Your inability to accept facts and expand your knowledge has no better example than this post.

I am ultra religious phobic, anyone who uses their religion to oppress and attack others...
Just google BJP and cow killers, the links will fill a page.
Of course you will not, you might have to admit learning something..

The issue was simple that India didn't hold a referendum in Goa or anywhere that I am aware of in territory they took over by force- a FACT.

India used armed force to enforce its desires- a FACT

In 1961 the inhabitants of Goa were not legally citizens of India under the governing law they were under- any more than ethnic Hungarians in Romania, are not citizens of Romania. FACT.

No one has denier the shared ethnic and cultural similarities of the majority of Goans with adjacent territory. neighboring regions. You imply someone has- which typical of your discussions. FACT..​​​​​â� �‹

Now you write that if it was an invasion it really isnt important because minimum force used ( The same could be said of Hitler's takeover of Austria).No one discussed the extent of the armed force used, whether it was restrained under the circumstances- simply the whole discussion was that India as with other nations uses force to take over territory. FACT.

The composition of India today and there is whatever level of local rule is neither proves or disproves anything being discussed. FACT.

It is interesting the only use of armed force in Indian subcontinent before or after British rule that you are express opposition to is British- evidently per your comments because they (a) came from far away (b) were white (c) didn't marry enough with the locals.Is it any wonder you give the impression of being (a) completely subjective. (b) anti-British (c) a tinge of either racism or extreme Hindu nationalism.

(Makes me wonder what is the geographic distance in your mind that justifies armed force to be used - 10 miles ? 400 miles ? 1000 miles ?)

At no point did I argue that the majority of Goans were not in favor of Indian rule. I did point out hardly does it appear Portuguese rule was oppressive in the 1950's by any meaningful sense, but that is just my impression..

I am curious that if India was considered a drain on the Indian economy how this matches up with Bipat's economic views of Indian economic history.​​​​​⠀‹

1) My point about the British keeping their distance from the local people is that the British were there for the purpose of their own economy. (The Jewel in the Crown---literally). There was no interest in settling, making India their home . They viewed the local people as 'natives' and as inferior. Certainly there were individual exceptions to this and many sta yed on after independence.
How this view equates to Hindu nationalism I do not know!! I would think on the contrary that the influence of the many Christian missionaries, convent schools, in places the burning of Hindu literature would indicate 'Christian nationalism' of the British!!!!

2) AGAIN you use the words "shared ethnic and cultural similarities"--------why can you not accept that they were the SAME families/ communities.

By 1960s the Goans certainly did not have the advantages of managing their own trade etc. They were the equivalent of the poorest areas in India, although they had the potential of many environmental advantages.

​​​​​Yet again a mixed up response to the issues being discussed, let alone a caricature of British rule that is very one-sided and ignoring, as usual much evidence.

1) My point about the British keeping their distance from the local people is that the British were there for the purpose of their own economy

The two have nothing to do with each other, and there was a distinct difference in British policies and practices before and after the Mutiny. Your comment makes little sense- if the Spanish mixed extensively with the local population does that have any bearing whether they were there for economic reasons or not ? There is abundant evidence or more mixing before the Mutiny than afterwards- which implies, correctly that the general policies and practices of keeping distance from the local population had a purpose- and considering how few British civil servants were needed rule India, some might say the policy proved efficient in the long run. Whether you agree or not I doubt you have considered this from this angle which is the difficulty with you having a closed-mind.

This does not condone indignity suffered by individuals

Anecdotally and ‘folk memory’ among members of my own family some strongly supported the policy as necessary, and some others were quite critical of it (I have American, British and Australian branches of my family, the views tended to be reflective of each natality). In any case such a policy mainly was felt by the elite and middle class, I doubt the bulk of h poor felt any different than they did onwards their prior Moghul masters.

You consistently ignore especially post 1857the variety of motivations and views of the British in India- not everyone their for economic benefits to retain, or their own benefits, some heir for glory some truly believed they were there to uplift the Indians, and in any vase you have consistently ignored evidence about the economic history- British capital was much more likely to be invested in the Dominions, the United States and Argentina than India.



2) (The Jewel in the Crown---literally). There was no interest in settling, making India their home. They viewed the local people as 'natives' and as inferior. Certainly there were individual exceptions to this and many sta yed on after independence.
How this view equates to Hindu nationalism I do not know!! I would think on the contrary that the influence of the many Christian missionaries, convent schools, in places the burning of Hindu literature would indicate 'Christian nationalism' of the British!!!!

Whether the British had Christian nationalism or not certainly has no bearing on whether extreme subjective Hindu nationalism may consider the evidence and logic to arriving at historical understanding. And the Christen missionaries of the 17th and 18th century certainly different than those form the late19th century on, who often brought any charitable, education and health benefits to the communities they served.

The settling issue I never understand what the issue is- of whether they settled or not – so detriments of Mughal rule are offset because they intermarried and settled?

Your post just seems an emotional feeling which we all can have, but really no bearing on this conversation.



3) 2) AGAIN you use the words "shared ethnic and cultural similarities"--------why can you not accept that they were the SAME families/ communities.

I see your point but first I don’t see how shared ethnic and cultural similarities means their weren’t members of the same family or relatives, or community. My choice of words probably simply because I do not know the extent. Again though that doesn’t mean India didn’t invade or didn’t use force- or that the world would be in a sorry position everywhere where ethnic communities are separated. He world roundly condemns Putin’s incursions into ethnic Russian majorities, that is why I indicate your support for such actions is no different



4) By 1960s the Goans certainly did not have the advantages of managing their own trade etc. They were the equivalent of the poorest areas in India, although they had the potential of many environmental advantages.

This may or may not be true, and as I have said before I wasn’t discussing the justification of the invasion. Since you normally have opinions often without any evidence or contradicting evidence and driven by some sort of Indian patriotism or feelings rather than logic, I wonder whether what you have written makes sense. For example what trade restrictions under the Portuguese disappeared under the Indian regime? What export statistics support the assertions? Did India’s economic progress result from trends having nothing to do with who ruled the area? India had extremely restrictive trade rules in the 1950’s and 1960’s – are you saying Goa was exempt from these? I posted a link earlier to a website run by Goans expressing their opinion and a huge criticism they had of Indian rule was precisely the environmental policies.

You may be completely right but that wasn’t this issue under discussion.

By all means let us know what hard evidence you have for such comments if you wish. If true it would be interesting that India let Goa “manage their own trade” but not the rest of India.

1) I think you are mixed Morpeth ----On the one hand you say that separation was necessary and then you say that the necessity "doesn't condone indignity suffered by individuals"------What else did it do?????
(You frequently use the word 'emotional' to describe disagreement with your views. Perhaps individual loss of dignity did produce negative emotions!!!!)

2) Morpeth--- Christian influence and let us say 'strongly encouraged' (bought) conversion went on far longer than 18th century. Convent and Christian schools taught all pupils Christian dogma.
You constantly use the words 'Hindu Nationalism' ---approx. 80% of the population is nominally Hindu! Why is that a problem for you? They don't go round the world 'converting' people!

3) You say you 'do not know the extent' but will not accept that I might have more knowledge of the extent!!!! I was not describing "Ethnic" communities------In India there are multiple smaller groups/communities related to origins etc. I can't give you names of such communities as it would for Goa give personal info.

4) Not possible to give details of the Indian tax system here-----but essentially local economy and taxation is managed by the States themselves.
That is why some States are wealthier than others (along with environmental differences).

Christian dogma, are you Christian phobic..

I was describing schools with children of many religions. Why was any religious teaching necessary?
I am nominally Christian-----believe/agree with the teachings of Jesus. However I think that these teachings have been distorted by the various churches.

I agree, I assume you include ALL religions, any religion that has extreme minorities spreading discord, whose beliefs result in attacks and the deaths of those who do not share their beliefs..
I Don,t recall any of the schools set up in British India by Christians , missionaries etc suggesting it was OK to enslave, ok for widows to immolate themselves, OK to kill non believers or those with different dietary preferences.
Can you provide us with any examples .

"Don't recall", were you there??

Hindu schools do not have any religious teaching. They accept any pupils. (As did the Christian schools).
In Christian schools, religious teaching was for all.

Muslim schools did and do only accept Muslim pupils.

The widow practises you describe were only in a few mostly rural communities.

Although up to 1930s Hindu widows shaved off their hair and didn't wear jewellery. (Western writers like to make the most of this,)!
(Although in fact many 're-married'!)


The crime of murder '--any murder ---has a nominal death penalty, since independence it has become in reality, life imprisonment.

Do UK schools teach children to go out and stab each other?

Once again Bipat your posts show your ignorance.
Suttee was abolished by the British in the territories it controlled in 1829, India made it illegal in 1988...m
It was estimated that thousands died in this way when it was a common practice.
The great grandmother of our guide committed Suttee that would be in the 20th century..
You last line is as usual just pathetic crap, which sadly is becoming an all too frequent response from you..

EMR, suttee was not a "common" practise. Certainly over the centuries in a population of millions it might amount to thousands.

The particular practise I described would be stopped by different groups at different times. Or not used at all, by all groups.
The beloved widow grandmother of OH and siblings, who travelled all over south India
hated her white hat covering her shaved head.


Why is the last line "crap"? Although I doubt polite Indian tourists would ask you about it.

(Your posts are typical of a three week tourist who would insult a guide by discussing suttee.)

Once again Bipat do your research before posting you would not look so silly ..
Indians have far more knowledge and sense than you to ask the stupid questions and statements that have become a regular feature of your posts...

Apologies EMR, I didn't realise that you were now an expat in India! When did you move?
I must give you our address then you can come for a meal!

What's going on with the quotes in this thread? It looks like everyone's talking to themselves!