What was india in 1835,How British destroyed India.

[Joe Shearer]

I take it that your comprehension level is that of a goat, due to the nature of this subject when we say "Indian" we exclude Muslims only for the reason that we are referring to NON MUSLIMS.

Mama Goat, the nature of this subject does not change the rules of arithmetic or the ways in which we refer to aggregates; when you say Indian, you are not referring to Non-Muslims, but to Indians. I don't know why you find this confusing. To continue with the lessons, Non-Muslims are Non-Muslim Indians, not Indians. You cannot refer to Indians, 1,210 millions of them, and assume that people will understand your convoluted reasoning that you are actually, really talking about the 1,047 millions who are not Muslim. What happened to 163 million Muslim Indians? Did they "vanish"? Be careful; you sound more and more like a prize nanny goat that we watch at her antics every day on TV.

 

[jayron]

I think India should change it's name to Hindustan or Bharat because Indus River and Indus Valley Civilization belongs to Pakistan, not Bharat...

would you prefer calling Pakistan as India then? India sounds better isn't it? lol. BTW, Hindu is also the name derived from Indus.

 

[t_for_talli]

What was india in 1835,How British destroyed India.
Lord Macaulay's Address to the British Parliament 2nd February, 1835

PS:In 1835 pakistan is a part of india

India was always the largest economy before Mughals/Britishers looted it.
List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Mama Goat, the nature of this subject does not change the rules of arithmetic or the ways in which we refer to aggregates; when you say Indian, you are not referring to Non-Muslims, but to Indians. I don't know why you find this confusing. To continue with the lessons, Non-Muslims are Non-Muslim Indians, not Indians. You cannot refer to Indians, 1,210 millions of them, and assume that people will understand your convoluted reasoning that you are actually, really talking about the 1,047 millions who are not Muslim. What happened to 163 million Muslim Indians? Did they "vanish"? Be careful; you sound more and more like a prize nanny goat that we watch at her antics every day on TV.

Instead of excepting your mistake like a man, you chose to argue like a suborn goat.
Let me help you understand this in 4 years old language.
Indian entertainment media which i previously referred to promotes NON ISLAMIC agenda meaning Islam has nothing to do with it and when ever you come across "Indian entertainment media" it only means Non-Muslim's culture, moral values. This ***** promoted by Indian entertainment media such as bollywood is not being injected in our people instead they chose to get it injected in them which is deviating them from their culture which is suppose to be according to the principles of Islam.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Instead of excepting your mistake like a man, you chose to argue like a suborn goat.
Let me help you understand this in 4 years old language.
Indian entertainment media which i previously referred to promotes NON ISLAMIC agenda meaning Islam has nothing to do with it and when ever you come across "Indian entertainment media" it only means Non-Muslim's culture, moral values. This ***** promoted by Indian entertainment media such as bollywood is not being injected in our people instead they chose to get it injected in them which is deviating them from their culture which is suppose to be according to the principles of Islam.

I suggest, Mrs. Goat, that you should take lessons and improve your English first. You must also hire a competent teacher to explain to you how to reason out simple arguments.

This is what you said, exactly:

Muslim culture, moral values are being replaced by non-Muslims and the evidence is right in your tele screen which promotes western and Indian culture.

What I understand is that Muslim culture and Indian culture represent two different things to you. That is fine with me. Why don't you just say that is what you mean? Why are you floundering, and going into long-winded (and unnecessary) explanations?

Now we have a very serious problem posed by you, and it goes thus

This ***** promoted by Indian entertainment media such as bollywood is not being injected in our people instead they chose to get it injected in them which is deviating them from their culture which is suppose to be according to the principles of Islam.

If we can wade through your Madrasa English, you seem to be trying to say that something cultural is being injected into some people, and the injection changes the cultural make-up of those people.

You also appear to be unhappy about the change in cultural make-up of those people.

I feel deeply for you and sympathise with your maternal instincts. At the same time, I wonder why

their culture which is suppose to be according to the principles of Islam

is so fragile that some random producers, directors, actors, distributors, cinema owners and camera operators can overthrow it or deviate people from it. What value is such a weak thing

their culture which is suppose to be according to the principles of Islam.

Would you like to give up this tension of worrying about the culture injections and the cultural make-up of your little goats, and act in Hollywood? I can arrange for certain producers who are always looking for young talent to interview you. All you have to do is stretch out on a couch, and breathe deeply; the rest will be done as quick as an injection.

 

[Hello_10]

India was always the largest economy before Mughals/Britishers looted it.
List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

half incorrect. There was a difference between Mughal rule and British rule. Mughal were Indians so whatever they got in India, it remained inside India. but British were never Indians, so whatever they got in India, they took it to Britain

Mughal rule of India was a type of golden rule, specially in the time of Akbar. India is a country of 1000 languages, only those could rule the people who know the culture and local people/ their language. And Mughal rule formed a ‘central government’ in India which had many states who were ruled by the local kings who knew the people, local culture/ language etc. Mughal rule was based on two simple conditions:

1st, Pay Jajiya tax from your state every year

2nd, Your army has to be ready to fight for the Mughal whenever they are asked.

Rest Mughal rule had a very limited interfere in local states, regardless what these local kings do in their states. Like, Mughal King Akbar was the first Mughal King who was born in India and he was married to his Hindu wife, Jodhabai, without changing her religion, she remained Hindu after her marriage to Akbar also

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I suggest, Mrs. Goat, that you should take lessons and improve your English first. You must also hire a competent teacher to explain to you how to reason out simple arguments.

This is what you said, exactly:



What I understand is that Muslim culture and Indian culture represent two different things to you. That is fine with me. Why don't you just say that is what you mean? Why are you floundering, and going into long-winded (and unnecessary) explanations?

Now we have a very serious problem posed by you, and it goes thus



If we can wade through your Madrasa English, you seem to be trying to say that something cultural is being injected into some people, and the injection changes the cultural make-up of those people.

You also appear to be unhappy about the change in cultural make-up of those people.

I feel deeply for you and sympathise with your maternal instincts. At the same time, I wonder why



is so fragile that some random producers, directors, actors, distributors, cinema owners and camera operators can overthrow it or deviate people from it. What value is such a weak thing



Would you like to give up this tension of worrying about the culture injections and the cultural make-up of your little goats, and act in Hollywood? I can arrange for certain producers who are always looking for young talent to interview you. All you have to do is stretch out on a couch, and breathe deeply; the rest will be done as quick as an injection.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a stubborn beggar who will bring you down to his low level. I will leave after I have made this point very clear. BRITAIN assisted India for its creation.
You can stand in front of mirror and argue all you want because i am not coming back to read your irrelevant posts.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a stubborn beggar who will bring you down to his low level. I will leave after I have made this point very clear. BRITAIN assisted India for its creation.
You can stand in front of mirror and argue all you want because i am not coming back to read your irrelevant posts.

True, both India and Pakistan.

For the rest, Mrs G,

Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow,
That I shall say good night till it be morrow.

 

[danger007]

whatever brits took our precious Kohinoor diamond.... Found in (Kollur) Near my home town....

 

[Hello_10]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/190573-why-china-soviet-union.html

till 1947, Britian, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc were part of one country, the Britain. and if we see this graph, economy size of the state Britain increased on the expanse of the states of South Asia. the larger size of state of British economy since 1820 to 1950, and it had almost a similar decline of economy size of states of South Asia/ India.
(mainly in between 1820 to 1900, almost a similar growth of economic size of Britain as decline of economic size of South Asia/India. and after 1900, Britain wasted Indian wealth in WW1 and WW2 so even in Indian economy continue to decline in between 1990 to 1947 also, British economic size was almost same in between 1900 to 1947, have a close look on this graph..............)

and its very simple right now also. for example, if all the talents of Indian Subcontinent start developing techs for British industries only and then Britain starts selling those products at high price in South Asia itself, then simply you will only do agriculture to pay for high price for luxury life of British . like, how share of agriculture in Indian economy was around 70% at the time of freedom

but it would first be required to rob India completely, looting every gold/diamond and other luxury stuffs, enslaving all those who may do any business, to make them working for the state of Britain only. and then, conduct different competitive exams held in UK to hire the best Indian talents to have high techs, like how British made a system during British Raj in India

 

[Joe Shearer]

I suggest you use a better example, not a thread where the first post is a forgery, to make your point.

 

[Hello_10]

do you have the copy of the documents of the court where it was proved? while it has been accepted on many places that it is a piece of paper of a very old book, written sometimes in 19th century, and a scan of that page you are reading as above

while on the other side, you have a graph as above stating the status of British economy as compare to India in 1835. rest, read as below to get to know from where Lord came to India, the life style he lived with other British when he visited India in 1835:

Not much was written about poverty in the Middle Ages. The poor were not considered important. Much more was written about the rich and powerful.

However in the Middle Ages poverty was common. England was basically a subsistence economy where each village made most of the things it needed and most of the population were subsistence farmers. They grew as much food as their families needed (if they were lucky).

Surprisingly, perhaps, examining Medieval skeletons shows that most people had an adequate diet, except in times of famine.

However life must have been very hard for the disabled. There were many disabled beggars in Medieval towns.

The Church tried to help the poor. The Church taught that it was a Christian duty to give to the poor. In monasteries a monk called an almoner gave alms to the poor. However in the Middle Ages fearful poverty was an inescapable part of life.

Things did improve after the Black Death of 1348-49. In England about one third of the population died. Afterwards there was a shortage of workers so wages rose. In the 15th century wage labourers were better off then in the 13th century.

A History of Poverty

 

[Joe Shearer]

do you have the copy of the documents of the court where it was proved? while it has been accepted on many places that it is a piece of paper of a very old book, written sometimes in 19th century, and a scan of that page you are reading as above

while on the other side, you have a graph as above stating the status of British economy as compare to India in 1835. rest, read as below to get to know from where Lord came to India, the life style he lived with other British when he visited India in 1835:

The proof is not in court, it is in the facts of the case. Read it up before raising silly questions and posing as an expert. Macaulay never addressed Parliament on this issue. He left England in 1834 and was in India until 1838. In 1835, he wrote a famous minute on education. That text is in the public domain, and it has nothing to do with the rubbish being circulated, which is a total forgery.

I do not know why you are clinging on desperately to this trash, when you have other sources and documents to make your point. What you are doing is a waste of time, everybody's time.

 

[Fazlu]

There is a pattern here. With advancements in Indian economy, social indicators and general wealth ; our people tend to fabricate utter lies to assume some kind of superiority.

I dont what these guys are hoping to prove here.

India is a great nation with rich history and culture. You dont need to fabricate a seal of approval from a foreigner to prove it. Such attempts negates the goodwill generated by our actual contribution to the world and makes everything look like a joke.

 

[Srinivas]

untrue and fabricated, even if some elements are true this is something that Indians would like to make a mountain out of a molehill.

These are the same marhattas that my great ancestor abdali destroyed and killed like pigs, so where were the jatts then and hundred of years before that?.

A lot of Pakistanis who are chest thumping of Turkic and Afgan culture are born to Hindu ancestors who were forcefully converted to Islam by foreign invaders.