Republic Day

Old Feb 11th 2019, 10:46 pm
  #106  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
No EMR----you cannot rewrite history.
You persistently ignore the 'fact' that since the Indus valley civilisation people have moved south over India to all areas. Bharat---is a Sanskrit word.
The uniting factor has been religion----Hinduism in its various forms. Note various forms.

Yes people invaded from the north and via the coasts. Different groups/States formed with varying habits/traditions---fought each other just as the counties/countries did in the British Isles.
Read Shankaracharya 788 AD who travelled north to south setting up centres.

India was a geographical entity it was also a civilisation of people who were Indians. They were ALSO in kingdoms etc. Just as they are now----Keralans/Goans/Bengalis/Punjabis etc are also Indians. They still argue and 'fight'.
Finally you have got it.
Yes India was a geographical area, nothing more.
It was not united, it did not share common religions, languages , societies, it was a myriad of different ethnic groups., warring and rival kingdoms, invaders.
It was not the India that came into existence under a central government, due to the period of British rule in 1947..
At last you have grasped reality.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 11th 2019, 11:19 pm
  #107  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,714
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
Finally you have got it.
Yes India was a geographical area, nothing more.
It was not united, it did not share common religions, languages , societies, it was a myriad of different ethnic groups., warring and rival kingdoms, invaders.
It was not the India that came into existence under a central government, due to the period of British rule in 1947..
At last you have grasped reality.
No EMR---you with your strange prejudicial bias want it to be "nothing more".
Did you read actually my above post?

There was a civil war in England are you saying the people were not all "English"?
There were Catholic and Protestant 'wars' are you saying the people were not all Christian?
I pointed out Hinduism was a unifying concept throughout India----did you read the reference I gave you?
Of course there were Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews----there STILL ARE! That doesn't mean they were/are not 'Indians'

There are still different languages--in every State----did you read my above post about Marathi/Kannada problems---Everyone doesn't speak English-----you have 'briefly' visited Kerala----most there refuse to speak Hindi they are still 'Indians'!!
There are still ethnic groups.

Yes the idea of a central government came later but that does not mean that there was not unity in the country and does not mean the people were not "INDIAN"!!!!!!
(There are 27 different countries members of the EU they are nationals of their countries but also EU citizens-----got it????)

Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 11th 2019, 11:24 pm
  #108  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
No EMR---you with your strange prejudicial bias want it to be "nothing more".
Did you read actually my above post?

There was a civil war in England are you saying the people were not all "English"?
There were Catholic and Protestant 'wars' are you saying the people were not all Christian?
I pointed out Hinduism was a unifying concept throughout India----did you read the reference I gave you?
Of course there were Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews----there STILL ARE! That doesn't mean they were/are not 'Indians'

There are still different languages--in every State----did you read my above post about Marathi/Kannada problems---Everyone doesn't speak English-----you have 'briefly' visited Kerala----most there refuse to speak Hindi they are still 'Indians'!!
There are still ethnic groups.

Yes the idea of a central government came later but that does not mean that there was not unity in the country and does not mean the people were not "INDIAN"!!!!!!
(There are 27 different countries members of the EU they are nationals of their countries but also EU citizens-----got it????)
The EU is not a sovereign state, do you understand anything that you post, India created in 1947 is.
I would love to jump into a time machine with you and go back , travel around and ask people who they are, I doubt that more than a tiny minority if that would call them selves Indian , even know what your idea of India was.
I will leave you to live in your fantasy of the past.
You may have been a student off philosophy you are certainly not a student of history which is based on fact..
That probably explans a lot, philosophy is about anything but facts.
That which you say unified people did not stop them fighting and killing each other for centuries long before the first European set foot on the sub continent.., and in the 100s of years before British rule was established.and bought a period of stability and developmenf to the sub continent not seen for centuries ..

Last edited by EMR; Feb 11th 2019 at 11:40 pm.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 11th 2019, 11:45 pm
  #109  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,714
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
The EU is not a sovereign state, do you understand anything that you post, India created in 1947 is..
I will leave you to live in your fantasy of the past.
You may have been a student off philosophy you are certainly not a student of history which is based on fact..
That probably explans a lot, philosophy is about anything but facts.
You persist in saying that "Indians" were not "Indians" until 1947.
What were they???? You still refuse to say!!

Is England a "Sovereign State" is it inaccurate to refer to English people?

Is Europe a geographical area? Do the people refer to themselves as European???????

Can you in your mind EMR accept the FACT that people can be more than one identity at the same time?
I am English/British/European/overseas citizen of India. What are you????

(I was not a student of philosophy it was part of an MA in Medical law and Ethics.)
World history has been a hobby since teenage.


EMR --you always put an edit.
There was killing and lack of unity in Europe and in the British Isles for centuries and up until 1947! Are you saying that the Europeans and British didn't exist as such?

Last edited by Bipat; Feb 11th 2019 at 11:52 pm.
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:02 am
  #110  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 59
madathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to all
Default Re: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
Thank you for confirming that the India of today did not exist during the times you complain of..
Where was Pakistan, or Sri Lanka or Myanmar on your list, Canada, Austrailia, NZ, South Africa and call the other colonies , dominions and territories that came under the banner of the then British Empire...
Indians of today should be focused on the future , not of the ills of the past which are not wholly or even in majority terms due to British rule..
Sir

May I suggest that the reason this may be offensive to a lot of Indians is the indication, unsaid of course, that India is somehow a “creation” of the British. The implication being that, India is a foreign creation and what that means for the sustainability of the country as a unit.

This is categorically untrue. Suffice to say, the Indian Constitution would have borrowed from the British Constitution had there been such a thing. The Republic of India, from the word go, is a creation of the Indian people and their Indian leaders. British India was a hodgepodge of some territories over which Britain has direct control and a very large area which were under native princely administration. The majority of them acceded to either India or Pakistan through a native exercise in persuasion.

If Indians did not like the idea, broadly, of a union, then the time for making this clear has passed a very long time ago. Many, including Indians, did not initially expect the Union to last, citing the various differences you mention. There was a split at the beginning itself - the Muslims decided to separate into a new sovereign state. Thank God. As for the other differences, there wasn’t the level of animosity that would necessitate the creation of separate countries out of the various states. It is the largest such exercise in the history of man, and it has lasted the course of a very turbulent century, so there must be something to it.

Even though a modern nation-state called India did not exist until 1947, the concept of a nation-state itself is of the 18th century, coming into being at the conclusion of the Thirty Year’s War. The concept of a cultural unit made of indigenous parts - Bharat Khand - existed way before Europeans came on the scene. May I refer you to an English translation of the Njanappana, a Malayalam devotional recital to Lord Krishna. Reference is made there to Bharat Khand - as the land where, in typical Hindu flourish, even blades of grass from other lands wish to be born to attain liberation. This is in the 1400s, and the compiler was a simpleton.

Many nation-states have been created in the 20th century. Not many of them lasted. East Germany, West Germany, Nationalist China, Pakistan (United), South Vietnam, South Yemen, North Yemen, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, too many African states, are all examples of nation-states which have been consigned to history books. They faced the same pressures as did India. The Indian state machinery is too weak to fully control the Indian population, for it to keep a lid on secessionist aspirations in every major place within, were such a scenario ever to occur. What I meant is, a lot of the unity of the state flows from the will of the people which, except for certain exceptions, is in unequivocal support of the idea of common international representation and a pooling of certain government functions. What I mean is that, for vast majority of the Indian populace, and certainly for those who are culturally Indian, India as is today is a apt representation of their political aspirations. Politics on boundaries is really no longer an issue. Economics, certainly.


Last edited by madathil.krishnanunni; Feb 12th 2019 at 1:11 am.
madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:11 am
  #111  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
You persist in saying that "Indians" were not "Indians" until 1947.
What were they???? You still refuse to say!!

Is England a "Sovereign State" is it inaccurate to refer to English people?
Is Europe a geographical area? Do the people refer to themselves as European???????

Can you in your mind EMR accept the FACT that people can be more than one identity at the same time?
I am English/British/European/overseas citizen of India. What are you????

(I was not a student of philosophy it was part of an MA in Medical law and Ethics.)
World history has been a hobby since teenage,
Once again, People who lived on the subcontinent were what they called themselves.., which was not Indian.
Indian was the shorthand used by the outside world to describe those who lived there., in the Indies ..

We were Britons , Romano British , then Saxons, Danes, or Normans. s ,it took centuries ,the creation of whzt we now call England before we called ourselves and were referred to as English...,.
Just because the geographical area of that we now call England has existed for millions of years does not mean that we were English until England as a Sovereign state came into being.
Using your definition of Indian and India much of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc are all still India and their population Indians...
..



EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:27 am
  #112  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,714
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
Once again, People who lived on the subcontinent were what they called themselves.., which was not Indian.
Indian was the shorthand used by the outside world to describe those who lived there., in the Indies ..

We were Britons , Romano British , then Saxons, Danes, or Normans. s ,it took centuries ,the creation of whzt we now call England before we called ourselves and were referred to as English...,.
Just because the geographical area of that we now call England has existed for millions of years does not mean that we were English until England as a Sovereign state came into being.
Using your definition of Indian and India much of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc are all still India and their population Indians...
..
Bangladeshi and Pakistani people were Indian before they changed their description of themselves. The people of those areas are also descended from the Indus valley civilisation.
The word Bharat is Sanskrit and means India. It was a name that encompassed all the people. Bharati is still a common girls name in India.

(I presume as you know everything you speak Sanskrit!!!!)

Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:31 am
  #113  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by madathil.krishnanunni


Sir

May I suggest that the reason this may be offensive to a lot of Indians is the indication, unsaid of course, that India is somehow a “creation” of the British. The implication being that, India is a foreign creation and what that means for the sustainability of the country as a unit.

This is categorically untrue. Suffice to say, the Indian Constitution would have borrowed from the British Constitution had there been such a thing. The Republic of India, from the word go, is a creation of the Indian people and their Indian leaders. British India was a hodgepodge of some territories over which Britain has direct control and a very large area which were under native princely administration. The majority of them acceded to either India or Pakistan through a native exercise in persuasion.

If Indians did not like the idea, broadly, of a union, then the time for making this clear has passed a very long time ago. Many, including Indians, did not initially expect the Union to last, citing the various differences you mention. There was a split at the beginning itself - the Muslims decided to separate into a new sovereign state. Thank God. As for the other differences, there wasn’t the level of animosity that would necessitate the creation of separate countries out of the various states. It is the largest such exercise in the history of man, and it has lasted the course of a very turbulent century, so there must be something to it.

Even though a modern nation-state called India did not exist until 1947, the concept of a nation-state itself is of the 18th century, coming into being at the conclusion of the Thirty Year’s War. The concept of a cultural unit made of indigenous parts - Bharat Khand - existed way before Europeans came on the scene. May I refer you to an English translation of the Njanappana, a Malayalam devotional recital to Lord Krishna. Reference is made there to Bharat Khand - as the land where, in typical Hindu flourish, even blades of grass from other lands wish to be born to attain liberation. This is in the 1400s, and the compiler was a simpleton.

Many nation-states have been created in the 20th century. Not many of them lasted. East Germany, West Germany, Nationalist China, Pakistan (United), South Vietnam, South Yemen, North Yemen, Soviet Union, Sudan, too many African states, are all examples of nation-states which have been consigned to history books. They faced the same pressures as did India. The Indian state machinery is too weak to fully control the Indian population, for it to keep a lid on secessionist aspirations in every major place within, were such a scenario ever to occur. What I meant is, a lot of the unity of the state flows from the will of the people which, except for certain exceptions, is in unequivocal support of the idea of common international representation and a pooling of certain government functions. What I mean is that, for vast majority of the Indian populace, and certainly for those who are culturally Indian, India as is today is a apt representation of their political aspirations. Politics on boundaries is really no longer an issue. Economics, certainly.

I use the statement that the modern republic of India owes its existence to what was created by the British is simply because nothing existed before then that would have developed into what exists now.
You could theorise and suggest that one or more of the warring states, , empires that was the subcontinent before British rule would have gained total territorial control , with all the princely states and kingdoms deferring to it.
That entity whoever it was would have accepted the growth of democracy originating in Europe, accepted European laws, technical advances.
You can suggest what might have been rather than what was...


EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 1:36 am
  #114  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 59
madathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to all
Default Re: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
I use the statement that the modern republic of India owes its existence to what was created by the British is simply because nothing existed before then that would have developed into what exists now.
You could theorise and suggest that one or more of the warring states, , empires that was the subcontinent before British rule would have gained total territorial control , with all the princely states and kingdoms deferring to it.
That entity whoever it was would have accepted the growth of democracy originating in Europe, accepted European laws, technical advances.
You can suggest what might have been rather than what was...
Sir

Again, no would be the answer to an assertion that Britain assumes prime responsibility for the creation of the Republic of India. British rule officially ended in 1947; the Republic came into being in 1950. Which is why the Republic Day is celebrated separately from the Independence Day which celebrates, oddly enough, the withdrawal of the British on their own accord. India, or the former British ruled bits of it, was a Dominion on the lines of Canada or Australia for two years and a bit when the Constitution, an Indian document, was promulgated. The day the British left in 1947, India looked very different from what it is today. Remember that all native states were officially “free” as well and went back to status quo ante before acceding to the Union.

You know, you can theorize all day but we have what we have. Has the Marathas been left unperturbed, maybe there would have been an Indian Empire anyway with a Marathi king. What I am saying is, had then been no impulse among the people of India to forge together a country, no give, no amount of British input would’ve made that happen and India would have collapsed. Fact is, it did; Partition was that. And the stark truth is, the bits of the Indian subcontinent that bore the brunt of the violence were mostly British controlled territories. Not a feather in Britain’s nation-building cap. The remnant India too, would’ve collapsed had it not been an Indian creation first and foremost. History is witness that imperial creations forced into Union don’t last very long; the USSR, successor to the Russian Empire is certainly proof of that. Were the Republic of India an imperial creation as you suggest, it wouldn’t have lasted this long either, and you’re talking about a lot more people than Russia. Corollary being, if the Republic of India does collapse one day, you can let me know about how it was, after all, a British imperial creation.

I am just saying that, as a genuinely free people, the various peoples of India have little need to bring international borders closer to their state, maintain armies and diplomatic corps, and most crucially, bear negligible animosity towards one another on ethnic or linguistic grounds. What could’ve broken India before was religious tension, but that has already been addressed with Pakistan and no one wants to go back to that. India makes sense to the Indian people, in a way the Central African Republic cannot makes sense to the people there.
madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 2:08 am
  #115  
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: Republic Day

No one could argue that the haste with which the UK exited British India does anyone involved any credit , British and the leaders of the various independence factions all share responsibility for the horrors of partition
​​​​
The absence of action by the British Army must have contributed to the intercommunity violence and deaths..
But remember the UK was war weary and broke.

​​​​It is just splitting hairs over 1947 or the date of the Republic Modern India came into existence in1947.
As I have previously posted it is to the credit of the Indian peoples that it has not balkanised.
Put it down to the machiavellian nature of Indian politics or the same stubborn resistance to control from the centre exhibited during the raj. Whatever it is it has worked
​​​​​​

​​​​​

Last edited by EMR; Feb 12th 2019 at 2:13 am.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 5:57 am
  #116  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
Bangladeshi and Pakistani people were Indian before they changed their description of themselves. The people of those areas are also descended from the Indus valley civilisation.
The word Bharat is Sanskrit and means India. It was a name that encompassed all the people. Bharati is still a common girls name in India.

(I presume as you know everything you speak Sanskrit!!!!)
I would love to be near you ( not too close fir my own safety ) when you told the people's of the other Independent nations of the sub continent, different ethnically, culturally and with different religions that they are Indian because you say so...
Because they may not read Sanskrit , written a thousand plus years ago thst they do not know what they are talking about .
I would give you 30 seconds..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 7:24 am
  #117  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,714
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
I would love to be near you ( not too close fir my own safety ) when you told the people's of the other Independent nations of the sub continent, different ethnically, culturally and with different religions that they are Indian because you say so...
Because they may not read Sanskrit , written a thousand plus years ago thst they do not know what they are talking about .
I would give you 30 seconds..
EMR--- yet again you cannot read. I said BEFORE 1947 they WERE INDIAN. They are NOT NOW!! Can you understand simple sentences?

Sanskrit is still taught and spoken and all Hindu Pujas, weddings ceremonies etc are in Sanskrit.

(Banglsdesh has good relationship with India, millions have moved back to India---- didn't you know that?)
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 7:30 am
  #118  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
EMR--- yet again you cannot read. I said BEFORE 1947 they WERE INDIAN. They are NOT NOW!! Can you understand simple sentences?

Sanskrit is still taught and spoken and all Hindu Pujas, weddings ceremonies etc are in Sanskrit.

(Banglsdesh has good relationship with India, millions have moved back to India---- didn't you know that?)

Still clinging on to your belief that was British India was a nation., if it was a nation then why is it not one now.
Maybe something to do with how the people's regarded them selves, IE NOT INDIAN...

EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 7:48 am
  #119  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,714
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
Still clinging on to your belief that was British India was a nation., if it was a nation then why is it not one now.
Maybe something to do with how the people's regarded them selves, IE NOT INDIAN...
EMR'-----what is the matter with you? That you cannot accept that people living in India were Indian????? It was not a "Nation" in modern terms. However they knew where they lived and what they were!!!!!!
They use the word "Indian", when speaking English.
The people are not as stupid as you want them to be!

How can YOU know how people regarded themselves??????
How many Indian people have you known born in the 1800s, how many Indian 90 year olds have you known?

Which county in the UK do you live in? Are you not capable of calling yourself British as well as 'Cornish' or whatever you are?
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 8:09 am
  #120  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
EMR'-----what is the matter with you? That you cannot accept that people living in India were Indian????? It was not a "Nation" in modern terms. However they knew where they lived and what they were!!!!!!
They use the word "Indian", when speaking English.
The people are not as stupid as you want them to be!

How can YOU know how people regarded themselves??????
How many Indian people have you known born in the 1800s, how many Indian 90 year olds have you known?

Which county in the UK do you live in? Are you not capable of calling yourself British as well as 'Cornish' or whatever you are?
Given that you do not believe that your OH who was born in India, an Indian national who moved to the UK is not in your mind a migrant proves that .your logic process has to be questioned..
You have again confirmed that Indian was a " foreign " shorthand not a nationality..
England became nation at least 800 years before India so your comparisons are meaningless , with The United Kingdom created thec18th century. With the act of union..

Maybe what upsets you is that the inhabitants of vast areas of the Raj chose not to become Indian citizens, when the state of India was created , even millions more would have done had they been given the choice

I have no local loyalty never have had, I am British,..
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.