Bose, Not Gandhi, Ended British Rule In India: Ambedkar

[SarthakGanguly]

Yes, but that was a long time back. Portugal was already in decline when the 20th century hit.. and even humiliatingly accepted an ultimatum from the british to withdraw from their lands in Africa. The british could have easily taken goa.

And suffer a massive diplomatic disaster? Especially when they were dependent on the New World for....everything?

 

[MiG-21]

So, when they didn't want to be in the India, India sent its army navy and took that land.

That is what patel would have done irrespective of goa's history. Vessel, vassal, what not. You, you were asking that. You got the answer ? Lol...

You're not reading my points.

It does not, I repeat does not matter whether they like it or not, India was Bharat, inspite of different kings of the land. Under British rule, the British let princely states continue, when British went back, they became India proper, constitution and all. India became a modern nation.

India existed before too. Not as a modern nation, but as a land of Hindus, sanatan dharmis, called as Bharat. If it doesn't go down your throat despite being shown our willingness to go to war to unify India going by your own logic, what can I do ? You think what you think. I am feeling bored, so do it with someone else. I can't and not really willing to convince you.

Yes they might not even have wanted to be part of india like you said. And patel send the troops because Goa didnt even have a proper military and was almost a vassal state of the britsh which only survived because of british benevolence.

And suffer a massive diplomatic disaster? Especially when they were dependent on the New World for....everything?

Well they didnt suffer a "diplomatic disaster" when they literally threated portual to get our of africcan lands in 1890, which they did took seriously and just ran.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

africcan lands in 1890.

1890.

I am talking about post WWI. Plus, there was little to gain from Portuguese Goa.

 

[Cat Shannon]

Yes they might not even have wanted to be part of india like you said. And patel send the troops because Goa didnt even have a proper military and was almost a vassal state of the britsh which only survived because of british benevolence.



Well they didnt suffer a "diplomatic disaster" when they literally threated portual to get our of africcan lands in 1890, which they did took seriously and just ran.

No, my point is it was India's land since Bharat's times. Period.

We took it back. Period.

You can't digest it, not my problem. Period.

 

[MiG-21]

1890.

I am talking about post WWI. Plus, there was little to gain from Portuguese Goa.

Post ww1, portugal was even weaker than 1890 !

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Post ww1, portugal was even weaker than 1890 !

I told you before the reason. I won't repeat it. Europe was heating up as well. Don't quote me if you don't have anything substantial to add, please.

 

[MiG-21]

No, my point is it was India's land since Bharat's times. Period.

We took it back. Period.

You can't digest it, not my problem. Period.

There is no such things as India's land. India was a land of kingdoms, not a 'one India' for most of its existance. And that's it.

I told you before the reason. I won't repeat it. Europe was heating up as well. Don't quote me if you don't have anything substantial to add, please.

It has nothing to do with the discussion. British could have easily taken Goa if they wanted to in the 19th century itself when they gave the ultimatum in africa.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

There is no such things as India's land. India was a land of kingdoms, not a 'one India' for most of its existance. And that's it.

No nation state has. Nation states are a 19th century creation. Your perceptions are colored by your knowledge. Which is bad, because there is little. Italy, Germany, England, Scandinavia, Andalus/Spain, Chin, etc - none existed continuously.

It has nothing to do with the discussion. British could have easily taken Goa if they wanted to in the 19th century itself when they gave the ultimatum in africa.

Not bothered.

 

[MiG-21]

No nation state has. Nation states are a 19th century creation. Your perceptions are colored by your knowledge. Which is bad, because there is little.

Tell that to the guy who says, "its India's land". Wrong person to quote.

 

[Cat Shannon]

There is no such things as India's land. India was a land of kingdoms, not a 'one India' for most of its existance. And that's it.


It has nothing to do with the discussion. British could have easily taken Goa if they wanted to in the 19th century itself when they gave the ultimatum in africa.

Dude, not just this land existed even before king bharat existed, the people existed too, they were Hindus.

I would say Pakistan is actually India's land. You'll agree with me, no ?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Tell that to the guy who says, "its India's land". Wrong person to quote.

Again shot on the wrong foot. The country existed, the people existed. The unified political apparatus often did not.

Goa is Indian land - no doubt. Many Christians have problems with that, but they can emigrate to Portugal. That option is given to them by that country as well. Many did.

 

[MiG-21]

Dude, not just this land existed even before king bharat existed, the people existed too, they were Hindus.

I would say Pakistan is actually India's land. You'll agree with me, no ?

That land they are in is a part of India yes. But that's not the discussion.

Again shot on the wrong foot. The country existed, the people existed. The unified political apparatus often did not.

Goa is Indian land - no doubt. Many Christians have problems with that, but they can emigrate to Portugal. That option is given to them by that country as well. Many did.

Yes they all existed. But the people from ancient times didn't bother about any grand one nation. They just existed, they didn't wish to be part of any grand nation.

 

[Cat Shannon]

That land they are in is a part of India yes. But that's not the discussion.


Yes they all existed. But the people from ancient times didn't bother about any grand one nation. They just existed, they didn't wish to be part of any grand nation.

THAT land was called Bhaarat in the past after Hindu king Bharat.

Now it is called India.

Hindus lived then.

Hindus live now. Muslims and Christians and Zoroastrians and people of a boatload of faiths live as well.

It's the same thing, Bharat, India, Indus valley civilization, HIND, Hindustan,

All mean India. Just given different names over time by different people.

Lol..

Actually Pakistan is India's land. We are generous that we let you live there with in your own words, "ravaged by savages, looking for a history" LoL..

 

[MiG-21]

THAT land was called Bhaarat in the past after Hindu king Bharat.

Now it is called India.

Hindus lived then.

Hindus live now. Muslims and Christians and Zoroastrians and people of a boatload of faiths live as well.

It's the same thing, Bharat, India, Indus valley civilization, HIND, Hindustan,

All mean India. Just given different names over time by different people.

Lol..

Actually Pakistan is India's land. We are generous that we let you live there with in your own words, "ravaged by savages, looking for a history" LoL..

Who cares if the king was called bharat or a lemur. Just because some guy called bharat lived, makes people automatically to wish for a "India" out of vaccum? The concept of "a single rule India" existed only for very few moments of the subcontinent's history. And people who lived in this land for millenia, never wished to be part of some big single ruled entity. That wish is only 'recent', its bearing is mostly influenced by the freedom struggle against a common enemy.

 

[Cat Shannon]

I dont care what the pakistan's say. they are nothing more than a effluent of external invasion. They are just a conquered people in search of a history.

@MiG-21