India and the Wars
Mar 17th 2019, 4:34 pm
#841
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
Morpeth-------
With all your negative postings about Goa becoming Independent from Portugal.
It might interest you to know that Goan born, CM of Goa, Manohar Parrikar,
ex-Defence Minister of India has sadly pased away.
A day of National Mourning and State funeral tomorrow.
With all your negative postings about Goa becoming Independent from Portugal.
It might interest you to know that Goan born, CM of Goa, Manohar Parrikar,
ex-Defence Minister of India has sadly pased away.
A day of National Mourning and State funeral tomorrow.
Mar 18th 2019, 10:44 am
#842
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
Morpeth-------
With all your negative postings about Goa becoming Independent from Portugal.
It might interest you to know that Goan born, CM of Goa, Manohar Parrikar,
ex-Defence Minister of India has sadly pased away.
A day of National Mourning and State funeral tomorrow.
With all your negative postings about Goa becoming Independent from Portugal.
It might interest you to know that Goan born, CM of Goa, Manohar Parrikar,
ex-Defence Minister of India has sadly pased away.
A day of National Mourning and State funeral tomorrow.
Mar 18th 2019, 11:12 am
#843
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
I simply stated India used force to takeover Goa and India did not a referendum to ascertain and show the wishes of the people of Goa.Simple facts of history.. I am not sure how stating facts is either positive or negative in this instance. You may see as positive India's aggressive actions using force to impose its will which, but the discussion was much ore simple.
When negotiation fails how else but force could a colony obtain independence from its European ruler. Regarding Goa being a tiny 'cut off' from its surroundings-- it had not the means to do it alone.
Mar 18th 2019, 11:35 am
#844
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
No, Morpeth it is whether you agree or disagree that the European Empires were justified in the 20th century.
When negotiation fails how else but force could a colony obtain independence from its European ruler. Regarding Goa being a tiny 'cut off' from its surroundings-- it had not the means to do it alone.
When negotiation fails how else but force could a colony obtain independence from its European ruler. Regarding Goa being a tiny 'cut off' from its surroundings-- it had not the means to do it alone.
Following the second global war which further bankrupted all the old colonial powers ending most Eurpean empires.
by the second half of the 20th century..
like all Empires of the past, they rise, stabilise and then decline, like every other empire before them..
Do you justify the existence of all the other Empires in the history of the sub continent ..
The Europeans were just one of many.
Mar 19th 2019, 2:21 am
#845
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
No, Morpeth it is whether you agree or disagree that the European Empires were justified in the 20th century.
When negotiation fails how else but force could a colony obtain independence from its European ruler. Regarding Goa being a tiny 'cut off' from its surroundings-- it had not the means to do it alone.
When negotiation fails how else but force could a colony obtain independence from its European ruler. Regarding Goa being a tiny 'cut off' from its surroundings-- it had not the means to do it alone.
You start with your ideology then try to twist the facts to suit your point of view. I was just looking at historical facts.
By your reasoning any Empire is wrong, Indian , European or otherwise, and the whole world would be awash in chaos as countries and people would be using force to impose their point of view.Except you feel Indians can use force but not others- or your comment ( several times) about the Portuguese being white and not brown. . Almost the definition of hypocrisy or subjective nationalism. As a result it would also be hard to have a dialogue with you about what is justified or not since you ignore any and all evidence.
I compared your views to Hitler or Putin because on this particular issue your views are identical.Hitler in taking over areas of ethnic German majorities.. One has to assume you are fully supportive of Putin's actions in the Ukraine or Georgia. You wrote : "When negotiation fails how else but force" .The only issue for you though is who is using the force, and your post proves exactly my point- India uses force just as any other nation might do.
Again there was no discussion whether Goa on its own could be a viable independent entity ( of course it could)
Mar 19th 2019, 7:35 am
#846
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
Bipat your reasoning is quite astounding The discussion was about a simply fact- did India use force or not, did India hold a referendum on the wishes of the people. To avoid the obvious, and its implication you have consistently tried to change the discussion rather than address the simple questions..
You start with your ideology then try to twist the facts to suit your point of view. I was just looking at historical facts.
By your reasoning any Empire is wrong, Indian , European or otherwise, and the whole world would be awash in chaos as countries and people would be using force to impose their point of view.Except you feel Indians can use force but not others- or your comment ( several times) about the Portuguese being white and not brown. . Almost the definition of hypocrisy or subjective nationalism. As a result it would also be hard to have a dialogue with you about what is justified or not since you ignore any and all evidence.
I compared your views to Hitler or Putin because on this particular issue your views are identical.Hitler in taking over areas of ethnic German majorities.. One has to assume you are fully supportive of Putin's actions in the Ukraine or Georgia. You wrote : "When negotiation fails how else but force" .The only issue for you though is who is using the force, and your post proves exactly my point- India uses force just as any other nation might do.
Again there was no discussion whether Goa on its own could be a viable independent entity ( of course it could)
You start with your ideology then try to twist the facts to suit your point of view. I was just looking at historical facts.
By your reasoning any Empire is wrong, Indian , European or otherwise, and the whole world would be awash in chaos as countries and people would be using force to impose their point of view.Except you feel Indians can use force but not others- or your comment ( several times) about the Portuguese being white and not brown. . Almost the definition of hypocrisy or subjective nationalism. As a result it would also be hard to have a dialogue with you about what is justified or not since you ignore any and all evidence.
I compared your views to Hitler or Putin because on this particular issue your views are identical.Hitler in taking over areas of ethnic German majorities.. One has to assume you are fully supportive of Putin's actions in the Ukraine or Georgia. You wrote : "When negotiation fails how else but force" .The only issue for you though is who is using the force, and your post proves exactly my point- India uses force just as any other nation might do.
Again there was no discussion whether Goa on its own could be a viable independent entity ( of course it could)
People living in Goa were the SAME families and communities not "ethnically" the same. Not a "majority" ---all of them.
Could you explain how Goa could have been a viable independent entity?
As you are so interested ----I presume you watched the State funeral!
Mar 19th 2019, 5:18 pm
#847
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
I have told you so many times that I used the word "brown" to indicate that they were NOT Portuguese.
People living in Goa were the SAME families and communities not "ethnically" the same. Not a "majority" ---all of them.
Could you explain how Goa could have been a viable independent entity?
As you are so interested ----I presume you watched the State funeral!
People living in Goa were the SAME families and communities not "ethnically" the same. Not a "majority" ---all of them.
Could you explain how Goa could have been a viable independent entity?
As you are so interested ----I presume you watched the State funeral!
Second, you avoid the key issue of your belief in the use of armed force if India uses it but not others, and second how does your belief on this matter differ from that of Hitler or Stalin or Putin ?
Third, of course Goa could have been a viable entity- look at Monaco, San Marino, Macau. Hong Kong, or numerous other small entities around the globe. It is really absurd the lengths of illogic you wil go to in order to justify Indian use of force. While may have been challenging ( and certainly with India causing difficulties because they didnt get their way) there is no reason why Goa couldn't have gone on their own.
Four no usually I am not in the habit of watching funerals.
Five you bring up color of peoples skin or whether they inter-marry as criteria of how you judge use of force. Or the hilarious one about geographic distance- that in judging whether force to takeover countries is acceptable or not depends on distance.
All this may play well to Indian nationalists , but avoids the key questions/issues being discussed. In any case you have made abundantly clear that Indians or others taking over territories in the subcontinent by force in the past is acceptable, it is just Europeans you object to, and you object that Europeans didn.t intermarry more. So your position is clear.
Mar 19th 2019, 5:28 pm
#848
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
From the University of Mumbai figures on growth in " middle class numbers in " India one of the much vaunted figures used to celebrate economic progress.
Other sources QUOTE an even lower figure.
For me what matters is not glib phrases but real evidence of rising incomes, rising numbers moving up in the income scale , genuine improvements in living standards.
UK cost of living is estimated to be around 53 % higher than India's so allowing for comparative purchasing powers very simply some one earning half of their UK equivalent would have a similar purchasing power..
Hopefully Bipat can post the rise in per capita income in the last 5 -10 years.
The population numbers moving up within specific bands of income in the last 5 -10 years.
Genuine rising living standards is far more relevant than applying meaningless terminology like " middle class ".
Other sources QUOTE an even lower figure.
For me what matters is not glib phrases but real evidence of rising incomes, rising numbers moving up in the income scale , genuine improvements in living standards.
UK cost of living is estimated to be around 53 % higher than India's so allowing for comparative purchasing powers very simply some one earning half of their UK equivalent would have a similar purchasing power..
Hopefully Bipat can post the rise in per capita income in the last 5 -10 years.
The population numbers moving up within specific bands of income in the last 5 -10 years.
Genuine rising living standards is far more relevant than applying meaningless terminology like " middle class ".
Yet EMT I tend to think if I understand Bipat's point that people in similar professionals may have a better material standard of living than in UK may be entirely correct just from my own anecdotal observations in several Third World countries- I think she may be entirely correct on this.
Mar 19th 2019, 5:51 pm
#849
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
1) First, of all it is probably statistically impossible everyone was the same "families" though I accept many were- again totally irrelevant to the original subject. That is why you have a problem answering
2) Second, you avoid the key issue of your belief in the use of armed force if India uses it but not others, and second how does your belief on this matter differ from that of Hitler or Stalin or Putin ?
3) Third, of course Goa could have been a viable entity- look at Monaco, San Marino, Macau. Hong Kong, or numerous other small entities around the globe. It is really absurd the lengths of illogic you wil go to in order to justify Indian use of force. While may have been challenging ( and certainly with India causing difficulties because they didnt get their way) there is no reason why Goa couldn't have gone on their own.
4) Four no usually I am not in the habit of watching funerals.
5) Five you bring up color of peoples skin or whether they inter-marry as criteria of how you judge use of force. Or the hilarious one about geographic distance- that in judging whether force to takeover countries is acceptable or not depends on distance.
All this may play well to Indian nationalists , but avoids the key questions/issues being discussed. In any case you have made abundantly clear that Indians or others taking over territories in the subcontinent by force in the past is acceptable, it is just Europeans you object to, and you object that Europeans didn.t intermarry more. So your position is clear.
2) Second, you avoid the key issue of your belief in the use of armed force if India uses it but not others, and second how does your belief on this matter differ from that of Hitler or Stalin or Putin ?
3) Third, of course Goa could have been a viable entity- look at Monaco, San Marino, Macau. Hong Kong, or numerous other small entities around the globe. It is really absurd the lengths of illogic you wil go to in order to justify Indian use of force. While may have been challenging ( and certainly with India causing difficulties because they didnt get their way) there is no reason why Goa couldn't have gone on their own.
4) Four no usually I am not in the habit of watching funerals.
5) Five you bring up color of peoples skin or whether they inter-marry as criteria of how you judge use of force. Or the hilarious one about geographic distance- that in judging whether force to takeover countries is acceptable or not depends on distance.
All this may play well to Indian nationalists , but avoids the key questions/issues being discussed. In any case you have made abundantly clear that Indians or others taking over territories in the subcontinent by force in the past is acceptable, it is just Europeans you object to, and you object that Europeans didn.t intermarry more. So your position is clear.
2) The enabling of freedom for an area of land occupied by a foreign power.
3) Morpeth you have no idea what Goa was like at that time have you! Open sewers and pig toilets!! Minimal road systems. They did have a railway track going north that could connect with India ---what else?? Certainly the Portuguese Officers had built magnificent houses for themselves---these are mostly now either abandoned or museums.
The Portuguese had allowed in later years re-building of the temples so those outside the borders were able to visit their family places.
4) A State funeral. ----I was indicating to you the equality of Goa with anywhere else in India----not the 'occupied' territory you keep implying. A Goan could become PM.
5) Morpeth why do you find this difficult to understand (deliberately?).
You keep insisting that the people of Goa are 'Portuguese'-----I pointed out that Portuguese are not 'brown'
The Portuguese did not settle, they were just using the area as a coastal base for their OWN trade.
Can you not see the difference???
'Distance' -----the Portuguese didn't just wander in did they?
I have not said that force was acceptable in history----just that it happened.
Times change and in 1961 there was no justification for Portugal to continue using a small patch of India solely for their own purposes, the people deserved better.
Mar 20th 2019, 12:00 am
#850
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
1) Morpeth if you had read my post I said AND communities. I have not given you the names of such communities as too much information for a Forum.
2) The enabling of freedom for an area of land occupied by a foreign power.
3) Morpeth you have no idea what Goa was like at that time have you! Open sewers and pig toilets!! Minimal road systems. They did have a railway track going north that could connect with India ---what else?? Certainly the Portuguese Officers had built magnificent houses for themselves---these are mostly now either abandoned or museums.
The Portuguese had allowed in later years re-building of the temples so those outside the borders were able to visit their family places.
4) A State funeral. ----I was indicating to you the equality of Goa with anywhere else in India----not the 'occupied' territory you keep implying. A Goan could become PM.
5) Morpeth why do you find this difficult to understand (deliberately?).
You keep insisting that the people of Goa are 'Portuguese'-----I pointed out that Portuguese are not 'brown'
The Portuguese did not settle, they were just using the area as a coastal base for their OWN trade.
Can you not see the difference???
'Distance' -----the Portuguese didn't just wander in did they?
I have not said that force was acceptable in history----just that it happened.
Times change and in 1961 there was no justification for Portugal to continue using a small patch of India solely for their own purposes, the people deserved better.
2) The enabling of freedom for an area of land occupied by a foreign power.
3) Morpeth you have no idea what Goa was like at that time have you! Open sewers and pig toilets!! Minimal road systems. They did have a railway track going north that could connect with India ---what else?? Certainly the Portuguese Officers had built magnificent houses for themselves---these are mostly now either abandoned or museums.
The Portuguese had allowed in later years re-building of the temples so those outside the borders were able to visit their family places.
4) A State funeral. ----I was indicating to you the equality of Goa with anywhere else in India----not the 'occupied' territory you keep implying. A Goan could become PM.
5) Morpeth why do you find this difficult to understand (deliberately?).
You keep insisting that the people of Goa are 'Portuguese'-----I pointed out that Portuguese are not 'brown'
The Portuguese did not settle, they were just using the area as a coastal base for their OWN trade.
Can you not see the difference???
'Distance' -----the Portuguese didn't just wander in did they?
I have not said that force was acceptable in history----just that it happened.
Times change and in 1961 there was no justification for Portugal to continue using a small patch of India solely for their own purposes, the people deserved better.
1) Morpeth if you had read my post I said AND communities..
----Yes you did.
2) The enabling of freedom for an area of land occupied by a foreign power.
----- As I have tried to explain to you that wasn’t the issue I was discussing, it was the hypocrisy of your position that only force used by European powers you object to.
----- Indi was a foreign power taking over a territory ruled by another power, recognized by the world as De Jure and De Facto part of Portugal for hundreds of years by a new country in existence only 14 years.
-----Whether Goa became more or less autonomous in its own affairs before or after the Indian invasion I don’t know, and I doubt you have made a specific comarison except hearsay and folk memory.
-----Again wasn’t the discussion anyway.
3) Morpeth you have no idea what Goa was like at that time have you! Open sewers and pig toilets!! Minimal road systems. They did have a railway track going north that could connect with India ---what else?? Certainly the Portuguese Officers had built magnificent houses for themselves---these are mostly now either abandoned or museums.
- Irrelevant to the discussion, In any case for a proper analysis one would need to know what were the circumstances and as to the of surrounding areas. And here I do have some of your famous anecdotal evidence- I do have an idea what India was like in the 1960’s because I was there about 220 miles north of Goa.
- But anyway any evidence that Portuguese Goa was significantly less developed than surrounding areas in 1961 ?
The Portuguese had allowed in later years re-building of the temples so those outside the borders were able to visit their family places.
- By later yeas what years are you referring to though again irrelevant to the discussion.
4) A State funeral. ----I was indicating to you the equality of Goa with anywhere else in India----not the 'occupied' territory you keep implying. A Goan could become PM.
- The same argument can and was used by Hitler, Stalin and Putin, The fact that it is occupied doesn’t preclude inhabitants serving in the Indian government, Stalin came from Georgia not Russia.
5) Morpeth why do you find this difficult to understand (deliberately?).
You keep insisting that the people of Goa are 'Portuguese'-----I pointed out that Portuguese are not 'brown'-
- It has been made abundantly clear in y comments I have never denied that the majority of Goans were ethnically not the same a Portuguese.Why do you try to make-up issues ? They were legally citizens of Goa residence and not Indian citizens.
-
- The Portuguese did not settle, they were just using the area as a coastal base for their OWN trade.
- And so ? Every power can be said to use the area they rule just as Indian does. Why does settlement make a difference to you so much Does Spanish settlement in Latin America make their Empire more justifiable to you ? ( A question asked several times which you avoid answering).
Can you not see the difference???
- The difference has no bearing on the discussion, I was just point out the facts of India’s use of force, you choose to respond that it was in your eyes justified using the same reasoning as Hitler or Putin. And an anti-British and anti-_European as sicne you don’t show the same animosity to other invaders of India.
'Distance' -----the Portuguese didn't just wander in did they?
- Again what geographic distance is acceptable to you ? 1000 miles ? 2000 miles ?
I have not said that force was acceptable in history----just that it happened.
Times change and in 1961 there was no justification for Portugal to continue using a small patch of India solely for their own purposes, the people deserved better.
--- You prove the point. You approve of India’s use of force but not that of others. Hitler felt the same so does Putin- the only difference is they took over territory in which their brethren lived only recently before, India took over territory that had not been part of the Indian governed territory for hundreds of years.
- --A big ‘what-if’ whether Goa would be better off part of a EU nation today than part of India.
Mar 20th 2019, 8:42 am
#851
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
Bipat you are getting more and more confused.
1) Morpeth if you had read my post I said AND communities..
----Yes you did.
2) The enabling of freedom for an area of land occupied by a foreign power.
----- As I have tried to explain to you that wasn’t the issue I was discussing, it was the hypocrisy of your position that only force used by European powers you object to.
----- Indi was a foreign power taking over a territory ruled by another power, recognized by the world as De Jure and De Facto part of Portugal for hundreds of years by a new country in existence only 14 years.
-----Whether Goa became more or less autonomous in its own affairs before or after the Indian invasion I don’t know, and I doubt you have made a specific comarison except hearsay and folk memory.
-----Again wasn’t the discussion anyway.
3) Morpeth you have no idea what Goa was like at that time have you! Open sewers and pig toilets!! Minimal road systems. They did have a railway track going north that could connect with India ---what else?? Certainly the Portuguese Officers had built magnificent houses for themselves---these are mostly now either abandoned or museums.
- Irrelevant to the discussion, In any case for a proper analysis one would need to know what were the circumstances and as to the of surrounding areas. And here I do have some of your famous anecdotal evidence- I do have an idea what India was like in the 1960’s because I was there about 220 miles north of Goa.
- But anyway any evidence that Portuguese Goa was significantly less developed than surrounding areas in 1961 ?
The Portuguese had allowed in later years re-building of the temples so those outside the borders were able to visit their family places.
- By later yeas what years are you referring to though again irrelevant to the discussion.
4) A State funeral. ----I was indicating to you the equality of Goa with anywhere else in India----not the 'occupied' territory you keep implying. A Goan could become PM.
- The same argument can and was used by Hitler, Stalin and Putin, The fact that it is occupied doesn’t preclude inhabitants serving in the Indian government, Stalin came from Georgia not Russia.
5) Morpeth why do you find this difficult to understand (deliberately?).
You keep insisting that the people of Goa are 'Portuguese'-----I pointed out that Portuguese are not 'brown'-
- It has been made abundantly clear in y comments I have never denied that the majority of Goans were ethnically not the same a Portuguese.Why do you try to make-up issues ? They were legally citizens of Goa residence and not Indian citizens.
-
- The Portuguese did not settle, they were just using the area as a coastal base for their OWN trade.
- And so ? Every power can be said to use the area they rule just as Indian does. Why does settlement make a difference to you so much Does Spanish settlement in Latin America make their Empire more justifiable to you ? ( A question asked several times which you avoid answering).
Can you not see the difference???
- The difference has no bearing on the discussion, I was just point out the facts of India’s use of force, you choose to respond that it was in your eyes justified using the same reasoning as Hitler or Putin. And an anti-British and anti-_European as sicne you don’t show the same animosity to other invaders of India.
'Distance' -----the Portuguese didn't just wander in did they?
- Again what geographic distance is acceptable to you ? 1000 miles ? 2000 miles ?
I have not said that force was acceptable in history----just that it happened.
Times change and in 1961 there was no justification for Portugal to continue using a small patch of India solely for their own purposes, the people deserved better.
--- You prove the point. You approve of India’s use of force but not that of others. Hitler felt the same so does Putin- the only difference is they took over territory in which their brethren lived only recently before, India took over territory that had not been part of the Indian governed territory for hundreds of years.
- --A big ‘what-if’ whether Goa would be better off part of a EU nation today than part of India.
1) Morpeth if you had read my post I said AND communities..
----Yes you did.
2) The enabling of freedom for an area of land occupied by a foreign power.
----- As I have tried to explain to you that wasn’t the issue I was discussing, it was the hypocrisy of your position that only force used by European powers you object to.
----- Indi was a foreign power taking over a territory ruled by another power, recognized by the world as De Jure and De Facto part of Portugal for hundreds of years by a new country in existence only 14 years.
-----Whether Goa became more or less autonomous in its own affairs before or after the Indian invasion I don’t know, and I doubt you have made a specific comarison except hearsay and folk memory.
-----Again wasn’t the discussion anyway.
3) Morpeth you have no idea what Goa was like at that time have you! Open sewers and pig toilets!! Minimal road systems. They did have a railway track going north that could connect with India ---what else?? Certainly the Portuguese Officers had built magnificent houses for themselves---these are mostly now either abandoned or museums.
- Irrelevant to the discussion, In any case for a proper analysis one would need to know what were the circumstances and as to the of surrounding areas. And here I do have some of your famous anecdotal evidence- I do have an idea what India was like in the 1960’s because I was there about 220 miles north of Goa.
- But anyway any evidence that Portuguese Goa was significantly less developed than surrounding areas in 1961 ?
The Portuguese had allowed in later years re-building of the temples so those outside the borders were able to visit their family places.
- By later yeas what years are you referring to though again irrelevant to the discussion.
4) A State funeral. ----I was indicating to you the equality of Goa with anywhere else in India----not the 'occupied' territory you keep implying. A Goan could become PM.
- The same argument can and was used by Hitler, Stalin and Putin, The fact that it is occupied doesn’t preclude inhabitants serving in the Indian government, Stalin came from Georgia not Russia.
5) Morpeth why do you find this difficult to understand (deliberately?).
You keep insisting that the people of Goa are 'Portuguese'-----I pointed out that Portuguese are not 'brown'-
- It has been made abundantly clear in y comments I have never denied that the majority of Goans were ethnically not the same a Portuguese.Why do you try to make-up issues ? They were legally citizens of Goa residence and not Indian citizens.
-
- The Portuguese did not settle, they were just using the area as a coastal base for their OWN trade.
- And so ? Every power can be said to use the area they rule just as Indian does. Why does settlement make a difference to you so much Does Spanish settlement in Latin America make their Empire more justifiable to you ? ( A question asked several times which you avoid answering).
Can you not see the difference???
- The difference has no bearing on the discussion, I was just point out the facts of India’s use of force, you choose to respond that it was in your eyes justified using the same reasoning as Hitler or Putin. And an anti-British and anti-_European as sicne you don’t show the same animosity to other invaders of India.
'Distance' -----the Portuguese didn't just wander in did they?
- Again what geographic distance is acceptable to you ? 1000 miles ? 2000 miles ?
I have not said that force was acceptable in history----just that it happened.
Times change and in 1961 there was no justification for Portugal to continue using a small patch of India solely for their own purposes, the people deserved better.
--- You prove the point. You approve of India’s use of force but not that of others. Hitler felt the same so does Putin- the only difference is they took over territory in which their brethren lived only recently before, India took over territory that had not been part of the Indian governed territory for hundreds of years.
- --A big ‘what-if’ whether Goa would be better off part of a EU nation today than part of India.
Morpeth I am not confused------it is actually 'home'.
2) You say India had only existed for 14 years in 1961 ????----------Morpeth--!!!!!--- ??
India has existed for thousands of years!!!! Yes foreign powers have come and gone. We are talking about reality here not signatures on a piece of paper!
According to you the people living in India during British rule were not Indian!!!!!!!!
You dismiss anything that you yourself do not know as 'folk memory' or 'hearsay'. I was there in the 60s, OH visiting all his life. (restricted visits.)
(Do you describe what your wife tells you as "hearsay"?????)
3) I do not know without research the date when visiting family temples became possible.
With respect you do not know what Goa and surrounding districts were like in the 1960s------I do. You call it anecdotal because you were not there isn't that rather arrogant??
(You say you know what "India" was like in the 1960s-----Morpeth ------information for you every area in India was/is different in practically every way!!!)
5) You again try to equate 'invasions' of hundreds of years ago with 1961. India tried negotiation with Salazar-----hardly a democratic ruler.
Morpeth you used the phrase---- "not been part of Indian governed territory for hundreds of years"-------according to your previous remark India had only existed for 14 years!!!!!!
The point is Morpeth that the actual Goan people WERE part of India.
Finally you ask whether Goa would be better off part of the EU!
EU countries are within close proximity to each other.
In some ways Goan people are part of the EU---I told you that one good point of Portuguese rule is that they allowed those Goa residents in 1961 to keep their Portuguese passports and register their subsequent children at birth.
This is an anomaly that India has allowed.
Do they make use of their passports to migrate to Europe????? -Some do----but most settle in the UK not Portugal.
Mar 20th 2019, 9:51 am
#852
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
Morpeth I am not confused------it is actually 'home'.
2) You say India had only existed for 14 years in 1961 ????----------Morpeth--!!!!!--- ??
India has existed for thousands of years!!!! Yes foreign powers have come and gone. We are talking about reality here not signatures on a piece of paper!
According to you the people living in India during British rule were not Indian!!!!!!!!
You dismiss anything that you yourself do not know as 'folk memory' or 'hearsay'. I was there in the 60s, OH visiting all his life. (restricted visits.)
(Do you describe what your wife tells you as "hearsay"?????)
3) I do not know without research the date when visiting family temples became possible.
With respect you do not know what Goa and surrounding districts were like in the 1960s------I do. You call it anecdotal because you were not there isn't that rather arrogant??
(You say you know what "India" was like in the 1960s-----Morpeth ------information for you every area in India was/is different in practically every way!!!)
5) You again try to equate 'invasions' of hundreds of years ago with 1961. India tried negotiation with Salazar-----hardly a democratic ruler.
Morpeth you used the phrase---- "not been part of Indian governed territory for hundreds of years"-------according to your previous remark India had only existed for 14 years!!!!!!
The point is Morpeth that the actual Goan people WERE part of India.
Finally you ask whether Goa would be better off part of the EU!
EU countries are within close proximity to each other.
In some ways Goan people are part of the EU---I told you that one good point of Portuguese rule is that they allowed those Goa residents in 1961 to keep their Portuguese passports and register their subsequent children at birth.
This is an anomaly that India has allowed.
Do they make use of their passports to migrate to Europe????? -Some do----but most settle in the UK not Portugal.
2) You say India had only existed for 14 years in 1961 ????----------Morpeth--!!!!!--- ??
India has existed for thousands of years!!!! Yes foreign powers have come and gone. We are talking about reality here not signatures on a piece of paper!
According to you the people living in India during British rule were not Indian!!!!!!!!
You dismiss anything that you yourself do not know as 'folk memory' or 'hearsay'. I was there in the 60s, OH visiting all his life. (restricted visits.)
(Do you describe what your wife tells you as "hearsay"?????)
3) I do not know without research the date when visiting family temples became possible.
With respect you do not know what Goa and surrounding districts were like in the 1960s------I do. You call it anecdotal because you were not there isn't that rather arrogant??
(You say you know what "India" was like in the 1960s-----Morpeth ------information for you every area in India was/is different in practically every way!!!)
5) You again try to equate 'invasions' of hundreds of years ago with 1961. India tried negotiation with Salazar-----hardly a democratic ruler.
Morpeth you used the phrase---- "not been part of Indian governed territory for hundreds of years"-------according to your previous remark India had only existed for 14 years!!!!!!
The point is Morpeth that the actual Goan people WERE part of India.
Finally you ask whether Goa would be better off part of the EU!
EU countries are within close proximity to each other.
In some ways Goan people are part of the EU---I told you that one good point of Portuguese rule is that they allowed those Goa residents in 1961 to keep their Portuguese passports and register their subsequent children at birth.
This is an anomaly that India has allowed.
Do they make use of their passports to migrate to Europe????? -Some do----but most settle in the UK not Portugal.
Another fact for you an estimated 70,000 Indians live in Portugal the majority of Goan descent , how many live in the UK.?
Last edited by EMR; Mar 20th 2019 at 9:54 am.
Mar 20th 2019, 10:14 am
#853
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
I was discussing Goa with Morpeth. The people of the area known as Goa were NOT a different ethnic group to those in the surrounding part of India. They were the SAME, the SAME families and communities. Yes many are Christians (as well as Muslims)-----the ancestors or the former were forcibly converted but their descendants are genuine Christians a large community who fled Portuguese Goa are in our town. (The British were preferable-----that must please you!
)Goa was not "annexed" it is and always has been 'part of''-- India. Family and communities spread over both. It was just ruled over by a different foreign power.
As I said to Morpeth ---are you saying that those people in British India were not 'Indian'?? It is just as foolish to say those used as a trade port by Portugal, were not Indian.
(You like reading ancient history -----look up Goud Saraswats. (We are not Goud Saraswats by the way.)
Mar 20th 2019, 11:11 am
#854
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 59
Re: India and the Wars
The history of these discussions show that when a fact is presented you usually disagree with the only reason being you live in India. Then when evidence is presented, from sources in and outside India, you still disagree if it doesn't suit the image you wish to portray of India The items I have described as nonsense are not from disagreement of opinion, but when the evidence shows assertions you have made are not even remotely close to the evidence.
Yes corruption and nepotism both factors of course ( and for corruption India remains in bottom of of the list for corrupt countries to do business in) but even Indian economists now admit at the core of the problem post-1947 were fundamentally unsound economic policies followed for decades. Partial proof of this is that since India has begun the process over the past 15 years and more so the last few years as you well point out economic growth has accelerated.
You have tried to equate poverty in India to that in the UK, my family comes from a poor part of England- I have never heard of people defecating on the beach.
You raise an interesting point if I seem to denigrate the middle classes in India with my comments, though usuallu I pair with the upper classes. You are probably correct it is unfair- probably a result of decades of hearing middle and upper class Indians finding excuses and rationales to justify the extreme poverty of much of India. Your support of a space program whens so many are suffering and living sub-standard lives is an example that irks me.Or why Modi isnt asking for international aid and assistance since evidently India is unable to provide what is usually considered minimal sanitation or living standards- yet as you say he likes to portray an image that he is truly concerned for the poor. So why wouldn't he be asking for help if his government unable to solve the problem. Is it pride ?
Yes corruption and nepotism both factors of course ( and for corruption India remains in bottom of of the list for corrupt countries to do business in) but even Indian economists now admit at the core of the problem post-1947 were fundamentally unsound economic policies followed for decades. Partial proof of this is that since India has begun the process over the past 15 years and more so the last few years as you well point out economic growth has accelerated.
You have tried to equate poverty in India to that in the UK, my family comes from a poor part of England- I have never heard of people defecating on the beach.
You raise an interesting point if I seem to denigrate the middle classes in India with my comments, though usuallu I pair with the upper classes. You are probably correct it is unfair- probably a result of decades of hearing middle and upper class Indians finding excuses and rationales to justify the extreme poverty of much of India. Your support of a space program whens so many are suffering and living sub-standard lives is an example that irks me.Or why Modi isnt asking for international aid and assistance since evidently India is unable to provide what is usually considered minimal sanitation or living standards- yet as you say he likes to portray an image that he is truly concerned for the poor. So why wouldn't he be asking for help if his government unable to solve the problem. Is it pride ?
Just to point out, open defecation is a widespread problem in places like San Fransisco, CA and Portland, OR. Please, just search for it on the web. What part of India are those in? Why isn’t the US asking for international aid since evidently they aren’t able to provide for these folk? And parts of Camden would rank right up with Dhaka or Delhi as one of the filthiest places on God’s Earth; I lived there so I’ve experienced.
I even disagree with you that corruption is the root cause of the problem. Depends really on how you define corruption. There is too much government interference in the Indian domestic economy, granted. Not very unlike Britain herself. A banker’s private presentation I was privileged to attend startled me with a statistic - that Indians outside India on average earn USD 50,000 per annum. These guys aren’t privileged; many a time the conditions are hostile or barely friendly. There is often institutional bias. Yet they do fine.
The spaceships versus toilets argument is getting old now. What, every homeless guy in the US was taken care of by the time the Apollo missions took man to the moon? Was everyone well-fed in the USSR when the the Sputniks took off? Was there no unemployment in Britain when the first British guy went to space? Isn’t it plain bigotry when you chastise Indians for daring to dream, because space is not for poor brown people? Come on, I thought the British love India. Plus, it bears mention that the space program is not just for show. The weather information, the imaging information, all have helped the more vulnerable professions including agriculture in planning their business better. Why, Indians discovered water on the moon. Eat that.
In return, all I could ask is, what the hell was Britain doing fighting wars in Asia and Africa when the likes of kids portrayed in Charles Dicken’s novels were squirming in the gutters of London and Liverpool?
Would it be more gratifying to your senses, if, like in many African countries, you’d have worn-out, diseased Indian kids and adults run to your helicopters while you throw out biscuits? Calling whitey a God, Indian-style perhaps? Thanks, but no thanks.
India does not have a problem with production today; even with varying weather, Indian outputs have never been higher. It is a distribution problem which will be dealt with. Your irking comes off as a slight more than a show of concern; even after the Tsunami, there was outrage in the western press after India refused aid under PM Manmohan Singh. Every self-respecting Indian agreed with him on that. Result: everything was back up in record time. My own quibble was why the Indian Navy did not take a greater role in overseeing relief efforts in Indonesia - missed opportunity that.
You are right; Indians following the socialist path gave them a true socialist condition. I don’t think Britain is that different. The British have been living off of the legacy of her Empire as well as the injections of the US post-War. When was the last time you had a British-owned car company doing good, for example? Jaguar Land Rover, wink-wink?! Shows just how much Britain’s industries have declined. Britain, like India, was afflicted by Harold Lasky’s socialism. Would you really disagree with me if I told you that the British economy today is London and little else?
As a Republic, clearly India began poor. But, so did Hong Kong. So did Malaysia. So did Taiwan. So did Japan. So did Singapore. For heaven’s sake so did China. They all turned a corner didn’t they? The clear divergence was in the 50s and 60s when Indians adopted a near-autarkic economic model.
I’d call myself middle-class, just about. There are no excuses for India’s poverty. There are reasons, yes. Not your usual nationalist nonsense. Or socialist laments. Indians adopted the socialist model. That was it. Indians do not need foreign aid in that they can cough up resources internally. The likes of the Slumdog director and some Spanish idiot making a slum museum in Mumbai would indulge in gratuitous poverty porn to sate the Western appetite, but Indians are impatient.
My guess is you fundamentally mistake the people for the government. The Indian people are a productive bunch; a look at Britain’s own rich list will give you an idea. The environment laid by the state often decides how people are able to exercise their skills. Given a 60 year history of state over-interference, it will be a while before Indians really take off. Please, don’t make the mistake of just writing off India as corrupt; I have worked in several countries, boy oh boy do they give India a run for its money corruption-wise!
I’d personally think the setting up of certain “freetowns” along India’s coasts would do wonders as far as economic growth is concerned. Growing up in an Indian family, I can tell you that the attitude of the previous generation was very much a resignatory one - this is all we are good for - no doubt a result of the debilitating socialist economy. These days it is very much - why can’t we have that too? Too early to call it materialistic, but it certainly speaks of an eagerness and a self-confidence which is not rooted in resentment. It is a joy to watch.
On fora like these, it is surprisingly the British who across as alrernatively unsure, vindictive and nigh-on negative. Once upon a time, they were the most enlightened of souls.
Mar 20th 2019, 11:33 am
#855
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 59
Re: India and the Wars
EMR----you are constantly telling others to read some history----perhaps you could do that. Yes there are a multitude of different groups in India. The Hindu philosophy was the uniting force of the entire subcontinent.
I was discussing Goa with Morpeth. The people of the area known as Goa were NOT a different ethnic group to those in the surrounding part of India. They were the SAME, the SAME families and communities. Yes many are Christians (as well as Muslims)-----the ancestors or the former were forcibly converted but their descendants are genuine Christians a large community who fled Portuguese Goa are in our town. (The British were preferable-----that must please you!)
Goa was not "annexed" it is and always has been 'part of''-- India. Family and communities spread over both. It was just ruled over by a different foreign power.
As I said to Morpeth ---are you saying that those people in British India were not 'Indian'?? It is just as foolish to say those used as a trade port by Portugal, were not Indian.
(You like reading ancient history -----look up Goud Saraswats. (We are not Goud Saraswats by the way.)
I was discussing Goa with Morpeth. The people of the area known as Goa were NOT a different ethnic group to those in the surrounding part of India. They were the SAME, the SAME families and communities. Yes many are Christians (as well as Muslims)-----the ancestors or the former were forcibly converted but their descendants are genuine Christians a large community who fled Portuguese Goa are in our town. (The British were preferable-----that must please you!
)Goa was not "annexed" it is and always has been 'part of''-- India. Family and communities spread over both. It was just ruled over by a different foreign power.
As I said to Morpeth ---are you saying that those people in British India were not 'Indian'?? It is just as foolish to say those used as a trade port by Portugal, were not Indian.
(You like reading ancient history -----look up Goud Saraswats. (We are not Goud Saraswats by the way.)
There’s a whole area along the western coast of India extending from Maharashtra through to Kerala where the Konkani people inhabit - called Konkan; Goa was an enclave carved out of this by the Portuguese who tried and failed doing the same in Kerala earlier. I genuinely don’t think EMR understands how India operates. There is no ethnic group called Goans. There are Konkanis. They are spread across the various, mostly western states of India along the coast. Some of the nicest people I’ve met. If they had a state for their own, like there was a quiet demand a while ago, much of Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala would be subsumed under that. I think the existence of Mumbai, within the ambit of such a Konkan state, would put paid to any such ambition.
The “Goans” EMR refers to are most likely Indo-Portuguese who migrated back to Portugal and Europe after Goa (State of India or Estado da India) “returned” to India. The current Portuguese PM actually looks like me! The passport policy you mention is correct, but it is used by those benefiting much like Mexicans use the US border.
The Portuguese were thrown out of Goa, in the spirit of decolonization pervading the era. It seems, from another post of EMR’s on another thread, that not only is he a terror sympathizer, he is also a pro-colonialist. If he is holidaying in India like he says he is, boy does that make him a favorite among the locals!