India is home to over a billion people and business is booming. Now, this Asian tiger is at a crossroads. CNBCs Erin Burnett takes you inside India......The New Empire.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
This programme also reveals some of the prevailing western 'views' of India . The anchor exaggerates the 'Call Centres' role in India's service economy.That may be the case 15 years back, but not anymore. India is moving to the next level of outsourcing which is R&D outsourcing.
And ofcourse no western anchor or expert will have programme on India without mentioning 'Caste'. At the end of the programme, a western expert makes a claim that the 24 parties in India's governing ruling coalition are alligned along caste lines which is false.Except 2-3 small parties, no party in India is based exclusively on caste.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
-------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by AryanArya on Aug 4, 2009 7:07 AM
LOL the only thing rising in India is births, disease, drugs, pollution and Indians begging other nations to give them work visas. India is a failed state. It will collapse and parts of it will be taking over by China. The day India actually has some self reliance, I will start to think differently.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Don't worry their balloon is self sealing, so even if someone were to poke it in an attempt to pop their balloon it will still remain floating around after some hot air came out.
India is fairly centralised.To get an understanding, Beijing has more autonomous regions compared to New Delhi.Even economically speaking, it is New Delhi which decides which state gets how much Central Funds irrespective of the economic performance of the states.India needs more federalism, not centralization.The states should have the right to increase or decrease the FDI cap in their respective states depending on their situation.The center should just manage things from over the top and let the states decide their own economic policies.Every state has its own peculiar economic problems and a soution in one state may not necessarily the solution for all other states.Decentralization and Local initiatives are the key to India's Growth.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
From what I have read, New Delhi isn't capable of dictating or using decisive action like other federations, I'm of course comparing it to the US, Canada, Germany and Australia (maybe Russia).
The laws of one state can be vastly different to that of another, compared to states in the aforementioned nations (though of course, they do differ).
India is in a particular situation were the central government isn't as strong as it should be, in dictation. I'm of course talking about federal projects, such as infrastructure projects not setting policy (though I'm not sure of its power there).
Even economically speaking, it is New Delhi which decides which state gets how much Central Funds irrespective of the economic performance of the states.
Most federations do that. In Australia, most states are allocated GST tax collection not based on how much is generated, but for growth potential. As such, Western Australia and Queensland get the most when NSW and Victoria generate the most.
To me India is a EU that hasn't figured out what works (which is basically the EU now). Different cultures thrown together into a federation (maybe a confederation like Switzerland may have been better) with vastly differing expectations.
Maybe it'll figure it out one day, but from the outside looking in, it looks rather all over the place atm.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
some people will do anything to promote a loser state.
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
\\From what I have read, New Delhi isn't capable of dictating or using decisive action like other federations, I'm of course comparing it to the US, Canada, Germany and Australia (maybe Russia).\\
India is a country which balks at giving even slight autonomy to its states and to suggest such a country isnt capable of using decisive actions is grossly mistaken.In fact,the grouse in the regional capitals is that New Delhi has too much powers in its hands and its not a bad idea to decentralize some of its powers.The Local governments in India have less powers compared to local governments in US.
'The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained more power to administer their own affairs. Local governments in India have less autonomy than their counterparts in the United States. Some states are trying to revitalize the traditional village councils, or panchayats, to promote popular democratic participation at the village level, where much of the population still lives.'
\\India is in a particular situation were the central government isn't as strong as it should be, in dictation. I'm of course talking about federal projects, such as infrastructure projects not setting policy (though I'm not sure of its power there). \\
One of the reasons why infrastructure projects gets delayed in India is because the States do not have sufficient powers to carry them.Even if someone needs to remove a small slum to make a building in some remote corner of India, that file has to go to New Delhi to get authorization from Central bureaucrats.The states in India simply do not have the power like their counterparts in US to carry on infrastructure projects.Most of the projects gets delayed NOT because of the state governments who are always very promt in executing their part of the work but because of the red tape in Central Govt ministries where the files will sit for months without any decision.
\\To me India is a EU that hasn't figured out what works (which is basically the EU now). Different cultures thrown together into a federation (maybe a confederation like Switzerland may have been better) with vastly differing expectations\\
India is not EU.EU would love to be where India is right now in terms of integration.But it wont happen simply because unlike India, there is no national consciousness in EU.And that is because unlike India, EU is not a nation state to begin with or even a civilizational nation state.When the Anglo-Saxons talk about European civilization , they think in terms of largely western european civilization.Its mostly East Europeans who are enthusiatic about a common EU because that makes them rise above the second class category which they are subjected to since centuries and mix with the west europeans.The west europeans will choose east europeans only as a last resort and their other option is increased muslim and asian immigration to western europe.Even here the west europeans will admit their eastern counterparts only grudgingly.There is simply no chance that EU will ever be like a nation state like India even in the future.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
quote from an indian said in skyscrapercity about the india's speed of building everything.
"
May 9th, 2009, 01:27 AM #1350
snapdragon
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 406 Quote:
Originally Posted by gramercy
I just love this.
Now, imagine if India did something similar...
India has no chance of doing anything even in the next 30 years . Lets get real .The fastest train between say calcutta and chennai or calcutta and mumbai is at 61 kmph average . It TAKES LIKE 24 HOURS TO TRAVEL 1500 kms and that too if the train is oen time which never happens and also You need to book at least 2 to 3 months in advance to get into thsi super fast train . India had the distinct honour of having more railway accidents then teh entire world put together .German engineers have professed their faith in god becuase they could not udnerstand how india was able to run trains on such horrible traks without millions dying each day and declared it as the miracle of 20th century . Even pakistan has trains that move at 80 kmph average .lets not spoil the thread by talking about India right now as it ends up frustrating me .Ofcourse you could say india will develop in future, you know what 'no it wont' . cause all politicians have promised free booze and free colour tvs and not this, and also india is running budget deficits of 11% on gdp how the **** can it get money to build tracks when it is already running such huge budget deficits, and has no money to maintain what it is doing right now (which isbasically nothign) .india economic growth is just one big hype and nothing more than that .you should visit india and everything will become qiute clear
Ofcourse west keeps hyping india and puts it along with china .That ofcourse has to do more with political agenda and alliance with india than anything . Ofcourse most investors who travel and know things for certain know pretty well what is what . "
India is not EU.EU would love to be where India is right now in terms of integration.But it wont happen simply because unlike India, there is no national consciousness in EU.And that is because unlike India, EU is not a nation state to begin with or even a civilizational nation state.When the Anglo-Saxons talk about European civilization , they think in terms of largely western european civilization.Its mostly East Europeans who are enthusiatic about a common EU because that makes them rise above the second class category which they are subjected to since centuries and mix with the west europeans.The west europeans will choose east europeans only as a last resort and their other option is increased muslim and asian immigration to western europe.Even here the west europeans will admit their eastern counterparts only grudgingly.There is simply no chance that EU will ever be like a nation state like India even in the future.
That is not true. The cultural unity of Europe was always a link to the ancient civilisations of Rome and Greece which untied various cultures for over 2000 years, by in large in two main periods, the Roman Empire and then the revival in the Renaissance. There is also the fact that religious unity founded once again by Romans was also the basis of culture cohesion.
What you probably don't realise is that East and West was a religious-cultural divide based on Roman Catholicism (later Protestantism) and Orthodox Christianity, which also spread the Roman inspired culture (Western) and the fusion culture of Eastern and Western (Greeks). Before that Western culture is consider anything directly under the rule of the Romans.
Western culture later became those of the Renaissance, Baroque and Enlightenment periods along with the scientific revolution (which encompassed even Russia). The later evolutions included the liberal British and French systems verse the Central and Eastern absolutist government systems with that changing to an economic/governmental label later.
The culture that is called Western is impossible to label squarely because many nations have been exposed to different amounts of the various stages over the last 2000 years in different levels. Today it is Western Europe, in 50 years it'll encompass the EU which now has clearly non-Western states like Romania and Bulgaria (look to Ottomans).
The only difference between India and Europe is that India has been held under Imperial rule under quasi-cohesion for the same period while Europe fragmented into distinct nation states and national conscious'. Indians are the exact same as Europeans, they are different cultures and language groups that have been joint to one or another Empire for centuries. Had Europe had another 5 Roman Empires, I don't doubt there would be a 'Roman' or 'European' conscious. But to say Indians are Indians in or throughout history is like me labelling a Gaul a Roman, a Celt a Roman, a Greek a Roman, a Iberian a Roman (or replace Roman with European).
What you label Easterners is a 50 year label, basically, the hangover of the Cold War hasn't dissipated. After all, how can someone call a Pole and Hungarian Easterners when they are in Central Europe and only 100 years ago before Communism they were regarded Central states? Germany was always regarded as Central, Italy was Regarded as Southern, Russia as Eastern, Sweden and the Northern's and so on.
Of course the EU cannot be like India in the future. India was force together by the British, like it or not, the British could have just as easily divided India into cultural spheres and allowed Indians to choose to unite (that would have been interesting).
The EU is made up of nations that have basically been free states for 1500 years, which have warred each other more then 'non-Europeans'. You can't compare the two. Two distinct histories though basically the same make up of the continents.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
\\That is not true. The cultural unity of Europe was always a link to the ancient civilisations of Rome and Greece which untied various cultures for over 2000 years, by in large in two main periods, the Roman Empire and then the revival in the Renaissance. There is also the fact that religious unity founded once again by Romans was also the basis of culture cohesion. \\
Rome and Greece were NOT 'European' exactly.The Romans NEVER considered themselves as Europeans.They considered themselves above Europeans.Rome considered all true blodded europeans like Vandals,Visigoths,Ostrogoths,Angles,Saxons as 'Barbarians' who needed to be tamed and if possible civilized.Rome was to Europe what Mongols are to Turks.Both the Europeans and Anatolians were conquered from outside and ended up identifying themselves with their conquerors.Rome has far more cultural and historical links with North African Carthage (which it respected as Equals) than it had with mainland Europe (which it considered as uncivilized).In the same way, classical Greece had far more cultural and Historical and in some cases blood relations with Eqypt than it had with the West Europeans.The identification of Greece and Rome as part of 'Western Civilization' is a recent post-renaissance phenomenon. While the Romans considered West Europeans as inferior, both the Romans, post-Romans and the West Europeans considered East Europeans in even more humiliating fashion.The word 'Slave' is derived from the word 'Slav' during the period when Slavs were taken as Slaves by the Holy Roman Empire.It was not until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights in 15th century, that the extermination campaign of Slavs in the name of stablilization got ended.
\\What you probably don't realise is that East and West was a religious-cultural divide based on Roman Catholicism (later Protestantism) and Orthodox Christianity, which also spread the Roman inspired culture (Western) and the fusion culture of Eastern and Western (Greeks). Before that Western culture is consider anything directly under the rule of the Romans.\\
Christianity was deliberately spread by Imperial Rome to tame Europeans which they considered as 'Uncivilized'.Just like in the same way, Islam was spread into Persia by the Rashidun Caliphate which considered them as second class 'infidels'.Even the Europeans who resisted Rome considered Christianity as a Non-European Roman tool of colonialism and treated as such.It was the Germanic people who first got christianized partly by force and partly by stockhome syndrome.The scandinavians and the Baltic people resisted even further and were not christianized until much later.
There is striking resemblance between how Islam was spread in Non-Islamic Persia and parts of Indian subcontinent and how christianity was spread in Europe.It started as a outside invasion, succeeded in making a section of their victims as 'Dhimmis' who started indentifying themselves with the culture of their invaders who eventually became a fifth column of their invaders and in turn started converting their neighbours.It was not until all of Europe got converted and no one was left to resist and everyone started identifying with the culture of their colonisers that people started further dividing themselves along christian sectarian lines.
\\The culture that is called Western is impossible to label squarely because many nations have been exposed to different amounts of the various stages over the last 2000 years in different levels. Today it is Western Europe, in 50 years it'll encompass the EU which now has clearly non-Western states like Romania and Bulgaria (look to Ottomans).\\
The West Europeans will make sure they remain the core of any western culture even in the future.The East Europeans have no chance against the west.At best to resist Islamic demographics, the west may invite the East Europeans to come and settle in their lands but not before they are completely assimilated into west european culture.The East Europeans anyway consider West Europeans as ideal 'models' to imitate and as such they wont be much resistence from them either.Either way, Western culture will still be identified as western european and there is a slim chance that the East Europeans will be allowed equal status in EU.The only force which can unite the West and East Europeans is the threat of Islam and even here the West Europeans will use the East Europeans but they wont get the same credit.Notice how Vlad Dracula was potrayed in West European Circles(and through them in the rest of the world) even though his 'notorious tourture methods' was not much different from what the West Europeans used at that time.The West Europeans made sure that their people know him more as a person who drink blood rather than a Romanian national hero who resisted the Ottomans.
\\The only difference between India and Europe is that India has been held under Imperial rule under quasi-cohesion for the same period while Europe fragmented into distinct nation states and national conscious'. Indians are the exact same as Europeans, they are different cultures and language groups that have been joint to one or another Empire for centuries. Had Europe had another 5 Roman Empires, I don't doubt there would be a 'Roman' or 'European' conscious. But to say Indians are Indians in or throughout history is like me labelling a Gaul a Roman, a Celt a Roman, a Greek a Roman, a Iberian a Roman (or replace Roman with European).\\
Indian and European histories were completely different and to compare them just because India has language diversity like Europe is missing the picture.When the Mauryans united India, they never did that as a 'imperial mission' or a 'civilizing mission' like Rome did .They did that as a way to Unite the family.Rome never considered Europe as part of 'their family' but as inferior barbarians who can be exploited and tamed.Rome's behaviour towards Europe was similar to Colonial Britain's attitude towards Africa.Just like Rome introduced Christianity to Europe as imperial tool and to 'civilize' the natives, the British and other Europeans introduced christianity to Africa as imperial tools to 'civilize' the natives.Britain tried to do the same to India, but it failed because unlike the Africans, the Indians have a strong National identity and culture.The Romans succedded in Europe because the Europeans never had a european nation culture or identity of their own.There is simply no comparision here between India and Europe.Indians have national identity since ages and precisely why India's independence struggle against Britain was fought on the basis of Indian Nationalism rather than on regional identities.What ever resistence the europeans offered to rome came as a result of regional identities and not as a pan european identity because there was no pan european identity in the first place.
\\What you label Easterners is a 50 year label, basically, the hangover of the Cold War hasn't dissipated. After all, how can someone call a Pole and Hungarian Easterners when they are in Central Europe and only 100 years ago before Communism they were regarded Central states? Germany was always regarded as Central, Italy was Regarded as Southern, Russia as Eastern, Sweden and the Northern's and so on.\\
The World sees East Europeans mostly through West European eyes.And for the West Europeans, everything east of bavaria is barbarian or 'eastern'.This is what i called 'Euro centric version' of things.When i say 'Euro Centric', i basically meant West European Centric.It will eventually go but will take time.The interesting part is most people irrespective of their culture see each other through West European Lens because in the modern age , they were introduced to each other through western European people.While many Indians will think poland is in Eastern Europe (because thats what they read in the books written by western authors), many East and Central Europeans or Chinese might internalize the British propoganda that before British colonization, there was no India (because that is what they read or were told when question of India came up).Since western Europe acted as a bridge between different people, all the people started looking at other people through western european lens.
\\India was force together by the British, like it or not, the British could have just as easily divided India into cultural spheres and allowed Indians to choose to unite (that would have been interesting).\\
Oh ! That is exactly what the British have done.All of India was not completely under British administration.Around half of it was under direct British rule while remaining half was Independent with their own Armies, but as British vassals.Before the British, India for the most part never had multiple kingdoms.The British took India from the Maratha Empire and its dependencies under which India was fairly united.But after the British took over, they divided the Empire into bits and pieces and then propogated that India was a patch work of different principalities.And because of the administration reasons when they brought these principalities under one rule, they re propogated that they are uniting a country which is divided until now.In 1947, when they were leaving, they let all the principalities known that they have a option either to Join India or remain independent (under British protection).At that time there was a radical movement that emerged in Indian Muslim commmunity which feared that their religion will be supressed in a largely Secular Hindu India and wanted a seperate state for muslims.The British were quick to exploit it and gave their support to pakistan with the condition that in return for western support for dividing India and establishing independent pakistan, the west will use pakistani bases whenever required. (Gary Powers's U-2 plane took off from a pakistani base before it was shot down by the Soveits).The British then asked the principalities (which they themselves created from the remnants of Maratha Empire), to either choose India or Pakistan or remain independent under their protection.Most choosed India, some muslim principalities choosed pakistan and none wanted to be independent.It is pretty much clear that if the British did not suppport islamic secessionism , even pakistan would not have happened.And even inspite of British support to secessionism, instead of a great humanist like Gandhi, India had chosen a revolutionary like Patel (who was dead set against pakistan and advocated a return to the pre-British times), still India would have extended from the Persian Gulf to Burma as in Pre-British times.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Rome and Greece were NOT 'European' exactly.The Romans NEVER considered themselves as Europeans.They considered themselves above Europeans.Rome considered all true blodded europeans like Vandals,Visigoths,Ostrogoths,Angles,Saxons as 'Barbarians' who needed to be tamed and if possible civilized.Rome was to Europe what Mongols are to Turks.Both the Europeans and Anatolians were conquered from outside and ended up identifying themselves with their conquerors.Rome has far more cultural and historical links with North African Carthage (which it respected as Equals) than it had with mainland Europe (which it considered as uncivilized).In the same way, classical Greece had far more cultural and Historical and in some cases blood relations with Eqypt than it had with the West Europeans.The identification of Greece and Rome as part of 'Western Civilization' is a recent post-renaissance phenomenon. While the Romans considered West Europeans as inferior, both the Romans, post-Romans and the West Europeans considered East Europeans in even more humiliating fashion.The word 'Slave' is derived from the word 'Slav' during the period when Slavs were taken as Slaves by the Holy Roman Empire.It was not until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights in 15th century, that the extermination campaign of Slavs in the name of stablilization got ended.
The term didn't exist, ergo you can't label them European. The term came about during the Dark ages. Europe was a continental name. Romans considered themselves civilised while, other then the Greeks, everyone else was a barbarian.
They did not make a distinction based on race, as they extended Roman citizenship to anyone that met certain criteria, from Republic to Imperium.
That would hold true, if it extended outside Germanic nations. In Rome, the word Slav didn't mean Slave, nor does it most European languages.
The term Western started out as Occidental versus Oriental, which started as far back as the Byzantine Empire.
Slavs were not exterminated. Austrians are for the most part Germanized Slavs, while relations between Poles and Germans was for the most part peaceful till the rise of Prussia. Most Germanics and Slavs mixed which shows with the RA1 halotype which is prevalent, even in Scandinavia.
Also, the Northern crusades were focused on Baltic peoples which are a separate race to Slavs.
Christianity was deliberately spread by Imperial Rome to tame Europeans which they considered as 'Uncivilized'.Just like in the same way, Islam was spread into Persia by the Rashidun Caliphate which considered them as second class 'infidels'.Even the Europeans who resisted Rome considered Christianity as a Non-European Roman tool of colonialism and treated as such.It was the Germanic people who first got christianized partly by force and partly by stockhome syndrome.The scandinavians and the Baltic people resisted even further and were not christianized until much later.
There is striking resemblance between how Islam was spread in Non-Islamic Persia and parts of Indian subcontinent and how christianity was spread in Europe.It started as a outside invasion, succeeded in making a section of their victims as 'Dhimmis' who started indentifying themselves with the culture of their invaders who eventually became a fifth column of their invaders and in turn started converting their neighbours.It was not until all of Europe got converted and no one was left to resist and everyone started identifying with the culture of their colonisers that people started further dividing themselves along christian sectarian lines.
Christianity was spread to bring dominance over the continent as well as spread the word. Rather then extend a dying concept of Roman citizenship which meant little any more, they spread the faith. However, much of the work was conducted outside of Roman leadership.
Unfortunately, Barbarian invasion persisted and broke any chance of re-introducing Roman dominance in Europe, fragmenting Europe further into power circles based around old concepts of Kingship, inheritance and nobility which was a 'barbarian' concept evolved from tribal beginnings with a Roman twist.
The West Europeans will make sure they remain the core of any western culture even in the future.The East Europeans have no chance against the west.At best to resist Islamic demographics, the west may invite the East Europeans to come and settle in their lands but not before they are completely assimilated into west european culture.The East Europeans anyway consider West Europeans as ideal 'models' to imitate and as such they wont be much resistence from them either.Either way, Western culture will still be identified as western european and there is a slim chance that the East Europeans will be allowed equal status in EU.The only force which can unite the West and East Europeans is the threat of Islam and even here the West Europeans will use the East Europeans but they wont get the same credit.Notice how Vlad Dracula was potrayed in West European Circles(and through them in the rest of the world) even though his 'notorious tourture methods' was not much different from what the West Europeans used at that time.The West Europeans made sure that their people know him more as a person who drink blood rather than a Romanian national hero who resisted the Ottomans.
They can't. You could of said that about the 7 great powers of Europe of the 1500's, but Europe constantly changed. It is dynamic, and the term will have stabilised because the continent has finally stabilised.
Poland already gets as many votes as Spain in the EU. The term Eastern Europe and Western Europe is dying. Even today, maps in Europe are introducing geographical break downs, based on Central, Southern, Northern, Western. The Western culture, which was extended to the Japanese and South Korea will surely be extended back to the rightful peoples of Hungary, Poland and both the Czechs and Slovaks. These are naturally Western cultured nations, even historically they were known as the frontier lands of Western Christendom.
Vlad was portrayed that way in Holy Roman Empire, which spread to the 'West' as such (France, England, Spain etc). The reason was that many German colonist moved into Wallachia and Transylvania at the behest of the Hungarian Kings, who lost the lands to fiercely independent 'Vlach' Kings. When Dracul rose to power, he massacred many German merchants because they avoided taxes and was fiercely Orthodox Christian, as opposed to the Protestant Germans. As such, propaganda spread about his deeds from this.
In Central Europe, he is a positive in Slavic lands, Austria (surprisingly), Venice, Poland, Hungary etc. In Russia he is seen as a defender of Orthodoxy.
Indian and European histories were completely different and to compare them just because India has language diversity like Europe is missing the picture.When the Mauryans united India, they never did that as a 'imperial mission' or a 'civilizing mission' like Rome did .They did that as a way to Unite the family.Rome never considered Europe as part of 'their family' but as inferior barbarians who can be exploited and tamed.Rome's behaviour towards Europe was similar to Colonial Britain's attitude towards Africa.Just like Rome introduced Christianity to Europe as imperial tool and to 'civilize' the natives, the British and other Europeans introduced christianity to Africa as imperial tools to 'civilize' the natives.Britain tried to do the same to India, but it failed because unlike the Africans, the Indians have a strong National identity and culture.The Romans succedded in Europe because the Europeans never had a european nation culture or identity of their own.There is simply no comparision here between India and Europe.Indians have national identity since ages and precisely why India's independence struggle against Britain was fought on the basis of Indian Nationalism rather than on regional identities.What ever resistence the europeans offered to rome came as a result of regional identities and not as a pan european identity because there was no pan european identity in the first place.
The histories yes, the break down of the continents based on culture, language and race, no.
You don't seem to see that seeing one as a 'family' and as 'barbarians' is a matter of imperial perspective.
Your idea on introducing Christianity could work if firstly, the British truly wanted to force Christianity into India, they would have. Secondly, Islam was adopted even though you claim strong 'national' identity. Thirdly, Christianity was used as a genuine tool in the Age of Discovery, not during the Roman times. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors could be claimed to have used it as a tool to unite the land, it worked for a while, over different cultural groups.
But what you seem to forget is that there was a fiercely independent nature to European cultures which isn't present in most Sub-Continent cultures. Based on the divergence of history.
The reason it was a Indian wide movement is because of more then a 'national identity', but recent teachings by men during the Raj, like Gandhi, who preached the idea. It was also more effective to be united on the process then divided, else no one would have gotten independence.
The World sees East Europeans mostly through West European eyes.And for the West Europeans, everything east of bavaria is barbarian or 'eastern'.This is what i called 'Euro centric version' of things.When i say 'Euro Centric', i basically meant West European Centric.It will eventually go but will take time.The interesting part is most people irrespective of their culture see each other through West European Lens because in the modern age , they were introduced to each other through western European people.While many Indians will think poland is in Eastern Europe (because thats what they read in the books written by western authors), many East and Central Europeans or Chinese might internalize the British propoganda that before British colonization, there was no India (because that is what they read or were told when question of India came up).Since western Europe acted as a bridge between different people, all the people started looking at other people through western european lens.
Obviously uninformed. You are telling me, the Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians, people of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were considered Eastern? I can show you primary sources where Germans were not considered Western either based on their governmental system, or the Austrians. You are using recent invented terms, I have even described the dynamic nature of the term 'Western'.
You will find most of those Books, were written in the Cold War era. I can show you books from 1900's that call Poles as 'Central'.
Again, you are using a term that has involved from the 50's and will dissipate with time, just like the term rose, with time. Anyone in the EU given enough time will be considered Western once they are liberal free society based on the Western model...
Under your definition, the Japanese are Eastern. Have you noticed South Korea is now considered Western when only 20 years ago it was Eastern?
Oh ! That is exactly what the British have done.All of India was not completely under British administration.Around half of it was under direct British rule while remaining half was Independent with their own Armies, but as British vassals.Before the British, India for the most part never had multiple kingdoms.The British took India from the Maratha Empire and its dependencies under which India was fairly united.But after the British took over, they divided the Empire into bits and pieces and then propogated that India was a patch work of different principalities.And because of the administration reasons when they brought these principalities under one rule, they re propogated that they are uniting a country which is divided until now.In 1947, when they were leaving, they let all the principalities known that they have a option either to Join India or remain independent (under British protection).At that time there was a radical movement that emerged in Indian Muslim commmunity which feared that their religion will be supressed in a largely Secular Hindu India and wanted a seperate state for muslims.The British were quick to exploit it and gave their support to pakistan with the condition that in return for western support for dividing India and establishing independent pakistan, the west will use pakistani bases whenever required. (Gary Powers's U-2 plane took off from a pakistani base before it was shot down by the Soveits).The British then asked the principalities (which they themselves created from the remnants of Maratha Empire), to either choose India or Pakistan or remain independent under their protection.Most choosed India, some muslim principalities choosed pakistan and none wanted to be independent.It is pretty much clear that if the British did not suppport islamic secessionism , even pakistan would not have happened.And even inspite of British support to secessionism, instead of a great humanist like Gandhi, India had chosen a revolutionary like Patel (who was dead set against pakistan and advocated a return to the pre-British times), still India would have extended from the Persian Gulf to Burma as in Pre-British times.
I know only half was. But Indian Raj also had nations clearly never under Indian rule, like Burma.
But you can see, if the British wanted to, they could have left by simply giving each nation independence of each other and allowed them to unite themselves. What I mean is, they don't ask, they simply do, leave and let 'India' do whatever they want. Instead they dabbled around for a few years, got a man who never even once set foot in India before to draw a map dividing Pakistan and India and then left.
They could have just left. That is my point.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
This message has been edited by Rzeczpospolita on Aug 13, 2009 6:07 PM
\\The term didn't exist, ergo you can't label them European. The term came about during the Dark ages. Europe was a continental name. Romans considered themselves civilised while, other then the Greeks, everyone else was a barbarian.They did not make a distinction based on race, as they extended Roman citizenship to anyone that met certain criteria, from Republic to Imperium.\\
Its not about labelling the 'Romans' as Europeans.Its about how much the present day West Europeans can claim themselves as historical inheritors of Romans and Greeks. Europe is just a geographical name which came about much later.There is nothing called 'European civilization' .Neither Romans nor Greeks neither had any effinity nor any relations with other 'Europeans' other than Barbarian-Non Barbarian or Colonizer vs Colonized relations. So to suggest that the roots of 'European Civilization' are Rome and Greece is completely misrepresenting the picture because the Romans and Greeks never had 'European' identity in the first place nor did they think themselves as 'one of them'.
\\That would hold true, if it extended outside Germanic nations. In Rome, the word Slav didn't mean Slave, nor does it most European languages.\\
I never said slav means slave.I said the word 'slave' originated from the word 'Slav' during the Holy Roman Empire.Slav's were not the only people who were taken as slaves at that time.But the status and discrimination of slavs at that time was such that their name became the origin for slave.I am not denigrating slav's here.I am highlighting the nature of relations east europeans had with other europeans through centuries .
\\Slavs were not exterminated. Austrians are for the most part Germanized Slavs, while relations between Poles and Germans was for the most part peaceful till the rise of Prussia. Most Germanics and Slavs mixed which shows with the RA1 halotype which is prevalent, even in Scandinavia.Also, the Northern crusades were focused on Baltic peoples which are a separate race to Slavs. \\
Slav's as a race were not exterminated.But Slav's as an identity were exterminated during the middle ages.Many of those germanized slavs you talk about wont admit that they have slavic blood in them because their slavic identity was gone long time back.That is what i said in my previous post.The west europeans will admit east europeans into their fold but only after east europeans gets 'westernized'.
\\Christianity was spread to bring dominance over the continent as well as spread the word. Rather then extend a dying concept of Roman citizenship which meant little any more, they spread the faith. However, much of the work was conducted outside of Roman leadership.\\
That is exactly how Christianity was also spread in Africa by the European missioneries which does not make the Africans inheritor of 'European Civilization' just like Europeans cannot claim they are cultural inheritors of Romans because the Roman colonizers introduced christianity to Europe.
\\Poland already gets as many votes as Spain in the EU. The term Eastern Europe and Western Europe is dying. Even today, maps in Europe are introducing geographical break downs, based on Central, Southern, Northern, Western. The Western culture, which was extended to the Japanese and South Korea will surely be extended back to the rightful peoples of Hungary, Poland and both the Czechs and Slovaks. These are naturally Western cultured nations, even historically they were known as the frontier lands of Western Christendom.\\
Western culture was 'extended' to Japanese and Koreans only after both Japanese and koreans were defeated by the west and both had no alternatives.The japanese had no option what so ever and the only option the south koreans had was communism which is another west european import.Only Central and East Europeans will think that they are "naturally" western cultured nations.The West Europeans have completely different perspective on that and it wont change anytime soon.
\\Vlad was portrayed that way in Holy Roman Empire, which spread to the 'West' as such (France, England, Spain etc). The reason was that many German colonist moved into Wallachia and Transylvania at the behest of the Hungarian Kings, who lost the lands to fiercely independent 'Vlach' Kings. When Dracul rose to power, he massacred many German merchants because they avoided taxes and was fiercely Orthodox Christian, as opposed to the Protestant Germans. As such, propaganda spread about his deeds from this.\\
There may be many reasons why vlad was potrayed the way he did, but the fact is the west europeans potrayed him in more negative way than they potrayed the ottomans which brings back to the point i was making about how west europeans viewed the east europeans at that time.
\\You don't seem to see that seeing one as a 'family' and as 'barbarians' is a matter of imperial perspective.\\
Its that 'perspective' that makes all the difference.There is not much difference between a terrorist and a soilder,if you remove that perspective. ALL ancient countries started out as imperial nations.But only some became civilizations and nation states.India became a nation state because beneath its diversity bubble there is a solid ground of unity.Europe never had such a ground.You are giving too much importance to the bubble in India's case and wrongly comparing them to Europe.When the anceint Indian Empires united India, they did that on purpose to unite the nation.There was a solid nationalist cause behind that.When rome colonized europe, they did that to plunder and loot.There is no comparision here.
\\Your idea on introducing Christianity could work if firstly, the British truly wanted to force Christianity into India, they would have.\\
The British never forced christianity into Africa either.British christian missioneries did same amount of work in both Africa and India.But they succedded in Africa but failed in India.That is because the Africans never had an identity of their own while the Indians had a solid identity behind them.
\\Secondly, Islam was adopted even though you claim strong 'national' identity.\\
Islam was adopted in only parts of India.Islam was their in India since thousand years.How much percentage of India or Indians are islamic now ?.Compare this how islam spread in persia or north africa or anatolia .Or how it is spreading in europe now within 30 years.Only people who have unified identity will resist outside influences.
\\Thirdly, Christianity was used as a genuine tool in the Age of Discovery, not during the Roman times. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors could be claimed to have used it as a tool to unite the land, it worked for a while, over different cultural groups.\\
Christianity became a 'genuine' tool only after all the europeans lost the memory of christianity being forced through their throat by the Romans and started treating christianity as a 'European' religion.Similar to how African missioneries treat christianity as a 'African' religion and use it as a 'genuine' tool in unstable nations.
\\But what you seem to forget is that there was a fiercely independent nature to European cultures which isn't present in most Sub-Continent cultures. Based on the divergence of history.\\
Which brings back to my point that India and Europe are as different as a Soilder and a Terrorist even though both of them fight for a cause.Indians are not Europeans because the Indian identity trumps any regional identities while the "fiercely independent nature" of Europeans rules out such a scenario.
\\The reason it was a Indian wide movement is because of more then a 'national identity', but recent teachings by men during the Raj, like Gandhi, who preached the idea. It was also more effective to be united on the process then divided, else no one would have gotten independence.\\
Gandhi came much later into the Freedom struggle.Gandhi did not create any new ideologies.He just used an already existing national identity for independence purposes.
\\Obviously uninformed. You are telling me, the Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians, people of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were considered Eastern? I can show you primary sources where Germans were not considered Western either based on their governmental system, or the Austrians. You are using recent invented terms, I have even described the dynamic nature of the term 'Western'.\\
Dude, Go through what i wrote again.This is what i wrote."The World sees East Europeans mostly through West European eyes.And for the West Europeans, everything east of bavaria is barbarian or 'eastern'.This is what i called 'Euro centric version' of things.When i say 'Euro Centric', i basically meant West European Centric.It will eventually go but will take time.The interesting part is most people irrespective of their culture see each other through West European Lens because in the modern age , they were introduced to each other through western European people.While many Indians will think poland is in Eastern Europe (because thats what they read in the books written by western authors), many East and Central Europeans or Chinese might internalize the British propoganda that before British colonization, there was no India (because that is what they read or were told when question of India came up).Since western Europe acted as a bridge between different people, all the people started looking at other people through western european lens."
The poles may shout from the roof tops that they are not east europeans exactly and that may be very much true.But most of the world is not hearing that voice because there is no direct contact between the poles and the rest of the world.The world sees poland through west european lens (with all the myths and propoganda included) just like the poles sees India through west european lens (with all the myths and propoganda included).
\\But you can see, if the British wanted to, they could have left by simply giving each nation independence of each other and allowed them to unite themselves. What I mean is, they don't ask, they simply do, leave and let 'India' do whatever they want. Instead they dabbled around for a few years, got a man who never even once set foot in India before to draw a map dividing Pakistan and India and then left.They could have just left. That is my point.\\
If the British simply left like that (which was what the Indians demanded), then India today would have bordered Iran in the west and Thailand in the east.There would have been no pacifist and humanist like Gandhi on the scene.A Nationalist like Patel would have taken over.There would have been a civil war between the Natioanalists and the Islamists in which the 90% of Nationalists would have crushed the 10% Islamists.It would have been similar to what china expereinced in the same period with much better results.The British knew that, presicely why they left AFTER they carefully partioned India.Pakistan would NEVER had become a reality if not for British presence and support.The British 'did not leave' India because it was not in their interests to leave.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
.india will remain where it is we pakistanis will make sure of that
Do you even live in Pakistan? LOL, or are you living in some hovel in Bradford with your dad driving a taxi at night?
==================================
Tu dhoop hain jham se bikhar
Tu hai nadee o bekhabar
Beh chal kahin ud chal kahin
Dil khush jahan teri toh manzil hai wahin.
^^did i involve your Ammi init??..i didnt so why the need to get personal??
its really a problem with you indians thats why everybody like to beat crap outta you indians.
@Acee1 its our way of showing love for indians..we want their compleet attention .
This message has been edited by Hassan88 on Aug 17, 2009 2:39 PM
I asked a question lol, involve whoever you want. Did I get too close to the truth, boy?
==================================
Tu dhoop hain jham se bikhar
Tu hai nadee o bekhabar
Beh chal kahin ud chal kahin
Dil khush jahan teri toh manzil hai wahin.
![[linked image]](http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/qq103/silverstone_album/tanya3.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i33.tinypic.com/o0qg0h.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/SmilesWAFF/smilies0772.gif)
![[linked image]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j198/rcelej/RedList20Fist_1.png)
![[linked image]](http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u311/TLCPrado/aw378if.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1250403853.JPG)
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1249265176.JPG)