Afghans defeated Indians

[amna.]

We are brothers, Indians, Afghans and Pakistanis are inseparable.

[drona]

^
What is the ancient name of Kandahar ?

[Maulik]

India which is 80% consist of hindus, has had Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Ministers, President, a Muslim Vice President, and Sikhs, Muslims, Parsis and Christians even jews holding senior cabinet posts, as well as senior leadership positions in the Indian military and the Indian judiciary. It should also be noted that three of India's Prime Ministers have been Kashmiri or part-Kashmiri - i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Many of the leading icons of India's Planning Commissions have been Kashmiri and Kashmiris are also represented in the Indian Armed Forces and Police Forces.

[khushal]

That word isnt Greek to us Indians either. Why dont you try and explain the term with respect to India's colonizations and her subsequent rise? Lets have a discussion.

Khalsa,
India has basically stayed the same after the moghuls ruled it. It has always been at the top as far as economic power is concerned. Indias Rise today is nothing new. The majority of Indians have always been poor and always will be. People from all over the world have always set to conquer it because of its economic resources (and I dont mean its raw material but also its people). Even America was discovered because of peoples desire to conquer india, the indgenous people of north and south america are even called indians. India today is not as independent as you think, It has never broken the relationship it has had with the west.

You tell me the difference between todays India and British India. There are more similarities than you might think.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Khalsa,
India has basically stayed the same after the moghuls ruled it. It has always been at the top as far as economic power is concerned. Indias Rise today is nothing new. The majority of Indians have always been poor and always will be. People from all over the world have always set to conquer it because of its economic resources (and I dont mean its raw material but also its people). Even America was discovered because of peoples desire to conquer india, the indgenous people of north and south america are even called indians. India today is not as independent as you think, It has never broken the relationship it has had with the west.

Kushal, I am missing your point here. Are you trying to say that India is still dependent (or ruled) on the West?

You tell me the difference between todays India and British India. There are more similarities than you might think.

In what way? Of course there would be similarities. Its not easy to shake off 200-300 years of rule in 50 years. But I'd like you to please elaborate on your point.

[khushal]

Kushal, I am missing your point here. Are you trying to say that India is still dependent (or ruled) on the West?

In what way? Of course there would be similarities. Its not easy to shake off 200-300 years of rule in 50 years. But I'd like you to please elaborate on your point.

indirectly yes,
and not just india, but most of the former colonial ruled land is still dependent on the west. The west still manages those lands it just changed the way they manage them, instead of directly, it is now indirectly. If they do not obey their masters, they have ways to impose punishment unitl the servant comes back in line.

[KhalsaWarrior]

i understand the secend but u said greek in the first
whats u mean about greek ??

Ok. So this is a idiom normally used to signify something that is hard to understand. Probably because Greek was thought to be a hard and complex language to understand. Another example - A Particle Physics student having never been exposed to the bio-sciences, might say that "Zoology is all Greek to me!"

[KhalsaWarrior]

indirectly yes,
and not just india, but most of the former colonial ruled land is still dependent on the west. The west still manages those lands it just changed the way they manage them, instead of directly, it is now indirectly. If they do not obey their masters, they have ways to impose punishment unitl the servant comes back in line.

Khushal, I dont really know how you came to that conclusion. India is dependent on the West but just like any other globally connected and economically emerging nation. We export and import stuff worth billions, we engage in political and military dialogues and exercises with the West, but I dont think they rule us, directly or indirectly. You need to provide specific examples.

[drona]

Khalsa,
India has basically stayed the same after the moghuls ruled it. It has always been at the top as far as economic power is concerned. Indias Rise today is nothing new.People from all over the world have always set to conquer it because of its economic resources (and I dont mean its raw material but also its people).

Khushal, you need to remember that Indian history didn't start with mughal Empire. It constitutes only a small episode in our long history. If you look at the graphs that I have attached, you will notice that India's share in the world GDP remained 25 % till the British landed, and how the colonial power sucked our wealth out to power their own Industrial Revolution.



Indeed there's no need to be grateful to British. Any benefits of the British policies that we have today are coincidental not intentional.

The majority of Indians have always been poor and always will be.

But this also holds true for every civilization till the 20th century. Though most Indians have been poor throughout our 4000 yr history, but we were never reduced to a state of starving destitution as we were because of the colonial policies imposed by British. As late as 1942, 3 million Indians starved to death because of artificial famine created by British. Today the condition is lot better in comparison with 1947.

India today is not as independent as you think, It has never broken the relationship it has had with the west.

Like KW has already pointed out, today we live in a globalized economy and all countries are interdependent. You may be surprised to know that the biggest British brands are owned by Indians. We have always followed a fiercely independent foreign policy. We have been cordial with the West but never their "allies".

Regards,
Drona

[pekhawar]

Drona,
look at how the US went from nothing to everything.

[drona]

Pekhawar,

I consider US to be part of British legacy. Both are anglo-saxon countries. Britain followed imperialist policies, US follows neo-imperialist ones. They are one and the same.

US also skillfully exploited the Second World War to power its own growth.

[khushal]

Drona,
I was looking at other charts but yours look more accurate. Thank you.

I realize that we now live in a global economy where trading partners depend on each other. but my point was that as long as any country has a strong and robust economy like India and China has, it will always be dependent on others like the west if it does not have a military that can protect that economy.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Drona,
I was looking at other charts but yours look more accurate. Thank you.

I realize that we now live in a global economy where trading partners depend on each other. but my point was that as long as any country has a strong and robust economy like India and China has, it will always be dependent on others like the west if it does not have a military that can protect that economy.

The answer lies in the first part of your sentence in bold. By being a strong and globally connected economy, a country can reduce the risks of invasion of war even though it might not have a strong military. An attack on India or China by a stronger country like US would affect the raw material supplies/ manufacturing facilities and back-office/financial services of 70% of the world's economy. So why would a country do that?

You should read about the Golden Arches theory by Thomas Friedman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_...ict_Prevention. It talks about how globally interconnected economies prevent wars amongst themselves by the very virtue of being connected.

And even from the military stand-point I dont think India is that weak. We can hold our own against any military power on our soil. If Vietnam and Afghanistan can humble super-powers, we can definitely bring them down to their knees. We are amongst the top 5 in world's most power armed forces. But I wish it would never come to that. We can all co-exist peace.

[Michin Khel]

@topic

In pakistani text books, strangely the whole credit is given to a religous scholar named shah waliullah. He is praised for inviting ahmad shah abdali to india for securing lives of muslims.

After shah waliullah topic, the text book skip ahmad shah abdali & afghans and jump to mention a jihadi warrior syed ahmad bareilvi...a wahabi who tried to eliminate pashtunwali and forced yousafzais to give their daughters to his indian mujahideen

[KhalsaWarrior]

@topic

In pakistani text books, strangely the whole credit is given to a religous scholar named shah waliullah. He is praised for inviting ahmad shah abdali to india for securing lives of muslims.

After shah waliullah topic, the text book skip ahmad shah abdali & afghans and jump to mention a jihadi warrior syed ahmad bareilvi...a wahabi who tried to eliminate pashtunwali and forced yousafzais to give their daughters to his indian mujahideen

That isnt very surprising!