Wise Padishah (Premier Login Padishah) Arab Legion
Is this true???? 14 Trillion!!!! I have new disgust at the Brits!!!
Year 1492: Vasco de Gama lands on the Goan shores of India a land of immense riches. He was trying to find a trade route so that Europeans would not have to pay the Arab middlemen.
Year 1857: Britain takes over control of India in a bloody fight, and India becomes a colony of the British Empire and most of the capital starts moving to London (just inquire about the imperial treasures which British looted including Kohinoor diamond).
Year 1947: India gets its Independance. About 14 Trillion dollars worth of Capital (In todays money) had been moved to Europe in the meantime. Not even a sewing pin is manufactured in India, it was imported from England.
Year 2004: India has a rapidly growing manufacturing, space science, energy and Pharmacutical industry not to mention Technology. It has become third largest Economy in terms of adjusted GNP. But the fact remains that although the poverty levels have been raised from 75% pre-independence level to 35% now, it still means that 350 Million people are poor.
nadirshah did not "conquer" delhi but plundered delhi during one of his raid.during emperor harsh's reign,he sure conqured iran,not all of its eastern part.harsh's empire included all of central asia as well.
After plundering Delhi, during his return voayage back to Iran, all of the booty that Nadir Shah gained was lost, beacuse he got plundered by the Sikhs in return.
Wise Padishah (Premier Login Padishah) Arab Legion
Funny how these Pakis are so proud of India getting conquered by foreigners.
LOL, what the **** do they think they are? They should ask themselves, why are they Muslims? Hahah, they are the ones who got conquered, at least the Hindus that are left were brave, and stood up. The ones who were converted, my sympathies with them, but their children should be more bent on revenge on the aggressors, than joining the bandwagon against their brothers.
Padishah , zade be saret????????
Man IRANI hastam , faghat bekhatere eenke man vaghi´yat o goftam va man goftam ke Nader Shah Delhi ro az Henduestan gerefte , to meegi man pakistani hastam????
Man barakse pakistaniha heech moshkeli ba hendia nadaram!!!
Ettefaghan mardome kheili khoobi hastan vali choon ke adame khoobi hastan , begam Delhi ro az Henduestan nageraftan!!
Indians , I am Iranian and I didn´t want to start with flaming , but it is true that Nader Shah conquered Delhi!
---------------------------------------------
EY IRAN EY MARZE PORGOHAR EY KHAKAT SARCHESHMEYE HONAR...
Devan , you´re right!
I forgot the word for to invade so I said conquer!
And also I hate Nader Shah because he wanted to change Iran´s religion to Sunni so he deseved his death and I am lucky about that he got killed and after him Iran got its greatest and most democratic man ( Vakil Karim Khane Zand)!
Karim Khane Zand was such great that he didn´t call himself Shah an Shah ,he called himself vakil (lawyer)!
Also Iran with Karim Khane Zand didn´t have any war which proves the cleverness of Karim Khane Zand and its peaceful mind and also we had an army that was more than strong enough for defending herself!
After Karim Khane Zand the worst Iranian government came (Qajar)!!
---------------------------------------------
EY IRAN EY MARZE PORGOHAR EY KHAKAT SARCHESHMEYE HONAR...
Um yes Qasem. Normally Iranians would be a bit 'smarter' in knowing their country's own history, be careful in what you type.
India just like many other countries rich in culture like Iran, China, Rome have had their good days of power and bad days of invasion, defeat, ****. India in around 1200 (according to be history teacher) was very very rich. Many countries traded with it. The French, Portugese, Dutch all traded gold and silver for the famous Indian spices. The British also traded but also got the idea of why not invade? There goes most of our wealth lol
We are rising again from our fall...our rise is inevitable....MUHAHAH
China and India will become one of the richest again no matter it takes long time or not.
Both countries have decent civilization-therefore Indian people are very logically thinking and Chinese people are very creative and ambitious in general.
No doubt, the industrial revolution gave Europe and US both military and economic dominance in a relatively short period of time. India and China are just now moving into this phase while the developed countries are now service-based economies.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"so we may agree that that table shows nothing like the alleged plunder of India?"
Every nation grows, but India's growth was stopped by the British, and industrialization stalled till they left. Funny thing, is that in 1800, India had 20% of the world's total wealth, which is equivalent of America's share in 2000.
India did grow during British rule, but the money didn't go to Indians. The people who worked hard for the money were practically 'robbed'. During British rule, the province of Bengal made the world's 12% GDP or industrial output (one of them, sorry, forgot but was one of them), greater than California as of today.
But did anybody in Bengal profit? Nope, we were still starving, the British robbed us even during famines.
Do you know how the British survived WW2? They starved Indians (Bengal in particular). It was the first man-made famine. Crops were fine that year, rains were good, harvests were good, everything was good. However, even the farmers were reduced to eat the starchy left-over water of cooked rice (staple food during famine).
If this is not plunder, what is it then?
The Bengal Famine was the result of hoarding by INDIAN grain traders. They thought that if they kept their stocks locked up for a bit more, they could charge even higher prices. What kept tens, even hundreds of thousands of Indians alive was not the selfish actions of those Indian grain traders, but the actions of British relief organisations, setting up soup kitchens and the like.
Now, granted, more government intervention (there was some) may have helped somewhat, but then again the British were fighting both a world war and Indian attempts to turn over the country to the Axis - this was around the time Bose returned to Asia with Nazi backing, remember? Those kinds of things generally tend to draw away attention from native corruption and greed. That native greed, unfortunately, cost the lives of several million perfectly innocent Indians.
As to the wealth-thing: Look at the table again. Look at the GDP growth rates. What do they tell you?
They tell you that Indian GDP growth in the 1700-1820 period, when India was still overwhelmingly Indian-governed, lay at 0,26% per annum.
Now look at the 1820-1952 period, where India was overwhelmingly British-governed. There, the rate of growth lay at 0,56%.
Essentially, British India had double the rate of growth that Indian India had. If you had continued on with your inferior, Indian, rate of growth, you would have arrived in 1952 with only 70% of the wealth you got with massive British investments.
So exactly what is it that you are complaining about?
"The Bengal Famine was the result of hoarding by INDIAN grain traders. They thought that if they kept their stocks locked up for a bit more, they could charge even higher prices. What kept tens, even hundreds of thousands of Indians alive was not the selfish actions of those Indian grain traders, but the actions of British relief organisations, setting up soup kitchens and the like. "
Well, the human rights violations of slavery in America's south weren't done by the white slave-owners but by their black overseers.
Therefore, the bad guys in the south were the blacks themselves? LOL!!
The British were very smart about not getting their hands bloodied. They did the killings, the starvations, the over-taxations not directly themselves, but through other Indian intermediaries, thereby directing all hatred at these intermediaries, but if one took a closer look, they could tell that the money they were getting robbed of ended up in Britain's treasury, not in the Indian money-lenders' pocket.
"They tell you that Indian GDP growth in the 1700-1820 period, when India was still overwhelmingly Indian-governed, lay at 0,26% per annum.
Now look at the 1820-1952 period, where India was overwhelmingly British-governed. There, the rate of growth lay at 0,56%.
Essentially, British India had double the rate of growth that Indian India had. If you had continued on with your inferior, Indian, rate of growth, you would have arrived in 1952 with only 70% of the wealth you got with massive British investments. "
We grew? Wow, the effects were never felt!! Wonder where all that growth money went to!! British Bengal contained the world's 12% GDP, California has less than that today. Then, if we were so rich, where was our money, why were we starving. Even today, Bengal is poor.
Granted, West Bengal didn't grow due to the later commies, and East Bengal didn't grow due to the Partition, and the wars and all that stuff, but we shouldn't be starving. We may not grow, but we are still should have what we had. Thing is, we never had what we should have had to begin with. Such a large share of the world's GDP built on the strong backs of Bengali farmers, but the money goes to the British treasury, which makes 50 times the profit when selling it in the international market.
I fail to see how independent but corrupt rich Indians hoarding and precipitating the murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow Indians has anything to do with negro slavery in the US. The corrupt Indian traders were hardly slaves.
Which brings me to another matter: Why not use Indian rather than white slavery? The British freed 20 million people brutally enslaved by their Indian masters in 1843. Now, do you want to complain about British meddling in that affair?
About why the growth wasnt felt in India:
Probably because said corrupt Indian traders hoarded it all.
Of course the British plundered India. They plundered every country they colonized. But India probably suffered relatively less than the others, due to it's massive wealth, than let's say Ceylon. While the colonists including Portugese, Dutch and British took gold, spices and silk from the East they did'nt pay anything in return. Do you think they are going to leave nice pieces of evidence for you to suggest that "We were taking your resources from you?" I think not. They did everything they could to hide the facts.
And Bharat stop your bullcrap about Bengal. The real plunder of India began in the South. The Dutch started their plunder on the south-west, while the British started theirs on the south-east. The British Plundered all of Tamil Nadu first before moving up north. And I don't know where youre getting your 12% of the world's wealth figure from. India's real wealth was in the south. That's why we had such strong trade ties with the Arabs and East Africans to the west and Malayans, Thai, and Indonesians to the East. Then the British set up their Main Base in Madras and changed the flow of resources. People who opposed their actions were sent prisoners to the Andaman Islands. Why do you think so many people in the Andaman speak Tamil? There was a movie made about this with that girl Thabu or whatever in it. And anyways I don't even know what kind of resources Bengal had to make it so rich as you claim. But the real basterds in this whole mess are the Bramins. They all need to be butcherd. Destroy all their houses, kill them all.
Theodoric, you have gone too far, I am sorry, I must report this one. This stuff cannot be tolerated on this forum, and people like you cannot be tolerated in the world and even in the deepest dungeons of hell.
You have not been provoked in any way to wish genocide on hundreds of millions of people. I don't want some fake apology just for the sake of staying on this forum, if you have any decency, you would either change from the heart, or just leave.
Look who is talking? It was you who claimed that you were pro Nazi when you first came on the forum. It was you who Wanted to reduce India's population to 900 million from One Billion. It was you who wanted to kill off all the corrupt Indians. It took a lot of work from Mike Murphy and some other nice members to bring you to ur senses despite all your blind curses at them. You have said so much worse things then this.
Now, what do you find so offensive in what I said? Maybe the "kill them all" which I literaly didn't mean. And Unlike you I didn't say kill hundreds of millions of people idiot. I didn't make a specific reference to any racial, national or ethnic belonging. This is completely a social issue which is pretty much the same as communism. Stop fabricating information to suit your own purposes. People here have said so many worse this than this like "Kill all the Arabs, Muslims...etc" And they make direct reference to race, religin, and nationality. All I said was kill some crooks, cowards and thieves. And don't relate this issue to any religious aspect because it has nothing to do with it. And what line are you talking about? Is there a imaginary line that we can't cross? I don't believe that I have violated any of the forum's rules and violations by what I have said. It's you who is changing facts from fiction and making out as if though I have violated any forum rules.
>>Nader shah didn't conquer Delhi, he invaded, beat the mughals and plundered, he was a cruel man. He took the koh-i-noor and the Peacock throne<<
Not Quiet it was the British who STOLE the Kohinoor . If not then whats that big Red thing in the Crown? lol Dont worry oneday we will get it back Like somebody said what goes around comes around..Just biding our time till then hihi lol
R.K. Laxman, India's renowned cartoonist, honours the hardy & humble Indian Jawan
1) Any profits Great Britain may have had from India were from trade. You might think that was unfair because you didnt get a fully-developed industrial society to compete with the British with from day one, but, well, thats just tough. You couldnt develop it yourselves, so the British had to build it from the ground up.
2) The Koh-i-noor was given to the British queen under the terms of the Treaty of Lahore. Given that the Sikhs were stupid enough to first invade British territory (First Sikh War), getting them a British protectorate, then rebel and kill British citizens (Second Sikh War), handing over the Koh-i-noor is only rightful payment.
Of course, given that the Sikh rulers only gained the diamond themselves by starving the owner before them is another thing.
LOL, when the hell did I ever say I wanted to reduce India's population to 900 million, especially by killing?
As for the thing you said about Brahmins, Brahmins are of the same economic position as anyone else, there has been no special political power given to Brahmins for a millenium.
Also, I don't understand your hatred for non-south-Indians. Scientific evidence has totally thrown the Aryan invasion theory into the trash, there has been no major genetic input into the Indian sub-continent as suggested by the Aryan migration theory. For all you know, we are probably the same people. Linguistic similarities are a stupid way to justify racial similarity. If linguistic similarities were to justify racial similarity, then the Singaporis, Malaysians and Indonesians would also be considered Aryans.
Are you going to fight science? How can you disregard basic facts?
As for the way people look in India, there is not much difference really. Let us not talk of film-stars, the average Indian (be they north or south) has the same skin color. Have you seen the farmers from Uttar Pradesh, and compared them to the ones in Andhra? It is essentially the same.
As for facial features, only major difference in India is between the North-east and the rest, the supposed Aryan north and Dravidian south have the same facial features.
The reason for some folks to look different slightly from others, can be attributed to recessive traits of light skin color showing up in certain individuals, as a result of invaders (we have no shortage of fair-skinned invaders, from Persia, Turks, Greeks, Huns to Mongols, Kushans, etc).
Therefore, I find no reason to find reasons for hating northerns. Anyway, if we were to go by Aryan invasion theory, I find no reason to start hating people based on what happened 4000 years ago. The South has outshone the rest of India recently in several fields, therefore, don't give me bull**** about South being 'oppressed'. Anyway, everyone gets same opportunity in India. If you are going to pick a fight with other Indians based on this, I see nothing else than just war-mongering, raking up false issues due to failure of covering the important ones.
Do you want to compare the historical records of India with a country that has to put "Great" in its name? The British had their 15 minutes of fame and savagely abused it, unlike more peaceful nations like China and India who have held superpower status for long periods of time and didn't abuse it compared to other superpowers. Even as recently as 1820 China accounted for 1/3 of the world GDP (compared to the highest-ranking European nation, France, at a mere 5%).
First Sikh war occured becasue Brits a treaty with Afghans, who we were about to invade, and come in South of Sindh, who we are also planning to invade in order to get into Iran. Brits then started to mount troops along the Punjab border, lol, it was the stupid general that attacked you, you re correct for those generals, were your spies, too bad you didnt face the competent SIkh army, ask the Afghans how it feels, there were battles when the British fought the Sikhs, in which Sikh high command did not have spies, and the British got Plundered. Anyway your spies which were our generals would let you regorupd when you were losing, and make Sikhs go into fights when they were heavily outgunned and numbered.
Second Sikh war started beacuse British had started to tax the Punjabi Kingdom so much, that it was unbearable, 3 years were left when the Brits were to pull out according to the treaty, but they used their political techniques to woe the Sikhs in a another war. Again the same generals that were in the First War, led the war, and the same outcome came. ALso throught the wars, The Sikh army was about 50,000 while they were facing a force of 120,000 British, also, The SIkhs had supeiror artillery than the British, but the Traitor generals never allowed the proper use of it. The Muslims made a significant part of the Sikh Army, Sikhs had infantry and cavalry, while the Muslims had artillery.
The British never made the treaty for the Koh-e-noor, rather they took it and gave it to the British queen, Also you should watch when you call people stupid, the British queen did not have her own SIkh regiment for nothing
ANd how the SIkh got the Koh-e-noor was like this, the Afghan king came to shelter under Ranjit SIngh, and for his protection he gave Ranjit SIngh the Koh-e-noor.
You guys have a great notion for manipulating History in your favor. Too bad that age is long gone.
Like somebody said what goes around comes around..Just biding our time till then hihi lol 
