Tronic

And to think of it, the Mahabharatta ranges from Kurukshettra to the Nagas, and even down to Lanka! Yet there was no such thing as Hindustaniat?

And to add here; we may offend the hell out of each other; but when an Afghan or a Turk mentions how their forefathers plundered Punjab; it is Tamils, Bengalis, and others who rise in defense; despite them having nothing to do with Punjab. Any reason, why that is so?

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Ray

Tronic,

Notwithstanding the diversity of all Indians, be it food, culture and language, it was the Indian independence movement led by the Congress Party against British occupation that really united India mentally as one nation!!

In fact, 1857 was the turning point, though I would not term it as the First War of Independence as some do.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Tronic

Right sir. Indian nationalism was indeed a gift of the British! No contesting that.

Ray

Who are the 'nationalists'?

The Communists?

Tronic

Sir, I think he means the Chinese people which we see on t.v. yelling "Tibet is Ours!"

nonameitis

our chinese world,that you can't just understand it just by THINKING

bolo121

Its an epic story dude naturally the scenery changes. And your other argument is strange. So some guys band together to defend India.
I still state, this is a recent phenomenon and was a direct result as ray sir said of British Occupation for nearly 2 centuries.
until then we were different peoples living in the geographical area known to us as Hindustan. There was no common brotherhood. We did (and in a reduced fashion still do) fight like crazy.

sherman004

It seems that you had read through all those words. I admit that the words touched somebody's cuts. I edited that under an angry status so it had been passed over to somebody else. I was a student satting at Tian An Men Square. I agreed many of criticism toward to the government of China. But this time, Chinese are really hurted. Those Chinese on TV and myself are living or were born in western countries. They have little links to the government. Most of them are out of western education system and atmosphere. I don't understand the purposes to hurt Chinese like that. If hurting Chinese is only the purpose, just carry on. If not, as you mentioned intelligent, rational argument, even it is hard to find by reading throught the forum, I would like to know WHY. Please provide some facts. I have prepared to change if they will sound reasonable.

ned kelly

sherman, methinks you do protest too much!

it's a rather clever ( if the other person doesn't see it ) way of winning an argument.....by saying you are hurting chinese pride or face in raising this criticism you try to stop the argument there, instead of actually addressing what the other person is saying. as valid as their points are.

i've always wondered about "face" in asia....don't western people have "face" too? no?

chalk it up as another cultural cliche maybe, like asian people don't value life as much as western people do ( which i think is rubbish also )

__________________
Illegitimi non carborundum

nonameitis

basicly, chinese value to live in honest,honor first, second maybe life or something

abhishek

LOL, are the ordinary folk in China really THAT clueless or do they pretend to be ? It all begins and ends around politics, the Olympics is no exception.

Tronic

More then a 1000 year old epic story which applies and talks of all Indian lands ranging from the North to the South, from the East to the West. Ironical, no? Anyways, I'd like to have this convo but not on this thread, PM me.

I have stated the same thing.

Theres my point. Again, don't wish to hijack this thread, so PM me.

astralis

tronic,

or is china merely sitting on it because giving up such claims would make the CCP lose face? this isn't a rhetorical question- many china watchers don't know if china really IS just waiting for the day it becomes stronger to act, or if the claims remain just because china doesn't gain much by getting rid of them.

sure, within a democracy the tibetans would most likely have more rights- but they wouldn't have the numbers to vote themselves independent.

sorry, a bit of political wordage here. democracy and liberalism (seperation of powers, free press, etc etc) are related but not the same. an empire can be liberal but not democratic, and the two examples you give demonstrate this.

perhaps, but then again not. i think the balkan wars and the various african wars have shown how little things have changed in regards to "thinking and morals" in touchy subjects such as national borders and sovereignty...and the lack of decisive UN involvement demonstrates how little the world cares.

in any case, the chinese would have another argument altogether- that because their nation was formed later to begin with, it should be allowed all the same "tools of development" that other nations used when they were becoming unified.

from my standpoint, i don't believe either china, the CCP, or the chinese people to be inherently bad, not when the world has some truly disgusting regimes in comparison today- north korea springs to mind. the worry comes simply because of china's size. i suspect if china was the size of thailand, for instance, no one would really care either about china's historical claims or human rights problems. i think this is something the chinese themselves don't fully understand.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Cactus

The modern global system requires a certain degree of transparency: Propaganda is either taken at its face value in statement of intent, or the whole machinery is taken to be opaque and fundamentally incompatible with the global system.

Sorry, but your facts are way off: The British presence in India was held with around 190,000 regular troops, 40,000 Class A state forces, 60,000 Class B state forces, 40,000 Class C state forces, around 80,000 members in various police forces. Additionally there was an intricate IIB and predecessor intelligence organizations.

Further, the British presence was secured by a strategic relay of outposts - running from Aden to Singapore - monitoring all southern approaches to India; the north-western approach was secured by keeping the Afghan tribes in constant turmoil, and by constant contest for influence (sometimes through naked aggression) in Kabul and Tehran; the north-eastern approach was secured by a Royal Navy that could blow Peiking to bloody smitherens (as it had habitually demonstrated in conflicts of much lesser importance to Britain than security of India).

Numerous factors went into unravelling the British Empire - modern political nationalism in India being one of them - but no one factor can be attributed as the "ONLY" tipping point. It is gross simplification; ultimately leading to false suppositions for other arguments.

Adux

Catcus,

Of which how many were 'white' troops?


Adu