in the eyesight of a Brahmin in those days. On the whole, British were rather fair, even with all the deficiencies one may fault them for.They should be credited for creating India. It remains one of the crowning achievements in Indian history. Indians should be grateful, and in general Indians are, except for a few fanatics.
As usual you love to provoke Indians and I know you do it deliberately but I am an old player of such games and so I am going to entertain you . The brits were no less and they resorted to looting India. Sure they made a lot of reforms and none is taking away credit from them but not before India paid its own price . It is like taking 100 bucks and providing you services worth 20 bucks and then asking people to be grateful to you. The proportion of what they took was much more than what they did for India. I don't call that a fair deal. It was not just about looting either . Jallianwala bagh massacre has been the ugliest episode in the indian history.

Typical lying and nonsense I presume! Remember, No people have done more harm to Indians than the Brahmins. Anyone taking pride in being an Indian citizen should express gratitude to the British for creating India as a nation, that no Indian could accomplish. British didn't came to the subcontinent to conquer it, but to trade. Trade became so difficult due to the lawlessness after the Moguls that they conquered it, and established law and order. In undertaking this enormous task, the East India co. accumulated so much debt that British goverment began to take over the company. British Raj that ruled India for so long remains one of the most incorruptible institutions ever created by man.

"After the Mutiny which shook British power in India, particularly in the north and the centre, the British constructed a more complex conservative system of government with a Civil Service which aimed to be fair and efficient. A Viceroy and Governors were appointed. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested in India, it was regarded as a symbol of incorruptible administration of a subject people by an Imperial power and in 1876 Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India."
http://www.ampltd.co.uk/digital_guides/ ... art-1.aspx

Jallianwalla Bagh massacre was nothing compared to the actrocites Indians are fully capable of inflicting upon each other in the name of religion. Compare the 400 killed in Jallianwalla to the thousands killed in the last Gurajat communal savagery.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:08 am
by Nosuperstition
Despite such incorruptible administrative apparatus tell us why poverty was rampant and industrialisation that alleviates poverty to a certain extant picked up pace in independant India and not in British India?Why was India under the British was only a supplier of raw materials and a huge market for industrialised Britain's industrial goods/finished goods?

And it was you who raised the issue of punishment that might be meted out to a Dalit if he appeared intentionally before a Brahmin.I never know of any such punishment.Would you care to tell us if you know?

And by the way many Brahmin householders of those period would have their own cow.Care to tell us how a Brahmin would call upon a Dalit tanner to carry away the dead carcass of the cow without letting him enter his premises and without seeing him?

Devadasis or temple dancers of some South Indian temples are mostly recruited from the poor Dalit communities.If seeing the Dalit itself is such a taboo for a Brahmin as you claim how could the Brahmins allow temple dancers to dance right in the temple before their eyes?

I got the bit about Brahmin in the shadow of a Dalit doing penance for the whole day to purify himself from you.
Those Dalits who work with dead carcasses and bodies might be considered ritually impure but I have never seen any sort of punishment prescribed for them for appearing within a Brahmin's eye sight.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:16 am
by Nosuperstition
Yohan wrote: Trade became so difficult due to the lawlessness after the Moguls that they conquered it, and established law and order.


A correction,trade did not become difficult due to lawlessness but it was not much favouable to the Company due to the native rulers being in power.The company was paying a pittance to the materials it purchased from locals using strong arm tactics to silence them if they complained.For example when the Company resorted to unfair squeezing trade practices in Bengal,people of Bengal complained to their Nawab who took action against the company..The company thought that if the political power too is in their hands they can have trade on their own terms.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:15 am
by skynightblaze
Yohan wrote:Typical Brahmin lying and nonsense I presume! Remember, No people have done more harm to Indians than the Brahmins.

Surely at the end of my post, people will see how illiterate you are. No wonder your name is YO- Hanuman i.e. the modern day Hanuman i.e. monkey. For those who do not know, Hanuman is an hindu monkey god.
I am going to present quotes from westerners who at times quote statistics.

Now here is a challenge to you Yo-Hanuman! Please provide me statistics that show us how brahmins exploited more than the british. If you cannot prove that brahmins did more damage to india than the british you need to take back your statement . Please click the spoiler and enjoy!

Spoiler! :
Prof. Richards writes in the introduction to his paper “Imperial Finance Under the East India Company 1762-1859”[i], “On June 23,1757, Robert Clive, commanding a small force of East India Company professional troops, defeated and killed Siraju-ud-daula, the ruling Nawab of Bengal, on the battlefield of Plassey. The battle marked a significant turning point in world history, for it permitted the English East India Company to gain control over the rich resources of the Mughal successor state in northeastern Bengal and Bihar.

Prof. Richards notes“…
the Company allocated negligible funds for public works, for cultural patronage, for charitable relief, or for any form of education….(confining) its generosity to paying extremely high salaries to its civil servants and military officers. Otherwise parsimony ruled.”

HEre are a few excerpts from the essay “The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs

Few would doubt that Indo-British trade may have been unfair - but it may be noteworthy to see how unfair. In the early 1800s imports of Indian cotton and silk goods faced duties of 70-80%. British imports faced duties of 2-4%!


Prof. Richards has noted Edmund Burke’s report that accompanied the Select Committee of Parliament meetings in 1782-1783 to investigate the Company’s affairs. To quote Edmund Burke:

“But at, or very soon after, the Acquisition of the Territorial Revenues to the English Company…a very great Revolution took place in Commerce as well as in Dominion;….From that Time Bullion was no longer regularly exported by the English East India Company to Bengal, or any part of Hindustan;.… A new Way of supplying the Market of Europe by means of the British Power and Influence, was invented; a Species of Trade (if such it may be called) by which it is absolutely impossible that India should not be radically and irretrievably ruined…”.

Prof. Williamson and Clingingsmith have noted that “between 1772 and 1815 there was a huge net financial transfer from India to Britain in the form of Indian goods. The “drain resulting from contact with the West was the excess of exports from India for which there was no equivalent import” included “a bewildering variety of cotton goods for re-export or domestic [consumption], and the superior grade of saltpeter that gave British cannon an edge”

Javier Cuenca Esteban estimates these net financial transfers from India to Britain reached a peak of £1,014,000 annually in 1784-1792 before declining to £477,000 in 1808-1815 (Pg 9).”



Maddison too has mentioned the debilitating effect of the drain of funds from India: “Another important effect of foreign rule on the long-run growth potential of the economy was the fact that a large part of its potential savings were siphoned abroad.

This 'drain' of funds from India to the UK has been a point of major controversy between Indian nationalist historians and defenders of the British raj. However, the only real grounds for controversy are statistical. There can be no denial that there was a substantial outflow which lasted for 190 years. If these funds had been invested in India they could have made a significant contribution to raising income levels. (Pg 20)”

The total ‘drain’ due to government pensions and leave payments, interest on nonrailway official debt, private remittances for education and savings, and a third commercial profits amounted to about 1.5 per cent of national income of undivided India from 1921 to 1938 and was probably a little larger before that… about a quarter of Indian savings were transferred out of the economy, and foreign exchange was lost which could have paid for imports of capital goods.



An extract from one of the essays, “The Benefits of British Rule[v], 1871”

“Financially: All attention is engrossed in devising new modes of taxation, without any adequate effort to increase the means of the people to pay; and the consequent vexation and oppressiveness of the taxes imposed, imperial and local. Inequitable financial relations between England and India, i.e., the political debt of ,100,000,000 clapped on India's shoulders, and all home charges also…

Materially: The political drain, up to this time, from India to England, of above ,500,000,000, at the lowest computation, in principal alone…The further continuation of this drain at the rate, at present, of above ,12,000,000 per annum, with a tendency to increase.”


Prof. Richards mentions in his research that:

Between 1757 and 1859… ….Officials of the East India Company… tapped the productive people and resources of Bengal and the eastern Gangetic valley to fund the protracted military campaigns necessary to conquer India. Over the same century, these same resources also supplied the wherewithal for a century-long transfer of wealth from India to Great Britain….

In a recent contribution, Javier Cuenca Esteban …puts the

“arguably minimum transfers” from India to Britain between 1757 and 1815, Plassey and Waterloo, at 30.2 million sterling. This figure is the estimate of exports from which there was no compensating import for India.”

As Prof Richards notes,

“(pg 17) there were few years in which the Indian budget was not in deficit. For the entire period (1815 – 1859), deficits reached a cumulative total of 76.9 million sterling or an annual average of 1.7 million sterling”.

Profs. Clingingsmith and Williamson have this to say:

“India was a major player in the world export market for textiles in the early 18th century, but by the middle of the 19th century it had lost all of its export market and much of its domestic market…While India produced about 25 percent of world industrial output in 1750, this figure had fallen to only 2 percent by 1900.”


Apart from this, just read the link below to see how little brits did for improving indian education or agriculture..

http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_060206.htm

Yo-Hanuman wrote: Anyone taking pride in being an Indian citizen should express gratitude to the British for creating India as a nation, that no Indian could accomplish. British didn't came to the subcontinent to conquer it, but to trade. Trade became so difficult due to the lawlessness after the Moguls that they conquered it, and established law and order. In undertaking this enormous task, the East India co. accumulated so much debt that British goverment began to take over the company. British Raj that ruled India for so long remains one of the most incorruptible institutions ever created by man.


You-Hanuman ,if you could just do a basic search on google you wouldn’t be show casing your illiteracy. Just read the spoiler above and see how illiterate you are! Didn’t they teach you history at the school level?

Yo-Hanuman wrote:"After the Mutiny which shook British power in India, particularly in the north and the centre, the British constructed a more complex conservative system of government with a Civil Service which aimed to be fair and efficient. A Viceroy and Governors were appointed. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested in India, it was regarded as a symbol of incorruptible administration of a subject people by an Imperial power and in 1876 Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India."
http://www.ampltd.co.uk/digital_guides/ ... art-1.aspx

As I said previously look at the ratio of what they took away and what they gave. It would tell you that british practically did nothing in comparison to what they took away from us.

Yo-Hanuman wrote:Jallianwalla Bagh massacre was nothing compared to the actrocites Indians are fully capable of inflicting upon each other in the name of religion. Compare the 400 killed in Jallianwalla to the thousands killed in the last Gurajat communal savagery.


Pathetic analogy Yo-Hanuman. You need to learn how to debate. Let us see your pathetic reasoning...

1) Person X kills 400 and person Y kills 1000. Do we say that person Y was a civil guy just because he killed less no of people? We say that both did bad things however you are glorifying the britishers and claiming that it was the most incorruptible system created on earth.

2) The Gujarat violence was a backlash against the muslims because muslims attacked a train and burned the train in which 58 hindus were killed and therefore hindus went wild on a killing spree in Gujarat. In case of Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the mob was simply protesting and they did not launch any attack on brits and hence there was no need to open fire on people. So there is a difference between the 2 events even though what both parties (hindus and brits) did is not desirable.

3) Thirdly, how do you think britishers could conquer colonies in India and abroad? Are you so
naive to believe that britishers could conquer almost the 1/4th of the world using peace? T

Brits and some Indian leaders like fraud Gandhi were responsible for killing of 1,25,000 indian soldiers in world war 2 alone. Gandhi used non violence to fight british but conveniently contradicted his own principle of non violence by shoving 1.25 lakh indian soldiers in the jaws of death.

Now have a look at the battles that britishers fought until the 19th century in search of acquiring new colonies. If you consider the death toll it would be in millions which is no way near to what hindus did in Gujarat violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... of_England

SO I re iterate my challenge Yo- Hanuman.

Please bring statistics on the table to show me how Brahmins were worst than britishers. Please do a side by side comparison.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:44 am
by Nosuperstition
the Company allocated negligible funds for public works, for cultural patronage, for charitable relief, or for any form of education….(confining) its generosity to paying extremely high salaries to its civil servants and military officers. Otherwise parsimony ruled.


Oh that explains why there was no corruption in the administrative apparatus of the British Raj.

Becoming a Writer was the passport to great riches and it was not always acquired without dubious dealing and corruption. A young man who survived ten years, exiled in a trying and dangerous climate, expected to go home rich and the East India Company allowed leeway for creative personal trading as long as its profits were not affected. Allegations of corruption from outsiders were rife and both Clive and Warren Hastings suffered jealous prosecutions.


http://www.aigs.org.au/britind.htm

When the salaries of the company employees who preceded the Raj were not high they too resorted to corruption.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:26 am
by skynightblaze
^^^
Good points. Yo-Hanu-MAN has never been sincere in his approach when he debates about india and hindus. He argues just for the sake of arguing and he really has nothing to offer.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:38 pm
by Idesigner
Nosuperstition wrote:
Yohan wrote: Trade became so difficult due to the lawlessness after the Moguls that they conquered it, and established law and order.


A correction,trade did not become difficult due to lawlessness but it was not much favouable to the Company due to the native rulers being in power.The company was paying a pittance to the materials it purchased from locals using strong arm tactics to silence them if they complained.For example when the Company resorted to unfair squeezing trade practices in Bengal,people of Bengal complained to their Nawab who took action against the company..The company thought that if the political power too is in their hands they can have trade on their own terms.


During Moghul times there were Brits, Dutch, Portuguese, French presence all over India. Portuguse were first to establish their own colony . Now lots of monopolistic trades.They must have made lots of money in spice and other trades. As usual they started converting Hindus , Jews , Orthodox Christians by force and started harassing muslims going to Mecca. This was the reason for animosity with Moghuls and Hindus not the difficult trade. Thsi portuguese model was not lost on other European powers . They all waited for right moment to capture territory.

Others had forts in Gujarat, Madras, Keral,Bengal . They all fluorished, otherwise they would not have stayed there for hundred years. Once Moghul empire fell, Brits learnt that now is opprtunity to take sides and establish strong hold to have monopolistic , predatory business practices.After all monopoly is efficient, free trade is waste.. They didnt bring the practice of free and fair trade :mrgreen2: . Anyway, they quickly learnt that almost all rulers were very unprincipled, double dealers, trecherous, too ready to make pacts with Brits.. Brits made them to fight among themselves and finally had strong power hold following 1757 Plassey war.

Other reason was Brits had very disciplined European style army ( including natives) which can easilly defeat mob army of 100000 . Only few hundred Brits and Sepoys were often enough to defeat huge moghul style army. This they accomplished by paying army regularly and practicing simple command drills.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:54 pm
by Yohan
skynightblaze wrote:Surely at the end of my post, people will see how illiterate you are. No wonder your name is YO- Hanuman i.e. the modern day Hanuman i.e. monkey.----
Brits and some Indian leaders like fraud Gandhi were responsible for killing of 1,25,000 indian soldiers in world war 2 alone ---
skynightblaze wrote:^^^
Good points. Yo-Hanu-MAN has never been sincere in his approach when he debates about india and hindus. He argues just for the sake of arguing and he really has nothing to offer.

Calling me a 'monkey', and calling Mahatma Gandhi the father of Indian nation a 'fraud' are good examples that Brahmins (a people of foreign origin) still can't quit the habit of belittling Indians even after some 3000 years of their invention of the caste system to do the same. I am sure you Maratha Brahmins take much pride in murdering Gandhi. Only fools would take a history lesson on India from such people.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:08 pm
by Yohan
Nosuperstition wrote:
Yohan wrote: Trade became so difficult due to the lawlessness after the Moguls that they conquered it, and established law and order.
A correction,trade did not become difficult due to lawlessness but it was not much favouable to the Company due to the native rulers being in power.The company was paying a pittance to the materials it purchased from locals using strong arm tactics to silence them if they complained.For example when the Company resorted to unfair squeezing trade practices in Bengal,people of Bengal complained to their Nawab who took action against the company..The company thought that if the political power too is in their hands they can have trade on their own terms.

What I tried to say was that British didn't come to India to conquer it, but to trade. It was the Indians who created situations in the subcontinent so they ended up conquering it. Blame the Indians, and not the British!

On the other points you brought up earlier:
- Devadasis in temples didn't come from the Dalit castes, they came from the 'clean Sudra' castes. Dalits were not allowed anywhere near a temple. Same for the 'unclean sudras'.

- Punishment for any disobeying Dalit was death. Not much has changed even today. News get reported occassionaly, about Dalit boys being hanged from trees for even whistling at Brahmin girls.

Also remember that Indians asked the last British Viceroy Mountbatten to continue to serve India as the first Governor-General of the Independent India, and he did so. That shows the good will Indians had (and still have) towards the british. Exceptions are a bunch of despicable Hindu fanatics.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:41 am
by skynightblaze
Yohan wrote:Calling me a 'monkey', and calling Mahatma Gandhi the father of Indian nation a 'fraud' are good examples that Brahmins (a people of foreign origin) still can't quit the habit of belittling Indians even after some 3000 years of their invention of the caste system to do the same. I am sure you Maratha Brahmins take much pride in murdering Gandhi. Only fools would take a history lesson on India from such people.


As far as you being a monkey is concerned, you have demonstrated to be one. Also I have already made a lot of posts explaining as to why I call Gandhi a fraud and he does not deserve the title "mahatma" (great soul). You could never defend him the last time we debated. Would you like to defend him again?

A hint: Never try to defend something that is indefensible.

Btw I am not the only one who hates Gandhi. There are plenty of Indians who would agree with me and its not blind hate as some would believe. We have very good reasons and can easily defend our position.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:03 am
by skynightblaze
Yohan wrote:What I tried to say was that British didn't come to India to conquer it, but to trade. It was the Indians who created situations in the subcontinent so they ended up conquering it. Blame the Indians, and not the British!


:lotpot: So next time we know that when someone comes to trade in USA , you would have no problem if he cheats you!

Yohanuman wrote:- Punishment for any disobeying Dalit was death. Not much has changed even today. News get reported occassionaly, about Dalit boys being hanged from trees for even whistling at Brahmin girls.


It shows that you simply do not have any clue. This is not allowed by law today. I can show similar cases where in the lower caste people harass the upper caste ones. Exceptions occur everywhere but that does not mean we start generalizing.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:19 am
by skynightblaze
@Britishers on this forum

Just to clarify ,I do not hold any grudge against the britishers on this forum because I cannot blame anyone here for the deeds of their ancestors. I have made some great friends here from Britain and I certainly do not hate them.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:44 pm
by Nosuperstition
Yohan wrote:
Nosuperstition wrote:
Yohan wrote: Trade became so difficult due to the lawlessness after the Moguls that they conquered it, and established law and order.
A correction,trade did not become difficult due to lawlessness but it was not much favouable to the Company due to the native rulers being in power.The company was paying a pittance to the materials it purchased from locals using strong arm tactics to silence them if they complained.For example when the Company resorted to unfair squeezing trade practices in Bengal,people of Bengal complained to their Nawab who took action against the company..The company thought that if the political power too is in their hands they can have trade on their own terms.

What I tried to say was that British didn't come to India to conquer it, but to trade. It was the Indians who created situations in the subcontinent so they ended up conquering it. Blame the Indians, and not the British!

On the other points you brought up earlier:
- Devadasis in temples didn't come from the Dalit castes, they came from the 'clean Sudra' castes. Dalits were not allowed anywhere near a temple. Same for the 'unclean sudras'.

- Punishment for any disobeying Dalit was death.
Not much has changed even today. News get reported occassionaly, about Dalit boys being hanged from trees for even whistling at Brahmin girls.

Also remember that Indians asked the last British Viceroy Mountbatten to continue to serve India as the first Governor-General of the Independent India, and he did so. That shows the good will Indians had (and still have) towards the british. Exceptions are a bunch of despicable Hindu fanatics.


British like every other European colonial power continued to hold ambitions of Imperialism in India.They were just waiting for the right moment as Idesigner pointed out.They pitted native rulers against native rulers,weakened them and then with their superior warfare techniques and superior weaponry accomplished what they wanted.

Show which manusmriti verse or any other verse that prescribes death penalty for the Dalit who dares to intentionally appear before a Brahmin.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

Nowhere in the long list of derogatory Manusmriti verses do I find death penalty prescribed for a Dalit appearing intentionally before a Brahmin.Even if there were verses,it is worth noting that it was only during the British period was a concise Manusmriti compiled and before that different regions had their own Manusmritis with different religious laws.There was no uniformity and hence Hindus/Brahmins as a whole cannot be held responsible for the the derogatory laws.

In 2007, Anti-Slavery International published a study on the practice of ritual sexual slavery or forced religious 'marriage'. It found that 93% of Devadasi were from Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and 7% from Scheduled Tribes (indigenous) in India.


http://idsn.org/caste-discrimination/ke ... stitution/

Originally Devadasis had the freedom to remain chaste throughout their life or associate with any person whom they liked and could not be forced into sex.Later on under the British,the temple lands were lost to the zamindars or big landlords by the British law and Devadasis turned to prostitution for living.Now all of a sudden British were interested in the plight of Devadasis and started reforming Hindu traditions.You create a problem and then begin to act like saviours.

Re: I thought only Muslim countries were crazy?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:19 pm
by Nosuperstition
By 1900, the great powers had already been chipping away at Chinese sovereignty for sixty years. They had forced China to import opium, thus leading to widespread addiction, defeated China in several wars, asserted a right to promote Christianity and imposed unequal treaties under which foreigners and foreign companies in China were accorded special privileges, extraterritorial rights and immunities from Chinese law, causing resentment and xenophobic reactions among the Chinese.[citation needed] France, Japan, Russia, and Germany carved out spheres of influence, so that by 1900 it appeared that China would likely be dismembered, with foreign powers each ruling a part of the country. Thus, by 1900, the Qing dynasty, which had ruled China for more than two centuries, was crumbling and Chinese culture was under assault by powerful and unfamiliar religions and secular cultures


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebe ... and_unrest

Now what do you call foreign countries carving out seperate spheres of influence and occupying other countries.Trading.Man I learnt something new today.