India and the Wars

Old Mar 11th 2019, 8:32 pm
  #721  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,112
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
1) As you say, you haven't studied the people 'next door' to Goa but you still put forward your fixed ideas.
Morpeth, you are somewhat arrogant when you are replying to someone who not only has a home "next door", whose children are descendants of those in Goa and those ''next door'' to Goa etc etc. Knowing people who travelled to their FAMILY temples when this was allowed. Knowing people who fled south from Goa.

The Portuguese having refused to negotiate and leave, force was the only option.
Why should the people of Goa not have the same privileges as the rest of India?
By your reasoning the British should still rule the entire India!!!

2) As the Indian Government had only managed to get its own independence 14 years previously it didn't really have the chance to "control" or share administration with Goa did it????

3) Goa was not 'taken over', no one moved into Goa from outside, the Portuguese left, so also did the Indian navy.
The Goans were then able to vote in their own Ministers. They were FREE to sort out their own economy. They had the choice of Statehood which they took.

4) They were already part of 'India'-----they were Indian!!!---- what else were they?-----Had they previously had a referendum to ask if they wished to be ruled by Portugal a country thousands of miles away.
Are you joining EMR in the idea that Indians were not Indian until 1947??

5) I was trying to point out that in a way that even you could understand that the Portuguese were a distant people. Like your twin EMR you are equating the happenings of 2000 years ago and centuries ago with the situation in 1947 and 1961.
Morpeth don't talk to me about 'racism'---I have restrained myself from saying it previously but your posts certainly give that impression regarding your own views both on this thread and your views on non-EU migrants to the UK, that of the inferiority of non-Western people.

6) "You may wish to read some general history books"!!!!------As I have said before 'how patronising can you get'? I have been reading history books for decades!!!
Again you mention Tharoor-----As I told you I haven't read his book. Some reviews describe it as 'simplistic', that is different from "nonsense".
I told YOU to read the books and reports in the bibliography.

We are not on this thread discussing "throughout history" we are discussing the 20th century.
1) As you say, you haven't studied the people 'next door' to Goa but you still put forward your fixed ideas.

The fixed ideas you refer to are simple historical FACTS- India used armed force to impose its will, and then – as usual when it does so- would not have a referendum to show the people of Goa actually supported being part of India. You seem to have extreme difficulty recognizing FACTS.


2) “Morpeth, you are somewhat arrogant when you are replying to someone who not only has a home "next door", whose children are descendants of those in Goa and those ''next door'' to Goa etc etc. Knowing people who travelled to their FAMILY temples when this was allowed. Knowing people who fled south from Goa.”

So because you live there and know people who do, it is arrogant to point out FACTS?

3)
The Portuguese having refused to negotiate and leave, force was the only option.
Why should the people of Goa not have the same privileges as the rest of India?


This is the type of thinking that the Mafia uses, or Hitler or Putin- “you disagree so therefore I can use force.”

It may or not be the case that Goa should have the same ‘privileges’ ( would be fascinating to learn what these are compared to what they had in 1961 at the time) but yet again and again you have a hard time dealing with the facts discussed (a) Goa was taken over by force (b) India broke international law by doing so (c) it follows India’s pattern that when force is used t doesn’t hold referendums to confirm the desires of the people involved FACTS Bipat. This subject originally arose from your rather fanciful idea that only when white people take over a territory by force it is wrong, but when brown people (your words) do so it is justified.

4)
By your reasoning the British should still rule the entire India!!!

Citing facts that India uses force on the subcontinent as others have done throughout history, doesn’t have the slightest bearing on whether the British should or shouldn’t rule India , or should have I the past.


As the Indian Government had only managed to get its own independence 14 years previously it didn't really have the chance to "control" or share administration with Goa did it????

You make the point exactly- Goa was not part of the Indian state that emerged in 1947.

6)

Goa was not 'taken over', no one moved into Goa from outside, the Portuguese left, so also did the Indian navy.

This is very confusing and perhaps a dictionary would help. Goa was taken over by the Portuguese centuries ago, and India took it over by force. Certainly some Portuguese moved to Goa. The Portuguese left due to force form India. What are you trying to say?


7) The Goans were then able to vote in their own Ministers. They were FREE to sort out their own economy. They had the choice of Statehood which they took.

They most certainly had to abide by Indian rules on the economy, you perhaps are not aware that there are national rules on the economy in India. So it isn’t true they were free to sort out their own economy- I am not sure why you wrote something that you just know isn’t true. When Hitler took over ethnic German areas in Europe they two could choose some of their own politicians, so what? Simply Goans were never given the opportunity as to whether they wished to be part of India or not.


4) They were already part of 'India'-----they were Indian!!!---- what else were they?-----Had they previously had a referendum to ask if they wished to be ruled by Portugal a country thousands of miles away.

Goa to Delhi is 1,161miles. SO distance is the determinant of whether someone wishes to be rules under what administration or in justification of use of armed force ?

What on earth does it matter whether Portugal held a referendum or not, the simple fact is India did not – or are you saying as an Imperial power India simply did what others did? (Which is why you seek to deny FACTS I think)

9) Are you joining EMR in the idea that Indians were not Indian until 1947??

Obviously Goans under Portuguese rule were not Indian citizens, and for hundreds of years had been under Portuguese rule.

Interesting you have often denied that there is an Indian culture- either because you don’t believe culture exists, or India is so vast that there isn’t one culture. Now you use the argument that Goans were Indians because of their culture. To answer your question certainly in terms of overall culture of the subcontinent the majority of Goans one would call Indian. (Just as the majority of Hungarians in Transylvania be considered Hungarian yet Romanian citizens- and few would support Hungary launching armed force to takeover Transylvania. By your theory of international relations the world would be in chaos).


5) I was trying to point out that in a way that even you could understand that the Portuguese were a distant people. Like your twin EMR you are equating the happenings of 2000 years ago and centuries ago with the situation in 1947 and 1961.

Let us not be childish obviously anyone with a basic knowledge of geography knows Portugal is distant from Goa. Delhi is 1,160 miles away, conquerors of India from central Asia were more or less 2,000 miles away – at what point does the distance from which the conqueror came make a difference as to whether a conqueror is justified or not ? And case you seem to have the mistaken idea that the issue was whether the Indian takeover was justified- I simply pointed out it was no different in the use of armed force to takeover territory.

You can’t have it both ways- you refer to Portuguese or British actions before 1947 when it suits you, otherwise say because something happened within living memory it has different logic than what happened earlier. Doesn’t make any sense.

Morpeth don't talk to me about 'racism'---I have restrained myself from saying it previously but your posts certainly give that impression regarding your own views both on this thread and your views on non-EU migrants to the UK, that of the inferiority of non-Western people.

First, you are the only person on this thread who has brought up the color of the skin of the people who used armed force to conquer territory in India.

Second, it is PC nonsense to state that because someone may have concerns about immigration of people from different cultures or ideology or skill levels that is in the slightest necessarily a racist view. Anyone with a basic knowledge of sociology or history can have different views on the matter.

Third, views on migration do not have anything to do with the inferiority of different cultures or civilizations. I think it would be rather challenging to saying this day or age considering all that is happening to definitively define whether one group of people necessarily superior to another in their civilization. In fact I gave example in reverse, of how for example westerner in Bali have been quite detrimental But I don’t insert as you do the color of someone’s skin as part of a discussion, or say only the views of Indians who lived before 1947 have value compared to British wo were in India.

6) "You may wish to read some general history books"!!!!------As I have said before 'how patronizing can you get'? I have been reading history books for decades!!!
Again you mention Tharoor-----As I told you I haven't read his book. Some reviews describe it as ‘simplistic’ that is different from "nonsense".
I told YOU to read the books and reports in the bibliography
.

I don’t mean to be patronizing just helpful as you struggle in dealing with FACTS. Yes I looked up a few references in Throop’s book- sometimes he seems to not even to have understood what the reference said, or used as reference other nonsense polemics. Waste of time to go further with his drivel.

You seem to have a hard time with economic history for example, or the history of invasions on the Indian subcontinent.
I do appreciate learning from your observations when they don’t contradict logic. And I think the link you provided about Atlee was extremely thought-provoking and if true changes the whole narrative about his decisions.

We are not on this thread discussing "throughout history" we are discussing the 20th century.

See above Originally discussion about India related to the sheer fantasy that a trade deal would necessarily be beneficial for Britain, and you brought up constantly events prior to 1947.

Last edited by morpeth; Mar 11th 2019 at 8:37 pm.
morpeth is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 8:36 pm
  #722  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
You gave the views of two families !!!!! Morpeth we live with poor people, their lives are not separate as they are in the UK, we are with them everyday. How dare you say we are de-sensitized to it! We do what we can for those around us --note--- I said 'around us'--- 'with us'--- not separated in council housing estates.

Morpeth surely even you can see that the scale of poverty in a population of a billion will be higher than a population of 65 million.
You never seem to believe the level of poverty that existed in 1947!!

Regarding women---again you make an arrogant assumption "without looking in detail"-----how do you know that opportunity and equality doesn't make a woman happy? Not just in 'the work place' but in all types of work---more airline pilots, doctors, vets, lawyers, business women, politicians at all levels etc etc.
If you read the statistics in the link I put women are safer in India than in the USA and UK regarding sexual assault.
What is poverty ?
Is it a % of average income?
In the UK it is around £15000, 60% or less of average household incomes.
What is it in India.., where average incomes are some of the lowest in the world, ranking around 112..
Is it a minimum calorific intake day
Is it access to basic facilities ,a roof over your head, fresh running water, electricity, access to free education, health .
You can only compare levels in UK and India if the same measures and standards are set.
As we know India's measure of middle class income would put most in the West way below the poverty standard in their countries.
You quote rapes and assaults statistics on women, but what you ignore that the subject has only become news in India in recent years, before then it was a taboo.

Last edited by EMR; Mar 11th 2019 at 8:48 pm.
EMR is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 9:07 pm
  #723  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,112
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
You gave the views of two families !!!!! Morpeth we live with poor people, their lives are not separate as they are in the UK, we are with them everyday. How dare you say we are de-sensitized to it! We do what we can for those around us --note--- I said 'around us'--- 'with us'--- not separated in council housing estates.

Morpeth surely even you can see that the scale of poverty in a population of a billion will be higher than a population of 65 million.
You never seem to believe the level of poverty that existed in 1947!!

Regarding women---again you make an arrogant assumption "without looking in detail"-----how do you know that opportunity and equality doesn't make a woman happy? Not just in 'the work place' but in all types of work---more airline pilots, doctors, vets, lawyers, business women, politicians at all levels etc etc.
If you read the statistics in the link I put women are safer in India than in the USA and UK regarding sexual assault.

You gave the views of two families !!!!! Morpeth we live with poor people, their lives are not separate as they are in the UK, we are with them everyday. How dare you say we are de-sensitized to it! We do what we can for those around us --note--- I said 'around us'--- 'with us'--- not separated in council housing estates.

Getting used to or being de-sensitized to the type and level of poverty in India is not an entirely abnormal reaction in India or elsewhere. Some in the past have commented that attitudes towards untouchables and view son reincarnation might have influence on how the Indian middle or upper class view the poor , and hence less outraged than one night have expected. How much that may be true I don’t know.

I don’t mean to say you are de-sensitized to it personally though I have the impression that the constant excusing of ndias poverty, or trying to equate the type and level of poverty there to other countries comes across as being de-sensitized to it. It reminds me of that story of an Indian politician proudly proclaiming India wont ask for foreign aid for its poor- hardly a shining example of concern for the poor, as the Indian’s government’s space program.

Morpeth surely even you can see that the scale of poverty in a population of a billion will be higher than a population of 65 million.

That is actually an illogical statement as if the size of the population determines the rate or type of poverty- in fact an absurd comment. Tell that to the tens of millions of people in dire poverty in India it remotely compares to the typical poor person in the UK living off benefits.

You never seem to believe the level of poverty that existed in 1947!!

It not one single post have I ever stated there wasn’t extensive poverty n Inda pre 1947, in fact specifically I have addressed the trends in poverty levels in India in quite some detail on ocassion. I showed you specific information of how the Indian government determined what is poverty using criteria similar to Rwanda’s – and how even in India some commentators have questioned poverty statistics saying government keeping the criteria of being ‘poor’ deliberately low to mask the sheer numbers of the poor in India.



Regarding women---again you make an arrogant assumption "without looking in detail"-----how do you know that opportunity and equality doesn't make a woman happy? Not just in 'the work place' but in all types of work---more airline pilots, doctors, vets, lawyers, business women, politicians at all levels etc etc.

How is it arrogant to admit I haven’t looked more deeply into an issue ? I just pointed out that if I were lokngat the situation comparing woen between different counries I would think overall happiness would be the main criteria I would want to look at. Not what sort job one has or doesn’t have.


If you read the statistics in the link I put women are safer in India than in the USA and UK regarding sexual assault.

Since I never questioned the issue in the first place I am unsure why this comment. I would have guessed women are safer in India and perhaps much more respected, but that is just an impression.


morpeth is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 9:46 pm
  #724  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth


1) The fixed ideas you refer to are simple historical FACTS- India used armed force to impose its will, and then – as usual when it does so- would not have a referendum to show the people of Goa actually supported being part of India. You seem to have extreme difficulty recognizing FACTS.

2) This is the type of thinking that the Mafia uses, or Hitler or Putin- “you disagree so therefore I can use force.”

It may or not be the case that Goa should have the same ‘privileges’ ( would be fascinating to learn what these are compared to what they had in 1961 at the time) but yet again and again you have a hard time dealing with the facts discussed (a) Goa was taken over by force (b) India broke international law by doing so (c) it follows India’s pattern that when force is used t doesn’t hold referendums to confirm the desires of the people involved FACTS Bipat. This subject originally arose from your rather fanciful idea that only when white people take over a territory by force it is wrong, but when brown people (your words) do so it is justified.

3) Citing facts that India uses force on the subcontinent as others have done throughout history, doesn’t have the slightest bearing on whether the British should or shouldn’t rule India , or should have I the past.

You make the point exactly- Goa was not part of the Indian state that emerged in 1947.



4) They most certainly had to abide by Indian rules on the economy, you perhaps are not aware that there are national rules on the economy in India. So it isn’t true they were free to sort out their own economy- I am not sure why you wrote something that you just know isn’t true. When Hitler took over ethnic German areas in Europe they two could choose some of their own politicians, so what? Simply Goans were never given the opportunity as to whether they wished to be part of India or not.


5) Goa to Delhi is 1,161miles. SO distance is the determinant of whether someone wishes to be rules under what administration or in justification of use of armed force ?

What on earth does it matter whether Portugal held a referendum or not, the simple fact is India did not – or are you saying as an Imperial power India simply did what others did? (Which is why you seek to deny FACTS I think)

6) Interesting you have often denied that there is an Indian culture- either because you don’t believe culture exists, or India is so vast that there isn’t one culture. Now you use the argument that Goans were Indians because of their culture. To answer your question certainly in terms of overall culture of the subcontinent the majority of Goans one would call Indian. (Just as the majority of Hungarians in Transylvania be considered Hungarian yet Romanian citizens- and few would support Hungary launching armed force to takeover Transylvania. By your theory of international relations the world would be in chaos).


7) First, you are the only person on this thread who has brought up the color of the skin of the people who used armed force to conquer territory in India.

Second, it is PC nonsense to state that because someone may have concerns about immigration of people from different cultures or ideology or skill levels that is in the slightest necessarily a racist view. Anyone with a basic knowledge of sociology or history can have different views on the matter.

Third, views on migration do not have anything to do with the inferiority of different cultures or civilizations. I think it would be rather challenging to saying this day or age considering all that is happening to definitively define whether one group of people necessarily superior to another in their civilization. In fact I gave example in reverse, of how for example westerner in Bali have been quite detrimental But I don’t insert as you do the color of someone’s skin as part of a discussion, or say only the views of Indians who lived before 1947 have value compared to British wo were in India.

8) I don’t mean to be patronizing just helpful as you struggle in dealing with FACTS. Yes I looked up a few references in Throop’s book- sometimes he seems to not even to have understood what the reference said, or used as reference other nonsense polemics. Waste of time to go further with his drivel.

You seem to have a hard time with economic history for example, or the history of invasions on the Indian subcontinent.
I do appreciate learning from your observations when they don’t contradict logic. And I think the link you provided about Atlee was extremely thought-provoking and if true changes the whole narrative about his decisions.

See above Originally discussion about India related to the sheer fantasy that a trade deal would necessarily be beneficial for Britain, and you brought up constantly events prior to 1947.
1) Morpeth how many times???? The Goans WERE part of India! They were the SAME people as those in the surroundings. Not "similar"---the same families and communities.

2) The privilege was to be able to manage their own affairs and economy. Move to and from neighbouring areas, have relatives to 'stay'. Become part of the Central Government of India.
I used the word "brown" to somehow get through to you that the people of Goa were NOT Portuguese.

3) No, It was still ruled by Portugal.

4) Are you being sarcastic??? How could I possibly not know that there are Central Government rules on the economy. (We pay taxes in India!!!!)
(A Central Government that includes Goans). The State economy and taxation is run by States themselves.

5) Goa was 'part' of the Konkan coast---the Konkan coast is 'part' of India.
Goan politicians seem to manage to go all that distance to be part of the Central Government!!!

6) I did not use the word "culture".

7) I told you above that I used the word "brown" to indicate they are not Portuguese.

8) Well you are patronising. You know nothing about me personally but continually make personal remarks. (You still have not said what your definition is of "Hindu Nationalist"!)
Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 10:25 pm
  #725  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth

1) Getting used to or being de-sensitized to the type and level of poverty in India is not an entirely abnormal reaction in India or elsewhere. Some in the past have commented that attitudes towards untouchables and view son reincarnation might have influence on how the Indian middle or upper class view the poor , and hence less outraged than one night have expected. How much that may be true I don’t know.

2)I don’t mean to say you are de-sensitized to it personally though I have the impression that the constant excusing of ndias poverty, or trying to equate the type and level of poverty there to other countries comes across as being de-sensitized to it.

3) It reminds me of that story of an Indian politician proudly proclaiming India wont ask for foreign aid for its poor- hardly a shining example of concern for the poor, as the Indian’s government’s space program.

4) That is actually an illogical statement as if the size of the population determines the rate or type of poverty- in fact an absurd comment. Tell that to the tens of millions of people in dire poverty in India it remotely compares to the typical poor person in the UK living off benefits.


5) It not one single post have I ever stated there wasn’t extensive poverty n Inda pre 1947, in fact specifically I have addressed the trends in poverty levels in India in quite some detail on ocassion. I showed you specific information of how the Indian government determined what is poverty using criteria similar to Rwanda’s – and how even in India some commentators have questioned poverty statistics saying government keeping the criteria of being ‘poor’ deliberately low to mask the sheer numbers of the poor in India.


6) How is it arrogant to admit I haven’t looked more deeply into an issue ? I just pointed out that if I were lokngat the situation comparing woen between different counries I would think overall happiness would be the main criteria I would want to look at. Not what sort job one has or doesn’t have.


If you read the statistics in the link I put women are safer in India than in the USA and UK regarding sexual assault.

Since I never questioned the issue in the first place I am unsure why this comment. I would have guessed women are safer in India and perhaps much more respected, but that is just an impression.
1) the word "untouchable " is part of history-----just as work houses and child deportation is history in the UK.
I must say I have never heard the word "reincarnation used" except occasionally as a joke!
As you say--- what is true---you-- " don't know".

2) It is not "excusing" poverty it is explaining and giving reasons!

3) It was a Congress politician pointing out that the aid was a "pittance" .

https://archive.india.gov.in/sectors/science/index.php?id=15
Note "Critical care needs of the rural community". I put this link because of YOUR obsession with the space programme.

See also (point 6)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38253471



4) There is no typical 'poor person' in India. There are a multitude of differences between one "poor" person and another. There are differences in the relationships between the 'middle class' and the 'poor'.
Differences between the individual wealthy ----all charitable donations are published in India (part of tax rules).
Some millionaires give vast amounts and start up charitable projects, others give absolutely NOTHING.

6) Rather a simplistic view--- what is "overall happiness"? Surely that is different for different people and for many includes what sort of job they have----- that includes all income levels.

Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 10:48 pm
  #726  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
What is poverty ?

1) Is it a % of average income?
In the UK it is around £15000, 60% or less of average household incomes.
What is it in India.., where average incomes are some of the lowest in the world, ranking around 112..

2)Is it a minimum calorific intake day

3)Is it access to basic facilities ,a roof over your head, fresh running water, electricity, access to free education, health .

4)You can only compare levels in UK and India if the same measures and standards are set.
As we know India's measure of middle class income would put most in the West way below the poverty standard in their countries.

5) You quote rapes and assaults statistics on women, but what you ignore that the subject has only become news in India in recent years, before then it was a taboo.



1) you cannot judge poverty by income alone you have to compare costs.

2) There is a major obesity and diabetes problem in India. This includes what you and I would describe as 'poor people'. As in UK too many of the wrong calories. Fruit and vegetables though are at very low prices.

3) Obviously the homeless and street sleepers do not have a roof over their head.

There is free hospital care for all---free health care (and now free private health care insurance for the lower income 50%)

Free schools, free college for girls in some cities. (I don't know how extensive this is).

Income related food subsidies for basic foods and gas cylinders.

Running water -----you always discount well water----

We use well water---(also get subsidised gas cylinders!)

4) Can you not understand ---the importance of the cost of living---it is what the income buys that is important.
The middle classes of India as the OP on the other thread said have it 'easier' than the middle classes of UK.

Don't go on about 'malls' again--they only exist in major cities and are mainly show cases. With food courts and toilets. Did you eat in one when on holiday???

5) It was not "taboo" it was just not reported---now every case is reported, far more than the reporting in USA or UK. India is a country of extremes in everything!!!!





Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 11:14 pm
  #727  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
1) you cannot judge poverty by income alone you have to compare costs.

2) There is a major obesity and diabetes problem in India. This includes what you and I would describe as 'poor people'. As in UK too many of the wrong calories. Fruit and vegetables though are at very low prices.

3) Obviously the homeless and street sleepers do not have a roof over their head.

There is free hospital care for all---free health care (and now free private health care insurance for the lower income 50%)

Free schools, free college for girls in some cities. (I don't know how extensive this is).

Income related food subsidies for basic foods and gas cylinders.

Running water -----you always discount well water----

We use well water---(also get subsidised gas cylinders!)

4) Can you not understand ---the importance of the cost of living---it is what the income buys that is important.
The middle classes of India as the OP on the other thread said have it 'easier' than the middle classes of UK.

Don't go on about 'malls' again--they only exist in major cities and are mainly show cases. With food courts and toilets. Did you eat in one when on holiday???

5) It was not "taboo" it was just not reported---now every case is reported, far more than the reporting in USA or UK. India is a country of extremes in everything!!!!
Why was it not reported, because it was a taboo subject.
Ignorance is no longer bliss.
it's a fact that wider publicity and reporting results in more women and girls coming forward to report the abuse they suffer..

Who mentioned malls, apart from your constant references to how they reflect the affluence of the middle class..
EMR is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 11:33 pm
  #728  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
Why was it not reported, because it was a taboo subject.
Ignorance is no longer bliss.
it's a fact that wider publicity and reporting results in more women and girls coming forward to report the abuse they suffer..

Who mentioned malls, apart from your constant references to how they reflect the affluence of the middle class..
How can you possibly know what was and what was not a "taboo subject" in personal discussions.
As I have told you EMR ---Indians across all social groups are 'gossips'.

YOU last mentioned malls----YOU kept going on about them when giving reports on your holiday.

Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 11:41 pm
  #729  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
How can you possibly know what was and what was not a "taboo subject" in personal discussions.
As I have told you EMR ---Indians across all social groups are 'gossips'.

YOU last mentioned malls----YOU kept going on about them when giving reports on your holiday.
Really, why has the number of reported cases increased if it is not a reflection in changing atitudes.
You really are stuck in the past Bipat.
Your last line reflects yet again that you are out of touch with reality.
Remind us just how many times you mentioned malls full of imported goods from the UK etc in the now dead never to be revived discussion about a post Brexit trade deal..
EMR is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 11:44 pm
  #730  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,112
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
1) Morpeth how many times???? The Goans WERE part of India! They were the SAME people as those in the surroundings. Not "similar"---the same families and communities.

2) The privilege was to be able to manage their own affairs and economy. Move to and from neighbouring areas, have relatives to 'stay'. Become part of the Central Government of India.
I used the word "brown" to somehow get through to you that the people of Goa were NOT Portuguese.

3) No, It was still ruled by Portugal.

4) Are you being sarcastic??? How could I possibly not know that there are Central Government rules on the economy. (We pay taxes in India!!!!)
(A Central Government that includes Goans). The State economy and taxation is run by States themselves.

5) Goa was 'part' of the Konkan coast---the Konkan coast is 'part' of India.
Goan politicians seem to manage to go all that distance to be part of the Central Government!!!

6) I did not use the word "culture".

7) I told you above that I used the word "brown" to indicate they are not Portuguese.

8) Well you are patronising. You know nothing about me personally but continually make personal remarks. (You still have not said what your definition is of "Hindu Nationalist"!)
Then you are terribly confused - you cannot say on one hand they run their own economy, then say on the other of course they are subject to national economic policies and rules.​​​​​

If their similarity not cultural then what is it ?

morpeth is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2019, 11:59 pm
  #731  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,112
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
1) the word "untouchable " is part of history-----just as work houses and child deportation is history in the UK.
I must say I have never heard the word "reincarnation used" except occasionally as a joke!
As you say--- what is true---you-- " don't know".

2) It is not "excusing" poverty it is explaining and giving reasons!

3) It was a Congress politician pointing out that the aid was a "pittance" .

https://archive.india.gov.in/sectors/science/index.php?id=15
Note "Critical care needs of the rural community". I put this link because of YOUR obsession with the space programme.

See also (point 6)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38253471



4) There is no typical 'poor person' in India. There are a multitude of differences between one "poor" person and another. There are differences in the relationships between the 'middle class' and the 'poor'.
Differences between the individual wealthy ----all charitable donations are published in India (part of tax rules).
Some millionaires give vast amounts and start up charitable projects, others give absolutely NOTHING.

6) Rather a simplistic view--- what is "overall happiness"? Surely that is different for different people and for many includes what sort of job they have----- that includes all income levels.
Bipat you can come up with all the excuses you want but by any measure India has tens of millions of people in extreme poverty- and if Indian politicians because of pride refuse to ask for aid I cant think of a better example of lack of empathy fro he poor. The day Modi asks for international aid and cancels the space program, provide toilet and proper sanitation as a priority, and similar idiocies is when I will believe the current government puts the needs of the poor first-​​​​.

I posted numerous articles and links about the extent and type of poverty in India, including one showing how similar poverty was defined in India vs Rwanda.

And besides the two Indian families I mentioned who just recently made the comment about poverty in India- just anecdotal of course I could cite others- I could cite some Indonesian friends who after visiting India has the comment " thank God we dont have poverty that bad in Indonesia". I come from a small poor northeast mining town people have food, showers and toilets, a place to live, money for drink and drugs, and can often spend a holiday in Spain each year, free medical care- yet would be considered poor by UK standards.Yes poverty by Indian standards different than that in the UK.

Yes it was simplistic to say as I did the main criteria in such comparisons should be happiness as opposed to some ideologically-defined role of what people should be.
morpeth is offline  
Old Mar 12th 2019, 12:02 am
  #732  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
Really, why has the number of reported cases increased if it is not a reflection in changing atitudes.
You really are stuck in the past Bipat.
Your last line reflects yet again that you are out of touch with reality.
Remind us just how many times you mentioned malls full of imported goods from the UK etc in the now dead never to be revived discussion about a post Brexit trade deal..

It is a change in reporting practices by the press. Also changes in policing. But it was not a "taboo subject".
For heavens sake----- EMR----if you should watch Indian films!! ----"she's been "rapped" ----- as my dear late sister-in-law shouted to translate for me decades ago (to hushes from those sitting around us). (I had noticed!!!)

EMR--- It is months since I posted n that thread ---I stopped mainly due to the often abusive posts of you and your twin.
You were talking about malls in November after your holiday!
Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 12th 2019, 12:08 am
  #733  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
Then you are terribly confused - you cannot say on one hand they run their own economy, then say on the other of course they are subject to national economic policies and rules.​​​​​

If their similarity not cultural then what is it ?
I think you are confused Morpeth---local taxation and trade is at State level. Just basic tax legislation by the Central Government a government which Goans are part of.

Their sameness is that they are members of the same families/communities. Same local language etc. along with other languages.
Do you describe yourself as having 'cultural similarities' to your relatives?????

Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 12th 2019, 12:37 am
  #734  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,775
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
1) Bipat you can come up with all the excuses you want but by any measure India has tens of millions of people in extreme poverty- and if Indian politicians because of pride refuse to ask for aid I cant think of a better example of lack of empathy fro he poor. The day Modi asks for international aid and cancels the space program, provide toilet and proper sanitation as a priority, and similar idiocies is when I will believe the current government puts the needs of the poor first-​​​​.

2) I posted numerous articles and links about the extent and type of poverty in India, including one showing how similar poverty was defined in India vs Rwanda.

3) And besides the two Indian families I mentioned who just recently made the comment about poverty in India- just anecdotal of course I could cite others- I could cite some Indonesian friends who after visiting India has the comment " thank God we dont have poverty that bad in Indonesia". I come from a small poor northeast mining town people have food, showers and toilets, a place to live, money for drink and drugs, and can often spend a holiday in Spain each year, free medical care- yet would be considered poor by UK standards.Yes poverty by Indian standards different than that in the UK.

4) Yes it was simplistic to say as I did the main criteria in such comparisons should be happiness as opposed to some ideologically-defined role of what people should be.
1) I have not made excuses----can you not understand the word 'reasons'?
Can you not understand that "the poor" are not one homogenous mass of 'clones'----they are different individuals!
Toilets are a priority.
Cancel the space programme and put people out of work? India gets 'aid'. Haven't you read the complaints about in UK newspapers.

2) How often are you going to mention Rwanda?

3) Morpeth--- are you saying there are no homeless and street sleepers in the UK? How many can afford foreign holidays?

There is free health care and schooling for all Indian people, food and gas subsidies. People travel long distances by bus and train.

What is very different is the size of the country---the remoteness of villages---the weather and terrain difficulties. These all add up to increase numbers in poverty.
That is not to say that there are millions in extreme poverty.

You give incidences of visitors view of poverty-----people travelling to India often land at Mumbai or Delhi where they see the dreadful slums near the airports and get the impression that all India is like this. The slums are partly due to people travelling from villages in the hope of work and not getting it.

Morpeth---- unemployment is a major cause of poverty in India only the advancement of the economy will help this.

4) How do YOU define happiness?* Are you saying that everyone's idea of happiness is the same. In my personal experience it is not having a job that causes UN-happiness.
Is employment an "ideologically" defined role???????


* You sound like the late Ken Dodd!!!!!!!



Bipat is offline  
Old Mar 12th 2019, 12:47 am
  #735  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
1) I have not made excuses----can you not understand the word 'reasons'?
Can you not understand that "the poor" are not one homogenous mass of 'clones'----they are different individuals!
Toilets are a priority.
Cancel the space programme and put people out of work? India gets 'aid'. Haven't you read the complaints about in UK newspapers.

2) How often are you going to mention Rwanda?

3) Morpeth--- are you saying there are no homeless and street sleepers in the UK? How many can afford foreign holidays?

There is free health care and schooling for all Indian people, food and gas subsidies. People travel long distances by bus and train.

What is very different is the size of the country---the remoteness of villages---the weather and terrain difficulties. These all add up to increase numbers in poverty.
That is not to say that there are millions in extreme poverty.

You give incidences of visitors view of poverty-----people travelling to India often land at Mumbai or Delhi where they see the dreadful slums near the airports and get the impression that all India is like this. The slums are partly due to people travelling from villages in the hope of work and not getting it.

Morpeth---- unemployment is a major cause of poverty in India only the advancement of the economy will help this.

4) How do YOU define happiness?* Are you saying that everyone's idea of happiness is the same. In my personal experience it is not having a job that causes UN-happiness.
Is employment an "ideologically" defined role???????


* You sound like the late Ken Dodd!!!!!!!
Unemployment, so what happened to your Modi miracle !

If India was not a massive exporter of talent, those unable to get similar jobs in India, with their remittances amounting to over 3% of GDP what in your opinion would the numbers in poverty amount to..




EMR is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.