India / Pakistan division

[Tefal]

its where i stay and me and my boys are feared by every nightclub bouncer in glasgow, there is only 1 nightlcub that will let us in, we have been knocked back from clubs over 500 times and we are given stupid excuses like, your not dressed smart enough when im wearing jeans and a top and they just let a caucasian into the club in front of me and he was wearing a hoody and a rucksack,

can anyone explain why Punjabi's arent allowed into any nightclub in glasgow unless they know the bouncers? its because they know if anyone messes with us they are gonna have to try and control us and we gonna tear them a new one

So much for religion of peace eh?

Maybe its just cause you'll say something like this to a scott an how you could beet the carp out of him, and they will subsequently have to explain where there was a bunch of Punjabi's beaten to death in thier night club.

 

[VIRII]

So much for religion of peace eh?

Maybe its just cause you'll say something like this to a scott an how you could beet the carp out of him, and they will subsequently have to explain where there was a bunch of Punjabi's beaten to death in thier night club.

He's not a muslim.

 

[VIRII]

To the people who believe India would not have amounted to much if England had not invaded : completely untrue. True that at that point of time they did not unity, but it has existed under previous leaders such as Akbar the Great and Asoka the Great who conquered pretty much most of India and was very prosperous under them. If it can happen then, it can happen again. Links to western world etc, while the language that the British left behind is indeed a massive asset to us currently, China seems to be doing fairly well without it. No reason we can't do the same.

LOL. Yup the last time you prospered someone else conquered you, this time you benefit from the British legacy.
The reason you can't do the same is because you never have, never needed to. No-one can say what *would* have been only what was.
A fractured country with no unity, internal division by religion and culture, no industry, no infrastructure would suddenly become something..... lol.
China is extremely unified, has central Govt and that is why China is "doing ok".

 

[VIRII]

Rubbish. Pieces of ART etc have value, but it doesn't mean the owner wants to sell it for it to have value, because its a prized possession.

Like my Grandad had medals for serving in the War, its a prized family possession and you don't have to sell it for it to have value, neither is it worthless,it has sentimental value.

The Kohinoor was also a possession in the same way but was forced to give up it up to Britain at the time.

What garbage, how was India FORCED to give up the diamond? At the time there was no "india" either except as a landmass.
It may also interest you to know that plenty of other places claim the diamond was originally theirs and that the diamond has changed hands many times.

from wiki:
Given the long and bloody history of the diamond, there are many countries with a claim on it. In 1976, Pakistan prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto asked British prime minister Jim Callaghan for the Koh-i-Noor to be returned to Pakistan. The prime minister replied to Mr Bhutto with a polite "No", and British diplomats in the countries likely to counter this claim were asked to lobby to 'kill the story'.[4] Other claims have been made by India,[5] the Taliban regime of Afghanistan,[6] and Iran. As of 2007, the gem remains in the Tower of London.

 

[Tefal]

He's not a muslim.

thought all these people claimed their religion was peaceful, still may bad though shikism(sp?) was an off shot of islam, is it more related to hinduism then or something entirely seperate?

 

[VIRII]

thought all these people claimed their religion was peaceful, still may bad though shikism(sp?) was an off shot of islam, is it more related to hinduism then or something entirely seperate?

Entirely seperate.

 

[Tefal]

Entirely seperate.

Ahh thank you.

 

[VIRII]

Ahh thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism

Worth a read.

 

[pallys]

What garbage, how was India FORCED to give up the diamond?

On March 29, 1849, the British flag was hoisted on the citadel of Lahore and the Punjab was formally proclaimed to be part of the British Empire in India. One of the terms of the Treaty of Lahore, the legal agreement formalising this occupation, was as follows:

The gem called the Koh-i-Noor which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharajah Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.

The Governor-General in charge for the ratification of this treaty was Lord Dalhousie. More than anyone, Dalhousie was responsible for the British acquiring the Koh-i-Noor, in which he continued to show great interest for the rest of his life. Dalhousie's work in India was sometimes controversial, and his acquisition of the diamond, amongst many other things, was criticised by some contemporary British commentators.

Now I can hardly imagine the Indians having a say in that treaty...

 

[VIRII]

Now I can hardly imagine the Indians having a say in that treaty...

Oh well as long as you can hardly imagine it then it must be true.
A treaty generally has input from both sides. And who is the rightful owner of the diamond.... which victorious conquistador deserves it? Clearly not the person who actually dug it up or his decendents but one or other of the many people who waged war and took it as a spoil?

 

[Sudden]

LOL. Yup the last time you prospered someone else conquered you, this time you benefit from the British legacy.
The reason you can't do the same is because you never have, never needed to. No-one can say what *would* have been only what was.
A fractured country with no unity, internal division by religion and culture, no industry, no infrastructure would suddenly become something..... lol.
China is extremely unified, has central Govt and that is why China is "doing ok".

Difference being, they conquered the different states, and then led the entire kingdom as one. They did not differentiate between types of people, there were not different rules applying to people of different states. There was complete freedom of religion, not force to bend under one particular one (Christians for example under British rule were given privileges that others were not) They did not after making sure they were the leaders, export all its wealth somewhere else, they used it to better the country itself.
It was fractured at that point of time yes, but there have also been times when it was not fractured. You cannot judge an entire country from one view and ignore the other.

And yes, there were undoubtedly benefits from the British rule, but also plenty of disadvantages, barring the obvious one of no freedom such as being treated as second class citizens in our own country.

As for the current religious problems, yes they exist, but much more than that also does complete harmony. I'm hindu and had plenty of muslim friends growing up at school, and no one gave a rat's ass whose what. Most people don't. It's just when extremists try to stir things up. Everyime something happens, some idiot gets into his head its do to withr eligion and tries spreading that, and more often than not it works. Sure that problem it exists, but how can you forget all the times it doesnt and people live peacefully? If we were truly so against others, how come our president is muslim and our prime minister is sikh? who took the place of an elected catholic prime minister who stepped down (albiet probably from a fear of being assassinated like every otehr Gandhi in power )

China was just an example to show that to develop links to the western world, being conquered by a western power is not a pre-requisite.

 

[Sudden]

Gandhi was very much against it, he agreed for peace.

"I am a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew"

He is awesome.

Yes, but point remains, he agreed And as it's fairly obvious, it didn't exactly do a lot of good now did it? Many people believe that if he had held out, complete independence without division would be possible. Plus, some arguments exist taht he did so merely to be able to place his own man (Jawaharlal Nehru) in power, even though another leader at the time (Sardar Patel) would have made a far better choice.

Admittedly though, my knowledge about this is sketchy at best and not very detailed. Am looking for some good books about it if anyone has any recommendations

 

[Tefal]

The Sikh religion or Khalsa recommends its followers keep these five K's: kesh, kada, kirpan, kangha, kaccha [unshorn hair, the steel bracelet, the short-sword, a comb, and loose breeches that do not go below the knees]. In India we can see many sikhs with these five K's which easily help recognize who is a Sikh

- from the wiki link


maybe this is why they wont let you in

 

[pallys]

Oh well as long as you can hardly imagine it then it must be true.
A treaty generally has input from both sides. And who is the rightful owner of the diamond.... which victorious conquistador deserves it? Clearly not the person who actually dug it up or his decendents but one or other of the many people who waged war and took it as a spoil?

Britain defeated Punjab. The so called 'treaty', Britain granted the diamond to themselves. Do you think they willfully gave it away ?

Your being nieve and claiming both sides had input to the treaty, when in fact once Punjab was defeated, Britain could do anything they liked, and did. And then your surprised at the resentment

It's not just India that are having these issues with Britain either. Greece tried to get back some ornaments Britain had stolen too in time for the Olympic games. But thats for another thread, there can potentially be loads at this rate

 

[Tefal]

Should have got together an defended your sleves rather than just getting the british to destroy your enemys, then turning on you.

 

[VIRII]

Difference being, they conquered the different states, and then led the entire kingdom as one. They did not differentiate between types of people, there were not different rules applying to people of different states. There was complete freedom of religion, not force to bend under one particular one (Christians for example under British rule were given privileges that others were not) They did not after making sure they were the leaders, export all its wealth somewhere else, they used it to better the country itself.
It was fractured at that point of time yes, but there have also been times when it was not fractured. You cannot judge an entire country from one view and ignore the other.

And yes, there were undoubtedly benefits from the British rule, but also plenty of disadvantages, barring the obvious one of no freedom such as being treated as second class citizens in our own country.

As for the current religious problems, yes they exist, but much more than that also does complete harmony. I'm hindu and had plenty of muslim friends growing up at school, and no one gave a rat's ass whose what. Most people don't. It's just when extremists try to stir things up. Everyime something happens, some idiot gets into his head its do to withr eligion and tries spreading that, and more often than not it works. Sure that problem it exists, but how can you forget all the times it doesnt and people live peacefully? If we were truly so against others, how come our president is muslim and our prime minister is sikh? who took the place of an elected catholic prime minister who stepped down (albiet probably from a fear of being assassinated like every otehr Gandhi in power )

China was just an example to show that to develop links to the western world, being conquered by a western power is not a pre-requisite.

None of which in any way, shape or form explains your total lack of unity, industry, government or gives any indication as to how or why you'd suddenly have become something without being ruled by a country who were something.
What miraculous event would have suddenly united India and created the network of railways and infrastructure, government and industry?

 

[pallys]

Should have got together an defended your sleves rather than just getting the british to destroy your enemys, then turning on you.

You miss the point. What most people are upset about is that Britain shouldn't have attacked in the first place. Thats where the resentment comes from Indians, and Europeans.

Virri, read up on Elgin Marbles that were taken from Greece, very similar to the Kohinoor situation...

A group of celebrities and politicians has launched a campaign to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece.

The Parthenon 2004 campaign pledged to make the British government and museum curators send back the ancient sculptures in time for the Olympics in Athens in 2004.

The Parthenon without the marbles is devalued
Richard Allan MP
Among those supporting the drive are actresses Vanessa Redgrave, Fiona Shaw and Janet Suzman and politicians from all the major parties.

Prime Minister Tony Blair and curators at the British Museum are adamant the historic sculptures will not be returned to Greece, even on loan.

The marble friezes were removed from the Acropolis two centuries ago by the then British ambassador and are now housed in the British Museum in London.

In 2001, the Greek Culture Minister Evangelos Venizelos made a plea to the UK to allow the marbles to travel to Greece in time for the Olympics, 108 years after the first modern games were held there.

Despite a refusal Greece is building a new £29m Acropolis museum in which it hopes to house the sculptures.

 

[VIRII]

Britain defeated Punjab. The so called 'treaty', Britain granted the diamond to themselves. Do you think they willfully gave it away ?

Your being nieve and claiming both sides had input to the treaty, when in fact once Punjab was defeated, Britain could do anything they liked, and did. And then your surprised at the resentment

It's not just India that are having these issues with Britain either. Greece tried to get back some ornaments Britain had stolen too in time for the Olympic games. But thats for another thread, there can potentially be loads at this rate

Nieve? Wtf is nieve?
It was a treaty not terms of surrender, they are rather different

The Elgin marbles were removed from Greece with legal permission via royal decree from the Ottoman Empire.
Now whether the conquering Ottomans had a right to give away Greeces heritage is another matter, however they marbles were not "stolen" as you suggest. They were given.

I am neither "naive" nor uneducated. So if you wish to try and lecture me about the evils of Empire you need to brush up a bit on your rather lack lustre knowledge.

 

[VIRII]

You miss the point. What most people are upset about is that Britain shouldn't have attacked in the first place. Thats where the resentment comes from Indians, and Europeans.

We did not "attack"
We fought there, we fought against other Eurpoeans there and we fought against some indians on behalf of other indians. You really don't seem to know much about it.

Virri, read up on Elgin Marbles that were taken from Greece, very similar to the Kohinoor situation...

No you read up on it. They were not "stolen". They were given under Royal Decree.

I wonder what you are going to try and tell me next? Do we really owe Tower Bridge to the Americans because when they bought London Bridge they were under the mistaken impression that Tower Bridge was London Bridge?
I knwo it is trendy these days to teach kids in school about how Evil Britain enslaved the world, to ignore William Wilberforce or who actually sold who to the traders, to pretend that Islam never took anywhere by conquest and that only the UK was involved in any overseas colonisation but you really, really need to learn a lot more before you spout this rubbish.

Property and land has passed hands by way of conquest for hundreds of years, many "treasures" in many museums around the world come from origins outside the lands in which they now reside. The world isn't a very nice place. Deal with it.

 

[pallys]

None of which in any way, shape or form explains your total lack of unity, industry, government or gives any indication as to how or why you'd suddenly have become something without being ruled by a country who were something.
What miraculous event would have suddenly united India and created the network of railways and infrastructure, government and industry?

How can you sit at your PC and claim India were incapable of such? I mean even China was ruled by separate provinces and they turned out fine...Thats what 'Evolution' is, you might wanna look up its definition