Does India deserve Independence?

[unhappyboy]

Some people say India's independence is akin to freedom given to a spoilt brat. He will misuse it, and become a danger to himself and to those around him. Similar is India's so-called independence, they say, because this is one nation that refuses to learn, is corrupt to the core, suppresses minorities, divides people on the basis of caste, language, and so forth. A free India cannot even build roads, develop villages, modernize cities. A free India cannot ensure security to its citizens. And the list is long.

Bottom line, must UN strip India of independence, so it could be governed by a coalition of 'mature, developed' nations? Not exactly colonialism, but a benevolent governance, where India's freedom to entertain corruption etc. will be greatly reduced. So far, India has only used freedom to do 'wrong.' Not only politicians, but even people are similar to children with no maturity or values, too loud and uncivil, violent to fellow humans and animals.

Therefore, it's obivous that such a nation doesn't deserve freedom. But what are the options, if any? Let's discuss without getting emotional about this. No flaming, please.

[kb]

enga ungalukku ipidi ellam thonuthu.. :roll:

[Shakthiprabha.]

Cite us a 'nation' , which can be taken as a lovely example, like which ONE SHOULD RISE!

A nation which is devoid of corruption, where politicians are highly matured intellectuals with SACRIFICING tendency and where LARGELY CITIZENS are MATURED WITH LOTS OF VALUES, too SUBTLE, very civilized and forgiving and kind to fellow humans and animals, RISEN in all aspects of modernisation and technology, YET RETAINING values etc

All beautifully packed wrapped like a gift in ONE SINGLE nation.

Then we shall think talk of further options!

[pavalamani pragasam]

iththanai varushaththula suthanthira india saathichirukkiRa evvvvaLo vishayam ethum unhappy boy kannula padalai? He better think positively, less cynically.

[thamizhvaanan]

I thot freedom is the one of the few good things in India... Unhappy boy wants that to be stripped too :?

[crazy]

enga ungalukku ipidi ellam thonuthu.. :roll:

:exactly:

[Shakthiprabha.]

iththanai varushaththula suthanthira india saathichirukkiRa evvvvaLo vishayam ethum unhappy boy kannula padalai? He better think positively, less cynically.

EXACTLY!

[unhappyboy]

iththanai varushaththula suthanthira india saathichirukkiRa evvvvaLo vishayam ethum unhappy boy kannula padalai?

Can't think of any. Can you? :lol: :lol:

[podalangai]

___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

[unhappyboy]

I thot freedom is the one of the few good things in India... Unhappy boy wants that to be stripped too :?

You've got to be kidding me. Freedom in the Indian context means freedom to cheat, steal, kill, and so on. How is this any good? Like I said earlier, freedom is dangerous for children, mad people etc. You do suppress freedom, when a child wants to jump from a building, don't you? Likewise, certain nations are similar to irresponsible children, and so their freedoms must be curbed, if only to protect them.

In the 21st century world, concepts like independence have little significance. We are all dependent one way or the other. Is it not shameful that we depend on corrupt politicians, apathetic officials, and the rest? And since dependence has become inevitable, why not depend on superior people and make the most of it?

If we only have two choices #1 Depend on corrupt Indians for so-called self-governance #2 Depend on enlightened west, wouldn't it be better to choose the latter?

[Lambretta]

Cite us a 'nation' , which can be taken as a lovely example, like which ONE SHOULD RISE!

A nation which is devoid of corruption, where politicians are highly matured intellectuals with SACRIFICING tendency and where LARGELY CITIZENS are MATURED WITH LOTS OF VALUES, too SUBTLE, very civilized and forgiving and kind to fellow humans and animals, RISEN in all aspects of modernisation and technology, YET RETAINING values etc

All beautifully packed wrapped like a gift in ONE SINGLE nation.

Then we shall think talk of further options!
:exactly:

:clap: :thumbsup: @ KK akka!

[Lambretta]

___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


:? :confused2: :roll:

[Shakthiprabha.]

___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


:clap: :yessir:

[Lambretta]

:huh:

[Designer]

iththanai varushaththula suthanthira india saathichirukkiRa evvvvaLo vishayam ethum unhappy boy kannula padalai?

Can't think of any. Can you? :lol: :lol:

'unhappy boy' : I can immediately think of some reasons why India should continue to be a free country, instead of a colonial territory :

1. First of all you WOULD NOT have the freedom you are having now, of being able to access the net and post freely in forums like this - the British would have curbed that facility in fear of the patriots keeping in touch via email, chatting, etc.

2. If at all, you COULD access the web, then maybe your ID would be 'very unhappy boy', or 'very oppressed citizen' etc etc.

3. There are troughs & crests in each government's rule, as in life itself.
But one should not have a pessimistic perspective of all things. One has the freedom to be cynical of the present state of the country, the present political leaders (none of whom can be called a 'statesman') but doing away with that freedom itself 'will not be such a good idea' !

[podalangai]

___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


:? :confused2: :roll:

Lamby:
Unhappyboy is very obviously just trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) in order to get us worked up. Do not feed it, and it will go away. (See http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=705934)

[Designer]

podalangai : IMO he's the one who's actullay worked up and unhappy (due to some reasons) and could be using these topics as an outlet for those feelings. At times heated debates tend to rationalise one's opinions, making one see things in the right perspective, and maybe even objectively.

[Lambretta]

Lamby:
Unhappyboy is very obviously just trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) in order to get us worked up. Do not feed it, and it will go away. (See http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=705934)
Ohh.....ok! Tks for the interesting info. on this word "trolling"! :)

[unhappyboy]

Thanks for an excellent response, DESIGNER. Unlike most ppl around here who are paranoid, you seem to have responded rationally.

#1
Not so sure. First off, this also happens in a free India, where recently the govt. banned websites-and who knows-maybe, people are also being watched. Second, we're talking about voluntary submission, so where's the q of rebellion, patriots, whatever? Also, I am not suggesting a particular country colonize India again, rather the UN must control India. This is NOT colonialism, is it?

Suppose Iraq comes under UN's control, we wouldn't call it colonialism, it's only for the sake of Iraq's development. Or, we can say India coming under UN's control is similar to imposing president's rule in a certain state for various reasons like bringing stability etc.

#2

Oppression under Foreign Rule couldn't be much worse than it is now. At least, it comes with development, whereas in a free India, it most often doesn't. Police brutality where prisoners' fingers are chopped off, minority bashing in which certain sections are stripped of their property, lives and limbs, caste oppression, sati, and so many other evils take place in a free India. Could so-called oppression under foreign rule be any worse? Moreover, what I am suggesting is not colonialism, but benevolent intervention from UN to civlize a nation. So comparison to British rule is unfair.

#3

Not doing away, but replacing it with more competent rulers, so there's no conflict between freedom and development.

[unhappyboy]

pavalamani pragasam wrote:
Learning Hindi, speaking it fluently, showing the best of our friendly traits sadly to fail to make the Northies think of us as equal Indians, nay human beings!!!

PP: I heard even in IIT-kanpur, the faculties were divided into two gps, as NI and SI and dont like each other!

From another thread. If this is the unity we've got, can anyone ever believe this country deserves freedom? :lol:

[thamiz]

Does India deserve Independence?

If India does not deserve, then what ? :lol:

We all should find a way to let someone invade us? :lol:

[thamiz]

From another thread. If this is the unity we've got, can anyone ever believe this country deserves freedom? :lol:

See, this is not as serious as you think.

e.g. Texas Austin and Texas A and M hate each other. It is just a cultural rivalry but whne they face a mid-west guy, they will stick together as Texans!

you can unify people only when you find some serious "enemy" or "opponent"! It is as simple as that! :)

[pavalamani pragasam]

What thamiz says is correct!

There are rivalries, discriminations, narrowminded sentiments between the states. But they are petty things, ie not serious enough to bring in UN!!! Unity in diversity is not an unachievable goal! More motivation, lessening of corruption, spreading awareness among the masses, 'educating' people about decent politics( the right to vote, not to be carried away by freebies, empty promises etc), cultivating a better civic sense etc will make our big country a big power, surely. Rome was not in a week.

Come on, unhappyboy! No short cuts like handing over the administration to UN! Think more positively about your concrete contribution to making our country a better place to live in, a great nation to be proud of. It desrves to!

[Lambretta]

Come on, unhappyboy! No short cuts like handing over the administration to UN!
:exactly:
What have they done bout the Kashmir issue ever since Nehru had handed it over to their hands jus after Independance?? :roll:
They still remain 'impotent' to settle that!

[unhappyboy]

Come on, unhappyboy! No short cuts like handing over the administration to UN! Think more positively about your concrete contribution to making our country a better place to live in, a great nation to be proud of. It desrves to!

I don't think they're shortcuts. If Iraq comes under UN's control, do we call it shortcut? No, a desperate nation needs help, and UN as an international body, tries to help. That's all there's to it. No need to bring in self-respect and such issues here. And we can contribute better, if we had an able administration.

[unhappyboy]

Come on, unhappyboy! No short cuts like handing over the administration to UN!
:exactly:
What have they done bout the Kashmir issue ever since Nehru had handed it over to their hands jus after Independance?? :roll:
They still remain 'impotent' to settle that!

Kashmir is NOT under UN's control, so how can it settle that issue?

[Badri]

Cite us a 'nation' , which can be taken as a lovely example, like which ONE SHOULD RISE!

A nation which is devoid of corruption, where politicians are highly matured intellectuals with SACRIFICING tendency and where LARGELY CITIZENS are MATURED WITH LOTS OF VALUES, too SUBTLE, very civilized and forgiving and kind to fellow humans and animals, RISEN in all aspects of modernisation and technology, YET RETAINING values etc

All beautifully packed wrapped like a gift in ONE SINGLE nation.

Then we shall think talk of further options!

Sweden.

I quote this not to belittle India or anything, just to say there are true welfare states in this world.


It is a welfare state of the highest order

The state protects its citizens' interest in every way imaginable

In Sweden there is no special protection/security given to any politicians/ministers etc as they are treated as alike as everyone else

Recently several thousand refugees were granted asylum in Sweden from Iraq.

Despite the cold climate there is human warmth in the country and its government.

My brother lived in Stockholm until recently for 3 years doing his PhD so what I say is not pure reading from some literature

[crazy]

Sweden.

:) why not norway?
all above mentioned qualities does fit for Norway(Norwegians) too

how pathetic?! the topic is about India and i am bringing Norway and all :oops: sorry!

[Shakthiprabha.]

Cite us a 'nation' , which can be taken as a lovely example, like which ONE SHOULD RISE!

A nation which is devoid of corruption, where politicians are highly matured intellectuals with SACRIFICING tendency and where LARGELY CITIZENS are MATURED WITH LOTS OF VALUES, too SUBTLE, very civilized and forgiving and kind to fellow humans and animals, RISEN in all aspects of modernisation and technology, YET RETAINING values etc

All beautifully packed wrapped like a gift in ONE SINGLE nation.

Then we shall think talk of further options!

Sweden.

I quote this not to belittle India or anything, just to say there are true welfare states in this world.


It is a welfare state of the highest order

The state protects its citizens' interest in every way imaginable

In Sweden there is no special protection/security given to any politicians/ministers etc as they are treated as alike as everyone else

Recently several thousand refugees were granted asylum in Sweden from Iraq.

Despite the cold climate there is human warmth in the country and its government.

My brother lived in Stockholm until recently for 3 years doing his PhD so what I say is not pure reading from some literature

Badri, I knew 'SWEDEN' would be the answer. and expected anybody to say so.

(Ive read bout it elsewhere)

I just am clueless about ONE THING ....

How easy do u think it is to achieve this DISCIPLINE in an EXTREMELY DENSELY populated country with thousands of language and caste and creed?

POPULATION definitely is a handicap.

It can be ACHIEVED if each state is declared itself as a seperate nation, and as someone pointed out in some thread, LOOSELY held centralised control for army and other basic necessities alone.

:?

We cannot compare ourselves with A NATION with any other nation due to..

SECULARISM AT ITS height
POPULATION at its height.

Hence, the take off would be slow. We wont probably live to see the take off. BUT IT WOULD BE there in future and history may record it.

[Badri]

No, Vasi, not pathetic. What examples of Sweden and Norway go to prove is that it is possible for countries to become like that.

Let us not use the excuse "which country is like that" to justify India. Granted there are a thousand genuine reasons why India is where India is but let us not hide behind, "show me another country"

That is not the right approach. It is better instead to analyse the reasons why India is where she is and try to tackle them. The questions unhappyboy has unhappily raised have gone through my own mind several times. When I was younger, and consequently rashly idealistic (I am still fairly idealistic, just not as much rash) I used to firmly believe India doesnt deserve independence!!!

Questions such as unhappyboy has raised are what will lead to an honest introspection. Only by facing such issues squarely, acknowledging them and seeking solutions can we progress. Else we will still be sitting and talking about the glories of the Chola Empire, of the Akbar's greatness or Mohenjadaro!

[Shakthiprabha.]

Sweden.

:) why not norway?
all above mentioned qualities does fit for Norway(Norwegians) too

how pathetic?! the topic is about India and i am bringing Norway and all :oops: sorry!

Its NOT PATHETIC.

Patriotism CANNOT curb us from accepting someone else's GOOD LIVING EXAMPLE.

There is always SCOPE TO LEARN

[crazy]

No, Vasi, not pathetic. What examples of Sweden and Norway go to prove is that it is possible for countries to become like that.

So happy to see this reply ............not because of living in Norway, but giving hope for every arising countries and may arising countries!:ty:


Questions such as unhappyboy has raised are what will lead to an honest introspection. Only by facing such issues squarely, acknowledging them and seeking solutions can we progress. Else we will still be sitting and talking about the glories of the Chola Empire, of the Akbar's greatness or Mohenjadaro!

In another word, gundu chattikkul kudurai ottittu iruppom!

Nice answer Badri anna(everybody calls u anna may i also call u anna?)
:thumbsup: :clap:

[Badri]

In another word, gundu chattikkul kudurai ottittu iruppom!

Nice answer Badri anna(everybody calls u anna may i also call u anna?)

Haha, nalla quote!!!

Yes by all means you can call me Anna. I will feel honoured. :)

[podalangai]

That is not the right approach. It is better instead to analyse the reasons why India is where she is and try to tackle them. The questions unhappyboy has unhappily raised have gone through my own mind several times. When I was younger, and consequently rashly idealistic (I am still fairly idealistic, just not as much rash) I used to firmly believe India doesnt deserve independence!!!

Questions such as unhappyboy has raised are what will lead to an honest introspection. Only by facing such issues squarely, acknowledging them and seeking solutions can we progress.

என்று தணியும் இந்தச் சுதந்திர தாகம்?
என்று மடியும் எங்கள் அடிமையின் மோகம்?

:sigh2:

[dsath]

[tscii:c0c455293e]The topic is a bit silly really. Who doesn’t deserve freedom? Who can decide who deserves freedom and who doesn’t?
Among the diversity the one similarity throughout India is that we attach very little importance to value of life. Any small incident is sparked by violence and people getting hurt or killed is a way of life and the reaction to these incidents is atrocious.
Only when people start to respect the value of life can we start thinking about quality of that life.
[/tscii:c0c455293e]

[thimuru]

bulls*t...wut topic is tis?

[thimuru]

look...100 crore is our popultion...we re hidus,muslims,christians,budhists etc...

we re not like other nations...we r unique

first evanavadhu tax katreengala.....avanavan mudhuga suthama vecukanum

[unhappyboy]

look...100 crore is our popultion...we re hidus,muslims,christians,budhists etc...

we re not like other nations...we r unique

first evanavadhu tax katreengala.....avanavan mudhuga suthama vecukanum

Don't get emotional and make excuses, please. Tax, big deal? Pay tax to a corrupt govt., eh?

[unhappyboy]

That is not the right approach. It is better instead to analyse the reasons why India is where she is and try to tackle them. The questions unhappyboy has unhappily raised have gone through my own mind several times. When I was younger, and consequently rashly idealistic (I am still fairly idealistic, just not as much rash) I used to firmly believe India doesnt deserve independence!!!

Questions such as unhappyboy has raised are what will lead to an honest introspection. Only by facing such issues squarely, acknowledging them and seeking solutions can we progress.

என்று தணியும் இந்தச் சுதந்திர தாகம்?
என்று மடியும் எங்கள் அடிமையின் மோகம்?

:sigh2:

What are you trying to say? Please be clear. Learn from badri how to respond rationally, rather than accuse ppl of trolling. :P

[thimuru]

look...100 crore is our popultion...we re hidus,muslims,christians,budhists etc...

we re not like other nations...we r unique

first evanavadhu tax katreengala.....avanavan mudhuga suthama vecukanum

Don't get emotional and make excuses, please. Tax, big deal? Pay tax to a corrupt govt., eh?

:lol: then whats big deal

[thamiz]

I don't think they're shortcuts.

Is it :?:


If Iraq comes under UN's control, do we call it shortcut?

Do we? What do you mean? You and others may not feel the same way about any issue!

There is no 'we' here!


No, a desperate nation needs help, and UN as an international body, tries to help.

:rotfl:

And the desperate nation is WHICH ONE :?:

According to whom, it is a "desperate nation" :?:


No need to bring in self-respect and such issues here.

Who decides that :?:


And we can contribute better, if we had an able administration.

Like what ? :lol:

[pavalamani pragasam]

And he(unhappyboy) can't understand what podalangai implies by his quote!!! Has he thought/felt about anything deeply/proudly?

[thamiz]

[tscii]The topic is a bit silly really. Who doesn’t deserve freedom? Who can decide who deserves freedom and who doesn’t?

I am sure, he (author/founder of this thread) cant answer these! :lol:

[thinkfloyd]

Oppression under Foreign Rule couldn't be much worse than it is now. At least, it comes with development, whereas in a free India, it most often doesn't. Police brutality where prisoners' fingers are chopped off, minority bashing in which certain sections are stripped of their property, lives and limbs, caste oppression, sati, and so many other evils take place in a free India. Could so-called oppression under foreign rule be any worse? Moreover, what I am suggesting is not colonialism, but benevolent intervention from UN to civlize a nation. So comparison to British rule is unfair.

Hello!!!
Are you in a time/space warp?
What 'civilization' are you talking about? White man's burden, eh??

Development huh? Just for a sample, do the words Indian textile industry and East India Company ring any bell for you?

[unhappyboy]

[tscii]The topic is a bit silly really. Who doesn’t deserve freedom? Who can decide who deserves freedom and who doesn’t?

I am sure, he (author/founder of this thread) cant answer these! :lol:

Actually, these are easy qs. :D If your child wants to consume poison, would you allow it because you believe in freedom? Obviously not. Which means, there are cases where freedom must be suppressed. Children, madmen do not know how to handle freedom. Mature, enlightened people must guide them, and that involves curbing their freedoms to an extent.

In short, there are people who don't deserve freedom because they're too immature to handle it. And who decides all this? The person who's had a proven track record in handling freedom. :) Easy, na?

[pavalamani pragasam]

Very pitiable stage of shortsightedness?!

[thinkfloyd]

Actually, these are easy qs. :D If your child wants to consume poison, would you allow it because you believe in freedom? Obviously not. Which means, there are cases where freedom must be suppressed. Children, madmen do not know how to handle freedom. Mature, enlightened people must guide them, and that involves curbing their freedoms to an extent.

In short, there are people who don't deserve freedom because they're too immature to handle it. And who decides all this? The person who's had a proven track record in handling freedom. :) Easy, na?
:rotfl:
Looks like its taken right off some rabid right-wing American neo-con to me :lol:
What an analogy, what an intelligent and mature understanding!

[thimuru]

vellakaranuku boots thodaikaradhula apdi enna sugamo? :roll:

[unhappyboy]

vellakaranuku boots thodaikaradhula apdi enna sugamo? :roll:

Lallu, mulayam ponra indians-ku boots thodaikaradhula apdi enna sugamo? :lol: Seriously, the question is not who's Indian and who's not, rather who's efficient and who's not. Efficient ppl should govern the nation, so why bother with race and color? This is why most Indians, including you perhaps, have accepted Sonia Gandhi as their leader, even though she's not Indian. Right? :D

[thinkfloyd]

I think this can be a fun thread. Keep posting unhappyboy! :lol2:

[thimuru]

vellakaranuku boots thodaikaradhula apdi enna sugamo? :roll:

Lallu, mulayam ponra indians-ku boots thodaikaradhula apdi enna sugamo? :lol: Seriously, the question is not who's Indian and who's not, rather who's efficient and who's not. Efficient ppl should govern the nation, so why bother with race and color? This is why most Indians, including you perhaps, have accepted Sonia Gandhi as their leader, even though she's not Indian. Right? :D

do u think its only administration that mke look india like ths?

its people

1.do we follow road rules

2.do we pay tax

3.do we keep our country clean

4.do we all vote

5.do we know our roots

what would happen if aliens rule india?just like iraq they will loot our natural resources :lol:

are they mother theresa to come from foriegn country and serve us? :lol:

[unhappyboy]

do u think its only administration that mke look india like ths?

its people

1.do we follow road rules

2.do we pay tax

3.do we keep our country clean

4.do we all vote

5.do we know our roots


Thank you for agreeing that Indian people as well as politicians are clueless as to these things. :D Does such a nation deserve freedom?



are they mother theresa to come from foriegn country and serve us?

Thank you again for agreeing that Indians are so pathetic, they had to DEPEND on a Mother Teresa from foreign country to civilize them. :P Which means, you agree that India isn't yet ready for independence.

[kannannn]

I think this can be a fun thread. Keep posting unhappyboy! :lol2:

I, for one, am having a good laugh :rotfl:

[thimuru]

do u think its only administration that mke look india like ths?

its people

1.do we follow road rules

2.do we pay tax

3.do we keep our country clean

4.do we all vote

5.do we know our roots


Thank you for agreeing that Indian people as well as politicians are clueless as to these things. :D Does such a nation deserve freedom?



are they mother theresa to come from foriegn country and serve us?

Thank you again for agreeing that Indians are so pathetic, they had to DEPEND on a Mother Teresa from foreign country to civilize them. :P Which means, you agree that India isn't yet ready for independence.

i dint mean foriegners re saints and sharp either :lol: those guys cant do a miracle in a 100 crore crowd!India is different...thats what i mean

veetuku veedu vasapadi .....all nations have their limitations

[pavalamani pragasam]

What is unhappyboy's great greivance? India should not be a free country, but a slave state to an Empire! Simple and straightforward! Summer ippothaan aarambikkuthu! athukkulla ippdiyaa? :shock:


kuthiraikku kannai kattivitta maathiri awareness illaathavangaLoda pEsruthathu very much a waste of time & energy! :huh:


Such prattling is best ignored or better PENALISED!!! :angry2:

[thamiz]

Mature, enlightened people must guide them, and that involves curbing their freedoms to an extent.

Who are they, "the matured" people anyway?

One who take over others land and kill any native people who belong to that land and say " In God we trust"!!! :lol:

Why do you think they are matured :?:

[thamiz]

For unhappyboy!!!
Get educated about about " the matured and civilized people"!!


Indian massacres


In the history of the European colonization of North America, the term "Indian massacre" was often used to describe either mass killings of Europeans by indigenous people of the North American continent ("Indians") or mass killings of indigenous peoples by Europeans. In theory, massacre applied to the killing of civilian noncombatants or to the summary execution of prisoners-of-war. In practice, the label was often haphazardly applied, rarely without bias, and was sometimes used to describe an overwhelming (though lawful) military defeat. Similarly, massacres were sometimes mislabeled "battles" in an attempt to give legitimacy to what would today be considered a war crime.

Determining how many people died in these massacres overall is difficult. In the book The Wild Frontier: Atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee, amateur historian William M. Osborn sought to tally every recorded atrocity in the area that would eventually become the continental United States, from first contact (1511) to the closing of the frontier (1890), and determined that 9,156 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans, and 7,193 people died from atrocities perpetrated by whites. Osborn defines an atrocity as the murder, torture, or mutilation of civilians, the wounded and prisoners. Different definitions would obviously produce different totals. For example, Osborn does not count estimated 4,000 Indian deaths on the Trail of Tears (because these were allegedly unintentional), but he does count several episodes of post-mortem mutilation, even of combatants killed in open battle. Osborn's exact total of 16,349 killed on both sides can therefore be disputed.

[thamiz]

In the name of bringing peace!


Wounded Knee Massacre

The Wounded Knee Massacre was the last major armed conflict between the Dakota Sioux and the United States, subsequently described as a "massacre" by General Nelson A. Miles in a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.[1]

On December 29, 1890, five hundred troops of the U.S. 7th Cavalry, supported by four Hotchkiss guns (a lightweight artillery piece capable of rapid fire), surrounded an encampment of Miniconjou Sioux (Lakota) and Hunkpapa Sioux (Lakota)[2] with orders to escort them to the railroad for transport to Omaha, Nebraska. The commander of the 7th had been ordered to disarm the Lakota before proceeding and placed his men in too close proximity to the Lakota, alarming them. Shooting broke out near the end of the disarmament, and accounts differ regarding who fired first and why.

By the time it was over, 25 troopers and 300 Lakota Sioux lay dead, including men, women, and children.[2] Many of the dead are believed to have been the victims of "friendly fire" as the shooting took place at point blank range in chaotic conditions, and most of the Lakota had previously been unarmed.[3] Around 150 Lakota are believed to have fled the chaos, of which many likely died from exposure.

[kb]

thinking of a small scale...

unga veeta ungalaala seriya paathuka mudiyilaina..

veeda yaarukittiaya viththutu..avingalukey vaadagakuduthutu kudi irupeengala.. so if any water problem or electricity problem u can give the responsibilty to the owner :x :roll:

[Surya]

Actually, these are easy qs. :D If your child wants to consume poison, would you allow it because you believe in freedom? Obviously not. Which means, there are cases where freedom must be suppressed. Children, madmen do not know how to handle freedom. Mature, enlightened people must guide them, and that involves curbing their freedoms to an extent.

In short, there are people who don't deserve freedom because they're too immature to handle it. And who decides all this? The person who's had a proven track record in handling freedom. :) Easy, na?
:rotfl:
Looks like its taken right off some rabid right-wing American neo-con to me :lol:
What an analogy, what an intelligent and mature understanding!

:lol: I have my doubts....Is he even an Indian? :?

[crazy]

Unhappyboy
The independence is given :) instead of discussing why it was given or whether we deserve it or not, should we better feel happy for what we are now and try to be good citizens.


koduththa suhandiram vendaam, neengale engala marupadiyum vandhu aalungal, endri solli..............aangileyarukku thandhi/ e mail/ SMS/ fax etc etc etc anuppuvoma?

hm.......yennamo ponga :sigh2:

[Jabroni]

unhappyboy

eli vaLaiyaanaalum thani vaLai nantru.

independence is not something that any nation deserves or earns. it is a RIGHT.

[Badri]

unhappyboy

When are you planning to become happy? :roll:

When I agreed with your initial thought, I had done so in the spirit that India needs to really work on itself so that the sacrifice of several thousand freedom fighters does not go waste.

But do you honestly think simply by being under some one else's rule all our existing problems would be magicked away?

People will always be people; they are not going to change simply because of who is governing!

Matured, enlightened people? Haha what a joke!

All the best for your quest of matured enlightened people in all countries outside India. When you find them do start another thread in the Hub to announce your discovery!!

[joe]

India has more than 80% of Hindu population ,15% muslims ,3% christians and 1% sikhs..

President -a Muslim
Prime Minister - a Sikh
Ruling Party President -a Christian

Can you expect this kind of democracy in any other nation?

வாழிய செந்தமிழ்
வாழ்க நற்றமிழர்
வாழிய பாரத மணித்திருநாடு.

[thimuru]

India has more than 80% of Hindu population ,15% muslims ,3% christians and 1% sikhs..

President -a Muslim
Prime Minister - a Sikh
Ruling Party President -a Christian

Can you expect this kind of democracy in any other nation?

வாழிய செந்தமிழ்
வாழ்க நற்றமிழர்
வாழிய பாரத மணித்திருநாடு.

நெத்தியடி

[goodsense]

[tscii:2c6c8924f9]
One who take over others land and kill any native people who belong to that land and say " In God we trust"!!!

Take over mean many things. Stealing and setting up a system to steal, exploit and keep down for eternity, be it from nearby or long distance to support and maintain their prosperity.

Many of our people are still trapped and toiling the same way with little or no rewards - "..the search takes the viewer from the vibrant Indo-Caribbean neighbourhoods in Queens, NY to the sweltering hot sugarcane fields of Guyana, where men toil over the land as their forefathers did a century ago when they were brought to the cane fields as indentured servants by the British".

Then they say it all came with development. :wink:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/mohdasgar/Phagwah-Mela-07.htm

Click on - Mere Pyaar, then on - Once-More-Removed

“The President urged that strength be drawn from foreparents, since they persevered despite having touched Guyana’s shores under harsh conditions, including being deprived of basic rights".

http://members.lycos.co.uk/mohdasgar/Indentureship-IAC.html

No one has any idea the kinds of emails I have been receiving since I posted these two webpages in the "Guyana Indians" thread.

They say "history repeats itself" and I know the younger criminals are looking forward to this as I learnt many years ago when one of their kind made this statement (history repeats itself referring to the quest to rule India again), needless to say where.

I wonder whether the younger criminals would also come out to the foreign lands with scriptures in disguise. :roll:

Who is this unhappyboy any way :?:

How can anyone "equate" mother Thresa as a compensatory soul, especially when she is not even from them nor was she sent by them. :idea:
[/tscii:2c6c8924f9]

[Rohit]

India has more than 80% of Hindu population ,15% muslims ,3% christians and 1% sikhs..

President -a Muslim (but of Indian origin)
Prime Minister - a Sikh (but of Indian origin)
Ruling Party President - a Christian (But a foreigner)

Can you expect this kind of democracy in any other nation?
This is by no means proves the triumph of democracy, it rather goes to show the lack of Indians to govern themselves.

A majority being governed by a minority is not new for India. Previously it was even worse; the ratio was 2000:1 when Moguls and Europeans ruled India.

It only goes to show that Indians were and are incapable of governing themselves; and this was the crucial question the last British Viceroy asked Gandhi; 'Can Indians govern themselves?' and what Gandhi replied, has essentially been falsified by the state of affairs of Indian politics.

Nonetheless, Indian independence must survive; and all Indians must realise the value of this freedom and make the best use of it to make it work for the goods of India and her people.

[crazy]

:rotfl:

:banghead:

[podalangai]

India has more than 80% of Hindu population ,15% muslims ,3% christians and 1% sikhs..

President -a Muslim
Prime Minister - a Sikh
Ruling Party President -a Christian

Can you expect this kind of democracy in any other nation?

வாழிய செந்தமிழ்
வாழ்க நற்றமிழர்
வாழிய பாரத மணித்திருநாடு.

Exactly.

எல்லாரும் ஓர்குலம் எல்லாரும் ஓரினம்
எல்லாரும் இந்திய மக்கள்
எல்லாரும் ஓர்நிறை எல்லோரும் ஓர்விலை
எல்லாரும் இந்நாட்டு மன்னர் - நாம்
எல்லாரும் இந்நாட்டு மன்னர் - ஆம்
எல்லாரும் இந்நாட்டு மன்னர் - வாழ்க!
பாரத சமுதாயம் வாழ்கவே! - வாழ்க வாழ்க!
பாரத சமுதாயம் வாழ்கவே! - ஜய ஜய ஜய
பாரத சமுதாயம் வாழ்கவே!

:)

[dsath]

This is by no means proves the triumph of democracy, it rather goes to show the lack of Indians to govern themselves.

A majority being governed by a minority is not new for India. Previously it was even worse; the ratio was 2000:1 when Moguls and Europeans ruled India.


Rohit,are you equating Manmohan Singh and Abdul Kalam to Europeans?
In any case with a Muslim or Sikh or Christian or for that matter a Hindu governing doesn't mean that his/her community is governing the country. It is the person and equating the current situation to European occupation is incorrect to say the least.

[thamiz]

This is by no means proves the triumph of democracy, it rather goes to show the lack of Indians to govern themselves.

I remember one time when sonia was proposed to become the PM, I argued something like that! :lol:

[thamiz]

When we have billion people, whyd do we have to go get an inexperienced "Dago" and force her to become a PM ?Beats me! :roll:

That really supports the arguments of the title "Do we deserve independence" when we could not find our own leader to lead us in billion people of our own :?:

[Rohit]

Rohit,are you equating Manmohan Singh and Abdul Kalam to Europeans?
No dear Dsath, I don't. I would not commit that mistake. I consider them as true Indians.


In any case with a Muslim or Sikh or Christian or for that matter a Hindu governing doesn't mean that his/her community is governing the country. It is the person and equating the current situation to European occupation is incorrect to say the least.
Had you said,


In any case with a foreigner(s) governing doesn't mean that his/her community is governing the country.
Then, I would have asked you, "Are you suggesting that Mogul (Some wonderers) and British (Founded by East India Company) rules shouldn't have been opposed by Indians?"

But you haven't said that, when there is an element of that in the current political situation of India; and I just said what I have, to light a beam on that element. That's all.

[Rohit]

When we have billion people, whyd do we have to go get an inexperienced "Dago" and force her to become a PM ?Beats me! :roll:

That really supports the arguments of the title "Do we deserve independence" when we could not find our own leader to lead us in billion people of our own :?:
Exactly that what my point is. :thumbsup:

[pavalamani pragasam]

The first & foremost thing to be done, the best cure for our democratic ills, is to make ALL citizens to cast their vote!!! The government is now solely elected by the unthinking, unenlightened masses who are carried away by freebies & empty words.

[joe]

A majority being governed by a minority is not new for India. Previously it was even worse; the ratio was 2000:1 when Moguls and Europeans ruled India.


Hope we are talking about democratic India ,where people can choose their Govt ,not a kingdom.

[joe]

when we could not find our own leader to lead us in billion people of our own :?:

Did you ever think the same way when non-tamils became a CM in tamil Nadu?

Oh! Pls don't call me Anti-national ,Tamil terrorist or argue as they are still indians blah blah blah

[thamiz]

joe:

Nothing is said against you. You looked at sonia as a christian. Religion is not the issue here as along as she is an 'indian'.

The problem was she was hesitating to become an indian and she is a white.

I am telling you Indians are least respected by any italian. So it was bothering me.

You cant say em gee aar is not a Tamil either! :)

[joe]

Religion is not the issue here as along as she is an 'indian'.



Good.But that is not the case with many democratic countries around us .Can a hindu become a President of Pakistan or Bangaladesh or Srilanka?

Even Chandrika's forefathers were christians ,but later converted to buddism to sustain in politics.

Btw,You didn't answer my question. :)

[joe]

Thamiz,
I don't want to go into political discussion on whether sonia is eligible or not ,which may deviate the discussion here.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Then it all matters, WHERE WE DRAW line to the broader view of SECULARISM.

How tolerant one can be, till where?

If the border is a narrower than we thought we could tolerate, THEN WE SHOULD STOP calling ourselves COMPLETELY secular!

[thimuru]

joe:

Nothing is said against you. You looked at sonia as a christian. Religion is not the issue here as along as she is an 'indian'.

The problem was she was hesitating to become an indian and she is a white.

I am telling you Indians are least respected by any italian. So it was bothering me.

You cant say em gee aar is not a Tamil either! :)
for once i accept u

she would never have her patriotism for india after spending 20 years in italy...

but as for as pm and president ...they are true indians....best :thumbsup:!

[devotee]

but as for as pm and president ...they are true indians....best :thumbsup:!

You don't accept sonia as a patriot, but pm/president have. But you say pm/president are true indians, so do you then accept their view that sonia is a patriot?


NOTE:
I am unhappyboy, forced to use my friend's id, cuz mine has become inactive.

[Sanguine Sridhar]

Ippo enna dhaan solla vareenga?

If you are an Indian
Burn all your degree certificates, Voters card, Ration card, Driving license, INR fly to some other nation,start a new life

If you are not an Indian
You dont have any rights to talk about my country and its independance :wave:

[pavalamani pragasam]

:thumbsup: Sridhar!

[Shakthiprabha.]

Sridhar,

:clap: :thumbsup:

[dsath]

Rohit,are you equating Manmohan Singh and Abdul Kalam to Europeans?
No dear Dsath, I don't. I would not commit that mistake. I consider them as true Indians.


In any case with a Muslim or Sikh or Christian or for that matter a Hindu governing doesn't mean that his/her community is governing the country. It is the person and equating the current situation to European occupation is incorrect to say the least.
Had you said,


In any case with a foreigner(s) governing doesn't mean that his/her community is governing the country.
Then, I would have asked you, "Are you suggesting that Mogul (Some wonderers) and British (Founded by East India Company) rules shouldn't have been opposed by Indians?"

But you haven't said that, when there is an element of that in the current political situation of India; and I just said what I have, to light a beam on that element. That's all.
Rohit, Sonia heading the ruling party falls down to the sad state of Indian politics. If Rajiv had married any other Indian then that person would be the head of Congress now.
Again equating this to the British occupation is incorrect.


Sridhar :lol: That was a good one.

[devotee]

[quote=Rohit]
Rohit, Sonia heading the ruling party falls down to the sad state of Indian politics. If Rajiv had married any other Indian then that person would be the head of Congress now.
Again equating this to the British occupation is incorrect.


Are you sure about this? Suppose Rajiv Gandhi had married a Black African woman, do you think Indians would be happy to let her rule over them? :o

[Nakeeran]

Devotee

I think BJP used this Sonia - foreigner factor during previous election as their main agenda ( besides growth etc propaganda ) & lost .

basically, Indians accept someone who steps into their house as a daughter in law , be it a white or dark .. Colour is not a criterion for Indians for sure.

By the way, U have put across some very interesting points here mate !

[devotee]

Colour is not a criterion for Indians for sure.



I don't think many people will agree with this, since they all know Indians are obsessed with fair skin. Surely, it's a big q whether Indians would've accepted a black person as their leader, as easily as they did a white person, whether as daughter-in-law, leader, whatever. We cannot conclude that Indians are very open-minded in this regard, when all evidence points to the contrary.



By the way, U have put across some very interesting points here mate !

Of course! But then, I am a very interesting person! :D

[dsath]

[tscii:34cedf398b]

[quote=Rohit]
Rohit, Sonia heading the ruling party falls down to the sad state of Indian politics. If Rajiv had married any other Indian then that person would be the head of Congress now.
Again equating this to the British occupation is incorrect.


Are you sure about this? Suppose Rajiv Gandhi had married a Black African woman, do you think Indians would be happy to let her rule over them? :o
Hmm for once an interesting thought. May be or may be not.
The party opted for a not-so-fair South Indian as their leader in the previous decade, so yes I think they would have chosen Rajiv’s wife to govern the party irrespective of her nationality and skin shade.
[/tscii:34cedf398b]

[devotee]

[tscii:ac980c4202]

[quote=Rohit]
Rohit, Sonia heading the ruling party falls down to the sad state of Indian politics. If Rajiv had married any other Indian then that person would be the head of Congress now.
Again equating this to the British occupation is incorrect.


Are you sure about this? Suppose Rajiv Gandhi had married a Black African woman, do you think Indians would be happy to let her rule over them? :o
Hmm for once an interesting thought. May be or may be not.
The party opted for a not-so-fair South Indian as their leader in the previous decade, so yes I think they would have chosen Rajiv’s wife to govern the party irrespective of her nationality and skin shade.
[/tscii:ac980c4202]

If you're ref. to N. Rao, that's really silly because he wasn't any darker than most Indians, north or south. You make it sound as if Rao was pitch black and all Indians lily white. :lol: Moreover, being a black person, an african, is different from being one amongst millions of those dark-skinned Indians. Bottom line, yours is a weak argument. 8-)

[Nakeeran]

Dsath,

I presume U have referd. to Narasimha Rao. Then , U are wrong bcaz, Rao was fair complexioned man !

Great / successful politician & able administrator as well. Introduced reforms through Manmohan .

[thimuru]

Colour is not a criterion for Indians for sure.



I don't think many people will agree with this, since they all know Indians are obsessed with fair skin. Surely, it's a big q whether Indians would've accepted a black person as their leader, as easily as they did a white person, whether as daughter-in-law, leader, whatever. We cannot conclude that Indians are very open-minded in this regard, when all evidence points to the contrary.



By the way, U have put across some very interesting points here mate !

Of course! But then, I am a very interesting person! :D

ijit? :rotfl:

bjp won once mainly due "vajaye" factor...

forgot kamaraj...who could have been pm...?

wut abt gandhi

we are not obsessed with fair skin...u know its whom

let me tell u...if sonia were dark african lady...she would have got some more votes...

[Lambretta]

Dsath,

I presume U have referd. to Narasimha Rao. Then , U are wrong bcaz, Rao was fair complexioned man !
:exactly:
:?

[Shakthiprabha.]

thimiru, nakeeran,

I think DEVOTEE does not mean SKIN TONE ALONE... but black nationality.. being from black nationality is different from being white nationality :? ( to be differentiated WITH INDIAN NATIONAL being fair or dark)

:?

in his own words


If you're ref. to N. Rao, that's really silly because he wasn't any darker than most Indians, north or south. You make it sound as if Rao was pitch black and all Indians lily white. Moreover, being a black person, an african, is different from being one amongst millions of those dark-skinned Indians.

:huh:

[thamiz]

Dsath,

I presume U have referd. to Narasimha Rao. Then , U are wrong bcaz, Rao was fair complexioned man !
:exactly:
:?

It is all RELATIVE! 8-)

[Rohit]

Hope we are talking about democratic India, where people can choose their Govt, not a kingdom.
Yes, I am also talking about democratic India, where people must choose their political representatives and leaders, rationally and not crowning someone based on family inheritance or ties as it happens, rather used to happen, in governing kingdoms.

Therefore, I do not dispute the democratic principles; but what I dispute is the sheer irrationality of Indian electorates and elected politicians when both are expected to make their choices rationally and not follow the democratic processes blindly, or rather irrationally.

As we are talking about democratic processes, which essentially entails making people to understand and make collective choices that are rational. When it comes to India, people somehow do exercise their rights to vote, which for all intensive purposes can be taken as expressing their rational choice. However, the element of rationality is barely demonstrated while making such choices, as most voters barely understand the process and how such choices are going to affect not only their future, but also the future of coming generations.

Democracy cannot run without leaders and leaders cannot become leaders unless there are certain number of people who support someone as their leader. At the same time not everybody and anybody can become leader; as leaders are, or rather must be, judged by their characteristic and qualifying qualities. A good leader must posses the following qualities in varying degrees.

Ability to encourage, ability to lead, active manager, charismatic, community builder, confident, considerate, dedicated, determined, excellent communicator, good listener, guide, having clear sense of purpose, honour for partnerships, image builder, influential, inspirational, intelligent, introspective, knowledgeable, less reliant on bureaucratic structures, motivating, optimist, persistent, rejects determinism – non-fatalist, results orientated, role model, talented, visionary.

And based on the method of majority decision, the leader of a party is selected.

For example, let us assume there are two candidates X and Y competing for party leadership. As rational choice makers, party members select their leader based on their own judgement of who, out of the two candidates, possesses more and better leadership qualities and is more capable of becoming their leader.

Now if, N1 (X > Y) greater than N2 (Y > X)

Where N1 is the number of members that declares X is better than Y; while N2 is the number of members that declares Y is better than X.

If N1 > N2, X wins and X becomes the leader of the party.

Which means party members have rejected candidate Y as having poor leadership qualities compared to X, while based on cumulative probability of such qualities, X carries insignificantly lower probability than Y does, but succeeds in demonstrating that he/she indeed is much better than Y. Which is extremely strange outcome!

So, this is neither about condemning secularism nor it is about Indians becoming intolerant; this is simply about the ability of Indians to represent India as a capable/competent nation.

[thimuru]

thimiru, nakeeran,

I think DEVOTEE does not mean SKIN TONE ALONE... but black nationality.. being from black nationality is different from being white nationality :? ( to be differentiated WITH INDIAN NATIONAL being fair or dark)

:?

in his own words


If you're ref. to N. Rao, that's really silly because he wasn't any darker than most Indians, north or south. You make it sound as if Rao was pitch black and all Indians lily white. Moreover, being a black person, an african, is different from being one amongst millions of those dark-skinned Indians.

:huh:

she could have been an african...but what matte eople is she is a part of nehru family

[manuel]

Yes, I am also talking about democratic India, where people must choose their political representatives and leaders, rationally and not crowning someone based on family inheritance or ties as it happens, rather used to happen, in governing kingdoms. .


Yes Fully Agreed .....but thats what happens in OUR 'INDIA' family ineritance and ties gains precedence over other skills and capabilities....

As far as Sonia's case is concerned , the only consolse is that even though she is a foreigner and fair skinned she is atleast a proper wife of a former Prime Minitser and has leagally tied the knot....

Some are not even that and are far away from their party's core ideology and they have been freely allowed to head a state ....

[Rohit]

Dear Manuel,

By mistake you have quoted my words and not joe's. Please correct it.

Anyway, what you have said is not the point. The point is the capability or rather incapability of over one billion Indians to represent India.

Please read the whole post as you clearly seem to have lost the whole context in which I made that statement. :)

[thamiz]

misquote, huh!

Please fix it right Mr. Manuel! :)